That comment dates you to about 70 years old...

No, but we're talking about a government that thinks the military can solve its problems-- logic is not their strong suit.

It seems to me it shouldn't be considered "commercial use" until you've made enough money at it to interest the IRS.

They don't like ANYTHING they can't control, and especially anything that can fly into secure government areas and take pictures.

Also, that could be what he'll be charged with if he tries to leave-- aiding and abetting Snowden.

From where he is now, he got Snowden into Russian asylum safely. I'd hardly consider that irrelevant.

Yes, LARGE industries are doing well. It's the small ones that are getting trashed.

No it won't, things are moving north/south at the faults for the most part. It IS becoming a dust bowl though, and many costal properties are at risk from sea level rise. But "fall into the ocean" on an earthquake, not hardly.

No, it's not anti-business, it's anti-certain-types-of-business. And "small" business appears to be one of those types. But that's happening pretty much everywhere, not at all unique to California.

I don't wear a watch. Last watch I bought was at least 15 years ago and it lasted 2 days. I'm hard on watches. They get bashed into things routinely. I'll buy a smartwatch as soon as someone posts a youtube video subjecting one to a point-blank diacharge of a 44 magnum at it, and it survives.

I don't see a lot of difference between the NSA and FCC, and in fact, I suspect the NSA is in favor of net neutrality so that their collection traffic doesn't get choked off by someone's ISP unless they tag it somehow so the ISPs all know who's data it is, which I'm sure the NSA would prefer not to advertise.

I don't get cruise sales calls -- I get calls for carpet cleaning, construction contracting, phony IRS agents, and phony credit agencies. I suspect many are calling from foreign countries. They obviously aren't deterred one whit by US laws or agencies. I just use a box to screen everything unless it's on a whitelist. And blacklisted calls get a disconnected number signal. For the most part, problem solved but I can see from the call logs who's tried and what scam they are pulling by googling the number. What I wonder is, why haven't we seen a massive bust of robocall scammers by the FBI? A couple of reasons-- one, they're not in the US, two, they're paying for the call, so the phone company is making money off them, and three, rich people are mostly unaffected by and/or oblivious of the problem.

I claim my First Amendment rights include the right to speak in unbreakable code. And as far as anyone else is concerned, it may just be pure gibberish. It's up to me to decide what it means. I could even do this verbally, by reciting words that are translated to other words using a one-time pad. And if spending money is considered protected speech, speaking in unbreakable code must be as well. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says the speech has to be intelligible, by the Government or anyone else.

If you thought it was hard to convice a girlfriend to pose for naked photos before, this asshole just made it impossible.

So, the neutrality debate is about network providers adjusting performance for different types of content. It seems to me, far more important question than if they are legally allowed to do it, is WHY ARE THEY ABLE TO DO IT? A much bigger problem is the fact that they are able to tell anything at all about the content, because that means it's not secure and should be a violation of privacy. I'd prefer net neutrality failed, because we shouldn't be depending on network providers to monitor our traffic for content type, but we should fix that by making it impossible, not by legal means which clearly no longer apply to the government itself and by extension, the companies that facilitate communications. FCC net neutrality ruling doesn't fix the problem, it just lets the government PRETEND they've fixed the problem. Plus, the govenrment wants net neutrality, else how are they going to "fast lane" their surveillance program traffic without exposing it to dweebs at the ISPs?