... so where is the systematic, reliable evidence that not being neutral in the way you treat traffic is somehow better for the future of the Internet? There are two parties: money grubbing corporations looking to maximize profit by double dipping and "the people" that require net neutrality in order to be able to build their future on it. Sure, the party that donates the most money will win.

That is an administrative rule (in order to boost profits) which can easily be broken by impersonating another device. A technical limitation would be some sort of hardware incompatibility.

It's not creepy if it works. It's kind of like real spam - try millions of times and if one works it pays off.

Dick pics/crude messages work for a subset of women as do really well thought out messages. But a really good message costs 30m-1h; a bad one .5 minutes even if the response rate is 10x worse it is still worth it.

Your equipment cannot be incompatible with an unlimited data plan. Data transfer limits are artificial profit boosters, there is absolutely no technical reason they can't give everyone unlimited data transfer.

The great thing about grandfathered plans is that they are contractually obligated to provide the service to you. Don't give it up unless you can move to a more customer-friendly provider that does give you unlimited data.

Perhaps Bill can show up and plug in a scanner on stage to demonstrate the plug and pray function.

I've never seen either a Mac or a Linux box suffer from 'decay'. The box will work progressively slower compared to newer, faster systems which you may get used to eg. at your job but I've never seen the box slow down any measurable amount (unless of course, the hard drive is getting close to full etc). Windows on the other hand simply slows down due to updates and antivirus getting heavier and heavier, Windows machines will also fill their own hard drives (I manage some boxes that have been installed when XP first came out, even with minimal user data, the machine has gotten cleaned up multiple times due to a full hard drive (mainly logs, updates and system restore data)

Windows 9x-ME was really Windows 4 all along. 2000 was version 5, XP-10 is version 6.

Most windows versions suck, regardless of version numbering. They suck less when it comes around to having a third service pack but they're still miles behind a real OS. (I haven't used windows computers at home since windows 3.11)

No, it means investing in better antenna equipment, I can get gigabit speeds on an unregulated frequency, a regulated frequency should be much easier. Japan has 100Mbps to individual mobile devices, setting up P2P wireless links is even easier. Even so, the country has paid said regulatory fees to ensure wired access to everyone.

The 'spectrum' or bandwidth of the Internet is virtually unlimited though. You just need to put in bigger pipes and even the smallest of the pipes you can currently get at an IX (1Gbps) can easily carry 1000 simultaneous viewers.

The ISP's only have exclusive rights to the last mile because we (the people) let them. For the most part, "the people" paid over and over again for this last mile as well as all the other miles (both phone and cable) through regulatory fees but either is being monopolized by a single provider. There is no technical reason that several providers couldn't offer you the 'last mile' connection. It's being done in several European countries where you have a pick of providers to offer you the last mile.

Because maintaining the status quo without innovating has worked out well for the consumers (eg. TI calculators)? Because what we need now is what we need in the future is for ISP's only?

You get better battery life AND increased specs to the crappy Nexus. Because your e-mail loads equally fast doesn't mean mine does (I have 10k+ messages in my inbox). Because you use your phone for simple games, doesn't mean I don't use it for viewing 3D brain scans.

I used to be a preacher. I have studied various religions as part of my training to be a preacher. I changed my mind about my parental religion at great personal cost. I investigated other religious tenets (Christian and non-Christian) as various friends suggested they may be a 'better fit'.

If you're so wise, please tell me how religions are not trying to safeguard they're own individual collection of fables and myths?

Why does your life or anything at all have to have meaning? In the grand scheme of things, your 1-in-a-billion life form on a speck of dust in the middle of an average galaxy is insignificant. Absence of proof does not mean we can just instantiate a random object to explain things (Bertrand Russell's teapot).

You can devise a scientific test for love if you define what love is. Enjoyment is also relatively easy to explain in regards brain chemistry. You are free to believe what you want but what is the meaning of believing something you can never know for sure?

If you add them up together, they're total sum is 0, they don't come from anywhere and go nowhere. It's basic quantum mechanics. The entire summation of all energy within our Universe is 0.

Not really, the why is not philosophical at all, it is testable and provable that the universe is big enough that random stuff, however remote the possibilities, happens all the time. The why and the how are identical from a scientific viewpoint, that's how science works. Scientists ask the why question and give a how answer.

Time began with the Big Bang. There was no 'before' the Big Bang because time (as we know it) was not there (yet). Because the majority of people fails to understand the reasoning/math behind it doesn't make the theory invalid. We can measure this "mythical nothing", it's the same space between an atoms' nucleus and electron. There is a shit-ton of nothing, the majority of the Universe and everything that exists is "nothing". It may not make immediate sense to you but the Universe is not obligated to make something easier to comprehend, as long as the equations work out.