Here's what I don't get: is anybody out there making piles of money off of their web browser, or who thinks that if only IE would go away they could corner the market and rake in bundles of cash from all the free downloads?

Whereas the FBI's authority gives it the power to investigate crimes and arrest people. And the U. S. attorney's authority gives his office the power to prosecute people and put them in jail.

It doesn't matter if the RIAA pushes this claim, it matters if the Washington state equivalent of the IRS pushes this claim. The RIAA doesn't engage in criminal prosecutions -- it files civil suits, and you can't sue someone the grounds they they owe a third party money. If if your local tax board takes this approach, it doesn't seem to change the equation: there are already significant legal sanctions in place for illegal fire sharing and this doesn't seem to add much to the balance.

You have a network, and you will likely find jobs from people in this network. Whoever pointed this out hopefully didn't provide anyone with much of a revelation. The man who turned network into an adverb, however, should be shot. Networks come from showing a genuine interest in people, not from networking, and certainly not from glad-handing your way around a room while handing out your business card like a protest leaflet.

I absolutely concur. It's also worth noting that being forced to sit in a room with other students and hold discussions is an immensely valuable experience. Otherwise, you might as well purchase a textbook, study on your own, and avoid the cost of tuition.

This is all handled via the Law of the Sea treaty, which the United States Senate refuses to ratify but which applies to all federal agencies via executive order. The treaty is supported by everyone from Chevron to the U. S. Navy to Greenpeace. It's opposed by a few groups on the far right who've made the mistake of believing some false information passed on to them by radio talk show hosts and other sources.

The Law of the Sea treaty gives nations 12 nautical miles past their coastline as their territorial sea, where a country exercises near-absolute sovereignty. Nations also get up to 200 miles off their coastline as their "exclusive economic zone" or EEZ. Power generation from wind turbines could be considered economic activity, and therefore be regulated by the United States up to 200 miles offshore. Everything beyond that is international waters.

State authority, however, only extends to three miles offshore. Originally three miles offshore was the amount the United States claimed as its territorial sea. Under Clinton when we expanded our territorial sea claim out to 12 miles in line with the rest of the world, it was accomplished such that this claim only applies to the federal government and not to state governments.

Oh and to justify it to the boss, I'd cite the recent court case which states ISPs may not discriminate against P2P traffic. i.e. It's effectively illegal to filter traffic, but not illegal to implement metered usage such that customers reduce usage voluntarily.

Minor point, but it was an FCC hearing against Comcast not a court case. Part of the problem was that Comcast ran around terminating connections behind your back -- and without notifying customers via TOS or any other method.

When it comes to throttling, seanadams had it exactly right: you have to provide the auto-throttle option so that people don't get slammed with a huge bill at the end of the month. Very few people want to sit around adding up their monthly bandwidth usage, so it's a good idea to start warning users as they approach the limit. Unless, of course, slamming people with a huge overage bill is part of your revenue-maximizing business model.

Perhaps, but they do have a cargo pilot at the top -- which is a refreshing break from the fighter jock monopoly.

What Mr. Bejtlich does seem to understand is that the officer corps in the military exists to provide a cadre of managerial generalists. That isn't to imply that managers don't need to learn and understand the work they supervise, but a good officer shouldn't be tied to a specific specialty. A good officer should become reasonably proficient in the skills required for his/her current assignment, while being open to learning an entirely new skill set as required by a subsequent assignment.

The military DOES absolutely need technical experts, but that's what the enlisted and civilian ranks are for. If every officer restricted themselves to learning about a specific specialty, you wouldn't have anyone competent to fills the ranks of generals and admirals.

It may be more convenient to watch videos on a computer screen, but it's certainly not more comfortable or more enjoyable than sitting down on a sofa and watching a television.

Really? Facebook killed TV? And I was trying so very hard to take you seriously.

Because the United States almost almost operates with complete, unchallenged air superiority, no one is worried about whether UAVs can take on manned aircraft. If it ever comes down to an air war, we already have the resources we need to defeat any potential adversary. UAVs, however, are used for close-in GROUND support. For quite some time there's been a strong reluctance within the Air Force to invest in UAVs because the Air Force is run by pilots. Gates, however, essentially made the point to the Air Force that "the ground pounders are getting killed out there, it's time you started providing some support." The previous secretary and chief of staff for the Air Force didn't get the message and were fired. This guy obvious values his job a bit more.