People seem to keep defaulting to Comcast or providing an example of where servers are allowed at home. My original post was a general statement because some ISPs allow them where many others don't. I have run servers many times from home for different purposes on different providers, but I have never had enough traffic to cause an issue (like test web servers and friends-only game servers). If I expected to use enough bandwidth to be noticed, I would either find a shell host or consider a business package. Even if my ISP allowed home servers, I certainly wouldn't want to run a crappy server by hosting it on a basic home package.

Also keep in mind that many ISPs frown on running home servers. If the server gets popular it could be a problem for the provider.

Actually, the example in the article is about a girl that had a common name that was returning search results that were not about her.

"From the article: "Samantha Grossman wasn't always thrilled with the impression that emerged when people Googled her name. 'It wasn't anything too horrible,' she said. 'I just have a common name. There would be pictures, college partying pictures, that weren't of me, things I wouldn't want associated with me.'"

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/the-ipad-in-your-hand-as-fast-as-a-supercomputer-of-yore/

It's too bad this story is split. It is obvious the exploit/ban topic is stirring up much more conversation than the headline topic about the suspension in sales. When I read the story I was really more interested in seeing discussion about the sales decision.

How do you know it is "easy to say" for me, or that I have not experienced being threatened with prison time? While, admittedly, your comments are valid and I can understand how innocent people can be found (wrongly) guilty, that doesn't change the fact that I would fight the charges.

Because one pleaded guilty and the other "surrendered to authorities." I don't know about you, but if I was framed I would be fighting the charges.

I was speaking generally about the show itself, rather than the point they tried make in that particular episode. IMO, the show (like many others) is just an excuse to spend money, blowing stuff up in the name of science, while in reality it is just another block of network time filled by unnecessary crap. While it may be entertaining at times, they hardly ever really prove or disprove any of the myths they are testing. I am just saying that using Mythbusters as a basis for any kind of argument is pointless because the facts can be learned from much more valid sources.

Because Mythbusters is a shining example for accurate and effective testing through the use of the scientific process.

Second paragraph in the article. "The group however will not "consider the airborne use of cell phones for voice communications during flight.""

While there may be some listings for services by which curses, hexes, or spells are cast, I believe these things are typically actual words written on paper or parchment that someone (supposedly with more experience in the area) created for certain purposes. So they should be tangible items. Also, they are banning potions. I would assume holy water would be included in that category.

I find it interesting that you assume the OP is American. From the UK link in the profile, I would have assumed otherwise.

Yes, just like every other game that was hyped as the WoW killer. Yet none have succeeded.