Separate the ownership of the infrastructure (fibers, wires) and the ownership of the service providing regardless of area/company.

And yet we have a KENYAN in the oval office. Lmfao, at least Arnie is honest about where he was born.

The rules that the FCC implemented that prevents someone from saying "fuck you" on the radio, or broadcast television, came about from a single complaint back in the 70's.

Thirty years later, and four million times more complaints were filed about net neutrality, and they're still dragging their feet.

THAT should put some perspective of democracy into this.

Explain precisely how Republicans shut down the government. Wouldn't that be something the executive branch does?

I don't think Congress could zero out the FCC's budget without severe repercussions.

This isn't to say that Congress WOULDN'T do this. Many politicians seem to be of the opinion "we will oppose the other party's efforts even if it means destroying the government and people's lives in the process." I almost would like to see them try this only to have it massively blow up in their face.

...her stars were changed to where she will be a useful member to society damnit.

And companies that collect SSNs or other PII that can be used to conduct ID theft should be required to take out an insurance policy to cover at least a portion of their potential liability.

The questions now turn to how this practice was allowed to continue unnoticed for so long and how the banks will go about getting their near $3 billion back.

They shouldn't be getting their $3 billion back: they took a foolish risk and need to suffer the consequences.

The occurence of this sort of fraud in the 19th century led to the emergence of the role of auditors, whose responsibility is to ensure that the accounts are telling the truth; as a result this sort of fraud is rare in Western countries. The question now becomes one of who the auditors were - were they ones who should have done the job, or were the banks fooled into accepting a poor audit. In either case however the auditors will be on the hook unless they can prove that the CEO was doing a VERY good job of hiding the facts.

Yeah, that's all well and good, except for the fact that Facebook has reached a critical mass; resistance may not be futile but it's damn hard:

1) I have friends all over the world; literally, on every continent. Is there a better centralized method of communicating with them? Should I send out a broadcast e-mail to all of them every time something noteworthy happens in my life? (Noteworthy actually means noteworthy in my world, I'm not logging check-ins every time I go to the grocery store....)

2) I have friends that only communicate via Facebook. They won't talk on the phone, they don't text, and they rarely check/answer e-mail.

3) Ever tried dating in the modern world without Facebook? It's instantly assumed that you're hiding something, which to be fair is frequently the case for people that refuse to share Facebook with would-be mates.

4) There's an ever growing list of companies and events that decline to maintain a webpage or otherwise keep it updated. If you want to stay abreast of their developments the only way is via FB or Twitter.

Facebook is a necessary evil.

I expect to see opposition to this from some pro-choicers.