Yeah but that's just because you couldn't figure out how to exit.

Is this an attempt to be funny?

Agreed -- he's not "giving them a taste of their own medicine". Their own medicine is "it's okay to treat some packets differently". His bicycle is throttling everyone *the same*, with no discrimination, which is 100% consistent with net neutrality!

(Not all malicious ISP practices violate NN. For example, throttling everyone to 1 KB/sec doesn't.)

I thought I'd add to the choir of voices in the same position.

In short, political beliefs on this are:

- Carbon tax shift is a great idea, so long as it's a *shift* and not "we end up with both".
- Anything else is mindless posturing that will do little if anything but most likely make the problem worse -- there are major Jevons effects from e.g. efficiency standards.

Lifestyle is:

- Live in small downtown apartment, using mostly public transit and the occasional cab or rental.
- No energy usage for cooling (weather is such that "opening the window" does the trick), virtually none for heating (steam radiator).
- No lawn (obviously).

What does your wife think about posting her medical problems to the internet with your real name?

So, not only did he dodge the hard questions (about the difficulty of getting money out of politics without silencing people who want to spread a message), he did it in the least accessible way!

Transcript?

Imagine being the marketing team that had to make car dealers seem like a good thing to have!

You could say all of the above about contraction of STDs.

TIme for a national public STD registry?

So you're saying you disagree with the part of the ruling that said he could keep the clothed photos?

And that, my friends, is why CAFE[1] standards are a stupid way of reducing emissions.

Just figure out what the social cost of the emissions is, charge that much through a tax, and let everyone decide on their own whether that trip, or that vehicle, is still worth it.

Not equitable enough? Rebate everyone an equal share of the money raised this way, which protects from consumption losses at low income levels while preserving the incentive to cut back.

Going to complain about "lol wuts the point of collecting it all to refund it"? I guess you missed the fact that emissions are harmful.

[1] Corporate Average Fuel Economy i.e. cars you sell must on average be this fuel efficient.

Perhaps, but you don't get that defense when you start talking about "Our company ROCKS on [racial] diversity! ... but how much it rocks in that regard is a 'trade secret', yeah, that's it."

Maintain two separate vehicles in order to drive every day? Great, that's definitely better for the environment!

Yep -- kids are just *rarin'* to read the classics, and the they mostly fall in love with reading the moment you allow them to browse one.

That was sarcasm.

If Gates can improve school productivity as much as he improved software productivity, yes, that would be a great improvement.

I know that Window's is not the best operating system (to put it mildly). And English is not the best language.

I think the point is that, if you were to buy out the existing coal industry, there would be no more *financially invested* stakeholders in (US) coal, and thus no one who'd strongly want to fight a coincident ban.