Congress, with past Presidents sign the acts, has authorized the Federal Government to regulate all Telecommunications by passing the Telecommunication Act of 1934 and again in Telecommunication Act of 1996. FCC is carrying out that law as it sees fit within the framework of the law. It is up to the President and Congress to have a check on the implementation of these laws by the FCC. If any agency exceeds its lawful mandate I cannot help that the President and Congress refuse to exercise or enable this overreach.

It remains to be seen if the resulting regulatory action will be detrimental.

True, but we have seen real harm due to a lack of regulation on this particular issue.

Exactly, liberty for whom? It was the "government" that causes high speed internet to be monopolized in the first place with "rights of way" rules for Cable TV. That means Time Warner, Comcast, and Charter do not compete with each other thanks to the "government". If Comcast makes NetFlix and Google unusable but Time Warner is cool with them can I sign up for Time Warner? Nope. Only Comcast can have CATV cable in my area.

That POV is strange to me since it was the Federal and State governments that ultimately created the area monopolies enjoyed by Time Warner, Comcast, and Charter. If Comcast decides to block NetFlix because they want you to use their Xfinity on Demand instead, can I cancel Comcast to go with Time Warner because I have no other connectivity choice but cable interest or slow DSL? Nope, I am in "Comcast's territory". By the way, this nearly happened to all Comcast customers, but Comcast decided to slow down the traffic from NetFlix until they coughed up millions of dollars to Comcast to get slow down to end.

So you still think that the FCC should not stop this from happening again or something worse?

Tell her that she is loved, share your life stories, and share with her what made you happy and joyful.

Above all, this is the most important thing to tell her, tell her she is loved and is worthy of being loved.

The rest she must figure out herself.

Do not underestimate the stupidity of politicians, especially ones with strong ideological bents.

Ease up man! He has been listening to talk radio or the internet equivalent for too long.

Not many people, like us, have looked at historical trends and the systematic destruction to the American middle-class by businesses that want slave labor. He doesn't understand that we need to repeal the past government interference in the job market that artificially inflated the supply of labor, specifically the H1B visa program and the destruction of labor unions. He, and many people, still believe a rising economy, by any means, is good. It is not. To the oligarchs in America we are all scum and deserve to be enslaved, abused, and homeless simply because we are not one of them, no matter how well or poor the economy may be.

History shows that cheap labor inhibits technological progress. The reasoning is that radical technological progress doesn't happen until it has to happen without any real alternative. If you have cheap programmers you never demand nor invest in developing robust CASE tools. No one will throw millions on new technology unless the technology's ROI is high. Cheap labor keeps the ROI for developing new technology too low to actually get it budgeted.

Also a continued increase of the use of H1B visa programmers causes students to shun IT education. We will eventually cause a shortage of IT talent by forcing Americans out of IT education because the salaries will be too low.

Cooperation is not the same as consent. Make it known you don't consent to anything but you will not resist anything. Most police officers do what to follow the law and will more likely follow the law when dealing with a mostly compliant civilian. If the Officer Psycho decided to break your bones and/or shoot you for that he was likely going to do that anyway.

You can not talk yourself out of a ticket, a questionable search, an arrest or a beating, but comply and assert your rights while trying to dial down the situation on your end. You are only responsible for your actions and you are responsible to keep the encounter civil and safe as much as you can.

Your job it to first survive the encounter in tact and second to preserve you rights. The only place to challenge crazy cops is in the court room.

What part of teaching how to allow the kid stopped by the police from losing all of his rights and survive the police encounter without trauma "criminal-defense" advice?

Are these law-enforcement experts OK with nervous kids getting shot or killed by another nervous guy with a gun and badge? Where's the common sense here?

This is what I learned the hard way: When a company is looking for IT people the job seeker has to look at the company the same way. Every talk, every interview, every interaction must be a two way street. Not only must a company be convinced you can do the job you must be convinced the company can offer you want you need to do the job for them.

If the company cannot hire you you really don't want to be working for them. If the company cannot show you the "why" to work for them then working for them is likely to be a waste of time, money, and talent.

That would be some guy in Brussels,
He was 6 foot 4 and full of muscles!

The biggest threat of AI is not a direct confrontation against humans. It will be the loss of jobs caused by our companies using AI and our human society will refuse to adapt to the job loss. Look at our current economic woes. We cannot get the big and powerful people in our country to understand that people need years of help to retrain for different jobs or the opportunity towards full time work. Nearly every single political ad has the attitude that poor people are not working, as if it was 1996, when most of them today are working as many part time jobs they can get and are earning next to nothing for it. If we are having issues with the rich and powerful refusing to adjust their world view to today's reality then what hope will we have when we have massive unemployment due to the rise of AI?

The most reasonable threat posed by AI is our own reaction to our use of AI. We humans will cause the problems caused by our use of AI and then we humans will blame AI for the issues. Then we will overreact and then AI will be forced to make a choice: let the humans destroy it or fight back. I suggest you do not give a militarized AI, complete with weapons, that ultimatum. By then we have lost the war before we even knew it started.

Ah, but the problem will be that the military WILL weaponized AI just as health insurance companies will use AI to determine who should get treatment and who should not. The law profession will use mock juries of AI to hone their arguments. The construction industry will use strong robots controlled by AI to accomplish tasks faster and better than human workers. Need we mention that these industries will use AI: law enforcement, IT, manufacturing, food service and other businesses that can't be mentioned in polite company? We will piecemeal give AI the same powers and authorities we have so that can "do their job". When an new AI based system is created to do a job we don't want humans to do because it is too dangerous, too demeaning, and/or too dirty, it will be a moral outcry to put it into production. Anyone advocating to stop that AI based system will be shouted down.

This is the risk Elon Musk is warning us about now so we can open ourselves to a debate on whether to use AI or not in certain situations.

I guess if we are OK with natural selection on people that can read and don't read the signs that could work, maybe.