And yet if my ISP started enforcing caps and charging overages, I would almost certainly cancel my cable TV services with them. If the cost for me to access the internet increases, either through overage charges or a monthly increase to raise my cap to a reasonable level, the money will need to come from somewhere. For me the internet takes priority over TV.

It's probably not hiring "quirky" individuals that leads to a successful company. Companies that hire regardless of quirks, however, allow themselves a candidate pool that is larger and have a better chance of finding a truly great employee, regardless of quirks.

That's Mom I'd Like to Finance, right?

Fun post, though I'm sure it does not hold much scientific credential.

As for why the Central / South American civilizations did not rise to the level of European civilization, I recommend you check out Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. He sets out in that book to answer that very question. Short answer: it's the number of domestic-able animals. Also, the shape of the continents.

The "bandwidth caps and UBB are good because they protect low-use users from slow speeds when high-use users use more than their fair share" argument is false. My connection is advertised as 1.875 MB/s with a 100 GB monthly cap. If I download 200 GB at ~0.8 MB/s over a month I would not reduce other users speeds as much as if I only download 50 GB but do so at my maximum speed of 1.875 MB/s. That is about 1 MB/s that other users cannot use if I stay within my cap as opposed to violating it. Obviously there is the case where users will download huge amounts at the highest speed they can achieve for long periods, but capping the volume is not the solution. If the network cannot support x users at 1.875 MB/s, do not sell x users a connection that can get to 1.875 MB/s. I would be far happier with a 0.5 MB/s connection and no cap than what is currently offered as it would actually be based on the limitation of the technology rather than an arbitrary volume that my ISP has chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with improving service to other users.

Speak for yourself. The day this stuff comes out, I'm lining up for a bucket of faux KFC. Next, faux bacon. Third, I dunno, surprise me.

As much as I despise this entire idea, and agree with all the posters above that this is an insult to the memory of dead actors, the sci-fi geek in me knows it is only a matter of time before this is done. If not in the next ten years, then in the next hundred or two hundred. I suppose Lucas is just trying to take us into the Brave New World sci-fi reality sooner than we all expected.

There is the chance that it might work and not come across as a "me too". I find that genres tend to work in cycles. Take the fantasy genre, for instance. It was pretty big in the late seventies / eighties. Then it became tired and cliche, and laid dormant for 10-15 years until LoTR and Harry Potter brought it mainstream again. New technology and new film-making technique were able to reinvigorate the genre. In this way, whole genres tend to be "rebooted" the same way that film franchises (Star Trek) get "rebooted".

"Neuromancer: The Movie" could be timed to spark the "reboot" of the cyberpunk genre. Cyber-tech was very big in the early nineties, but then died off. With the popularization of iPhones and other portable tech, the genre is again ripe territory for the imagination of the average movie-goer. Also the looming threat of global-multinational companies and the whole planet going to hell is more center-stage than it's ever been.

However, we might still be too close to the release of "the Matrix" for it to work. Another three to five years maybe?

Sign me up for that coke&whores add-on pack. Sounds like the best thing EA has released in years.

It's a Dungeons & Dragons reference.