The first envelope is open. Next up: reorganisation.
He got real serious suddenly when that nutter threatened his family.
Repression follows, more assassinations happen, and then before you know it Serbian meddling in the Austro-Hungarian succession starts WWI.
This is not limited to the countries ending in -ia in Central/Eastern Europe  .
And when was there a movement like this in the US post-prosperity (WW2)? Your links are from 100 years ago.
My point, inequality itself is rarely the trigger. It needs to pass a limit, usually threatening livelihood. And it needs to be super widespread (think 20%+ of the population).
- politicians have been able to convince poor people that the “American Dream” is alive. That if you work hard you can become rich and you are just “temporarily poor”.
- You would be better off if “they” weren’t taking your jobs.
Mexican undocumented migrant laborers have none of those excuses yet they are not waging a campaign of terror against the GOP.
Undocumented migrant labors don’t feel entitled to the “American Dream”, they wouldn’t be waging terror against the GOP.
While Black people and affirmative action is no longer the scape goat for why rural America is suffering, now it’s illegal aliens and unfair trade practices.
About three months goes by and things start to get rough. The manager opens his drawer where he keeps the three envelopes and opens #1. It reads: "Blame your predecessor." So he does and it works like a charm.
Another three months passes and things are growing difficult again so the manger figures to try #2. It reads, "reorganize." Again, his predecessor's advice works like magic.
Finally, about nine months into the new job, things are getting really sticky. The manager figures it worked before, why not try again. So he opens the envelope drawer one last time and opens #3. It reads..."prepare three envelopes."
Or as an alternative, maybe don't shove through legislation that's so wildly unpopular with the american citizens that the entire internet comes crashing down on you in protest. Just a thought.
Neither party appears to be turning down money from the opponents of net neutrality. It feels more like everybody takes the money and the rest is just politics and propaganda.
One, regardless of the money, Democrats clearly support net neutrality and Republicans clearly oppose net neutrality by wide margins. The votes are nowhere close to balanced.
Two, be careful with looking at the totals on OpenSecrets. Look at the PAC money specifically. OpenSecrets tallies up every donation by employees working in an industry and calls it an industry donation. Which means that my $20 donation to a Democratic Rep is considered the same as Comcast literally giving $20 to a PAC which then donates to a Republican.
But you create a false equivalence based on media corp donations, instead of examining the actual behavior and recent history of the parties.
To Godwin this: "Well, the fascists and racists are supporting both Hitler's party and his competition, so, really they're all the same!"
You might want to sophisticate your political examination process.
I fall along the neoliberal lines, more of the liberal engineers as opposed to the liberal dreamers. Dem socs, again, love the enthusiasm, but there's little more to it than that.
The "main party" is the one who has tirelessly fought for and achieved Net Neutrality. Hate us boring "main party" types all you want, but don't disparage our recent history: We main party Democrats are the only force in America who fought for and achieved Net Neutrality. We did that. GOP destroyed it, sure, but it was us main party dems which made it a party plank, which pushed it to Obama and his FCC, and made it reality. And it'll be us who do it again, too.
I would expect HN overall to agree with the FCC that the rules that govern the internet need to be as flat and global as possible.
Maybe putting some restrictions on the king is just rolling back the implicit restrictions and regulations he exercises over the public inherent in his position that he gained through graft.
Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
Now, socialists claim that since the government is not profit driven, it would keep the prices low. On the other hand, capitalists say that even if the supplier seeks profit, there would be competition which would lead to innovation, better service, and lower prices. Of course, pretty much none of our systems are fully on one side or the other which complicates things. For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding.
I keep hearing this constantly. They received significant amount of government funding, yes, but how much of their (current) success and assets due to government funding? How much of it is really due to the continued regulation of radio waves and the land where cables are dug?
Instead, they concocted an obviously false and politically motivated story about being "hacked".
Ironically, the democrats (or at least the current people in power and the media) tend to be against any requirement of strong ID when it comes to interacting with the government...
In a democratic system, the public saying "we don't want it" is a valid reason for the gov't institutions to stop a project, no matter if they didn't get a new perspective and still think that the reasons are good.
> The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters
> The comment process is not a vote. The government is attempting to formulate the best policy, so when crafting a comment it is important that you adequately explain the reasoning behind your position.
> Form Letters: Organizations often encourage their members to submit form letters designed to address issues common to their membership. Organizations including industry associations, labor unions, and conservation groups sometimes use form letters to voice their opposition or support of a proposed rulemaking. Many in the public mistakenly believe that their submitted form letter constitutes a “vote” regarding the issues concerning them. Although public support or opposition may help guide important public policies, agencies make determinations for a proposed action based on sound reasoning and scientific evidence rather than a majority of votes. A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters.
It's linked from that page you posted.
I guess you can be pedantic about the term "hacked," but they claimed their site was deliberately rendered unavailable to commenters by multiple attackers. In the common parlance, deliberately breaking computer shit is called hacking.
It may save unneeded stress to make peace with the fact that words can mean one thing to a specialist and something else to all the other native speakers of the language.
Uhm, yes, I have eyes, thank you. I think you can assume HNers are generally not obtuse enough to link to a nearly-blank page saying "Statement by FCC" and miss 3 glaringly obvious links referring to the actual statement. I was, indeed, referring to that statement. The very fact that their news release seemed to be missing "hack" or anything equivalent to it is exactly what I was referring to.
The difference between "attacked" vs. "hacked" isn't "pedantry" any more than the difference between "arrested" and "convicted" is pedantry. Being "hacked" means your system's security was breached, not that you were merely "attacked". Most of the press cares about being responsible with their choice of words, and you really should too. Nobody would say Google or HN or any other site was "hacked" the moment it was DDoS'd. Being hacked requires a security breach, and nowhere that I can see did the FCC claim there was such a thing. So unless they said this elsewhere, this is a recklessly irresponsible choice of words.
Nah. They claimed the site was rendered unfit for purpose by malicious attackers. If you don't think denial of service is a security event, you'd better start writing lots of angry letters to MITRE, because we need to revoke about 90% of the CVEs that have been issued over the years.
I'm not sure how to phrase this politely, but you are not the arbiter of language, TechCrunch is not beholden to any higher a linguistic standard than anyone else, and the word hack has been associated with DDoS attacks for years and years (a small sampling of references follow).
I don't particularly care about the FCC or this event, but this seems like a really strange hill to die on. Please note that I am not suggesting that you actually intend to expire on a topological elevation gradient; this is merely a figure of speech that means something else to some people (cf https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hill_to_die_on).
"This class of hack, known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, has been around for a while.":
"What is a DDoS Hack and How Do You Avoid Them?" (video):
"DDoS hack attack targets Church of Scientology":
"Hack Attack Gums Up Authorize.Net":
It's very tongue-in-cheek to claim an organization has been hacked because someone(s) launched a DDoS.
It's like someone claiming they perform their own auto repairs, but in actuality all they do is fill the windshield fluid and replace their air filter.
> I'm not sure how to phrase this politely
Yes, I (again) noticed. First in your initial comment, and now again in your second comment. You really haven't even been trying. I'm not sure what kind of a reply you expect when you treat people like they're stupid, but if it's anything positive, you won't get it.
My 14 year old niece says her Facebook was "hacked" by her friend. She had given her password to her to log in. Words have different meanings between groups, and "hack" seems very loose in use all around.
> difference between "arrested" and "convicted"
Both of those words have separate definitions in a formal setting (e.g. U.S. Courts). Is there a governing body that everyone regular subscribes to that delineates the difference between "attacked" and "hacked"? It really does not seem a reckless choice of words considering the audience the article is writing for.
President Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address.
Speaking narrowly and specifically about the economic crisis and stagflation of the late 70s:
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.
EPA, FCC, and their ilk have no obligation to represent the opinion of the people.
Federal agencies are given a blank check to interpret (write) laws without any real checks and balances.
No, interpreting laws is the judicial branches role (as the ultimate decision point), but it's also essential to executive functioning (as you get apply or execute a law without first interpreting it.)
> EPA, FCC, and their ilk have no obligation to represent the opinion of the people.
Neither does Congress or the President.
> Federal agencies are given a blank check to interpret (write) laws without any real checks and balances.
“Interpret” does not mean “write”, and both the adjudicative/interpretive and regulation-writing functions of agencies are constrained by judicial review (of both) and both advance and responsive (Congressional Review Act) constraint by Congress (for the regulatory function.)
The USA's IC has a long and not so pretty history of misinformation. The fact that you're so quick to point at Putin only proves the USA IC is as slick and effective as ever.
A nice summary is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od4MWs7qTr8
Don't underestimate Trump. He is a brilliant propagandist. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to his public perception. His while career has been about selling his image.
The fact is, for example, we recently flew right past the anniversary of the Pentagon Papers and for some reason the USA MSM was more concerned with Stormy Daniels or some other pointless minutia. This is no accident.
Again. Just one example. Anyone who can connect two dots can find plenty more.
Honestly (and of course, I don't have anything concrete to back this up with) I'm quite sure the truth is "we hacked ourselves, maintaining just enough degrees of separation so as to preserve plausible deniability..."
Why assume that the FCC stuffed their own mailbox?
That 98% of unique comments and an overwhelming majority of public discussion were on one side of the issue, and they were then overwhelmed by obviously fake comments on the other side of the issue very conveniently allowed Pai to say "the results of the comment period are invalid, so we're going to disregard the comments and do what we had already planned to do anyway"
Given the track record of this administration so far, I feel pretty comfortable extrapolating from limited data and drawing conclusions that would not hold up in a court of law. Unless these folks are suddenly becoming much smarter than they look, chances are this will either be proven soon, or more likely swept under the next larger scandal.
Hopefully we can also agree that they were not going to listen to the public and knew before the comment period had even opened what they would do, and wouldn't be stopped. But in the realm of things we can prove, they definitely did not want to acknowledge the difference between what happened and "what happened." It played strongly to their advantage and successfully muddied the waters in furtherance of their stated goals.
Even though they could do good, and may have in the past, the lack of actual accountability for their actions means that it's too easy to do bad. They're not directly elected, so even the tiny shred of accountability that elected officials generally have is not there. If they can flat out lie to the public and get away with it, why do they exist and why should they continue to exist?
The justification for the existence of a government organization should not be based on the possibilities of good they might do, but it should be based on the unchecked bad they could (and will eventually) do.
Fix the issues with officials lying, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It isn't the 1930s anymore. Modern radio technology could enable a much more complete utilization of spectrum. FCC's primary mission at this time is to delay that happy day as long as possible. "Happy" because with true competition, the consumer would forget that net neutrality was ever anything a government agency needed to enforce. Don't like how your WISP is handling your traffic? Just switch to one of the other 25 WISPs in your area.
It's true that if FCC were eliminated to the general benefit of the nation, curious citizens would wonder what else could be eliminated. Should we feel sorry for any organization unable to justify its own purpose and actions?
There are fudemental mathematical limits to how much data can be sent over a range of frequency. We aren't all that far from it. Even without that, what are you picturing everything coming with enough smarts and flexibility to decide what frequency to use and then use it.
What about people acting in bad faith, cell phone jamming ect.
I wanted net neutrality the first time it was implemented. I remember being excited about a few other regulations that the Wheeler FCC implemented.
Keeping emergency bands clear is something the general populace wants done and frankly, needs done.
Traditional telephone telecoms were always common carriers under Title II, and that applied to internet over dialup during the 90s. When broadband meant that internet connectivity was now being delivered via other medium, the FCC enforced what we now call net neutrality via a lighter regulatory scheme. Verizon ironically sued to get the courts to say that the FCC couldn't enforce the rules in a lighter scheme and therefore had to declare the new internet connectivity infrastructure to be full Title II common carriers to apply any of those rules to them. That court case ended in 2014, and so the FCC followed the court recommendation to apply the rules the were already enforcing.
Long story short: there was never really a time with both consumer internet connectivity and no net neutrality, despite the right wing talking points that this is some new thing.
I agree that the AM talk goofballs are full of shit on most things they say about the internet.
It's baked into TCP/IP with packet agnosticism the central and guiding principle.
You've given into partisan ignorance and I can't fault you: it's typical of people all around the world to wrap themselves in comforting ignorance lest they be forced to exercise even a small portion of their brains.
*And thanks for finally coming clean in your own regard. I realized who I replied to after I posted my own reply to your 'content.'
I'm not sure what other reply you're referencing.
The FCC limits broadcast strength on the unlicensed 2.4 GHz band as well. Remove that limit and 2.4 GHz wifi will finally become pure noise as everyone tries to down each other out (it's already pretty much useless in a dense apartment building)
> Fix the issues with officials lying
The only way to do that is by either 1: prosecuting them or 2: disbanding the FCC and forming a new regulatory body that is elected by the people (either directly or by elected representation). I was advocating for #2. #1 is largely a joke when targeting high ranking officials.
Actual statistical sampling can be applied instead of a bunch of crap, gerrymandering and lobbying.
Who regulates the power limits on consumer WiFi devices? You think it’s the goodness of device makers’ hearts that keeps them from screaming across county lines?
I know there would be a transition period during which people would be pissed off that FM had gone away. After we got through that transition, we would enjoy many benefits.
It sounds like you need to read up on the vast regulatory difference between cell bands and wifi.
edit: I can't fathom why I'm being downvoted. Without the FCC we would have much faster wifi, not being confined to a few tiny slices of spectrum. But cell service is debatable. And radio astronomy would be fucked.
I'd personally like to see a lot more public spectrum (say half of what was reclaimed from that DTV switchover ). But I respect there are many applications that do need dedicated spectrum, hence my reference to radio astronomy. Basic emergency comms that want the least possible protocol complexity is another.
It's just not a very informed opinion to think the FCC effected wifi/bluetooth, rather than having merely gotten out of the way.
 Or, if concerned it would merely end up a permanently unusable swamp due to the propagation, at least run an initial experiment with a tiny slice.
Eventually radio astronomy will take place in space, right? Besides, only really old-fashioned stuff like AM/FM can really interfere with astronomy more than a tiny increase in the overall noise level.
Most observations happen outside of the protected bands, nature uses the whole spectrum, although the absolute most important bands are protected, like the 1420 MHz hydrogen line. For comparison, if you put a cell phone on the surface of the moon, it would be the brighter than the brightest natural source at 2 GHz. FM bands are wiped out, but some experiments where it is really important (the epoch of reionization) are put specifically in Western Australia or South Africa where it's wasteland and they protect the sites from interference.
Electing crooks, of course, is a very old tradition. When it's blunt, it looks like the Credit Mobilier scandal in 1867 . When it's a little more subtle, it might look like LBJ destroying Leland Olds' reputation to keep him off the Federal Power Commission .