At this point, I can't even use the speeds that the ISP claims to provide because all of the content sources that I attempt to use can't seem to saturate my existing bandwidth. This is especially noticeable with video streaming services which seem to be unable to keep up despite the fact that the advertised bandwidth of my connection far exceeds the required bandwidth of the video. I get more stuttering videos now than I did in 1998 despite the fact that I have 2,000 times more bandwidth now than I did then. So what difference does it make if I get 10Gbps over my current 30Mbps?

Microsoft,

Nobody asked you to play cyberpolice - you took that upon yourselves in an attempt to make yourselves look better after being the laughingstock of security experts for several decades. Lately you've been overstepping your bounds and now you're looking for other companies to join you so that you don't have to take all of the heat the next time you overstep your bounds. Good luck with that.

Seems to me, barring common carrier or another path to true net neutrality, both sides have more to gain by colluding than by fighting.

No, the ISPs have a lot to gain by blocking video traffic. They make tons of money on their television services and paid video-on-demand services. Every second that you're watching Hulu, YouTube, or Netflix is a second that you're not watching their paid services. They're terrified that their customer might find that they can get most of their entertainment from online sources and cut the cord from the ISP's highly-lucrative television services. Add in the fact that these third-party video services create congestion on the ISP's networks and could require them to upgrade their infrastructure and you can begin to understand why the ISPs are motivated to throttling other provider's content.

In addition to that, the ISPs have more leverage in negotiations with third-party content providers because many of the ISP's customers have little to no choice for an alternative provider. Therefore, the third-party content providers need to pay the extortion fees to the ISPs in order to continue reaching their customers. This situation is not going to change unless serious competition or regulation is introduced.

One of the advantages of a fully-electric car is that it has very few moving parts and requires hardly any maintenance. With a series hybrid such as the Volt, you now have a generator that adds a lot of the maintenance that would be required with an ICE. The Volt may be a nice option at the moment to help some people overcome range anxiety, but the better long-term solution is to ditch the generator and the maintenance it requires and go fully-electric.

Because of the manner in which the NSA conducts upstream collection, and the limits of its current technology, the NSA cannot completely eliminate 'about' communications from its collection without also eliminating a significant portion of the 'to/from' communications that it seeks.

I wonder if that would work for me. "Your honor, I had to rob all of those banks because I could not afford the Lambos and prostitutes that I seek."

Of course the government would have to eliminate such a program that gathers what it seeks... because what it seeks is unconstitutional!!! How the fuck did they write a 191-page report and completely miss that point?! I'm sure there would be a ton of people ready to cite Hanlon's Razor, but nobody is that dumb. If you still don't buy into that, then let me introduce Organgtool's Razor: In a world where everyone buys into Hanlon's Razor, all it takes for evil to triumph is for it to wear a veil of stupidity.

I never have and never will sign one of these contracts. The way I see it, everything I do on company time and/or company resources is property of the company and everything I do on my own time and/or my own resources is my property. Few things in life are so simple. When a company places a contract in front of me that even insinuates anything to the contrary, I do not sign it. If they point out that I did not sign it, I simply declare it unreasonable. The HR person usually frowns and lets me go without signing it or by signing a modified version initialed by us both as you did. Companies only pull this shit because people don't read what they sign or they sign it thinking it will never be enforced. The fact of the matter is that the company probably spent over $10,000 finding a candidate for the position. They're not likely to throw all of that away because an employee doesn't sign one part of the contract that most sane people would find unreasonable as long as you decline politely and offer to sign a modified contract that is reasonable.

I'm all for privacy, but it's your own responsibility to protect your privacy. If you don't want your communications broadcast to the entire neighborhood, then take the steps necessary to set up encryption on your broadcasting device. There was a time when setting up encryption was difficult, but now it is a breeze and there is simply no excuse for not doing it. The instructions on most wireless routers even highly recommend encryption, so not setting it up is willful negligence on the user's part.

Whenever two established giants in different industries require collaboration to bring a new product to market, there is always going to be power struggles and dick-waving. In this case, it is exacerbated by Google's eagerness to go right into full-blown autonomous cars instead of the incremental approach that the car companies want. This make sense since all of the responsibility of any issues that arise in this technology will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the auto makers. In any event, I think Tesla would make a better partner since they're a bolder company who isn't afraid to jump in with both feet.

This is hilarious. You cite the "free market" when referring to a copyrighted work. The very copyright that protects this work is a government-granted monopoly allowing entities to create artificial scarcity. In a free market, there would be no government interference, the monopoly would not exist, and we wouldn't have all of the nonsense we're currently debating. I'm not saying abolishing copyrights is the way to go, but copyrighted works do NOT fall under the umbrella of the free market.

I used to be extremely excited for fuel cell vehicles about 10 years ago. Then I learned that they don't perform well in cold weather, are very dangerous during impact, hydrogen is not easy or cheap to make, and most importantly of all, you still have to go out of your way every so many miles to find a damn station to fill up. Compare that to electric cars which require less maintenance, are safer, work better in the cold (albeit with slightly degraded performance), already have established channels for generating and distributing energy, and allow me to leave my garage fully recharged every day. At this point, electric cars have a big competitive edge and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

People always come back with this argument, which is why I qualified it with IPO. And could you or someone else please explain how later public offerings don't dilute the ownership of the company amongst the existing shareholders?

If only there was an organization who could work with SpaceX towards this goal. This organization would have to be goal-driven rather than profit-driven. Years ago, that would have been NASA, but we had to gut their funding because they're not as essential as blowing up people of other religions on the other side of the planet nor do NASA's endeavors bring back a big enough return on investment.

The whole thing is really a shame. If we hadn't already gone to the moon and attempted to do so today, the mission would get no support. Everyone would be asking why we were doing it and what would we be getting for our money. Looking back, those missions created over 400,000 jobs in engineering and created advances in propulsion, computer software and hardware, materials and mechanical engineering, insulation, navigation, etc. The discoveries made during this period set up the U.S. for decades of prosperity greater than anyone imagined before the mission. Now we're stuck in a society where nobody wants to do anything unless there will be some kind of return almost immediately. Keep challenging people's notions of our limits and fighting against the mindsets of small-minded short-term investors, Elon. You've already proven them wrong with Tesla Motors and if anyone can get us to Mars at this point, it's you.

You hit the nail on the head. An IPO is a one-time fundraiser that requires permanently surrendering control of your company to a bunch of greedy, short-sighted psychopaths who are only concerned with doing whatever it takes to pump up the stock price, even if it means sabotaging the long-term viability of the company. It's beyond time to start exploring new methods of investing.

May I suggest the new name to be the Washington Indians? Their mascot could be a man from India in a business suit wearing a Native American headdress.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that we're in another tech bubble. But at least we can have fun seeing which bubble bursts first (HFT, medical, student loan, or tech).