This seems so wrong headed "Proposals should not focus on making the existing Internet better through incremental changes, but rather should focus on designing comprehensive architectures that can meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century."

Right, because radical changes are so often effective and quickly adopted... go, go, government waste.

mmmm... nice skinhead tats.

I think you greatly overestimate the overlap between 1984 fans and Kindle users. Most (if not all) people unaffected will ignore this in a "...and then they came for me" type of ignorance.

Thanks, but I throw my garbage out.

You can't be serious, this was not a good show. Granted I only watched a couple of the early episodes so I will consider the possibility it improved over time. From what I saw though, it was poorly acted (Summer Glau's character had all the depth of that girl from Small Wonder), had a terrible plot concept, and the writing made it come across like a sci-fi version of Gilmore Girls.

Wow this is some really deep and thoughtful stuff here.

Personally, I haven't seen anything Trek lately that I would call a "Sci-Fi gem". I say let Abrams have his shot, its not like Franks was doing anything revolutionary with it, and lets not even start on Braga Let's hope Abrams can breath some life into what appears to have been allowed to become a dead franchise.

Yeah I don't get that either? If you are a victim of domestic violence shouldn't you just not call your abuser in the first place?

I'm not really sure what the SCO lawsuit has to do with EULA's.

However your point that EULA's don't really offer much legal protection or legal weight is still probably valid (IANAL of course).

I dunno, I have never really understood the problem people have with EULAs. My understanding is that they primarily serve the purpose of protecting software companies from frivolous lawsuits.

I seriously doubt any company could put a clause that requires something from the user that would ever stand up in a court of law. Besides, you generally agree to them anonymously, so it isn't like they could actually track you down to ask for that firstborn you promised them.

Other than some pretty weird copyright statements like the latest Facebook TOS I've never really seen anything that made me look twice in an EULA (and no, truthfully I don't generally read them).

Again, even with the "we own your stuff" type agreements, I think it is just another attempt to completely cover their own asses and prevent users from trying to sue them for publishing stuff they posted publicly out of their own free will. Yes it is going too far, but you can't blame them for trying... well I guess you can blame them for whatever you want really ;-).

No, the CRTC defines the Canadian content broadcasting rules. Obviously the network asked SCTV to help them meet their requirements, however the rules come directly from the CRTC. The rules are beyond stupid and I can't believe they are trying to take this as far as the internet. What a waste of taxpayers dollars.