Giving the government credit for creating the current internet is like giving Abner Doubleday credit for Henry Aaron's home runs.

Now I'm confused. If baseball hadn't been invented, how would Hank Aaron have hit home runs again?

Maybe we need to work on your similes.

Government will fuck this up - it always does.

Right. If private enterprise had been in charge of the space program, we might have sent a man to the moon by now.

There is a choice, but our so-called leaders stand in the way. They have forgotten that the economy exists to serve the people (all of them), not the other way around. They treat the economy as if it was some sort of god.

I'm not complaining.

That's exactly what you're doing.

Noise ordinances are constitutional. Vague and confusing laws are unconstitutional. The problem is if most of the laws on #1 fit in category #2. It doesn't mean anything about #1, other than lawmakers are dumb.

"fighting words" and "incitement" are illegal acts in many places, and there's a fine line for what are illegal words.

In Bill's case, it was the judge that defined the words poorly, and he gave the only legal answer, even if it seemed silly taken out of context.

So assume they hit the roof, a startling sound, but no impairment to vision. If the driver reacts and crashes, is that the fault of the person reacting, or the person acting?

So any male that cracks a dick joke subconsciously wants to suck cocks all day and either can't or won't admit it to himself

I agree.

As for "capricious" it's not. Capricious would mean without precedent, and "on a whim", while the decision was before the FCC for 10+ years, and not taken lightly, and it just confirms the state of the Internet that existed for most of its life. That doesn't meet the definition of the word, though I've not dealt with the legal definition of capricious. If it were truly arbitrary and capricious, one would not need file a legal challenge, as one would expect it to change before such a challenge were concluded.

That's good stuff. I'm glad I asked and I'm glad you shared those links.

Oh, I get that. But don't you think it's a little bit insulting that the only way they could make it interesting to Slashdot readers is to make references to bad 1970s sci-fi?

My problem is not with the new technology. My problem is that someone thinks we can only be interested via dumb fictional references.

Of course it was. The entire comment was a way to get that joke in. I've been saving it for just such an occasion.

Oh, you poor thing. You're just a victim of oppression, aren't you?

And I bet a big believer in ethics in game journalism, too.

It's not a proprietary solution. It's a single OEM-only drive that's similar to (and meets the standards of) many others available now and before. The article inappropriately calls a standards-based OEM drive "proprietary".