I'm sure that you think you have a point, but I haven't a clue as to what it is. Even as a troll this is sub-par. If you're trying to be serious you really need to think more about how to present your argument.

You are, I think, responding to the claim that you aren't noticing that many small changes can yield an important difference. What you intend your response to mean I find opaque.

The question is if your diminishing return is less than their diminishing return. My impression is that with fiber connections you have a fairly high cost just because they need to maintain a fiber line, end point equipment, maintenance, service, support, billing and so on. From there they usually offer huge leaps in speed for relatively modest price gains, often like double the speed for 15-20% price gains and that shit multiplies. I could pay about 75% of my current rate to have 20 Mbit instead of 100 Mbit, even though I don't absolutely need 100 Mbit very often it's not worth it. That goes up to a point, then you need some kind of special equipment and the cost skyrockets when you pass out of the "normal" class of equipment and into special gear. Today gigabit isn't actually available to me and if it were it'd cost 200% extra, it's not worth it but if it was 50% I'd probably take it. And my motherboard wouldn't need upgrading.

I'd say 10G is a different story and only about bragging rights at this point, but who knows what the future will bring. If "everybody else" had symmetric gigabit lines, 10G might have a few uses. Sure it costs a bazillion now, but so would a 100 Mbit line not that long ago. It would be a lot more useful to get people on gigabit lines though, it's no good having a huge pipe if nobody can keep up. Already with my 100 Mbit symmetric my upstream is often faster than their downstream, having gigabit would not help at all but if they get upgraded it'd make more sense for me to upgrade. Like for example there's a rural roll-out that'll probably cover my cabin next year, if that's true I could do 100 Mbit offsite, online backup between machines I control. That would be rather neat.

What's a bomb? Seriously. An explosive device remotely explodable can be used in mining, or as a weapon. The exact same device.

Just refuse to allow anyone to be named Gatling.

(Well, I know that's not exactly a Gatling gun, but it's pretty close.)

Right. That, after all was the purpose of copyright. To give people a *LIMITED* monopoly. When it expired, then everyone would inherit the work as a common good.

I would argue that 17 years is too long. 5 years with one (fairly expensive) renewal would be better, though the ideal number does differ between fields of endeavor. I could also go with a 3 year first copyright, a renewal for, say, $100. And an nth renewal for $100^n. (You could consider the original publication to be the 0th renewal if you want, and charge a $1 registration fee needed if you intend to apply for any renewals.)

That was because the rules were only applied in favor of white males. As written, however, they work quite well where the population is thinly distributed and the communications are slow. They aren't perfect, but I can't think of anything better.

As things are, however, those rules would not work and could not be made to work. They should, however, have been properly ammended rather than being ignored.

There were enough tells in the first movie that I decided to skip both prequel sequels. My only regret concerns the movie not made.

The problem when you have a strong emotional investment in something is that one's instinct is to give it one more chance. By the time you've watched two bad movies, you're almost pot-committed to watch the third.

It takes a special will to abandon a franchise without falling into the emotional mulligan trap, and so there's ultimately little incentive for Jackson to not do what he did.

I'm slowly learning. My loyalty function has now evolved to where it's almost vertiginous.

Apple are assholes, not cowards. They probably didn't approve the movie because something is the wrong color, or because it competes with their own movie, or because it has product-placement ads but Sony hasn't yet agreed to give Apple 30% of the ad revenue.

Sounds like a win-win, so why is anyone opposed?

(Well, OK, the Seattle police have some decent arguments, but they also appear to have a shady history which causes one to doubt that the arguments raised are their real reasons. Still, they *are* decent arguments. I'm not sure what the resolution should be, but I am sure it should involve continual taping to an archival store that cannot be edited...which is an impossible ideal, but get as close to it as possible.)

Well, not the only ones, but certainly some of the most important ones. I wish I could believe that they would fairly see the evidence, but there are so many games played with what evidence juries are allowed to see that I'll be a bit dubious until it starts happening.

Well if he'd had his camera going, this would be made clearly obvious. So why are the police against camera? (To be fair, many of them aren't. But I'm talking about the ones that are. Which to me means they've got something to hide, if nothing more than a feeling that their privacy is being invaded, and where they were dominant, now they are supervised.)

Unfortunately there have been enough instances where the police are obviously lying and at fault that I prefer objective evidence that doesn't require that I theorize to fill in the pieces. E.g., there are power stains on someone's hands, but how do you know that he got them when you think he did? A reasonable hypothesis is that he got them struggling to take the officer's gun, but it this actually what happened? And if he was 150 feet away when he was shot, was he fleeing? A camera would remove uncertainties...provided it was secured against tampering. (Yeah, OK, nothing's certain. It could reduce uncertainties quite significantly.)

And why is anyone against having a camera to prevent this kind of uncertainty?

How could you possibly get an answer to that question that you could trust? It's a reasonable question, and my guess would be quite a small percentage. But I can't think of a single way of getting the information that I would trust. I *would* wager a small sum that you could show it would be to the officer's benefit to blame someone else even if he knew he was at fault.