They're not, and if every single drop of alcohol you drank was distilled from a drunk driver beating a drunk mommy and daddy, you'd have a valid comparison.

How does consumption of alcohol, which occasionally produces a negative outcome, compare with the production of kiddie porn, which always produces a negative outcome, an exploited child?

Distribution charges are generally filed against the person providing something, not the person receiving something.

While this finding impacts that problem, it is not the right way to tackle that problem. That problem consists of factually incorrect material that should not be there. This finding explicitly indicates that a party can demand that links to factually true reports that are still available to view online must be taken down. It goes far beyond the scope of reason.

Find a community of like minded people in which to share your interest fosters and normalizes your interest, whether that interest is antique cars, steam engines, British fine cuisine, or kiddie porn. There are some interests we do not want to foster and normalize.

• Apple: sportscar; moves you around quick and looks good while you do it. Useful for a lot of personal tasks.
• Windows: suv; a bit bloated and gas guzzling but reliable for basic user-level grunt work.
• Linux: truck; From tractor-trailer on down to pickup truck, great at heavy lifting but it has to be fairly stripped down (e.g., android) in order to do useful user-level work. Most people wouldn't use the heavy versions of it, but for those of us who need it, it is indispensable.

And here we have the crux of the Mac v. Linux argument.

A "medicine" marked "homeopathic" is technically regulated by the FDA, but isn't tested for safety or effectiveness.

I'm well aware of the theoretical basis of homeopathic medicine, but even so I already refreshed my memory with google and a few sites both supporting and debunking it. I even included a link to wikipedia in my original. If you want to dispute my claim, provide a citation and not a "google it yourself" response.

Homeopathy is based on the idea that a substance that causes the symptoms in normal quantities cures the symptoms in smaller quantities. Hence the dilution.

Quite a lot of homeopathic products use the C dilutions, in surprisingly high numbers. Of course, there are also a number of products that use small numbers of X (1/10th) dilutions as well. The 3X-6X dilutions do result in a product that contains the active ingredient. Of course, if I started with a 1g sample of a drug, say, tacrolimus, and performed a 3X dilution on it, I'd end up with a 1mg product. This isn't homeopathy, because that is well with in the dose-response curve for that drug and the drug at that level produces a direct and specific response in line with its properties.

If they aren't diluted, they aren't homeopathic. Holistic, maybe.

Oscillococcinum, one of the most common of these quack remedies, typically comes in 200C dilution. A C dilution is a 1/100th dilution, so 200C is 1/(100^200) dilution rate.

It gives you access to services on the web, but they have to pay their connectivity bill, too. If the company they chose doesn't have a good connection to your company, though, then your experience with that company will suffer.

In Netflix's case, they chose Cogent, and Cogent wants to take advantage of peering arrangements that presume data will cross their links to other providers in both directions equally, but they want to send far more data than they receive. But they don't want to pay the transit fees that would normally incur.

They had to pay for their phone connection and you had to pay for yours. (We'll ignore the possibility of long distance charges.) If they went with a cut rate provider, though, their end might be choppy and not provide you with quality entertainment.

In a typical peering arrangement, both sides of the link pass roughly equal amounts of data to the other side. Netflix, however, gives Cogent so much data that the peering links are lop sided. Cogent delivers a lot of content, and receives very little. In such an unbalanced situation, the side with more data to serve typically pays a transit fee for the use of the other network.

Cogent doesn't want to pay the transit fee. If they had to pay the transit fee, they'd have to pass that along to Netflix, and Netflix would have to raise the rates they charge their subscribers.

But those devices don't render any video recordings you may have made inaccessible.

I can't find his actual quote offhand, reported in original context. I can find, however, that he was apparently citing Zwally, as also cited by National Geographic. Ggiven that it is going down by steps and not in a continuous flow, however, I think the real year that the arctic will be free of ice in the summer will happen sometime between next year and 2040 (one of the more realistic original estimates), but we can't really be sure which year it'll be. It'll also be interesting to see what the impact of the new solar cycle will be.