Obviously, this is anecdotal, but when my wife upgraded, she had the greyed-out WiFi setting.
I restored her phone from scratch, and it didn't fix it.
We then took her phone to the Apple store, and the tech (I refuse to call them geniuses) said the hardware had failed. Thankfully, she was 8 days (?!!) away from warranty expiration, so she got a shiny new 4S.
I understand that iOS7 did a firmware upgrade, and that can stress the hardware - but no errors appeared during the upgrade process. You'd think an incomplete flash would at least kick out something.
Wow....just....I don't even know how to respond to the sheer number of fallacies in that paragraph.
Instead, I'll focus on the biggest whopper:
Russia became paranoid and autocratic as a defensive measure,
WTF?!? Are you seriously saying that Russia *wasn't* paranoid and autocratic until *after* WWII? Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1922 on, and used that position to consolidate power. His centralized planning of the economy resulted in the famine that caused mass uprisings, which led Stalin to command the "Great Purge" in 1937-38.
Okay, let me see if I can explain this. The amendment was to a bill that is supposed to ensure that the FCC has transparency in its rule making process, and that proposed rules are clearly identified and open for review before being implemented.
This amendment didn't say, "No one can request your password as a condition of employment." It said that the entire language of the bill that was trying to force the FCC to be transparent, was out the window as long as the FCC was making a rule about 'privacy'.
The amendment gutted the whole purpose of the bill currently under consideration for a whole class of regulation, and that's why it was bad.
Debate on the floor of the house is about the bill under consideration, not a place to introduce new legislation at the drop of a hat. You can't just say, "I'd do it this way," because that would be meaningless in the context of debate about an amendment currently being discussed.
You bring up your version of the bill/amendment in committee, at a later time, following the procedural rules of the house/senate.
And yes, he did explain why it was a bad amendment, he just didn't explain it to someone who has no clue what the entire language of the amendment was.
Another link, more recent data, sourced from China state media: