Fixed that for you. :-p

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Regarding your point #1: Network neutrality has nothing to do with usage-based billing. This is the #1 biggest misconception. If an ISP wants to charge based on the number of packets on the network, they can do that.

I read it again, and I missed the funniest part the first time.

"Imposing utility-like regulation, as in treating broadband like the telephone or even railroad tracks, inevitably creates a bureaucratic morass that in fact slows growth and innovation."

MASSIVE. ANALOGY. FAILY.

The author draws an analogy between broadband and telephone companies. Umm.... broadband companies ARE telephone companies dude. That's like saying "Imagine treating a Collie like a dog, that would be ridiculous!" Applying "utility-like regulation" to regulated monopoly utilities makes perfect sense.

Comparing to the railroad is the best though, because the "net neutrality" laws actually originated with the railroad when they were called called "common carrier" laws. These laws have been in place for hundreds of years, yet it is painted to be some kind of new heavyweight regulation.

As with most mainstream articles on this topic, it just simply doesn't get what network neutrality really is. The problems start with the first sentence.

Net neutrality is not the name of an FCC plan. It is the principle upon which the internet was created. They make this out to be some new regulatory effort, rather than something that has been around for decades.

So now the author implies that net neutrality means that they can't charge bigger users higher prices. Bigger users do pay higher prices! They always have, that makes perfect sense. Then it says:

Distributors and consumers do pay for their data.

The article is trying to be "nice" to everyone: identify each player in this topic and paint them out to have a reasonable interest. But to do that, the article must omit the core issue which is that cable and telecom monopolies want to double-charge distributors who have already paid. But if you mention that, it is kinda tough to make it look like each side has a fair and balanced interest in this. The article paints out 5 different interested parties, but there are really only two: the greedy monopolies who want to make more money without having to invest in infrastructure, versus everyone-else.

I am loathe to read the article linked within this one titled "RELATED: A Q&A about net neutrality" because I fear yet more inaccuracy.

I have a few thoughts on burnout:

1) Are you sure they ever burning to begin with?
Lots of people didn't start programming because they loved it. Lots of them started because it was a profitable field. They didn't go home and code til 3am in the first place.

2) Make sure you don't confuse burnout with shifting life priorities. I used to go home, grab some Taco Bell, then write code, compete, hack, etc. But now I go home, kiss my wife, eat dinner, and play with my kids. I'd love to code, but I had to cut a lot of that out. Don't think it was an easy realization, as I could write a novel on the topic. But I didn't burnout, I just shifted my priorities. Next step might be taking care of my parents, which will also cut into coding time. :-(

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cl...
"...He’ll now own 98% of the lush 141 square mile resort island..."

Or perhaps you mean the Senate seats?

I had the same experience. I can barely comprehend a patent that I am one of the inventors on!

Netflix offers 4k for streaming for Breaking bad, Ghostbusters, and Smurfs 2. Who bought their 4K TV to watch SMURFS 2?!?!?!?!
http://variety.com/2014/digita...

The article is completely overblowing this, borderling lying. Ebay was not hacked. The BBC should be ashamed and take the article down:

But the image caption says the truth:

Those are *completely* different issues. A link is not a hack! The article goes on to make up more garbage:

Posting a link is not an XSS attack. And a link is not the same as Javascript.

The article says "a security researcher" but they never say the persons name or credentials. I bet there was no researcher. It sounds more like a friend of one of the reporters saw this scam link, Googled some search terms and came-up with "XSS" then suddenly became a security researcher.

I've only seen a few episodes of TBBT, but I didn't get that there was anything geeky about it. Do geeks actually watch the show?

The first episode has a hot girl meet a couple of nerdy guys who predictable run into her burly ex-boyfriend. In the next episode, said hot chick finds some reason to take a shower in their apartment, and hilarity ensues. It seemed more fanservice than geekdom. There characters were just "Revenge of the Nerds" style over-the-top archetypes of geeks. This is probably typical of sitcoms since realistic people just aren't as funny as exaggerations.

This interview was the first time I had heard of the series as being for geeks or by geeks. It is good that some mainstream writers take their material seriously.

Fair enough. Some interesting material I came-up with while searching on this topic:
1) In 2013, Comcast proposed a system where Comcast does the monitoring:
http://variety.com/2013/digita...
2) Comcast actually stood up for it's users against a copyright troll.
https://torrentfreak.com/comca...

Did they mean "implemented" rather than "increased?" Or did they mean that they added something new to the TRIM command?

Yeah, that makes sense in a sad way. I suppose the music industry thought the same way for a while. Eventually, illegal music distribution services convinced them otherwise. Now, VPN connections are the equivalent for streaming video.

That part seems logical. But I am amazed that "licensing and distribution" would be so expensive that it would exceed the value of millions of people viewing their content. That sounds like the companies are becoming inefficient. Their own internal paperwork is so complex and expensive that they can't deploy their own product. Ouch, that's really wacky.

I get that. I work for a company that decided to can a perfectly functioning and completed product because the regulatory requirements for a particular region cost $10 million. Now, they know it would make more than $10 million, but they only had $10 million to spend in that fiscal year. So they spent it on a product that would make more. To all the people on that project, it seems like a really weird decision. But you only have so much working capital.

I echo your sentiment about the "global economy." By default, a licensing agreement should apply universally to all geographies. If I build something on the internet, it is available to everyone by default. I must go out of my way and spend extra money to make it not work for some people based on their location. In this case, the content providers stunted their own sales to the point of creating a black market. (The people using VPN to access Netflix are essentially a black market. Or gray market if you prefer since they aren't doing anything illegal.)

Pope: Thank you for a detailed answer. I'm tired of stupid responses like "xenophobia and stupidity." I expected some AC responses like that, but the registered users doing it is quite maddening.