all of the connections are already paid for. what is to keep them from double dipping on the peer connections?

In all of the blogs, ./ stories and articles that I've read regarding Net Neutrality, I have yet to hear anyone speak about network peering. Here's a scenario: Your ISP is BigCo-A, and the server you want to access is using BigCo-C. BigCo-A and BigCo-C are not directly connected but use BigCo-B as a common peer (to bridge the network gaps). If BigCo-A and BigCo-C decide not to throttle anything, but BigCo-B does, then all that traffic will be throttled regardless of who your ISP is or the ISP of the server host.

It's not a problem on linux because the community manages the software repository. If it is found that a package owner (someone who creates the .deb or .rpm packages from the source of the original project) is adding malicious code, the package will be removed rather quickly, package owner probably banned and who knows what else. I doubt Microsoft would allow that level of scrutiny in whatever repo system they setup for this.
Anybody else is welcome to chime in if I'm incorrect on this.

I'm waiting to read the article about Apple sueing Microsoft now because the users can't distinguish their products apart (having round corners, a touch screen, and all that).

Fuck the Borg. The Iron-Men assimilated the Borg a long time ago.

Yes, when the original composers and artists of the songs themselves release an album your logic applies. If somebody else were to mix a bunch of 3rd party songs and try to sell them on a CD the "artistic decision" of the original artists and composers is absent.

Just to be the devils advocate here; would it be right for Spotify or its users to claim copyright over all their playlists? They're released publicly and required "artistic decision" to create.

It really depends on which funds you cut. If we cut out all the free food we're giving away to other countries, all the bail-out money to other countries, the weapons we're giving to other countries, etc. life in the US would probably be much nicer. If we (the US) stopped trying to rule/fix the world and focus on ourselves we could become more stable and eventually be in a position where we could graciously assist other countries if/when they asked for it.

Prove what? Prove that they genetically modify seeds? Look at their website. Prove that they also produce pesticides and poisons? Look at their website. Prove that there are side effects? I haven't seen nor heard of any proof that there aren't. You do realize that using big words doesn't actually make you smart right?

And it's just a coincidence that the largest poison and pesticide company is also the largest agricultural seed producer? I'm referring to Monsanto. Who's to say that all of these genetically modified foods have zero adverse effects?

I thought I was on Slashdot, but I believe I found myself on an economics forum or something... Hmm; better go back to the google and try again.

I

Did you hear that whooshing sound when you replied?

Imagine that; the government denying that it's doing something illegal. Maybe he was narrating a comic strip or something and they only thought it was a press release.