No, but those of us that do should expect 1-2 day shipping -- much like Newegg .Their baseline 3-5 days (or whatever) shipping hits me in San Luis Obispo the next day every time.

If the rich paid 100% of all taxes they'd still have tons more money than me.

BASIC? Really? In 2010 someone is making products with BASIC?!?!?! This has to be for legacy supp... wait you say it isn't? WHAT THE FUCK!!!

Please do your students a favor and use Python.

The software you listed is worth nowhere near $150. I'd pay $30 and maybe up to $60 if I was an early adopter. Its a text processor, spreadsheet program, and slideshow program. Woop-de-fucking-do.

Welcome to the Internet, sir. Leave your morals at the door please.

What research? Links plx.

IMO, humans shouldn't be driving cars. Our computers today are plenty powerful enough to do such a thing.

Modded flaimbait, but I'm having trouble disagreeing with him...

"We're DOOOOOoooooooooooooomed!"

You're the one missing the point. The law is ludicrous because of the simple "yelling my credit card number at the top of my lungs and suing those who heard me" analogy. Routers broadcasting unencrypted data is exactly "yelling at the top of your lungs." Its up to you to make sure your data is secure, not the government.

Our ears are a type listening technology. Our mouths and vocal chords make up the human speaker system. Our eyes are but cameras capturing data and relaying it on to our brains. What I can sense with my ears I can sense with a microphone, and vice versa. Why is it that when I sense it with a microphone I'm all of the sudden a criminal? Perhaps this argument needs another point: intent.

Laws should not be made against a specific action because any action can be justified regardless of it's legality. Murder is illegal, war is not. Obviously the action of killing another human being is not illegal, rather it only becomes illegal when the intent was evil, malicious, or otherwise against the status quo. I wish I lived in a world where all human killings were considered heinous and illegal, but I don't so I cope (protest, vote, etc.). You would like to live in a world where whatever you say or broadcast is not used against you, but you don't, and rather than cope with it by using encryption you ask the government to impose sweeping, expensive, and irrational measures that will probably only effect those that aren't committing any crimes or abusing your property.

I think that the idea of "invasion of privacy" is very self explanatory, "invasion" being the key word. Google driving around and, by happenstance, collecting your data on their antennas is not an "invasion of privacy." It may be short-sided of them, and perhaps even unethical, but to expect laws to be made outlawing such an action is... juvenile. Find their malicious intent and outlaw that.

How is your data private if you are publicly broadcasting it for anyone and everyone to see? My name is personal data, but if I tell it to someone and another person overhears it, I wouldn't accuse that person of wrongdoing... that would be foolish. What is the difference with wireless networking? Nobody broke into your house and destroyed your property. You GAVE them access by not securing your network. Thats why they call encrypted wifi "private" and non-encrypted wifi "public."

Corporations have only shareholders to answer to, and shareholders are only concerned about profits.

Governments have the people to answer to.

I choose government control of my communication any day.

Not it isn't. They are not saying they have the "next generation" technology... they would say exactly that if it was the case. What they are doing is abusing consumers' lack of networking and electronics knowledge in order to increase profits. Nobody [that isn't a techie] knows what speed their cellphone transfers data at. They wouldn't know what the number really meant if they did, too. That is probably how they justified all this nG bullshit to begin with. On the other hand, consumers can compare one number to another if they understand that more is better. With the mystical "4G" service, we are not able to do this simple comparison and thus cannot be well informed about their purchase. This is exactly what the FCC should be trying to stop.

Where are you basing these wild accusations? Sources, please!

Since when has it been selfish for consumers to look out for themselves? Of course I want to pay less for more bandwidth and less latency. Thats called progress, dammit! And besides, telecom companies have been screwing the U.S. government and we the people for over a decade now.

In my opinion, the government should own and operate all of the telecom infrustructure and lease it out to the private sector to sell to the general public. This would bring down the barrier to entry in an industry dominated by a handful of players and lead to a much healthier market in general. On the other hand, <tinfoilhat>the government has complete control of the networks and that would certainly lead to the end of privacy on the internet as we know it </tinfoilhat>.

And thats what Quake did right. Halo, CoD, et. al. do not have a You-Against-Bots mode, only singleplayer and multiplayer.