How about ths:

The internet should be considered a public good, because the benefits of having it are spread to the entire public in the form of greater communications and information spreading.

Also, the internet was created and funded by the federal government, and currently continually uses public land.

Because of these reasons, we should have a say in assuring that the internet continues to operate in a manner primarily supporting the public good, and not primarily as a for-profit endeavor.

Now we know how the Heisenberg Compensators work.

Fantastic how they're crying for "openness" a mere day after they announce Selective Output Control DRM in Flash.

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/05/adobes-new-flash-drm-comes-with-selective-output-control.ars

Considering the forces that make H.264 the dominant codec for just about any video media created digitally, I'd call this more than a trivial issue. The level of control they desire gives them power over much of our new media. The sheer potential size of the issue is why it should become the concern of the government. ..and yes, governments generally do have the freedom to control what other people offer to sell to you. They're generally called consumer protection laws.

Sweet! Random hot naked chicks calling us on videophone!

Then you've lost the use of the PSN and anything that requires it.

Either way, you've lost a serious amount of functionality that was claimed on the box. If you don't install, the functionality happens to be "play games"

Just because someone tells you they're making a dick move doesn't mean they're no longer making a dick move.

An adoption contract, maybe?

Not everywhere, as it's a station-by-station choice.

I spent a good portion of last night listening to a number of stations listed on shoutcast, and it did seem like half of them *did* have BBC World News as their overnight programming.

How is he exactly doing any of that?

The increase in price is something Microsoft sets.
The reduction in profits is just an ephemeral reduction that would've happened in the exact same amount had he gone with linux.
Bad publicity I could sort of buy, but that could easily be attributed to the copyright holders (who have loads of money to make it look bad) as opposed to the masses of poor copyright infringers.
Software developers all have the choice to implement DRM or not, and even those who have software copied may not necessarily choose to implement DRM.

By telling all the doctors that some drug exists, who will then tell the people when they go to see them about the new giant growth in their neck.

I haven't tried this myself, but the spacebar should give you a click when the browser is in hover-mode.

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg19609.html

The president of unWired (a much more reputable ISP) has also blocked the same server. A DDoS was apparently attacking said server which wast travelling over both lines. According to this post, the block was due solely to stop the DDoS.

The reason films are acceptable at 24 frames is because there's a very large amount of motion blur inherent to the format. This blur smooths out movement and hides the low frame rate. Stop-motion animation *doesn't* have this motion blur, which becomes obvious whenever you see it.

I'm currently playing MGS4 on an SDTV and... good god, everything's tiny. It's nearly impossible to read half the material on the screen!