The entire argument hinges on the idea that Comcast's model of over-subscribing is falling down in the face of increased traffic.

But who in their right mind didn't realize that internet traffic was going to continue to grow? Frankly, I'm sure Comcast saw this coming. They had ample opportunity (and money) to make appropriate upgrades to their infrastructure; instead, they figured that they could simply keep the money, and then blame the users and other content providers for using "too much" bandwidth, passing the costs along to them.

Long story short, they COULD have kept the old model going (as other ISPs have, so far), but why would they? This strategy is more profitable, and no one is telling them they can't do it.

This. Is. Awesome. I'm really hoping that this becomes a reasonable DIY project...

Which still seems a helluva lot better than being convicted of a felony.

I have a hard time lending much credence to the "college is a bad investment half the time" school of thought, if only because it only looks at college graduates in aggregate, not by field of study.

I can pretty much guarantee that the person walking out of college with a degree in electrical engineering will probably have a MUCH better chance of a satisfactory return on investment than the person that leaves with a BA in English Lit.

However, this isn't to say that the english degree is necessarily a bad decision. To echo some of the posts above, the value of a college education isn't exclusively monetary, and as such, shouldn't be viewed merely as an "investment".

Come on. Just say 0 K.

Acknowledging the appropriate SI units only stings for a little while.

Improving upon current SSDs will require new technology! Isn't that sort of implied in the whole concept of, you know, progress?

I can't agree with this more strongly.

Technology can be a useful addition to a lecture, but it doesn't ALWAYS add value.

The most engaging, informative CS courses I ever took involved nothing more than the instructor using a blackboard. Some of the worst on the other hand, came as a result of poorly applied tech.

News, huh?

Well, since sight depends on light reflecting off of objects to work... No, as you approached the event horizon, you still wouldn't be able to see into the black hole, as no light would be escaping (hence no visual information conveyed).

As to other point, no, the event horizon would not appear to be receding. You would seem to be approaching it normally (from your perspective), however due to time dilation, the rest of the universe would seem to be aging quite rapidly compared to you.

Sorry, but that doesn't mean that high school is the appropriate venue for that sort of discussion. In a high school science course, the aim of the curriculum is to provide a foundational education. Unfortunately, this does not include advanced evolutionary theory.

If this was all that teachers were required to say, then I'm perfectly comfortable with this. I am not comfortable, however, with the undue focus on evolution theory as flawed. It inaccurately characterizes evolution as a theory that is fundamentally contested, when in reality it is supported by a wealth of evidence from a variety of fields.