Unless you include the country that's dead last on the list.

The best example I can think of is Obamacare. The idea was that it would be a compromise between the older system and a single payer system. The result is everyone paying more without actually improving the health care that people get with it. (note that health care and health insurance are two different things) Either of the two original systems would be better.

Sometimes the worst solution is halfway between two good ones.

There's a difference between caring what a particular time is called and caring that everyone agrees on what time it is. As long as there's no confusion, it doesn't matter if the sun is at its peak at 12 or 6.

How about we get rid of the notion that people work 9-5 while we're at it. This would help reduce congestion on the roads and make it more likely that people will be able to take care of errands before or after work instead of having to use their lunch break.

Hard atheists who claim to have the answers are rare. The problem are the ones that don't claim to have the answer, they just assert that your answer is wrong.

Really? Having your car out of power in a natural disaster means you can't easily go somewhere else for a little while to wait for them to fix basic infrastructure. If something is significant enough to knock out power for a week, being able to use the car would be one of my largest concerns.

If it is always 10 or more likely always 20-30, you might be right. If it is usually 50 but dips to 20-30 for a relatively small portion of the day (which conicides with the time it is most likely to be used) then perhaps not, especially since it's always advertised as "up to 50MB/s."

IMO, however, bandwidth is the secondary concern. The thing I'm more worried about is variations in latency as some customers/content providers get priority over others. What's more, ISPs rarely make any promises whatsoever regarding latency so there would be nothing to file a complaint over.

Unless you know of a company that has completely separate networks for their fast lanes, faster service comes at the expense of the rest. Note that faster is different from higher bandwidth.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

You assume that Comcast would have to add new equipment. While this will probably eventually be the case in many areas, before they resort to spending money, they will sacrifice their non-premium customers' speeds to accommodate the premium ones. This is doubly beneficial to them as they get more money without spending it and they encourage more customers to pay premium prices. It is also possible that an equilibrium will be reached before upgrades are necessary, resulting in permanent slowdowns for non-premium customers.

There's also the fact that even without new fast lanes, the same speed as always lanes will slow down as more people use them. Prioritizing some traffic will accelerate the process.

I'd rather see a system that allows at least one parent to stay out of the workforce instead of having to work to make ends meet.

Seems the only solution is to trap the carbon in non-biodegradable plastics.

I kind of believe their rate, but you have to remember that they're counting it as if a random person in the entire world got your phone. People that are related to you or even just people with similar ancestry are far more likely to be a match.