Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Taunts Net Neutrality Critics. Mark Hamill Taunts Ajit Pai (mashable.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Just days before voting to repeal net neutrality regulations, FCC chairman Ajit Pai introduced a comedy video at the annual gathering of the Federal Communications Bar Association -- and it offered its own self-disparaging version of Pai's tenure as a Verizon attorney in 2003. "We want to brainwash and groom a Verizon puppet to install as FCC chairman," says a real-world Verizon executive appearing in the videotaped skit. "That sounds awesome," Pai responds.
And the day of the vote Pai also appeared in another trying-to-be-funny video on the conservative site The Daily Caller demonstrating "seven things you can still do on the internet after net neutrality." In the first image he's holding a fidget spinner and dressed as Santa Claus, and the unmistakably patronizing video reminds critics that they can still upload photos of their meals to Instagram and "post photos of cute animals, like puppies." He also demonstrated that net neutrality critics can still stay part of their favorite fan communities -- by showing himself holding a light saber. And this unexpectedly drew the wrath of Star Wars actor Mark Hamill, who responded on Twitter by calling him "Ajit 'Aren't I Precious?' Pai."
Hamill also added that "you are profoundly unworthy 2 wield a lightsaber. A Jedi acts selflessly for the common man, NOT lie 2 enrich giant corporations." When U.S. Senator Ted Cruz responded -- likening government overreach to Darth Vader and urging Hamill to "reject the dark side" -- Hamill responded again, complaining that the Senator was "smarm-splaining." Hamill also added, "you'd have more credibility if you spelled my name correctly. I mean IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU! Maybe you're just distracted from watching porn at the office again."
The Houston Chronicle reports that the newest meme on Twitter is now Pai's over-sized coffee mug stamped with the logo for Reese's Peanut Butter cups, "which he occasionally sipped from during the widely-criticized reversal." The Dangerous Minds site notes that some angry net neutrality supporters have even taken their complaints to Reese's Facebook page, adding "Perhaps these protester's pleas to the candy company are simply a misguided hope that someone, ANYONE will listen to their frustration."
"Clearly, the FCC wasn't listening to the estimated 83% of Americans who support net neutrality."
And the day of the vote Pai also appeared in another trying-to-be-funny video on the conservative site The Daily Caller demonstrating "seven things you can still do on the internet after net neutrality." In the first image he's holding a fidget spinner and dressed as Santa Claus, and the unmistakably patronizing video reminds critics that they can still upload photos of their meals to Instagram and "post photos of cute animals, like puppies." He also demonstrated that net neutrality critics can still stay part of their favorite fan communities -- by showing himself holding a light saber. And this unexpectedly drew the wrath of Star Wars actor Mark Hamill, who responded on Twitter by calling him "Ajit 'Aren't I Precious?' Pai."
Hamill also added that "you are profoundly unworthy 2 wield a lightsaber. A Jedi acts selflessly for the common man, NOT lie 2 enrich giant corporations." When U.S. Senator Ted Cruz responded -- likening government overreach to Darth Vader and urging Hamill to "reject the dark side" -- Hamill responded again, complaining that the Senator was "smarm-splaining." Hamill also added, "you'd have more credibility if you spelled my name correctly. I mean IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU! Maybe you're just distracted from watching porn at the office again."
The Houston Chronicle reports that the newest meme on Twitter is now Pai's over-sized coffee mug stamped with the logo for Reese's Peanut Butter cups, "which he occasionally sipped from during the widely-criticized reversal." The Dangerous Minds site notes that some angry net neutrality supporters have even taken their complaints to Reese's Facebook page, adding "Perhaps these protester's pleas to the candy company are simply a misguided hope that someone, ANYONE will listen to their frustration."
"Clearly, the FCC wasn't listening to the estimated 83% of Americans who support net neutrality."
Let the Intertube Memes begin! This will not be pretty! Well, it will be pretty funny...
I do, however, wonder if there might be legal ramifications in any lawsuits brought on the Net Neutrality issue? An impartial judge might look dimly on this buffoonery...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
He's a retard.
This is serious business. He's a distraction, and it's working perfectly... people are making fun of him, what a jackass, ignoring the issue. For those that say 'doesn't matter', if that were true, why waste so much good will and political capital on it? Right, because they actually plan to use it.
Thankfully, e.g. EFF will likely sue this useful idiot corporate apparatchik. Hopefully... all that needs to happen is to kick it down the road until the adults take back congress.
Mark Hamill seems to forget that, in the Star Wars universe, the light sabre lost to the politicians scheming... Palpatines manoeuvres in the senate got him far further than wielding a light sabre ever did.
It always makes me wonder how it could feel like being an indifferent moron like you and the likes of you. Living under a rock, poking and yelling at everyone, calling them names and feeling good about it. It must feel awesome to have such a self confidence.
I just checked my watch, and the public input was still not a popularity contest. Considering the slander campaign waged across nearly the entire internet for the last few months, I'm surprised that only 83% of those polled were opposed to restoring the open internet. When you are bombarded with messages that some action is going to unleash biblical plagues, knock the moon out of orbit and give birth to the antichrist, it is hard to publicly support it - even if you don't particularly believe the nonsense.
Oh, and the mug memes are (mostly) not making fun of Ajit. Reee!
See that "Preview" button?
The internet does not forget an asshole like that. He will be repaid someday.
You can use a belt loop as "bump stock" to acquire automatic fire. Should be ban belt loops on pants too?
My god man think of the pants. And the ass showing. There are too many plumber cracks showing as it is.
Ajit has a future as a mover and a shaker.
translated: Ajit has a future as a corporate stooge.
Can you imagine believing "I'm against Net Neutrality 'cause it triggers the libs" is a cogent political opinion?
You are welcome on my lawn.
>A Jedi acts selflessly for the common man, NOT lie 2 enrich giant corporations.
Meanwhile in other news, the new Star Wars opened to a 500 zillion dollar weekend for Disney.
All those lightsabers meant shit when the might of the whole galaxy was against the Jedi and they got killed off one by one until only Ben, Yoda, and Luke remained, with Leia as an untrained force sensitive backup (as alluded in Empire and stated in RotJ.) Or you know there were dozens to hundreds in hiding if you believe the forked (and Lucas/Mouse stated non-canon) extended Universe fiction, which provides far more depth to the universe than much of the post prequel universe, and definitely any of the later TV shows/Sequels did.
If there was any remaining doubt, it has now been erased: Ajit Pai is not only incompetent, in the pocket of some of the biggest of all big businesses, against the will of the people, and morally corrupt, he's also a complete clown. (And I mean clown in the most disrespectful way possible, not in the fun loving, flower-squirting, balloon-bending sense.) I can't believe something as important as the FCC is in this moron's hands. You can debate the merits/follies of an outsider/village idiot like Trump all day, but Ajit Pai's nonsense is indefensible.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Call your representatives and tell them what you want. Congress can pass a law to ensure net neutrality but they have to know it matters to voters. Also, if they won't support it then you need to get involved politically. If your preferred political party does not support net neutrality then you may want to reexamine why you are aligning yourself with them.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So, internet regulation is now back to what it was from circa 1980 - 2015? The horror .... the horror ....
The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality
. . . the major problem with the FCC’s move: It forced ISPs into an 80-year-old framework designed for the telephone monopolies of a much different era. Those regulations were more concerned about things like controlling market power than, say, promoting innovation. And while the advocates for net neutrality stressed the benefits for competition among content providers, the critics asked what would happen to competition among ISPs, since heavy-handed regulation often acts as a barrier to entry for new startups, which can’t afford to negotiate the regulatory apparatus. Those of us old enough to remember the telephone service looked like in the 1970s, before the FCC unwound a little -- which is to say, pretty much like the service our parents had when they were children, down to the astronomical prices for long distance calls, and the chunky plastic rotary telephones -- can see why critics were concerned about giving the FCC that kind of power to block innovation.
Federal meddling can't improve the Internet.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It's never a better day than when Slashdot decides to cover Twitter fights.
I can't wait till we get the posts about Little Billy's pranks in the 2nd grade computer labs!
You can use a belt loop as "bump stock" to acquire automatic fire. Should be ban belt loops on pants too?
People don't use belt loops to kill dozens upon dozens of innocent civilians. You could use a screwdriver to kill too, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't carry swords and machetes around in public all day. Playing a semantics game doesn't mean your position or opinion isn't patently wrong.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
translated: Ajit has a future as a corporate stooge.
And the future is right now.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Hi Ajit, enjoying life?
... won't someone please go all Darth Vader on his ass?
Ajit Pai is not only incompetent... he's also a complete clown.
Exactly. So people are getting their Star Wars analogy wrong when they compare him to Darth Vader. This guy is Jar-jar Binks.
How far and how fast we have fallen. No wonder why the kardashians are so popular.
Well, the unfortunate truth is that studies have shown that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be unhappy.
Are you retarded? Removing NN makes it even hard for a competitor to Google to emerge since Alphabet can easily pay for "fast lanes" for it's properties, and negotiate for better terms due to Android than any Youtube competitor could.
That's the whole idea behind boiling down expansive documents and policies to two high-impact words!
Additionally, repealing NN will also result in cures for cancer being discovered, a reduction in fatal road accidents, and pigs being able to fly. I can provide evidence if you can.
Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
Until it translates into votes, it doesn't mean squat.
*Sweep the House*
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Search engines that don't derank for US party political reasons.
Actually, now google can pay to ensure that competing search engines always have a slower connection or do not connect at all.
News sites that don't ban and remove news.
Actually, now big news sites can pay to ensure that smaller sites have long loading times or even inject ads.
SJW social media that is not banning accounts and reporting users to their governments.
Actually, now SJW social media can pay to keep a competing site from ever connecting.
NN provided political cover for a lot of net censorship.
Reads like you don't understand the first thing about what NN really means.
With the NN rules removed new networks and services can emerge.
With the NN rules removed, new networks and services will have to be able to spend as much money as the giants they are competing against.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
AC Re "NN makes it even hard for a competitor to" you have had years for the NN rules to show some positive results.
Hows that NN freedom of speech going?
Freedom after speech on the NN supporting brands?
All the new search engines? New social media under the NN rules?
Municipal broadband with the NN rules in place?
NN protected network monopolists and enforced party political SJW censorship for years.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or maybe it's a wakeup call that you should be heeding.
Well, I can tell you one thing for sure shit like Hatreon, Gab, etc. are all going to be throttled to fucking hell, so much for your alternative nazi internet.
The removal of NN will allow new brands to emerge.
Boy, do you have that backwards.
Search engines that don't derank for US party political reasons.
Nope. Without NN, your ISP can redirect your search requests to their own search engine without even having to tell users that they're doing it. You might not even know that you're getting a substandard experience. Big search engines can, of course, afford to pay those ISPs to avoid that, but those new brands you're hoping will emerge? They won't have the money to do so, so they'll be stillborn.
And the same problem exists with all of your other ill-informed beliefs about net neutrality. Repealing net neutrality doesn't create opportunities for new Internet companies to emerge. In point of fact, the repeal of net neutrality does the exact opposite, providing new ways for existing large companies to become entrenched in ways that keep new players from being able to enter the field at all.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Fight the Future.
Remember back in the 90s when home internet totally sucked, and only universities had big bandwidth, so you always felt privileged to be able to get on their networks? That is going to be coming back. Want to access MIT OCW? Throttled. Want to access JSTOR? Throttled. Want to download a Debian ISO? Throttled. Glad I work at a college, and so will be able to enjoy relatively unmolested non-profit internet.
Uhh what?
ISPs never banned any websites even without NN, so i hope you can clarify your position...
Hosting providers have, but website owners can host themselves or have huge number of providers who don't give a crap what they host.
They thought the interstellar object "Oumuamua" could be an alien ship!! I love it!
I find it funny that so many people are so passionately for no ISPs as Internet Gatekeepers at point A when we're full steam ahead for Google/Facebook/Twitter etc as Internet Gatekeepers at point B, (y'know organizations which collectively wield more and more power and without whom said internet is more and more useless and have been acting like gatekeepers far more often and for far more political reasons) with the full support of many of these same people.
Being a contrarian and disagreeing simply because veryone else thinks something doesn't make you smart.
There are more flat-earthers than there are Einsteins out there and you don't fall into the latter category.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ajit Pai and that dumb Trump judicial nominee who couldnâ(TM)t answer basic legal questions (if you didnâ(TM)t know, Youtube it) came up through the same right wing feeder law firm Wiley Rein.
"your ISP can redirect your search requests to their own search engine"
Please explain how with https that they can do that.
Don't worry, I'll wait ... /And you have a 5 digit slashdot id too. Disgraceful!
Trump - the Emperor
Pence - the Emperor's left hand and a religious fundamentalist => no religious freedom
Scott Pruitt - EPA dismantling agent => no healthy environment and no protection from dangerous and harmful substances in our food and water
Ajit Pai - FCC dismantling agent => no net neutrality => no freedom in communication and information
Steven T. Mnuchin - Give it to the rich => no state, no security
This is not drain the swamp of corruption. This is more like drain all remaining habitats and screw the population so they sit all in a dessert.
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10713215418126
Ajit impersonated the President, this is a felony with a very hefty punishment, and the FCC interfering with investigation is an admission of guilt.
But Pai's idiotic and abrasive antics from a position of power are starting to push my "Fuck you motherfucker!" button.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Kicks ass on twitter!
If anything the bump stocks saved lives. Had the shooter just fired rapid aimed shots the number of casualties would have been much higher. He was shooting into a massed crowd yet we heard of many shots hitting the stage and equipment. This is because bump fire allows you to fire rapidly but gives very poor accuracy and very poor control allowing the muzzle to rise off the target.
Bump stocks are a gimmick, a gimmick that the idiot shooter thought would make him deadlier but in fact did just the opposite (thank God!).
Get a real hobby where you actually understand what you are even talking about.
Right now he's letting donor money do the thinking for him.
One day he'll call up Comcast for internet support. He'll play his "Don't you know who I am?" card and the operator will reply, in an Indian accent, "No, sir. We treat all of our customers equally."
In this case, I think you're wrong. There's no indication that the shooter ran out of bullets, which means that the only question here is whether he was able to kill more people per minute by spraying bullets into a crowd vs carefully aiming and firing at people. Remember, he was several hundred yards away from the crowd - "carefully aimed" bullets would probably have not hit their targets anyway.
You mean like Las Vegas festival shooting of late?
Oh, wait...
An actor dropping some tweets to some politician is slashdot worthy?
gaaawd :(
Because for a change something that's bad for us is also bad for them. Don't worry, it won't last, this is basically the odd one out, next week we will get to hear again how being screwed over is good for us.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Shill or stupid?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
it is good the FCC ignored 85% of the citizens because those "citizens" were/are ignorant what NN was really about. Lets boil NN down;
Prior to 2015 the FCC had no control over the Internet. It was "free and unregulated".
There. Can't be any clearer. If anyone disagrees then your a fucking idiot and have ulterior motives to support NN and none of those motives are good for the individual.
"The main difference between semi-auto and a bump stock in a large crowd of people is how fast you run out of ammo. Lethality is about the same overall."
No, no it is not. Unless you assume an unarmed crowd who just stand still. In either case, bump stocks are not the point.
The shooting in Vegas was a tragedy, of that there can be no doubt, but the shooting related death toll in the US is rather insignificant compared to any leading cause of death and certainly is nothing compared to the lives saved because an invading power knows how costly a ground invasion of the heavily armed US would be. The patriots whose blood renews the tree of liberty? Who said they would all be soldiers? Have we really become a nation of cowards who tuck tail and sell out the freedoms so many of our troops have died for just to get a slight gain in our social agendas or at the first indication there is some kind of civilian risk or price for those rights?
Well in the end everything does even out, usually starting with magically, but when magic is systematically stomped with jackboots, and it usually gets to that when heavyweights have their cocks in the fight, then the evening out ends with night of torches and pitchforks.
Worse, the small companies won't even know they're not reaching their potential customers. The big difference that the internet makes is that you don't need to "get your show picked up by a network" for users to be able to see it. You pay for your internet connection and that's all it takes for anyone to see your show. Well, no more. Now you need to go back to the cable companies and pay to be available through their networks. (I'm using "show" as an analogy. It is of course much worse than just entertainment: Imagine if you could only get access to stores and libraries by buying bundles from your cable provider. You don't need a lot of imagination, because that's where we're headed.)
The cure for that is massive piles of money, cocaine, and smoking hot gold digging coke whores... just ask Charlie. I'm sure in the middle of that Ajit will stop every now and then and feel about having fucked over everyone else for his unhappy life.
Mr Pai is really asking for it.
I don't think I have ever seen someone more deserving.
Its not funny when people is robbed. He learned from the pro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Both sound as ridiculous as infamous.
of Cruz which mightily smacked Luke down and rightfully so. This is put even so a simpleton can understand what NN was about;
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/942460828242063361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fluke-skywalker-turns-to-dark-side-of-net-neutrality-and-ted-cruz-strikes-him-down%2F
Get over it. And stop using entertainers and clowns as your defenders. You lefties have become a colossal joke.
He didn't forget. It was a bad change with terrible implications, just like now.
Just because some plan is successful doesn't make it any good.
But our comments were ignored in favor of fake comments from dead people.
...the shooting related death toll in the US is rather insignificant compared to any leading cause of death and certainly is nothing compared to the lives saved because an invading power knows how costly a ground invasion of the heavily armed US would be.
Are you seriously suggesting that the reason Mexico hasn't invaded is that they're more afraid of civilians with hunting rifles than the Army's tanks and the Air Force's bombers?
The government has no business regulating firearms. The government is a monopoly on force. James Madison understood this and detailed the need for the second amendment in Federalist paper 45 saying that the only way to check the power of this monopoly is to ensure the people have the same weaponry as the military. The second amendment isnâ(TM)t about hunting.
"Are you seriously suggesting that the reason Mexico hasn't invaded"
At one time, sure. But lets not pretend that invading US soil requires being a border country or that the Political, Economic, and Military disposition of other nations today is particularly relevant when talking about a policy that applies in perpetuity into the future. In another couple hundred years we could be to Mexico what Mexico is to us today... again.
"is that they're more afraid of civilians with hunting rifles than the Army's tanks and the Air Force's bombers"
I certainly would be considering it certainly wasn't tanks, bombers, and battleships that resulted in our losing in Vietnam and Iraq. A hunting rifle is a poor counterpart to a proper 50 cal sniper weapon but keep perspective and remember it is dramatically superior to anything used by a sniper on either side in WWII. You might be able to roll your tanks in and say you've taken a city but would they get you to patrol the streets knowing there is a sniper in every other house? Not the the Constitution limits arms to civilians to hunting rifles.
Thanks to the right to bear arms and our seemingly perpetual wars there are millions of armed and trained former soldiers amongst our civilian population at any moment, a good chunk of them with some form of actual combat experience. Those "gun nuts" people like to talk about, those are largely former military, veterans, police, and people who are in clubs and training with former military, veterans, and police. That asshat NRA guy touting private hunting farm rights only represents their common interest in protecting the 2nd amendment. Sure some of these people are poor and they hunt because they are hungry (certainly applied to all the poachers I knew when I was young) but the second amendment isn't about hunting and it isn't about beating tanks and bombers, it's about enemies, both foreign and domestic not being able to safely walk the streets without riding in a tank and about making sure federal power was kept in check by being denied access to ground forces that could be used against the states without requesting them from the states and a formal congressional declaration of war.
Net Neutrality is just the name of a bill that was slipped into the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act - silently nationalizing the internet - reclassifying internet providers from title 1 (private) entities to title 2 (public utility) communications? This does everything but preserve net neutrality. This bill makes it so that ISPs need to get a liscense (which costs a lot of money) and fill out a shit ton of paperwork - this prevents innovation and creates quasi government monopolies which smaller companies have a very hard time competing with (larger companies have an easier time dealing with regulatory burdens). Not to mention the government can threaten to revoke the license arbitrarily if the ISP does something they donâ(TM)t like. Youâ(TM)ll end up praising this guy.
The government has no business regulating firearms. The government is a monopoly on force. James Madison understood this and detailed the need for the second amendment in Federalist paper 45 saying that the only way to check the power of this monopoly is to ensure the people have the same weaponry as the military. The second amendment isnâ(TM)t about hunting.
Sadly it must be true that people are completely controlled by fear based hateful propaganda. Otherwise large portions of the population would not believe that exterminating or deporting Wogs / Latinos / BLM / Muslims would actualy improve the lives of anyone. They would have been repelled by Trumps silent support for Nazi's and voted for someone else. The thing is that politics is now completely controlled by emotional propaganda and that there is actually almost no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans except who you hate the most.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Ajit is preening himself for the next presidential election!
All hail!
That's unfair; they listened to the 'people' who *matter*. What's wrong with you people?
Requiem for the American Dream
That's all they think we use the web for, huh? These people are reprehensible.
83% of Americans want free sh*t. Why do people listen to celebrities anyway? Mark Hamill doesn't know squat about technology or business. He's been milking his residual checks for 40 years.
Something that people never consider is that "Net Neutrality" is an explicit Federal regulation of the internet.
It places the Internet under Federal control.
Regulation is not the same as control. For instance, saying you may only drive on the right side of the road is not controlling use of roads nor where they go, only that traffic must stay right. Similarly with the Net Neutrality legislation in concept - it isn't regulating where it goes nor what it can carry, but only saying that everything must be treated equally. You can't charge the ACME brick load for driving down your network pipe and let the provider's brick load drive down free.
It's time to think up a way of denying service to the likes of Pai. Some sort of dox-based registry with a public API. It would of course require closely controlled management, so it was kept small, and only for the the truly deserving worst offenders. Since they are so fond of lack of freedom, the collective should help them by denying service to them. You want a Google account ? Too bad. Facebook ? Nah. Snapchat, Instagram, Linkedin, Twitter, Youtube, Netflix, Amazon, Whatsapp ? Nope. If you're the likes of Mr Pai then you can take a long lonely hike in the internet wilderness. To add some extra incentive it could include immediate family members.
Sadly it must be true that people are completely controlled by fear based hateful propaganda. ... They would have been repelled by Trumps silent support for Nazi's and voted for someone else.
A) You're discounting the other side of the question - Hillary. The dislike for Hillary cannot be understated. There are people, likely a large number, that voted against Hillary.
B) Trump's overt Nazi support didn't come out until after the election, although it was implicitly stated prior to for anyone paying attention. Unfortunately item (A) so distracted people that they overlooked all else.
C) Look at the AL election. I'll bet if you asked any of those Roy Moore supporters whether they'd ever consider voting for a pedophile, 99% would be shocked and say NEVER! And then you have a choice between a pedophile and that evil vile baby stealing party of hippie family destroying demon worshippers that they've sworn to fight to their dying day, because they've been told that since at least the 90s. Fortunately 56% of voters said no to pedophiles.
Every one of these people have family. The ones running for office have supporters who have family. And because of the "war on terror" facial recognition was pushed down to handhelds.
So use it.
You can't discriminate based on race, sex, age and other factors. Nothing stopping you from deciding to shun based on software saying "this person is the child/cousin/big donor tied to cause X you care about". Or saying to them straight up "your dad is an ass - how do YOU feel about his being an ass?" Nothing stopping you from saying "I note you are Y. Thanks for your support on cause X."
There's a shit ton of difference between a search engine (of which there are many) blocking content, and an ISP (of which most US households have access to one or two at most) blocking or throttling content.
Open up the market so customers can pick and choose ISPs like they choose search engines, and your argument is valid. 'Til then, it ain't worth the paper I wipe my ass with.
seems like much of that would be a solid case for anti-competitive behavior. which is still against the law. which i am sure you knew that.
I frequently get confused by the way adjectives or similar are used in english.
In this instance, does "Net Neutrality critics" refers to people critic of the Net Neutrality (That's the meaning I get from this three word sentence alone), or people pro-Net Neutrality who are critics or criticizing situations (that's a meaning I kind of get from the context of the sentences where it is sometimes used)?
Your sentence doesn't make sense: " You could use a screwdriver to kill too, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't carry swords and machetes around in public all day"
broken down, you're saying:
1. you can use a screwdriver to kill
2. people shouldn't carry swords and machetes around in public all day
3. (1) doesn't mean (2)
So ultimately, your sentence says people SHOULD carry swords/machetes.
standard semi-auto AR-15s can fire 5 rounds per second. same rifle with a bump stock will fire around 8 rounds a second. Firing with a bump stock decreases accuracy significantly. Both can be emptied faster than they can be reloaded. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag
99% of the "estimated 83% of Americans who support net neutrality" haven't the faintest idea of what it actually means. The extreme reactions I've seen from it's supporters ("The internet is literally dead!") has really turned me off.
Senator Cruz says the Internet did just fine until the previous Net Neutrality rules were adopted. I don't think that's entirely true. It seems to me that the technology to undermine Net Neutrality, something similar to deep packet inspection, was only discovered in 2009 by one of the "fathers of the Internet":
https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/a-radical-new-router
"In 1999, I founded Caspian Networks to develop large terabit flow routers, which I planned to sell to the carriers that maintain the Internet’s core infrastructure. That market, however, proved hard to crack—the carriers seem satisfied with overprovisioning, as well as techniques like traffic caching and compression, which ameliorate congestion without addressing the roots of the problem.
Flow management can solve this capacity crunch. The concept of data flow might be more easily understood in the case of a voice or video stream, but it applies to all traffic over the Internet"
Network types: Is this accurate?
Law requires a party split on the FCC and senate approval.
IF Obama actually picked Pai, the GOP would have rejected him. It was easier to just let them pick the evil bastard. So technically, Obama appointed and they approved but they picked the crook.
I thought you might know what you were talking about until you called a magazine a clip.
You really think firearms are going to put you on even ground with the US military?
That poor son of a bitch. He's come to believe that the movies he was in were reality.
If you meet the son or cousin of some massive political donor and shun then instead of network with them then you are an extremely stupid mother fucker.
100 million Americans have but one provider to choose from. Google is struggling to compete.
I can assure you that Google's struggles are self-inflicted here. Google is available in my metro area with the biggest ever possible catch - unless you live within the city limits, and as best I can tell 90% of metro area residents do not, you can't get Google. My county has more than double the population of the city center but none of us can get Google because none of the county is within city limits in our metro area. Sadly, those who live in the city limits are basically the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich. The first group can't afford Google - period. The 2nd group doesn't care what it costs because they can afford to pay for internet and TV with anybody, so they have no compelling reason to move to Google. Google did this to make things simpler for themselves, but maybe if they had studied demographics better they might have done something differently. I'd love to switch to Google if I could, but Google didn't want the business of anybody in my county. Again, we're more than double the population of the city center but Google doesn't want our money.
Reasonable regulation of corporations isn't "socialism."
It's what used to be called "democracy."
Actors who played iconic characters are not supposed to reference their characters to make political statements; that is about as WEAK as it gets. Washed up, Hamill.
Hypocrisy, much?
Classic Alinsky.
The Peloponnesian War and total meltdown of Athenian society shows what democracy gets you.
In one of the greatest political troll moments of all time.
But that's wishful thinking, that politics could be about more than perception management.
Navy, I assume you must be including non-canon sources in your canon discussion.
If that is the case, then the EU, especially the West End Games Adventure Journals, and novels that exploited/continued characters based off them had quite a lot of details for what the Empire was like to people and planets who traded with it, including how they dealt with financial deals over what they decided was 'Top Secret Technology'. Hint: Unless they were 'True Believers' in the Imperial cause, they would corral them for use in R&D interment camps, oftentimes blowing up their underlings or otherwise destroying their business in order to ensure they had to work for the Empire on the most favorable terms necessary.
Why do you think every piece of online "journalism" thinks the net neutrality repeal is bad? Maybe it's because they're feeding you a line of bullshit?
Maybe it's because the only ones who benefit here are Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs with a local monopoly who engage in rent-seeking. Literally EVERYONE else is screwed over in that system. That's why there's such outcry, because it's just an abuse of their position as a trust.
Thank you for intentionally shitting on the discussion by bringing up an entirely different subject and pretending it's what everyone else means when we're talking about Net Neutrality.
seems like much of that would be a solid case for anti-competitive behavior. which is still against the law. which i am sure you knew that.
The federal government doesn't have the balls to initiate anti-trust actions anymore. That's a dead end.