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.

The answers were all about racism, how beautiful and diverse those places were

To get a real answer from those people, ask them what area of town they live in as it will usually be quite nice compared to where they are directing you to.

How is bypassing neighborhoods with a high crime rate "racism", unless you yourself are saying high crime areas ALWAYS have people of a certain race...

There are criminals of every race. The desire to reduce the probability of crime is not a matter of race, but of common sense.

There's nothing illegal about being by far the largest e-book publisher.

I didn't say there was. Just that they have a monopoly in the ebook market, which is clear and true and definitely not illegal.

What should also be legal, is for publishers to say "you cannot sell my book for less than $X". Amazon can sell books for any price they like, down to $0, and the publisher cannot complain. Does that sound right to you? It means if a publisher irks Amazon, they can send book profits spiraling down.

It may seem good for the consumer at first until you realize what happens after years when Amazon has killed all eBook competition.

I'm glad I like the Kindle system (and I really do like it, having a lot of Kindle books), what with the government curb-stomping any possible competition for what was already by far the largest e-book publisher at the time of the events the Apple trial was about...

A nice touch Amazon forcing the publishers to cough up dough for daring to try and limit the ability of Amazon to set prices to whatever they like regardless of publisher wishes.

I don't know why you saw all that; I saw nothing like that when I visited (Safari with pop-up & flash blocke... oh)...

Perhaps these two will get even bigger asteroids!

We can name some ice chunks in Saturn's belt after all of the black kids beating up and killing white people over Treyvon.

And yet that's exactly what Samsung demanded from Apple for use of a patent embedded in a chip

Yes, embedded in a CHIP. The CHIP MAKER already paid the patent, and 2% was the amount FROM THE COST OF THE CHIP.

Are you really so stupid as to think anyone deserves 2% for a codec that is a small part of a chip you include in a product? Hint: The judge wasn't.

What if Motorola are charging Samsung 2.25% of the device's price for the same patents?

If that were true Microsoft would not have won.

The fact that they did means no-one else is being charged that level of fee.

There's NO WAY that in the low-margin cell phone business Samsung would be able to pay 2% of the total system price just for a video codec!

If you go to your account page, go to "My Logins" tab - there you can add a login with Google, Facebook, Login or many other options. StackExchange itself also has its own auth server so you just just create an account there if you prefer.

I can't remember when it was, but some time ago I believe StackExchange prompted me to move away from only having the OpenID login, so they are basically all ready to go...

If myOpenID is "one of many providers," why does this rate an article of its own?

When StackOverflow first was launched, you could only log in with OpenID I believe. MyOpenID was one of the more prominent providers, and so there are probably a lot of people that if nothing else still use myOpenID to log in to the realm of StackOverflow sites... thus worthy of note on a site like Slashdot in a way that other OpenID providers may not be.

It's good to know, I use it myself for a number of sites - basically wherever I can. What would be really nice is if myOpenID handed off user accounts to some other OpenID provider on request...

What I really do not want to do is use Facebook as an authentication provider since so many sites request permissions to do things on Facebook I do not want to let them do, and some site logins fail without those permissions.