Docsis 3.0 works by bonding together four channels - each could otherwise be used for an analog TV broadcast - and allowing them to be used as one big data pipe. In regions where infrastructure is constrained, Comcast will make room for the expanded bandwidth by pulling back some analog channels and using sometimes controversial compression techniques on its other bundled services.

Right. So you lose a few analog channels and get more compression artifacts on your HD signals for the privilege of paying $150/mo for mostly unusable bandwidth (not to mention throttling and traffic shaping). Also, there's no mention of the current limitation on upspeeds with DOCSIS 3.0.

According to the Arstechnica article on the same topic:

There's something for the rest of Comcast's Twin Cities' subscribers as well. Those on the lowest, 6Mbps/384Kbps tier will see their upload speeds jump to 1Mbps. 8Mbps Performance Plus customers will see 1Mbps upload speeds double to 2Mbps. (Arstechnica)

This is of course in addition to the fact that Comcast still doesn't have the upstream bonding completely ready for rollout yet:

Comcast's first implementation of the standard will be downstream-only. According to Cable Digital News, that's not due to Comcast cutting corners-DOCSIS upstream channel bonding probably won't be available until late 2008-early 2009. (Arstechnica)

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here posting this message on a FiOS 20/20 symmetrical for $70/mo. As an added bonus, I've been able to actually use the full 20Mbps upstream: screen cap.

Maybe it's just me, but I think oxygen is extremely more important in the grand scheme of things than diesel fuel. Cutting down that many trees to provide fuel is going to have catastrophic results in the short/long term.

You missed the point here: these trees can be tapped like Maple trees for the sap that is produced by the tree. Cutting not required and it's completely renewable as the tree will simply produce more sap the next season.

The big bonus of course is that it's almost a perfect cycle in that the trees continue to live and consume atmospheric carbon as they grow.

On another note, I'm not sure what chemical and bio-mechanical processes are required to produce this diesel, but perhaps it may even be possible to isolate the genes responsible and create genetically engineered, fast growing algae which could be harvested for the diesel.

It's definitely an interesting concept.

It's not fair to the consumers if they're not getting what they paid for.

Yeah, because that sounds completely fair and reasonable.

Actually, it does. It would force companies to rethink their designs to make the products more componentized for disassembly, with greener materials, and easier to recycle.

The laser is immeasurably more effective, if they can make it practical and useful on the battlefield. Instead of firing rockets at suspicious mounds on the roadside, you let a computer train a high-powered laser on it for two seconds from a distance of 1000 metres to see if it's a bomb. Seems simple to me.

Except you are forgetting to mention the key shortcomings of this system:

1. It's bigger and heavier than any of the alternatives I mention. So what happens when they end up in an ambush? They'll be weighed down with extra hardware that won't have practical uses when being swarmed at close range.

2. It's many factors more expensive than any of the alternatives I've mentioned for the purpose that they are advertising. It's pretty clear that if you have line of sight, you have cheaper, faster, safer, and more convenient alternatives (.50 cal high explosive). Whereas a sniper can carry, oh I dunno, 100 rounds? Do you think that current battery and capacitor technology allows this weapon to fire more than a few times before requiring extensive recharging of its energy source?

3. It actually makes the humvee carrying it a bigger target than American humvees already are. It can be disabled fairly easily by a nicely placed sniper round. It's impractical for battlefield use by all respects.

4. Never underestimate the ability of the government to throw money at defense contractors to create expensive solutions to problems that aren't already solved. Ref: Osprey.

Also: Iraq's Coming Robot Wars

The requirement is for a remote-controlled, wireless robot that weighs 50 pounds or less "to be used for Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detection and identification," according to the Pentagon's solicitation.

I offered it as one extreme possibility (and half jokingly). I mean, you guys seem to be ignoring my other alternatives for no good reason.

IF THE LASER HAS LINE OF SIGHT, SO WILL A SNIPER WITH A .50 CAL

CAPS and bolded for emphasis.

Also, shoulder mounted rockets, cheap, lightweight, disposable, and multi-purpose.

2. I offered alternatives. I bet a sniper can hit a roadside bomb, assuming it's visible, with a .50 cal high explosive round from over a mile out. Is that far and safe enough for you? How about a cheap-o RC car mounted with C4 or a grenade?

3. How about a relatively cheap shoulder mounted rocket? Easy to carry, easy to use, cheap, disposable, light, multipurpose...

These are all better alternatives than this laser.

1. It's a huge honkin' target for the terrorists.

2. It probably costs $#,###,###.00 per unit. By contrast, a shoulder mounted rocket costs how much? How about a nicely placed sniper round at the lens? Yeah, terrorists win; your tax dollars lose.

3. How do they expect to charge the capacitors/batteries out in the wild? It'll blow one charge and then need to wait how long until firing again?

4. I'm pretty sure that troops would prefer a tougher, faster vehicle over another variant of the Humvee with a huge bullseye on its back adding several hundred/thousand pounds to the weight of their vehicle in case they need to get out of a sticky situation fast.

5. Clearing roadside bombs? A .50cal high explosive round seems like it would do the trick better than this at a MUCH cheaper price. How about giving them some RC cars mounted with C4? Or how about just throw a hand grenade at it? Why such hairbrained solutions to such a simple problem? (Finding them is the hard part, but that's a different problem altogether and one that this weapon doesn't solve anyways.)

Not that it's a waste...I'm sure it'll be badass and the stuff they learn today will build better variants tomorrow, but they're smoking crack if they think this thing has any sort of *practical* real life application today.

You've got it right; I've never understood this argument:

While the freedom to use your phone with any carrier is nice to have, the average price of cellphones would also be much higher because they would no longer be subsidized by carriers.

If anyone is saving/making money in this arrangement, it's the carrier, not the consumer. For people like me, I don't care to have the latest phones and I don't upgrade my phone every 6 months (or even every 2 years). My phone is subsidized by my initial contract yet I am stuck paying the same monthly rate after my contract period expires.

I'd rather have more expensive phones (no subsidizing) and lower monthly rates since I intend to keep my phones longer than the contract term.

"The outcome really doesn't matter, and people are picking based on popularity."

The real problem is that people aren't picking and instead, sticking by good old DVD.

I think that's possible for a number of reasons:

1. Efficiency. Airlines are more efficient now with the aid of computers that run algorithms to design routes which allow maximum capacity. This also includes creative routing of flights to ensure that each flight carries the maximum number of passengers possible. This is more apparent on domestic flights, but also occurs on international routes which have a domestic leg.

2. More flights. Naturally, I bet there are many, many more flights to India nowadays compared to 13 years ago. When there are less flights, it would seem that each seat would carry a premium since more people would be competing for the same seats. The airline charged $1800 because it could. There are probably also more carriers that fly to India nowadays so the competition drives prices down.

3. Cutbacks. Airlines, at least the American ones, have been cutting back on their expenses tremendously. From employee salaries, to dumping pensions, to reducing in-flight services like meals and what not. For example, on many domestic flights today, you have to pay $5 to get a snack...

4. Reduced quality of service. Most airlines nowadays have automated check-in and online check-in which is, in most cases, a convenience). However, they have also reduced the number of counter clerks/ticketing agents which becomes a bottleneck (like when we had that east cost storm a month ago that gnarled the entire system) when there are delays since lots of people must be re-processed/re-routed.

Manchurian Candidate anyone?

It's actually quite scary. Monitor vitals today, inject testosterone/some chemical cocktail tomorrow to increase killer instinct on the battlefield? What's stopping the government from using the same type of neuro-stimulus that are used in training rats? Score a kill and get a small electrical signal that simulates sexual pleasure. Drop 5 baddies and you get a testosterone high...

Quiet scary indeed.