yup! Thankfully! I suppose it is better late than never.

How is Monsanto evil in this case? One of the big reasons cited in the article for farmers abusing the BT corn is the market price of corn is very high. Not mentioned in the article is the reason why it is so high. My cousin informed me that he is going to sell off the bit of corn they don't use for cash this year. Why? The government has been subsidizing the corn/ethonal in at least three different ways, exaggerating the price. Why wouldn't a farmer plant and sell of as much as he can and cash in on the high prices? The only reason they are able to do this in the first place is the high yield of corn crops since the 1960's (150-200 bushels and acre compared to only 50/acre years ago). Would we even consider burning corn in our cars if we were not able to realize current yields? If the government wasn't distorting the price, then normal supply in demand would limit the interest in planting too much corn and flooding the market.

+1 I've had my TouchPad for a week now and I find that the WebOS meet my needs for what I want a tablet to do. The only thing that I think would be nice is Netflix support.

I am sure there will be Facebook fans for sometime to come. I am sure that G+ won't take out Facebook. Facebook could implement the same controls that G+ has. G+ doesn't have Farmville, I'm sure that will hurt it by some people's standards. I don't worry about the integration with the rest of Google. It just tells me that Google is really very confident in their G+ product. The integration just makes sense. It is pretty obvious where they will integrate it further (e.g. Google Reader). G+ is a huge play for Google. It just feels better than anything they've done in the space so far.

Start your own circle

Keep reading.... It is pretty interesting stuff. Clearly the guy likes pop music, knows pop music history, and still likes certain aspects of Gaga. He just doesn't like the Gaga "product" and the strange lies.

I dunno, to me she seems incredibly thin skinned. I found a thoughtful essay critiquing Gaga. Check it out for a different perspective: The Case Against Lady Gaga. One of the more interesting parts of the critique is that *she* named her fans "little monsters". Odd. Another point is her subtle slam at Madonna because many people (including me) felt her new single was very similar to Madonna's "Express Yourself" in both theme and sound. She took that pretty personally. If she was true to her character I don't think she'd care what people thought.

I look at most of her stuff and It seems to me that she isn't doing anything new. Michael Jackson created new ways to dance. Gaga's stuff just seems like a bad imitation, but that is just my impression, I don't really follow pop music. When I'm listening to music it is usually 80's alternative. :)

Which level of containment? The material that the rods are encased in? The container that the water and the rods are contained in? Or are we talking about the container that contains the container that contains the water and the rods?

The tsunami busted the capability to pump cooling.

The fuel exposure is not exposure to the atmosphere, it is when the water inside the core drops below the end of the fuel rods. The water dropped below the fuel rod because they couldn't cool the core so they released the steam into the building which decreased the internal pressure. The released steam has high amounts of hydrogen that blew up when exposed to a spark (or other ignition source). As far as I know, the reactor core itself has not be breached! The press has not been very helpful in reporting what is going on. When they say "radiation" we have no idea what they are talking about. Are they talking about nitrogen isotopes in the steam? If so, this posses little threat to the local population since the isotope is so radioactive that is quickly goes away within seconds. It is hard to say because the news reports just say "the radiation spiked."

I haven't heard many reports of the dam break due to the earthquake:

Dam breaks in northeast Japan, washes away homes: Kyodo

The dam already caused serious damage, and we are all worried about what could happen with the reactor? At least they have a plan A, B, C with a reactor. How do you stop a dam break? I would rather have a reactor in my back yard than a dam.

That doesn't sound that bad to me. One of the most rural areas I have recently visited has fiber to the house. The service is provided by the telephone co-op. The co-op claims they can provide 100mbit service if you want it. This is a farm area and the population density is very, very low, but they have fiber!

That is my point. I posted something awhile ago, before the Netflix/Comcast issue came up, on how Comcast or other companies could improve the speed of certain services and not violate Net Neutrality. I said that all they had to do was let their transit connections get saturated. Create an special network for latency sensitive services and then peer that network at important points in their network. Vonage not working? Use our service. Their network to splits off traffic before it reaches congestion points.

According to you, that little plan is perfectly fine. It is fine with me since it is how the Internet has always worked.

Is Comcast de-prioritizing Netflix? No. I think you just argued why Comcast should NOT be neutral. If they were NOT neutral, then Netflix would have a better chance of working even if their transit link gets saturated. Or are you saying the government should tell ISP's how much bandwidth they should buy for their transit links? It seems to me that Comcast has the correct Net Neutral solution to the Netflix problem. That is, they should create a Yahoo!-like peering agreement with Netflix. If Netflix doesn't go for it, then that is their problem and customers will suffer or go with another ISP.

I have repetitively pointed out that peering is an important feature of the Internet. Networks peer with each other when there is mutual benefit to both parties. For example, at one point it was noted that Yahoo! only payed for half of their bandwidth (transit). Half of their content was delivered to eyeballs via peering. If an ISP's transit link get congested, then the large companies (or Colo's) that are directly peered with the ISP will get their traffic delivered faster. How does regulation help this situation? I thought Net Neutrality was about treating all traffic the same. In the case of Comcast, people complain that they aren't buying enough transit bandwidth. Comcast notices that a lot of their customers are puling a lot of traffic from Netflix. Comcast goes to Netflix and tries to make a peering agreement (a la Yahoo!-style). People complain that this is unfair to other video services because it is not neutral. Excuse me? By this definition most peering is not neutral. So where does it end? Are we talking only limited filtering and QoS? Are we talking about killing peering? Are we talking about forcing companies to buy bandwidth?