I'm 29 and a number of my friends are starting to have kids now and they are creating email and Facebook accounts for their newborns. So far I've accepted all the friend requests because I'm not clear on the etiquette of how to properly tell a baby I don't want to be his friend...

The problem with TVersity and PS3Media Server is that they require your desktop to be on to transcode everything. I store my media on a NAS and I even have to run Twonky on the NAS to get it to talk to the 360's custom uPnP thing. I'm holding out for the Boxee Box so it can stream online and local network content without having a go-between.

I should add that I don't play WoW so I haven't tested with it specifically, but my roommate and I can play simultaneous games of SC2 or TF2 while on Vent/TS so it's more than capable of handling two connections to a single source.

I still swear by the old form factor blue WRT54G routers. You can still find the L version (running the original linux firmware) on Amazon for somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 but I don't think Cisco is making any new ones. Drop the newest version of DD-WRT on it and it does everything an entry level commercial router will do.

Wish I could mod this funny...too bad all my mod points argon.

This is why I'm still hopeful for the Boxee Box. It's twice the price of the Roku but the local/networked media streaming, multiple content sources and QWERTY remote all look promising.

We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about the end user's connection. Net Neutrality is about the content providers' connection.

I have no problem with tiered bandwidth plans. I play online games and stream movies and TV shows over Hulu and Netflix so I gladly pay for the top tier service to have the most available bandwidth. My parents check email and read the news online so they have the basic tier. There's no need for everyone to have a 30/10 Internet connection.

To quote SaveTheInternet.com
"Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination....The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression."

Since you cite Comcast as the example, they just bought NBC. Without Network Neutrality, what's to stop Comcast from throttling the ABC and CBS websites unless they pay for top tier service? The lack of neutrality undermines competition and traps us in a system where a few powerful corporations control the content we see and hear. When was the last time you heard independent music on a radio station that wasn't in a college town? ClearChannel decides what music you want to hear and then puts it on repeat.

The success of the Internet itself and the countless success stories that have arisen from the Internet are because of the unfettered access it gives you to the rest of the world. Anyone can create something and share it with everyone without a corporation deciding to charge them or even prevent them from sharing because it doesn't agree with the corporation's viewpoint.

Network neutrality isn't about unabated access to download copyrighted content, it's about keeping the Internet a level playing field. Without network neutrality, big companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple can pay ISPs to put their sites on the premium tier so that you get fast access to them, while poor startups and normal people with brilliant ideas will be relegated to the slower tier. I've even seen concern about ISPs one day offering packages a la cable TV - you can get Google, Yahoo and MSN with the basic package but then you'd have to add a sports/tech/music/etc. package to access those sites. It's not even limited to websites. ISPs could grant you HTTP access with the basic package and then you'd have to add FTP, NNTP, VOIP and other "value add" services". I realize that's hyperbole and possibly FUD but it's not the type of Internet I'd like to use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

I'll hold out for the inevitable 3D Extended Edition BluRay Director's Cut.

Yes it was hyperbole, but we already hear about users getting unfairly sued or threatened with being sued because their IP was supposedly torrenting copyrighted material. I can only imagine that NATing IPs would increase the probability of this happening.

If the **AAs crack team of network security pros can't correctly determine which user is using a static IP, how much trouble will they have with NAT IPs?

Only if you consider the possibility of getting a letter from the RIAA/MPAA's lawyers trying to blackmail you for several thousand dollars because some teenager sharing your IP via NAT decided to torrent the latest Uwe Boll movie "disastrous".

Although, I guess if sharing IPs will make it more difficult for the RIAA/MPAA to "legally blackmail" people it can't be all bad.