Slashdot Mirror


California Senate Defies FCC, Approves Net Neutrality Law (arstechnica.com)

The California State Senate yesterday approved a bill to impose net neutrality restrictions on Internet service providers, challenging the Federal Communications Commission attempt to preempt such rules. From a report: The FCC's repeal of its own net neutrality rules included a provision to preempt state and municipal governments from enforcing similar rules at the local level. But the governors of Montana and New York have signed executive orders to enforce net neutrality and several states are considering net neutrality legislation.

The FCC is already being sued by t21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.

292 comments

  1. States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we let them get away with this, soon we'll be seeing Schedule 1 narcotics sold in corner shops!

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    1. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's always fun to see states rights used for something other than slavery and bigotry. Watch and the PsudoPublicans rage against this.

    2. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's the problem with that?

      As soon as you allow that, you've **eliminated** the black market for those drugs, with one single swoop of the pen. Then you can deal with the issue as a heath problem that it is, and everybody wins.

    3. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we let them get away with this, soon we'll be seeing Schedule 1 narcotics sold in corner shops!

      Or at least some sane discussion around the classification of something about as harmful as catnip as a schedule 1 narcotic.

      Politicians don't get to decide on science. And weed NEVER met the definition of a narcotic, that was just puritanical bullshit by moralising assholes.

    4. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wooooooooosh

    5. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Legalizing pot in California has not eliminated the black market. Prices in shops have almost doubled, and the taxes are astronomical. They've priced the legal market way too high, so there's still no real incentive to go legit.

    6. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I'm more Republican and am all for States rights. Personally, I think the States pushing this is the only way to really to handle the matter, much like Gay Marriage was passed in the majority of States and drove the Federal policy. I think that's actually working as the Constitution was designed. Alternatively, Jury Nullification is a tool the public can use against some of these drug laws.

    7. Re:States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As soon as you allow that, you've **eliminated** the black market for those drugs, with one single swoop of the pen.

      Not true. I live in New Mexico and am a daily cannabis user. In spite of their medicinal program, I assure you that NM still has a thriving black market for pot. I get my weed from the dispensaries, but I could get it cheaper off the streets. The only street-dealers I know details for get their weed from growers in CA.

      everybody wins

      Almost everyone agrees with you. Everyone except this Keebler-elf-turned-evil named Sessions.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. Re:States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 2

      And weed NEVER met the definition of a narcotic, that was just puritanical bullshit by moralising assholes.

      How would you suggest we keep those uppity jazz musicians under control?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:States are out of control by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, and you can now CLAIM to be using legit stuff because there's no way to know either way.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:States are out of control by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Metronomes.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:States are out of control by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Is purchasing from a non-legit source illegal, for the purchaser? Or just illegal for the seller?

    12. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legalizing pot in California has not eliminated the black market. Prices in shops have almost doubled, and the taxes are astronomical. They've priced the legal market way too high, so there's still no real incentive to go legit.

      You mean the $9 that I paid for a 1/2 oz joint was too much?

    13. Re:States are out of control by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Even in places where its legal, there's still an age associated with that. Juvenile arrests in Colorado actually went up in some communities (the ethnic minority ones) after legalization.

    14. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it turns out that there is more than one variable at work with issues like these.

    15. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is enforcing federal law. Thats what the executive branch does.

    16. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya know, I don't really know that it should be legal. I don't think that it should be schedule 1... but that doesn't mean that I think it's some awesome thing that makes people super human either. Mostly I don't really care. Can everyone that wants to do pot, and everyone that wants to obliterate people that do pot, just go find an island to go fight it out, and leave everyone else alone?

    17. Re:States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 1

      You mean the $9 that I paid for a 1/2 oz joint was too much?

      If you paid $9 for 0.5 oz, you did REALLY well. Even the Mexican schwag I smoked in college cost $120/QP. If you rolled 0.5 oz into ONE JOINT, you're a champ among champs. Are you sure you didn't overpay for a 0.5 g joint?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    18. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that it should be schedule 1... but that doesn't mean that I think it's some awesome thing that makes people super human either.

      The base requirement for "legal" shouldn't be "makes people super human." If legalizing it carries benefits (taxes) and reduces harm (making harmless pot smokers into criminals), then it's a good idea.

    19. Re:States are out of control by hey! · · Score: 1

      Too bad pot's not a hallucinogen. I wouldn't mind being able to buy it in the corner shop, but I guess I'll have to make do with smack.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re: States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEA PLEASE, point me to your dealer gnick. I pay 60 for a 1/4oz, 200 for an oz. which I think is a fine price.

    21. Re:States are out of control by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      Truth. I guess the FCC is learning what all of us have always known. The internet is a self correcting system. It will automatically route around blockages. I guess this works for legislative dumbassary too.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    22. Re: States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 1

      The $9/g stuff I get at the dispensary is barely even the same beast as the Mexican schwag I smoked in college. It was a lot cheaper back then, but I can't remember the last time I bought weed that tasted like the tire it was transported in.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    23. Re:States are out of control by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I guess this works for legislative dumbassary too.

      only in cases of nearly terminal dumbassary though. The Internet routes around even minimal damage.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    24. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad pot's not a hallucinogen.

      LSD ships trivially through the mail and the EU is full of suppliers that ship world wide. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

    25. Re:States are out of control by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    26. Re:States are out of control by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      Almost everyone agrees with you. Everyone except this Keebler-elf-turned-evil named Sessions.

      Naw, Keebler elves are bastion of yumminess. They can't turn evil. I'm thinking he looks more like this comic book villain, and acts like him too. Do you suppose if we could get him to say his name backwards he would vanish back to his home dimension, or be sucked up his own asshole? I'm good with ether.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    27. Re:States are out of control by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Gonzales v Raich already set the precedent that State's Rights don't exist, because literally everything could potentially be sold to someone in another state, therefore everything can be regulated by the federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    28. Re:States are out of control by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Why was there any market it the first place? It is trivially easy to grow your own! I knew several people who grew pot in their dorm room in college in California.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    29. Re: States are out of control by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      The $9/g stuff I get at the dispensary is barely even the same beast as the Mexican schwag

      No surprises there. Everyone knows the Mexican's grow the best.

      This is why you need to elect me president in 2020. I'll legalize it, then I'll work out a deal with Mexico on trade so they can bring it across without use of catapults. I'll make it required mediation for congress and anyone who watches Foxnews or CNN. An of course with anything government there will be a small tax on it.

      This as president I will solve several problems at once. I'll will make America great again by moderating the asshats, solve the countries deficit with one tax program, and at the same time eliminating poverty in Mexico by supplying them with a steady export product.

      Can I have your vote in 2020?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    30. Re:States are out of control by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think sale should be an infraction (local option), and advertising it should be a misdemeanor, except that I'm fine with advertising it on electronic media being a felony...and no other penalties. I also think the tax should be slightly lower than that on tobacco.

      I don't want marijuana to be some sort of legal power group, but I also disapprove of it being an illegal power group. Just design the laws to split things up into small growers and vendors, and to discourage large businesses from getting involved.

      That said, it does seem as if it's a poor idea for people under the age of around 23 to use it, as it fucks up their brain development. (And it's got to be "around 23" as the exact age is a, probably genetic, variable. Which makes it a really piss-poor thing to write a law about. Still, we have 21 as a legal drinking age...I think that's still what it is, I haven't paid much attention since I turned 21.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    31. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good then we can tax them and minimize the tax burden on (non-drug-addicted portion of) the middle class.

    32. Re:States are out of control by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      The decision in that case was really just following the precedent set in 1942 in Wickard vs. Filburn

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    33. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cannabis is still illegal. Your state is beholden to federal law, even if it chooses not to enforce it.

      Buying black market might get you better anonymity, which is a clear competitive advantage over buying legit (since it is still illegal). Though, it clearly also gives you a lower price....which means the costs of avoiding law enforcement are lower than the taxes imposed on the legal weed. Though some of that may simply be that the supply of legal weed is too low to meet the demand.

      Another particular attribute of weed is how trivially easy it is to grow. That pulls the costs of illegal production way down, thus helping to keep the black market economical.

      There is no black market for alcohol. If it were made illegal, you bet your bottom dollar there would be. The legalization of alcohol destroyed the black market, because the legal stuff was cheaper and more trustworthy than the illegal stuff. If that formula ever becomes true of weed, the black market will evaporate.

    34. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's always fun to see states rights used for something other than slavery and bigotry. Watch and the PsudoPublicans rage against this.

      Yeah slavery is rampant in this country. Just the other day in 1863

    35. Re: States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows the Mexican's grow the best.

      I don't know what 2018 Mexican weed is like, but late 90s weed coming in through El Paso was half stems and seeds. Besides being a nuisance, seeds are an indicator of THC content, although I never smoked anything back then that was actually tested. I can only remember once when it literally tasted like rubber. In the cannabis I get in modern day, seeds are a thing of the past and I can't remember hitting a stem in any of my pre-rolls. When you can act in the open, you can produce much better quality marijuana.

      Can I have your vote in 2020?

      If you can make cannabis a mandatory part of congressional mediation, I'll vote for you twice.

      Also, states' rights or something.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    36. Re:States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 2

      I'm not going to research it right now, but I'll bet more minors were drinking after prohibition ended. Doesn't mean ending prohibition was a bad idea.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    37. Re: States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. I live in New Mexico and am a daily cannabis user. In spite of their medicinal program, I assure you that NM still has a thriving black market for pot. I get my weed from the dispensaries, but I could get it cheaper off the streets. The only street-dealers I know details for get their weed from growers in CA.

      Really, that's how this works in Mexico?

    38. Re:States are out of control by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Ah, but internet service (i.e., connectivity to the drop in the provider's site, is by necessity a local sale.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    39. Re:States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 1

      That said, it does seem as if it's a poor idea for people under the age of around 23 to use it, as it fucks up their brain development.

      There are a lot of people, especially prescribing doctors, that would disagree with that. I'm sure we can both pull a thousand citations, but let's agree there's disagreement.

      Which makes it a really piss-poor thing to write a law about.

      We're agreed there. There are reports of it stopping seizures in preteens. Besides that I think that if you can decide to pull the trigger on a baddie or get fucked sideways on a web cam, you should be able to make decisions about recreational drugs like pot and alcohol.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    40. Re:States are out of control by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He looks like an old Alfred E. Neuman.

    41. Re:States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 2

      Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I've done extensive research in the area and, although it has profoundly different effects on different people, vomiting and hallucinations are not "common." As in, I've never even heard of a person responding to pot by barfing. Mushrooms, alcohol, yeah. Even tobacco tends to nauseate more than cannabis. You'd have to really stretch the definition of "hallucinations" to fit anything I've seen.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    42. Re:States are out of control by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I believe we have photographic proof of your clam.

      https://i.imgflip.com/1qu4bo.j...

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    43. Re:States are out of control by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      As soon as you allow that, you've **eliminated** the black market for those drugs, with one single swoop of the pen.

      Exactly! I mean, these people have been criminals and kept most of their ill-gotten gains. But now that it's legal, they'll be happy to pay the government taxes and...

      Wait. What was that last part?

      I mean, it's not like people don't smuggle cigarettes.

    44. Re:States are out of control by BrookSmith · · Score: 1

      I think the real scenario here is that the Federal Government is out of control, and is trying to push its crap onto the states.

    45. Re: States are out of control by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Granted, that I know next to nothing about cannabis. I've only smoked it once in my life, and I've only been drunk once too, and I can say that I didn't care for ether feeling. But that is just me. Honestly, I would rather be around a bunch of people smoking than drinking.

      I've never been to a party where people where drinking and the cops didn't show up at least once. But I still remember my last college party where it was just a bunch of friends and friends of friends sitting around smoking. At some point I went to bed. I woke up the next morning and they had cleaned the house top to bottom, vacuumed, and someone had even organized my comic book collection.

      They call cannabis the devils weed. Funny, I don't see it.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    46. Re:States are out of control by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So it's like tobacco and alcohol.

    47. Re:States are out of control by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Metronomes with AI.

    48. Re:States are out of control by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      In this case Wikipedia's editor misinerpreted this sentence in the source materials:

      Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response

      That sentence sounds like pot is causing nausea and vomiting, but in fact it's talking about treating nausea and vomiting with pot so a "complete response" is a total reduction in those symptoms.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    49. Re: States are out of control by skam240 · · Score: 2

      I was once an avid pot smoker (I still enjoy occasionally from time to time) and your description of stoned people cleaning completely baffles me. In my experience stoner's homes tend to be less that tidy to be polite

      With that said, stoned people are certainly less abrasive to be around sober than people drinking. Stoned people don't start fights or drama and they don't yell and bother your neighbors. If delivery isn't ordered in a timely manner they will eat you out of house and home though.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    50. Re:States are out of control by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has actually done a hallucinogen will tell you that pot is absolutely not one.

      It's great when paired but so is Birra Moretti Red with boar sausage.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    51. Re:States are out of control by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Legalizing pot in California has not eliminated the black market. Prices in shops have almost doubled"

      That's why I'm looking at top-shelf AK-47 for $5 a gram...

      You fucking lying sack of shit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    52. Re: States are out of control by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      To be fair I don't know what happened after I went to bed. For all I know they might have called a maid service, or a pack of cleaning smurfs.

      they will eat you out of house and home though

      Truer words have rarely been said. I do know that when I woke up the next morning there was a bag of Cheetos left alive.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    53. Re: States are out of control by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Wasn't a bag of cheetos left alive I mean to say.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    54. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I'm looking at top-shelf AK-47 for $5 a gram...

      You're doing better than us. The 1g Ghost Train Haze preroll I'm burning right now cost me $9 here in Albuquerque.

    55. Re:States are out of control by gnick · · Score: 1

      That is an insult to the proud Alfred E. Neuman. I present you with this.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    56. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lesson learned after MANY grams of wasted mushrooms and 107 wasted LSD blotters: If you're on anti-psychotics, hallucinogens don't do shit.

    57. Re: States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samesex marriage was actually opposed in more states, and opposed in federal policy that was passed by the legislative branch.

      Only judicial defiance changed it, and the then-executive went along.

    58. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not a Keebler elf. He's a Khee'Bler elf.

    59. Re:States are out of control by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I didn't say or indicate that I think it should be against the law for people under "about 23" to use marijuana, I said I thought it was a bad idea. There are at least several experiments that indicate the the neural pruning that is done to complete adolescence isn't complete until "about 23" (sometimes younger, sometimes older, but about then) and that marijuana interferes with that process in ways that appear to be detrimental. So people shouldn't do it.

      If you want to say it has other effects that are sufficiently important that this is a relatively minor concern, then when that's true I'm fine with it. And it's also true that this research hasn't been replicated sufficiently to be regarded as certain. The current laws interfere with that process.

      And it's also true that if people are ok with fucking up their own head and they decide to do so, I don't object. But they should be informed that the current evidence, such as it is, seems to indicate that it's generally a bad idea because it interferes with normal brain development.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    60. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, the only way to legally have slaves in the US is through forced labor of convicts. Now, statistically, most weed offenders are non-violent people and that makes them easier to manage than the hardened murderous offender. Factor in the fact that other highly addictive drugs make for more expensive incarceration as the addiction results in poor health and withdrawal as well. I am quite certain that our beloved attorney general, Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III would dearly LOVE to own a plantation filled with brown people in bondage but can't because of that tragic loss in 1865. So the only way to scratch that nasty slave ownership itch is to imprison people as economically as possible. Thus, weed has GOT to be the WORST thing since Jesus was nailed to the cross in order to justify the incarceration and forced labor of people.

    61. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have hallucinated on pot, and I have witnessed people barfing from it.

    62. Re:States are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm good with ether.

      The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge.
      —Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

  2. Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?

    1. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?

      Given that the FCC specifically forbade States and Cities from drafting their own net neutrality legislation, gonna go with "no"?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Citation?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Other than the FCC? How about this very site?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might start with the article summary. It's in the 2nd of the 3 paragraphs.

    5. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citron

    6. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Will' is not "did". What did the FCC do that prevents states from enacting net neutrality and, if so, how could California have possibly done what they just did.

      Beliefs are not facts. The future is not the present, despite the prevalent culture in tech to invest based on promises of futurism.

    7. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Sydin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The FCC's rollback of Net Neutrality rules was ostensibly predicated on the premise that the FCC "doesn't have the authority" to enforce Net Neutrality. If that's the stance the FCC wants to take that's fine, but they then can't turn around and say they do have the authority to preempt states from adopting their own Net Neutrality measures. You can't have it both ways. Things would be different if Congress had passed a preemption, but as it stands I think the FCC would have a very hard time winning this fight in court given their contradictory statements on their ability to adjudicate how ISP's handle delivery of data.

    8. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Montana's plan doesn't regulate ISPs and doesn't enforce Net Neutrality rules. Montana just updated their requirements to bid for state contracts to require that any ISP that wants a state contract MUST fully support net neutrality. The FCC can't tell the state not to change requirements for state contracts. They aren't telling ISPs that they can't violate net neutrality, just saying if you want the lucrative contract, you gotta follow it. If no ISPs are willing to do it, then a start up will and they'll get the lucrative state contract and grow and become a local threat. Suddenly it is in the ISPs best interests to follow net neutrality in Montana. And now New York has followed suit. If California is doing the same thing then ISPs are going to be feeling imense financial pressure very soon to just do net neutrality.

      They won the battle at the federal level, but winning that battle unleased full blown war with the states and that is a war they can't win because they depend on states toeing the line. If states start repealing bans on municipal ISPs then it's truly over.

    9. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For MN, they worked around it by just saying that ISPs have to follow NN to be eligible for any state contracts. No laws were enacted or rules opposed to tell the ISPs what to do, so the FCC can't really do anything about it. It's a nice "vote with your wallet" free market approach, hopefully it works out well for them.

    10. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      Citing information would seriously degrade his TPH (trolls per hour). Not going to happen.

    11. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Got an authorative source for this?

      Would the FCC order itself suffice for you? Directly from the same order that repealed Title II classification for ISPs, the FCC itself said (emphasis mine):

      We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.

      It was fairly trivial to find, given that they put it in the section entitled "Preemption of Inconsistent State and Local Regulations", with that particular quote coming from page 110, paragraph 191. A few paragraphs later they provide an argument for their legal authority to preempt the states, but that authority will doubtless be challenged in court whenever the FCC sues California or vice versa, given that the California bill flies directly in the face of that preemption. The Montana and New York approaches use a backdoor approach to dealing with the issue that doesn't directly defy the FCC's order, so it's entirely possible that they may be allowed to remain in place even if the California bill gets tossed out. Of course, being that they're based on executive orders, the very next governor of those states could easily repeal the order.

      Anyway, going back to (what I assume was) your earlier question:

      Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?

      No, not only was it not the point, it was explicitly not the point, and as such it fits just fine with the anti-Trump narrative surrounding net neutrality.

    12. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Does the FCC have the *authority* to do that though? They are charged with regulating communications - not state legislatures. If an executive-branch bureaucrat can unilaterally restrict what state governments can do, then I think we have a little bit of a problem with the whole "democracy" thing.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Does the FCC have the authority to pre-empt the states?
      I thought that power was left to Legislative branch, not Executive.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    14. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      The FCC's rollback of Net Neutrality rules was ostensibly predicated on the premise that the FCC "doesn't have the authority" to enforce Net Neutrality. If that's the stance the FCC wants to take that's fine, but they then can't turn around and say they do have the authority to preempt states from adopting their own Net Neutrality measures. You can't have it both ways. Things would be different if Congress had passed a preemption, but as it stands I think the FCC would have a very hard time winning this fight in court given their contradictory statements on their ability to adjudicate how ISP's handle delivery of data.

      Well there is that... and states and municipalities should have every right to dictate terms of use for the telecoms that are using the public rights of ways to hang or lay their cables. I know the interstate commerce clause is usually interpreted to give federal law the benefit of the doubt... but at some point if the Federal Government is saying they are stepping back from regulations then the states have every right to step in at least for activities inside their respective states.

    15. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by sjames · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look, we get that you're horrified that anyone in the Trump administration has made a total ass of himself, but denying facts and crying about it won't help.

    16. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by queequeg1 · · Score: 1

      If a federal administrative rule is appropriately implemented (i.e. the agency has the authority to issue the rule and jumps through all of the necessary steps required for implementation, such as those required by the APA), the answer is yes.

      Here's a brief overview: https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...

    17. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For MN, they worked around it"

      Wait! When did Minnesota get in on this? I'd heard about Montana, but not Minnesota.

    18. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      That clause in the FCC order is nothing more than an affirmation of the interstate commerce clause. The individuals states have no power to regulate interstate commercial activities.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    19. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have it both ways.

      I disagree. When corporations are giving you money, you can have it any way you want.

    20. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't vote for him. I am a scientist. I expect facts and reasoning which is absent while the situation appears to be against the claims made.

      but denying facts and crying about it won't help.

      What facts? None presented.

    21. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by kenh · · Score: 1

      Got an authorative source for this?

      You mean aside from the summary of the article this discussion is about? How about the actual regulation changed by the FCC? You read it, right - the regulation, not the linked-to article, right? Or did you just decide you knew better and puked out a rebuttal without doing any research at all?

      --
      Ken
    22. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by sjames · · Score: 0

      They have been presented in abundance, you just don't seem willing/able to read them.

    23. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by kenh · · Score: 1

      I question how much money Montana actually spends on ISP services?

      For example, many/most public schools pay for internet services with federal eRate money.

      Many/most municipalities negotiate monopoly service agreements with carriers in exchange for free internet service connections for libraries, gov't offices, etc.

      It's fine for the state to take a principled stand on the issue, but this will have ZERO effect on the average citizen of the state, except maybe causing their gov't to spend more money for internet service, yay.

      --
      Ken
    24. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only problem is the FCC can't preempt state laws without a title II classification.

      They've already lost on this several times in court but every successive republican admin tries the same bloody thing to eliminate all regulations by unclassifying internet service but also preempt state rules and every time the court strikes down the attempt to regulate it (preempting state laws is a regulation) when it's unclassified.

      Either it's regulated under Title II and the FCC can set whatever rules they want, or it's not and they can't set ANY rules. The court told the FCC this directly when they lost the initial unregulated NN regulations suit during the Obama years (it was before they reclassified as type II to give them the authority to do so just like the court verdict said). They've only got two choices, they don't get to claim it's an unregulated service and then bar state level action.

      Ajit is just doing his duty as a good Telecom lawyer by trying to have his cake and eat it too by doing what the law doesn't allow him to do. He can't block state regulations on unclassified services. There's at least 3 court rulings on various attempts to get around this Title II problem and the last case was explicit, you can't regulate it unless it's a Title II service, you declare it's an unregulated data service and you can't then place restrictions on either the providers or the states. The FCC's only authority to regulate telecom is under Title II.

    25. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Of course the FCC can preempt the states. This is an issue of interstate commerce, not intrastate.

    26. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, the Wheeler NN regulations prior to the ones that were just repealed were tossed by the federal courts for this very reason. If you classify it an unregulated data service the FCC is waiving all authority to regulate it. It's either Title II and subject to regulation or it's not Title II and the FCC has no authority to regulate. This is exactly what the verdict in the last case says and it's the reason Wheeler reclassified internet as Title II, so they had authority to regulate but then tried to do so with the lightest hand possible.

      Ajit is going to lose this one in court the first case that comes up because he tossed the Title II designation. The court record is explicit, the FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, if it's not Title II they don't have the authority to do anything at all.

    27. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      What did the FCC do that prevents states from enacting net neutrality

      It depends on whether or not you think there is any such thing as intrastate commerce.

      If you think intrastate commerce is a real thing that exists, and therefore SCOTUS might be disobeyed (as is happening with marijuana legalization, for example), then they haven't done anything to prevent it, because we didn't yet enact an amendment to the US constitution to give FCC this new power that they're demanding.

      But if you think SCOTUS will be obeyed (i.e. ALL activities that anyone can conceive of, are always interstate commerce, there are no limits to federal power except for things explicitly forbidden in the constitution, the framers had absolutely nothing in mind when they wrote the 10th amendment), then the thing that they did to take that power away from the states was to give the recent unpopular order.

      Here is the FCC's order (PDF), and the relevant part is in section III(E)(7) (paragraph 194) on page 117 of that PDF. HTH.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    28. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You're acting like it's hard and expensive to set up an ISP. That's not true, it's just been uneconomic, because the big players have taken all the business. But it's actually rather cheap and easy...as long as you use the lines that someone else has installed. And even local installation isn't THAT hard as long as you can obtain right of way. (And if the Telco agencies get into a fight with the state, they may have a hard time obtaining right of way, and need to use the state's lines. So they won't.)

      The interstate commerce clause, if it applies (see arguments about the FCCs authority above) wouldn't give them right of way. Or their wires could be excessively taxed. Or lots of other options. They don't want to get into this fight. What they want is consistent business rules across the entire country, and the FCC just shat on that. Whether they were being prodded by the telcos or not I wouldn't care to guess. Perhaps the were just being idiots and thought they were doing the telcos a favor.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Last-mile coverage is inherently local, and NN is mostly about the last mile.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Last mile isn't interstate.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MN = Minnesota
      MT = Montana

    32. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      if so, how could California have possibly done what they just did.

      States purposely break the law all the time. It's going to the courts, where the states who are breaking the law will try to argue that the law they're breaking is an invalid law for whatever reasons. The courts will most likely uphold the FCC decision in this case and overturn the CA, NY and MT laws as I don't really see a good legal argument for them. The federal government surely has a right to prevent states from passing regulations that would complicate interstate commerce, I'd think, though I hope I'm wrong.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    33. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What federal law authorizes the FCC to ban states from enacting Net Neutrality laws?

    34. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One and only one link about the past indicating a potential action in the future is not evidence of occurrence. If there is abundant evidence. List one. List a single thing from the FCC indicating no state can enact net neutrality regulations.

      Just one is all I ask and that has not been provided.

      I know you feel foolish in your jumping to false conclusions about me being a republican, but additional ad hominem is doubling down when we could be having a decent discussion on whether or not what California just did was illegal or not.

    35. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that rule must have basis in some law passed by the legislative branch. What law authorizes the FCC to implement this rule?

    36. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      Not sure it matters. The States have the power to tax the snot out the lot by legislation. With that hammer on the table net neutrality prevails.

    37. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The interstate commerce clause authorizes CONGRESS to regulate interstate commerce. It does NOT give the Executive branch that power, other than in accordance with laws passed by congress. What law has congress passed allowing the FCC to do this?

    38. Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

      The FCC can't regulate shit unless Congress passes a law that authorizes them to do so. What law has Congress passed allowing this?

    39. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I can't speak towards this rule in particular (since I tend to think that it exceeds their authority, regardless of their protestations to the contrary), but when it comes to the FCC issuing rules in general, the law that gives them the authority to do so is the FCC's charter, which was enacted via a law passed by Congress. Most of these sorts of agencies, organizations, and commissions that live in the executive branch are created by acts of Congress that delegate a particular aspect of Congress' authority to those groups.

    40. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Only problem is the FCC can't preempt state laws without a title II classification.

      I quite agree, despite their protestations to the contrary that they can enforce deregulation as a form of regulation.

    41. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law that created the FCC.

    42. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The interstate commerce clause authorizes CONGRESS to regulate interstate commerce. It does NOT give the Executive branch that power, other than in accordance with laws passed by congress. What law has congress passed allowing the FCC to do this?

      This is my take. FCC can't supercede states doing inherently local activities.
      That portion of the order is likely unconstitutional, but it's possible that the GOP controlled courts (including the supreme court) could block this or delay the decision long enough to provide cover for the telecoms to win by default.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    43. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      If Ajit had been smart at all he would have kept the Title II classification and dropped all the regulations except state level restrictions. But he was a good doggy and did what his masters wanted (to make it harder for a future Dem admin to reclassify again) and shot them all in the foot by reclassifying as unregulated and taking away their only ability to stop state level action.

      He'll undoubtedly try to stop the states using his claimed regulation and the courts will shoot him down just like they did Wheeler, if it's not Title II the FCC can't regulate wire-line at all.

    44. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      An AC "scientist". I do IT for a small chain of grocery stores and I'm willing to put my name on that. You, however, are nothing to me.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    45. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The Interstate Commerce Clause grants Congress, and by extension the United States, the power to regulate interstate commerce. That has, thanks to Wickard v. Filburn been construed as all economic activity being inherently interstate. Due to the 10th Amendment, California is prohibited any power to regulate Interstate Commerce because the power has been delegated to the United States.

      California's method fucked up and they should have done it in the same manner that Montana did. ISPs will throw a lawsuit, an injunction will be put in place so that ISPs don't have to comply until the case is resolved. The case will be found in the ISPs favor because to do otherwise would be potentially trashing more than 75 years of case law based on Wickard v. Filburn.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    46. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Which clause authorizes it? What is the actual language?

    47. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The case will be found in the ISPs favor because to do otherwise would be potentially trashing more than 75 years of case law based on Wickard v. Filburn.

      Or, you know, they could do the right and sensible thing and trash Wickard v. Filburn instead. It was a horrible decision at the time, and it hasn't gotten any better since. They shouldn't let mere inertia stand in the way of correcting their predecessor's mistake.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    48. Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The Interstate Commerce Clause grants Congress, and by extension the United States, the power to regulate interstate commerce.

      The powers granted to Congress does not inherit to the Executive (FCC). Please explain your reasoning.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  3. States vs. housing associations by mi · · Score: 1

    What argument is there, that would support allowing the States to impose addition restrictions on communication-providers, that would not also apply to allowing same to homeowner associations? And vice versa?

    Personally, I don't think, FCC should have any power over the HA's either — but many people don't agree. These people should support FCC's primate over States too, or else their view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically and objectively wrong...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:States vs. housing associations by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      HOAs can take of themselves. It's the apartment renters that get screwed. They have to use whatever the building owner decides.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:States vs. housing associations by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You do know that the FCC has asserted it's authority over state, local and land use contracts (I.e HOAs) with it's OTARD rule, where they specifically disallowed any rules which prevented a homeowner from putting up a TV antenna. They also require "reasonable accommodation" of armature radio stations by state and local regulations (though refused to override your HOA on this issue).

      It's pretty much a done deal that the FCC has the authority to do this if they wish....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:States vs. housing associations by mi · · Score: 2

      You do know that the FCC has asserted it's authority over state, local and land use contracts

      I do indeed. And I disapprove of it as a government overreach.

      But most /.-ers celebrate that, while denouncing the same Comission's other, most recent, overreach — the pre-emption of the State's attempts to impose their own "net neutrality".

      You can approve of both, or reject both. But you can not pick only one of these — and remain self-consistent. That was my point.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re: States vs. housing associations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      States are sovereign.

      Homeowners Associations aren't.

      Baker. V Shelley.

      Go suck a Russian cock mi.

    5. Re:States vs. housing associations by rahvin112 · · Score: 3

      Here's a simple answer for you. Congress delegated regulatory authority for a few things to the FCC.

      The first and most important delegation is the wireless spectrum, they gave the authority to the FCC to regulate the use of the radio spectrum to prevent interference and maximize the value. This power is essentially unrestricted with regard to wireless transmissions under the conditions Congress placed on the regulation (the FCC can't regulate military communications for example).

      The Second is congress delegated to the FCC the ability to regulate wire-line services declared to be "Title II", basically services deemed to be essential. This power also allows the FCC to decide if something is Title II or not. In the early days of telephone this was to allow the FCC to regulate interstate communication and was later expanded to allow them to regulate the POTS system for things like 911 etc, it later was expanded to cover Cable TV (which was then removed in the 90's with the exception of explicit content) The Title II regulations are the only authority under which the FCC can regulate wire-line services at this time. The last court case the FCC lost explicitly noted this. If it's not Title II, the FCC doesn't have ANY authority to regulate and that includes blocking state level regulation. Without Title II they can't do anything and they've been stomped in courts at least 3 times for trying to do so without the Title II decleration.

    6. Re:States vs. housing associations by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So you claim that all states' rights situations are exactly like any other states' rights situation? And that there's no ground to look at possible differences and base one's position on those?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:States vs. housing associations by mi · · Score: 1

      Thanks, most informative. However, none of what you say is any different between the case of "FCC vs. Homowner Associations" and "FCC vs. State governments".

      Without Title II they can't do anything

      Seems like you agree with me and disapprove of both:

      • FCC overwriting HOAs' rules on antennae;
      • FCC overwriting States' rules on "net neutrality"
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:States vs. housing associations by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Congress specifically gave the FCC the right to regulate antenenas. It doesn't need to be covered under the two regulatory powers I listed. In the 90's "fix" of the law they gave the FCC the specific authority to regulate placement of small sat dishes to block HOAA rules that prohibited them. This was done by congress at the request of the Sat providers.

      This authority was specifically granted by congress.

    9. Re:States vs. housing associations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      States do not have authority granted to them by the Federal Government. HOA's have authority granted to them by the State. That' going to be the biggest difference and why the comparison is not apt.

    10. Re:States vs. housing associations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without Title II they can't do anything and they've been stomped in courts at least 3 times for trying to do so without the Title II decleration.

      Incorrect. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934)

      The FCC derives its jurisdiction to facilitate the deployment of broadband to Americans in Section 706 in the Telecommunications act of 1996. In this section the code states that the FCC is to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans."[18] They currently want to advocate the following objectives:

      Broaden the deployment of broadband technologies
      Define broadband to include any platform capable of transmitting high-bandwidth intensive services
      Ensure harmonized regulatory treatment of competing broadband services
      Encourage and facilitate an environment that stimulates investment and innovation in broadband technologies and services

    11. Re:States vs. housing associations by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      So you claim that all states' rights situations are exactly like any other states' rights situation?

      No, of course not. But if the FCC has the authority to preempt regulations imposed by individual landowners within their respective domains, then it stands to reason that it also has the authority to preempt similar regulations by arbitrary groups of landowners, up to and including entire states.

      Personally, I think the FCC should stick to setting technical (not content) guidelines for radio communication, where they at least have a plausible claim to be facilitating use of the spectrum (at least so long as the government fails to recognize actual property rights in this area, thus preparing the way for a "tragedy of the commons"). Wired communications, and any short-range wireless tech which doesn't pass through walls or otherwise interfere with other users at a distance, should be treated as entirely private matters and outside of the FCC's jurisdiction.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  4. So much for Republicans supporting states rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Republicans talk about "States rights", they really mean the right of states to pass laws that discriminate against people. They do not mean the right for states to establish their own drug laws nor for states to adopt laws like net neutrality.

    See, Republicans only complain about the big bad federal government when they pass laws they don't like. In other words, Republicans want to be bigots, and want to pass laws to support their bigotry, and cry "states rights" only to support their hateful agenda.

  5. Re:gnick = fake name massive human fail by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Oh, oh! Do me next!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  6. Net Neutrality, Weed and Guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which states will take the challenge of all three?

  7. Nice loopholes there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bill would prohibit home and mobile Internet providers from "Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices," except in cases of reasonable network management..

    Shouldn't be too difficult to wiggle through that, but why should we ever let the authorities or anybody else decide what we can put up on the internet? As long as the signal doesn't exceed 1 to 5 volts, nobody has any right to interfere.

    Just take away the ISPs' routers and replace them with switches. Let's demand our goddamn dumb pipes! Don't believe the lies that it can't be done.

  8. Re:gnick = fake name massive human fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean gnick is cool. A totatal cool coolster!

    Sorry about my brain shorting out there I was updating my neural systems with APK and some processes failed to start.

    I know that only idiots use their real name in forums.

  9. Sad so many states are anti-Internet by greenwow · · Score: 0

    A byzantine set of fifty different laws hurts competition and helps the big guys that have lawyers on staff.

    1. Re:Sad so many states are anti-Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, it should level the playing field for smaller upstarts that only operate within a single state, and therefore only have to worry about that state's regulations.

    2. Re:Sad so many states are anti-Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a small ISP owner screw net neutrality.

    3. Re: Sad so many states are anti-Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't believe you you need more people.

  10. Difference between CA law and NY & MT by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

    It looks like California's law attempts to regulate the businesses directly.

    The versions in New York and Montana are different, they deal with the state's business agreements. That is, if the company doesn't stand by the same net neutrality rules the state will stop the business.

    Montana certainly isn't a big state for funding and they said they've got about $50M in contracts. Losing that much business wouldn't directly hurt AT&T or similar companies, but awarding a $50M contract plus rollout costs across the state to a smaller company -- probably an in-state company -- would create a strong competitor to the existing duopoly. As the small companies tend to be more friendly with leased line provisions the large telecos know they'd quickly lose business to a large percentage of the state.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  11. Good for them, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, I wonder what state had no problem with AT&T's Room 641A...

  12. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The federal government makes laws so states can't trample your rights. I might not like what califorina passed and will sue the state because they overstepped there authority. This will be easily smacked down in court.

  13. That's how California rolls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now we've got Net Neutrality, abundant cheap produce, legal weed, blondes in short-shorts, and surfing. It's 75 degrees and sunny on the 30th of January and I'm about to ride my bike down to the beach.

    Suck it, red state losers. You can keep your meth, guns and fat girls. If this is socialism, I'm in for two.

    https://youtu.be/R_q6aRwoV3M

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: That's how California rolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do realize the blue states float the bill for those things so you can make money?

    2. Re: That's how California rolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are probably too stoned to notice Californiaâ(TM)s dismal record on meth and similar, guns etc

    3. Re:That's how California rolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do know that California is one of the largest food growers in the country, right? No of course you didn't. That would require intelligence and you are sorely lacking in any. Let's see how long those red states last without California subsidizing their tick like status.

    4. Re:That's how California rolls by jwhyche · · Score: 0, Troll

      You do know that California is one of the largest food growers in the country, right?

      You know that California is one of the largest food producers because it imports most of its water to grow this food from other states, right? No of course you didn't.

      It's idiots like this and Pope boy up there who think that California can stand on its own. It can't. It only has the large economy because its is attached to a Larger economy called the United States. With out the United States there would be almost no industry in California. An certainly not enough water to support the overblown sense of self importance that is California.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    5. Re:That's how California rolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this water argument is friking stupid. They other states didn't create the water, it dropped there as rain and goes downhill to the pacific straight through California, without any human lifting a finger. "Import the water" what he heck? That implies California did something, took some action or purchased something when in reality it just water flowing down a hill. It's not like importing power (that has to be generated) or importing car parts (that have to be built). If humans disappeared tomorrow the water is going to do what it has done since forever... Fall as rain inland on mountains and flow downhill to the nearest ocean. It imports *itself* into California.

      What are you going to dam it all? Sell it as a premium? Those red states don't have the budget or ability to dam it all. Dams are expensive and require education, science to build anyway.

      Most of Europe and Asia have this all the time, look at the major rivers they pass through multiple countries and everyone gets along fine with some water treaties.

      Fact of the mater is that California is and always has been a huge economic powerhouse that the rest of the country would do well to emulate.

    6. Re:That's how California rolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 75 degrees and sunny on the 30th of January and I'm about to ride my bike down to the beach.

      Why not just drive to the... Oh yeah. California...

      Oh well, at least you can afford to own a house near the bea... Oh yeah. California...

    7. Re:That's how California rolls by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      dang, I thought I smelled a RickRoll coming. Well played, sir.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    8. Re:That's how California rolls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oh well, at least you can afford to own a house near the bea... Oh yeah. California...

      You can rent a 2 bedroom house in Morro Bay for the same price as a 2 bedroom apartment in Houston, Texas.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:That's how California rolls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      dang, I thought I smelled a RickRoll coming. Well played, sir.

      Nah, man. That's the California anthem.

      Here are some more California anthems:

      https://youtu.be/cjCa8i5JDF4

      https://youtu.be/uWbXQQG9B6c

      https://youtu.be/GAS12yS9AFM

      Notice how you don't hear many songs by people in California who are wishing they could move back to Kansas?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:That's how California rolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only have Net Neutrality until the state finds that it, like everything else, causes cancer in laboratory animals. Then you're stuck with the "cheap" produce that plunges your entire state into drought conditions year after year, weed that's "legal" insofar as the DEA doesn't feel like raiding your goddamn medical dispensaries that day, and women who are most definitely not wearing those shorts for your creepy-ass benefit, you misogynist piece of stare-raping shit.

      The surfing is great though, I'll give you that.

    11. Re:That's how California rolls by fponias · · Score: 1

      don't forget sky-high rent and the worst traffic in the country!

    12. Re:That's how California rolls by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      California imports a great deal of water from the surrounding states, with a lions share of imported water coming from the Colorado river. A simple fact is that California uses more water than it produces. The fact that California has been under a drought for the past few years doesn't help. Here is some reading to bring you up to date on the California water problems.

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

      https://californiawaterblog.co...

      https://www.mercurynews.com/20...

      California has made great strides in managing its water issues but there still problem. California simply doesn't have native water resources to address its current usage.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    13. Re:That's how California rolls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The surfing is great though, I'll give you that.

      See? We found common ground.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:That's how California rolls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      don't forget sky-high rent and the worst traffic in the country!

      You can rent a 2 bedroom house in Morro Bay for the same price as a 2 bedroom apartment in Houston. Sunday, we went to a bbq at the house one of my wife's colleagues is renting. It was $1350/month. In Houston, a 2 bedroom apartment in the Museum District is $1350. The difference is, when you walk out the door here, you're somewhere beautiful instead of a shit hole, and you don't have to run your air conditioner 10 months out of the year. In fact, you don't need an air conditioner.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:That's how California rolls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      the worst traffic in the country!

      Traffic in Houston, Texas is much, much worse than the worst traffic you will ever see here on the Central Coast. I rode my bike to the beach today and I could look in my rear-view on hwy 1 and not see a single car for minutes at a time. This was at lunchtime.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re: That's how California rolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The central coast is just a blip in the population of California. The overwhelming majority of people are concentrated in LA, the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, San Diego and Orange. Try getting an apartment in San Francisco. You'll get a cardboard box on the street for $1,300 a month.

    17. Re:That's how California rolls by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's almost like people want to live here, even if they have to pay more for the privilege.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    18. Re:That's how California rolls by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Only problem is that housing is unaffordable.

      Though there is a bill in the works to fix that.

    19. Re:That's how California rolls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Only problem is that housing is unaffordable.

      There's a little more to California than just San Francisco.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:That's how California rolls by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      The Bay, LA, and San Diego areas are all unaffordable and that's where a large majority of the people live.

      You might be lucky enough to live in an affordable village somewhere, but most people would not be able to find work there.

  14. Re:spoiled brats by bobbied · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The spanking is coming. When the state's bonds are graded junk and they have to start paying huge interest rates, the house of cards will tumble rapidly.

    Sometimes, life is the best teacher, even for toddlers, but in this case, they really are more like a 21 year old living in the basement of mom's house. Sometimes, kicking them out onto the street is the best way to get them to grow up.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  15. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by farble1670 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, nobody cares about power grabs when it is a grab for power one likes, like net neutrality, but hate it when it is for what one doesn't like, like net neutrality.

    The Rest Of Us make up our minds based on the issue at hand not a party affiliation.

    You ought to try it, comrade.

  16. easy to work around by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    many companies do this: form a subsidiary or LLC which only bids on government contracts and obeys the paperwork rules.

  17. Re:spoiled brats by psycho12345 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Huh? California credit rating has been going up the last few years, is there something missing?

  18. Re:spoiled brats by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Lol your state is garbage. What hole do you live in? Alabama?

  19. Pai for most hated man in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who's the most hated man in America right now?
    1. Pai
    2. Shkreli
    3. Trump
    I'd like to see approval ratings data for all of them.

  20. Careful, California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before long you'll be advocating for things like "States' Rights" and "Limited Federal Government". Are you prepared to come over to that side?

    1. Re:Careful, California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.4% of California voted for that in the 2016 presidential election. That's pathetically low, but also higher than ever. Your guess is as good as mine, as to whether or not that's going to be trend.

  21. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

    You can take that false equivalency and shove it up your candy ass.

  22. The left rediscovers decentralization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Contrary to popular myth, the "states rights" tradition goes back to Thomas Jefferson, the ratifying conventions of the Constitution, and the Virginia / Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

    At the same time, I agree with you that many partisan hacks on the right will have a problem with this, just as many partisan hacks on the left have a problem with his sort of thing when they are in power. The system itself is the problem.

    It is not a left-right issue to think that 535 people, most of whom are no more intelligent than the average American, should rule over 300 million people from a single city located along the banks of a literal swamp called the Potomac River. Sensible people on the left and right should support efforts to decentralize power and bring it back to the community as much as possible.

    1. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by DCFusor · · Score: 0

      ^^^^^^ truth, but mod up even though this is slashdot ^^^^^^

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    2. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to popular myth, the "states rights" tradition goes back to...

      Does anyone know of this myth? Because at least for all my life (granted, I'm not that young) approximately 100% of people have always said that it's right there in the 10th Amendment.

      Is this one of those biblical myths, where people say it's older than America itself (assuming you discount that Jesus H Christ was born in Utah)?

    3. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that it's older than America, but it's clearly older than the United States, as it was one of the principles of the Articles of Confederation. It's also embedded into the US Constitution, though the government in power always ignores that. I believe it's the 10th amendment. Which, in any rational system, would take precedence over things like the Interstate Commerce Clause, as it was an amendment to the main document. Unfortunately, enforcement is left up to those who benefit by ignoring it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      No, the myth is that uttering the phrase "state's rights" make you racist. it doesn't. I support CA in this. I have, and always will, support states rights over anything not explicitly stated in the constitution as a role of the federal government. This, apparently, makes me racist.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      The Tenth Amendment should not take precedence over any clause elsewhere in the Constitution except to the extent that the Tenth Amendment specifically states that it does (and, it does not).

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      simply reiterates that the only powers that the Federal government has are those explicitly listed in the body of the Constitution -- and the Commerce Clause certainly is in the body of the Constitution and is a "power" "delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

      The Tenth Amendment (along with all of the other Amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights) were just putting into writing things that the Federalists thought were already covered in the body of the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists expressed concern (largely as a political ploy to call into question the overall structure of governance in the proposed Constitution) about not being explicitly mentioned. In fact, some of the Federalists were actively against the notion of appending the Bill of Rights as they were concerned (correctly, it turns out) that future generations would interpret the enumeration of some rights to be construed as a complete list of rights retained by the states and people respectively (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments attempt to address this concern). The Bill of Rights was not meant to alter anything already in the Constitution, just to clarify.

      For example, obviously the Federal Government didn't have the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as they were not granted that power anywhere in the Constitution. However, since a Bill of Rights was being written and the Founders were acutely aware that arms in the hands of ordinary people were quite helpful in defeating the tyranny of the British and perhaps for other uses such as self defense, they made specific mention of the RKBA.

      Of course, don't forget that not a single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights restricted state and local governments from doing anything - including establishing a state religion, restricting speech, or forcing residents of their state to testify against themselves in state or county courts. It wasn't until the Court's creation of the Incorporation Doctrine over 100 years later that various portions of the Bill of Rights were declared to (via the Fourteenth Amendment) to also restrict state and local governments from infringing on some of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    6. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the myth is that uttering the phrase "state's rights" make you racist. it doesn't.

      It doesn't, but you do have to be aware of the context in which it was originally uttered loudly. And that context was not just preserving slavery, but also asking other states to respect it and send runaways back home. If you don't take that into account when you post about states' rights, you're going to be taken for a racist. I haven't checked up on your posting history, so I don't know that's what's happened, but it's not unlikely.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It was in the constitution partially in order to get the slave holding states to join the union.

      As for centralized control, this was the original idea of the Republicans, before being diverted in the 60s by the segregationists. The states today are much more homogenous than in the early years, the state borders don't really mean so much these days, people move across borders on a whim, many even commute to their jobs in different state.

      The 535 people are all elected by the people. These are not foreigners who rule from afar, these are people we send from our local district, just the same as the leaders who rule from the state capitols. Just because the majority don't always agree with you does not mean that they are illegitimate rulers. You can change the government, you just need to get out the vote. That's why the tea party seems to be having a lot of influence despite being unknown a couple decades ago, because they managed to get organized. Agree or disagree with them, they did stop whining and got off their buts and did something in an effective way.

    8. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Overall, states-rights means we get to do whatever we want, and all the other states should also do whatever we want.

      While no state really wants to give up power, I think most realize that if state did whatever if wanted we'd be in a mess. It's like a large family or dormitory, you need some basic house rules to keep the chaos at bay.

    9. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      It's in discussions completely unrelated to race or the civil war - no matter how you use it, you get labeled a racist. Perhaps not by you, but somebody losing the argument will just call it out, and honest discourse, once again, gets stopped cold. This is the state of political discourse.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    10. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by kqs · · Score: 1

      Many people say they support state rights. What is interesting is seeing what is so important to people that an entire state (or people in the state government) will defy the federal government.

      In the 1800s there were many disagreements about states rights, but only one was so important that states rebelled to keep that, let's say "right".

      The 1900s saw troops called out to enforce the federal anti-segregation bills and rulings,

      So far this century, I recall one group of states defying the obergefell decision, and another group defying for environmental and (in this case) the internet. And only the first group of states trumpet "states rights".

      So it's not fair to say the people who proclaim "states rights" are bigoted. But can you see why some people could make that connection?

    11. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I understand why, but it's still wrong. It's used to stop honest political discourse dead in it's tracks.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not even remotely correct. The 3/5 compromise was in the Constitution to get slave states to join; the Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with it. The Bill of Rights debate was separate.

      Also, I'm supposed to be impressed by a bunch of people with an authoritarian complex who can't hack it in the private sector, go to DC, boss the rest of us around, get bribed with lucrative gifts, then leave with their six figure pensions through the revolving door for lobbying contracts on K Street? I have way more respect for my garbage man than a politician. My garbage man provides me with a service; Congress lies to me and steals my money to give it away to their handlers.

    13. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      The Bill of Rights is de facto more than that, even if no one wrote any language to make it clear. The Constitution dictates how legislators can change the Bill of Rights, giving those laws more weight than laws simply passed by Congress and signed by the president.

      Without the Bill of Rights, there was nothing in the Constitution to restrict the first Congress and Washington from passing laws limiting free speech or firearms.

    14. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      The Constitution specifies how legislators can change any or all of the Constitution. The BoR is no easier or harder to change than any other amendments or the body of the Constitution (with only a couple of exceptions -- the only relevant one today is that an amendment can't deprive a state equal suffrage in the Senate without that state's consent - but that could be accomplished by getting an amendment ratified that eliminates that restriction in Article V and then get another ratified that eliminates equal suffrage). The BoR also doesn't address the process of amending the Constitution at all.

      Article I, Section 8 doesn't give Congress the power to pass laws limiting free speech or the RKBA - therefore, they didn't have that authority regardless of the BoR.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    15. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Right. But laws passed by Congress do not have the significant requirements of state ratification or super majority, making the Bill of Rights a set of laws that are de facto pre-eminent to all others.

    16. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Congress can pass any law they want if they think it makes governing easier. That's spelled out in the Constitution. The actual interpretation of that fact by the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court seems to completely undermine your idea that Congress can't pass laws that aren't explicity written in.

    17. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind the well documented fact that the Tea Party is an astroturfing political campaign paid for by extremely wealthy Republicans, and hasn't really achieved much of anything aside from making old people nostalgic.

    18. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Congress can pass any law they want if they think it makes governing easier.

      Not sure where you get that idea. BTW, this view, that Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants without regard to the enumerated powers, was explicitly disclaimed by the author of the Constitution. Even without knowing that, however, it is perfectly obvious that the list of enumerated powers was written into the Constitution for a reason, and the idea that "Congress can pass any law they want if they think it makes governing easier" would render the enumerated powers superfluous.

      The actual interpretation of that fact by the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court...

      ...proves only that one cannot rely on one branch of government, whose members are appointed and confirmed by the other two branches, to serve as a proper check on the ambitions of those other branches of the same organization. The SC is at best an internal watchdog, not the final authority on what is or is not constitutional. The government (including the SC) can restrict its own powers as much as it wishes, but has no authority to grant itself powers not present in the Constitution. Failure to obtain a SC ruling stating that an act of Congress or the Executive is unconstitutional does not imply that the act is, in fact, constitutional. It just means that the government has declined to self-regulate on that issue.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    19. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Of course, the Constitution (not just the BoR which you keep focusing on for some reason) is the supreme law of the land and trumps all other Federal laws as well as state and local laws. However, the Constitution is very limited as it describes specifically what the Federal government has the power to do and what state and local governments are prohibited from doing. This leaves most power in the hands of state and local governments.

      Note that the BoR placed absolutely NO constraints on the state or local governments when its amendments were ratified and does not do so directly today. The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) coupled with the judicial imposition of the Incorporation Doctrine (beginning in 1897) has resulted in some but not all of the Bill of Rights being applied to state and local governments as well. IIRC, the last such incorporation was of the Second Amendment in McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010. For an example of a right in the BoR which has not been incorporated onto the states, see the right to jury trial in civil cases in the Seventh Amendment.

      It is interesting that the "Incorporation Doctrine" was first "discovered" thirty years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Somehow this feature of a newly ratified amendment remained invisible to the people who wrote it, the states that ratified it, and the courts for so many years - this has the reek of judicial activism.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    20. Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      This will give the imputus to have major state cities start their own fibre installation and their own internet service. All citizens would be able to use the city owned internet service at a much reduced cost, and even so the city would make a handsome profit.

      There is trivial cost to transmit data, once the infrastructure is in place. The cost is in the preparation of data, not the transmission.
      American Internet users are paying much more than citizens from other countries.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    21. Re: The left rediscovers decentralization? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      "The Congress shall have Power ... to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States [and to] make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution ... all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

      That pretty much covers anything, subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court. As I said, if the law can be construed as making governance easier - that is, it is "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution ... all other Powers" - then it falls under the auspices of things Congress can legislate.

  23. Silicon valley wants Net Neutrality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  24. Re:California: Cuz We Hates Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here Trump's administration goes off the deep end.

    Enacting federal measures in direct opposition of existing federal law for no other reason than "We hate Obama and everything he does."

    If the Obama administration passed a law definining the color black, they'd pass an executive order ln to classify it as white, on account of "black" being associated with Obama!

    Full on fucking Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  25. Re:California: Cuz We Hates Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, we have admins who feel the same way, who are gonna downvote anything that might suggest that their biases have full control of their thinking.

    Or maybe they look forward to the consequence of states being in full on rebellion, as California is, what between their granting more rights to those who break the law by being here that the citizens who they are supposed to protect and other nonsense like passing laws that are knowingly in direct opposition to Federal Law.

  26. California is headed for default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The financial statements showing the debt, assets, and cash flows of the State of California clearly point to only one possible conclusion: inevitable catastrophic default.

    The wealthy are fleeing California in record numbers. Meanwhile, the debt continues to rise, and the public pension system is mathematically unsustainable.

    Granted, the U.S. government's financial position is vastly worse, but that still doesn't exactly bode well for the Golden State.

    1. Re:California is headed for default by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The Federal government can just print cash to meet it's obligations if all else fails. California cannot do this.

      However, I think Illinois is closer to the end than California. Illinois is bleeding population due to it's large tax structure and faces an unfunded pension debt that they have no possible way to pay. They also have gridlock in government, where they can make none of the hard decisions needed to forestall the inevitable.

      So the question is.... How does a state actually *do* a bankruptcy? Does the Fed step in and take over? Do the neighboring states get to absorb the territory as well as part of the debt? Who knows, but when nobody will loan you money anymore because you don't have a snowballs chance of paying it back, some very bad things are going to happen.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:California is headed for default by MooseTick · · Score: 2

      "The wealthy are fleeing California in record numbers"

      OMG. You're right. At this rate, no one will be left in a few years.
      https://www.google.com/search?...

      Now, I know you said the "weathy". So from 1990-2016 this ( https://www.statista.com/stati... ) shows the per capita income went from 21k to 56k.

    3. Re: California is headed for default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference with the USG is that when it does fail financially (and it will), the results will be even more devastating. The USG finances operations in two ways:

      1. Borrows money from foreign creditors

      2. Sells Treasury securities through the Federal Reserve's open market operations, artificially expanding the money supply

      Taxes do not fund the federal government. Taxes only go to pay the interest on the debt from #1-2. Eventually, those debt payments will become cash flow unsustainable and nobody is going to loan any more money to the insolvent USG. If the Fed then tries to print it's way out of that, they will destroy the dollar.

      The market correction will come one day, and it won't be pretty when it does.

    4. Re:California is headed for default by networkBoy · · Score: 1
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re: California is headed for default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The so-called 1% are the only thing keeping California's head above water. It's not people making $56K who carry the majority of that tax burden. As more millionaires flee for low-tax states like Florida, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming and Washington, California's financial position will become more dire.

    6. Re: California is headed for default by kenh · · Score: 1

      Granted, the U.S. government's financial position is vastly worse, but that still doesn't exactly bode well for the Golden State.

      Yes, but only the federal gov't can literally print it's way out of debt.

      For example, isn't it interesting how many movie productions find it cheaper to move production 1-2 thousand miles away from Hollywood, transporting, housing, and feeding a cast and crew that largely came from Hollywood to make their movie? But no worries, once Gov. Moonbeam delivers the SF-LA bullet train project in on-time and under-budget, things will get better.

      --
      Ken
    7. Re:California is headed for default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kansas has both beat by several miles.

    8. Re:California is headed for default by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Heh. Not only is there no deficit, California has a $6,100,000,000 surplus for this year and projected $19,300,000,000 saved surplus. (source)

      California also has the wealthiest people in the USA by far, which I'll grant you technically means more of them "flee" CA than anywhere else, because to leave you have to exist.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    9. Re:California is headed for default by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Ah but you've proved his point -- since so many more Californians are wealthy than before, a record number of wealthy Californians are doing all sorts of things including breathing and leaving the state.

      Mississipians, meanwhile, have one of the lowest migration rates of any state (source map). This is a resounding popular endorsement of Mississippi government, everyone loves the state so much they refuse to leave! I mean, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with Mississippians being too poor to move and Californians being rich enough to go wherever the heck they feel like and retire to a poor state with a consequentially lower cost of living.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    10. Re: California is headed for default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are looking at surface numbers for current expenditures only: a grievous accounting error. Look at debt (especially PERS and STRS) : assets and cash flows against projected rate of returns and spending increases, and you'll see California is approaching a $300 billion shortfall.

      Those numbers will never be salvaged. Default is inevitable.

    11. Re: California is headed for default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Ken. they do not "move production 1-2 thousand miles away from Hollywood, transporting, housing, and feeding a cast and crew that largely came from Hollywood to make their movie".

      While generally it's true that cast members are from LA, most production crews are spot-hired.

      The part you may find interesting is that in every case, _every case_, countries such as Canada and the former Eastern Block countries give massive tax breaks to the production company. Now, we could do that, but what is the value to California to subsidize that industry?

      Go ahead, I'll wait for your answer. I'm just kickin' it in the sun right now.

    12. Re: California is headed for default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comparative argument may have held water, IF it weren't for the last 5 years of data and journalism in the financial press like Forbes, Bloomberg, et al drawing the correlation between the millionaire exodus from California and public policy.

  27. Re: So much for Republicans supporting states righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So your solution for a gang of criminals attacking your rights is to defer to a bigger, more heavily armed gang of criminals? Who then protects you from the larger gang?

  28. This could also solve another problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm given to understand there's a lot of good ol' boys in the South with surplus flags. Seems some don't take too kindly to what they may or may not mean. They could ship them there flags to the California state legislatures, and perhaps even swap flags. Of course some would still get all rustled over how states rights for one cause don't equal state's rights for another. Smoking dope and letting invaders overrun doesn't equal slavery; but the point stands. They always told us the South would rise again. They just didn't say how far south.

    [><]
    |
    |

  29. Re: So much for Republicans supporting states righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah its called the constitution.

  30. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by DCFusor · · Score: 2

    I know plenty of republicans and even actual conservatives, who are for net neutrality...Yes, Ajit isn't one of them, at least in public. But then he's not an elected politician either - he's a paid lobbyist ...um...temporarily serving as a regulator. Like in all agencies - totally corrupt, and who's in there now has little to do with any one election. We call it "regulatory capture" and "revolving door regulation". Of the two parties - and you should check what practically limits it to two - special laws etc - do you really think either is above this crap? The approval ratings of officials are well below what any party gets in elections, should give you a clue.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  31. Re:spoiled brats by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Texas... The home of the 5 billion rainy day fund (well, before last summer's hurricane we had one). We are obviously managing our state's resources rather well, even though we don't have a state income tax and only an 8.25% sales tax.

    It may be a hole to you, but we are solvent and able to pay our bills....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  32. oh, that's good right? Local control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH wait, the GOP only likes that when it means extracting natural resources.... ok, gotcha.

  33. This ticks me off by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Metronomes.

    Back when Reefer Madness was put together, common metronomes were mechanical.

    So it was difficult to provide a reasonable jazz time signature. Consequently, they had to jail all the non-white people.

    Otherwise your daughters might not have marched up to the altar in 4/4 time, y'see?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  34. Is California conservative or something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, here they are exercising their state's rights in a manner to foster an environment that helps consumers hopes to keep markets more competitive.

    Oh wait, I forget. The GOP aren't actually conservative.

    Eventually, the bogeyman of Hillary, Obama or that random social justice warrior on Twitter you think represents literally every liberal are going to fail as talking points. Maybe not for places like Oklahoma or other ever-red areas, but many people lie much closer to the center than Ayn Rand or Bernie Sanders.

    I'll be voting D from this point out. The illusion that "both parties are the same" has been shown to be completely false as the GOP continues to push policies that basically no one favors, including their own constituents.

  35. At least lets option to buy by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    They won the battle at the federal level, but winning that battle unleased full blown war

    That's good. Leased wars are always returned in such bad shape; the next user in line always ends up with the short end of the stick. We really should buy all our wars cash on the barrelhead.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  36. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by Ichijo · · Score: 2

    Isn't the purpose of belonging to a political party to let someone else do the thinking for you?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  37. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    It's almost as if people support over-reaching regulation when it benefits them, and not when it doesn't. Weird huh?

  38. The long and winding road by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    hey also require "reasonable accommodation" of armature radio stations by state and local regulations

    Well, you wouldn't want your armature wound improperly, would you?

    I suppose armatures are regulated by FCC field offices.

    I'll just motor off, now...

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:The long and winding road by bobbied · · Score: 1

      touché sir... Sorry my spelling is bad, but I'm just an engineer, not a technical writer.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  39. Re:spoiled brats by danbert8 · · Score: 1

    You had a rainy day fund. You had a whole year's worth of rain in that day...

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  40. Wow! The US is cracking by the seams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure if i'm happy about it or not so happy about it. Always fun when the neighborhood bully falls on his ass.

  41. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    * A massive Hepatitis outbreak in San Diego

    That's the shit we tell rust-belt people so they don't come here.

    The beach I'm going to today, I think maybe in Cayucos (there are ten beaches within ten miles of me) is perfectly clean. I mean, I've lived in California since September, and I still haven't seen litter anywhere.

    Also, California now has a $6.1 billion SURPLUS. If you believe that's because of bad calculations, you might want to tell the Wall Street Journal how to use a "calculator's basic functions", because clearly you're the only one who knows how they work.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/j...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  42. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that were true then people wouldn't be screaming about how the Republicans are evil for repealing Net Neutrality. The proposal put forth by the Obama FCC was atrocious. It was quite possibly the worst solution to a problem that had little occurrence. Repealing the Obama FCC's Net Neutrality law is a Good Thing(tm) if you care at all about innovation and lack of government control/regulation over the internet, yet people here yell and scream how how the Republicans are.

    Just because your opinion is with the majority on a sight doesn't mean you don't make you decisions based upon party affiliation. It's clear most people advocating for the FCC Net Neutrality rules have no idea what they say or what they will mean.

  43. Other states are fighting too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are six states that passed or are looking to pass Net Neutrality legislation, this is actually a pretty good start considering how early they are.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/technology/net-neutrality-states.html

  44. Re:spoiled brats by bobbied · · Score: 1

    I need to correct one fact and add one.. the 5 billion fund is actually 10 billion and it wasn't used last year for the hurricane.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  45. Re:spoiled brats by bobbied · · Score: 1

    LOL.. I just checked, we still have one and it's 10 Billion. We apparently didn't use it last year for the hurricane, though I'm at a loss to understand why.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  46. Title II Classification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought one of the things the ISPs really liked about Net Neutrality was that, classified as Title II, they were not responsible for the content that went across the wire. Now that Net Neutrality is dead, do they lose Title II Classification, and does that mean they are now liable when Uncle Fred downloads kiddie porn?

    Did they forget that was the good part for them about Net Neutrality?

  47. Sorry retard APK that isn't me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry retard Alexander Peter Kowalski that isn't me impersonating you but please continue acting like the retard you are.
    However thanks for pointing out to everyone that you are a retard that can't actually make an argument.
    Didn't I tell you to stop linking to your own posts as they only make you look ever more the fool.
    I have told you many times before I am the guy who calls you a retard and points out why you are a retard, no more, no less.
    Too bad you are too dumb to realize that a program doesn't have to store 6x10^98 host names to use 6x10^98 ones but you do need to get them all in a hosts file.
    This is why I point out your failings as you aren't smart enough to realize you lost long ago and find it fun to watch you make an absolute ass of yourself.
    Believe what you want about my credentials but you do depend on my work and experience even if you don't know it and thankfully when people actually do ask me to prove the security of my things I can point to actual mathematical proof unlike you.
    Thankfully I don't depend on yours.

  48. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    If that were true then people wouldn't be screaming about how the Republicans are evil for repealing Net Neutrality

    I think people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.

    The proposal put forth by the Obama FCC was atrocious.

    First time I've heard that. Out here in the real world you have to qualify your comments. Disregarded.

    It's clear most people advocating for the FCC Net Neutrality rules have no idea what they say or what they will mean.

    I'm just glad we have smart people like you to lead us dumb people and tell us what to do.

  49. There's no way this could end badly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As always, I'm sure California's legislative agenda will have exactly the desired effect. There's no WAY any of this could even HOPE to backfire! Let's go spark up the cigars California just solved the Internet. These guys are smart. They know what they're doing. I'm sure they thought through every aspect of this bill before they passed it.

  50. Re: California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously don't know what an unfunded liability or debt amoritization are. But no matter: you've lived in a California for four whole months, so that makes you a coastal elite who can't be bothered with facts from inlanders.

  51. Re: So much for Republicans supporting states rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really? A piece of paper is going to protect you from the largest empire in world history? Do you just wave it at them, or do you have to say a magical incantation first? How has the Constitution worked out in limiting the size and scope of government and protecting your rights in the old USSA?

  52. The Nuremberg Trials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazis: "We were just enforcing the law."

  53. This is an improvement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually they're defying reality. At least in this case there is an arguable public benefit.
    Now let's talk about a $1000 fine and 6 months in jail for giving someone a straw...

  54. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    Be quiet you, the less people know about how fantastic the weather and amenities are in California the better.

    Say it with me, there are no beaches in California. Everyone is raped and murdered at least once, the state is hopelessly broke and taxes are at 400% and everyone is ugly plus it snows 24/7/365 often 10' at a time. California is HORRIBLE, don't move there, don't visit and definitely don't even talk about it because it's that horrible.

    End of discussion.

  55. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    When Republicans talk about "States rights", they really mean the right of states to pass laws that discriminate against people.

    Conversely Democrats hate states experimenting with policies and love gigantic command and control from Washington.

    It sounds like you two guys have found some common ground. Can you agree that you're going to start voting against Democrats and Republicans (as well as doing anything else you can, to undermine this party), instead of continuing to vote for (ans otherwise support) them?

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  56. Re:spoiled brats by Gavagai80 · · Score: 0

    A $5B rainy day fund? That's smaller than California's rainy day fund, so certainly nothing to be proud of, even if it still existed.

    At any rate, Texas is solvent only for the same reason as Qatar and Saudi Arabia -- by oil exploitation and environmental damage, not governing skill.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  57. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by jwhyche · · Score: 1

    Also, California now has a $6.1 billion SURPLUS

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09...

    https://californiapolicycenter...

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol...

    Tell us again about that $6.1 billion surplus.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  58. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The purpose is to try to exert some minor political influence (all most of us can hope for). I have my own political views, and the Democrats are almost always closer to those than the Republicans, particularly in the last couple of decades. I don't know of a better way to spend a little work and a little money trying to change how the country is run.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  59. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The fact that NN was regulated for quite a few years (many of those years illegally), and then dumped by the Trump administration, suggests that political parties have different views on NN. On this issue, at least, the Obama administration did the right thing and the Trump administration didn't.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  60. Re:spoiled brats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Texas? No thanks, I actually like trees and people with teeth myself, and there's that issue with all those kooks who keep trying to 'ceede from the union over and over again.

  61. Re:California: Cuz We Hates Trump! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I wanted Obama to come out fully in support of breathing.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  62. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone is raped and murdered at least once

    Yeah, I've been murdered four times already!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  63. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    ell us again about that $6.1 billion surplus.

    Be glad to. Here is a more recent article from the Sacramento Bee that tells us the state actually has a $19 billion surplus.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol...

    Your other two citations are a right-wing "think tank" and a libertarian magazine. But you don't trust the Wall Street Journal, right? And really, jwhyche, why don't you get a life and stop stalking me? It's getting a little creepy.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  64. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Say it with me, there are no beaches in California. Everyone is raped and murdered at least once, the state is hopelessly broke and taxes are at 400% and everyone is ugly plus it snows 24/7/365 often 10' at a time. California is HORRIBLE, don't move there, don't visit and definitely don't even talk about it because it's that horrible.

    That's not to mention the sharks all up and down the beaches.

    I learned pretty quickly that the first rule of California is you don't talk about how nice it is in California.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  65. Re:spoiled brats by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Well I was wrong.. The Rainy Day fund in Texas is currently just north of 10 Billion.. ;) I believe that California's is just about $8 Billion right now, assuming it's not been tapped for something in the last year.

    Also, does it matter where it comes from, given California produced a lot of Oil in it's past too?

    In the end, all that really matters is that California's AA- bond rating is lower than Texas' AAA, so should Texas need to borrow money, they can do it at better rates.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  66. Not defying US Senate, it's a state matter,like MJ by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I don't know how you can depict this as "defying the US Senate", this is clearly a state matter, just like requiring clean air (as CA OR WA NY etc do), clean water (same), legal MJ (same), and other state matters.

    It only becomes federal if it reaches outside the boundaries. You just can't operate an ISP in the state if you don't have Net Neutrality for all of your business. That's all.

    Turnabout is fair play.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  67. Another state stays in the slow lane by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    Another level of state bureaucracy to protect existing monopoly telcos and their paper insulated wireline NN networks with more rules.
    Want to start an innovative new network? State bureaucrats will have to go over the design and see if any new networks can pass their understanding of party political NN rules.
    Existing NN monopoly networks get a free pass.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  68. Ah California... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The clean green state with no water, importing its power from dirty coal stations out of state, magnet to the homeless and/or stoners. Where laws are merely suggestions, taxes are high, property is unaffordable. A veritable utopia...

  69. Re: California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are flagrantly ignoring (or more likely, you don't understand) the rules of accounting.

    On a balance sheet, the debt section consists of current (short term) and future (long term) liabilities. Your supposed "surplus" only pertains to current liabilities based on current expenditures.

    The long term liability shortfall in California is in the hundreds of billions of dollars: a number so staggering it nearly rivals the 2008 TARP bailout of large portions of the US banking system.

    Writing off Reason (which is source fallacy, by the way) does not change the NUMBERS.

    The math is going to catch up. The golden coast is going to be toast.

  70. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by jwhyche · · Score: 0, Troll

    Stalking you, hardly. You just seem to float to the top but not to worry. After this post I'm applying a -2 freak award to you. I will never have to see your crap again.

    https://www.statista.com/stati...

    http://www.latimes.com/politic...

    https://www.usgovernmentdebt.u...

    I really like this one.

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/sta...

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  71. There's a list, right there in the Constitution by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Constitution lists which things the federal government can do. It then says that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. It actually says that last part THREE TIMES, just to be certain nobody can miss it.

    It then says that on these listed subjects that the federal government is allowed to legislate, federal law is the supreme law of the land, anything in state law notwithstanding:

    --
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    --

    Either regulating nationwide ISPs regarding NN is NOT an enumerated power, in which case the FCC has no authority at all and can't do anything, or the feds have the power and the states do not. The Constitution does not allow for dueling laws, with some states having valid laws that contradict federal law.

    It is claimed that the federal government has the power under the Interstate Commerce Clause:

    --
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    --

    The federal rules apply companies *selling interstate* ISP services, so it sounds a lot like "commerce ... among the several states". The wording of thay clause *is* broad, but obviously it's intended to cover a limited number of things, so perhaps whenever something is questionable it should be interpreted fairly strictly.

    Moving along, the very first sentence of Article 1 says that all law-making authority is vested in Congress, who cannot delegate it to any other branch of government. Later it says the job of the Executive branch is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". So executive branch entities such as the FCC must enforce the laws that Congress passes.

    The question therefore is if Congress did in fact pass such a law and direct the FCC to enforce it. It is claimed that Congress did so with the Communications Act of 1934. Just by the title of the act alone, we can see it's going to be questionable whether, in 1934, Congress could have made any kind of law about the internet. In fact Congress made a law about the phone company (the ONE interstate phone company).

    It seems likely that the feds CAN regulate ISPs in this way, subject to first amendment and other rights, and then states could not trample on federal law. It also seems rather likely that Congress has not yet passed a bill requiring ISPs to implement Network Neutrality ideas, and without such a law the FCC has nothing to enforce.

    1. Re:There's a list, right there in the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems likely that the feds CAN regulate ISPs in this way, subject to first amendment and other rights, and then states could not trample on federal law. It also seems rather likely that Congress has not yet passed a bill requiring ISPs to implement Network Neutrality ideas, and without such a law the FCC has nothing to enforce.

      The Bill of Rights supersedes everything in the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution. This is a matter of history, and also a matter of ethical practice of law, an universal and inalienable right. Any claim to the contrary by the government or the legal profession is invalid. If that isn't clear, think about it more.

      In other words, in the hierarchy of law, the Bill of Rights is highest law in the land.

      The Bill of Rights is open-ended, as a result of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

      The Commerce clause, like everything else in the law below the level of the Bill of Rights, is subject to this. 9th Amendment rights such as the right to ethical government, and the right to ethical practice of law, are applicable, and the authority of the federal government ends when either right is violated in any way, shape, or form.

  72. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/sta...

    So, what you're saying is that California has a debt-to-GDP ratio that's better than Texas, Kentucky, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina , Indiana and all states combined.

    If the state of California is going to go belly up, there will be a host of red states that go belly up first, which is some comfort.

    Meanwhile, the quality of life is a whole lot better in California than it is in Texas, Kentucky, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina or Indiana.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  73. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we did that in 2016 you all threw a giant shitfit about it. You don't really think that people voted for Trump just because there was an R next to his name... do you?

  74. Small enough to drown in a bath tub by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that was the ideal size for government. To me that always sounded like "Small enough that our mega corps can bully it into submission".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  75. Re: "states rights" == racism [proof in link] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Republicans mention states rights, they're really using a dog whistle that says they support states' rights to implement racist policies.

  76. You're talking about a group of people by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that ignored millions of pro NN comments while promoting millions of obviously fake anti-NN comments. They can absolutely have it both ways. It's one of the advantages of being utterly, totally without principle. Question is, what are you gonna do about it?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  77. roflmao by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    got you all to do exactly what was wanted by telling you not to do it.

    oh yeah sure you won. go you. you're so smart. :)

  78. CA: secede by NikeHerc · · Score: 0

    California, please secede. You don't want to be a part of the U.S.A. and we are sick of you. Good riddance.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  79. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    I think you have it completely wrong. As the Register said, the talking points game from the green party - eg the party of money. Wheeler got the same ones. He turned on his masters. If you're going to be partisan at least understand that the R's and D's are both the big money party. And the states are fighting back, and hopefully they win. This is really the citizens against the parasites, and making it R vs D makes it easier for the parasites to win. Please understand that even if you sum the R's half truths and the D's - you're still way short of the truth - light years short.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  80. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    When we did that in 2016 you all threw a giant shitfit about it. You don't really think that people voted for Trump just because there was an R next to his name... do you?

    Thanks for making my point. You can't even imagine a world where a pro-NN person would not be a bleeding heart liberal ("you all", lol).

    Either that or your just a troll. Anyway, you're irrelevant to us normal folk either way.

  81. title by bmo · · Score: 1

    I read that as "defiles."

    Wishful/hopeful thinking.

    But can you even defile a shitstain like Ajit Pai?

    --
    BMO

  82. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by jwhyche · · Score: 1

    What I'm saying is you don't know what you are a talking about. You and so many short sited people look at what is right in front of you but don't both to conciser the big picture. The short term is California may have a budget surplus this year, but that doesn't erase the billions of dollars that California owes. I had a budget surplus this month but I still owe on my car. Just because you have spare cash doesn't eliminate what you owe.

    You seem to think that California exists in a bubble. It doesn't. If all the states you listed go belly up first shouldn't being you any comfort. If all the states you listed go down, even if before California, then we all go down.

    I've applied the correct freak bonus to you. I will not have to suffer from you again unless I get modded down to your level or you get modded up to mine. But I got to say this. Sometimes your posts seem sane, even insightful. But other time you seem like a raving, homophobic, racist loon. You really are a confused odd duck

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  83. Re:spoiled brats by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Cheers to Texas for showing the fiscal responsibility to create a rainy day fund but the state's relative wealth rests on oil wealth. If Texas didn't sit on a bunch of oil it would be just be another poor Red state paying in less to the Fed than it got out.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  84. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    There are 31 states with budget deficits. Most of them are Republican states with Republican legislatures and Republican governors. California is not one of them. As a famous economist once said,

    "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

    So don't worry about us. When the time comes for us to bail you out, we'll do our part. We always have.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  85. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    I love having karma to burn, almost as much as I love shining the cold hard light of truth snowflakes.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  86. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lived in CA for sixty years and didn't see any litter after the late sixties thanks to Lady Bird Johnston starting the Keep America Beautiful movement against billboards and roadside litter. The gas stations used to hand out little disposable plastic litterbags that you hung on a dashboard knob (google it) and every time you filled up the gas station attendant (google it) would take your full bag and give you a new empty one.

    "Don't Be a Litter Bug!"

    You'll also note there are no cigarette butts on the ground. Throwing them from a moving car is a $1000 fine.

    When you travel to other states or countries with litter strewn on the ground it makes it feel like a primitive, insensitive experience.

  87. Re:California: Cuz We Hates Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry if you disagree.

    I'm not against the state (or states) DOING it.

    I simply find their underlying "reasoning" questionable at best.
    Flat out INSANE is pretty much just a step down from there.

  88. Only thing I depend on YOU for fantasyboy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To make me look good (& yourself an ass you project you are). REALITY vs. your 'fantasy' https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11532533&cid=55833641/ & dumbass?

    For a program to use that many it has to store them in RAM (from up off disk & you yourself SAID it can't be done). LOL! You're SO FUCKING DUMB you don't realize you have to MAINTAIN STATE somewhere shitbrain (lol).

    You also don't seem to realize that REALITY above, from me, WORKED vs. the issue @ hand (botnets) - not your 'phantasyland delusional' bs.!

    Then your "YEARS OF SECURITYGURUHOOD" & "you write REAL securityware" (where is it then shitbrain? It's not, you delusional LIAR with no proof)?

    SHOT TO HELL by yours truly & REALITY on several accounts here https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11606243&cid=55924893/

    ESPECIALLY ON NoScript & App WHITELISTING (you dumbfuck, that one especially shows you know SHIT, lol).

    If you're a security guru & we depend on YOUR bullshit? We're in DEEP SHIT! Especially vs. your 'mEthamatical' (intended misspell) "phantasies" vs. REALITY I use.

    Lastly: CLASSIC & HILARIOUS - truth got to you I see, seeing how you had to TRY 'downmod hide' it, lmao - ineffectual & EFFETE (like you) vs. me! I won't allow it buttboy!

    (Being YOUR SUPERIOR? It's just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'", lol)

    The FACT you have to HIDE under UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts (your kind 'the INFERIOR ones' do that, hahaha) AND also lie about yourself? Priceless - & shows I am VERY EFFECTIVE @ what I do too!

    Keep blowin' those 'downmodpoints' - I'll run you dry of 'em & like Doritos (regarding my ability to post unlimitedly)? I'll just repost & make more FURTHER BLOWING YOUR DUMBASS AWAY, lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Still suffering your DELUSIONAL 'phantasies' YOU are a SECURITY GURU who writes REAL SECURITYWARE?

    OK - Prove it then - you sure didn't in those link & points above, lol... apk

  89. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I've been murdered four times already!

    You're thinking Baltimore. After the fifth murder they waive a year of parking fines.

  90. So much for slogan principles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Republicans talk about "States rights", they really mean the right of states to pass laws that discriminate against people. They do not mean the right for states to establish their own drug laws nor for the rights of states to adopt laws like net neutrality

    Yup, principles (by either party) are only excuses for what you want to do. Here in Texas the sacrosanct Republican principal of local autonomy saw the "big-business" state legislature passa law to prevent municipalities from regulating fracking within their city limits. It's situational ethics at it's finest: get the government out of the boardrooms and into the bedrooms and bathrooms...

  91. famous economist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a famous economist once said,

    "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

    Yeah, that economist made a lot of sense. Damn shame his groupies perverted it to make a religion out of what he taught.
    (no satire tags intended)

  92. Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I think you have it wrong. There are differences between the Ds and the Rs. Both listen better to the big donors than to constituents, in general, but they are different in many ways. Under Bush and Obama, the FCC required NN. That was an awful long time for a rogue committee to operate. Trump shows up and the FCC goes full hostile. The Democrats are identifying themselves with NN, and will stick with it for some time to come.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  93. Retard APK whines like a little bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see that retard Alexander Peter Kowalski whines some more like a little bitch.
    I keep asking you to provide actual proof of your statements and the best you can come up with are: An article from the register that doesn't mention you or your work that you just wildly speculate means someone copied an obvious feature from you.
    That your software is included in the Misc. Software section of a website means it is endorsed when it reality it looks like an also ran.
    Out of context, or retracted quotes from /. users so any that haven't been shown to be so should be viewed as suspect.
    People from the 90s saying hosts offers security but those people target their articles towards the mainstream not real technical people.
    This ignores your inability to reason and follow logical arguments like why you have to block 6x10^98 hosts but a program doesn't or that having to recompile code because TLDs change is a shitty design.
    I have explained both of those to you a number of times but you just can't seem to follow but anytime someone explains something that proves you wrong you seem to be either incapable of accepting that you are wrong, or are just to retarded to comprehend that you are wrong.

    I'm not going to provide personal information that might help to identify myself as you are known to stalk and harass people in real life as well as online but you would probably shit your pants if you did find out who I am.
    As stated many times, I don't have an account so I don't ever have mod points.
    Even if I did have an account I wouldn't waste them downmodding you as I want people to see you make an ass of yourself.

    If your crap ideas are so great then how come groups like PCI, NIST, DoD, NERC, SANS, CIS, or any other any other group for that mater, never recommend work like yours in their various hardening guides.
    So what is more likely, that large quantities of experts writing guidelines, regulations, and benchmarks to be used by other experts on how to secure systems are all wrong, or that some retard on the internet who rants about hosts files is wrong?
    Personally I'm betting that you, the retard on the internet, are wrong, especially since you can't actually provide any proof or evidence to back up your claims.
    So now how about your provide some actual proof of your claims like:
    Hosts stops inbound connections.
    The Chinese copied your work.
    That a program would have to store 6x10^98 host names to be able to use them, wait never mind arth1 already showed how a program doesn't need to do that but you were just too stupid to grasp that and he even made it simpler for you using only 4 billion or so hosts.
    That your program isn't as effective as an AV scanner that matches only based off of file names.
    That your work prevents an entire category of attacks.
    That you are in fact not a retard.
    Now remember things that are not proof or evidence include: wild speculation, out of context or retracted comments from /. users, by extension any comments from /. users, using bold or capital letters, links on random websites, statements from a 90s era AOL radio program, circular reasoning, comments from a wanna be Kim Komando, name calling, or advice from the 1980s on computer security.

    I and others keep asking for this but all you can seem to do is whine like a little bitch and try to deflect away from your near endless failings.
    Finally you really should learn how to write better it as what you furiously pound out only provides further evidence of just how much of a retard you actually are.

  94. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are lucky. Every night our Dad and our mother kill us, and dance about on our graves singing 'Hallelujah.'

    http://www.montypython.net/scripts/4york.php

  95. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So don't worry about us. When the time comes for us to bail you out, we'll do our part. We always have

    It must be nice on your planet. You have backwards. The rest of the states will be bailing california out. California has never bailed anyone out.

  96. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The rest of the states will be bailing california out. California has never bailed anyone out.

    That's just not true. California bails out all but 13 other states, every year. It's what's known as a "donor" state because we pay more in taxes to the federal government than we receive in federal spending. By contrast, South Carolina receives almost $8 from the federal government for every $1 it sends to them in taxes. California receives less than $1.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  97. Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only thing that California donates to any one is everyone elses money to the millions of illegal aliens that have flooded the state.

  98. LOL! I know exactly WHAT you are though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You're a do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" bullshitting blowhard liar (prove otherwise - you can't) - FACT!

    This made me laugh so much I have to QUOTE & BOOKMARK IT:

    "you would probably shit your pants if you did find out who I am... " by Anonymous BLOWHARD BULLSHITTER STALKING LIAR Coward on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @11:36AM (#56040685)

    LMAO - like I said - I know exactly WHAT You are - a blowhard bullshitting do-nothing liar (nothing more).

    E.G. - Where is that 'REAL securityware' you write? It's not... & big deal you've secured systems for 21 yrs. - I've done it LONGER & wrote ware for it I really CAN demonstrate others use & like (you can't - you don't HAVE any, lol).

    You also don't read well - Aryeh Goretsky is technical (NOD32/ESET) & said hosts = good security (as did others NOT from the 90's & not that THAT would even matter (poor tactic chump - especially considering NOBODY likes or uses YOUR "vaporware' that doesn't exist, lol)).

    APK

    P.S.=> People here like & use my work, praising it - not yours & you should learn to SPELL idiot (it's "matter" not 'mater', fool)... apk