Our ISP is in a distant rural area, and the peering point to which we connect is not one of the ones where Netflix peers. We need to cache; this is the situation that caches are for. But just as banks will only give you a loan if you don't need it, Netflix will only give you a server if you don't need it.

My small ISP asked Netflix for a cache, but was refused. Apparently, unless you're a huge ISP like Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T, Netflix won't let you set up a storage node.... And they won't let you cache on your own, either. In short, if you are small enough to need a cache, you can't have one.

It's only a problem with Apple devices. Both Android and Windows devices are generic bluetooth. My Windows Phone (HTX 8X) works wonderfully with my VW, which connects via bluetooth for the phone part, and bluetooth audio for the music part. Works seamlessly. iPhones... not so much. As long as people use devices that conform to generic bluetooth standards, it's not a problem.

Do the best and the brightest know the difference between "lose" and "loose"?

I'm SO happy that I pay for software. I don't have to deal with all of this open source drama bullshit, and have to worry about when somebody's temper tantrum decides to end or radically change some software that I rely on for my business. My eyes glazed over halfway through the story summary, and I really don't care.

Hilarious article. Shuttleworth is giving himself entire too much credit. Is Apple is doing this, they won't be following his failure. They'll be following Microsoft's still-in-process move of trying to combine the two.

Requiring people to use upper body strength is probably considered assault by most Slashdotters. Nowhere have I seen more people complaining about not being able to pick up Gadget X or Gadget Y because the few pounds it weighs is overwhelming to their frail bodies.

. FACT: higher corporate taxes leads to reinvestment in the company, which leads to an expanding economy.

I can personally vouch for that. Absolutely.

Looking at the financial state of our Federal government, state governments, and local municipalities, it is entirely unfair to leave off the Republicans and Democrats from your list.

Republicans and Democrats generally don't use "refusal to pay taxes" as a plank in their platform/philosophy.

Only when it's voluntary will we be civilized.

Just curious, what does your Ayn Rand shrine look like, kiddo?

The user's service did not include permission to operate a server.

ISPs have no problems with their business models. It's Google who has a problem with their business models... if there's a penny left on the table that Google (which is the force behind the regulations) can't grab. Or if ISPs, who build the Internet, actually get to make something for their hard work.

The user is not paying us for the bandwidth or duty cycle to run a server. The content provider is hoping that we won't notice and that it can effectively become an unauthorized, non-paying user of our network resources. Google has had P2P built into the Flash player for use by YouTube, incidentally.

You, the user -- especially if you are a typical, naive user -- have no idea how much bandwidth you are using. Nor do you know whether the app you downloaded just to "access" a service actually turns your computer into a server, which the content provider hopes will be hosted on the ISP's network for free. ISPs are not making massive profits -- in part due to shenanigans such as these. But Google has multiple monopolies and is making billions.

Total BS. As the operator of an ISP (and a former columnist for InfoWorld who was dismissed because I didn't go along with Microsoft's monopoly propaganda... not much different from monopolist Google's fearmongering above), I can say with authority that no ISP wants to limit what sites users can visit. That's the scare tactics that the lobbyists are using to push so-called "network neutrality" regulations, which are not neutral at all; they're designed to tip the economic balance away from ISPs and toward content companies such as Google. The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth or attempt to demand priority delivery of their content -- in short, when they ask for something for nothing. They also prevent ISPs from blocking software that exploits the ISP's network for the benefit of a content provider. In short, they're all about regulating the Internet in ways that benefit powerful corporations. Worse still, they let the camel's nose into the tent. If the FCC can regulate the Net to advantage Google, it can also regulate it in other harmful ways. Want to see censorship? Government blocking of sites? Even more intense spying on your Internet activities? If these regulations are not overturned, the precedent will open the door to all of those things.