Ajit Pai Backs Out of Planned CES 2018 Appearance (techcrunch.com)

New submitter sdinfoserv writes: Ajit Pai, the most hated person in tech since Darl McBride, backed out of a speaking engagement at CES 2018. Apparently he lacks the spine to justify himself before the group of individuals his decisions affect most. Consumer Technology Association head Gary Shapiro announced: "Unfortunately, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is unable to attend CES 2018. We look forward to our next opportunity to host a technology policy discussion with him before a public audience."

Comments

poc poc

[Anonymous Coward]

tractor : Ride me Bart --- Bart : no -- tractor : poc poc poc poc

Re:poc poc

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, BeauHD wants to ride Bart Simpson's pointy little nub. He wants to feel it scrape against his rectum as it goes in. If BeauHD got the pleasure of not being around "Miss Mash" aka the transgender Mahendra for a day, it would make it all worth it. Because, hey, Slashdot headlines calling someone spineless is what true journalism is all about. Nevermind the doublespeak, nevermind reading what's in the bill, nevermind understanding the utter vagueness in the bill just like the "P.A.T.R.I.O.T" act giving unfettered power to all the XYZ agencies of the government overnight, like a light switch of your rights being flipped off. If you burned down a Comcast building, you would get a feeling of accomplishment. Burning down a government building would accomplish little and would cost you money in the end.
 
Net Neuterality for the win.

Re:poc poc

[BeauHD (1)]

Shut up. If you want real news, go elsewhere. If you just want to troll all day, the only people who visit this facade are just here for the laughs. I'm surprised it's gone on as long as it has under BizX.

I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alienating nearly the entire tech doubtlessly has made him many enemies who would love to kick his ass.

Re:I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who paid you to say this, Vlad?

Re:I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[Anonymous Coward]

All goods need not be allocated in response to the human-choice-driven price mechanism of the marketplace. Goods and services can also be allocated by political means. That is, states, employing coercive means can seize goods and services and allocate them according to certain political goals and the goals of people in positions of political power. There is nothing “neutral” about this method of allocating resources.

In the net neutrality debate, it’s almost risible that some are suggesting that the FCC will somehow necessarily work in the “public” interest. First of all, we can already see how the FCC regards the public with its refusal to make its own proposals public. Second, who will define who the “public” is? And finally, after identifying who the “public” is, how will the governing bodies of the FCC determine what the “public” wants?

It’s a safe bet there will be no plebiscitary process, so what mechanism will be used? In practice, bureaucratic agencies respond to lobbying and political pressure like any other political institution. Those who can most afford to lobby and provide information to the FCC, however, will not be ordinary people who have the constraints of household budgets and lives to live in places other than Washington, DC office buildings. No, the general public will be essentially powerless because regulatory regimes diminish the market power of customers.

Most of the interaction that FCC policymakers will have with the “public” will be through lobbyists working for the internet service providers, so what net neutrality does is turn the attention of the ISPs away from the consumers themselves and toward the regulatory agency. In the marketplace, a firm’s customers are the most important decision makers. But the more regulated an industry becomes, the more important the regulating agency becomes to the firm’s owners and managers.

The natural outcome will be more “regulatory capture,” in which the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors.

Nor are such regulatory regimes even “efficient” in the mainstream use of the term. As economist Douglass North noted, regulatory regimes do not improve efficiency, but serve the interests of those with political power:

Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules.

So, if populists think net neutrality will somehow give “the people” greater voice in how bandwidth is allocated and ISPs function, they should think again.

Re:I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[shilly]

It's amazing to think that this towering edifice of words is something you find genuinely convincing. I've got some really bad news for you: the vast majority of humanity prefer to live in societies where the goods we purchase are regulated. You go ahead and tell yourself that's because we're all dupes, if you like. Whatever gets you through the day.

Re:I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[MoarSauce123]

If only his ass was kicked he can count himself lucky. Shows what a coward he is, forces an unpopular decision and then is too afraid to defend it in public.

Re:I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority, you know, the ones that didnt vote for your boy drumpf.

Re:I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[sabri]

the vast majority of humanity prefer to live in societies where the goods we purchase are regulated.

You don't buy a good, you buy a service. That's a fundamental difference: if you buy a good, you spent your money and are stuck with that decision for the rest of your life unless you can find a good reason to return it, and the merchant accepts the return.

As for internet broadband services, you are effectively leasing bandwidth on a network owned and operated by someone else. If you are no longer happy with the value of the service you receive in exchange for your hard-earned dollars, euros, rupees or rubles, you have the option to cancel your service and stop spending.

Twenty years ago you happily paid $60 for 2 megabit downstream bandwidth. Today 2 mbps is not even considered broadband and you would be complaining if you would get only 2 mbps on your iphone in the middle of a large city. However, the same $60 vacuum cleaner you bought 20 years ago might still work today. Ask your grandma.

Re:I would be afraid too, if I were him.

[shilly]

That's a distinction without a difference. FMCG doesn't work the way you describe, and food is regulated for safety and quality reasons, for example. By contrast, there are plenty of one-time services where there comes a point where you can't change your mind until it's too late -- an operation, for example.

And many services of the type you describe have exit penalties, to discourage switching. And switching itself is not cost-free (time and effort, if not money). And notoriously, there's no point in attempting to switch if there's a local monopoly or more broadly a lack of a meaningfully different offer in the market.

Rotten Tomatoes

[pete6677]

Best case scenario, he would only get pelted with rotten tomatoes. I can't imagine why he wouldn't show...

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[sheramil]

I'd say his concerns are entirely justified. All it would take is one ignorant neckbeard with a gun, who doesn't appreciate that Pai is a puppet and easily replaceable with someone else who can authorise the same laws. I don't think they pay him enough to die for the job.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say his concerns are entirely justified. All it would take is one ignorant neckbeard with a gun, who doesn't appreciate that Pai is a puppet and easily replaceable with someone else who can authorise the same laws. I don't think they pay him enough to die for the job.

I should make it clear than I'm not advocating violence here, but some level of justified response would tend to drive a singular point home; it should be very difficult to put a mere puppet in that position.

Sometimes a revolt is completely justified.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[DontBeAMoran]

Maybe he doesn't like bad movies?

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

He's no puppet. He waited for the opportunity and he's moving forward with his and his buddies plans to fuck over Americans for a buck. He is deeply involved and getting huge paychecks from Comcast, verizon and the others. He's been carefully crafting his way to this for years.

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

He's no puppet. He waited for the opportunity and he's moving forward with his and his buddies plans to fuck over Americans for a buck. He is deeply involved and getting huge paychecks from Comcast, verizon and the others. He's been carefully crafting his way to this for years.

I agree he is no puppet, but I also think that using the excuse that somebody would be found to do it regardless is not a valid excuse. Freedom has a price and it must be paid every single day. He should be hated. That much is certainly appropriate. Furthermore, if anyone has the option to hire him in the future they should find some excuse to not. I'm pretty sure being a sell-out is not a protected class. He should not be able to appear in public without someone questioning this insane decision. If he evaded a question, then the next citizen should ask it again and if he evades again, it should be asked again. If his answers is utter crap it should be pointed out and refuted.

Trusting corporations not to fuck up the internet is absolutely insane, yet that is where we are today.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Bartles]

Well, Barack Obama didn't seem to have much trouble appointing Pai.

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[Ronin Developer]

But, under Obama, he was just a member and the head guy. He had no real say before...a puppet expressing GOP concerns. Nobody expected Hillary to lose and allow Trumpâ(TM)s ilk to dominate over common sense.

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[Bartles]

Oh. You should have been more clear that you only respect the FACT when your kind of puppets are in control

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[Bartles]

FCC not FACT. Damned auto correct.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't show up in Public if I had the most punchable face in history either.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Opportunist]

Keep shooting the puppets. At some point, nobody wants to be the next puppet anymore.

People learn from negative reinforcement.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Opportunist]

Odd how you curiously omit that Obama made him part of the commission but Trump made him head.

Lying by omission is still lying.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[gtall]

Really? Name one member of the alleged administration that has learned one fucking thing from being repeatedly shot down by facts?

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see someone shoot the motherfucker.
Of course he could just be replaced, but the next guy would at least think twice about his actions.
If Ajit is responsible enough for taking bribes, he should definitely be responsible enough to pay the price for his greedy, dirty actions.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Opportunist]

Their skull are impenetrable for facts. Or at least they routinely refuse to let them affect them.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the kind of negative reinforcement he's talking about. :)

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

He may be a sniveling puppet but he went out of his way to thumb his nose at the tech community with his idiotic videos and other goofiness.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[jbengt]

Traditionally, the commission is as evenly split between Rs & Ds as an odd number can be, and the president appoints those from the other party that the other party recommends.
So blame Obama for playing by the rules, but don't think that Pai is Barack's idea of who should be head of the FCC.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[penandpaper]

But politics is not about facts. You should know this. You can lie with facts. Just as you can tell the truth without facts.

For every fact I have a narrative. For every narrative I have a counter narrative. For every counter narrative I have a name to call you. People Agree With Me (TM). That is politics.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC positions are defined in partisan terms, D presidents must nominate both R & D FCC members as R presidents must nominate both D and R FCC members. In fact Pia was recommended by R's to Obama and Pai was what Obama thought was the best of the bunch, that's really sad.

Misstatements by omission or ignorance are still wrong.

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Comcast, Verizon, et al won't hire him? I mean, isn't that political retirement at this point? You make a bunch of handshake deals with big corporations, fuck over the people you represent, then get hired at a cushy position in one of those corporations (or their board) and live like a king.

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[x_t0ken_407]

Undoing fat-fingered mod

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Bartles]

Who the fuck cares what Barack thinks? It's 2018.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

You, apparently. He's responding to your ignorant comment that Pai's position is somehow attributable to Barack Obama. Do you even fucking read these comments after you finish rolling your face around on the keyboard?

Re: Rotten Tomatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

But, under Obama, he was just a member and the head guy. He had no real say before...a puppet expressing GOP concerns. Nobody expected Hillary to lose and allow Trumpâ(TM)s ilk to dominate over common sense.

It still comes down to a vote so really he has no more power now than before other than perhaps setting the agenda of the meeting.

Re:Rotten Tomatoes

[rijrunner]

The danger is not one ignorant neckbeard with a gun..

it is one informed neckbeard with a gun,

More than that

[Tempest_2084]

>>Apparently he lacks the spine to justify himself before the group of individuals his decisions affect most.

I'm guessing it's more like he fears for his life at this point. Never underestimate what a group of angry people will do. If society can justify punching out people they disagree with then they can just as easily justify beating the crap out of Pai.

Re:More than that

[Hal_Porter]

Brown man dares not go out in public for fear of mostly white lynch mob.

Re:More than that

[sgage]

Yes. Right. Of course. It's all about race.

Give me a break. It wouldn't matter if this guy was red, white and blue - he'd be hated. It has nothing to do with him being a 'brown man'.

It has to do with him being a known and declared tool of the telecom industry, deceitfully ramming through what they wanted, at the expense of us all.

And an abrasive, arrogant asshole on top of that.

Re:More than that

[hey!]

Yeah, 'cuz there ain't no brown people in tech. Sheesh.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

if anything, a guy of his racial background would normally be *all for* network neutrality.. india knows how to internet. they suck down more bits as a country than any other... and second-place ain't even close.

Re: More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm brown. I can assure I dislike him as much as any white person can.

Re:More than that

[Obfuscant]

With the tone and demeanor of your comments, you've proven why Ajit Pai would be stupid to make a public appearance. It would serve no purpose, and only creates a venue where protesters could cause harm to others.

But then, we have no real knowledge of why he isn't going to appear. All we have is the opinion of a biased commenter that he "lacks the spine". Nobody on slashdot has ever had a good reason not to do something that had nothing to do with courage, I guess. Someone I know will be missing a few scientific meetings. He lacks, according to this argument, the spine to defend his scientific works. Or maybe it's because he's having open heart surgery and isn't supposed to do anything but recover for a month. I don't know, I'm leaning towards cowardice...

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually think he did the right thing. The FCC should not be making such rules. They should not be using the antiquated Title designed for yesterday's analog copper wire phone companies on today's modern internet as a band-aid enforcement mechanism. The fault lies completely with Congress. There should be an actual bill passed with low overhead, modern regulations defining the internet as open and neutral. The FCC should be nothing more than the enforcer of such.

Re:More than that

[dgatwood]

No, the FCC is explicitly authorized by law to pass regulations that govern telecommunications services, including ISPs, and most of that regulation is not created by any legislative body. If the FCC had to wait for Congress to act on every little decision, nothing would ever get done.

Moreover, the FCC is, by its nature, a largely apolitical body, or at least it is supposed to be. The people working at the FCC are hired because they understand the industry, they understand the technology, and therefore, they are in the best position to come up with regulations that make sense. By contrast, most of Congress talk about getting "an Internet" from one of their constituents when they really mean "an email". These people are almost all absolutely incapable of coming up with regulations that make even the slightest bit of sense unless those regulations are written by industry lobbyists, in which case they will be technically correct but devastatingly harmful.

No, I absolutely do not want any congressperson getting within a hundred miles of net neutrality. The best they can do is screw things up beyond all repair, and the most likely outcome is even worse than that. These are people who scratched their heads and said, "Durh, health insurance is really hard." Can you imagine what they're going to do when asked to explain settlement-free peering versus metered interconnections, or explain why video chat requires low latency and low jitter, but Netflix doesn't? They'll gibber more incoherently than a schoolkid who forgot to do his or her homework. Please, keep the mentally incompetent ruling class as far away from this as possible, and make the FCC do their jobs.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Has nothing to do with his *skin* being brown. The dripping brown tongue, however, is a bit of a turnoff.

Re:More than that

[Tulsa_Time]

I disagree.

The FCC cannot make law.

Imposing the kind of restrictions that Net Neutrality requires is new law.

I actually support NN, but I believe that Congress should make laws.

Re:More than that

[acrimonious howard]

While I agree that congress should technically be making the law, but the reality has been that it's controlled by Republicans, in turn controlled by the big biz interests that have repealed NN getting us into this mess. Time to kick the bums out.

Re: More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Internalized racism is loosely defined as the internalization by people of racist attitudes towards members of their own ethnic group, including themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_racism

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

If society can justify punching out people they disagree with

Obvious reference to nazi punching. Eugenics and genocide are not "an opinion" people merely disagree with. We fought a war over it with millions of deaths. So seriously, fuck you for trying to color it as something we can have a nice conversation about. It should be the government's job to lock such people away. Since yours doesn't, it's perfectly fine when the nazis instead get punched by people.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC tried to regulate, was sued, and had to roll back the original net neutrality rules because the relevant legislation did not give the FCC the power to do so. So they chose to use the draconian, vastly out of date Title II designation as a round about. While the intent might have been good, the additional consequences were not.

This is an issue that desperately needs a real solution. A solution only Congress can provide. The FCC is limited in what it can enforce based on the distinct authorities it is given by Congress. Otherwise it would be a rogue agency doing as it pleases and changing wildly every time we have a new President.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how the left always harps about diversity in IT but they never get tired of driving minorities out as soon as they don't follow their creed.

Re:More than that

[pezpunk]

fuck you. i'll punch any nazi i see, you piece of shit nazi sympathizer.

Re:More than that

[Opportunist]

And for the first time it will be the leftists that beat up the brown man with the alt-right trying to defend him.

Re: More than that

[Opportunist]

Nobody gives a shit about his skin color. He's an asshole, whether his skin is black, white, brown or red-purple polka dotted doesn't matter at all.

Re:More than that

[Opportunist]

Again, nobody gives a shit about his skin color. I honestly have no idea where that idiot comes from and I don't care.

I have a problem with his attitude and his position, not his skin. Skin color is only skin deep, being an asshole is what goes deeper.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the GP may be making a satirical point: if the political sides on this issue were reversed, the usual politically-correct suspects would be hollering about how racist it is, how it reveals the troublesome whiteness of America, etc. When it's this way around, they're silent. Which makes it clear that they don't really believe that stuff about race: it's just a way to whip up support on certain political issues.

Re: More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that, since the Demonrats told me people like you and me were dead, because:
1) Trump the Nazi put "brown" people into an extermination camp on Jan 21, 2017
2) Trump the Crazy caused the nuclear war with China/Korea/Russia
3) Trump the Russian sold you off to Russia
4) Net Neutrality repeal has killed us all last month
5) Tax cuts caused millions to die

Must be the Mueller probe thingie or the pussyhat resistors, or Hillary, that's saving us all, temporarily. Any day now.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be believable if it weren't for the wee little fact that we've been told that skin color is the most important things in technology in the current year, by the same activists who now crusade for NN no less.

Re:More than that

[Hal_Porter]

Are you talking about the US Civil War? Alt Right President Lincoln freeing those brown people?

Or are you talking about the post Civil War period when the KKK was run by Democrats and opposed by the Alt Right Federal Government?

Re: More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon we all know for all too many out there, skin color is all that matters.

Re:More than that

[dunkelfalke]

The Democrats only started (slowly) moving to the left in the 1930ies. I never have been in the Americas in the first place, yet I know that. Why don't you?

Re:More than that

[gtall]

Yep, just judging by his lack non-American accent, he's as American as yer basic Bubba. Just happens to be a home grown asshole.

Re:More than that

[gtall]

Same here. I had 7 uncles and a dad who fought in WWII, only two in the Pacific but I would still count imperial Japan as a bunch of Nazis given their racial purity fixation and the way they treated every other nationality. It is galling to think some alleged Americans believe in anything like Nazi principles and I'm damned pissed at them for that.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you. i'll punch any nazi i see, you piece of shit nazi sympathizer.

Advocating violence? How very fascist of you.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing it's more like he fears for his life at this point.

Good. He should.

Re:More than that

[Opportunist]

He does. But he hopes you don't.

Re: More than that

[Opportunist]

So we now have the first darker skinned person hated by BOTH sides of the political spectrum? Right for skin, left for content?

Re:More than that

[Opportunist]

And yet I didn't give a shit about the crusade either. I am old. I have to pick my wars, and I tend to pick the ones that make sense.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

he fears for his life at this point

I really don't find that credible. The people who know enough to understand why the net neutrality reversal is bad for consumers also are sophisticated enough to understand that physically harming the man would do nothing to change the repeal. In fact, it would certainly backfire and paint the repeals opponents in the worst possible light.

I loathe the current administration, but I don't want to see physical harm come to any of them. Aside from being morally repugnant, I don't really care about Trump as a person very much. What I want to see is voters to repudiate this administration and what it does and stands for in elections. The individuals themselves are just a few people; it's the political conversation I want to see change.

Re:More than that

[penandpaper]

Are your 2 Congressmen Republicans? No? Then Mission Accomplished. Did you Senator approve the appointment of Pai when Obama nominated him? Then I guess you have some work to do to get that Senator out. What party are they?

Why should someone in Montana vote against their congressman? How has any of those 3 not represented their constituents needs and wants for this issue or other more important issues (as seen by their constituents)?

Re: More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

lol fuck off, troll

Re:More than that

[pastafazou]

Guess you've never heard of Woodrow Wilson?

Re:More than that

[sethstorm]

So much for that oversized Reeses mug.

Re:More than that

[Hal_Porter]

I've heard the theory the parties switched sides at some point in the 20th century - though the most often claim is that it happened in the 60's not the 30's.

But Ben Shapiro would dispute that :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you Senator approve the appointment of Pai when Obama nominated him?

That stupid canard again? Seriously? Obama was required to appoint a Republican to that seat and the Republicans wanted an industry shill as usual. Obama didn't make him chair.

Re:More than that

[BlueStrat]

Guess you've never heard of Woodrow Wilson?

"I hate that guy!" -- Glenn Beck

Seriously, Wilson RE-segregated the US government/military and a whole laundry list of other horrible, racist, bigoted things including internment camps.

He was fucking evil.

Yet we name public schools after that monster. What, exactly, is the message we're sending kids with that!?

If there's anyone's statues we as a people should be tearing down, especially racial minorities, it's those of Woodrow Wilson. He is at least as evil and offensive as any of the Confederacy leaders ever were.

Strat

Re:More than that

[ceoyoyo]

"being an asshole is what goes deeper."

I actually goes all the way through and comes out the other side.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate freedom?

Re:More than that

[dgatwood]

The FCC tried to regulate, was sued, and had to roll back the original net neutrality rules because the relevant legislation did not give the FCC the power to do so. So they chose to use the draconian, vastly out of date Title II designation as a round about. While the intent might have been good, the additional consequences were not.

What additional consequences? Thus far, I've seen no evidence that the Title II designation did much of anything other than give the FCC the authority to crack the whip when needed.

Re:More than that

[penandpaper]

Do you get upset when a Republican president is required to nominate a Democrat to the FCC?

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Before ranting or taking shots at someone, make sure you know how the US government is made up. You have 1 Representative (Congress) and 2 Senators. Congressional districts are allocated based on population (California has more districts than Wyoming) where each person is represented by 1 representative. Each state was allocated 2 senators that represents all persons in the state. Additionally, Congresspeople are elected every 2 years where Senators are up for election every 6 years. The theory being is your Representative was more directly accountable to you and the Senators were there to balance the stupidity of crowds. Checks/Balances even in the legislative branch. Jesus....US History 101 stuff there.....fuckwits......

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh. Obfuscant indeed. There is no connection between your fictitious scientist friend and Pai's situation. Pai is a public figure, your imaginary friend is a being of fiction conjured up to make a sophomoric argument. He likely never intended to appear. He is a grandstander lacking in ethics and respectability so he likely claimed he would appear in order to seem the big man while making the arrangements, but in fact will not. You know, a fake patina of democracy just like your fake patina of good faith...obfuscant.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you have and worship the 2nd amendment again? Flipping the blame to your opponents for what you're actually doing was an actual nazi propaganda tactic used and promoted by Goebbels. Who's the actual fascist here?

Re:More than that

[Opportunist]

Fun fact: Animals (at least more complex ones) are divided into two clades, Prostostomes and Deuterostomes, with the latter being most of the higher animals, including us. The dividing factor is based on which "end" of the digestive tract forms first. In Protostomes, the mouth is formed first, in Deuterostomes, it's the anus.

In other words, at the beginning of our life, we all are, for a time, just assholes.

Re:More than that

[dave420]

If society can justify punching out people who are nazis

you mean. Clumsily equating nazis with people who fight nazis isn't very wise or honest...

Re:More than that

[gordo3000]

actually no we didn't fight a war over eugenics. If you think that, you know scant little about far more recent American History than WWII. We didn't even rally the troops against genocide. We rallied troops because we were attacked, plain and simple.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Clumsily equating nazis with people who fight nazis isn't very wise or honest...

Nonsense. We live in a civilized society based on rule of law, not the rule of violence and mob justice. Pointing out that violence against nazis is still violence is completely wise and honest.

What is unwise and dishonest is what you're doing: trying to justify that violence. It is exceptionally bad, because your justification boils down to being over wrongthink/thoughtcrime.

You don't get rid of bad ideas by stomping on peopel's faces with a boot/iron fist. You get rid of it by having better ideas, winning hearts and minds.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I hope you're okay with that violence being used against you in return. Because if you make it open season on Nazis, pretty soon it'll be open season on communists and other leftists too. And by the way, saying that you shouldn't physically attack vile people for sharing their vile views doesn't make you a sympathizer. It means you understand how to actually make progress and you're confident enough in your viewpoint that you don't need to shut all others down.

Re:More than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you get upset when a Republican president is required to nominate a Democrat to the FCC?

No because you shouldn't be thinking in terms of Republican or Democrat. That's the worst way to think about any representative. I simply see people as intelligent or idiots. Unfortunately most of the US government is currently run by idiots. There's really no other way to see it unless you too are an idiot. Now most of the government happens to be GOP right now, so that makes Republicans look worse but to be clear there are idiots on all sides, in every area.

My favorite thing about this time in history (assuming the US can remain first world status) is that hundreds of people are destroying their careers and legacies. No one will remember Trump as anything but the worst president in recent history and he'll be used as a case study in failure. The entire White House staff will be lucky to get any job at all after Trump, let alone one that has any meaning. It's rare to see such public and blatant incompetence flaunted as uncompromising success.

Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Martin Shkreli increased 5600% the price of critical medication for vulnerable section of the community. He also disrespected the Wu Tang Clan and committed securities fraud - if you value rap groups or high net worth individuals more than human lives. So how is Ajit Pai the most hated person in tech?

Re:Most hated?

[PopeRatzo]

So how is Ajit Pai the most hated person in tech?

Ajit Pai and Martin Shkreli are very similar characters. Pai seems a little more eager to please his masters, whereas Shkreli would unabashedly throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar.

Pai has a family that might miss him, but who knows. Maybe not. Nobody in the world would miss Martin Shkreli. I'll bet his mother has his number blocked and changed her last name.

Re:Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw them both in a prison cell with a bottle of KY and throw away the key.

Re:Most hated?

[drago177]

Godwin's new corollary says if people are comparing you to Martin Shkreli, you're a horrible person and should reverse what you've done.

Re: Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminder that anyone who needed the medication could have DMd Shkreli on Twitter. Shkreli price gouged the insurance companies, which lead to him getting smeared nationwide.

Re:Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw them both in a prison cell with a bottle of KY and ground glass and throw away the key.

fixed that for you

Re:Most hated?

[Opportunist]

You're right. If I had them both in a room and only one bullet in a gun...

I'd start looking for rope.

Re:Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Ajit Pai wants to minimize government interference and return the internet to the non-regulated freedom it had pre-2015. Of course the liberal media has all its usual lemmings believing that he hates freedom, eats puppies, and wants to stifle innovation. How dare he put us back to the pre-2015 internet that only produced petty little things like Amazon, eBay, Facebook, and Google? How will we ever be able to innovate without constant government interference and red tape?

I saw a sign that said "If you don't take care of your customers, someone else will". That is a pure capitalist statement and if any ISP starts choking its customers bandwidth then another ISP will eagerly step in and take over.

Re:Most hated?

[PopeRatzo]

Actually Ajit Pai wants to minimize government interference and return the internet to the non-regulated freedom it had pre-2015

Boy, if you believe that, you're stupid.

if any ISP starts choking its customers bandwidth then another ISP will eagerly step in and take over.

Yeah, like I said: stupid.

Re:Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah run/work at an ISP. We dont really get to decide what happens with the tier3 providers that we rely on, and it isnt like there is a lot of other options. So the loss of net neutrality scares the bejesus outta me.

Re:Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I guess you *would* have to tie them up to keep'em in a nice line for the one shot.

But have you thought about pistol-whipping one as though you were a cop?

Re:Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I am doubting that you deal with tier 3 providers. Because if you did, you'd realize that they don't have a dog in this fight. They sell pipes to all comers. Their only interest is in getting balanced traffic.

Which is where this whole mess came from in the first place. Because Neflix happened. The L3's of the world charge based on the traffic. If you attach with equal up and down traffic, it isn't a big deal.

But Netflix made everybody except their ISP into a client, rather than a provider. So the Verizons and Comcasts of the world were having to pay a lot more for bandwidth than they expected, because they were no longer peering as equals.

So then some of the ISP companies started screwing with the traffic, throttling and slowing to get that traffic down.

It doesn't have to be evil or nefarious. Netflix very rapidly doubled the amount of data flowing on the internet. Nobody was ready for that and they all tried to deal with it without affecting the large majority of their customers. But the net effect was pretty crappy for some folks.

Pai's solution to all of this is to use the FTC to make sure that ISP's advertise their SLA and stick to it. This is the proper answer.

T-Mobile is doing this now. They recompress video and let you have all you can eat of the recompressed stuff. Which is a complete and utter violation of net neutrality. It also happens to be a major boon to most of their customers. They tell you up front what they are doing, and you have a way around it - with potential costs in terms of data throttling. The network as a whole is better off, and nobody is getting taken for a ride.

I'm not sure why people are so hell-bent on pretending that this solution is the death of the internet.

And if it doesn't work, there will be plenty of pressure on congress to pass a real law targeting the internet directly.

Re:Most hated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Ajit Pai wants to minimize government interference and return the internet to the non-regulated freedom it had pre-2015. Of course the liberal media has all its usual lemmings believing that he hates freedom, eats puppies, and wants to stifle innovation. How dare he put us back to the pre-2015 internet that only produced petty little things like Amazon, eBay, Facebook, and Google? How will we ever be able to innovate without constant government interference and red tape?

I saw a sign that said "If you don't take care of your customers, someone else will". That is a pure capitalist statement and if any ISP starts choking its customers bandwidth then another ISP will eagerly step in and take over.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Holy shit you're stupid! I wonder, do you know you're a complete moron or do you think you're actually smart?

Spineless P.O.S.!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ajit Pai is nothing but a piece of feces that needs to be wiped off of my boot.

Piss off, race baiting troll

[DanDD]

An individual in Federal agencies that has broad rule-making powers has unilaterally decided the freedom and business landscape for _the_most_revolutionary_method_of_communication_used_by_humans, and you bring race into this?

Piss off.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Antique Geekmeister]

"_the_most_revolutionary_method_of_communication_used_by_humans,"

I'd present that label to the written word. But yes, the spread of the Internet would be a close second.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[ClickOnThis]

"_the_most_revolutionary_method_of_communication_used_by_humans,"

I'd present that label to the written word. But yes, the spread of the Internet would be a close second.

I'd put the printed word in between the two, but I got you.

I'm not so sure that ISPs become publishers in this context. More like suppliers of paper, and providers of transport (i.e., the mail.)

TL/DR: IMHO, service-providers must not be content-providers. That is all.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Bartles]

Didn't they also unilaterally decide on imposing NN 3 years ago? We're just going back to the point before the FCC unilaterally decided to regulate the internet.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[pots]

His powers are in no way unilateral. Setting aside his four fellow commissioners, they can only implement what congress gives them. If the courts decide that they're not doing what congress told them to do, their rules get struck down (this is what happened in 2010), if congress decides that they're not doing what congress wants them to do they can be replaced (this is what happened in 2017), and if congress decides that they're still not getting in line then they can be overruled directly (ideally, this is what will happen in 2018).

I don't mean to pick on you, but there's this wholly inaccurate trend to blame everything on Pai here and doing that will get us nowhere. Pai is congress' stooge and fall guy. If we fail to hold congress accountable for this then they have won.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they also unilaterally decide on imposing NN 3 years ago?

No, they didn't "impose" Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality already was the way things were, and it was absolutely fine just the way it was; but Comcast/Verizon/AT&T's "business model" was incompatible with your wellbeing and they wanted it all changed into a fiefdom with tollbooths every five feet.
The Net Neutrality rules -- which were, essentially, de-facto already in effect -- were codified officially on paper to...i guess "cement them in place" because, if they weren't Comcast/Verizon/AT&T would run roughshod over us if those rules weren't there.

Here's an analogy for you: It put a "fence" where OUR "property lines" were, because Comcast/Verizon/AT&T kept waltzing into our "yard" and sniffing around our "garden shed" and looking in our "windows".

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[DNS-and-BIND]

Race is always relevant. If the BLM protests haven't taught us anything, they've taught us that. We always look at race with everything we do. What we have here is a largely white audience criticizing a brown man for his conduct that they don't approve of. It's at the very least problematic, at the worst outright racist.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the left-wing activists that brought race into this. They go on and on how everyone is always racist and how there needs to be more diversity and fewer fucking white males. It's hilarious that the same crowd always turns on minorities as soon as they aren't good little parrots.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Anonymous Coward]

It still has nothing to do with race. An audience criticizes someone because they disapprove of that person's actions. Period. The only thing that is racist is bringing race to an argument where it simply isn't relevant, like this one. That's a very, very slippery slope and in fact one of the fundamental things that creates racism in the first place.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[penandpaper]

If your description is correct then maybe we shouldn't allow one individual to unilaterally make that decision. Not Pai and not Wheeler. Congress should've been the one to make that decision.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Anonymous Coward]

if it wasnt for the grab-assing piratez/warez pupz, this wouldn't be a problem to begin with. we cant ever have nice things because a minority always has to ruin things for The Rest Of Us(R).

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Anonymous Coward]

All that.

and you want to keep him in charge when he doesn't want to be.

are you stupid? you sound fucking stupid. "oh we hate this guy! keep him in charge!"

stupid.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[penandpaper]

: IMHO, service-providers must not be content-providers. That is all.

It's telecommunication service providers and information service providers are the classifications defined in the law. Problem is, lawyers can argue that ISPs are both which is why the law is in need of an update.

I'd put the printed word in between the two, but I got you.

In order of significance. Spoken word. Written word. Printed word. Electrically transmitted word. The internet is the succession of a long line of "most revolutionary method of communication used by humans". Each one the most revolutionary for the time. Each one dependent on the last.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[JackieBrown]

and you bring race into this?

Piss off.

Wow. Don't like that BS label thrown back at your side, huh? Think how we felt for the past 8 years when that was thrown at us whenever we disagreed with Obama.

I know you can't see it, but Hall was trying to make that point

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Anonymous Coward]

When you "disagree" by questioning the man's parentage, religion, intelligence, and basically toss every racial innuendo short of "nagger," the way our current sitting president did for eight years, then you deserve the label. But yeah, you're the fucking victim, here.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[DanDD]

JackieBrown, your comment is interesting, and I appreciate you making it.

You are correct, I did not see Hall's comment as equating Ajit Pai with Trump and party politics that favor corporations over individuals, and with your example of reverse racism that you mentioned with Obama. Hall's comment was simply crass race baiting, and served a harsh response.

You have some interesting preconceived notions about 'my side', and your assumption that I was an avid Obama supporter and that I oppose Trump. It seems people are all too willing to draw battle lines between 'sides', with too little willingness to actually consider deeper issues from a standpoint of what is morally and ethically required. I hope this problem doesn't consume the flesh and blood citizens of this country, lest we repeat previous mistakes that seem ever closer

When safeguards exist that prevent dissent, in the form of words, videos, or sarcastic images, from being throttled or censored because corporate profit , then problems like the Ajit Pais of the world can be mixed with tangents like racism.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[JackieBrown]

Yeah. Because Bush's religion, partentage, and intelligence was never criticized or questioned.

I guess it's possible you are subtley making Hals point but I kind of doubt it.

Re:Piss off, race baiting troll

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

If it was a left-winger who changed things and right-wingers were this upset, you know racism would be invoked as one reason why. I agree it's arguing in bad faith, and it's not really helping things, but it's always funny to point out hypocrisy.

Ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ajit Pai, the most hated person in tech"

I don't hate him. Like Trump, he pisses off all the right people.

Re:Ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

like trump, he's a fucking liar, an idiot, and a money grubbing greed head who will suck the cock of anybody or anything to boost his own diminished ego, even if it means selling out his own country and taking a huge SHIT on the Constitution of the United States, a document concerning which he has only ONE fucking job, and he is so grossly incompetent and mentally deficient that he can't even do THAT.

The entire GOP is nothing but a trailer park of white trash fuck stains, a celebration of ignorance that frankly needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Any other questions, trumpflake?

LOL@vword: inferior --- A word that aptly describes every republican who ever lived.

Re:Ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Your weakness makes me sick. But, it is satisfying to watch you cry like a little bitch. I don't hate Trump or Ajit Pai, I hate YOU.

FTFY

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If left-wingers can justify punching out people they disagree with then they can just as easily justify beating the crap out of Pai.

FTFY

(Note that the issue of whether right-wingers can justify punching out people they disagree with doesn't arise in this case. So don't bother following up to discuss whether I'm suggesting that right-wingers are less likely to escalate from discussion to beating the tar out of people or just that they mostly aren't disagreeing with Pai.)

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't bother following up to discuss whether I'm suggesting that right-wingers are less likely to escalate from discussion to beating the tar out of people or just that they mostly aren't disagreeing with Pai.

Right-wingers don't "beat the tar" out of people they disagree with. They shoot them or run them over.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Or burn a cross in their yard while wearing a white hood

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

And then have them arrested for resisting the impact.

Re:FTFY

[Sarten-X]

Since this is being touted as an economic issue, I'm more right-wing than anything else... and I could also find a few good reasons to abruptly perform a manual realignment of his septum.

Since the issue has arisen, yes, let's follow up with a discussion of why you'd bother bringing politics into a discussion of a hubristic asshole undermining the democratic process that is the foundation of our country. I do, in fact, disagree with the decision to allow government-sanctioned monopolies to add arbitrary fees, but moreso I disagree with the entire process surrounding the vote.

This isn't a political decision of whether we want a society-focused or a individual-focused government, which is usually the core difference between conservative and liberal ideologies. Rather, this is a very straightforward ruling to let private companies increase profit by harming individuals and other companies, and thanks to the existence of municipal monopolies, the competition that might drive is essentially outlawed across most of the country. If the legality of local monopolies was also on the chopping block, I'd have more concern for the chairman's countenance, but under the current conditions, I must oppose.

The net result is that ISPs are free to extort other businesses, and their position of power is being backed by government enforcement. This is the antithesis of the highly-competitive conservative ideal, and it's also contrary to the community-focused goals of a liberal government. It does, however, align with the goals of a kleptocracy. The politicians get their cushy jobs and revolving doors leading to the decision's benefactors, and those who engage in honest competition are left paying the bill.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were actually Democrats. Learn your history.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were actually Democrats. Learn your history.

While you may be historically accurate, you omit the fact that the Democrats and Republicans have essentially switched ideologies since the Lyndon Johnson administration, if not earlier.

Re: FTFY

[Tulsa_Time]

WRONG.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were actually Democrats. Learn your history.

They were socially conservative individuals in the South that voted Democrat (Dixiecrats). They eventually started voting Republican after the Civil Rights Act under LBJ who admitted that he had lost the South for at least a generation.

You need to learn your history, as you failed it miserably.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

switched ideologies since the Lyndon Johnson administration, if not earlier.

Which makes those ideologies new and unsound because they're so new. Further, what's the indicator that either system is a) better than the other b) a successful ideology to begin with?

You do realize how devastating your comment really is when you take the time to examine it? Most democracies get given one of two choices (others less). And we as a collective spend our waking lives listening to the drivel on the TV or Internet and allow our lives to be ruled by it. Note i said "allow" not "forced".

Yet most of us accept the fines, taxes and whatever shit they throw at us and just call it life. But it's what you say, it's all based on flimsy ideologies which change about a frequently as Lady Gaga's outfits during one of her concerts.

We destroy each other based on these ideologies. We kill each other over them. For what? Money? Land? Gold? Oh no not any more! These days its cryptographically stored barcodes on a group of Linux boxes scattered on a dozen or so servers which we place an unsurmountable amount of value. And we do this because? you guessed it, it's become the latest drivel on the TV or Internet.

So in the spirit of our collective stupidity and continued devolved behavior. I have to agree with you.

Re:FTFY

[postbigbang]

Clearly, you don't understand the Wheeler shift to Title II, its impact, and why the change to a free-for-all model clearly sucks. Local monopolies have zero, nothing, nada, zip, and sweet fuck all to do with the decision and any connection or allusion to municipal utilities is a ruse and facade to carrier domination. This was bought and paid for.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, correct. The hoods and crosses belong to another party now (just look at their voting records over the past 4 decades).. Cover your ears and scream la la la all you want, reality calls it like it is.

Re:FTFY

[h33t l4x0r]

This reads like nonsense. Why shouldn't Verizon get to send Netflix a bill for clogging their tubes. And why should I care?

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you pay your ISP for a line with a certain speed, for example 100Mbits down, 10Mbits up.

You as a consumer can decide to use your line for exclusively streaming netflix, or downloading games through steam, or amazon video, or any of the myriad of other services available online. To your ISP it should not matter where you're using the bandwith for.

Thing is most if not all ISP's can't really deliver that 100Mbits down, at least not when everyone in your area is using that full speed. They've oversold their line's capacity to make more money and get by making less investments while still apearing to have fast lines.

This used to work because there was no steam, no netflix, no big reasons for people to use that full 100Mbits except for the few people in an area using peer2peer networks.

With the advent of attractive services on the internet the ISP's are noticing that they're quite behind on investing and upgrading their networks, and they want an extra buck and think they can extort it from parties like netflix (which already pays it's own ISP, so why should it pay yours too?).

That, and most ISP's also have a mixed interest in seeing companies like netflix fail because they often have competing video services. Probably why you saw a netflix tax in the past but not a Steam tax.

Re:FTFY

[Opportunist]

The older ones here will remember that this scenario is not new. Remember dial-up? In the good ol' days of the internet, landlines used to have flat rates. You could make local calls without being charged by the minute. Why? Because phone companies knew that you wouldn't do that 24/7. Who in their sane mind would be on the phone all the time? Well, except for some old hags who don't have anything better to do, but old hags were few and far between. They could easily oversell 50:1 or even 100:1 (50 phones sharing 1 line) because people simply didn't use the resource as much as they technically could.

Then came the internet and suddenly, being connected 24/7 became increasingly interesting. And that model of overselling phone lines was put under severe stress. To the point where telcos either had to run more cable or see their business fail. Some tried to return to metered lines but the resistance to something like this was immense, mostly because people felt the pain themselves, it cut into their own bottom line (unlike now where the loss of net neutrality mostly hits the other side directly, the content provider).

These unmetered, flat-rate phone lines had a very beneficial effect on the internet in general, though. Unlike in Europe where metered local calls were the norm, the adoption of internet use outside of universities took off in the US almost a decade before anything close to it happened in Europe, where only in areas serviced by cable TV providers you could get affordable internet at home during the 90s. It took well into the 2000s for Europe to catch up, mostly due to the standard of metered local calls (with prices of about 5 bucks an hour, you just couldn't stay online for more than a few minutes to check mail).

The second push, the move towards DSL, came from the telcos that wanted to get people off the overused and severely strained dial-up lines. The idea was that with faster speeds they could start introducing transfer limits, and the plan actually worked (mostly), until they had time to catch up with the hardware roll-out of more cabling and routing.

If phone lines had been metered all the time, the internet would probably still be the pastime of a few university students and people rich enough to not give a shit about 50-100 bucks a day for their hobby.

Re: FTFY

[_Sharp'r_]

You're the one who needs to learn some history. A couple of points:
First, the Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act. The Democrats in Congress were the ones trying to stop it. Why would that make racists turn away from the Democrats to the Republicans? Makes no sense.
Second, the South turned Republican starting with the least racist States and people rather than the most. The KKK was affiliated with the Democratic Party. The Republicans were predominantly the non-racists who moved into the area and the younger people who grew up later.

The whole "Southern Strategy" theory is a mostly a myth. The Republicans in general have stayed the party of non-racism and color-blindness and the Democratic Party has stuck with the idea of dividing everyone by "race", they've just changed which races they want to privilege at different times.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, another lying conservative claiming things complete opposite to reality.

Colour me completely unsurprised. It's what you guys do.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't the lines they were lacking, it was the switch gear. Switch gear was at a 10:1 gear/lines ratio. There simply wasn't enough to give everyone a working connection to anyone else.
The dial-up ISP's also had a gear limitation. You got a dropped connection after some time to allow others to get on the 'net.
Overall, ISP's charging large users more than small users if akin to paying more for a F350 than a KIA Sorento. And paying the higher fuel bill to operate it.

Re: FTFY

[pastafazou]

Wrong. Democrats switched their strategy from suppressing the black vote to winning the black vote by buying them with welfare and food stamps. Robert Byrd, a sitting Democrat Senator well into the 21st century, was a known KKK member. The declassified JFK Assassination files finger Lyndon B Johnson as a KKK member. No Democrats switched to the Republican party, and no Republicans switched to the Democrat party. So how exactly did the hoods and crosses switch party ownership? If you want to see what the Democrats have done for black people in America, look no further than Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago. These three cities have been dominated by Democrats for over four decades, they lead the US in blacks being murdered and have a black unemployment rate that is triple the unemployment rate of the white population of those cities. Planned Parenthood sets up their abortion shops in predominantly black communities and abort black babies at much higher rate than any other race. And then they sell those aborted fetus organs to rich white people. Who supports Planned Parenthood? The Democrats.

Re: FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

So many lies, but the 2 biggest would be:
"No Democrats switched to the Republican party, and no Republicans switched to the Democrat party."
Many did, starting with the Dixiecrats in 1948. The ones who rejoined the Democrats eventually (with the exception of Byrd) left after the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

"And then they sell those aborted fetus organs to rich white people."
This has been debunked a hundred times so you need some new "proof". Besides, something that I never get about you racists is why would you NOT want minorities aborting their fetuses? I would imagine if having no minorities is the goal, then there would be 6 clinics in every ghetto. But the concept of a conservative doing anything that makes sense is a pretty uncommon one.

Re: FTFY

[_Sharp'r_]

Wow, I cite the NY Times (not exactly a right-wing haven) talking about a scholarly book based on actual voting records and your refutation of all that evidence is... well, nothing at all.

Apparently the point is proven.

Re: FTFY

[pastafazou]

The Dixiecrats formed their own party for the 1948 elections. They WENT BACK TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY for the 1952 election after agreeing to pledge loyalty to the party. Nice try liar

Ad Hominem Much?

[Nova Express]

"Ajit Pai, the most hated person in tech since Darl McBride"

Evidence for this assertion? None.

Evidently someone repealing the Obama Administration's fiat decision, returning the Internet back to the dystopian nightmare that it was in 2015, has offended a great many "net neutrality" boosters on Slashdot. Yet you offer no evidence that Ajit Pai is more hated than (to grab a few examples) Elizabeth Holmes, Anita Sarkeesian, Steve Balmer, Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg.

How's that 2 Minute Hate working out for you?

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole! Right-wingers hate it, when used by anyone but them. #MAGA

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. I am not kidding.

Re: Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see how much love he will amass when pornhub or xtube starts to slow down without a reason.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, "Apparently he lacks the spine to justify himself before the group of individuals his decisions affect most."

Maybe he doesn't feel like getting up in front of people who are just going to shit all over him with screaming and insults without listening to a word he says. Quite frankly I wouldn't bother, either.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to 2014 the FCC had the authority. Verizon spending a ton of money in court got the FCC's authority narrowed significantly because ISPs weren't common carriers. But that the FCC could reclassify ISPs under Title II, make them common carriers, and essentially gain back that authority.
Which is what they did. That has now be undone. There was only a brief window of 2014-2015 where ISPs weren't regulated. There is an extensive history of ISPs doing sketchy shit and getting taken to court by the FCC since the early 2000s to get it stopped. They no longer have this authority. This is a brand new world of unregulated internet and it's going to suck.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[hey!]

I'm just curious what the difference between a "fiat decision" and a "non-fiat decision" might be.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean he doesn't want done to him what he did to the rest of us?

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ajit Pai, the most hated person in tech since Darl McBride"

Evidence for this assertion? None.

No evidence? Millions of citizens voiced their disdain and advocated for him NOT to do the very thing he arrogantly went off and did after ignoring every damn one of them.

And then he rubbed it in by making an it's-all-good promotional video so vapidly stupid it makes reality TV look like a Nat Geo documentary.

If you can't see how he earned his moniker, you're as ignorant as he is.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're almost right.

This is a brand new world of the Internet being regulated by ISPs rather than the technical principles which have guided the deployment and development of the Internet since its DARPA days.

Hacks from Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have no interest in the proper functioning of a packet-switching network. They just want to make money off it.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[TheGratefulNet]

I don't know a single tech person (I live in the bay area) who likes that fuck-wad.

yes, I truly do agree that he's the most hated guy in tech; maybe next to the orange one.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of citizens

Means nothing. Most people are idiots.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[ClickOnThis]

I'm just curious what the difference between a "fiat decision" and a "non-fiat decision" might be.

In this context, roughly fiat = authoritative.

Parsing it more carefully, I suppose it means a command or decree based merely on authority, without further obligation or justification.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the Bay Area. I love the job Ajit Pai is doing.
Get out of your "ermagerhd, everyone who disagrees with me is a fash!" bubble.

You sound like a tween girl upset that a more attractive girl, Jenny, has a nicer notebook than her.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like confirmation bias to me.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[ClickOnThis]

Millions of citizens

Means nothing. Most people are idiots.

And yet they vote. Does that mean nothing? For better or for worse, I don't.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! I just used my last modpoint on this guy. We're almost out of modpoints for the day just on this thread alone. But I dare you to log in and post that.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[hey!]

I know what "fiat" means; I just don't know what the poster thinks it means.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Dragonslicer]

I'm just curious what the difference between a "fiat decision" and a "non-fiat decision" might be.

"Fiat", like "communism", means "something I don't like".

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[ceoyoyo]

Something *I've been told* I don't like.

Re:Ad Hominem Much?

[Dragonslicer]

That too. Thanks for the correction.

Mediocrity requires aloofness

[QuietLagoon]

Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve its dignity. - Charles Gates Dawes

I wouldn't go either

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd genuinely fear for my life the way many people behave about this issue.

Re:I wouldn't go either

[Opportunist]

There's an easy fix for that: Don't be an asshole. You'll notice that a lot less people want you dead that way.

What a coward!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I should know!!!

now what am I going to do with them?

[v1]

the market's not very good right now trying to find someplace to unload crates of rotten tomatoes and eggs....

"Lacks Spine"

[SuperKendall]

Or maybe he doesn't want to be assassinated by the loony people you find here on Slashdot in droves, that have blown the Network Neutrality regulations vastly out of proportion.

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[PoopJuggler]

Or you just don't understand the far-reaching ramifications.

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[SuperKendall]

Or you just don't understand the far-reaching ramifications.

Unlike most here, I understood the far reaching ramifications of the regulation really well. Which is why I cheered why they were disbanded, like watching the Death Star burst into a million pieces as future citizens of the Earth danced for joy.

NN rules gone, what is different now than what we had before when we were under them?

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[Anonymous Coward]

the internet is dead. OMG the world is over.

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[deathguppie]

Or perhaps you are just another one of those suffering from confirmation bias, with the inability to assimilate any information no matter how scientific or well thought out that does not apply to your point of view.

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[Anonymous Coward]

OP must work for AT&T or Comcast and is trying to keep his job.

Re:"Lacks Spine"

[ClickOnThis]

Or maybe he doesn't want to be assassinated by the loony people you find here on Slashdot in droves, that have blown the Network Neutrality regulations vastly out of proportion.

And maybe you need to supply some examples of "the loony people you find here on Slashdot" who have committed assassinations.

None? Thought so.

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[Antique Geekmeister]

I suggest you wait 6 years. It's going to take a few years for the current backbone infrastructure to adjust to the new regulatory status. Then expect to see far more siloed services., and far more pernicious monitoring built into the systems that are doing throttling, as part of the package. I'd estimate 3 years as the half life oof the most powerful backbone routers to really see traffic alter.

Re:"Lacks Spine"

[Opportunist]

He's one of those people that are still alive for the sole reason that he's just not worth a second of jail time.

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[Opportunist]

Mind if I bookmark this for later use?

Re: "Lacks Spine"

[Anonymous Coward]

You fell for it. You'll be eating these words in 6 years when you're paying double for worse service, in the name of "freedom".

He Knows....

[Heebie]

He knows he'd end up facing an angry mob.... as he should.

Personally, I like him

[Anonymous Coward]

He made many good points that many of his detractors didn't think about.

I think he made the right decision on N-N.

I hope he doesn't even make it in the history book

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that he doesn't even make it in the history books.... he could be referenced as "some shitty government official"

What pussy

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowardly coward is a coward..

You are so funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't blame him from not attending a group of children who are ranting and shouting and carrying on like WWIII has started. The lies that have been put out just keep fueling the hatred and division and this article is so keenly worded that if you didn't feel the writers opinion then you must be as dumb as a Democrat.

Coward

[Dracos]

He can't justify his decisions, they're unjustifiable. He is Verizon's stooge, pure and simple. I wonder if the other telecoms are chipping in.

Calling his appearance a discussion is laughably generous. He was going to get curb-stomped, at least figuratively.

Re:Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't justify his decisions, they're unjustifiable.

He is Verizon's stooge, pure and simple.

Sounds like a justification to me. If you don't like the government's actions, then perhaps you should form your own mega-ISP so you can gain the benefits. 'If you can't beat them, join them.'

Re:Coward

[swb]

The problem is this only makes it *more obvious* he's nothing more than a paid for stooge to telecom companies, possibly making the backlash worse. You would think he would need to show some moxie and stand up in public over this a couple of times to make it look more like a genuine policy issue.

There not gone yet

[robbak]

The rules are still in effect until some time after the changed rules are published, and they haven't yet done that - despite voting them into effect, they are still editing them. Don't know how that works.

And for how this will effect us - take a look at the very important promises that have been recently removed from the ISPs websites. It is a clear promise to make the life of any current provider of a service on the internet hard, and anyone creating a new service, impossible.

Re: There not gone yet

[nowwith25percentmore]

FCC still revising the order: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

This is a good decision

[wonkavader]

Seems like the only clever thing he's ever done.

Ajit Pai

[Anonymous Coward]

is such a fucking pussy.

Neutral Networking

[dohzer]

Of course he's cancelled. He won't be able to do neutral networking amount such a biased crowd.

HOMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Invited back again. balan3e is struck,

It is you pissing on freedom

[SuperKendall]

An individual in Federal agencies that has broad rule-making powers has unilaterally decided the freedom and business landscape

What you described is EXACTLY what the Network Neutrality rules did - stepped into a system that was working perfectly well with some occasional oversight by the FCC, and impose a huge set of rules that UNILATERALLY DECIDED the freedom and business landscape for ISP's - all under control of the current Federal government. Were you really so hard for Mike Pence to start saying what was OK to go over the tubes?

Piss off.

No, sir. No I will not. I will stand here forever, guarding against your toadying ilk that would destroy true freedom, pissing in a cup and telling us all it is lemonade. No wonder you like to talk about urine so much.

Re: It is you pissing on freedom

[liefer]

What the fsck are you talking about, dummy? You have absolutely no sense of context or what?

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now. Ajit is not going to let you suck his cock. You can stop gobbling it.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[slack_justyb]

stepped into a system that was working perfectly well with some occasional oversight by the FCC

Bullshit. They were classified as Title II by the pressuring of Verizon in court case after court case that the FCC took major ISPs to court over. Like seriously, the FCC IMHO gave ISPs every single chance they could to clean up their act and they just kept saying, "nope, we'll see you in court."

No, sir. No I will not. I will stand here forever, guarding against your toadying ilk that would destroy true freedom

You have zero clues. You lack so much knowledge on this topic, you literally have no clue what the term "freedom" means. You say these words with conviction and all I can say is that I'm glad you believe every word you speak but you have zero clue as to what you are talking about. There's no point in trying to show you where you are wrong, I've come across several zealots like yourself in this discussion and even when shown the court cases, the actions of the ISPs, and piece of evidence after piece of evidence that this claim that the Internet was "working great" before is purely false. It all falls back on the brain dead argument of "well I don't like the government telling me or companies what to do." To which I say, go fuck yourself and your uneducated arguments that lack any resemblance to actual fact.

In short, you've come to the wrong place on the Internet to spew this fiction that the Internet was "awesome and working perfectly" back in the day. Everyone here is well aware of what went down, we were all there. We all understand that once you peel the layers of your argument back it just reveals itself to be one of subjective matter on how you feel governments should work. No one gives a shit about how you FEEL things should work, we all saw ISPs give middle fingers to operators, protocols, networks, and other end nodes on the Internet that they felt just went against their business priorities. And that is the entire point. ISPs aren't created to make a business they're the gateway to the Internet, they are utilities not companies, but they want to convince folks that underneath they're businesses. They can all go suck a big cock with that idea. And then these companies bitch and moan about not being able to roll out because of regulation and how they welcome competition but when cities actually want to treat the gateway to the Internet like it should be treated "a utility" they start getting up in arms and suing the shit out of everyone, every where. That's the failure, that's the core point that people like you don't understand. Being an ISP is not a business. When you think of it like that, then you might as well privatize cops, fire departments, and the army itself. Because whatever made up line in the sand you want to create for why that isn't so, is just some subjective BS that a population of "just you" in that mindset.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

This is patently false. The FCC had in fact tried leaving well-enough alone, but, as it turns out, companies were going out of their way to screw their customers no matter how many times that they kept getting caught.

2005 seems packed but only because prior to this there wasn't really much investigating in that field at all. However, major telecoms had spent money they'd been paid for fiber and cable infrastructure - broken promises of fiber in half the homes of America by the early 2000s - on lobbying to deregulate and lower the standards. That's how you had fiber if anywhere at all somewhere in your connection it eventually became fiber, no matter your dialup speeds and broadband bill due to the bottlenecks.

Madison River in 2005. Comcast *SINCE* 2005 but only completely proven in 2007 by the AP and EFF. Telus in Canada blocking entire servers (with hundreds of different websites) just to snuff out leaks about a strike their workers were having. AT&T degrading and/or blocking VOIP traffic that competed with the service it was trying to push in 2007, continuing this practice when Google Voice appeared in '09. Windstream was using injection and browser hijacks on their customers to steal ad revenue from other search engines (a practice copied several times by other ISPs since then). AT&T, Sprint and Verizon vs Google Wallet. Verizon screwing with apps, AT&T as well both on phones and on PCs.

They never stopped. Every time they'd get caught, every time they'd bog down the legal system to keep any rulings from being achieved against them, and Wheeler only finally brought down the hammer with the classification after their lobbying had gotten every other bloody thing struck down, claiming all the while that there didn't need to be any rules on how they act because they were good companies.

The fact that the entire C-level of every last one of these companies hasn't faced the firing squad is a travesty of everything our country was founded on.

Re: It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The day that everyone has free access to competing providers is the day we no longer need to pursue legislative net neutrality. Unfortunately, many individuals are under the rule of a government mandated monopoly and have no choices for broadband access.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[DanDD]

"... stepped into a system that was working perfectly well with some occasional oversight by the FCC.."

Working perfectly well for whom??

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Corporations and their shills, like Mr. Pai, are not individuals. They should _never_ have a say in law or rule-making. That's the domain of flesh and blood humans with checks and balances to prevent a mob rule.

Ajit Pai is the voice of the 3 wolves in the 'democratic' discourse on what to have for dinner. Fortunately we don't live in a pure democracy.

Now, Piss Off and go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Opportunist]

Where I come from, rabid dogs are being shot.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

what fantasy world do you live on, my low IQ prog tard puppet?

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that everything you are arguing is actually shilling for another set of even larger corporations, don't you?

If anyone cares to hear what the real discussion is about, Pai has given plenty of in-depth interviews explaining the case that the FCC was over-reaching and detailing exactly why the FTC is the appropriate agency to regulate this area.

Your political blinders have allowed you to be manipulated like a little puppet by those other big corporations who own your preferred team.

The whole fight is about regulatory capture. The FCC was being used by one set of companies to control another set of companies. The fact that you FEEL great about which set of companies you shill for in a regulatory proxy battle doesn't exactly recommend your opinions for broad adoption.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

but privatised everything is the american dream...

the fucking "tories" are privatising everything in the UK so we can join your american dream..they are utter cunts.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

>You lack so much knowledge on this topic

Bullshit. You are a funcking retard.

The internet is an agreement between PRIVATE BUSINESSES to connect to each other. The fact that you want the GOVERNMENT to step in and tell PRIVATE BUSINESSES what they can/cannot do is NOT FREEDOM you cuck.

The network operators had 100% the right to do what they want with the SERVICE THEY SELL YOU. Because they are not (currently) required to, NOR WERE THEY EVER CONSIDERED COMMON CARRIERS.

So fuck off. Let the businesses determine what services they want to sell. They will either profit or fail.

I don't see you getting all pissed off about cell phone plans, which, by the way, are highly successful at doling out limited bandwidth based on tiered pricing.

You have no idea what you are talking about and should stop speaking.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is you that is retarded. Perhaps you would like your other utilities to be able to arbitrarily decide whether to charge you more because reasons. How would you feel if your electric company (You have a choice for which company's lines attach to your house, right?) would arbitrarily decide that the generation provider needs to pay more to use their transmission lines. If you want a green provider, you should pay more, right? You want coal, they pay less. You want natural gas, sorry, they aren't allowed on our transmission lines.

You dumb fucks don't realize THERE IS NO CHOICE for the vast majority of broadband customers. It is a monopoly utility and needs to be regulated as such.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

It was "working great" for us, just not for the companies and/or telecom cartels.
And don't you dare cite crappy old page layouts, which is just growing pains & naïve presentation skills. I mean the infrastructure & its administration seemed to be "working great" for us the users. In other words, even if it wasn't, these latest moves are not for us it's for them. And that is a fact.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see you getting all pissed off about cell phone plans, which, by the way, are highly successful at doling out limited bandwidth based on tiered pricing.

Holy shit on a shingle... you're a fucking water-head. You don't realize in the slightest that this was addressed by NN, do you? And yet you banged that keyboard anyway, convinced you were some kind of expert. Jesus... at least most morons know when to keep their ignorant mouths shut.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason there is no choice is because.... wait for it.... government says so.

No, really. Most local governments cut deals with cable companies back in the 70's and 80's for monopoly or semi-monopoly rights. This was the deal they cut to get the investment in infrastructure. So competition is outlawed by the government. That is why it is a monopoly. Because the government mandates that it be a monopoly.

Now they come complaining that the only way to fight this level of government-granted corporate control is to give more control to the government. Which is in turn just a way for entrenched mega-corporations to build a bigger moat around their business, keeping competition out.

The real answer is an end to all of it.... which may be coming in the form of space-based internet providers. If it works, wireless and space based tech will supplant the wired monopolies and allow real competition. Plus, if it works, they'll be pulling in such ludicrous amounts of cash globally that they'll be able to run prices way, way down. So let's hope it works.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Corporations and their shills, like Mr. Pai, are not individuals. They should _never_ have a say in law or rule-making.

100% incorrect. People don't lose their rights when then decide to organize as a corporation. Multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions have affirmed this.

Re:It is you pissing on freedom

[DanDD]

Can a corporation cast a vote?

Gosh, I hope

[NeumannCons]

Gosh, I hope instead of attending in person, he sends a humorous video which will calm the audience carrying torches and pitchforks...

Very good idea

[SuperKendall]

I suggest you wait 6 years.

The internet was going along quite well WAY over six years before network neutrality regulation passed.

Thus I am perfectly happy to wait that long and predict nothing major will go amiss; I have history on my side, something none of the doomsayers can point to for their predictions.

I can certainly predict a few ISP's will try some shady things along the way, but just as in the past the market and the FCC will step in and correct transgressions (as with Comcast torrent throttling).

Re:Very good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

the rules have not been changed to exactly what they were pre-title II

you haven't actually explained why title II was a big deal

but if it was the tax issue then thanks for outing yourself as an actual religious libertarian who thinks following a niche narrative is the same as thinking for themselves and there aint much anyone can do for ye.

Re:Very good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the FCC step in? Didn't you just say yourself that they are trying to let the market settle this? How will a new ISP that respects its customers be able to start up and thrive when they won't be able to get past the tollbooth installed by the ISP that already control the market and don't respect customers? How does that allow for market correction? I guess you think being contrarian to the generally well understood concept that monopolies ruin markets makes you look like you know something that others don't?

Re:Very good idea

[Antique Geekmeister]

> The internet was going along quite well WAY over six years before network neutrality regulation passed.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (From John Philpot Curran, often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson,)

The difficulty with the loss of network neutrality is not an immediate collapse of infrastructure. It's the economic and social bars to new speech and new endeavors. We can expect throttling of content on a massive scale, and preferential treatment of "preferred partners" to favor their content. _By itself_, I would not see that as so dangerous. But the infrastructure used to improve quality-of-service for that protected content is precisely the same infrastructure that can _filter_ and _monitor_ traffic. The relevant routers to violate network neutrality with are ideal locations for illicit monitoring. ISP's can, and have, violated civil rights with law enforcement installed monitoring. Room 641A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) existed.

Re:Very good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"The internet was going along quite well" because the FCC went after any ISP that violated NN. Eventually they codified these decisions into the rules. Pai and the Republicans want to stop going after anyone who violates NN, and have codified the FCC out of the process. Only the FTC will be able to correct transgressions, and they can only act on deceptive practices and antitrust.

No one will be able to prevent shady practices like Comcast throttling, or tethering apps being removed, or competing services being blocked/downgraded.

Re:Very good idea

[Dragonslicer]

The internet was going along quite well WAY over six years before network neutrality regulation passed.

Six years before the first court case that established the basic principle, nearly everyone at home was still on dialup.

Making trains run on time.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Those were actually Democrats. Learn your history.

While you may be historically accurate, you omit the fact that the Democrats and Republicans have essentially switched ideologies since the Lyndon Johnson administration, if not earlier.

Wrong - at least on civil rights.

But the Democrats have a lock on the media and academia. So (while they used the mechanisms of the Great Society to destroy the black family structure and reduce the bulk of the black population to a government-dependent, jobless, ghetto-dwelling, reliable voting block) they taught that the parties had swapped ideologies - and that the Republicans' attempts to enable people to rise from poverty were self-serving exploitation.

Don't believe it? Look at their voting record on anything REAL relating to freedom and equality before the law, even today.

It's similar to what happened in Italy in WW II. Mussolini didn't REALLY make the trains run on time. He made the newspapers SAY he made the trains run on time.

Re:Making trains run on time.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't handle actual historical, completely documented facts so you choose to make up your own it seems.

The parties DID swap ideologies when the civil rights bill was passed, and the racists of the democrat party switched to the welcoming arms of the republican party where they remain to this day, with liars like YOU still trying to frame the democrats for republican actions.

Republicans exploit and use people, period. Republicans also try to scapegoat their behaviour anyone they don't like, especially if they have darker skin tones. Just like YOU have done here.

The democrats voting record on actual freedoms is solid. Republicans? not so much.

Again, typically everything you've claimed is actually opposite to reality...and you're not a very good liar.

Shame

[nowwith25percentmore]

When my dog craps on the rug, he goes and hides in shame. I interpret this to be similar. Bad Ajit. Bad.

Three Minute Hate

[Bing Tsher E]

Y'all can still hold your three minute hate. All you need is a photograph.

Re:Three Minute Hate

[Opportunist]

Burning an effigy just ain't the same as the real deal.

Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody expected Hillary to lose, eh? You mean except the tens of millions of everyday Americans who rejected her vile, sophist elitism and all she represents.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[p4nther2004]

You mean the tens of millions which were less than the millions that voted for her?

To quote: The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

(guess who said that....)

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody expected Hillary to lose, eh? You mean except the tens of millions of everyday Americans who rejected her vile, sophist elitism and all she represents.

The real problem is there were TWO vile sophist elitists running for office. Unfortunately, one of those vile sophist elitists was bound to win.
Given the choice between a boring, joyless hag with no ideas in her head and a petulant man-child with 100's of psychotically dumb ideas, people chose the petulant manchild because his psychotically dumb ideas were easy to understand.
Never forget, Donald hates all us peasants as much as Hillary does. He just knows how to inflict his hatred more comprehensively.

Rather than choosing sides in this shitshow, can we just admit that BOTH parties need to be culled?

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump won 30 of the 51 Presidential Elections in 2016. Why would you think Clinton should have the office when she won less than half of the elections?

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why would you think
Like a camper shooting his rocket too early.

Wait till there's something to shoot, buddy.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

This entire american "democracy" is a joke.
It's set up to inevitably let the bad guys win.
The founding fathers were either incompetent or malicious, and right now it seems the latter is more likely.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Wootery]

The bookies were offering something like 7 to 1 on Trump. There's not much more to say.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Freischutz]

Trump won 30 of the 51 Presidential Elections in 2016. Why would you think Clinton should have the office when she won less than half of the elections?

Because she won the popular vote meaning that a majority of the people of the United States wanted her to be president (hint: that's how a functioning democracy should work, majority wins, and this even in a North American republic with representative democracy) When one person has data proving to a mathematical certainty that the majority of the people chose X but you are arguing that is unimportant because the mangled gerrymandered hopelessly antiquated and bribe ridden system spat out Y because Y won a few swing counties in a few swing state that have decided almost every election since WWII and therefore Y is the indisputable choice of the people (and somebody please flush that annoying popular vote down the toilet) you are not arguing a very strong case. The USA needs is a return to a place where the popular vote is represented in the mixture of people that end up in congress and in the person that occupies the White House, and at the moment you do not have that kind of representation in the US, not by a long shot. If you had true representation you'd have a bunch of senators and house members working tirelessly to resurrect the economies of the rust belt states by spending public money on education and modern infrastructure there instead of spending it on giving already super wealthy people even more massive tax breaks. If you had true representation your congress persons would be trying to alleviate poverty in the south and the misery of your urban poor by doing things like raising the minimum wage which incidentally would be more likely to stimulate your consumption driven economy than making the American oligarch class tax free.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a shame there are no democracies in the world. The USA is a Federated Republic. Your political theory of "what should be" is flawed right from the first.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

read the federalist papers there is a reason we are not democracy but rep dem instead. mob rule is not just rule.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[fuzznutz]

You mean the tens of millions which were less than the millions that voted for her?

To quote: The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

(guess who said that....)

Works as intended. Bug closed.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when schools are no longer required to teach civics. (Or apparently history)

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically the USA is a FEDERAL republic where federal republic is a subset of representative DEMOCRACY. Your statement is flawed right from the first, not a single phrase makes sense.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Representative democracy is by definition not mob rule. If a government fails to represent the majority of opinion for years upon years on the majority of issues history has made it clear that government will eventually cease to exist regardless of type.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS!!!! DNC AND GOP failed the USA. full stop

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[msc.buff]

Wrong. A majority of people in the USA did NOT want her to be President. The majority of people who voted did...but not a majority of people. Trump/Johnson/Stein supporters certainly didn't want her and all the people who didn't vote didn't want any of the candidates.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[p4nther2004]

Wrong. A majority of people in the USA did NOT want her to be President.

by that reasoning - a majority of the people in the USA did NOT want Trump to be President either.

You're kinda proving my point. :-)

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA elects the president as a Democratic Republic system. Whoever told you it was a straightup democracy should reread the USA Constitution.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows this. Being a parrot isn't clever. The important bit is that this shouldn't happen, even in a federated republic. A representative democracy is supposed to be... well, representative. And until recently, it had been: a popular vote loser being put into office by the electoral college happened three times in over two hundred years of history, before the 2000 election. Now it's happened twice in under twenty years, and both times it was a GOP candidate.

That is why we've been relegated to the status of "flawed democracy" in the eyes of the rest of the world. Get some new fucking material.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kinda proving my point. :-)

Your point is irrelevant.

The original AC responded to the statement "Nobody expected Hillary to lose".

All the AC had to do to refute that claim was demonstrate that a sizable number of people reject hillary, which he did by pointing out at the tens and millions who didn't vote for her (forget voting for Trump, they could vote for 3rd party)

Pointing out that Hillary had more popular vote changes NOTHING that tens of millions still didn't want her and didn't vote for her.

This isn't about who is hated more. This is about whether Hillary is hated by a lot of people. And she was.

A lot of people didn't want Hillary
A lot of people didn't want Trump.

The second statement doesn't make the first one untrue.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Not strictly true. It could be argued that even the people who voted for Trump, or third-party, never actually expected her to lose. Expectation and desire are often entirely separate constructs.

While from a purely semantic stance I'd say it's highly unlikely that "nobody" was expecting it, the counter-argument that people voted for other candidates fails to actually refute the claim in any meaningful sense. Either way, I would also say that the core idea being expressed, that nobody was planning for it, is not only likely, but entirely acceptable, given by the fact that not even Trump was prepared for it.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton New Network was offering 2:1 odds for Clinton. She was a loser from the start.

Too bad you can't bet on elections in the USA, at 7:1 odds I'd thrown down $100.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[dave420]

It's a representative democracy, like most in the world.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Wootery]

You can't? Here in the UK you can bet on just about anything. I had a few pounds on Clinton - far shorter than 2:1 odds though.

Re:Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Trump losing the popular vote is kind of irrelevant when talking about people who expected Hillary to lose.

Re: Hillary was destined to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the fed papes specif more than one fed dem for the pol. Hig soc brokers were demanding it from the start of the con cong. Jefferson went against it earl but pro cong membs... well, you know how that went do.

The whole government is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You are delusional if you think Republicans are THE problem, rather than just part of the problem of which Democrats are equally bad. How did eight years of Obama launching wars and mass spying on planet Earth with the NSA work out for you? The entire political system is the problem.

Racism is bipartisan

[Anonymous Coward]

Robert Byrd was a Klan member.

The modern left is rabidly racist against Russians.

Racism is bipartisan.

Dot head needs to go back to India

[Anonymous Coward]

Dot boy better catch the next boat back to Streetshiitastan. The turds, the turds, are calling.

That's not what "unilateral" means

[chispito]

An individual in Federal agencies that has broad rule-making powers has unilaterally decided

It was a vote, same as the action that imposed Net Neutrality.

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG why is my internet still working ???????? Say it with me libs, Less regulation, free market.

Re: OMG

[nowwith25percentmore]

FCC is still turd polishing. The order hasn't been issued yet. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Re: OMG

[nowwith25percentmore]

Turd polishing complete: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Chair

[The Evil Atheist]

Maybe they should interview a chair.

no point in reasoning with a MOB

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a good decision. Maybe the FCC can make the Internet great again. Ha ha. Almost time for a new Internet.

Government regulations are good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe our leaders expect us to endure the horrors of the Internet as it was before 2015! And, while we are at it, why don't we have "postal neutrality"? I mean, why should some packages be sent faster than others? Should we allow the wealthy to have their packages sent overnight, when poor people can't afford such luxery? I demand postal neutrality, NOW!

Re: Government regulations are good!

[nowwith25percentmore]

This isn't just about speed, it's also about destination, type of contents, and whether the payload may be delivered at all.

Ameri-centric viewpoint

[Martin S.]

I have no idea who either of these people are.

I am American and I don't blame him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Left wing pro net neutrality, anti-Trump extremists made threatened to him and his family. Terrorism is apparently A-OK when it is done by the insane extreme left in support of their anti-free market ideology.

He knows

[DarkRookie]

He knows that he will get mercilessly trolled at best, murdered at worst.

you must mean

[Anonymous Coward]

pelted with rotten tomatoes with muh'Russians printed on them. Don't blame him one bit. The left is destroying everything with their negativity. If they can't be civilized, they don't deserve discourse.

What No Mention of the Coffee Cup?

[careysub]

All this commentary about Ajit Pai and not one mention of the giant Reese's candy coffee mug that Pai so ossentatiously flourishes?

Gosh, you'd think that that prop does not establish him as a bona fide "regular guy"! What's a predatory CEO, now fox-in-the-regulatory-henhouse handing out favors to his former (and again future) employer, to do?

Keep this topic alive

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if there is a real chance that Net Neutrality could be reinstated but I certainly hope that there is a chance, and I also hope to continue to see more articles on Slashdot and other media outlets reminding readers constantly that the repeal of Net Neutrality was an extremely unpopular action. It is unfathomable to me that the current administration allowed this to happen. Even non technical people I know have heard of Net Neutrality and were in favor of it. Apparently, the only group that wanted Net Neutrality were stakeholders in ISPs. In my mind, the repeal of Net Neutrality is associated with the current executive political leadership in the US and is an extreme example of how the current leadership is willing to take any hit to it's reputation so long as that decision allows businesses to turn a higher profit. Please don't misunderstand me, I am all for companies making a profit, what I am against is doing it on the back of consumers by creating more in-explainable surcharges for an existing service or tacking on new random surcharges because I ran one too many google searches.

Do you always deflect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did a forcefully appointed Democratic FCC Chairperson sell us out to Verizon, our former employer, as Pai has done? Nope, they have not. False Equivalency.

Re:Do you always deflect?

[penandpaper]

lol, if he was so bad Obama should have ignored McConnell's recommendation. Or are you saying that Obama has no ability to choose and his successes and failures are not his own? Sounds kinda racist.

Is not false equivalency when it is the law to keep the commission bipartisan. Pai did exactly what Wheeler did. Just because you agree with one doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Congress should be the one to act.

Downvoted for telling truth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is liberal stronghold. Pro-democrat and pro-Soros/Shillary. Americans like us are for shamed.

Predictable

[chris-chittleborough]

TFW your first guess gets confirmed a few days later: "Ajit Pai canceled his scheduled appearance at a major upcoming tech industry trade show after receiving death threats, two agency sources told Recode on Thursday." After a Bernie supporter tried to kill a bunch of Republican politicians and staffers at baseball practice, it should not surprise anyone that people take death threats seriously.