You missed the part where the House Republicans voted to end net neutrality years ago, only to be stopped by the Senate Democrats.

You also missed the part where Obama implemented a limited net neutrality via executive order, only to have that struck down by the courts, following a lawsuit by Verizon.

You also missed the part where Republicans cheered the court's ruling, declaring that net neutrality is "socialism".

Look here, or just google "obama net neutrality court" for a dozen other sources.

Here's the lede, in case you're too lazy to click:

Do you get it yet? The Democrats have been fighting for years to try to keep net neutrality around. The Republicans have fought to destroy it. The Republicans won, because the courts were on their side. And now you blame ...the Democrats.

This is why things will never get better. This is why you will lose everything, bit by bit. Because you don't pay attention, and you lash out at the same people who tried to fight for you. Really, you deserve to lose.

I like to imagine that some rebel-sympathizer engineer included that flaw on purpose to provide the rebels with some aid. There's no way they could have analyzed the blueprints of a ship that size and found its Achilles heel so quickly, unless they were tipped off.

It's not like Luke spent hours flying through that trench. They flew towards it in open space, but you can't just fly in a straight line in the middle of a dogfight. They got as close as they reasonably could, and at that point it made more sense to fly within the trench and take cover from some of the guns. If they had been flying, say, a few kilometers above the surface, they would have been exposed to ALL of the surface guns, rather than just those that could shoot within the trench.

He might just suck at estimating weight. I used to play a game at work where we would have people guess how much a package weighed before putting it on a scale, and some people are really, jaw-droppingly bad at that sort of thing. It's sort of interesting how people can usually estimate lengths, and volumes, and temperatures quite well, but on weight they'll be off by a factor of five or more.

Who say's you need a sharing mechanism within the site? I'm sure Google will let you click and drag the "Origin Chip" into Google Hangouts (tm). The fact that that lets them track what you share is just gravy.

Ehh, maybe so. Maybe the industry asked the DOJ for support. Maybe the DOJ didn't think the industry was handling it well and wanted to step in. Maybe they're wrong to do so. I don't know.

What I do know, is that a lot of people here seem to think that this is part of Obama's super-secret conspiracy to eradicate porn and fireworks and dating websites. And that's absolutely bonkers.

The question is "high risk of what?"

The answer is credit card fraud. That's what the DOJ is trying to go after here. If you google online ammo suppliers, you get a bunch of sites that look like they haven't been updated since '98. I have no doubt that the companies are perfectly reputable. But they might not have the tightest security when it comes to detecting fraudulent transactions.

No one is saying that they're engaged in anything illegal. No one is saying they're unstable, fly-by-night businesses. What the DOJ seems to think is that the payment processing companies they do business with might be turning a blind eye to fraud in order to make more money.

As with most stories on Slashdot these days, it's bullshit meant to make you scared and angry.

They're not trying to shut down porn -- what possible motive could they even have for that? They're trying to stop disreputable businesses from effectively robbing people a few nickels at a time. If innocent companies are getting caught in the crossfire, then the DOJ needs to do its job better. But quit hyperventilating. This is not some evil government plot to wipe out all of the fireworks stores and dating services in the country.

Can we get some editors to remove this crap? It's just a stupid marketing gimmick -- "What, you haven't heard of [PRODUCT_NAME]? You must be living under a rock! Everyone who's anyone knows about [PRODUCT_NAME]!"

We won't know the exact delta, but we'll have a much better idea. According to the article you linked, the difference between the old and new questions was about 2% in the total uninsured rate. If the upcoming Census report shows the uninsured numbers dropping by less than that, then that would be evidence that Obamacare was ineffective.

They have general ideas, not exact numbers. What more could you expect? The numbers will gain some precision after the Census releases its report later this year, but even then it's based on polling, so it won't be exactly right.

The CBO's current estimate is that Obamacare has reduced the net number of uninsured persons by 12 million just this year, and is on track to get another 14 million insured within a couple more years. I would have preferred single payer, but Obamacare is a LOT better than what we had before, and it's the best we could have gotten in the face of Republican obstruction.

You can call it "complete and utter crap" all day, but we all know that that's just because you want it to fail. You already admitted you're a libertarian -- you're philosophically opposed to the very thing that Obamacare sets out to accomplish.

While that is true, there was also an equally large advertising push trying to convince people not to enroll. That's something that Twitter and Facebook never had to confront.

Wait, I think you're confused.

"Regulation" in this case would be the FCC instituting net neutrality, so that the ISPs have to treat all comers equally. E.g., Comcast can't speed up Hulu at the expense of some small start-up video streaming site.

The big businesses want to kill net neutrality because that will let them crush any new start-ups, and ensure that they maintain control of what we watch for generations to come. Sites like Netflix never would have gotten off the ground without net neutrality.

The big businesses are trying to get rid of regulations, and you've twisted it around to say that we need to ...get rid of regulations. Either you're confused, or just some corporate bootlicker.