I think this is exactly it. AT&T and Verizon shareholders are used to the huge profits that they have been reaping on the backs of consumers, and they've been getting backlash on their dwindling profitability, in part due to lower revenue per user since they are making less off the phones, as well as less off the monthly recurring charges.

FTA, it was more of a generalization on 2 black holes collapsing. It wasn't talking about anything specific in this case.

So you had to go and play the race card didn't ya?

It's not population density. It's urban sprawl. The US cities just keep expanding and expanding. The cable companies are constantly building out new infrastructure, and this costs a lot of money. The reason that the high density areas are still being charged a lot is because they're basically subsidizing these new neighborhoods.

I'm not sure that getting news on FB means getting it from your friends necessarily. I get my news from FB, but not from my friends on there. I get it by "Liking" different news pages. I did that mainly because this is the easiest way to setup a feed on Android. Instead of having to setup a dozen or more different RSS feeds (and find a good widget that I like, which I haven't yet). Now, all I have to do is connect with FB. I barely even see my friends commenting. FB, for me, is all about news. Some sites that I get my news from: CNN, Slashdot, Jalopnik, Wired, CNET, various sports, financial, music, and comedy pages, plus some other miscellaneous ones, and I think I get a decent amount of information on the main screen of my phone. Makes it pretty convenient.

Good point. And with the overall, general hatred towards the government these days, people aren't looking to work there, including the military, since there is a war going on. General government work, and especially the military, have been places in the past where most people get their security clearances. Then, they can leverage those to get a job in the private sector. It doesn't look like that's happening like it used to.

If you're a real geek, the answer is always yes when it comes to learning new things. It doesn't matter what it is.

You think you and I are in a monogamous relationship. Sorry to tell you that you're just one out of dozens, and its this egotistical, self-centered attitude that we're all really sick of. I may have needed you at first, but now I could really care less.

At least then, I might watch it.

At least the swimmers won't have to shave their body hair. It will just fall out naturally.

But, then there's also this verse:

Quite a bit of murder involved.

By making drugs legal, it solves a couple of things. First, it would stop the synthetic drugs that have been popping up everywhere. These are much more dangerous than the drugs that they try to imitate. Synthetic marijuana has killed people, but real marijuana doesn't. That's a byproduct of the War on Drugs. Second, it could be controlled and taxed, which would bring down the prices and negate the risk for organized crime. For example, when I was in high school, it was easier for me to buy pot than it was to buy alcohol. It wasn't worth it for the local drug dealer to sell me beer, but it was for pot.

She should have used this opportunity to say, "A lot of us are telecommuting nowadays, but our collaboration tools suck. Let's fix that." Instead, she resorted to the more archaic solution. And that is why they will fail. They need to look to the future, not the past.

Holy hand grenades are fine, since you have to count to three before they explode. Not one. Not two. But three.

I'm not sure exactly why they chose only "streaming." Also, from the summary (which quotes the article), the way they have it written, it's all streaming of copyrighted works. Wouldn't it just be the unauthorized streams?

So, does this mean that even the legal broadcasters are committing felonies? Or is this just poor writing? I would think it should read "making the streaming of unauthorized copyrighted works a felony." The sentence then takes on an entirely different meaning.