amikula

Nice story. I'm disappointed that it didn't end with some helpful tactics for ducks you could put in your own projects, though. I also would be interested to hear the real story of what happened to the author to inspire this writeup.

From the original comment: > Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets. > Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier.

My point is that problem 1 is only a "problem" because of problem 2. If it's easy for new competitors to enter the market (which I think addresses the main complaint about charging for traffic), then "problem 1" is not a problem. It may well be the case that you can't solve the competition problem without solving the pay-for-traffic "problem", but the competition problem is the only one that matters on its own.

If Comcast wants to charge Netflix for their traffic, let them go ahead. This country used to have antitrust laws that should be perfectly sufficient to take Comcast to court and break them up if the case can be made that they're doing it to punish competition and promote their own services.

I can see the case that sometimes it makes sense and is fair to charge big users, and that sometimes this behavior can be abused to harm competition. My worry is that Net Neutrality is a sledgehammer we don't really need.

Personally, I think that solving problem 2 is the most important, and problem 1, if it is truly a problem, could be solved by a competitive free market. If it's truly possible for new competitors to enter the market, then if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it.

In the last 6 months, I've had my 15" late 2011 model MBP repaired three times for this exact problem. After the first failure, they haven't charged again for the subsequent motherboard replacements. I guess so many are failing all at once that they couldn't ignore the problem anymore.

Interestingly, the first time I had it repaired, I was charged $550 by a third-party "repair" shop who told me up front that it the motherboard needed to be replaced, then took it to Apple and payed them $330 to fix it. Caveat emptor.

While I applaud the spirit of the Freedom Clip, I have a better idea if you object to the DRM in Keurig's new product: Don't buy Keurig. There are plenty of alternatives. Why participate in the ecosystem at all if it means buying a product from a company whose products you object to? Buy a Mr Coffee if you have to have a K-Cup brewer.

It seems to me that Glass wouldn't have suffered half the backlash it got if the original release had excluded the camera. Even if everybody was just grumbling about how useless the product was without a camera, people still would have bought it, and it probably wouldn't have gotten half the bans or negative press it ended up getting.

I think in Optimizely's case, the most important factor is making sure that there's no statistically significant correlation between higher response times and A/B testing. In other words, if the higher response times result an imbalanced impact on the test, the test is invalid.

At least this would make it easier for a company to justify digging in and fighting a patent. If they're confident they can win, they can anticipate legal expenses being reimbursed. A lot of companies who today are on the fence about whether to stand up and defend themselves would suddenly be willing to go to court.

The United States needs any viable third party. Unfortunately, the Republicrats have a lock on our political system, and the only way to get a viable third party is to change the rules about how we vote.

Specifically, first past the post voting provides a disincentive for third parties to compete because they are most likely to harm the candidate who is closest to their own position. Something like score voting, approval voting, or instant runoff voting is needed to break the deadlock.

Approval voting is probably the best bet because people who want to support a third party candidate could also vote for the first or second party who is closest to their position. It's simple, and much easier to support and understand than the other options. This would allow third parties to get a real sense of how well they are really performing before pushing their supporters to actually stop voting for the first and second party candidates.

To me, this is a strong sign that the patent holder should at least run a substantial risk of getting charged for legal costs if they lose. It might require a bit more due diligence on the part of the patent holder in genuinely enforceable patents, but it would all but eliminate the motivation of patent trolls when they know their patent is dubious.

I applaud Rackspace for this act of charity to the community, but it should not be necessary. Let's root for Rackspace, but it's more important to fix the system.

Well, it is all about "pay what you want". I'm sure you'll figure something out.