Right, because the drug laws have virtually stopped all illegal drug use! Well, I guess not - things are so lopsided that I can buy Crystal Meth faster and easier (no need to even get out of my car) than buying over-the-counter sudafed at the Pharmacy.

Sometimes making something illegal just means more people end up in jail without decreasing crime or making anyone safer or better off. It would be nice if a cocaine user could purchase his fix at the corner drug store so he knows he's getting a standard dose that hasn't been cut with drain cleaner or other noxious substances. And maybe it would be affordable enough that he wouldn't have to steal a car to pay for it.

Sure, some people will abuse the drug if it's readily available (just like there are alcholics), but those people are likely *already* abusing the drug through illicit purchases.

Fine, then make it truly unlimited and eat the cost for that 0.5% that exceed the cap, or set a cap and advertise it so people can shop around for the best deal - if ISP A has an "unlimited" plan with a 50GB cap and ISP B has an "unlimited" plan with a 500GB cap, the consumer shouldn't have to dig through a 10 page ToS to find out what the limit of the unlimited plan is.

I have no problem with tiered prices and different limits and restrictions, as long as those limits and restrictions are clearly spelled out in marketing collateral.

As a TMO subscriber, I (now) fully understand the 'no contract' thing. If I fulfill my contract, and the 24 monthly payments for my phone, I don't pay for the phone any more. I can bail on the contract, but I agreed to pay for the phone, so the balance is due. This replaces the ETF, which was probably mostly to recover phone subsidy, though of course an ETF that doesn't decrease over the term of the contract is profitable. That means gouging, unethical, or usurous in this context.

But if your contract permits you to bail without ETF if the terms change, and the terms allowed include fee increases or new fees, vote with your feet. If not, well, this is not only NOT NEW for AT&T, but virtually every carrier has done this.

My intention with thge TMO 'no contract' thing is to outlive the contract. My last phone failed, so I lost that bet, but the two before outlived my contract by 6-9 months. Each time my monthly cost did not decrease, though I had fulfilled my contract, and supposedly paid the subsidy. I won;t do that again if I can help it, though I may one day buy a phone outright.

And please, please explain how Europe has it so right, where most users buy their phones. And explain, if you would, how that model could work here in the US, where there are at least 2 different technologies, and multiple spectrum differences. Could I take my TMO-branded phone over to Sprint? Can my Cricket phone work on AT&T? How about my AT&T phone on Verizon? Europe has it simpler with GSM the standard and fewer spectrum problems. Different market, different solutions. In the US, phone interoperability is largely nonexistent. You buy your phone from your carrier because it works.

It sounds like the objection was that he ran servers, the bandwidth thing was merely the trigger to ask.

I'm baffled ISPs still think "servers" are something that needs banning. Reminds me of when so many clueless ISPs banned NAT (or rather connection sharing between multiple PCs in general.)

I don't think that's what TFA says:

Does their ToS really say that if you have a server in a rack then it's a violation? I have my home media and DVR servers and disks in a rack (granted, it's a 1/4 rack in the garage, not a full rack). Am I violating some ToS because I put the server in a rack instead of on the floor?

Why are ISP's allowed to sell an 'unlimited' plan that has limits? Isn't that against false advertising laws? "Unlimited" has a well known and very specific meaning, and that meaning does not include limits, not even "30,000 percent higher than everyone else".

The physicists? You mean the biologist whose name is the only one splattered all over it who has now withdrawn from further projects?

If you've seen the credentials, post them. Give us all a good laugh.

I don't need to provide my credentials. I have none in the field of physics (maths, maybe, but not physics). The difference is that I've NEVER claimed to be well-respected scientist whose opinion on an ENTIRELY new technology should just be taken as read.

And it's still a lot easier to prove a positive than a negative, no matter how difficult even proving a positive can be. That's kind of my point.

Just because Joe Bloggs says that something is bunk doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. (So what I say means nothing at all, I've already said I'm not a physicist. If you really want to get into this, what are YOUR credentials?) But, of course, if Joe Bloggs happened to be a world-renowned expert in the chosen field who work is both respected and reproducible by his peers, then it carries infinitely more weight.

So far, the only people to back E-Cat are the owners/investors - i.e. people with a vested interest in misrepresenting the product. And there's no ONE person with any decent reputation who's stood up and said "Woah, that look interesting". Not one. And in order to find someone who DOES do that, you have to allow demonstrations which are useful from a scientific viewpoint.

Again, there's a million pounds that says it's a hoax. And NOTHING that says it isn't. Compare and contrast to the situation about "psychic powers" etc. where - again - scientists have offered a million pounds and NOT ONE PERSON has stepped up and been able to demonstrate them. And 90% of them just won't even agree to take part in a controlled test, let alone sit through one.

You are confusing ignorance with disbelief. The fact you miss is that myriad people, myself included, would be interested in seeing a device that performs as the E-Cat promises. The fact that we can't, because "we're not allowed", "we don't understand", "we don't have the credentials", etc. just means that it's going to be called bullshit from day one.

P.S. I have relatives in Bologna, including those who go to that university. Want to know quite how many of them have ever heard of even the demonstration, let alone the person involved?

Sorry, but rubbish.

Six reputable scientists? Where? Names, histories, qualifications? The only ones I see involved were from dubious backgrounds and/or part of the scam. To be reputable, you also have to be independent and well-published, not just "Call me Dr" which just takes a few years of study in the chosen area.

Demonstrations? Where? When? Who was present?

Because as far as I can tell, the University of Bologna want nothing to do with him (and that's where his biggest demos supposedly happened / were to happen) and everyone else who's seen it was dubious (though there is talk that there were a couple of stooges in the audience who later went on to write about things that NOBODY ELSE present had seen in the demo).

In a court of law, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That hasn't happened, or people wouldn't be calling it a hoax. And if they judge by people who were present and took photos? Well, most of them didn't see a damn thing in any of the demonstrations, and certainly nothing that they'd attest in a court of law was anything but a demonstration under uncontrolled conditions.

It's EASY to prove a positive. It's impossible to prove a negative. Even courts recognise this. Thus, the burden of proof is really on the E-Cat people to prove they can do it, not everyone else that they can't. (i.e. Please prove that I CAN'T turn off all the lights in the world just by blinking - the only way you can get close is to have me co-operate yet "fail" to do so X amount of times, or to admit it - but it still wouldn't be acceptable proof that I *CAN'T*, just that I *DIDN'T*. But to prove I *CAN* do it, all I have to do is do it once, under controlled conditions).

And all the pseudo-physics crap (inverse square laws etc.) you have in your post? Sorry, all bullshit. Every line. Nobody but a moron would think that claims like that were made by reputable scientists in the last 100 years (we invented quantum mechanics over a hundred years ago, so please don't give me this "as a youngster" crap unless you're over 100 years old). You've either been listening to crap nutters, or you've misunderstood.

Next you'll be telling me that scientists "don't know" how bees manage to fly and all that other crap that gets spouted as science rather than just the remainders of popular urban myths that sound cool at the dinner table.

E-Cat is, was and always will be a fraud. I'll lay money on it. Prominent scientists already have (over a million dollars!). At this point, you could make more money by proving these scientists wrong than you ever could by marketing the result of the prototype.

Because anything that doesn't work out the way we expected couldn't possibly represent a free market.

Whoops, missed a word there. Why is there still no way to edit commands after posting? I'd happily lose mod points on a post if I could edit it to correct typos.

If you have a CNC miling machine or lathe to shape bullets, then you could design a 3D printable gun that has multiple barrels like a Gatling Gun, just put your gunpowder directly in the barrel before tamping down the bullet.

Reloading would be slow, but most criminals probably aren't in sustained gunfights where they need more than 6 or so shots.

Surely it would be better to make killing people illegal and not try to legislate what people can construct at home in 60 seconds after a 3D printing is completely.

If killing people is already illegal, then why do they think that if they make something illegal that can be done secretly and completely undetectable in the privacy of one's home is going to prevent any crime? Surely the criminal that is intent on using a gun illegally isn't going to shy away from downloading plans and printing them.

Thank you, kind Sir/Ma'am/Fido. That's the funniest thing I've read all morning.

Nice way to miss the point, which is: Paul hasn't done diddley-squat with any of the power already entrusted to him.