It could be either agency really. In theory, the FTC can get involved in cases of false advertising (such as claiming to offer internet access when offering only a portion of the internet).

In reality though, they've been asleep at the switch for a long time, so probably it will have to be the FCC.

Agreed, A government phase-out of v4 would speed things along.

And just to top it off, if you didn't use your real name, they would kill ALL of your linked accounts, not just Google Plus. Given all the double talk leaving people unsure of what would be acceptable at various times, and no assurance at all it wouldn't get tightened up again, there was a significant risk to using Google+.

Many flash chips already have that but too many firmwares don't use it.

Better yet, jumper the write enable line and default it to off.

Sadly true, it's not a surprise.

Ya know, instead of listening to what the politicians *say*, we could look at what the politicians *do*.

The two biggies I can think of are job outsourcing and civil rights. Let's see what Hillary has been doing for the last few years:

Overall, a mixed bag of non-caring of our jobs and rights.

Do we want yet another president that doesn't care about the people?

Because they have reaped more benefit than I have.

That's like saying some poor slob making minimum wage is just as free to buy a 40 ft. yacht as Bill Gates.

That's probably because they get the vast majority of income in this country.

That is exactly what was intended. The other auto makers are free to produce zero emission vehicles and sell credits too.

Sure. Their motive may be profit, but in this case, they are probably right. Fuel hasn't suddenly become more plentiful and pollution hasn't just vanished from the air, so why should the standards be relaxed?

You will enjoy not dying early from pollution related illness even though you won't attribute that to the EPA regulations that actually extended your life and your health.

No, you fabricated a story without a single shred of evidence to support your position.

It's just a big fat [citation needed]

You have to present some facts before you can reason about them.

Otherwise there's nothing to distinguish the claim that Donald Trump obviously took all that extra money and shoved it up his ass for a rainy day from something resembling reality.

Considering that ISIS was trying to scam them, it seems more like a situation where they managed to take the bait without springing the trap. It's just like the pool hustler. He lets you win one for chump change to get you hooked. If you see it coming and say that's enough for you, he's out the money fair and square.