I don't see how the one thing follows from the other. To a reasonable abstraction, our leaders are directly elected by the people. So, as the parent points out, this limits their IQ to ~120.
This problem stems from the fact that we have a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. So maybe you should have said, "This is because we have a republic and not a democracy." Though the problem wouldn't be any better in a direct democracy...
Do the trees in Texas produce enough sap to make a significant amount of syrup? My understanding of maple harvesting is that the trees need a particular climate, with consistently below-freezing nights and above-freezing days, to get the sap to flow well. Consequently, even though there are maple trees all over, there are only two regions where maple sap is produced in significant quantity: the northeat US / southeast Canadian region, and some place in Russia.
They were shoveled out at a rate of five per year. That was the much-protested maximum that Nintendo would allow licensees to release.
Nintendo did not screen every game and reject them if they weren't great, a developer would ask about publishing on their platform and it was the developer that Nintendo would evaluate. Then if the dev had some experience and showed some potential, they would become a licensee. After that they would make their games and unless they violated one of Nintendo's rules they would get published.
So cracking the Switch really is for everyone to not pay for games ever again.
Well piracy is certainly part of it, but it's not a question of homebrew games or pirated games - you can do other things with a portable computer that connects to your TV. There's a lot of precedent for getting non-game utility from consoles. I'm sure you've heard of Kodi, previously XBMC (Xbox Media Center).
You're right though, I didn't meant to suggest that Nintendo is unconcerned with piracy. Only that Nintendo started putting DRM in their consoles in order to stop unlicensed developers, and that this is still the primary reason for it. (not the only reason for it)
This is the truth, the parent AC doesn't know his gaming history. The Atari 2600 had no DRM and had huge problems with other companies making games for the platform, something that Atari had never anticipated. Nintendo's president believed at the time that this is what killed them. Not lack of royalties, but a flood of low quality games that Atari had no control over.
Whether this is true or not is debatable - they were a little too firmly dedicated to the 2600 and compromised subsequent platforms in its favor. Also, the controller for the 5200 was terrible. But this is the principle that Nintendo operated under, and it certainly worked out well for them. The NES was the first console with a DRM chip.
Maybe I just don't know how the senate works, but it seems unlikely to me that all fifty of the remaining GOP senators would vote against this. Though they might not vote for it either. Is it necessary to reach the fifty-one vote threshold, if some senators abstain?
I know the senate has some weird rules about some of these things, so what I'm really asking is whether any of those apply here.
Go tell your kids that they shouldn't have kids because of a genetic defect.
Maybe I should tell them that anyway? Because they can't afford $14k per month?
I'm glad that the drug exists, I'm glad that (some) people have this benefit, I'm glad that having the wrong genes isn't a death sentence for (some) people. Nothing that you've said here justifies the price.
If I go and visit the researchers, as you say, will they open their books for me? Looking at a lab isn't going to prove to me that $14k per month is a reasonable price. I've seen medical labs before.
Uber doesn't need your location unless you call for Uber. It is a trivial exercise to prevent either Uber or the government from receiving location data unless you contact.
You mean hypothetically, right? Because while Uber certainly doesn't need my location unless they contact them, they're collecting it all the time anyway. Preventing this is not trivial. I can put a firewall on my phone (and I have), but at some point the Uber software need to send data to Uber in order to function. There is nothing currently stopping them from collecting data all the time, and sending it when they connect.
The parent should have said, "accusing people of sex assault ruins their careers without trial." The point behind Aaron's story is that he was ruined financially before he ever got to court, and the most lenient of the plea bargains that you mention required him to plead guilty to thirteen felonies and spend six months in jail. This is a terribly harsh penalty for a minor offense, which he refused to accept.
His refusal additionally makes sense in light of the fact that this was purposeful civil disobedience - all about making a point in the first place. Really, accepting any plea bargain would undermine that point, though his lawyer does say that they offered to accept a less severe bargain.
Again, the fact that all of this happened before trial is what the parent was talking about. "Due process" is perhaps a little nebulous, so you could say that he received some measure of that, but he never got his day in court and was never convicted.
I don't know squat about Terry Gross or her political bias, but... there's another angle there: Bill O'Reilly is a journalist, and a really bad one. It's easy to see why she, another journalist, might dislike him for purely professional (i.e.: non-political) reasons.
This is not an excuse, I'm just saying that politics isn't always the reason for everything.
Ajit Pai is a stooge, a scapegoat. Yes he's a bad man, but it's important to recognize that he's just doing what congress put him there to do. They knew when they confirmed him and the other commissioners that this would happen - he's never been secretive about it.
I've already given an explanation for one of those things, and the other can be extrapolated fairly easily. Second-guessing the past is always a dubious prospect anyway. Maybe it's time for you to offer something: you say that I "want" to see exclusion, when obviously, from my perspective, all that I see is what's there. There's no "want." That claim doesn't make any sense, it's clearly just a passive-aggressive insult. Exclusion exists, and so I see it. The question is - why don't you see it? I've spelled it out as clearly as I can, from my perspective it's undeniably there. You have given no reason to deny it's existence, and you've had plenty of opportunity to do so here, so it seems to be undeniable for you as well. Yet you continue to focus only on the positives and apparently remain completely blind to the negatives. Maybe you don't "want" to see them?
How about an explanation: why are you incapable of seeing this discrimination, or recognizing that it is bad? Actually, I'm getting the impression that you're struggling with abstraction, so before you answer let's try some of the more concrete examples:
The National Organization for Women is a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization does a lot of things, and I'm sure that the chapters operate in a semi-autonomous manner (that's usually the case with organizations like this), so I'm going to focus on a single action by a single chapter. Specifically, this is a scholarship offered by one member chapter of NOW. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps women who identify as feminists. This is very clearly "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests," so I am identifying this as a feminist action, per the definition that you linked above.
The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is likewise a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization likewise does many things, yadda yadda. This is (or was) a scholarship offered by one member chapter of the KKK. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps white people who are christian.
Planned Parenthood is also a large organization, but its individual locations are less autonomous than with the other two. This organization likewise does many things, one of those things is services related to the screening and treatment of breast cancer. Women suffer breast cancer at a rate two orders of magnitude higher than men do, but some men do get breast cancer. For this reason these services help vastly more women than men, but help is available to anyone who needs it, without exclusion. This is organized activity, but it is in the interest of anyone who has breast cancer, not specifically women. So I am identifying this as a non-feminist action.
By now I'm sure that you can figure out my opinions on these three examples: these scholarships by this chapter of NOW and this chapter of the KKK are focused on promoting their respective groups. It is my opinion that they are detrimental in this way, even though they directly harm no one. The indirect harm of discrimination is significant, and discriminating against anyone who doesn't fall within your preferred group is anti-egalitarian. Meanwhile, like the soup kitchen, Planned Parenthood is addressing a problem rather than a group. Just like the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action mostly benefits women. Unlike the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action doesn't exclusively benefit women - it is available to anyone who needs it.
I included the KKK here because most people agree that they are a discriminatory organization. I'm hoping that this will make the point unmissably obvious, but we will see.
The entire turtle population in the north part of the reef goes extinct, the turtle population in the southern part of the reef is the only one left. That's a change.
You seem to be suggesting that the northern turtles will just know that their babies (who they never see) are being born with skewed genders, and that they just need to move south to solve this problem. South, into... uninhabited territory? No, the south already has as many turtles as it can handle (not a huge number).
Also, even if a single male could fertilize the eggs of one hundred females (I find this hard to believe), that kind of ratio leads to genetic problems down the road.
They aren't actually bringing in more money than they used to. (link) The listed price of tuition has gone up dramatically because it gives them other advantages, but they're not money making empires.
The big problem with this is that some students do end up paying the full listed price, and these people get screwed royally.
This argument is about competition. You are arguing for redundant infrastructure, but that isn't necessary to promote competition: there are line sharing rules baked into the Telecommunicaitons Act. Why haven't these line sharing rules been implemented? Because they only apply to telecommunications services, and ISPs were only (re)classified as telecommunications services in 2015. What is this argument about? The current FCC is trying to reclassify ISPs away from telecommunications services.
I think I'm going to repeat this every time someone apes this stupid talking point:
It is a law. The short explanation is that congress has made a couple of laws which apply here, the most recent is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In that law they set some standards how to classify different services and assigned the FCC to apply and enforce this law. Initially the FCC classified DSL as a telecommunications service and in 1999 applied the provision of the law which required line sharing of telecommunications services. But in 2002, with a new set of FCC commissioners, cable ISPs were classified as information services, which did not require line sharing (thus no competition). Then in 2005, DSL was reclassified as an information service. Then in 2015, both were reclassified as telecommunications services along with wireless providers. (fiber and other options fit in there somewhere, I'm not sure about classifications or dates) Now the new FCC is trying to reclassify all options as information services again.
Why doesn't congress enforce the law themselves? Because congress is not law enforcement.
Why doesn't congress determine for themselves the classification for each and every service? Because there are new services all the time, and also because congress lacks expertise on this, so they wrote the law in this manner to ensure that it would stay current.
Doesn't that give control of the internet to a bunch on unelected dweebs? No, congress is still in control and congress members are elected.
If congress is in control, then why isn't congress reversing this decision? Because this decision is exactly what congress wants. This is what Pai was put in place to do. Not every congress member wants this, which is why we have the vote mentioned in the story, but the vote will fail to change anything because this is what most of congress wants.
If I make an analogy that you don't like or don't understand, you don't just pretend I didn't say anything and keep asking the same question over and over again as though I had never given a response. That is not a conversation, that's just being an asshole.
Also, this is not accurate: "Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion" a third category isn't necessary. The point is that I'm differentiating between groups and individuals, egalitarianism isn't all about groups. The exclusion that I'm talking about is happening at the individual level.
This is the problem right here: "If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help" - If someone is in group A, and group A is, on average, better off than group B, this does not mean that this particular member of group A does not need help. It only means that they are less likely to be in need of help. Rejecting them based only on the group that they are in is outright bigotry.
The soup kitchen helps with a specific problem, hunger, rather than helping a specific group of people. The soup kitchen does not help those who are not hungry, which is why you don't find soup kitchen in upscale neighborhoods, it only helps those who need it but it does so regardless of what group they are in. Because a larger portion of group B are hungry, the soup kitchen helps members of B more often than members of A. Thus in doing so not only does the soup kitchen help everyone who needs it without discrimination, it also reduces inequality between groups A and B. So it is egalitarian at the individual level and at the group level.
This was the point in structuring your help around dealing with problems rather than helping groups.
It is a law.... Okay, so the short explanation is that congress has made a couple of laws which apply here, the most recent is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In that law they set some standards how to classify different services and assigned the FCC to apply and enforce this law. Initially the FCC classified DSL as a telecommunications service and in 1999 applied the provision of the law which required line sharing of telecommunications services. But in 2002, with a new set of FCC commissioners, cable ISPs were classified as information services, which did not require line sharing (thus no competition). Then in 2005, DSL was reclassified as an information service. Then in 2015, both were reclassified as telecommunications services along with wireless providers. (fiber and other options fit in there somewhere, I'm not sure about classifications or dates) Now the new FCC is trying to reclassify all options as information services again.
Why doesn't congress enforce the law themselves? Because congress is not law enforcement.
Why doesn't congress determine for themselves the classification for each and every service? Because there are new services all the time, and also because congress lacks expertise on this, so they wrote the law in this manner to ensure that it would stay current.
Doesn't that give control of the internet to a bunch on unelected dweebs? No, congress is still in control and congress members are elected.
If congress is in control, then why isn't congress reversing this decision? Because this decision is exactly what congress wants. This is what Pai was put in place to do. Not every congress member wants this, which is why we have the vote mentioned in the story, but the vote will fail to change anything because this is what most of congress wants.
What do you mean, "nope"? There's no nope, what the parent said is indeed what they did. They also did the thing you said, that's two different things.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how the one thing follows from the other. To a reasonable abstraction, our leaders are directly elected by the people. So, as the parent points out, this limits their IQ to ~120.
This problem stems from the fact that we have a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. So maybe you should have said, "This is because we have a republic and not a democracy." Though the problem wouldn't be any better in a direct democracy...
Do the trees in Texas produce enough sap to make a significant amount of syrup? My understanding of maple harvesting is that the trees need a particular climate, with consistently below-freezing nights and above-freezing days, to get the sap to flow well. Consequently, even though there are maple trees all over, there are only two regions where maple sap is produced in significant quantity: the northeat US / southeast Canadian region, and some place in Russia.
shoveled out by the dozen
They were shoveled out at a rate of five per year. That was the much-protested maximum that Nintendo would allow licensees to release.
Nintendo did not screen every game and reject them if they weren't great, a developer would ask about publishing on their platform and it was the developer that Nintendo would evaluate. Then if the dev had some experience and showed some potential, they would become a licensee. After that they would make their games and unless they violated one of Nintendo's rules they would get published.
So cracking the Switch really is for everyone to not pay for games ever again.
Well piracy is certainly part of it, but it's not a question of homebrew games or pirated games - you can do other things with a portable computer that connects to your TV. There's a lot of precedent for getting non-game utility from consoles. I'm sure you've heard of Kodi, previously XBMC (Xbox Media Center).
You're right though, I didn't meant to suggest that Nintendo is unconcerned with piracy. Only that Nintendo started putting DRM in their consoles in order to stop unlicensed developers, and that this is still the primary reason for it. (not the only reason for it)
This is the truth, the parent AC doesn't know his gaming history. The Atari 2600 had no DRM and had huge problems with other companies making games for the platform, something that Atari had never anticipated. Nintendo's president believed at the time that this is what killed them. Not lack of royalties, but a flood of low quality games that Atari had no control over.
Whether this is true or not is debatable - they were a little too firmly dedicated to the 2600 and compromised subsequent platforms in its favor. Also, the controller for the 5200 was terrible. But this is the principle that Nintendo operated under, and it certainly worked out well for them. The NES was the first console with a DRM chip.
Okay, thanks. That's the answer I was looking for.
Maybe I just don't know how the senate works, but it seems unlikely to me that all fifty of the remaining GOP senators would vote against this. Though they might not vote for it either. Is it necessary to reach the fifty-one vote threshold, if some senators abstain?
I know the senate has some weird rules about some of these things, so what I'm really asking is whether any of those apply here.
Go tell your kids that they shouldn't have kids because of a genetic defect.
Maybe I should tell them that anyway? Because they can't afford $14k per month?
I'm glad that the drug exists, I'm glad that (some) people have this benefit, I'm glad that having the wrong genes isn't a death sentence for (some) people. Nothing that you've said here justifies the price.
If I go and visit the researchers, as you say, will they open their books for me? Looking at a lab isn't going to prove to me that $14k per month is a reasonable price. I've seen medical labs before.
Uber doesn't need your location unless you call for Uber. It is a trivial exercise to prevent either Uber or the government from receiving location data unless you contact.
You mean hypothetically, right? Because while Uber certainly doesn't need my location unless they contact them, they're collecting it all the time anyway. Preventing this is not trivial. I can put a firewall on my phone (and I have), but at some point the Uber software need to send data to Uber in order to function. There is nothing currently stopping them from collecting data all the time, and sending it when they connect.
The parent should have said, "accusing people of sex assault ruins their careers without trial." The point behind Aaron's story is that he was ruined financially before he ever got to court, and the most lenient of the plea bargains that you mention required him to plead guilty to thirteen felonies and spend six months in jail. This is a terribly harsh penalty for a minor offense, which he refused to accept.
His refusal additionally makes sense in light of the fact that this was purposeful civil disobedience - all about making a point in the first place. Really, accepting any plea bargain would undermine that point, though his lawyer does say that they offered to accept a less severe bargain.
Again, the fact that all of this happened before trial is what the parent was talking about. "Due process" is perhaps a little nebulous, so you could say that he received some measure of that, but he never got his day in court and was never convicted.
I don't know squat about Terry Gross or her political bias, but... there's another angle there: Bill O'Reilly is a journalist, and a really bad one. It's easy to see why she, another journalist, might dislike him for purely professional (i.e.: non-political) reasons.
This is not an excuse, I'm just saying that politics isn't always the reason for everything.
Ajit Pai is a stooge, a scapegoat. Yes he's a bad man, but it's important to recognize that he's just doing what congress put him there to do. They knew when they confirmed him and the other commissioners that this would happen - he's never been secretive about it.
I've already given an explanation for one of those things, and the other can be extrapolated fairly easily. Second-guessing the past is always a dubious prospect anyway. Maybe it's time for you to offer something: you say that I "want" to see exclusion, when obviously, from my perspective, all that I see is what's there. There's no "want." That claim doesn't make any sense, it's clearly just a passive-aggressive insult. Exclusion exists, and so I see it. The question is - why don't you see it? I've spelled it out as clearly as I can, from my perspective it's undeniably there. You have given no reason to deny it's existence, and you've had plenty of opportunity to do so here, so it seems to be undeniable for you as well. Yet you continue to focus only on the positives and apparently remain completely blind to the negatives. Maybe you don't "want" to see them?
How about an explanation: why are you incapable of seeing this discrimination, or recognizing that it is bad? Actually, I'm getting the impression that you're struggling with abstraction, so before you answer let's try some of the more concrete examples:
The National Organization for Women is a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization does a lot of things, and I'm sure that the chapters operate in a semi-autonomous manner (that's usually the case with organizations like this), so I'm going to focus on a single action by a single chapter. Specifically, this is a scholarship offered by one member chapter of NOW. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps women who identify as feminists. This is very clearly "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests," so I am identifying this as a feminist action, per the definition that you linked above.
The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is likewise a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization likewise does many things, yadda yadda. This is (or was) a scholarship offered by one member chapter of the KKK. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps white people who are christian.
Planned Parenthood is also a large organization, but its individual locations are less autonomous than with the other two. This organization likewise does many things, one of those things is services related to the screening and treatment of breast cancer. Women suffer breast cancer at a rate two orders of magnitude higher than men do, but some men do get breast cancer. For this reason these services help vastly more women than men, but help is available to anyone who needs it, without exclusion. This is organized activity, but it is in the interest of anyone who has breast cancer, not specifically women. So I am identifying this as a non-feminist action.
By now I'm sure that you can figure out my opinions on these three examples: these scholarships by this chapter of NOW and this chapter of the KKK are focused on promoting their respective groups. It is my opinion that they are detrimental in this way, even though they directly harm no one. The indirect harm of discrimination is significant, and discriminating against anyone who doesn't fall within your preferred group is anti-egalitarian. Meanwhile, like the soup kitchen, Planned Parenthood is addressing a problem rather than a group. Just like the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action mostly benefits women. Unlike the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action doesn't exclusively benefit women - it is available to anyone who needs it.
I included the KKK here because most people agree that they are a discriminatory organization. I'm hoping that this will make the point unmissably obvious, but we will see.
So: I would like you to explain to me
what else changes?
The entire turtle population in the north part of the reef goes extinct, the turtle population in the southern part of the reef is the only one left. That's a change.
You seem to be suggesting that the northern turtles will just know that their babies (who they never see) are being born with skewed genders, and that they just need to move south to solve this problem. South, into... uninhabited territory? No, the south already has as many turtles as it can handle (not a huge number).
Also, even if a single male could fertilize the eggs of one hundred females (I find this hard to believe), that kind of ratio leads to genetic problems down the road.
It's a story about gadgets gathering data their owners without their knowledge. It's a perfectly appropriate topic for Slashdot.
They aren't actually bringing in more money than they used to. (link) The listed price of tuition has gone up dramatically because it gives them other advantages, but they're not money making empires.
The big problem with this is that some students do end up paying the full listed price, and these people get screwed royally.
Thank you, the parent had confused me for a minute there.
This argument is about competition. You are arguing for redundant infrastructure, but that isn't necessary to promote competition: there are line sharing rules baked into the Telecommunicaitons Act. Why haven't these line sharing rules been implemented? Because they only apply to telecommunications services, and ISPs were only (re)classified as telecommunications services in 2015. What is this argument about? The current FCC is trying to reclassify ISPs away from telecommunications services.
I think I'm going to repeat this every time someone apes this stupid talking point:
It is a law. The short explanation is that congress has made a couple of laws which apply here, the most recent is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In that law they set some standards how to classify different services and assigned the FCC to apply and enforce this law. Initially the FCC classified DSL as a telecommunications service and in 1999 applied the provision of the law which required line sharing of telecommunications services. But in 2002, with a new set of FCC commissioners, cable ISPs were classified as information services, which did not require line sharing (thus no competition). Then in 2005, DSL was reclassified as an information service. Then in 2015, both were reclassified as telecommunications services along with wireless providers. (fiber and other options fit in there somewhere, I'm not sure about classifications or dates) Now the new FCC is trying to reclassify all options as information services again.
Why doesn't congress enforce the law themselves? Because congress is not law enforcement.
Why doesn't congress determine for themselves the classification for each and every service? Because there are new services all the time, and also because congress lacks expertise on this, so they wrote the law in this manner to ensure that it would stay current.
Doesn't that give control of the internet to a bunch on unelected dweebs? No, congress is still in control and congress members are elected.
If congress is in control, then why isn't congress reversing this decision? Because this decision is exactly what congress wants. This is what Pai was put in place to do. Not every congress member wants this, which is why we have the vote mentioned in the story, but the vote will fail to change anything because this is what most of congress wants.
If I make an analogy that you don't like or don't understand, you don't just pretend I didn't say anything and keep asking the same question over and over again as though I had never given a response. That is not a conversation, that's just being an asshole.
Also, this is not accurate: "Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion" a third category isn't necessary. The point is that I'm differentiating between groups and individuals, egalitarianism isn't all about groups. The exclusion that I'm talking about is happening at the individual level.
This is the problem right here: "If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help" - If someone is in group A, and group A is, on average, better off than group B, this does not mean that this particular member of group A does not need help. It only means that they are less likely to be in need of help. Rejecting them based only on the group that they are in is outright bigotry.
The soup kitchen helps with a specific problem, hunger, rather than helping a specific group of people. The soup kitchen does not help those who are not hungry, which is why you don't find soup kitchen in upscale neighborhoods, it only helps those who need it but it does so regardless of what group they are in. Because a larger portion of group B are hungry, the soup kitchen helps members of B more often than members of A. Thus in doing so not only does the soup kitchen help everyone who needs it without discrimination, it also reduces inequality between groups A and B. So it is egalitarian at the individual level and at the group level.
This was the point in structuring your help around dealing with problems rather than helping groups.
1200 mg/day is the standard dosage for over-the-counter ibuprofen. Prescription can be more than 2.5 times that.
Changed from 4. From.
It is a law. ... Okay, so the short explanation is that congress has made a couple of laws which apply here, the most recent is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In that law they set some standards how to classify different services and assigned the FCC to apply and enforce this law. Initially the FCC classified DSL as a telecommunications service and in 1999 applied the provision of the law which required line sharing of telecommunications services. But in 2002, with a new set of FCC commissioners, cable ISPs were classified as information services, which did not require line sharing (thus no competition). Then in 2005, DSL was reclassified as an information service. Then in 2015, both were reclassified as telecommunications services along with wireless providers. (fiber and other options fit in there somewhere, I'm not sure about classifications or dates) Now the new FCC is trying to reclassify all options as information services again.
Why doesn't congress enforce the law themselves? Because congress is not law enforcement.
Why doesn't congress determine for themselves the classification for each and every service? Because there are new services all the time, and also because congress lacks expertise on this, so they wrote the law in this manner to ensure that it would stay current.
Doesn't that give control of the internet to a bunch on unelected dweebs? No, congress is still in control and congress members are elected.
If congress is in control, then why isn't congress reversing this decision? Because this decision is exactly what congress wants. This is what Pai was put in place to do. Not every congress member wants this, which is why we have the vote mentioned in the story, but the vote will fail to change anything because this is what most of congress wants.
over the previous broadband figure (10Mbps, IIRC)
No it was 4 Mbps, as the parent said. (link) He was right about that part.
What do you mean, "nope"? There's no nope, what the parent said is indeed what they did. They also did the thing you said, that's two different things.