Yes, but for what added benefit? If someone else has enough access privileges to get cookies from my browser session before I click logout, then they almost certainly have enough privileges to just install a key logger and steal my username/password directly. Same for if they're able to install a trojan browser that doesn't actually delete cookies when instructed to.

But it's nowhere near as effective as the Firefox version. Last I checked, the Chrome version couldn't block those annoying ads that play at the start of some video clips, whereas with Firefox I didn't even know such things existed.

"Over" is certainly the correct word, but the phrase is in the wrong place in the sentence. As written, "over the past six months" modifies the main verb of the sentence, in this case "told." A better phrasing would be "Santiago-Serrano told authorities he stole $50,000 worth of computers over the past six months".

Or even better, just set your browser to only allow session cookies from nytimes.com and block anything longer term. On Chrome, this is done via

Options -> Under the Hood -> Content Settings -> Manage Exceptions -> Add [*.]nytimes.com and set it as "Session Only"

Really? You're telling me I don't have the right to sell a car I own? You might want to check your facts there.

Not really. Is it OK if I put my mp3's in my Dropbox folder so I can listen to them at both work and at home? That's certainly not MY hard drive, but it seems perfectly legit to me.

Amazon is NOT starting a streaming service where you don't have to pay; what they ARE doing is starting a service that helps people listen to music they already own. If I have the right to listen to my music (which of course the RIAA would prefer I didn't), then why don't I have the right to hire a company to help me do it?

If you read the link where these numbers came from (I know, that would be WAY uncool around here), you'll see that "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."

Do you really think the University of California as an institution gave $1.5 million to Obama? Of course not, but add up all the generally left-leaning faculty, staff, grad students, and alumni across all the campuses and that number sounds much more reasonable.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but couldn't you be doing something perfectly legitimate like streaming live baseball or even just watching YouTube videos? I imagine that would use a rather large chunk of data rather quickly.

Tethering apps, much like home NAT routers, will change IP, link, and physical layer properties of your packets but will leave the higher level stuff intact. In particular, HTTP headers are not changed by these processes and that is where the user-agent string is located. You can think of a packet you send as being something like:

[Wireless header]
[IP header]
[HTTP header]
packet contents (this gets blurry with HTTP as to what you call header and what you call data for a request)
[HTTP footer]
[IP footer]
[Wireless footer]

So this of course gets us into the whole other discussion of why a common carrier has any business looking at the packets I'm sending/receiving any more deeply than is necessary to route them where I want.

And if you want to do it in a way that won't potentially cost you \infty dollars if the share price goes UP instead of DOWN, you do it by buying a Put Option. It costs you a little in fees vs a naked short (also known as selling a naked call), but the maximum you can lose is the initial fee you pay.

http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1300132800000&chddm=486795&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:ZZ&ntsp=0

Ouch. Personally I prefer stuffing my extra cash into my pillow

And the problem is? Personally I don't really care if my service is $50/month or $10/month + $10/month per 50GB. My guess would be that in the future we'll see ISPs implement usage rates more like cell phone companies in that you get some allocation of "peak time" data with your monthly plan and then get charged for overages during those peak hours but not for usage during off-hours (or at least get charged at a lower rate). In the end my cost will stay about the same, my grandmother's will go way down, and a few people will see theirs go up. What's the problem again?

So I know it's uncool to RTFA, but AT&T is not in fact implementing a hard cap like Comcast wherein they cut you off completely after you exceed it. Instead, they just charge $10 per 50 GB that you go over. Yes it sucks from a Net Neutrality standpoint that they aren't including U-Verse traffic in the "cap," but at the end of the day really all that's happening is that ISPs are moving to a business model more like the phone companies have been using for decades.

Civil suits, sure. But criminal charges? Really?

Or it could be that you're looking at the Paid part of the site...

No, they don't get to keep them, but they do get to get your business by having prices that are automatically 7-10% lower than the store down the street.