Let's remove the superfluous wording, it's an alternative to actual news.
Sorry, I can't bring myself to upvote spreading insanity.
Love the shot of her writing notes with a pilot pen on her palm....that's not what they mean by 'palm pilot' woman.

Ohhh Swirley.....

...vernacular and skills It no doubt has learned first hand in Its many...errr... forced accommodations.

We can hardly wait to have It demonstrate Its new discoveries encountered upon Its next...errr,,,excursion at the GBH.

...were they...mean to our "little...thing?"

Ummm... I'm confused. Does Trancecoach and others like him think that Netflix doesn't pay to access the Internet? That Google, Amazon, Netflix and the like all have a free access pass to the Internet? Or when they say "In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't." are they talking about end users and not the companies paying millions to access the Internet already? Or are they confused on other aspects?

Perhaps some aspects of this video confused them...

Right now if a person pays $45 a month for 15Mps they should expect all that content delivered to them at 15Mps. The way the ISPs want to rig it, is they want to go to Netflix/YouTube/Google/Amazon and other services and make them pay extra to get to that 15Mps. If Netflix doesn't pay then the ISP slows that content down to 10Mps, even though the end user is paying for 15Mps access. They aren't coming to the end user, yet, and having them pay extra for streaming access as shown in this video, though I'm sure they'll triple dip that too eventually. (Another problem I have with the video, beyond suggesting they'll just charge the end user extra, is that Netflix and others are willing partners in this scam, when Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and all the others have been the biggest ones to support Net Neutrality and are fighting against the cable companies, while the video seems to suggest they'll handing the money over willingly.)

And if they mean the end user... then a person not streaming and only needing access to basic text and web stuff can get the basic 3Mbps option for only $30 or 2Mps option for $15. Streaming users do pay extra already. They pay for the extra bandwidth... if all you do is browse Facebook and tweet and the like and are using the 15Mbps or higher plans than you are an idiot. The end users do pay. As do the content companies like Netflix and YouTube/Google, Amazon and the rest...to the tune of millions a year. Yes, the content itself is far more expensive. For Netflix streaming a movie is cheaper than sending the DVD, postage is semi-cheap, but the people cost a lot. Still, they pay to access the Internet just like everyone else. Nobody is getting a free ride. This is just the ISPs trying to double, and potentially triple dip fees, and Net Neutrality seeks to stop them from double and potentially triple dipping. Bad enough we have to put up with banks double dipping ATM fees...

Big companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon and the like can potentially pay the fees if they have to. The question then becomes can sites like videosift pay whatever ComcastWarner, Verizon, AT&T want? I know my little blog couldn't pay extra... not that my site's users would need more than the 3Mps plan, if that, to access most of the content... save of course when I embed a YouTube video I made.

TLDR: The end user already pays extra if they stream above and beyond what an end user who doesn't stream pays. Also Netfilx, Amazon, Google and the like all pay millions to access the Internet, they don't get their access for free. What the ISPs want to do is tell Netflix, if they want to reach that customer who's paying $40 for 15Mps access at the full speed that consumer is already paying for, then Netflix has to pay that consumer's ISP in ADDITION to the costs they are already paying. If they don't pay, then the consumer is given that content at a slower speed than what they are paying their ISP to get it at. The ISPs are trying to double dip, and someday may triple dip. Net Neutrality would stop the ISPs from doing that.

I'm sorry mate, but i'm going to have to refute a bunch of this. And i hope i can do it without coming across as religious in my approach.

"Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories," Excerpt from your full quote below.

-- The facts and science are not in contention and they are not "easily manipulated simulations". What we have are conclusions made by studious people based on data collected by electronic instruments world wide. The data is statistically analysed to find trends and patterns and then those trends and patterns are separately analysed to see how likely they are. When hundreds of those studies are done, consensus is formed and that is how humans come to all the theories that you adhere to every day; such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, etc. We then construct simulations that adhere to those theories and pass different parameters into the simulation to see what the results would be in a certain amount of time. Those parameters are the things you can change, a typical parameter might be the fractional amount of greenhouse gases per cubic metre or something like that, change in volume of polar ice per day perhaps. Thousands of studies analyse thousands of different parameter values and conclusions are drawn from the whole. That is why so many scientists now believe in climate change - because over thousands of scientific studies, the conclusions have pointed overwhelmingly and convincingly to bad news for humans.

I can't dispute your accusation that they are "based on theories". I have yet to meet a person that preferred to have their facts based on anything other than theories. A theory is a collection of ideas relating to a certain topic that are based on independent principles. The alternative is to pin words to a dartboard and throw blindfolded to construct facts. Or perhaps have a floor covered with words and let sacred chickens run round shitting our facts out for us. I'd prefer to use independent principles and the best logic we have available to us.

Please read this bit in particular
Scientists are not tricking or fooling anyone, there is no money in it for a scientist. If they try to lie, they are ridiculed by the rest of the scientists. If you spend 3 years at any decent university doing any science then you will discover that the scientific method is pretty sacred to scientists because it's the only way the field progresses.

BUT BUT BUT politicians get hold of the studies and lie to you about what they mean or how best to solve the problems they illuminate. They want your money, and they manipulate the science to get your money. They can do that because most people are not scientists, and need someone to explain it to them. So my advice is that you do not choose politicians to do that job, but instead use independent adherents to the scientific method who choose to dedicate their lives to scientific study - like Neil de Grasse Tyson who speaks as a scientist... and if he did not, his reputation within the scientific community would be in tatters, and other budding scientists like myself (and others) in this community would be highlighting just how full of shit he is.

So, are scientists lying to us, or are politicians lying to us? What seems more likely?

Wow. What an intolerant dick sucking freak. This is what they mean by the "tolerant" left??? I'd beat this guy's effing head in if I ever met him. Just to be fair.

They mean that these guys are normal because they are not hungry. I.e. they have eaten a Snickers bar and if they hadn't eaten a Snickers bar they would be hungry arseholes.

If by "flash mob" they mean surgically precise insertion of musical elites, then yes they are correct.

I like him. But he's talking about going back to before nationalism gave everyone an easy identity and consumerism something harmless to power to think about (shopping and tv).
He never mentions how the old way used to work out for the majority - straight up hard power rule. Sadly that seems the more likely outcome of his revolution -spiritual or not - rich kids fixing the libor rates or starting oil wars really don't have a crisis to deal with. They think its awesome and if their choice is to become (relatively) poor or go tiananmen square on our asses.. Guess what. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven they say and they mean it.

"Financially stable men prefer smaller breasts"

...that is one odd choice for a graph axis in this data set (financial stability, not breast size preference). They also need to clarify precisely what they mean. I assume that, on average, men with higher incomes would designate an "ideal/preferred breast size" smaller than that of men with lower incomes. I'd assume that there is an asymptotic minimum (in the b-cup range?); I doubt that 1%ers collectively prefer entirely flat-chested women.

But hey, whatever floats your (motor)boat.

Yeah, but we know what they mean and they know what they mean.

Do they mean it in the goat sense, or the other meaning?

Being homosexual by definition is abnormal. Abnormal means not the normal thing (heterosexuality lies on the norm). Being abnormal is not an insult or bad in any way, it's just a statistic. E.g. I have abnormal eye colour (hazel), brown is the normal eye colour. If they mean abnormal in another context they need to spell it out.

"treated as second class citizens everywhere they go" - don't make sweeping generalisations that are not true. It would be true to say "some places they go".

LGBT rights are only rights when a nation accepts them as so. Sad but true. And no different from any other right (all rights need to be ratified).

Don't they mean "how to draw out the anger that's already there?"

So wrong. Words mean what they mean regardless of what you mean them to mean.

I'm pretty sure you read all of it - hence the cliche dismissal "I stopped reading".

My original words were "fully cleared" and you quoted with "properly cleared" which is a synonymous paraphrasing of my words (i.e. they mean the same thing). Not the best way to quote - but allowable.

If you meant something other than properly cleared, i.e. like improperly cleared, then why wouldn't you write that? If you are trying to convey some other sort of meaning with your quotation marks then you're not using quotation marks correctly and people will miss your intended meaning. So, for my sake, please just write what you mean.