They surely have enough data about their customers usage patterns that they can make better plans for upgrading their infrastructure as needed. I don't see anything about, "We're sorry, we were more successful than we expected, this is a short term measure which is necessary to preserve your QOS, we're making upgrades and in the meantime here's some something for your trouble." No, instead they're basically saying, "We've been really super successful, so screw you." There's nothing wrong with having unlimited plans, the abuse is in refusing to do the necessary traffic forecasting and, even more, in refusing to remediate the problem when it comes to light.

I'm not saying it's the majority of atheists by any means, but to say it doesn't exist is silly. Do a google for: "should outlaw religion" OR "should ban religion" Fortunately, most atheists and even anti-theists would take the more rational position you do, but I was responding to a comment which made the broad categorization that "atheists dont force others to follow their beliefs", which was (like most generalizations) false.

Really? We label/categorize EVERYTHING. But somehow we would magically not label "belief there is no god"? I believe the proselytizing from the religious might have helped drive a counter-reaction from the atheists, but I highly doubt we'd somehow fail to label every aspect of people's beliefs no matter how personal/quietly held they were.

No, you're right, I certainly overlooked the state-sanctioned atheism of those regimes. I suppose I tend to forget about the non-economic policies those countries had/have.

Rubbish. How many times have you seen someone write, "We ought to outlaw religion." or something to that effect. "Atheists" aren't and haven't been in a position of power to do such things, but if you think that there aren't *some* atheists who wouldn't try to impose their views on everyone if they had the opportunity, just like some religious folk do, you are sorely mistaken.

Well...no, the usual argument is not about files per se, it has to do with the data in the files. In fact, the ability/right to change formats is a frequent aspect of the debate. And I doubt you'd find so very many takers on /. that if you go wipe even the MPAA's computers clear that you haven't committed a crime. "Data file" and "data" are not just different by interpretation, they are two distinct concepts. Likewise, the usual discussion deals with duplication, not deletion. Those are two words which are also not different by interpretation, they're in fact opposites. So trying to draw parallels between this discussion of deletion and discussions about intellectual property rights and duplication are disingenuous. It's not a clever gotcha comparison, it's wrong.

Yeah, I do something similar, "FBI Van 1337". Geeks will get it, others will wonder what's going on....

Also, did they avert that? It seems like this is, in fact, the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Perhaps they averted it being the worst nuclear disaster ever, including Chernobyl, but it would have needed to be a lot less disastrous to not be the worst since. So...unless something worse than this but not as bad as Chernobyl comes along, I suspect we'll keep using it for this event for a long time...but there's a good chance the next disaster will be the "worst nuclear disaster since Fukushima" instead...at least, here's hoping....

Thanks. :) *I* was confused for a second when I saw that reply, "Surely there's no way all that science-babble was derived from Futurama episode!?"

Another vote for Design with the Mind in Mind. Well written, relatively up-to-date, practical advice.