Nor is there any capital in grammer (actually, grammar), or alert. Nazi, I'll grant you.

Will you be back here to refute your own dire predictions when they prove false? I'll not hold my breath.

...my condolences on your medical situation. And, my compliments to you for paying attention to the legacy you want to leave that would benefit your daughter. She has a fine father.

As a recovering "shrink," my counsel to you is this: Don't worry about the legacy you can leave; you've already done that with your life, which gave and nurtured her life, and your evident attention to her growing-up years. Start with questions: What is SHE planning; what interests HER, what would help HER cope with the loss of her father. Probably the greatest gift you can give her is now: Your presence, your love, your time, especially since these are now all in limited supply.

My counsel: Don't worry about some grand legacy to leave, but do record these happy moments--tinged as they are with bittersweet facts.

Finally, your love for your daughter is palpable in your public plea here on /. When you are but a memory, she will still be influenced by your love, care and devotion in the midst of your own crushing burden. The grand gesture--should you pursue it still--will pale in comparison to those memes you bury in her brain in these next few months.

I am saddened by her impending loss.

Sure. By setting a higher speed as the new definition of what is to be considered Broadband, the government has taken away the speed you have. You clod. All the FCC did was to change the definition. If they hadn't, then Telcos could offer you 1.5 Mbps service and call it "Broadband." In other words, they changed the definition of what Telcos can advertise, not what they deliver today.

Then clearly, you do not understand the relationship between data speed and requisite carrier channel bandwidth.

Nonsense. 80% of Americans are SUPPOSED to "HAVE ACCCESS TO 25Mb" (stet). But, in fact, most of the largest firms (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, et. al.) limit available speeds, and price higher speeds dramatically higher, so they don't have to invest in more backbone bandwidth for all that aggregate traffic. AT&T would be happier to deliver you 1.5 Mbps than anything higher, because they minimize their capital investments that way. The FCC is calling their bluff, and when the major firms can't deliver the 25 Mbps now defined as "Broadband" minimum speed, the FCC will have more motive to convert all their Internet services to the more highly regulated Title II of the Communication Act.

It means, simply, that adoption of broadband is measured by Census Tract. If an ISP or other provider services ONE customer in that Census Tract, they report the ENTIRE Census Tract as served. When challenged by government, the Telcos respond, disingenuously, that "Well, the rest of the people haven't ordered yet." But, they get full credit for all those doorsteps that are unserved because, according to them, those people at that doorstep haven't asked for service. Of course, if you're one of those putative customers, you'll quickly discover that calling that provider just gets you the standard, "We don't service that address, yet." The implication is that you WILL get service, someday, depending on what the executives of the Telco decide: "Do I want to line my own pockets with more bonuses for profitability, or invest in more rural broadband, which will benefit my successor in this job, not me, because of the length of time it takes to recoup that investment?"

It's a game the 1% play with the rest of us.

Frankly, if I delivered that kind of site to my customers, they would never refer me to another prospect. While I applaud your getting it all done with such compact code, it's inflexible, unadaptable, and visually appealing only to the kinds of people who hang out at /. (and they are a small minority in the larger world). Nice job for your particular needs, but for any practical business trying to lure customers, it would could easily be replaced by large boards nailed over the business' front door.

I would argue it's just Google's way of getting into the wireless market by pouring money (of which they have an inordinate amount) into "weak sisters" in the cellphone business.

The reason I say that is that the lowest penetration of wireless is in rural areas, and the lowest penetration of non-dial-up Internet access is in rural areas (irrespective of speed). So, the biggest need for Internet access is in the very areas where the "weak sisters" have virtually no presence. I believe that puts the lie to the expressed intention of broadening Internet access.

Cell and Internet services in rural areas are plagued by a single problem: Inadequate population density to make capital investments worthwhile. You can roll-out celltowers or fiber in an urban area rather economically, because of the density of customers from whom the fixed costs can be (relatively) quickly recouped. However, getting the capital to do that in a rural area runs up against the need for investors to recoup their investment, which they value as an inverse function of time (i.e., faster ROI is better). Therefore, it is more expensive, and slower to recoup in rural areas, because of a smaller number of potential customers...so, from the contemporary view of investing, "It makes no sense." That's why I claim their just buying their way into eventual ownership of Sprint and/or T-Mobile.

Sure: Trade the insecure Insteon IoT for the impenetrable X10. I'm still using X10 around my house, but with no central controller that can be hijacked to send malicious signals to controlled devices.

Until IoT has robust security, you may's well hang your unfirewalled computer directly on the Internet. IoT has the capability of burning your house down if you have the wrong devices installed.

...growing problem of BadWare (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...) from Redmond!

Just another slip down the old rabbit hole for Microsoft, once-great company now driving by non-technical management who don't understand their business!

More likely the USPS attitude that pervades: "We Don't Care!"

I don't live in Texas for very good reasons. This Gun Mania is one of them.

Progressive lenses are like any compromise: Valuable to some, wrong for most. I liken them to the "flying car:" Equally incompetent on the road as in the air.

First of all, most commenters here ignored the issues of astigmatism, etc. (the distortion of the image on the retina due to other vision issues, exhibiting fuzziness), assuming that all you need is a change in the "strength" of the lens. Proper vision correction requires that the lenses compensate for all abnormalities in your particular vision ability, to the extent possible. Your lens prescription must also have to be updated periodically to deal with inevitable changes in eyes accumulated due to aging.

At 73, I have had cataract surgery in both eyes. The effect of that is that I have a fixed, permanent lens in each eye, focused on infinity. That means I can legally drive without lenses (my uncorrected vision is a permanent 20/30 or so). However, I do need lenses for reading, and for using my monitor(s). What's interesting is that the ideal focal length for reading (for me) is about 18", but I sit 24" from the plane of the monitor at my desk (measure yours to get the precise numbers to the nearest 1/2"). So, one pair of lenses is inadequate. So, I have one for each focal length. I've intentionally chosen one pair with wire rims, and the other in black plastic, so I can tell from across the room which pair is where (but, most of the time, one's on my face, and the other pair is lying on my desk).

I have successfully fought the "just buy one pair" mania of some vision "professionals," which are sometimes promoted so they can sell you a dramatically more expensive pair of lenses. I prefer the two-pair approach, and have been using it for more than a decade without a change in Rx. I hope my experience helps you.

One last caveat: Since I'm advocating for fixed-focus lenses, you need to also change your habits: You must avoid staring at the monitor for long periods. By changing your focus from monitor, to desktop, to whiteboard, to doorway, you will keep your eyes from becoming too dry or the muscles from losing elasticity. For example, I leave my reading (or computer) glasses on while walking about the office or at home, so I am forced to keep changing focus from time-to-time. Like other muscles, those in your eye need a regular workout.