Trump's Pick To Be the Next Attorney General Has Opposed Net Neutrality Rules For Years (fastcompany.com)

William P. Barr, President Trump's pick to become the nation's next Attorney General, is a former chief lawyer for Verizon who has opposed net neutrality rules for more than a decade. "Barr, who served as attorney general under former President George H.W. Bush from 1991-93, warned in 2006 that 'network neutrality regulations would discourage construction of high-speed internet lines that telephone and cable giants are spending tens of billions of dollars to deploy,'" reports Fast Company. From the report: Barr's appointment would be welcome news for at least three major internet service providers and a trade organization -- including Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association -- that have spent more than $600 million lobbying on Capitol Hill since 2008, according to a MapLight analysis. Their lobbying on a key issue was rewarded last December, when the Federal Communications Commission, led by another former Verizon lawyer-turned-Trump appointee, overruled popular opinion by voting to scrap rules that banned internet companies from giving preferential treatment to particular websites or charging consumers more for different types of content.

Barr's previous employment with Verizon foreshadows credibility problems similar to those faced by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, also a former Verizon lawyer. Barr, however, is likely to face even more scrutiny stemming from his role as a member of WarnerMedia's board of directors. The entertainment conglomerate, which includes HBO, Turner Broadcasting, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Group, was created in the aftermath of AT&T's 2016 purchase of Time Warner Inc. [...] Barr has argued that net neutrality rules will discourage internet service providers from investing in high-end delivery systems, such as fiber-optic networks. "Companies are going to make these kinds of investments only if they see an opportunity to earn a return that is commensurate with the risk, and only if they have the freedom to innovate, differentiate, and make commercially sensible decisions that they need to compete and win in the market," he said at a 2006 Federalist Society convention. Barr also claimed that 81 percent of the nation's roughly 40,000 zip codes have three or more choices of broadband providers. A PC Magazine study last year found that to be untrue, with only 30 percent of 20,000 zip codes having three or more broadband options.

Comments

Not like that nice Mr Ajit Pai

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind, whatever bullshit they cook up will be overturned in 6 years.

Re:Not like that nice Mr Ajit Pai

[sexconker]

Never mind, whatever bullshit they cook up will be overturned in 6 years.

Agree or disagree, at least you're smart enough to realize the incumbent always wins and he's not going to prison.

Re:Not like that nice Mr Ajit Pai

[pslytely psycho]

Incumbents do not always win.
George H.W. Bush for a recent example.

As far as Trump goes, I hope he loses in 2020, but I want him to serve his entire term. Trump is incompetent, but Pence is pure religious ideological evil.

Re:Not like that nice Mr Ajit Pai

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the attempt at banning trangenders from the military was Trumps idea?
Pence already have access to Trump and gets what he wants. He just can't go all out simply because of the other branches of government not going completely along with it.

Put Pence in charge and he will have to answer for his politics instead of Trump getting the blame.
Trump gets away with shouting "fake news" when people point out the consequences of his politics because everyone expects Trump to be stupid.
Pence won't get the same leniency. He will have to actually respond and can probably be shamed into doing something that bears a resemblance to reasonable politics.

Re:Not like that nice Mr Ajit Pai

[Can'tNot]

You're thinking of the House of Representatives, with a mid-90% victory rate for incumbents. The senate rate is 5-10% lower, and the presidency is ~70% over the last fifty years.

Re:Not like that nice Mr Ajit Pai

[pslytely psycho]

Point taken, it wouldn't be as bad now as it would of a few months ago since the R's took a shellacking in the house. Had they remained in control they would of lined up to suck Pence's cock.
Still don't want Pence closer to the presidency than he is now.

Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[SuperKendall]

He just opposes using regulation to achieve network neutrality, worrying it would harm the internet as it is - which is working fine.

Why people want to take a perfectly good system and tart it up with regulations that can only do harm, I've no idea.

Re: Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

What tripe...

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is mission-critical for everything now. All roads are on the Internet. Whoever controls the Internet, controls the world.

So, naturally, the telcos believe that they should control the Internet. They desire access monopolies so they can jack the prices up (and people will pay, because they have to), as well as the ability to burn the candle at both ends. They also want control over what content everyone can consume; who can access what, so they can stack charges on top of charges without end. Want netflix? you have to pay for internet access, pay for netflix, and pay us again to allow netflix on the pipes. Want facebook too? You have to pay even more for that. And, not that you really care, but facebook is having to pay extra for every region of the world in which they want to have their services available at all.
And so on.

Apart from the king-of-the-world level of wealth they want to suck up, they also want to have influence over what news people can and can't read, and what kinds of political forums people can and can't have online. That way they can tip the political scales in their favor, to ensure that they never lose their control over everything.

They want this as badly as Sauron wants the Ring of Mordor. And they own far more politicians than you or I ever will.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Gravis Zero]

He just opposes using regulation to achieve network neutrality

Network neutrality by definition is regulation. If he opposes regulation for network neutrality then he opposes network neutrality.

worrying it would harm the internet as it is - which is working fine.

Working just fine? Do you not remember what happened with Netflix? Can you tell when they paid off Comcast?

Why people want to take a perfectly good system and tart it up with regulations that can only do harm, I've no idea.

Because we've learned from the past behavior of corporations to predict future behavior of corporations. There is no incentive for them to abide by network neutrality in the same way there is no incentive for corporations to not pollute when they are allowed.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Powercntrl]

Why people want to take a perfectly good system and tart it up with regulations that can only do harm, I've no idea.

We already had net neutrality and the internet didn't implode on itself. The only "harm" done would be to the greedy telco companies, who want to squeeze every last penny out of their customers.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Tablizer]

worrying [regulation] would harm the internet as it is - which is working fine.

Right now the ISP's are not throttling that much because they are uncertain about the political ramifications and state-level counter-actions. However, they want to throttle because they want to charge you add-on fees for full-speed access to anything they can bilk you for.

IF there were enough viable ISP choices for the typical consumer, then the market would indeed solve the problem by itself without the need for regulation. But as most of us know, the average consumer only has between 1 and 3 viable ISP choices, and oligopolies have historically shatted all over consumers. (The big players already do.)

A rule of thumb is you need at least 7 competitors in an area to have sufficient competition to avoid OPEC-like collusion among a few companies.

Without regulation, the oligopolies will turn the Internet back into AOL, CompuServe, etc. They will control the content and control where you go, and nickel and dime you if you wander outside their compound. They'll do it simply because they can and you'll have no alternative.

Re: Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, he opposes net neutrality de facto not just de jure, he literally signed his name to statements to that effect.

You do realize that they have an agenda, and it is quite openly stated to be injurious to the public. They aren't opposed to anything except that with solidifies their oppressive rule.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[rmdingler]

Hear hear!

The market is continuously fluctuating between healthy competition and virtual monopoly... one end of the spectrum best benefits the consumer, and the other benefits the corporations.

Government intervention, ideally, acts like finger on the scale attempting equilibrium. More often than not, the finger is clumsy, but its absence from the markets typically does not favor those rooting for healthy competition.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Solandri]

Network neutrality by definition is regulation. If he opposes regulation for network neutrality then he opposes network neutrality.

No, Net Neutrality is by definition regulation to fix other regulation. ISPs are able to throttle Netflix because they have a monopoly granted to them by the local government. So even though they degrade Netflix quality, their customers cannot flee to another ISP because the local government has banned competition. They can then extort Netflix to pay for access to those customers.

Net Neutrality is an attempt to fix these regulatory monopolies by requiring they behave. It's regulation trying to fix problems caused by other regulation. Which begs the question - why not just fix the original regulation? Don't give out local Internet monopolies.

Network neutrality is achievable without regulation. Simply allow multiple companies to provide Internet service in all areas. If one ISP intentionally degrades Netflix as a ploy to try to make Netflix pay them, their customers will simply cancel and switch to a different ISP. And ISPs will strive for network neutrality because that's what their customers want.

We can argue about which approach is more effective. But it's erroneous to think the only way to achieve network neutrality is Net Neutrality regulation.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

No, network neutrality is a way of handling traffic. You can require traffic to be handled that way through regulation and enforce it through sanctions, but network operators can also handle traffic that way of their own volition and some do. The market rules are stacked against net neutrality, so something needs to be done in order to maintain net neutrality, but it doesn't necessarily have to be regulation. (I will agree though that anyone opposing net neutrality regulation at the moment is probably at odds with the concept as such.)

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[sexconker]

Bullshit.

It was Netflix who was demanding one sided peering agreements.
It was Netflix who was demanding ISPs put racks with Netflix CDN boxes on their power and network.
It was Netflix who drew up agreements to then resell access to those CDN boxes to 3rd parties, with the ISPs still footing the power and network bill.
It was Netflix who created and ran a website called fast.com solely to name and shame ISPs that didn't capitulate.
It was Netflix who falsely claimed certain ISPs didn't support "Super HD" despite the fact that the bandwidth customers were getting was more than sufficient.
It was Netflix who provided users of fast.com a bunch of ways to harass and pester their ISP into "supporting Super HD", which simply meant capitulating to Netflix's demand of hosting a Netflix CDN node and not expecting Netflix to pay for power or bandwidth.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

You, good sir, are an easily manipulated buffoon. "Derp derp regulations suck derp derp".

Fucking parrot without a brain in your fucking head.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need more government regulation limited the Internet. We need more free markets. Just look at Seattle where there's limits on new construction and upgrades where many of my friends are still stuck on dial-up.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulation is required to keep companies from considering profit above all else.

Without dreaded regulations, worker safety, worker and community health, workers rights, etc are all out the window.

Cheaper to pour toxic waste materials into the lakes and rivers than to dispose of it properly.
Price fixing. Gouging. All kinds of fun stuff.

No system is perfect without checks and balances, and that includes capitalism. That is what regulations are for. (Yes, you can over regulate as well, and that is not good either.)

Anyone completely against regulations is either an undereducated nutjob, or one of the greedy folk that want to abuse everything in the name of their own personal profit. Some of these people are psychopaths.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this the fuck up. Best summary I've seen.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

What we haven't learned from the past is that we are pretty bad at predicting future when it comes to complex systems.

So instead of acting from a place of being sure that sometime in the near future Internet will crumble because companies are greedy, try with minimum regulations first, and IF you notice things are coming apart, then introduce a fix.

You don't preemptively go for a stomach reduction surgery when a person has normal weight just because they like to eat and food is readily available. There are many other factors at play.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[SuperKendall]

The Internet is mission-critical for everything now. All roads are on the Internet. Whoever controls the Internet, controls the world.

So let me get this straight - what you want to do, is to take the system that works pretty well the way it is now, and place it firmly in the hands of the Trump administration.

Because that is exactly what we are talking about when we say "more regulation" - whoever controls the FCC, then controls the internet via alterations to the regulations.

The best thing the FCC has done recently is to RELINQUISH POWER. Now at least I don't have to worry about what any politicized government will do to the internet, since they hold less sway over it (they can still of course impose fines but it's not like that 30 page hammer they were wielding until the NN regulations were repealed).

I mean, please explain to a very skeptical me how it benefits anyone to hand total control over the internet to Trump. We are all listening...

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[fwc]

ISPs are able to throttle Netflix because they have a monopoly granted to them by the local government. So even though they degrade Netflix quality, their customers cannot flee to another ISP because the local government has banned competition.

This concept is factually wrong, that is, there is no monopoly granted to ISP's. Anyone can go buy a "resellable" INTERNET feed from a carrier like Zayo, Hurricane Electric or Cogent or similar and then build out a local network from that. The cost to do so is relatively low in the grand scheme of things, especially if technologies like unlicensed wireless are used to do so. But the repealed network neutrality rules makes it harder for these small, independent, providers to be able to do so.

All that the repealed Title II-style network neutrality did was increase the amount of paperwork required to be filed with the FCC, increasing the costs for Internet providers to comply with the regulation. This was a tolerable thing for the big providers, but a very bad thing for the smallest of the providers who are desperately trying to compete with the largest carriers (Comcast, etc). The reason is that a company the size of Comcast can afford to pay the couple of full time staff needed to keep up with the record keeping requirements, but a smaller ISP just trying to provide service in a reasonably small area or even a portion of a state generally does not have the resources necessary to keep up with all of the filing requirements - even though that small ISP is generally going to be far less likely to do the 'evil' things that people thing that we need network neutrality for.

Or stated differently: The companies which most needed the regulation were the ones least affected by it.

We need to quit thinking that Internet can only be provided by the Cable company and the Phone company. There are thousands of small providers out there who are proving that it's not only possible for other to provide internet service, but that actually these smaller companies are often able to provide better service at a similar cost.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[fwc]

Just to add a couple of datapoints to your well-thought out reply:

The Title-II style network neutrality did not do a lot of what network-neutrality proponents seem to think it did. For instance throttling generally was permitted provided it didn't single out one source. In addition, ISP's had a lot of latitude as far as what they could or could not do under the guise of 'reasonable network management'. For instance, an ISP would have been permitted to slow down traffic such as software updates in order to improve performance during peak times for other traffic such as video streaming. This is provided the ISP discloses what they are doing.

As I mentioned in a different comment, one thing the Title-II regulation did do is saddle ISP's with a lot of paperwork and regulatory hurdles, increasing costs. For a carrier like the large companies which dominate the landscape this wasn't a big deal. For those smaller companies trying to bring another option to the mix, this was much more difficult, and could mean the difference between a viable business and bankruptcy. So the Title-II style network neutrality actually helped prevent the breaking of the oligopoly.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight - what you want to do, is to take the system that works pretty well the way it is now, and place it firmly in the hands of the Trump administration.

Along with all our guns, our freedom of speech, the rings of the seven dwarf kings and the rods of the five wizards.

We have to give everything to the government, because Trump is LITERALLY HITLER.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Gravis Zero]

try with minimum regulations first, and IF you notice things are coming apart, then introduce a fix.

Network neutrality is a minimal fix. A lack of network neutrality hasn't been a problem in the past but it began showing up as a problem (e.g. Netflix). Network neutrality keeps everything like it's been in the past, not making any drastic changes.

You don't preemptively go for a stomach reduction surgery when a person has normal weight just because they like to eat and food is readily available.

Network neutrality just takes away the extra food that they are tempted to eat before they become some morbidly obese monster. No surgery needed.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Gravis Zero]

Net Neutrality is an attempt to fix these regulatory monopolies by requiring they behave. It's regulation trying to fix problems caused by other regulation. Which begs the question - why not just fix the original regulation? Don't give out local Internet monopolies.

No monopolies have been given out.

If one ISP intentionally degrades Netflix as a ploy to try to make Netflix pay them, their customers will simply cancel and switch to a different ISP.

Except that takes time, effort and an honest ISP in the area. What if they all behave badly?

And ISPs will strive for network neutrality because that's what their customers want.

In a perfect world with perfect information, this is correct. However, your ideal world doesn't exist and people are really fucking dumb and uninformed.

We can argue about which approach is more effective. But it's erroneous to think the only way to achieve network neutrality is Net Neutrality regulation.

We can go from ISP to ISP and blow the brain of every manager that thinks network neutrality is a bad idea all over their walls. We can reengineer humans to not be greedy. We can beg them to be better every day until they comply. However, all of these ideas are more time consuming and ultimately less effective than simple regulation.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulations are needed, spectrum has already began blocking certain torrent sites and throttling netflix behind the scenes.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Order_66]

You should really educate yourself about net neutrality, the reason it exists is to keep the ISP's in line, without it, the ISP's can literally do whatever they want to your service, charge whatever rates they want, fast lanes, exclusivity, spying, shove their ideology on you, block you from viewing sites etc etc. Government regulations were there to prevent that kind of bs from happening, without those regulations we're at the complete mercy of the ISP.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix isn't demanding anything, they're offering. If you don't want a peering agreement with Netflix, you don't need one. If you don't want one of their caches on your network, you don't need one. Buy enough transit to provide the bandwidth you sold to your customers and you'll be fine. There won't be congestion and you won't be named and shamed for overselling your network too much.

Re: Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. The only reason this "problem" exists is because of deregulation. The internet, as we know it today, would not exist if the monopoly or duopoly of telcos weren't broken up. I will say that there is a problem with media companies and telcoms merging. Fix that, and the net is neutral.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[BlueStrat]

As I mentioned in a different comment, one thing the Title-II regulation did do is saddle ISP's with a lot of paperwork and regulatory hurdles, increasing costs. For a carrier like the large companies which dominate the landscape this wasn't a big deal. For those smaller companies trying to bring another option to the mix, this was much more difficult, and could mean the difference between a viable business and bankruptcy. So the Title-II style network neutrality actually helped prevent the breaking of the oligopoly.

To those in power, this is a feature not a bug. To them an oligopoly is a good thing, as it makes it easier for government to exert control and maintain mass surveillance when there are only a handful of carriers/hosters to control, and it makes "de-platforming" inconvenient people, opinions, and news from the internet, along with controlling the spread dangerous (to their continued power/wealth) new ideas and concepts, an easier and more effective social manipulation tactic.

Strat

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[thegarbz]

which is working fine.

Sorry this would have been a first post, but your bits were delayed getting to me in favour of my ISP's own sponsored content.

Why people want to take a perfectly good system and tart it up with regulations that can only do harm, I've no idea.

It was a perfectly good system. The regulations only serve to turn it back into what it was. Are you just trolling or are you really that ignorant on the history of the development of the internet?

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Down here in New Zealand there is a cottage industry of radio based ISPs for farmers who can't get a physical connection. It takes litterally three people: one radio engineer, one network admin and one server admin).

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[drinkypoo]

What was implemented WAS the minimum needed to be effective. So what the hell are you complaining about when they did exactly what you said!

Re: Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs are able to throttle Netflix because they have a monopoly granted to them by the local government.

There are zero local governments who have granted any ISPs a monopoly.

You're confusing the efforts of ISPs at a state level to attack and destroy any interference by local governments with their oligopoly so as to advance your false agenda.

Of course, the fact is, net neutrality has an actual purpose beyond your purported understanding, namely the same reason that we have regulations in general, to make things right and prevent harm.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Can'tNot]

As the parent explicitly pointed out, the net for net neutrality is not hypothetical. It's a response to a demonstrated problem.

Also: waiting for a problem to manifest before you do anything about it is terrible planning. You should be ashamed of yourself. You were clearly never a boyscout.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Can'tNot]

*need. need for net neutrality.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Tablizer]

one thing the Title-II regulation did do is saddle ISP's with a lot of paperwork and regulatory hurdles, increasing costs. For a carrier like the large companies which dominate the landscape this wasn't a big deal. For those smaller companies trying to bring another option to the mix, this was much more difficult...

One partial solution is to have many of the regulations only apply to ISP's above a certain market-share % in an area. This would allow upstarts to gain market-share before being subject to regulation details.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Which begs the question

Nope.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[Lost Race]

Yeah, let's wait and see if this cancer metastasizes before we start thinking about treatments.

Net neutrality is not surgery. Shutting down Comcast and sending its management to prison, that's surgery.

Re:Wrong, opposes regulation - not net neutrality

[shentino]

If it is profitable to violate network neutrality, then the free market will encourage it.

Trolls can get rich if they extract tolls on busy bridges. Especially if they can charge more from the heavier carriages that travel across.

Bottom line is, if the telcos have something to gain by holding traffic hostage for ransom in the form of bribes^Wfees for priority, they'll charge for it.

If people using that network have something to lose if they don't play ball, they'll pay up.

I seriously doubt...

[BringsApples]

...that anyone capable of landing a position in government has a clue about the internet or aspects of it that they currently enjoy. Probably for the rest of the time humanity is here, the following will be true: "Today's government will be focused more and more on undoing what the previous government did."

Re:I seriously doubt...

[mi]

I seriously doubt anyone capable of landing a position in government has a clue about the internet or aspects of it that they currently enjoy

If I'm reading the above correctly, in your opinion, Barack Obama — and his FCC appointees — had no such clue either.

It then follows, that the "Net Neutrality" rules they instituted were created by clueless people — and undoing them is the right thing to do for that reason alone...

Re:I seriously doubt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominem, appeal to popularity. Do you know what these terms refer to, dishonest Mr. Mi? It means you need to refute each Net Neutrality rule you think is stupid individually on the merits, or you have zero argument.

You've got logical fallacies and whattaboutism down pat though.

Re:I seriously doubt...

[rmdingler]

Yes. Some things ought to be above the quibbling over political factions.

The # of zip codes is not in question, perhaps just the % of them that have three options for internet service.

Re:I seriously doubt...

[BringsApples]

Having a clue about something, and being paid to pass legislation, are 2 different things. I just happen to side with the decision to implement NN rules, but that doesn't mean that Mr. Obama and I have the same reasoning.

Re:I seriously doubt...

[mi]

And here we are, once again, reminded of the centuries-old wisdom: "That government is best which governs least." Ajit Pai et al did not rule on whether equal treatment of packets is a good or bad thing. They only decided, it is not up to them...

I just happen to side with the decision to implement NN rules

Still, you seem to agree, government should not have involved itself in it in the first place — or, at least, this follows from your skepticism over government officials' competence in such matters.

It's entirely moot now. Mueller decides.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump and his scumbag appointees will be out of office within a few months anyway, this is just whittling the spear to put their severed heads onto now.

Re: It's entirely moot now. Mueller decides.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is highly unlikely. DOJ guidelines prevent a sitting President from being indicted. Impeachment is the only route to removing the President, and the increasing Republican majority in the Senate makes this even more unlikely. Crimes committed by those around the President are not grounds for impeaching the President. It would take strong evidence of some very serious crimes by the President to get him impeached and removed from office. By the way, Mueller doesn't decide anything in regard to the President. An indictment is not an option. Instead, he will write a report that will go to whoever is overseeing the investigation, which is currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It would be up to Rosenstein or whoever is overseeing the investigation whether to release the report. Assuming it gets released, it's up to Congress to act, not Mueller.

Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist...

[ZombieCatInABox]

Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist Heather Nauert as ambassador to the UN.

What's up with that ? Didn't he claim that journalists were the "ennemy of the people" ?

Oh, it's just liberal journalists. Ok, got it !

Trumpdot, trumpdot, trumpity trumpdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at trumpdot go!
Trumpdot, trumpdot, trumpity trumpdot
All the trump stories you know!

Re:Trumpdot, trumpdot, trumpity trumpdot

[BeauHD (5555555)]

What do you expect, troll? The Russians arent gonna get away with this lightly.

And Ajit, oh yes, we're gonna cum4u2 when its time to imprison for highcrimes & treason.

911 hello what is your emergency

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, we got this kid... it's fucked up, he got his head stuck all the way up his ass. Crazy I know. He says his name is "Ken Doll" but it's muffled, I can't really tell. Leave his head in, it's for the best? Alright. Thanks.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalists are lying scum. Ambassadors are lying scum. Seems like a good fit.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[mi]

Oh, it's just liberal journalists. Ok, got it!

Although Communists and their sympathizers — and that's what "Liberal" means today — really are the enemy of humanity, it is not, what Trump claimed.

His actual claim was, Fake News media are the enemy of the people. And he was right — he usually is...

Mi faggot blathers, news at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Trump has multiple times called "the media" the enemy of the people, and he lies more than even the entire media could get away with en masse. You're just another dishonest faggot of no value, huh? Got it.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

The politicians lie, the news slugs lie about the politicians. Yep... Trumps right.

Re: Trump also appointed former Fox News journalis

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Trump is wrong more than 63% of the time.

But hey, you keep blaming the Communists for your problems, and the Muslims, and the Irish.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is lying scum. The difference? The proof of that is about to be a widely propagated public record, for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Tablizer]

It's lying turtles all the way down...

America is about to be great again. -Mueller

[Anonymous Coward]

" Impeachment is the only route to removing the President " - False 1. There are actually 2 other ways. I'll leave you to find them, kind of an easter egg hunt for legal retards to explore on their own.

" DOJ guidelines prevent a sitting President from being indicted " - They do. But that doesn't make it illegal per se, unlikely perhaps. This situation is unprecedented as yet. It could be legal.

" Crimes committed by those around the President are not grounds for impeaching the President. " - When he lies about them yes, they are. That's dumb AF, sorry. Are you ok?

" Mueller doesn't decide anything in regard to the President " - Directly, no, but false as stated.

" An indictment is not an option. " - False, as explained above. Even if ignored, it's an option. It may even be legal and do the job, especially if Congress and SCOTUS both sound off simultaneously. They may.

" Assuming it gets released, it's up to Congress to act, not Mueller. " - One precipitates the other, obviously. You're being beyond pedantic, bordering on willfully dumb. Don't do that.

Trump doesn't deserve 50% of America's support - and he'll never have it. He'll die in prison like Paul Manafort. Enjoy, watch with us. It's happening right now.

Open your eyes, moron. He's guilty. He's going. Pence knew. His sons knew. They're all going. That's why it's redacted, why another whole investigation was started before Mueller even got there.

Wake up, America is about to be Great again.

Re: America is about to be great again. -Mueller

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your conclusions.

There are other ways to remove the President from office, I agree, but the most likely in response to Mueller's investigation are indictment and impeachment.

Yes, Mueller could try to indict Trump, though as I said, that's not allowed under DOJ guidelines. If Mueller attempted that, it would certainly be contested in court and probably decided by SCOTUS. I have no confidence that SCOTUS, given the current justices, would uphold such an indictment. This seems like an unlikely course of action for Mueller.

If Trump lied under oath about crimes committed by those around him or attempted to interfere in the investigations of those crimes, then yes, Trump would be committing crimes. There are plenty of possible crimes including obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering. Abuse of power would be grounds for impeachment, in addition to the aforementioned crimes. However, removing Trump for office not only requires the House to impeach him, but two-thirds of the Senate to vote to remove him from office. You would need the support of over a third of Senate Republicans to make that happen.

Despite Trump lying repeatedly in public, firing Comey and Sessions, appointing Whitaker as acting AG, repeatedly threatening and once attempting to fire Mueller, Republicans are unwilling to pass legislation to protect the special counsel. It's not pedantic to note that whoever is overseeing Mueller's investigation at the DOJ decides what happens to his report. While Rosenstein probably would want to release the report, someone like Whitaker would likely try to impede it. I don't know enough about Barr to know he would handle the Mueller investigation, but unless he has conflicts of interest that I'm not aware of, he probably could oversee the investigation instead of Rosenstein. It may well be illegal that Trump appointed Whitaker as acting AG, but would Congress really protect the Mueller investigation if Whitaker tried to halt it? Again, if they won't pass legislation to protect Mueller, the answer seems to be no.

Everything you're saying could happen and is certainly legal. But it generally requires significant Republican support in Congress that just doesn't exist. If Republicans are willing to stand by Trump despite everything he's done to date, it seems like they'll require much more than perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power in order to remove him from office. While campaign finance violations like the payments he directed Cohen to make are crimes, those don't seem to satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I stand by my conclusion that removing Trump from office before the next election is very unlikely. Unless Republicans in Congress are willing to do their job and hold the executive branch accountable, which they seem very unwilling to do, there's very little that could remove Trump from office.

My post wasn't defending Trump at all, at least that's not how I meant it. Rather, the reality is that you need a lot more support from Republicans than is currently there to take any meaningful action. Mueller may find something that even Republicans would agree merits removing Trump from office. However, it's not clear what that is, based on what we know so far about the investigation.

Bernie Sanders supports NN

[rsilvergun]

and understands why it's important. So does Liz Warren. And Ro Khanna.

Here's a list of Senators and how they voted on NN. Notice all the "D"s when it comes to "for" and all the "Rs" when it comes to against? I know partisanship isn't popular on /., but at a certain point it really is a partisan issue. 3 Republicans voted for NN out of 52. Not a single Dem voted against it. We've got another election in 2020, so now's the time to decide if NN is really something important to you or not...

Re:Bernie Sanders supports NN

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Net Neutrality and fuck that cock sucker socialist/communist Bernie Sanders.

Re:Bernie Sanders supports NN

[Anonymous Coward]

I also support Net Neutrality!

Only, I support the real thing - no provider allowed to throttle traffic based on source - not the fucked up bullshit that several previous administrations and Congresses have tried to impose.

The FCC's highly-questionable reclassification didn't supply that. In fact, it actually allowed providers to censor content, throttle content, restrict bandwidth, and all sorts of other anti-NN practices. The only good part that it did was restrict certain types of paid-peerage and anti-peerage behaviors.

Congress needs to get off its ass and pass an actual Net Neutrality law. Not the BS the Democrats supported, and not the BS the Republicans are trying to pull. Make it clear that providers cannot mess with the content, and we're good. Let them do it under any circumstances, and we've just changed the position we consumers are getting fucked in.

Re:Bernie Sanders supports NN

[Anonymous Coward]

If Bernie Sanders and Pocahontas both want a regulation then you can guarantee with 100% certainty that it is bad for the country.

So even if I might want a fair internet playing ground, the support of these 2 colossal libtards tells me that the regulation will do the opposite of the intended purpose.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you have a Klan meeting to get dressed up for?

There can be only one

[Anonymous Coward]

win in the market

A winner takes the cake. Rewards by sitting in the board are easy to make. He can't resist WarnerMedia's call, as a monopoly rules them all. I see where he's going with this.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[ChromeAeonuim]

Lying turtles? I don't see what Mitch McConnell has to do with this.

Network Neutrality is a CONCEPT

[SuperKendall]

Network neutrality by definition is regulation

NN is an ABSTRACT CONCEPT, the desire for networks to allow us to access any kind of traffic without blocking.

Can a provider like Comcast proclaim it supports Network Neutrality without supporting regulation? Why yes, in fact it can and has.

The problem the whole time is that regulation that supposedly embodied network neutrality from the FCC actually did the opposite, but people not adept to reading 30 page regulations were easily deceived into thinking it did and supporting it.

Re:America is about to be great again. -Mueller

[ClickOnThis]

Interesting post. Thanks for it. One point, though:

Trump doesn't deserve 50% of America's support - and he'll never have it. He'll die in prison like Paul Manafort.

As much as I think an orange jumpsuit would look good on him, I doubt he'll go to prison. He'll pardon himself on the way out -- or at least he'll try, and if it doesn't work, then Pence probably will (just like Ford pardoned Nixon.) And although he does not, and may never have, 50% of America's support, I have to wonder whether 50% of American citizens want to see a former president in the slammer.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[jwhyche]

His actual claim [twitter.com] was, Fake News media are the enemy of the people. And he was right â" he usually is...

Trump has been right more times than he has been wrong. The problem with the times that he is wrong he is usually wrong in a big way, almost to the point of being clueless. Some of the times that he has been wrong most of the time it looks like he is really ignorant on the issue.

Then there is the media. I can't count the number of times when I read something in the media, only to go look at the source to find that isn't what he said at all. I've watched a number of Trump speeches only to find the media has spun the meaning 180 degrees.

#Winning

[Anonymous Coward]

#MAGA

No NN rules and the internet can be fast

[AHuxley]

All the federal regulation and rules allowed a few near monopoly networks to use NN as a way to keep out innovative new network construction.
Community broadband allowed by relaxing the federal NN rules will finally allow more wealthy communities to consider their own innovative new networks.

No more having to wait for a federally approved NN ready telco to upgrade their network.
Using community broadband innovative ISP can offer fresh network ideas on new fast hardware.
Imagine really new advanced hardware connecting from computers to the internet. Not some POTS network used for NN internet.
No more federal NN rules regulating for a few monopoly networks.
Enjoy some competition and build new networks with ISP able to offer fast new networks.

Re:No NN rules and the internet can be fast

[Kavonte]

Do you even know what Net Neutrality is? How does net neutrality make anything harder for an ISP? It's almost like an anti-regulation in that it tells them that they're not allowed to do something that's actually more difficult to do than what it requires them to do. All they have to do is treat all packets equally.

Net neutrality is "OK, you paid for internet access, so here's your internet access." A lack of net neutrality is "OK, you paid for internet access, but if you want to connect to Netflix, Netflix needs to pay for access to you. Never mind that they too pay for their own internet access and so you'd think that two people, both paying for internet access, would be able to talk to each other on the internet. Nope, access to you is just an asset for your ISP to sell to other companies, despite the fact that you've paid your ISP for that to not be the case when you paid to be able to access the whole fucking internet.

ISPs just want us to pay for internet twice, first in the fee we pay them for our internet access, then in the additional fees we pay to Netflix to cover what Netflix has to pay our ISPs to access us. Again, remember that Netflix is already paying their own ISP. Our ISPs feel like they should be paid by Netflix too.

Net neutrality is just saying "look, it costs a certain amount to get packets to and from the internet. Just charge that amount for your service and quit it with all of the bullshit." The reason ISPs want to do away with it is because every company wants to charge each individual customer as much as that customer can afford to pay, but its hard to do that after every customer figures out that all they have to do is call up and say they're going to cancel their service because they can no longer afford it and they get a lower price. It's easier to just charge everyone the lower price, and let the customers with more money pay you via the money you get from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc., by charging them for access to your customers. Customers with more money will sign up to more online services and, in doing so, be paying their ISP more than customers who sign up to fewer, regardless of how much internet bandwidth they use. Someone who watches Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube doesn't necessarily use more bandwidth than someone who just watches YouTube.

As for their argument that they need to charge because of how much bandwidth these services use, well, they could always just charge for bandwidth if that's really the problem. They don't want to do that though because that puts customers in control of how much they have to pay. Remember, they want each customer to pay as much as that customer can afford. That doesn't happen if the customer can decide to save money by not using so much bandwidth.

As for the asymmetrical bandwidth argument, who pays who has fuck all to do with which way the data is flowing. I pay my ISP whether I send more data or receive more data because either way I'm taking the data 20 feet to the cable modem and my ISP is carrying it the rest of the way around the world. If Netflix's ISP is carrying their data half-way to customers before dumping it onto those customers ISPs then that's all that matters. If it isn't, then refuse to peer with those bitches and let Netflix find a new ISP. There's no need to do away with net neutrality to solve the problem.

Re:No NN rules and the internet can be fast

[Plus1Entropy]

access to you is just an asset for your ISP to sell to other companies

That is a fantastic way to put it.

Re: It's entirely moot now. Mueller decides.

[sexconker]

Impeachment is the only route to removing the President

Tell that to the CIA!

Re:America is about to be great again. -Mueller

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't pardon himself. Even Pence can't. He faces state crimes also, and Pence is directly in Mueller's crosshairs ALSO, hence all the redactions. (some of them) Don't worry, Trump and family are all going.

They broke too many laws for anyone to sweep under any rug. Even one as uuuge and ridiculous as his own hair.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

Communists and their sympathizers — and that's what "Liberal" means today

It doesn't, and you don't believe that it does.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't count the number of times when I read something in the media, only to go look at the source to find that isn't what he said at all. I've watched a number of Trump speeches only to find the media has spun the meaning 180 degrees.

I'm guessing either you have a selective filter, or you can't count very high.

You also appear to be overlooking the many times that Trump is on record as saying something, and he flatly denies that he did.

Slashdot headline: Lets REEE about Trump again

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone get off your high horses and onto your soapboxes; it's that time again!

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

It was Telecom who wrote the anti-NN legislation with lobbyists.
It was Republicans who gave industry monopoly abusers everything they ever wanted.
It was Comcast liars who tried to charge competitors for their customers using their services ON TOP OF the subscriber fees to access the internet they paid for already.
It was LYING FAGGOTS LIKE YOU who tried to conflate the Russian Trollbots who flooded the FCC website with fake shit as if that was a valid sentiment and not complete horseshit spammed verbatim.
It was Ajit Pai who tried to cover this debacle up once exposed by the media, and lied about it.
It's LYING FAGGOTS LIKE KEN DOLL who pretend their mealy-mouthed bullshit has meaning or any backing in reality when it's clear you dishonest faggots will say literally anything even when caught.

BULLSHIT IS RIGHT.

Re:America is about to be great again. -Mueller

[ClickOnThis]

Correct. Nobody in the WH can pardon a state crime. Thanks for pointing that out.

w3.politifact.com/donald-trump/statements/byruling

[Anonymous Coward]

False. I know you were just being rhetorical. Trump hasn't ever been right 2 times in a row his entire retarded BS fraudster life - https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

#Debunked

hive of scum and villiany

[eaglesrule]

Ex-CIA, pro-incarceration, telecommunications shill, long time political insider and AG under Bush. And plays the fucking bagpipes. No chance of this guy possibly being another Tom Wheeler. Champion of the status quo might has well be written across his forehead.

Passing up John Ratcliffe is a signal that the DOJ will continue to protect the Clintons and their allies. It's all up to Judicial Watch now.

Re:hive of scum and villiany

[Anonymous Coward]

Passing up John Ratcliffe is a signal that the DOJ will continue to protect the Clintons and their allies.

I know I won't get a coherent answer, but protect against what?

Not just a state crime, any involved crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they also can't pardon themselves or anyone of a crime they're at all involved in. So Pence would be too close to be able to pardon Trump. The NEXT ELECTED PRESIDENT would be a different story.

But unless that's LITERALLY Ivanka, nobody is going to pardon Donald Drumpf after his treason is exposed. Not. Bloody. Likely. MAYBE they'll pardon Pence. We'll see.

I think it's pretty much a shoe-in after the way the GOP defended and protected him from investigation that the next POTUS will be a Democrat of some shade. I don't think I'm being optimistic, I think that follows.

Certainly the next 6 months are going to be entertaining to my love of justice being meted to lying faggots. America is greatly entertaining again.

Re:Not just a state crime, any involved crime.

[ClickOnThis]

Well they also can't pardon themselves or anyone of a crime they're at all involved in.

There have been discussions back and forth on this topic ever since the Russia investigation began. One side of the argument is that the POTUS pardon-power is wide-sweeping. On the other side, there is a principle in law (sorry, don't remember where) that "no man can be his own judge."

So Pence would be too close to be able to pardon Trump.

Can the POTUS pardon someone else of a crime if he is also complicit? Excellent question. IANAL, but I suppose the answer is yes, unless it's seen as obstruction of justice. Note the recent hue and cry after Trump hinted that he hasn't ruled out pardoning Manafort. It can be seen as a way to keep Manafort from co-operating with Mueller's investigation.

Re: Not just a state crime, any involved crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're concerned about being precise about the law, Trump is not guilty of treason with regard to Russia. He, or those around him, could be guilty of defrauding the US, conspiracy, espionage, sedition, and a range of other crimes. However, treason is not on the list, based on how it's defined in federal law.

As for the pardon power, that might be something for the courts to decide, though it's not clear who would have standing to challenge this in court. I suspect you're right that Trump couldn't use his pardon power with corrupt intent. If Congress was willing to do its job of checking executive branch power, it might well be an abuse of power that would merit impeachment and removal from office. Congress won't do that, but it wouldn't be unreasonable if they did in response to abusing pardons for corrupt purposes.

Re:Not just a state crime, any involved crime.

[Plus1Entropy]

There is some speculation that Manafort got played and was used to play Trump. The trap isn't just set, it's already been sprung.

Notice that they said Manafort was lying very soon after Trump gave his written answers to Mueller. Manafort's legal team and Trump's legal team were known to still be conferring even after Manafort began "cooperating". So likely Manafort was planning to feed Trump info on the investigation...

Except Mueller is wise to this, and is feeding Manafort BS, knowing the stable genius will get wind. Trump answers the questions thinking he knows what Mueller's "got" on him and that he can't be caught lying. Of course he lied, because it's Trump, but in this case it matters because he lied about material things in writing which Mueller already has the hard evidence for.

The other possibility I've heard is that if it's actually Trump's answers Mueller is using as evidence that Manafort lied... then Manafort's only defence becomes proving that Trump lied. He might get a pardon, but Mueller has state charges lined up as well just in case. Even if Manafort's not up for perjury, it's pretty damning for your character if the evidence you're a liar is a sworn statement by the POTUS.

It's actually pretty fucking funny when you think about it.

Open up

[Anonymous Coward]

Open up wide for your next dose of capitalism, straight from Trump's cock.

Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, but what does the AG have to do with Net Neutrality? That's the FCC's purview.

Re: Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing but the slashdot crowd is not too bright.

Big Tech Platforms: We're going to censor content

[Anonymous Coward]

to block opinions we don't like!
Slashdot/Tech Community: Loving It!!

ISPs: We're going to censor content to make more money!
Slashdot/Tech Community: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

It's beginning to look a lot like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Treason! Everywhere you go!

Take a look in the search warrant once again

With illicit transfers from Russian oligarchs aglow.

It's beginning to look a lot like Treason

Paying off hookers in every store

But the prettiest sight to see is an orange president that will be

LOCKED UP FOR ETERNIT-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Tablizer]

This video will play in your head every time you see Mitch on the news:

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

Three or more? How about not even one!

[Monster_user]

Three or more? I don't even have a broadband provider as an option. And I don't consider satellite to be broadband. And after 2020, I'd question whether dial up will be viable due to cost savings efforts in the telephone industry. Voice will carry over SIP lines, and touch tones are somewhat ok, but faxes don't seem to work at all. When AT&T converts their backbone to SIP, dialup will probably stop working. Satellite is almost completely unusable without a dialup connection for requests. It will probably be another decade before anybody gets around to upgrading the last mile to my house.

No DSL, no Cable, no Fiber Optic, no LTE cellular signal, no handoffs to cat5 Ethernet from anything. The old stuff is still hanging from the poles, if you happen to already be paying for it, but they don't service my area anymore.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that Powers was also a journalist, right?

lolz People still Vote Republican or Democrat

[Anonymous Coward]

you stupid fucking n i g g e r s

you deserve exactly what you get

Republicans are now communists.

[Grog6]

They work only for Putin, and are against the American People.

Apparently, THIS was Gingrich's 100 days of power...

Re: Republicans are now communists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better russian than vote democrat party!

I, for one, Want Trump in Prison.

[Grog6]

Just like he deserves.

Fill the swamp

[Anonymous Coward]

Another patsy joining the boys club

Indictment is only discouraged, but Trump...

[Grog6]

Has blown the lid off decorum.

Most lying politicians at least TRY not to look like a lying douchebag; Trump is now a definition for it.

If we can't put him in prison for what he's done, we have no "Justice System", it's a sham.

In this thread.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Northeastern and midwestern liberals bitching about slow internet speeds, while the southeast eats them for lunch;

http://www.speedtest.net/reports/images/united-states-snapshot-2017/maps/Regional%20Performance@2x.jpg

What a shithole country!

[Anonymous Coward]

SAD.

So very weak and sad, like an old man with a fake tan.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

You ought to learn what the words you use mean before using them in a sentence.

Fake News media are the enemy of the people

So outlets like Fox News?

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[gtall]

She was the only one who would take the job. Remember that Trump destroys everything he touches....almost, he didn't destroy Nikki Haley but she was such flack that would have been overkill.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit using the word liberal backwards. It means far smaller government than 99% of republicans are willing to consider.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[dfghjk]

"I can't count the number of times when I read something in the media, ..."

Not sure whether this is commentary on your poor arithmetic skills or poor reading comprehension. I would assume both considering your other comments,, but that leads nowhere.

"I've watched a number of Trump speeches only to find the media has spun the meaning 180 degrees."

That's no doubt true since zero is a number.

Net Neutrality isn't net neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

Without net neutrality, how have we fared? The big fear is that ISP's can shove advertisements down our throats without these laws, so why haven't they yet? Because they know that they will be slammed for it. A few tried and their customers left. It killed the idea as a profit maker.

What about ISP's providing preferential bandwidth treatment to some sites? Well, do you think that some sites that you access that are more data-demanding should have more bandwidth? Should cutelittlekittypics.com have the same bandwidth allocated to them as netflix? Of course not. The "unfair" bandwidth argument is bull.

So why the big push? Well, the government would be able to convert ISP's into utilities which opens the door to internet taxes. Hmm... ISP's would also no longer be a public utility, so their property would be taxed at a higher rate. As a utility, guess who then has the right to determine the "quality" of the service we get? Define quality? It's whatever the government thinks it is.

If you really trust the government and think it does well with security, efficient management, and is responsible with how it takes and spends your tax money, then network neutrality is for you. It's a con.

half an argument is no argument

[epine]

... network neutrality regulations would discourage construction of high-speed internet lines that telephone and cable giants are spending tens of billions of dollars to deploy ...

Perhaps you could argue that. But the other side is that without network neutrality, no-one will want to use all the shitty, overpriced applications, even if all the bits arrive like a [highly metered] bat out of hell.

A tremendous amount of innovation derives directly from the old adage "too cheap to meter".

There are things you can build in the absence of friction, that simply won't fly with friction added (nor does it help that this friction is almost always capricious and unpredictable—if we can agree to term a consistent program of sudden, unannounced price jacks "unpredictable").

Innovation is fundamentally an ecological good. "Ecology" is a term of art meaning "you can try, but you'll never manage to attach oversimplified, hard numbers that don't make you look stupid the first time a non-idiot raises a hand in challenge."

The Tyranny of Metrics (2018) by Jerry Z. Muller is a good antidote, if you're stuck in a work culture that worships only that which emerges from a trance of numbers.

So along comes a guy like William P. Barr, prince of the silver lining: that the measurement of ecological goods (such as innovation) ranges from difficult to impossible is easily reconstrued by the glib as a feature, not a bug, this line of argument always working out to "physical-asset sunk-cost is king" (kings being known for their palatial spreads paved with acres of green).

Hard innovation is bone, soft innovation is flesh (so easily melted away with a bathtub full of neocon acid-reflux).

chilling effect

[epine]

Funny, I would have guessed that the polar opposite of network neutrality was chilling effect.

an unwatched pot ...

[epine]

Who else out there is breathlessly awaiting Comcast to bring us the next AlphaZero?

They say that a watched pot never boils, without mentioning that an unwatched pot can't boil, for the type of pot where the boiling point goes up as fast as the market will bear.

Re:Trump also appointed former Fox News journalist

[jwhyche]

Normally, I no longer respond to comments in political discussions since I find that most comments don't have any real substance. Just thinly veiled insults, and not even creative insults. The OP that I'm responding too is a perfect example.

So you're saying he's sane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a great pick to me!

MAGA!

Another of those "Best People"

[Anonymous Coward]

To be sure!