Nice reference. One of my favorite episodes.

I imagine that is only if people used this kind of thing for every little sniffle. I will admit, I also dislike the 'pop a pill' mentality of today's medicine. I feel that too many people just take what they're given blindly, and could be trading side-effect after side effect in a never ending whirlwind of treatments prescribed by a drug company stooge doctor. That's not to say they are all that way, but it's definitely out there.

I think, (though I could be wrong) that this treatment is really meant for (and more interesting for) viruses that are too tricky for our immune system - such as ones that hide inside cells that the immune system can't touch. This could finally make some of the worst untouchable diseases finally exposed to treatment. The downside in my view is, some of these viruses hide in places where when you are forced to kill cells that won't/can't regenerate. Which could suck for nerves, bone marrow etc.

But if you have HIV or something, I imagine trading a bone marrow transplant for taking a cocktail of drugs to keep yourself from wasting away is an easy decision.

We are implementers. And like all artists, there are true innovators and there are people who just slap things together. It isn't the idea that makes piece of work great, and it isn't the method of creating that work that makes the idea great. Would the Sistine Chapel be quite as impressive if it had just been another set of paintings commissioned by some bored king instead of a breathtaking ceiling three stories up?

Both the idea, and the one who renders it are important, and both lend to the success.

I seem to remember the same argument with Region Codes and DIVX. People voted with the wallet last time, why would this time be any different?

Even if they do get their way, all they will do is create a cottage industry of security-defeating technologies. And like always, the real pirates who make tons of money selling counterfeits will find ways around it.

It's the actual consumer that can't watch that latest DVD because of DRM that doesn't quite work right that get screwed.

That is a good point, I didn't mean to stress that Density was the problem, only that with a larger density it makes them more sensitive to over-usage, causing them to try and bundle services to compensate.

I suppose it's a balancing act either way.

I have Cable through Time Warner - and they allow me to have the broadband alone, and it only costs me 40 dollars a month. Now the question becomes is that competitive for the bandwidth I receive?

You have to remember that a lot of times you subsidize those around you because of shared total bandwidth (though this may end with usage caps in the near future). I.E. if you're in an apartment in a big city with a bunch of tech savvy users all at the same C.O. then you might have very low bandwidth and your monthly dollar doesn't buy you much.

However if you live in a suburb with a lot of older, non-technically inclined people you may be hitting your download cap constantly and therefore get value for your money. This is usually because all those older folks who may have internet to send pictures to their grandkids are subsidizing your bandwidth by paying the same and not using it.

So I would say the real problem isn't necessarily the bundling (though that has gotten out of hand in some places) but that they don't sell bandwidth as a commodity to the home, and business costs for it are prohibitive for home users. So the companies that offer it pretty much assume the have to get it out of you somewhere, especially in heavily populated areas where the ratio of people vs. the bandwidth requirements is unpleasant for them.

I imagine the story in Manhattan is very different from, say, suburban Indiana simply because of the density of people.