I just got done cleaning up a client's system because they downloaded what they thought were MP3s from a site call MP3Boo or something like that, but one of the files wasn't an MP3. It injected his system will all kinds of malware, and it took a while to get all the crap scraped out of his file system.

I'm certainly not saying it's a panacea, but had he been able to see that the "song" was actually an executable, he *might* not have proceeded.

One practical application of the sorter could be creating a bowl of M&Ms — with all the brown ones

So you just want to single out the brown ones, huh?

I'm brown, you insensitive clod!

If by "as it happens" you mean, "that fits, with the proper amount of spin and misreporting, the Fox 'News' propaganda outlet's worldview", then yes, I agree.

Personally I'm relieved that Fox "News" got slapped back a bit. It's not news -- it's entertainment for simple-minded, easily provoked bigots.

Nailed it.

Corporations have one job, to make money, and that's what the ISPs are attempting to do by extorting money from targeted consumers of their monopoly-protected services. Having said that, yes, the President should act within the purview of his powers.

A) "precedent"
B) Privacy and Net Neutrality are two different things.

And treating them as two different things, if you're trying to imply that both are important, I agree with you.

And that is a complete, bald-faced lie.

Wait, Sean Hannity? Is that you?

Your point is that generalizations can be made. "The GOP opposes regulation of *" would be another equally useless generalization. And yet another would be, "It doesn't matter what it is, the GOP wants it under corporation control."

Don't be a complete troll all your life, m-kay?

South Korea
Japan
Hong Kong
Latvia
Switzerland
The Netherlands
The Czech Republic
Finland
Ireland

The top 10 nations for internet speed. Notice anyone missing from that list? Treating internet service as a utility and not allowing toll booth throttling apparently results in top notch service.

You're welcome.

I give you both points. If he spares Net Neutrality, it will be a huge notch on his belt, but pardoning the telcos is going to be an equally large black mark on his legacy.

The number one concern for the American vote is NOT the economy. The economy is doing great. People's paychecks are what suck. The lack of decent paying jobs is what sucks. The wage gap is what sucks. But the economy? It's doing great, thanks.

If the GOP was concerned about the American voter, they'd up the minimum wage to $11/hr. Instead, they rely on the gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and hundreds of millions in Koch contributions and dark money to fund propaganda that will convince people to vote against their interests.

But people turn out for presidential elections, and I'm trusting that the GOP will be unable to fight the tidal wave of voter resentment.

That would be the GOP you're thinking of. That's why, if you crawled out from under your rock, you would have heard the President *support* Net Neutrality while the GOP is winding up to *oppose* it. And that is your morning dose of reality. You're welcome.

Wow. You make it sound like Congress is focused solely on obstruction. Surely a congressional body elected to represent the United States citizenry would never harm the nation by outright obstructing positive legislative efforts?

Sorry, I've been in a coma for the last 6 years. Did I miss something?

I guarantee you the next president, if it's a Democrat (probably Hillary), will in fact care about Net Neutrality. You should try to avoid projecting your cynicism on others.

The GOP, and Mitch McConnell famously, stated that their purpose was to make Obama a one term president. Failing that, they have nearly frozen the legislative process and refused to participate in governing. So while your initial statement is subjectively accurate, the GOP left him little choice but to use the powers his office possesses to attempt to address the needs of the nation.

This is old news. There are forgotten caches of weapons from the Iran-Iraq War (mostly produced by the U.S.) that were left to rot out in the desert, as well as munitions that Saddam had laying around in case the Kurds got out of hand.

Anyone that ever said he didn't have *any* WMDs *ever* would simply be ignorant of the well-known facts. What was clearly a bald-faced lie was that he was currently producing nerve gas and nukes in preparation for invading his neighboring countries. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Show me the nukes and I will personally apologize to George Bush. Until then, no, this ain't that.