I agree completely. You can't just say that as a company you want to benefit from free market rules and then not have that applied to your employees. This would only be possible if the labour supply is high and the the amount of jobs is low. This is a poor way of correcting that by having people sit out. Piss poor on the part of the companies involved. This was previously modded at +5 Insightful. Some PHB with a penchant for complexity in contracts probably downvoted.

Boy some of you guys must be pretty young. Have you ever used anonymous ftp? Anonymous ftp works by entering the host, then your username, coincidentally: "anonymous" or "ftp", and then you enter your email or the password "guest". It doesn't even check if these are correct. It just let's you straight through

Regulating drones requires definition/implementation of new standards (fail at that one before), regulation (even bigger fail) and money and effort put into researching new technologies and protocols. In effect they have to corral an entire industry into a framework. It is no wonder that they failed and will probably not do it until someone big enough like Google does the equivalent by bringing in a consortium of companies to define and implement these standards, technologies and protocols. It is going to take a group as large as government in this area to do what the government is supposed to do.

The summary is obviously full of holes, because there are plans to make matter/antimatter colliders that would harness way more energy. So yes we have identified a need, and we know that the Standard Model is incomplete and needs more work. Saying there is nothing new to discover truly lacks a scientific imagination. This is the same sort of bs that prevented the LHC or equivalent from being constructed in the US: "Will we find the 'God' particle?"

Isn't an encrypted population like an armed population? Computers capable of powerful of enough encryption which once classified as munitions and their export banned. So having encryption is kind of like having the right to defend yourself. Which I do not see as bad, nor should the republicans who believe in the right to bear arms.

Have you considered that one day the electric power to fuel these cars may not be coming from "dirty sources". If we have a chain like this "dirty -> clean" which enables the possibility of " clean -> clean", isn't that better than a chain which leads from " [clean|dirty] -> no change dirty"? Supposing we do wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel industry as you may envision. Do you think that involves have "dirty" cars and "clean" supply chains? Converting electricity and hydrogen [ yes electricity can be collected directly from "clean sources" and hydrogen can be formed from H20 using electricity] to carbon may be feasible one day, but there is no reason do that if we have electric or hydrogen powered cars which use this clean energy. Of course electric cars cost more to produce now, blah blah blah, more pollution goes into their production, blah blah blah, but the first problem is a problem of scale, and the second problem can be eliminated by using "clean" energy sources in their production.[ another part of the clean supply chain ]. We are going to have to make a serious commitment. Or is that the point "we will have little need for carbon once we switch" is the part that is bothering the "sceptics"? Even if you don't care where we get our energy from, it still has to be there.

I never talked about the punishments of the "crimes" or whether they were in proportion to the "offense" or that government's using technology to spy on citizens is good. In fact I disagree. This is selective punishment. Perhaps I should have said: "Although China still has overly broad laws on the books, they are trying to fight technology with technology...We are doing it here, in a more specific and cloak-and-dagger way, but we should not try to specify the time and place for technology, which we are attempting to do en-masse". For all: more freedom = better freedom. If someone wants to block our connection fine, then let us find ways to unblock it. If it is really worth the investment, which will be a deterrent, then find a way to re-block it otherwise spending money on such a thing will prove to be unfeasible. Laws need to be fixed, technology needs to improve. This freedom is one of the reasons why TOR is still in the game, America will continue to have an advantage and why we are advancing in general. How about a new Amendment: the freedom to develop technology?

What I was trying to point out, while core dumping, we should not be trusting to put "all of our eggs in one basket", and trust an entity that could one day turn out not to be our friend. It is a tale of two countries if you will. BTW part of reading is seeing what you can get out of something even if it is not as eloquent as you are.

There is an interesting irony in this. In China, which to my own opinion has been historically more oppressive, now you have the engineers and the scientists in charge of government (true) while as in Europe and the Americas, we have lawyers and businessmen in charge. It appears as though China is taking a technological approach to solving its perceived problems, such as searching for keywords, blocking, defeating TOR and the like, while in the West, our governments appear to be bent on passing laws and ordinances that tell companies and ourselves what we can install and use and how we must use it so we can justify charges c.f. recent attempts to codify in law backdoors into tech companies products and hiding what they are doing. The overly broad laws in China do not change but the technology is not as well hidden and grows. For example, China has setup fake Apple stores (this should be a warning) so that once an iPhone is jailbroken, it becomes easier to install malware on that person's iPhone in order to spy on the user to see if they have broken these laws. The government puts much effort into catching people without knowing they have committed a crime. In the West, laws are changing too fast and laws have become overly specific instead of broad. Nobody likes being told over and over which task to do and nobody likes being told how to do a task. The Chinese know that what they are doing is unpopular, but here, the government has to hide because perception will be that they are not doing the right thing if they are discovered, which says a lot about what they are doing. The government here seems to care more that they are doing the same unpopular things, but that have a history of goodwill which they are destroying, so we can continue to say "Here in the West". This should be a warning sign.

How about "True" or "Controversial" for "hot topics" for which have been voted on many times, both false and true?

who brought us the "Google includes its own advertisements in search" complainers. They developed the product, so they get to say how it behaves or how much of their own product they include with their own product. Or should we conclude that these companies represent a significant presence in our life that we should all pay a mandatory fee to them and treat them as otherwise some sort of necessary corporations that simply have to exist? But then they would be like governments. Because that is the only way we will have a say in what they produce, except with our wallets.

And then let the incumbents try to explain, rather than having to dispute every negative claim about Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality would, instead of being tiered, would allow and has allowed each community to be treated equally. It would allow the Internet to be treated more like a utility. It is like how you receive water in your community now, everyone pays the same rate. If these guys think that the water company will allow them to get their water for little or less money and that somehow someone else would foot the bill for them because of a tiered structure, would you believe the water company? No they would probably only invest money that they were getting back from the community. If water was declared a right, then the company providing might be forced into providing set water. I can think of ways a person or a company can benefit from Net Neutrality. I will give three examples: Google and Facebook and Paypal. Mark Zuckerberg only had a few thousand in cash to start his first server farm, and I doubt the founders of Google had that much more. When Elon Musk came to the United States he had little cash and received $300 million from his part the sale of Paypal to Ebay. Where would Google, Facebook, Tesla and countless others be today without Net Neutrality? They depended on access of various users to be consistent when they were small and when they became large. Try explaining to poorer neighbourhoods that they could create a startup based upon money to pay and not being in a slow lane. The Internet is part of the American dream, we are not done yet. The results are plain to see.

So that is an excuse for cutting funding as I am presuming the committee wants. What about all of those Skunk Works projects in defense. We don't know "where the money went" but it supposedly was put to good use. Cry me a river.

So if we give out more spectrum this will make it harder for data to be treated equally. Sounds more like Comcast et. al saying, hah! you see because we were granted spectrum and this dude (or these dudes) on the Internet said that it will make Net Neutrality harder to regulate, that is why in the future, our plans are to not follow Net Neutrality will pan out. Then when that happens, everybody is like "Why can't we have Net Neutrality" and Comcast et. al will say "Yeah, weren't you listening to those Internet dudes?" In other words they pay somebody to say that this will happen and then they make it happen, and then cite "natural causes" as a way to operate in contrast to Net Neutrality. Same thing with the "AT&T will delay 1Gb lines because of 'Net Neutrality'"...who is writing their training manual?

Absolutely, if they have all the evidence sue them directly. Sounds like they are arguing on behalf of their "agent" Rightscorp, Inc. to do their dirty work. Also they want Cox to be the agent of Rightscorp. Pay up buddies. These guys can die in their own copyright labyrinth.