Sorry, but your basic premise is wrong. There does NOT need to be a way to "take sites like this down", if in fact you could accomplish that in any meaningful way. It's the same basic flaw in any argument for censorship - the idea that if you remove people's access to something you think is undesirable, that it solves the problem. Really, the problem is your own: that you think that the thing you want to censor is undesirable/wrong.

Yes, but the Declaration of Independence said that "We the People" *always* have the right to do away with government that no longer represents our interests (by force if necessary). Of course, whether the American people still have the testicular fortitude to do what is necessary is very much up for debate...

I think the idea of "productivity" is a hold-over of the Industrial Revolution that does not pertain to many of today's jobs; jobs where the unit of work is hard to define, and ultimately irrelevant. Are you telling me you pick your doctor by how many patients he can see in a day? Probably quite the opposite!

In terms of software development, I find that the *effectiveness* of a developer is more important, where effectiveness considers the following (not an exhaustive list):
      - Appropriateness of solution
      - Thoroughness of implementation (logging, exception handling, graceful failure, input validation, etc.)
      - Well-written, parsimonious code that is easy to read and descriptive of what it does
      - Works right the first time, no kickbacks from QA or end user

Give me someone who is effective but slow over someone who craps out junk quickly any day of the week and twice on Sunday! In the end, I don't care about productivity metrics, I care that the end users get a useful piece of software that does what they need with a minimum of headaches.

Not really surprised; after all, this is the same US House of Representatives majority that believes the reason we don't have more jobs is that businesses aren't allowed to poison us as much as they'd like.

It's not hard, it just doesn't make any sense.

Compare two men in their late 20's that each earn $60,000/yr. One is single and lives in Texas. The other is married with 2 kids an lives in the Bronx. Do you think that they really should pay the same amount of tax?

Or compare a retired millionaire to an elementary school teacher living in the same town. They both have an income of $30,000/yr. Should they pay the same amount in tax?

Unless your goal is to punish people for living in the "wrong" place or having the "wrong" career, or not having the foresight to already be millionaires with no debt before you institute your tax policy...

Oh, it's not hard... it just doesn't make any sense.

Compare two men making $60,000/yr, both in their late 20's: one is single and lives in Texas, and the other is married with 2 kids and lives in the Bronx. It doesn't matter what percent you pick (unless it's zero), it's going to hurt one of those guys more than the other.

Or consider a retired millionaire who has no debt. He can comfortably live on very little income. Are you telling me that he should pay the same amount in tax (or less) as a teacher or firefighter?

Unless your goal is to punish people for living in the "wrong" place or pursuing the "wrong" career...

Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
    ~Edsger W. Dijkstra

Yes, that's true. However, I wonder why this comment is usually directed at the working classes, when they are the ones upon whom the warfare is being waged. The rich have been conducting class warfare in the US since the Reagan administration, and they are now beginning to reap what they have sown.

I now make more than twice what my father earned at the height of his career in the early 80's, but I have less actual purchasing power. Rotten economics indeed.

I, along with many other Slashdotters, am employed as a software developer. The ONLY permissible work space is an office with a door. Failing that, allow us to work from home.

Yes, I do need to communicate with other people to get my job done. However, I also often need to concentrate for an uninterrupted block of time. The only way to accomplish this is to shut people out of my workspace.

The problem is, changing over to pay-as-you-go won't necessarily increase revenue for telecom or cable companies. I suspect that when the consumer pays a fixed cost per unit bandwidth, we'll find that demand for bandwidth is fairly elastic. Instead of paying more to maintain their current bandwidth usage, most people will cut back on their usage. Which, despite what the telecom companies tell the politicians, is the last thing they want. Rather, they want people to pay more while still maintaining their demand for bandwidth. The "our networks can't handle it" is merely the pretext under which they drag their feet on infrastructure upgrades while protesting "if we only had more money..." in order to perpetuate constant fee increases. If upgrading their infrastructure would increase revenue, they would have done it already.

The answer should be obvious: if they want this, they need to support the ability of the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality.

What?! What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? It's simple:

Customer: We want Net Neutrality regulations to ensure a true free market!
Telco: No! You cannot tell us how to manage traffic on our networks! Regulation is BAD!

but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot...

Telco: We need regulation to protect the network! Regulation is GOOD!
Customer: You need to manage your network better! You shouldn't make this a less free market to solve technical issues!

This is what the "Net Neutrality" debate is really all about. All of the other things that have been held up as "Net Neutrality" are red herring thrown out by the telecom companies to muddy the water and stall meaningful debate (and I think their strategy is working very well indeed).

Everyone has seen the high bandwidth requirements coming for at least a decade. The telecom companies have seized on this as their moment to secure their dynasty. They absolutely will not upgrade the infrastructure to support the future until they have guarantees (codified in law, if they have their way) that they can continue raping their customers in perpetuity.

Or perhaps you really believed what your corporate overlords told you: that the election that just happened had to do with "fiscal responsibility" and nothing at all to do with deregulation, lower corporate taxes, and the repeal of laws that are unpopular with corporations.

So by your logic, I shouldn't get the flu vaccine this year?

All I want to know is if my new Sony TV will come with a free root kit pre-installed at the factory?

It occurs to me that I had essentially the same conversation recently with a European acquaintance regarding the availability of a nice pate or decent wine at grocery stores here in the states.