That's what you would like it to be about - but it's a mistake to look to government (and the former Comcast lobbyist who is now head of the FCC) to look out for your interests. To them, it's about control. And if they can get you to support giving them the control they want, all the better.

Everybody keeps claiming that it will be like POTS voice regulation. But that was back in the 1930's. The FCC exercised much more control over television broadcasting, and they will implement even greater control over the Internet, if given half a chance.

Think for a minute about how Comcast, the FCC, most of Congress, etc., views you as an Internet user. You are a member of the "consumer" group, while the 5 media corporations are the "content owners". They have licenses, and you do not. They distribute lawful content, and your content will be subject to their terms and conditions.

Be careful what you ask for.

I should also point out that there is a very clear difference between "illegal" and "unlawful". Basically, the difference comes down to control. "Illegal" means there is a law that forbids it. Assault, for instance, is illegal. By contrast, "lawful" means there is a law or rule that specifically allows it. I like to use jaywalking as the example. Except in very rare exceptions, it is not illegal to jaywalk. It is, however, unlawful, because the law only specifically allows crossing the street at a crosswalk.

That is why the proposed 'Net neutrality rules use the term "unlawful".

It's very specific, in many sections, that the neutrality rules apply only to "lawful content". That phrase is all over the proposed rules, as well as the even more troubling phrase "lawful network traffic". So... how do you distinguish between what is "lawful" or not? You must inspect the content (or the protocol, in the case of "lawful network traffic"). The devil is always in the details.

But this is still "unlawful content". So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks. Because it's not "lawful content".

It's really good at cleaning stubborn water stains on toilets and sinks, too.

I gave three representative examples, two of which were connected. I could dig up more links but why bother when faced with PopeRatzo.

FTFY. Actually, never mind. They are mostly indistinguishable synonyms.

Not really. Stock prices react to "news" quite consistently - earnings reports usually have the most dramatic effect, but everything significant from corporations will move the stock price. Compare the Apple announcements (even the widespread "rumors" of forthcoming announcements) to the movement of AAPL. Amazing what millions of people can do with a widespread meme, even when it's just a mass hallucination.

The fact that the stock continued to drop after this announcement basically says "it's nothing". Or, it's nothing they're going to make money from. But we already knew that.

Well you should go ahead and put all your money into Lockeed Martin while it's at fire sale prices, then, since you have the inside track. No doubt in a few years when everybody is buying their fusion reactors you'll be rolling in dough.

Clearly, they have a big winner on their hands.

Ah. Hmmm... maybe not.

I thought the latest theory is that there is actually a uranium-powered nuclear furnace in Earth's core?

And, it's GameboyRMH, who has so many "freaks" he probably gets modded down regularly just for being who he is.

Virtualization now allows admins to just add servers quickly to handle the load - still gets noticed, though. Didn't you see the "Welcome Slashdotters" sign?

True enough. But why shouldn't everyone be protected against death threats and harassment? Why would women get special justice (anybody remember "equal justice")?

Why not just say against people? "I was harassed and received many death threats" - "So, what, dude? Man up!"