It's not overhead... If two neighbors are watching the same show and are both on U-verse, the content appears on the majority of the network once, not 5 times (only being duplicated when network topology requires it). I'd call that more than overhead. If you and your 4 neighbors both request hulu broadcast of the same show at the exact same time, it's 5 times the content size.

Note also, that U-verse uses multi-cast, so that there is real difference in network load between 5 people watching the same show on U-verse, than 5 people watching Netflix or Hulu (assuming similar data-rates).

Let's see, let's compare EPA-preliminary controlled methodology to totally arbitrary and un-controlled random car writer random drive, and DRAIN THE DAMN BATTERIES.

When there's a large difference, let's call the manufacturer a liar and conflate this with government-ownership while we are at it.

What about the Nissan Leaf? Will it get the claimed 367 MPG in this writer's random non-plugged-in "test"?

No one will ever drive the exact EPA-mandated cycle in this car or any other. And I certainly hope no one will buy a Volt and never plug it in, or they get what they overpaid for...

As for whether it's better than a regular hybrid, one assumes that is a function of your commute. Mine is 13 miles, and I rarely get over 70 on the way to work, so in theory it's perfect. Would I get one? No, but that's because I like sports car style, and acceleration, which for me outweighs any environmental or monetary concerns (yes, I'm going to hell).

I believe the statement is a correct to the parent which stated "IE=Internet equation" (which btw I've never heard anyone say). This is in reference to Bing's attempt to conflate search with Bing, as IE has been conflated with the Internet (which I can attest to--ask your grandma or boss to open IE and they'll look at you confused, then ask them to open "The Intenet")...

It's not "your stuff". Whether you can time-shift your consumption of it or not, it's not truly yours.

How is their storage of the content an additional invasion of privacy (beyond the tracking they already do)?

Might want to loosen the tinfoil.

This was 1969. $6.00/hr (12,522/year) wasn't so bad. Equivalent in 2009 dollars is $34.87/hr (72,773/year).

As mentioned by several, there is more to gambling than traditional casino gambling (e.g. craps, roulette, slots). The proposed ISP blocks would have an effect on all types.

How much time? How many stocks? If you are talking particular stocks, than you can definitely lose money over even long time periods (how is your Worldcom stock doing?).

Hm. I dug up a really obscure index you may never of heard of, the S&P 500: http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXSP:.INX

Not all gambling is random in the same way you describe. Some, are non-random, house-favored, such as sports/horse betting. Then, there is poker... The house takes a cut of pot. While your starting hand may be random, the winner is far from random.

Also, I would argue that all stock really represents is voting power. It is not an asset in any real way. Your share is not equal to Company Worth/Total Shares. It's worth either par value ($1) or whatever the market thinks it is worth--> which can be completely independent of the company's intrinsic value (if such a thing exists).

I'm sure the stinking pile of ME had nothing to do with that, nor the XP product itself, nor their other products, or anything else--it was simply the product activation that made them all that money. Correlation != causation. Oh, and if you were to buy stock in Microsoft, unless it's an IPO, you're not giving them any money.