Slashdot Mirror


Internet Activists Urge Congress to Fire Trump's FCC Chief Ajit Pai (vice.com)

Open internet advocates and Democratic lawmakers are mounting a last-ditch effort to remove Federal Communications Commission chief Ajit Pai over his anti-net neutrality stance, just days before Pai is set to be approved by the Senate for a new term. From a report: Since being elevated by President Trump to lead the FCC in January, Pai has become the bete noire of open internet advocates for a variety of anti-consumer actions, but none more so than his crusade to kill federal rules protecting net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible to consumers. [...] During a blistering floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat, portrayed Pai, a Republican former Verizon lawyer, as an industry stooge who has worked relentlessly to deliver gift after gift to the nation's largest broadband companies. "Mr. Pai has a long track record of putting big cable before consumers, big corporations above small businesses, and pay-to-play over the free and open internet," Wyden wrote in a blog post accompanying his speech. Free Press, a DC-based public interest group, has also launched a campaign to pressure the Senate to "fire Pai," citing his proposal to kill the FCC's net neutrality policy and other anti-consumer actions. But if reconfirmed, Pai is expected to try to ram through his plan to torpedo the FCC's net neutrality rules before the end of the year. "Rehiring Pai to head the agency that oversees US communications policies would be a boon for the phone and cable companies he eagerly serves," Tim Karr, Free Press Senior Director of Strategy, wrote in a blog post.

104 comments

  1. My vote by DarkRookie · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is for the drawing and quartering.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:My vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. The meaning of "bete noire". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    For those who haven't seen it before, the phrase "bete noire" is from the French language. "Noire" means "black", as in the color. "Bete" means "penis". In French, adjectives follow the noun they refer to. So the phrase "bete noire" literally means "black penis".

    The English equivalent of this phrase is "black sheep".

    Now before any BLM types get all up in arms over the use of the word "black" in these sayings, please keep in mind that these are ancient sayings that predate most British and French interaction with Africans or people with darker skin. "Black" in those contexts referred to the darkness of night, and not to anyone's skin color. In a time before electric lighting, and where candles and fire were the main source of light after dark, the blackness of night was tied to feelings of uncertainty and fear.

    Thus the word "black", or "noire" in French, came to be associated with negativity. That's why outcasts were called "bete noire" in French, or "black sheep" in English. It's also why the bubonic plague was known as the "black death".

    1. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      For those who haven't seen it before, the phrase "bete noire" is from the French language. "Noire" means "black", as in the color. "Bete" means "penis". In French, adjectives follow the noun they refer to. So the phrase "bete noire" literally means "black penis".

      The English equivalent of this phrase is "black sheep".

      Now before any BLM types get all up in arms over the use of the word "black" in these sayings, please keep in mind that these are ancient sayings that predate most British and French interaction with Africans or people with darker skin. "Black" in those contexts referred to the darkness of night, and not to anyone's skin color. In a time before electric lighting, and where candles and fire were the main source of light after dark, the blackness of night was tied to feelings of uncertainty and fear.

      Thus the word "black", or "noire" in French, came to be associated with negativity. That's why outcasts were called "bete noire" in French, or "black sheep" in English. It's also why the bubonic plague was known as the "black death".

      [Logical Explanation Detected]
      [Banning IP Address]

    2. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except bête means animal, not penis.

    3. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus began the "BPM" movement...

    4. Re: The meaning of "bete noire". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rayciss, obviously a Trump supporter /s

    5. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by balbeir · · Score: 2

      AFAIK "bete" means "beast".

    6. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by emaname · · Score: 2

      AFAIK "bete" means "beast".

      Yup. That's what I was taught in my high school advanced English class. It means "black beast."

      --
      An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
    7. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by thomst · · Score: 1

      blithely misspoke:

      For those who haven't seen it before, the phrase "bete noire" is from the French language. "Noire" means "black", as in the color. "Bete" means "penis".

      Mmm ... no. You're correct about the definition of "noire" and profoundly incorrect regarding the word "bête":

      Here's one source's definition of "bête".

      As you can see, it best translates to English as "beast". Nor is the above the only authority for that definition.

      It may well be that "bête" is also a French slang term for penis, but that is not its primary meaning ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    8. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      blithely misspoke:

      It may well be that "bête" is also a French slang term for penis, but that is not its primary meaning ...

      French native speaker here, one of the (there are more) slang terms for penis is "bite" but certainly not "bête".
      And I'm not sure that "black sheep" is the right translation, since it refers to a disease (brebis galeuse in French).
      Maybe "bogeyman" but it does not convey exactly the same meaning. Really a "bête noire" is an adversary/opponent
      which makes the other side obsessed with him/her.

    9. Re:The meaning of "bete noire". by hondo77 · · Score: 2

      ...please keep in mind that these are ancient sayings...

      Except it isn't ancient. The first known use of "bête noire" dates to 1805. So it is "black beast".

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  3. Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Jarwulf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see a lot of people whining about the FCC's stance turning around and gloating about corporate freedom everytime Apple/Google/Twitter/Facebook/Cloudflare takes down or censors another White nationalist app or alt-right website.

    1. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're not even remotely the same thing. What is it with the Right and their utter inability to form a coherent analogy????

    2. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Net neutrality and terms of service don't have anything to do with each other. Thank you for playing, "Who is a stupid head?" You win.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      What good is a neutral isp if you are immediately censored to oblivion downstream?

    4. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What good is a neutral isp if you are immediately censored to oblivion downstream?

      Seriously?

      Without net neutrality, everyone can be censored. With it, each INDIVIDUAL site has to do the censoring. AT&T can do much more censoring than can facebook.

      facebook censors some Nazis, whatever. They move on.

      AT&T does it, well, that's a different story.

      So in other words, with net neutrality, nothing will be "censored to oblivion". All those alt-right folks are still up an running - just not on some websites

      Lastly, corporations do not deserve freedom. They are an abstract legal construct. Unfortunately, in our twisted society where profits count more than people, corporations have been given supper-person status: all the rights of a person but without the responsibilities.

    5. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by MattKeith · · Score: 1

      You aren't throttled visiting Icelandic sites.

    6. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by postbigbang · · Score: 0

      You've never played Whack-a-Mole?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    7. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by PoopJuggler · · Score: 0

      Well look at the idiot they voted into office. Not a lot of smarts on the right.

    8. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well look at the idiot they voted into office. Not a lot of smarts on the right.

      I'd argue that ethics are a larger problem. The bus load of candidates should have all agreed that Trump was unfit and hammered it consistently, but they didn't, since everyone was out for themselves and they didn't want to alienate the crazy vote.

    9. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Fuck you racist. Those are their platforms that they make available for people to buy stuff. ISPs are getting paid for me to access stuff on the internet. I am not their commodity for them to extract value from people looking to send their content to me.

    10. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it with the Left and their hasty generalizations?

    11. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way are they not even "remotely the same thing"? Net neutrality (good) is preventing corporations from exercising control over which websites you can visit. The Apple/Google/Twitter/Facebook behavior (appallingly bad) is corporations exercising control over who can say what on forums they originally put up as purported venues of expression and sharing of thoughts. Worse, in Apple and Google's case, they're exercising control over who can write what kind of applications solely on the basis of what messages might be behind these applications THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO CHOOSE TO INSTALL. The phone markets are not at all like PC or Mac software where you don't have to care what your manufacturer wants you to do with property you bought from them.

      One of the correct arguments for net neutrality is that we the people (our government) invented the Internet, subsidized it and continues to do so, and permits the communications monopolies or duopolies to exist in the interest of serving the public. Now consider the aforementioned tech companies: they themselves constructed almost nothing of the complex infrastructure that you use to access them. Infrastructure that we the people invented, subsidized, and which, if it were to disappear, would result in these businesses no longer existing, except maybe for Apple. Want proof? How fast is Google Fiber rolling out nationwide? Oh, yeah, that stuff is actually hard to do.

      Now does that mean that I want to have the government tell those companies what to do? Interesting question. I do business with absolutely none of them on any kind of substantial level. I don't use social media and my dollar transactions with Google and Apple are less in a year than some people spend at Starbucks in a week. However, social media does to me shape an alarming amount of what gets talked about in society these days. I wish it would go away, and maybe one day it will, but for now these for-profit businesses are doing a lot more than just trying to make profits. They're trying to control the debates our society has, and in ways that I personally disagree with very much.

      Do I think they need regulating? Maybe. I'm extremely hesitant there. Do I think they need calling out for their obnoxious, slanted, and anti-freedom actions and attitudes? Absolutely, and as loudly and often as possible. Just as much as I support net neutrality and firing Ajit Pai, and you heard that from a Trump supporter. Why? Because I actually think about what an issue is and not merely who supports or doesn't support something. Trump is scarcely perfect, but people opposed to him simply seem to take the opposite of what Trump says no matter what it is that he says. Their stupidity and utter lack of self awareness would be funny were it not so dangerous.

    12. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Gab.ai the free speech competitor to twitter is fighting with ICANN. When ICANN takes your domain name away, individually or corporate, you are censored to oblivion.

      TOS excuses for legal speech are bullshit games used to censor.

    13. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Go out and see how easy it is to have an internet voice let alone an ebusiness that reaches a significant number of people without relying on anything from Google/Microsoft/Apple/Facebook/Twitter/Amazon and all the other companies in the Silicon Valley mafia.

    14. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      So wanting to make sure people can't be silenced online simply for having unpopular beliefs makes me a racist? Okay them I'm a proud racist.

    15. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is scarcely perfect, but people opposed to him simply seem to take the opposite of what Trump says no matter what it is that he says. Their stupidity and utter lack of self awareness would be funny were it not so dangerous.

      Man, talk about Deja Vu.

    16. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not even remotely the same thing. What is it with the Right and their utter inability to form a coherent analogy????

      Because the Bot needs to have its programming improved?

    17. Re:Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorship by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      You having a problem with private companies kicking racists off their platforms makes you one of the "many fine people" then.

  4. Not going to happen by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ajit Pai is Trump's sort of guy -- advancing the desires of big business over what's good for the average joe.

    1. Re:Not going to happen by pots · · Score: 2

      That may be, but Trump looks out for number one and he seems to be extremely concerned with his public image. If this got enough traction (it won't) then Trump would fire Pai in second, regardless of whether or not he agreed with him.

    2. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ajit Pai is Trump's sort of guy -- advancing the desires of big business over what's good for the average joe.

      Thank you for clarifying the entire fucking mission statement of political representatives at every level. For a minute there I was beginning to think he was an exception...

    3. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a minute there I was beginning to think he was an exception...

      Most Trump supporters seem to have this attitude about Trump. Except they can't be bothered to think he might not be the exception.

    4. Re:Not going to happen by antdude · · Score: 1

      Impeach DJT too. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:Not going to happen by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Ajit Pai is Trump's sort of guy -- advancing the desires of big business over what's good for the average joe.

      So were most of these people.

      Particularly The Mooch.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    6. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ajit Pai isn't a bug in the system. He's a feature. A feature of the Trump administration.

  5. I don't like him either by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but I doubt it's going to happen for two reasons. First is that the FCC isn't one of those headlining institutions that the GOP cares about. In fact, they'd rather it all just go away right now because they can't be bothered to govern let alone care about governing. So as long as Pai isn't causing it to rain on their parade, they couldn't care less. And second, I'm pretty certain if it came down to a close vote there would be more than enough lobbying action on his behalf to see him through. There's a lot of moneyed interests that want to keep him that post.

    Not to mention that if does deliver on this agenda there's probably a pretty cushy job waiting for him with whichever telecom or cable operator he chooses when it's all over.

    1. Re:I don't like him either by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Rallying to get people fired without a coherent replacement plan is a waste of effort. Maybe you'll succeed, but then what? Someone else will take his spot, and nothing will have changed.

      The real core of the problem is lack of choice in internet providers. Instead, we should look at places where internet choice has won (places like like Utah or Vermont), figure out what they did right, and do that at a national level.

      IF you focus on getting a plan across, sometimes the person you wanted to fire will be the one who ends up implementing it (and trying to take credit).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re: I don't like him either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Ajit Pai would never implement the "replacement plan" aka keep net neutralit, that's not what he's there for

      2. Here's a replacement plan - hire the guy who brought us net neutrality

  6. Re:False Claim by JackieBrown · · Score: 0

    Agreed. But instead he keeps fire those loyal to him. It's getting harder to be understanding about that

  7. Re:False Claim by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0

    Well, at least there's no bias or point of view apparent in the cited "report" nor the summary.

    I guess this is still /., editorials (!news) for nerds...

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  8. When will we all learn... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

    All these rich fuks are on the SAME TEAM. They just ACT like they aren't... Its called political theater. And its DESIGNED to keep us bickering. Rather than rising up and ousting the traitors and thieves that line our politics on BOTH sides of the so-called "Fence" Hillary = Bad, Trump = Bad, Ajit Pai = Bad, Government in the modern age = BAD! Its time to Re-establish the Constitution, and remove hundreds of thousands of bad/useless/unconstitutional laws from our books, and burn the Federal Reserve to the Ground. Banning the institution from America PERMANENTLY. Credit Card Companies should be Fined 90% of their worth, and then forced to utilize ONLY the percentage rates the American people AGREE to. Then, and ONLY then, can we build a nation for ALL persons, Equally.

    1. Re:When will we all learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet one party seems to continually come up with legislation to help the average person, while the other party does the exact opposite every single time.

    2. Re:When will we all learn... by Straif · · Score: 1

      And based on your political leanings the two parties referenced in your statement are completely interchangeable.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    3. Re:When will we all learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. It's not really a subjective matter whether GOP policies help the poor or not.

      For example, this forthcoming ("unconstitutional use of executive power" - Trump, when Obama did it) use of Executive orders to dictate that health insurance companies can sell across state lines. The GOP line is that it will "increase competition and lower prices". This will not happen. The insurance company will only be bound by the laws of the state it is based in, so all insurance companies will relocate to the state with the least regulation (i.e. ones that require them to cover the least stuff). For maybe a year, this will lead to a decent amount of competition, but capitalism doesn't like competition and so then will kick off a series of mergers, takeovers and acquisitions.

      Now, you'll end up with 2 or 3 insurance conglomerates, offering the worst coverage they're legally allowed to. But since they won't have connections with your local network of hospitals (because how would a company based in Texas be able to arrange the intricacies of personal healthcare with a hospital in Florida?) you'll end up with worse deals, less competition, less coverage, and once the initial takeovers end, prices will go right back up to even higher levels than before.

      That policy does not help the poor. If it did, why would insurance companies be spending millions in lobbying or getting their mouthpieces elected?

    4. Re:When will we all learn... by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And based on your political leanings the two parties referenced in your statement are completely interchangeable.

      Are you seriously suggesting that Wheeler and Pai are interchangeable as chairmen of the FCC?

      See, I don't want to assume you're nuts. I want to make sure.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    5. Re:When will we all learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you drink the koolaid.

    6. Re:When will we all learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet one party seems to continually come up with legislation to help the average person, while the other party does the exact opposite every single time.

      Which one is which? All I've ever seen from congress is politicians that pass laws to screw over the regular Joes.

    7. Re:When will we all learn... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

      I love how you people always say this BS. Obamacare, caused my employer to STOP carrying company insurance day 1. Have NOT been able to afford health insurance as a single male since... Going on 10 years. So, yeah, yer full of it too...

    8. Re:When will we all learn... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

      If you think the rich CARE about YOU... It is YOU who are "Nuts" LoL

    9. Re:When will we all learn... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Given that Obamacare was created less than eight years ago, it couldn't have caused your employer to stop carrying company insurance 9+ years ago.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    10. Re:When will we all learn... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If you think the rich CARE about YOU... It is YOU who are "Nuts" LoL

      Yeah, because all rich people are the same. Just like all poor people are the same, all brown people are the same.
      Are you a member of the Green Party, by chance?

    11. Re:When will we all learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP probably lives in Massachusetts where Obamacare was implemented by Romney before Obama became a thing. That's why Obama thought he could implement the Affordable Healthcare Act with bipartisan support.

      Thanks, Obama.

    12. Re:When will we all learn... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Do the Republicans have anything better to offer? I mean, other than repeal only and replace with tax cuts for the rich? The Reps scream for seven years now that as soon as they get the chance they will repeal and replace. And what do they got? Absolutely freakin nothing! All their proposals are so horribly bad that they cannot even get a majority within their own congress members. That's just utterly pathetic ineptitude. By the way, what about all the promises from the Tea Party idiots or the items in the "Contract with America"? Cue the cricket sound....

    13. Re:When will we all learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because all rich people are the same. Just like all poor people are the same, all brown people are the same.

      They aren't? Do you have proof to back this up?

    14. Re:When will we all learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems someones jumping in on the conversation without looking at the context. Are you just scanning the page for potentially racist statements? Have you ever heard of sarcasm before?

  9. Re:False Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So "liberals" cannot be also activists now ?

    Fucking trumpist moron.

  10. Down with Ajit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ajit Pai is by far the most intellectually dishonest person of this administration. He should be beaten to death with his peanut butter cup coffee mug as punishment.

  11. If you live in DE, IN, MT, WV or MO call Congress by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

    Senator Coons (D-DE): Call (202) 224-5042
    Senator Donnelly (D-IN): Call (202) 224-4814
    Senator Tester (D-MT): Call (202) 224-2644
    Senator Manchin (D-WV): Call (202) 224-3954
    Senator McCaskill (D-MO): Call 202-224-6154
    These are key swing votes that need to hear from you today!

  12. BROWN JOBS MATTER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all be raycisssssssssssssssss!

  13. Re:you don't have a brain either by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    but I doubt it's going to happen for two reasons. First is that the FCC isn't one of those headlining institutions that the GOP cares about. In fact, they'd rather it all just go away right now

    You can say all of that about Puerto Rico too, but neither the Internet nor Puerto Rico are "going away right now"

    I don't think it would be POSSIBLE to make a more flimsy argument than you just did

    Well you certainly invoked a broad interpretation of "they'd rather it all just go away right now". Let's make the set of things represented by "all" to include Anonymous Coward trolls on slashdot because you know, you can do that apparently.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  14. Firing because of political persuasions by mi · · Score: 0

    Unlike football players or other private employees, government employees can not be fired for their political convictions. Because 1st Amendment...

    The self-appointed "Internet Activists" can suck my tail...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Firing because of political persuasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speaking of tail, don't you have a goat you should be fucking now instead of making asinine comments on the internet?

    2. Re:Firing because of political persuasions by mi · · Score: 0

      So, you downmod my perfectly on-topic and sensible — even if contrarian — post as "Troll" and then attack me with childish insults anonymously?.. Maybe you really should concentrate on fulfilling your zoophilic fantasy and post less on /....

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Firing because of political persuasions by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should do something about that cognitive dissonance thing, or maybe you've already forgot what your own sig says.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Firing because of political persuasions by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      You can always get fired for not doing your job or overstepping your boundaries. Both is the case with Pai.

    5. Re:Firing because of political persuasions by mi · · Score: 1

      You can always get fired for not doing your job or overstepping your boundaries.

      Sure, sure. But that's not what the write-up says, emphasis mine:

      Open internet advocates and Democratic lawmakers are mounting a last-ditch effort to remove Federal Communications Commission chief Ajit Pai over his anti-net neutrality stance.

      Both is the case with Pai.

      Is it? We all know and understand perfectly well, that it is exactly his opinion on net-neutrality, that's causing all this inordinate amount of hate against him. If establishing the "net neutrality" in 2014 was within FCC's boundaries, abolishing it in 2017 is too.

      Your attempts to rationalize it failed. Why don't you join your simpler minded-brethren in calling me names instead?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  15. Re:If you live in DE, IN, MT, WV or MO call Congre by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Where's the Maryland Senator stand on this? I'm not running for Senate (my primary policy interests fall on the House Ways and Means Committee--yes that is an insane amount of power), just curious.

  16. Get the Feds away from internet by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 0

    No matter one's net-neutral opinion (however one defines it), keep the government away from regulating the internet. Look where the government regulates something extra-special because of how special said object of the regulating is. Look at drugs. Look at airlines. Look at copyright. Look at spectrum allocation and licensing. Do we want an internet that polices copyright infringement at government level? Tries to shut down the dark-web? Throws peeps in jail because torrents? All government regulation of an industry means is capture of the industry by the politically-connected special interests associated to the industry. For the internet that means the usual suspects - and I don't want a consortium of Facebook and Google and Disney's lobbyists figuring out whats legal for me to do on the internet - no matter the initial motivation to enable them to it.

  17. Re:False Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The so called "activist" are actually just liberals trying to destroy the Trump administration by getting him to turn against more of his people.

    Trump is destroying his own administration. He certainly doesn't need any help from us. It seems every other week another one bites the dust.

    We're just having fun watching this whole shit-storm go down.

  18. a nervous response! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh look there is at least one active nerve cell

    your need to respond to an anonymous troll demonstrates away your tremendous insecurity

    you could have ignored me, but no, you took the bait

    by doing so, everything you say about me is really true of yourself

    thanks for playing!

    1. Re:a nervous response! by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      thanks for playing!

      No, thank you for playing! You gave me everything I needed. Except, I won't divulge the nature of the game we're playing. That would spoil the OCD paranoia. I think you'll really like it though. Oh alright. It would be rude of my not to give you a hint. Cheers!

      --
      We'll make great pets
    2. Re:a nervous response! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're the one who's providing the analytics engines with data about your personality

    3. Re:a nervous response! by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      you're the one who's providing the analytics engines with data about your personality

      Except what you'd really need to get what you want are meta analytics and only I have that. Thanks again for playing. Here's some data analytics for you: I'm an expert at cognitive science and psychology.

      --
      We'll make great pets
  19. Re: Pro Net Neutrality and Pro Internet Censorshi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go on, itâ(TM)s assholeâ(TM)s like you that got him elected.

  20. Re:False Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    TLDR: Sexconker admits he and most Trumpies are scat fetish faggots of no value to America.

  21. distractions and trump 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so while everyone is busy freaking out about this, realize it's only the very first year of trump, there are likely to be seven more and what a wasteland it's going to be by 2024 - the same people saying he will never be re-elected are the ones who said he'd never get elected in the first place

    what I don't get is everyone is busy attacking the one who making exactly the horrible hell they promised and advertised but it was your friends, families and neighbors who are the ones who actually put him in charge despite many, many, many other options

    so this holiday season when you are meeting these very people who put him in charge and WILL DO THE SAME FOR THE NEXT, are you just going to be polite and dodge politics or are you going to point out how incredibly messed up this all is with real-world examples and remind them how it affects you and them?

    1. Re:distractions and trump 2.0 by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      it was your friends, families and neighbors who are the ones who actually put him in charge

      Umm, no, it wasn't.

  22. Re:If you live in DE, IN, MT, WV or MO call Congre by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    good place to look for more info is https://www.fightforthefuture....

  23. Nerds need to know the laws I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if the Congress decides not to reconfirm Ajit Pal, he can continue to serve for up to another 1-1/2 years until another appointee is nominated and confirmed. So what is the likelihood that the President would appoint another nominee that these same people would confirm? During the nomination-confirmation process, Ajt would remain acting Chair of the FCC.

  24. New party needed by budsetr · · Score: 1

    Can we start a new political party, the WTF Party? We just want shit to work. Our Symbol can be the poo emoji.

  25. Re:Trying to allow us access to FM radio... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem with FM radio is that previous FCC members mostly under Bush in the early 2000's that let Clear Channel buy up most of the radio stations, resulting in the corporate blandness we have today.

  26. We're talking about Old French here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You were probably taught Modern French, not Old French, in high school. We're talking about Old French here, because we're discussing the etymology of the phrase "bete noire".

    Since we're looking at the origin of the phrase, and it's an ancient phrase, we need to look to the meaning of the word "bete" in Old French, and not its meaning in Modern French.

    There are similar situations involving words derived from Old English where the earlier definition differs from the more common Modern English definition, and often in ways that we wouldn't expect.

    For example, the Modern English word "weapon" is derived from an Old English word that meant "penis".

    Another example is the Modern English word "tweezers". It's also derived from an old English word that meant "penis".

    English is a fascinating language, especially when it comes to how it has borrowed from so many other languages. French is also fascinating, although it doesn't derive as many words from non-Latin sources. Both exhibit many modern words that have very unexpected original meanings.

    Many words that are seen as innocent today were originally used to describe very primal things or actions such as the penis, the anus, intercourse, defecation, and so forth.

    1. Re:We're talking about Old French here! by QRDeNameland · · Score: 2

      Being curious, I decided to check this out, and I found nothing to suggest that "bête" was even a common synonym for penis, much less the original meaning.

      Wiktionary, which you cite for your examples, says the same thing as the GP: Borrowed from French bête noire (literally "black beast"). Nothing about penises.

      Unless you have a source I somehow missed, I conclude "bête means penis" is 100% bullshit.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  27. We're talking about Old French, not Modern French! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since we're looking at the etymology of the phrase, and it's an ancient phrase, we need to consider the meaning of the word in Old French, not Modern French.

    The definition you're talking about is that from Modern French. Words do change their meaning over time. But that's irrelevant to our study here, because we are concerned with the original meaning.

    This other comment explains exactly how you're wrong.

    If anyone has misspoke, it is you. The definition you're talking about isn't even for the correct language! The correct language in this case is Old French, but for whatever reason (ignorance about etymology, I suppose) you're focusing on Modern French.

  28. Re:False Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, . . . uhm . . . are you seriously telling me that Tom Price was the latest one to fucking get canned??

    Holy fucking shit!! WOW!! Not even 3 hours after your post, Tom Price bit the motherfucking dust!!

    I bow in your presence, oh, fucking MASTER of prediction!!!

    CAPTCHA: miracle

    P.S. Hey - I didn't vote for him. I'm still with HER.

  29. No foresight by NaCh0 · · Score: 1

    This is what democrat politicians are especially bad at - foresight.

    They want all of these regulatory bureaucracies but never think about when the pendulum swings and the other party is in charge.

    Obama and his pen are another great example. How is that legacy working out for him?

    1. Re:No foresight by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      So far a heckuva lot better than the national and international destruction course Trump is on.

  30. Re:We're talking about Old French, not Modern Fren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see that chapeau? That tells you that there used to be an "s" there (cf "hôpital"). IOW, "bête" used to be "beste". It's not that "bête" translates to "beast". It's the same damn word.

  31. Re:We're talking about Old French, not Modern Fren by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    You obviously know what you're talking about. What are you doing posting on Slashdot?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  32. Re:We're talking about Old French, not Modern Fren by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Wrapping *shit somebody obviously made up* in a quote doesn't suddenly make it true.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  33. To all the Trump voters by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Are you happy now? And did your PA coal mine reopen that was closed during Reagonomics time? Redeem yourself and put the "genie" back into the bottle...and then hurl it as far away as you can.

  34. In this case, Anti = Pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, can we please dispense with the myth that current net "neutrality" rules are actually net neutrality? The current rules are specifically NOT net neutrality, but something quite the opposite. The current net "neutrality" rules expressly permit non-neutrality in both peering and last-mile delivery. That's why, for example, AT&T is allowed to throttle NetFlix to its U-Verse customers while allowing their own U-Verse video streaming services to flow at best rate.

    Existing net neutrality rules are anti-competitive, terrible for consumers, and the exact opposite of neutrality.

  35. The logical choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be for Trump to replace him with Howard Stern.