If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
Even if the Senate Dems were to vote in lockstep, which is less than clear, this would have to pass in the House as well, then survive a presidential veto. That's not going to happen, and TFA says as much. This is nothing but political posturing on Schumer's part.
It might very well pass, both House and president.
The main problem with the existing legislation was legal, not technical. It was passed in opposition to Congress' explicit instructions.
NN is a good idea, when viewed on its technical merits, and if a law gets passed that's a good thing.
Ajit Pai won't be getting "his ass handed to him", he'll be getting explicit direction from congress which is the correct way to do this.
There are actual published papers, such as this one, that can't tell the difference between fake and real.
The cited paper specifically calls out the infamous spirit cooking article from InfoWars.
The problem is, although that article sparked a torrent of fake claims, everything actually presented in that article was verified. None of the "fakeness" came from the article, only by people repeating the information and adding hyperbole. John Podesta did get an invite, it was a spirit cooking invite, and Abramovic did in fact pose with a bloody goat's head. Nothing to do with Clinton, and Podesta declined the invite.
That article was roundly derided on the internet because it went against the narrative. It's now enshrined as a classic piece of fake news simply because the informations presented were politically motivated and "inconvenient".
It almost seems like we're entering a new age of internet news, where what is considered "fake" is judged by the consensus of likes and dislikes.
I entered the OP text into "Google Translate", here's what I got:
We're making a bunch of private rules which are ill-defined, fuzzy, and overly broad. We're going to couple these with selective enforcement backed by AI algorithms using a high false-positive rate, and use it to remove sites without warning or identifying what specific sections are in violation or what rules are violated.
In that way, Google will strip out all fake news, ensuring that only true and correct news remains.
Twitter bans, shadow-bans, and permanently deletes accounts that have inappropriate content.
Reddit got rid of lots of conversations that had inappropriate content. Note that those conversations are opt-in; meaning, you have to seek them out to view them. People who don't participate in those conversations got those conversations banned because they don't like other people talking about certain things.
It seems conservative viewpoints are overwhelmingly censored for nothing, while liberal viewpoints that flagrantly violate the rules are given a wink and a smile (viz: "let's kill all white people").
Instead of aborting they could fix it using CRISPR or other gene editing technology.
We don't have that capability yet, and as far as I am aware there are no such treatments on the horizon. That's at least 10 years out, more likely 20 with testing and regulation. (Note that the treatment in the OP was done in Canada, Germany, and the UK. Notably, *not* the US.)
For the next decade or two, abortion (or not) is the only choice.
A single shot, or treatment. If it goes thru the bloodstream seeking copies of a gene wouldn't it find those genes in the testes/ovaries?
Probably not, although I'm not a biologist.
The cell encodes instructions for making proteins in DNA, and these are "copied" onto RNA and taken to the ribosomes where the protein is made. The DNA is kept in the nucleus, and the RNA travels to the ribosome outside the nucleus.
The current treatment binds to the RNA while in transit on its way to the ribosome. The original DNA copy is unchanged, and so when the treatment wears off (RNA binding molecules get used up) the original disease comes back.
However, pre-natal testing can determine whether a child has inherited the defective gene, giving the parents the option to abort said fetus and try for another child.
I'm not sure any law is needed. All the screeching seems to be about actions that would already be illegal or actionable by either States or DOJ, or companies that were harmed. It's called Anti-trust and unfair competition.
It's been pointed out that NN regulation might legitimately be something the FTC should regulate.
NN deals essentially with trade and business practices, while the FCC is supposed to deal with airwaves and technical issues, so FTC seems like a good fit.
What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...
It was a government agency going against the explicit wishes of congress.
It has nothing to do with the technical merits of NN, everyone agrees NN is a good thing. It had to do with a government agency overreaching their authority to make rules, and as it happened in opposition to explicit directions already given by congress.
FCC tried to enforce NN starting roughly 2004, and got shot down in federal court for not having the authority.
FCC then reclassified ISPs under Title II and tried again, in 2015. The reclassification was widely regarded as legally dubious.
In the telecommunications act of 1999, Congress had stated explicitly that the internet be unregulated, so the FCC enforcing NN was seen as a gross overreach. A federal agency simply cannot override the explicit wishes of congress, no matter how good the idea may seem.
You can draw a parallel with Obama's executive orders on immigration. In that case, the president was, in effect, enacting new laws in opposition to the actual laws that congress had passed.
That practice is very bad for a country, and so it the FCC thing.
Get the big companies to make up suggested legislation and get a senator or representative to submit them. It would probably pass,and would solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction.
Sometimes I think the current administration is just doing things to purposely piss people off, like a heel in wrestling.
It's misdirection, like a magic act.
The administration is doing what's right legally, while the media is complaining about the move technically. Meaning, based on the technical merits.
The NN decision was clearly unconstitutional, wouldn't have stood up to a supreme court challenge (their previous attempt didn't), and went against congress' explicit instructions.
But that doesn't encourage "emotional involvement" for the story, so the media hypes up the technical merits, predicts how bad it will be, and how the decision affects everyone.
And the media never talks about the correct remedy, which would be "making a law". Companies suggest laws to congress all the time, it's how a lot of industry-specific laws get made. Google, Microsoft, and Facebook could put together a proposal in a week and have any number of senators or representatives introduce it as legislation. Everyone agrees that NN is a good thing, that law would easily pass.
It's a magic act.
It's not the administration that's pissing you off, it's the media misdirecting the conversation to get you "emotionally involved".
Are you outraged yet?
(And as an aside, your "emotional involvement" is negative emotions, aimed at the administration. We simply *cannot* have government agencies making up regulations against the wishes of congress, but apparently the media doesn't think that's important.)
(The reality: The NN law is only a year or so old, the internet wasn't ruined before the law, and if there's any problem we can make regulations at that time to address the specific problems.)
It bothers me that you might actually not be trolling and that you believe the crap you just wrote.
Prior to Ex-Chairman Wheeler's actions, there were several instances of violations of what we call Net Neutrality which is why he took the actions he did.
The problem isn't that there weren't problems before, it's that people like you have no idea how bad it could have gotten had we not taken action.
I believe pretty-much everything I write, I don't think lying is effective or useful.
I also don't believe in deflection or misdirection, so let me say this once again for you seem to be special:
THIS ISSUE ISN'T TECHNICAL, IT'S LEGAL!
I wrote in all caps and in bold, so that it might stand out more in the overall text.
Did you hear it? Did you understand the words?
The legal issues far outweigh the technical issues. I'm personally favor of NN, but not at the expense of giving all federal agencies the ability to regulate whatever they want, and to go against the wishes of congress.
Did you understand that? Did you hear the words, and do they make sense?
Now give me a legal argument as to why the FCC should step in and enforce NN, noting that their prior attempt was struck down by the supreme court.
Congress can overrule the FCC any time they want. The Senate also could...
Let me stop you right there.
Congress made an explicit decision not to regulate the internet.
The FCC can't overrule the will of congress, and in fact their prior attempt (prior to the one being discussed) was struck down by the supreme court.
Further, by framing it this way you're implying that this as a failure of government. The FCC is working exactly as intended: these commissioners were nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican...
You have a visceral argument putting blame on the Republicans.
*IF* you want to blame someone, blame Democrats for going against Congress' explicit decision.
The Republican government is working exactly as intended: the FCC made a mistake, it was a rather egregious mistake, and now it's being corrected.
Your point about the legislature is spot on, however. Congress can and should simply enact a law to settle the matter.
The EFF describes the FCC's official plan to kill net neutrality as "riddled with technical errors and factual inaccuracies," including, for example, a false distinction between "Internet access service" and "a distinct transmission service" which the EFF calls "utterly ridiculous and completely ungrounded from reality."
Except that's not why net neutrality is being axed.
Such a tempest in a teapot about net neutrality! Or perhaps more accurately, a misdirection of the issues in order to spark outrage.
Let's all get together with wailing and gnashing of teeth about the technical issues surrounding net neutrality. Oh, the humanity!
(The reality: Congress specifically directed that the internet should be unregulated, FCC tried to regulate the internet before and was shot down by the supreme court, current NN regulation is an overreach by a federal agency and we *totally* don't want federal agencies to start making regulations that go against congress' explicit wishes, on their own and without oversight.)
Let's all bewail and moan about nothing we can do! We're doomed to have ISPs run roughshod over our very lives beacuse of this one issue!
(The reality: Get some of the big players (Microsoft, Facebook Google) to write up what a NN law should look like and get a congress member to propose it. That's not hard, it happens all the time, and wtf are people not discussing this commonsense solution?)
And the internetz will be ruined! All ISPs will be chargind from both ends, and twice from the middle! Uphill both ways, and in the snow!
(The reality: The NN law is only a year or so old, the internet wasn't ruined before the law, and if there's any problem we can make regulations at that time to address the specific problems.)
But let's hold a candlelight vigil and blame the current administration, because our internet that we love and hold so dearly is on it's way out.
(The reality: The biggest problem is lack of competition, which is founded on exclusive deals that prevent other companies from breaking into the market, and exclusive use of telephone poles and related restrictions. NN doesn't address this issue, it's the elephant in the room, and wtf are people not moaning and wailing about *that* all over the media, instead of this one minor issue?)
He's not some old guy who misunderstands technology, and he's not dumb.
This is an act of malevolence.
Congress mandated that the internet be not be regulated. (1996, Telecommunications act) FCC tries to regulate the internet (2008-ish) FCC gets shot down by courts, FCC doesn't have authority to regulate internet (2010) FCC rebrands ISPs under Title II, then asserts right to regulate. (2015) FCC changes course, in line with Congress's instructions (2017)
It's interesting how much cheating goes on in the political arena. It seems OK to skirt the rules so long as it gets you what you want, most of the time the cheating is bad in the grand scheme of things but hey... that one polarizing issue got fixed, right?
Now your chickens have come home to roost, because that one good idea you had has to be dumped because you got it by cheating. "Cheating" here is when a federal government overreaches their authority, and goes against Congress's clear directions.
That's bad. That's something that you *do not* want to set a precedent for. That's something that really should be killed with fire, or nuked from orbit.
The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.
What - your congresscritter doesn't listen to you? That's not an excuse for cheating.
What - you can't convince enough other people to make this issue important? That's not an excuse for cheating.
Both of those previous statements are reasons for NOT cheating. Cheating inevitably leads to overreach and misapplication. If it's OK to do it in this one instance, then it's OK in all the other instances.
It's the "rule of man" instead of the "rule of law". It *seems* great in the narrow view of this one issue, but on balance it leads to complete and total corruption.
Fix it the right way, don't let this one good idea get lost because you couldn't follow the rules.
I can remember when GMail first came out and they were scanning the messages for spam. Everyone thought it was creepy, and an invasion of privacy, and maybe we shouldn't be using GMail for our personal messages...
...but Google said it only correlates words, it doesn't interpret the *meaning* of the text, and your privacy is safe. E-mail is unencrypted when it goes out over the net, by the way, you have no expectation of privacy.
Fast forward and we have Twitter and Facebook reading our feeds and automatically banning people. With no warnings, no explanation or identification of what caused the ban, just "you were saying inappropriate things, you're gone".
And of course their system can't be everywhere all the time, so they have "report this post" links where people can helpfully alert the companies about posts that should be examined.
...but now being reported itself is enough to get banned. Instead of examining the content, the system just goes ahead and *assumes* that if several people were concerned, the content is inappropriate.
(This, of course, gets abused in so many ways for political spite.)
Google is now scanning peoples' documents stored online, and simply banning access to the docs if the topics are deemed "unnecessary " (as in: "needlessly graphic or violent content". You didn't *need* to have that, so we're banning your short story.)
They don't give warnings or even explanation of what was detected, simply remove the person's 1st amendment right: you can't share the document with others. Or, apparently, copy it back to your local system.
Now they look over your shoulder, helpfully telling you that someone is snooping on your video chat.
Great. Wonderful. Completely useful feature, helps us keep our privacy. It's creepy, but for a good cause.
What happened was, that there was racist blowback from Obama by racist white voters [...]
And that's where people stop reading your post.
There is almost no real racism in the US, and the term is only used now to demean and belittle as a substitute for making an actual argument. Certainly it's not an appropriate label for half the nation.
We've had equality since about 1991 when Clarence Thomas was appointed to the supreme court. Not only do we have a black supreme court justice, but he's married to a white woman. I can remember being wonderstruck at that time by how amazing it was, and how far we had come(*).
There were no riots, no demonstrations, not much reaction at all when that happened. Just like when Obama was elected - it was only a matter of time before a reasonable presidential candidate happened to be black, and no one gave a fuck. It was a checkmark in peoples' minds, nothing more.
People don't like Obama not because he was black, but because he was awful! Lots and lots of actions that were patently unconstitutional on first reading, ordering US citizens killed, making up laws by executive action, prolonging two wars, screwing up health care... the list goes on.
It's easy to say that people who don't like Obama are racist, it might get you an "amen" from the cheap seats in the house, but it doesn't really reflect reality.
People don't like Obama because he was awful.
(*) Twenty-five years earlier and blacks couldn't marry whites in most of the south, by law. Fifty years earlier it was most of the US. It was illegal when (and where) Thomas was born.
I don't know if anyone noticed, but London was a war zone during Ramadan.
I'm waiting with interest to see what London is like from May 15 -> June 15 of next year. I predict it will be much worse, and there will have to be enormous outcry from the British people before something gets done.
Probably a bunch of populist ministers be elected on this very point (over the next year to three years), and eventually a re-formed government will step in with a heavy hand to stop it.
I assumed when he made the boast that it would be 100 days from the signing of a contract, or that there'd be an allowance for shipping times to Australia and possibly other 'fudge factors'.
I'm now assuming instead that there was a huge loss involved here in order to move and install the required hardware in such a short time, just to prove the point it was possible and would actually work, and thus make future sales more likely.
You never know - maybe he was so confident of the contract that he had parts shipped before the signing, possibly he had parts already in Australia during the signing.
Why is it any story about Musk ends up dominated by trolls and assholes? Butt-hurt much that he can actually get things done?
Because when Tesla is viewed as a black box - considering only revenue, profit, and other information without considering the context or goal horizon - the economic forecast is very bad.
Almost all stock predictions made today are based on this sort of black-box calculation. Every month the analysts plug a bunch of companies' numbers into their spreadsheet algorithms, and those algorithms tell them how well the stock is doing. They then write an article noting what happened in the previous month as the "reason" they say the stock is doing whatever the algorithm said.
The analysts give the impression that they reviewed the information and are giving expert opinion. In reality, they are reporting events and claiming the algorithm outputs as their conclusion.
Also, the algorithm goal horizon is 6 months, and Tesla has been reinvesting lots of revenue into new production (ie - gigafactory). Tesla's goal horizon is a couple of years down the road, where they will be in a position to corner the market in battery production or supercharger network or home solar.
So a lot of people bought Tesla short, and are hoping it goes down so they can make some money. I don't know how many people are shorting Tesla right now, but 8 months ago it was something like 22% of all Tesla stock was short. Since Tesla has been doing well, that number has dropped considerably, but there are still bunches of people holding out and hoping that Tesla crashes so that they can at least mitigate their loss.
It's a less right now, but we still hear "echoes" of all the nudging and convincing that people were doing to try to make the stock crash.
Serious question here. What's the difference between these arguments? 1. You shouldn't ban BitTorrent. It's just a protocol. Just because some people use it to steal digital content doesn't mean BitTorrent is inherently bad. 2. You shouldn't ban guns. It's just a device. Just because some people use it to kill innocents doesn't mean guns are inherently bad.
This is what you get when you break the rules.
The existing net neutrality law was a) an overreach by a federal department that didn't have the authority, and b) didn't implement net neutrality, as normally understood.
Which is more important: fixing this one issue, or allowing federal departments to make rules outside their jurisdictions?
I love it when people bemoan how bad things are when this one narrowly-defined problem is thrown up as proof - positive proof, I say! - that everything about our government is bad.
Because it's *so* much easier to carp and complain than it is to a) draft a suggested net neutrality law, b) petition congress to pass that law, and c) bring the issue up during the elections.
We had a previous article about how the big players (Google, Facebook, and others) were bemoaning the loss of neutrality, that the "request for comments" wasn't a vote (and that 7 million bot entries with exactly the same text weren't considered significant), and how the internet is going to hell and a handbasket, but...
...we don't see those big players getting consensus on what net neutrality actually means, drafting common-sense legislation that could be voted on, and advocating for the issue to be resolved.
Your president did a whole bunch of crap moves that shouldn't have been done in the first place, including ordering the killing of American citizens without trial, making up immigration law out of whole cloth by executive order (contradicting existing laws), and political profiling by the IRS.
The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
This is nothing more than your chickens coming home to roost.
From the OP, we now know that the process of splitting water is called "water electrolysis".
That's the sort of information I come to Slashdot for!
A brief scan of the abstract, note that it uses "oxygen evolution reaction" with the acronym "OER" instead of "produces oxygen", uses LDH without defining it ("Layered Double Hydroxide"), "dual functionalities... have been achieved" instead of "dual functions", or just "functions as both <a> and <b>",
Taking a sentence at random, and plugging it into an online analyzer results in:
Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading: (Gunning Fog index) 18.90
With a Flesch Reading Ease : 27.75
That's a pretty high level of jargon, almost reaching the level of techno-babble.
(The sentence: "When employed as the positive electrode in a supercapacitor, along with activated carbon as the negative electrode in an asymmetric configuration, the ultrathin and porous Ni-Co-Fe LDH nanoplatelets delivered an ultrahigh specific energy of 57.")
Slashdot Mirror
If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
Even if the Senate Dems were to vote in lockstep, which is less than clear, this would have to pass in the House as well, then survive a presidential veto. That's not going to happen, and TFA says as much. This is nothing but political posturing on Schumer's part.
It might very well pass, both House and president.
The main problem with the existing legislation was legal, not technical. It was passed in opposition to Congress' explicit instructions.
NN is a good idea, when viewed on its technical merits, and if a law gets passed that's a good thing.
Ajit Pai won't be getting "his ass handed to him", he'll be getting explicit direction from congress which is the correct way to do this.
It's even worse than that.
There are actual published papers, such as this one, that can't tell the difference between fake and real.
The cited paper specifically calls out the infamous spirit cooking article from InfoWars.
The problem is, although that article sparked a torrent of fake claims, everything actually presented in that article was verified. None of the "fakeness" came from the article, only by people repeating the information and adding hyperbole. John Podesta did get an invite, it was a spirit cooking invite, and Abramovic did in fact pose with a bloody goat's head. Nothing to do with Clinton, and Podesta declined the invite.
That article was roundly derided on the internet because it went against the narrative. It's now enshrined as a classic piece of fake news simply because the informations presented were politically motivated and "inconvenient".
It almost seems like we're entering a new age of internet news, where what is considered "fake" is judged by the consensus of likes and dislikes.
I entered the OP text into "Google Translate", here's what I got:
We're making a bunch of private rules which are ill-defined, fuzzy, and overly broad. We're going to couple these with selective enforcement backed by AI algorithms using a high false-positive rate, and use it to remove sites without warning or identifying what specific sections are in violation or what rules are violated.
In that way, Google will strip out all fake news, ensuring that only true and correct news remains.
And yet here you are writing things and I'm reading them without any of those companies being involved. But my ISP is still in the loop.
Check the news some time.
Google was recently caught reading the content of documents stored online, and locking people out of access to their own files because Google felt the content was inappropriate.
Twitter bans, shadow-bans, and permanently deletes accounts that have inappropriate content.
Reddit got rid of lots of conversations that had inappropriate content. Note that those conversations are opt-in; meaning, you have to seek them out to view them. People who don't participate in those conversations got those conversations banned because they don't like other people talking about certain things.
It seems conservative viewpoints are overwhelmingly censored for nothing, while liberal viewpoints that flagrantly violate the rules are given a wink and a smile (viz: "let's kill all white people").
Ajit Pai's recent video defending the NN decision was censored by YouTube.
You can post 1-line vanilla text is an anecdote.
The plural of anecdote is not "data".
Instead of aborting they could fix it using CRISPR or other gene editing technology.
We don't have that capability yet, and as far as I am aware there are no such treatments on the horizon. That's at least 10 years out, more likely 20 with testing and regulation. (Note that the treatment in the OP was done in Canada, Germany, and the UK. Notably, *not* the US.)
For the next decade or two, abortion (or not) is the only choice.
A single shot, or treatment. If it goes thru the bloodstream seeking copies of a gene wouldn't it find those genes in the testes/ovaries?
Probably not, although I'm not a biologist.
The cell encodes instructions for making proteins in DNA, and these are "copied" onto RNA and taken to the ribosomes where the protein is made. The DNA is kept in the nucleus, and the RNA travels to the ribosome outside the nucleus.
The current treatment binds to the RNA while in transit on its way to the ribosome. The original DNA copy is unchanged, and so when the treatment wears off (RNA binding molecules get used up) the original disease comes back.
However, pre-natal testing can determine whether a child has inherited the defective gene, giving the parents the option to abort said fetus and try for another child.
I'm not sure any law is needed. All the screeching seems to be about actions that would already be illegal or actionable by either States or DOJ, or companies that were harmed. It's called Anti-trust and unfair competition.
It's been pointed out that NN regulation might legitimately be something the FTC should regulate.
NN deals essentially with trade and business practices, while the FCC is supposed to deal with airwaves and technical issues, so FTC seems like a good fit.
What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...
It was a government agency going against the explicit wishes of congress.
It has nothing to do with the technical merits of NN, everyone agrees NN is a good thing. It had to do with a government agency overreaching their authority to make rules, and as it happened in opposition to explicit directions already given by congress.
FCC tried to enforce NN starting roughly 2004, and got shot down in federal court for not having the authority.
FCC then reclassified ISPs under Title II and tried again, in 2015. The reclassification was widely regarded as legally dubious.
In the telecommunications act of 1999, Congress had stated explicitly that the internet be unregulated, so the FCC enforcing NN was seen as a gross overreach. A federal agency simply cannot override the explicit wishes of congress, no matter how good the idea may seem.
You can draw a parallel with Obama's executive orders on immigration. In that case, the president was, in effect, enacting new laws in opposition to the actual laws that congress had passed.
That practice is very bad for a country, and so it the FCC thing.
Get the big companies to make up suggested legislation and get a senator or representative to submit them. It would probably pass,and would solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction.
Sometimes I think the current administration is just doing things to purposely piss people off, like a heel in wrestling.
It's misdirection, like a magic act.
The administration is doing what's right legally, while the media is complaining about the move technically. Meaning, based on the technical merits.
The NN decision was clearly unconstitutional, wouldn't have stood up to a supreme court challenge (their previous attempt didn't), and went against congress' explicit instructions.
But that doesn't encourage "emotional involvement" for the story, so the media hypes up the technical merits, predicts how bad it will be, and how the decision affects everyone.
And the media never talks about the correct remedy, which would be "making a law". Companies suggest laws to congress all the time, it's how a lot of industry-specific laws get made. Google, Microsoft, and Facebook could put together a proposal in a week and have any number of senators or representatives introduce it as legislation. Everyone agrees that NN is a good thing, that law would easily pass.
It's a magic act.
It's not the administration that's pissing you off, it's the media misdirecting the conversation to get you "emotionally involved".
Are you outraged yet?
(And as an aside, your "emotional involvement" is negative emotions, aimed at the administration. We simply *cannot* have government agencies making up regulations against the wishes of congress, but apparently the media doesn't think that's important.)
It is a scandal that such a group can make such important decisions and that the congress is not taking action.
Except that congress stated explicitly that the internet not be regulated, and ditching NN brings the FCC in line with what congress wanted.
(The reality: The NN law is only a year or so old, the internet wasn't ruined before the law, and if there's any problem we can make regulations at that time to address the specific problems.)
It bothers me that you might actually not be trolling and that you believe the crap you just wrote.
Prior to Ex-Chairman Wheeler's actions, there were several instances of violations of what we call Net Neutrality which is why he took the actions he did.
The problem isn't that there weren't problems before, it's that people like you have no idea how bad it could have gotten had we not taken action.
I believe pretty-much everything I write, I don't think lying is effective or useful.
I also don't believe in deflection or misdirection, so let me say this once again for you seem to be special:
THIS ISSUE ISN'T TECHNICAL, IT'S LEGAL!
I wrote in all caps and in bold, so that it might stand out more in the overall text.
Did you hear it? Did you understand the words?
The legal issues far outweigh the technical issues. I'm personally favor of NN, but not at the expense of giving all federal agencies the ability to regulate whatever they want, and to go against the wishes of congress.
Did you understand that? Did you hear the words, and do they make sense?
Now give me a legal argument as to why the FCC should step in and enforce NN, noting that their prior attempt was struck down by the supreme court.
I'm waiting.
Congress can overrule the FCC any time they want. The Senate also could ...
Let me stop you right there.
Congress made an explicit decision not to regulate the internet.
The FCC can't overrule the will of congress, and in fact their prior attempt (prior to the one being discussed) was struck down by the supreme court.
Further, by framing it this way you're implying that this as a failure of government. The FCC is working exactly as intended: these commissioners were nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican...
You have a visceral argument putting blame on the Republicans.
*IF* you want to blame someone, blame Democrats for going against Congress' explicit decision.
The Republican government is working exactly as intended: the FCC made a mistake, it was a rather egregious mistake, and now it's being corrected.
Your point about the legislature is spot on, however. Congress can and should simply enact a law to settle the matter.
The EFF describes the FCC's official plan to kill net neutrality as "riddled with technical errors and factual inaccuracies," including, for example, a false distinction between "Internet access service" and "a distinct transmission service" which the EFF calls "utterly ridiculous and completely ungrounded from reality."
Except that's not why net neutrality is being axed.
Such a tempest in a teapot about net neutrality! Or perhaps more accurately, a misdirection of the issues in order to spark outrage.
Let's all get together with wailing and gnashing of teeth about the technical issues surrounding net neutrality. Oh, the humanity!
(The reality: Congress specifically directed that the internet should be unregulated, FCC tried to regulate the internet before and was shot down by the supreme court, current NN regulation is an overreach by a federal agency and we *totally* don't want federal agencies to start making regulations that go against congress' explicit wishes, on their own and without oversight.)
Let's all bewail and moan about nothing we can do! We're doomed to have ISPs run roughshod over our very lives beacuse of this one issue!
(The reality: Get some of the big players (Microsoft, Facebook Google) to write up what a NN law should look like and get a congress member to propose it. That's not hard, it happens all the time, and wtf are people not discussing this commonsense solution?)
And the internetz will be ruined! All ISPs will be chargind from both ends, and twice from the middle! Uphill both ways, and in the snow!
(The reality: The NN law is only a year or so old, the internet wasn't ruined before the law, and if there's any problem we can make regulations at that time to address the specific problems.)
But let's hold a candlelight vigil and blame the current administration, because our internet that we love and hold so dearly is on it's way out.
(The reality: The biggest problem is lack of competition, which is founded on exclusive deals that prevent other companies from breaking into the market, and exclusive use of telephone poles and related restrictions. NN doesn't address this issue, it's the elephant in the room, and wtf are people not moaning and wailing about *that* all over the media, instead of this one minor issue?)
Oh, the reality!
Awesome response. Please keep reposting, whoever you are.
But at least they got the Estate Tax repealed and increased taxes on those lazy post-grad students.
America was made great on the backs of people like Paris Hilton and Donald Trump Jr.
Yes, they increased taxes on post-grad students. Those bastards!
And at the same time doubled the individual deduction for all taxpayers in the country.
Those bastards!
I've never heard this perspective before. Interesting.
There's been so much misdirection about the Net Neutrality thing that I can't tell if you're serious.
The agency overreach thing is the reason that the administration did this. They weren't quiet about it.
Everyone was talking about the *merits* of net neutrality, and no one bothered to listen to the FCC's *reasoning*.
I suppose it's fake news. We can now gin up a sizeable portion of the population over the issue, paint the administration as bad for doing it...
Let this be a lesson.
He's not some old guy who misunderstands technology, and he's not dumb.
This is an act of malevolence.
Congress mandated that the internet be not be regulated. (1996, Telecommunications act)
FCC tries to regulate the internet (2008-ish)
FCC gets shot down by courts, FCC doesn't have authority to regulate internet (2010)
FCC rebrands ISPs under Title II, then asserts right to regulate. (2015)
FCC changes course, in line with Congress's instructions (2017)
It's interesting how much cheating goes on in the political arena. It seems OK to skirt the rules so long as it gets you what you want, most of the time the cheating is bad in the grand scheme of things but hey... that one polarizing issue got fixed, right?
Now your chickens have come home to roost, because that one good idea you had has to be dumped because you got it by cheating. "Cheating" here is when a federal government overreaches their authority, and goes against Congress's clear directions.
That's bad. That's something that you *do not* want to set a precedent for. That's something that really should be killed with fire, or nuked from orbit.
The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.
What - your congresscritter doesn't listen to you? That's not an excuse for cheating.
What - you can't convince enough other people to make this issue important? That's not an excuse for cheating.
Both of those previous statements are reasons for NOT cheating. Cheating inevitably leads to overreach and misapplication. If it's OK to do it in this one instance, then it's OK in all the other instances.
It's the "rule of man" instead of the "rule of law". It *seems* great in the narrow view of this one issue, but on balance it leads to complete and total corruption.
Fix it the right way, don't let this one good idea get lost because you couldn't follow the rules.
How did we get here, I wonder?
I can remember when GMail first came out and they were scanning the messages for spam. Everyone thought it was creepy, and an invasion of privacy, and maybe we shouldn't be using GMail for our personal messages...
Fast forward and we have Twitter and Facebook reading our feeds and automatically banning people. With no warnings, no explanation or identification of what caused the ban, just "you were saying inappropriate things, you're gone".
And of course their system can't be everywhere all the time, so they have "report this post" links where people can helpfully alert the companies about posts that should be examined.
(This, of course, gets abused in so many ways for political spite.)
Google is now scanning peoples' documents stored online, and simply banning access to the docs if the topics are deemed "unnecessary " (as in: "needlessly graphic or violent content". You didn't *need* to have that, so we're banning your short story.)
They don't give warnings or even explanation of what was detected, simply remove the person's 1st amendment right: you can't share the document with others. Or, apparently, copy it back to your local system.
Now they look over your shoulder, helpfully telling you that someone is snooping on your video chat.
Great. Wonderful. Completely useful feature, helps us keep our privacy. It's creepy, but for a good cause.
How did we get here again?
What happened was, that there was racist blowback from Obama by racist white voters [...]
And that's where people stop reading your post.
There is almost no real racism in the US, and the term is only used now to demean and belittle as a substitute for making an actual argument. Certainly it's not an appropriate label for half the nation.
We've had equality since about 1991 when Clarence Thomas was appointed to the supreme court. Not only do we have a black supreme court justice, but he's married to a white woman. I can remember being wonderstruck at that time by how amazing it was, and how far we had come(*).
There were no riots, no demonstrations, not much reaction at all when that happened. Just like when Obama was elected - it was only a matter of time before a reasonable presidential candidate happened to be black, and no one gave a fuck. It was a checkmark in peoples' minds, nothing more.
People don't like Obama not because he was black, but because he was awful! Lots and lots of actions that were patently unconstitutional on first reading, ordering US citizens killed, making up laws by executive action, prolonging two wars, screwing up health care... the list goes on.
It's easy to say that people who don't like Obama are racist, it might get you an "amen" from the cheap seats in the house, but it doesn't really reflect reality.
People don't like Obama because he was awful.
(*) Twenty-five years earlier and blacks couldn't marry whites in most of the south, by law. Fifty years earlier it was most of the US. It was illegal when (and where) Thomas was born.
I have a feeling that, and let me go out on a limb here, this may not be the last story we see about net neutrality.
I suppose it's the nerd equivalent of the 2016 elections.
I don't know if anyone noticed, but London was a war zone during Ramadan.
I'm waiting with interest to see what London is like from May 15 -> June 15 of next year. I predict it will be much worse, and there will have to be enormous outcry from the British people before something gets done.
Probably a bunch of populist ministers be elected on this very point (over the next year to three years), and eventually a re-formed government will step in with a heavy hand to stop it.
Interesting times.
I assumed when he made the boast that it would be 100 days from the signing of a contract, or that there'd be an allowance for shipping times to Australia and possibly other 'fudge factors'.
I'm now assuming instead that there was a huge loss involved here in order to move and install the required hardware in such a short time, just to prove the point it was possible and would actually work, and thus make future sales more likely.
You never know - maybe he was so confident of the contract that he had parts shipped before the signing, possibly he had parts already in Australia during the signing.
As a PR move it was actually pretty good.
Why is it any story about Musk ends up dominated by trolls and assholes? Butt-hurt much that he can actually get things done?
Because when Tesla is viewed as a black box - considering only revenue, profit, and other information without considering the context or goal horizon - the economic forecast is very bad.
Almost all stock predictions made today are based on this sort of black-box calculation. Every month the analysts plug a bunch of companies' numbers into their spreadsheet algorithms, and those algorithms tell them how well the stock is doing. They then write an article noting what happened in the previous month as the "reason" they say the stock is doing whatever the algorithm said.
The analysts give the impression that they reviewed the information and are giving expert opinion. In reality, they are reporting events and claiming the algorithm outputs as their conclusion.
Also, the algorithm goal horizon is 6 months, and Tesla has been reinvesting lots of revenue into new production (ie - gigafactory). Tesla's goal horizon is a couple of years down the road, where they will be in a position to corner the market in battery production or supercharger network or home solar.
So a lot of people bought Tesla short, and are hoping it goes down so they can make some money. I don't know how many people are shorting Tesla right now, but 8 months ago it was something like 22% of all Tesla stock was short. Since Tesla has been doing well, that number has dropped considerably, but there are still bunches of people holding out and hoping that Tesla crashes so that they can at least mitigate their loss.
It's a less right now, but we still hear "echoes" of all the nudging and convincing that people were doing to try to make the stock crash.
It'll fade over time.
Serious question here. What's the difference between these arguments?
1. You shouldn't ban BitTorrent. It's just a protocol. Just because some people use it to steal digital content doesn't mean BitTorrent is inherently bad.
2. You shouldn't ban guns. It's just a device. Just because some people use it to kill innocents doesn't mean guns are inherently bad.
This is what you get when you break the rules.
The existing net neutrality law was a) an overreach by a federal department that didn't have the authority, and b) didn't implement net neutrality, as normally understood.
Which is more important: fixing this one issue, or allowing federal departments to make rules outside their jurisdictions?
I love it when people bemoan how bad things are when this one narrowly-defined problem is thrown up as proof - positive proof, I say! - that everything about our government is bad.
Because it's *so* much easier to carp and complain than it is to a) draft a suggested net neutrality law, b) petition congress to pass that law, and c) bring the issue up during the elections.
We had a previous article about how the big players (Google, Facebook, and others) were bemoaning the loss of neutrality, that the "request for comments" wasn't a vote (and that 7 million bot entries with exactly the same text weren't considered significant), and how the internet is going to hell and a handbasket, but...
Your president did a whole bunch of crap moves that shouldn't have been done in the first place, including ordering the killing of American citizens without trial, making up immigration law out of whole cloth by executive order (contradicting existing laws), and political profiling by the IRS.
The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
This is nothing more than your chickens coming home to roost.
If you want this fixed, do it right next time.
Hey, look at the bright side.
From the OP, we now know that the process of splitting water is called "water electrolysis".
That's the sort of information I come to Slashdot for!
A brief scan of the abstract, note that it uses "oxygen evolution reaction" with the acronym "OER" instead of "produces oxygen", uses LDH without defining it ("Layered Double Hydroxide"), "dual functionalities ... have been achieved" instead of "dual functions", or just "functions as both <a> and <b>",
Taking a sentence at random, and plugging it into an online analyzer results in:
Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading: (Gunning Fog index) 18.90
With a Flesch Reading Ease : 27.75
That's a pretty high level of jargon, almost reaching the level of techno-babble.
(The sentence: "When employed as the positive electrode in a supercapacitor, along with activated carbon as the negative electrode in an asymmetric configuration, the ultrathin and porous Ni-Co-Fe LDH nanoplatelets delivered an ultrahigh specific energy of 57.")