Cool, so you can get us support if we install it? That's awesome. Thanks man!

Damned Scots, they've ruined Scotland!

And clearly, that would have been impossible to link to, or even mutter a possible source.

Go ahead, we'll all continue to buy AAPL stock (Apple Computer)

The problem with that is Congress has no goals in space. "Lets be better than Europe and China" isn't a goal for a space program. Congress likely isn't qualified to determine our progress in space. Instead, they know how to make requirements that benefit their districts.

Either way, its a huge amount of bureaucracy, which can likely be better served by companies in it for profit, wanting to develop space flight for long-term use.

Good. You break it, it's your problem then.

Rules are there for a reason. Security policies are there for a reason. If you don't like it, go to another job where they "get" you. Then, you can wonder why their IT budget is ballooning and you can't get your bonus.

Go civilian/commercial spaceflight!

What? No. You're getting this backwards. Lawmakers don't seek out people informed with opinions. People with opinions (and agendas) lobby lawmakers to get their views legislated.

This is the result of profit-driven enterprise gaining access to political power, and nothing else.

I think the traffic-shaping cat is already out of the bag. I think we need to BUILD the capacity we need. Federal funds, common carrier. If you want to peer, play by the (neutral) rules. I would like our tax dollars spent at home.

NO (!) content restrictions, no censorship on these lines. If something illegal is going on, that's a job for investigators.

I'd say it is less about "tweaking" regulations, and more about the enforcement. That seems to be where partisan lines are drawn. Like all laws in the US, network neutrality will be interpreted and enforced differently, depending on who is in charge.

At the very least, this proves the data is available and could be dug up in Discovery. I'll agree that it isn't enough info to base a lawsuit on, but it probably could open the door.

I take issue with your statement, probably because it is very broad. There are no inherent problems with fiber and IPv6.

I take issue with your second sentence as well, because we both know that the building of any infrastructure will be subsidized with tax dollars. This will happen regardless of neutrality or non-neutrality. I argue that upgrading is the way to go.

QOS and DPI are already in place. Our current net is not neutral. Leaving Internet Classic on IPv4 will just make it more deprecated.

I don't even want to have this discussion. Two nets is not an option, in my opinion. Hobbling the "good" internet with IPv4 isn't a good consideration for the two-net scenario, either.

Why? Why stay with ipv4 on internet Classic? So we can have NAT?

Or, is it just because you're used to it?

I would say good luck getting OSX to drive your HP's SCSI array, or your Dell's quad-port NIC.

Compatibility lists are always your friend in the land of hackintosh. You might be able to do something with 3U or 4U generic cases. Support would likely go out the window too.

The "I will probably get modded down for this" cognitive dissonance ploy only works if you're logged in.