No, I don't, I believe that falls under acceptable use. I don't neccessarily agree with the "Don't hack your Tivo" attitude either. I'm just trying to bring some clarification as to why the "don't steal from Tivo" folks try to also clamp down on the "repurpose my Tivo" folks.

The problem is that repurposing a tivo would require the exact same skills, tools and methods as cheating tivo by stealing their service. Short of personally knowing the requester, there isn't a real good way to distinguish the hacker (repurposing) from the cracker (stealing service).

I'm going to start up a new ISP: 1 terabit/second speeds!*

*speeds may vary for transfers greater than one bit

There are a few newer models on the road with this type of functionality (OnStar vehicles?), but most road-going cars do not have such a feature. It would create extra cost on the car, so unless the government mandates it as a safety feature or the the dealers can sell it as an extra-cost option, I wouldn't expect that to change.

I wish I could suck like that...

Yes, that was an absurd statement. Our military has tried just as hard as anyone else's to keep its failures under wraps. The classic example is the air force bomber that crashed back in the 50's, killing the entire crew. The military said they couldn't release the crash report because the plane was carrying super-secret experimental instruments. About 15 years ago, the report was finally made public. It turns out the plane crashed due to a known faulty system. It was known that the particular plane had not been upgraded, but the decision was made by the brass to continue flying the planes that had not been upgraded. Oh, and the plane was on a completely routine training flight, and was not carrying any secret equipment or cargo. As the cyclons said, this has all happened before and it will all happen again. Our government is no less guilty than any other government.

Maybe some PHB equates packet loss with dropped calls, and told the engineers that packet loss would also equate to job loss. Not the first time a person in authority forces a bad configuration choice based on a complete misconception of a situation.

It sounds like you want to send an email to all your co-workers with a link to something cool online. The cool link will then teach them not to click on links in emails containing suposedly cool things. Your delivery mechanism is exactly that which you wish your users to avoid. I'm starting to come around to the school of thought stating there will never be enough motivation for corporate users to learn this stuff, so it is futile to try.

Broadcast networks have existed for more than fifty years on a model that had massive overhead but was free to any user within range of the signal. Now, there is a way they can provide their same product via the internet with massively lower overhead, but they can't figure out how to make money like they used to? Or even make money at all? Did these guys all go to the school with an MBA program that taught them to find a stable company that looks like it would run on autopilot, and just cash the checks as long as the good times last?

Myst was just a slideshow of pre-rendered scenes. It looked epic for its time, but since it was basically a (very clever) hack around the lack of graphics horsepower of the time, it didn't contribute anything to the advancement of the art. I see it as an evolutionary dead-end.

I can't wait until "Math: The Musical!" is making the rounds off Broadway.

Comcast already harrasses the 5% of their users that rack up the highest transfer totals. This is generally acknowledged to be about 90 gigs/mo. If SBC suddenly starts giving out 25 mb/s down, you could easily go over this limit in less than a day. What will SBC do when users start topping 1 terrabtyte of transfer each month? It's all well and good for them to say they are going to give me a gb/s 'net connection, but are they going to cancel my service for violating their purposefully vague terms of service when my transfer rates break their ROI calculations?