After 15 years at a Fortune 5 company, I can tell you most people working with data in the private sector don't know well what they are doing, either.

Aviation professionals trust that the data from the manufacturer is accurate, and train to that data as if their life depended upon it, because it does. Boeing, through its employees, has violated that trust.

This shows that Twitter (in this case) has the capability to fact-check tweets. If they don't fact-check all tweets, or at least all tweets from people with a large number of followers, and someone with a large number of followers tweets advice that is incorrect and potentially fatal, those that followed that advice (or their estate) would have a stronger case against Twitter than if Twitter claimed to be the equivalent of a common carrier and did no fact-checking. Long term, I think this is going to hurt Twitter.

Can you wait until after the meeting?

...so I have an excuse to miss the meeting.

They might need maps better than their current maps to at least get them in the general vicinity. The current Uber Maps keeps telling drivers to take the bike/jogging path along the reservoir to get to my apartment, but only if I am in the vehicle. I wouldn't be able to tell a self-driving Uber that the bike/jogging path is not a valid route.

Yes, you are right - powered lift, not rotorcraft. So, stricter regulation than for rotorcraft?

I flew in a lot of choppers when I was in the service, and I would NEVER compare a chopper to a car.
I believe most, if not all, of the current proposals for flying cars would fall under the FAA definition of rotorcraft, and would consequently be treated like a helicopter by the FAA.

...and they are heavily regulated in the United States by the FAA. Complying with the regulations is expensive, so the cost will keep the idea of flying cars for the average consumer from "taking off."

Wouldn't the ability to process incoming information in a thoughtful, rational way trump the effects of social media's dark side?

From the way I see it, Net Neutrality protects an ISP from being responsible for the contents of the packets it carries. Once neutrality goes away, that protection goes away. So, once any company develops tech to selectively deliver packets, all ISPs will be expected to be able to filter out content that would be illegal, such as child pornography, or any pornography in a township that has declared such as illegal, or liquor ads in dry areas. Of course, the case(s) would need to make it to court. A small town mayor in a dry town may consider trying to figure out the logistics of passing a law in that town that fined telecommunications providers each time a liquor/beer ad makes it to a computer screen in that town. Enforcement against the big telecommunications providers might be an issue for the town, but the local providers might not fare as well.

Civil action would also be very likely. Companies could file lawsuits when malware (especially ransom-ware) makes it past the ISPs filters; as net-neutrality would be dead, a good lawyer could show that as the telecommunications provider had the opportunity and ability to filter packets and did not do so, and passively let damage occur to the plaintiff, the telecommunications company was negligent and therefore responsible for the thousands of lost hours of productivity that the corporation lost. Individuals in dry areas could file civil suits stating that they were offended by advertisements which are offensive to their faith.

Once the lawsuits start, the telecommunication companies would likely start blocking anything that could be offensive to anyone, or have a page display that asks that you acknowledge that the telecommunications provider is delivering content requested by you and that you agree not to hold them legally responsible for delivering the content that you are about to see.

The fact that Pai hasn't figured this out indicates that he has other motives or is not that bright. In either case, he needs to be removed from his position. Stockholders from the major telecommunications companies may want to start unloading stock shortly after the bill passes as the "this is good for me, right?" peak hits before everyone figures out that the telecommunications companies were not careful in what they wished for. Their CEOs and boards (if they supported this), may need to be voted out at the next stockholders meeting.

Or, I could be wrong. It is up to you to decide.

I recall reading this article a few years ago while staying at my sister's place in Merced and wondering if this could be done for PR . . . . I guess it can. Cool. http://www.mercedsunstar.com/n...

The link in the summary is to the New York Post .

I don't know if I would call it fake, but I wouldn't call it news. I have no reason not to believe that the NSA and other government agencies recruit top talent in important fields from college, and I would expect agencies from other countries to recruit top talent in important fields from their colleges.

Your comment expresses the idea that I have heard from others that lead to my comment. Hopefully, lawmakers will realize the wisdom of this idea. Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen, as the unintelligent and uneducated get an equal vote, and both parties in the US will gladly take the vote of the unintelligent and uneducated rather than try to enlighten and risk losing the vote.