Typically, these contracts are of the sort where Disney says if Verizon wants to carry the Disney channel, they must also carry all the ESPN channels @ a certain rate etc ... basically saying that if they want the more desirable channels Verizon must carry the less desirable channels - because Disney has sunk a fuck-ton of money into ESPN ...

I also don't see your analogy as being the same. Customers pay Verizon for the bandwidth and Verizon is a customer paying Disney for Disney, ABC, ABC Family and ESPN* but with the added bonus of being required to buy them all to get the ones Verizon and its customers actually want.

You're correct in that it's a contract dispute between Verizon and Disney, but w/o actually seeing the contract we don't actually know who's in the right. My guess is that Verizon found a loophole and Disney isn't happy about it.

Translation: And force people to pay for stuff they don't want.

Personally, I've *never* (ever) watched any of the ESPN channels and am annoyed at having to pay for them. Sure, I understand that a-la-carte programming *may* be expensive - at the moment - but I imagine business models and revenue streams will adapt as time goes on. In the mean time, Disney can kiss my shiny metal ass.

All good points, though Aspartame has a pretty distinctive taste, especially in contrast to sugar. Perhaps I shouldn't have lead with the phrase "idiot" as I didn't mean it in the intellectual sense. I have known a few people to exaggerate or get a little too hyperbolic about a (sometimes supposed) food allergy or sensitivity. Like a woman I know who says she's allergic to chocolate (which is actually *super* rare) when I know she's in fact not, but just wants to avoid eating it because it's her "crack" - which is fine, but it would be better if she'd just own up to her chocolate addiction than claiming a medical condition.

You might be interested in this video lecture Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology.

Not to throw soda on your story or that person, but, if true, he's obviously an idiot. I don't know *anyone* that cannot tell the difference between regular and diet soda with one sip. In addition, according to the Wikipedia page you referenced, people with that affliction, at least if severe enough to cause the kind of reaction that guy mentioned, would be on a severely restricted diet and restaurant dining would be problematic:

Lastly, there's nothing to indicate that a trip to the hospital would be warranted, especially for such a small amount ingested:

I'm not saying your story or his reaction is BS, but I'm a little dubious.

The article you referenced mentions:

Better the microbiome be out of whack than the macrobiome.
(see the Alt-Text for the less pleasant gut fauna transfer method)

So, the iceberg part is actually irrelevant. The ball could be anywhere.

Thanks. Seems "troll" is sometimes used when someone simply doesn't like what you say (or doesn't under stand it). I don't know whether to be sad or annoyed in those situations. In *this* case "off topic" might have been appropriate, as I was intending it as a funny comment to something in anther post, but not related to the main story, though people sometimes use that mod because they, apparently, simply have a stick up their ass.

In any case, I wasn't slamming systemd, even though I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea or, at least, a bad implementation - hmm, Lennart wrote it, so probably both. (see, that's a slam) :-)

The same can be said about masturbation. Doesn't mean it's better than actual sex w/someone else.

So far, the alternatives are a garden gnome from Canada, I mean, Texas, an ophthalmologist that can't spell "education" from Kentucky, or a really thirsty Floridian.

(That beer is looking mighty refreshing...)

Although, for some perspective, from Wikipedia for Glioblastoma multiforme (brain tumor):

Sure, it's *way* more rare, but treatment options suck. My wife Sue died of this in early 2006, just 7 weeks after diagnosis - her only complaint was a persistent headache and mild disorientation. Remember Sue...

No it doesn't not for everything or even most things. You're over-thinking things and conflating the important with the unimportant, the big things with the little. Stop sweating the little things.

I used to get more worked up about things, like you apparently are, but then in late 2005, after 20 years together, my wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died, literally in my arms, just 7 weeks later. I heard her last breath, felt her last heartbeat and learned what the word "forever" means.

So, having my NYT or /. connection encrypted isn't really that important - my banking connection, yes, but I try to keep everything in perspective. The scenarios you've described lack some of that.

I'm not "intellectually lazy" I just know what is and is not important - for me anyway.

Also, entities like Google are not encrypting their connection to protect your privacy, it's to protect their revenue stream, so third-parties cannot skim ad/search information w/o paying Google for it.

The movie and recording industries use those for accounting purposes.

I disagree that Everywhere is a great idea. Seriously, does it really matter if an NYT article or /. is delivered securely, or 99.9% of search queries?

According to Google Drops Plus Sign from Search Operators