On aggregate, I'm a very ethical person.

And why can't they? If the FCC changes the definition of broadband so the cable companies can't call it "broadband", then renaming it "Extra super good internet" is exactly the sort of thing they'll do. They'll just use some non-technical marketing language to describe it.

I don't see how it would have that effect without price controls. Since there's no standardized technical definition for "broadband" as it relates internet connection speeds, it's a meaningless term. The problem is that the way the FCC is using the term to measure ISP deployment progress is based on a moving target. From TFA:

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 said that advanced telecommunications capability must “enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.” Wheeler’s proposed annual report says the 4/1 definition adopted in 2010 “is inadequate for evaluating whether broadband capable of supporting today’s high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video is being deployed to all Americans in a timely way.”

Well, of course it's inadequate, because those things have become more demanding of bandwidth, because as more people have higher-speed internet access, sites and services take advantage of this fact and offer products that require it. Netflix video streaming started in what, 2007? HD videos on YouTube didn't roll out until 2009. I don't think playing word games by redefining terms will help anything.

If you want to make federal dollars dependent on a deployment/upgrade schedule, then make a schedule. Say "99% of users must have access at minimum down/up speeds of X/Y in 5/10/15/20 years", doubling the X & Y every 5 years (or whatever). Don't say "well yesterday 4 Mbps was broadband, but today Netflix offers 2160p 3D video, so we're going redefine our standard to whatever Netflix's top offering requires." (Yes, I know that's not exactly what they're doing, but it's close).

I'm no shill of the providers here - I think the effective monopolies have resulted in a great deal of harm to consumer choice and product quality - but this particular proposed action of the FCC strikes me as silly. Reclassifying them as common carriers and Congress banning anti-competitive laws that prohibit municipal broadband would go a great deal further toward fixing the problem IMHO. If you want internet to be a utility, treat it like a utility. If you want it to benefit from free market forces, make sure customers have real choices among competing products.

1) I would imagine this train would be quite loud.
2) How strong will the track have to be? Is there a chance it could bend?
3) So many primary roads are in a terrible state of disrepair, with cracks and potholes.
4) How will this program benefit those of us who lack a college education or proper hygiene?
5) Was Elon Musk sent here by the devil?
6) The ring came off my pudding can!

What about the placebo effect? Eating dark chocolate makes me happy, and if I believe it's good for me, isn't it likely to have some health benefits due to this?

Plus, if I do all the things that they say will make me live longer - avoid sugar, avoid fat, get off the couch, drink my own piss - what's the point? Living longer won't be worth it if I can't do any of the things worth living for.

At least scientists have shown (possibly NSFW) that looking at breasts is good for your heart.

At Toyota, we believe that when good ideas are shared, great things can happen

So I take it they're not going to open their patents on gas pedal design?

American astronauts will not return to the moon, not to mention go to Mars, in the foreseeable future.

...if we rely completely on NASA-managed, government-funded space exploration, that is. I don't think it's fair to limit our vision to the public option, important though it may be.

I foresee a future of space exploration funded by the super-rich, because it's cool and they can, but also organizations with a speculative interest. I'm thinking of asteroid mining - robotic at first, but if an asteroid is captured and brought near earth, manned operations will probably take place at some point.

Looking back at the earlier days of Earth exploration, specifically "new world" and Antarctic, there were no guarantees of success or even survival; and while Columbus was state-funded, the mission was of a primarily commercial interest. Shackleton's and Scott's, however, were primarily for exploration - scientific curiosity. As long as we have people like Elon Musk, there's a chance for manned exploration. Even a high-risk manned mission to Mars would have plenty of willing volunteers, as long as there was a chance of safe return (I do think it would at least have to be planned to be round-trip).

And the award for Best Employee of the 20th Century goes to...

This inanimate wooden pallet!

He absolutely has the right to tell them what they should do. Presumably, MIT was making these educational materials available for the purpose of furthering the common good. Removing them does nothing to serve the common good, thus MIT is acting against its own goals (as we perceive them), which, logically speaking, is total bullshit.

It's a sound argument, and doesn't presuppose any special rights or privileges - merely the ability to analyze the purpose and effects of others' actions. Capacity for moral judgment + societal cost/benefit analysis + free speech rights = the right to tell others what they should do. We do this all the time: the US shouldn't invade Iraq, Microsoft shouldn't abuse its monopoly, the MPAA/RIAA shouldn't sue old ladies whose grandkid downloaded a song, that racist pastor shouldn't be racist, etc. etc. It's called advocacy.

He's not making a rights- or privilege-based argument, he's saying MIT should choose a different course of action that will better serve the greater good.

Side note: I see this happen a lot - someone conflates the argument "entity X should do Y" with "entity X should be made to do Y". Read arguments carefully.

Indeed - prostitutes are a communist plot to contaminate the purity of our essence by depriving us of our precious bodily fluids. Like fluoridating the water.

When moving across country (California to Florida) in 2005, I averaged 32 MPG for two consecutive tanks of gas (calculated by actual gas used at time of fill up) while driving through AZ and NM. Cruising speed was 85. Car was a '99 Grand Am (170hp 3.4L V6), EPA highway rating was 30 MPG. There was probably a tailwind.

More recently, while returning to Chicago from vacation in Colorado, I managed to average 30 MPG for a single continuous 400-mile nonstop leg while averaging 76 MPH. This car is a '05 Pontiac G6 (200hp 3.5L V6), rated at 28 MPG highway by the EPA.

Obviously, both these trips are idealized - fill up, accelerate directly to cruising speed, maintain until next fuel stop - so not representative of how the EPA tests highway mileage. Typically the G6 gets 25-28 on the highway (yes, these GM engines are woefully inefficient). Now, I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but the fact is it's possible for cars to achieve mileage better than the EPA ratings - depending on lots of things including traffic, power curve, gearing, wind, etc.

Well, he didn't specify what type of dream. There are lots of possibilities.

Whoops, that was supposed to be in reply to the comment above.

In a democracy (or representative republic), ultimately the buck stops with the voters. Prosecutors aren't kings, they answer to somebody who answers to somebody (who answers to somebody...) who answers to you, the voter.

Find out who in your municipality or jurisdiction has to power to appoint or censure prosecutors, and if they're doing a bad job, then complain, vote against them, start a public campaign; hell, run for office yourself if you have to.

The American system of government requires a populace that pays attention and holds their leaders accountable (clichéd, but true), and a press that responsibly covers the things that matter so voters are informed. Like the other cynics here, I believe that parts of this system are damaged; however I don't think they're beyond repair. People will always care about justice, and when things get bad enough, change happens.

Well, sure, there are plenty of public servants who are motivated by a desire to, you know, serve the public, but they don't make headlines or get famous so you don't hear about them much. They could very well be (and probably do) constitute the vast majority.