When all cars passing these roundabouts are electric, when all energy used in the USA is green, we still have to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This helps but it is not nearly enough

A conf call! Fascinating.

.com has a price cap fixed by ICANN. Verisign always asks for it to be lifted but ICANN hasn't allowed it for the original generics -- precisely because of the size of their established base and different economics and expectations. Lifting the cap on .org with deceptive arguments (first removing caps for new gTLDs, saying that would not apply to old ones, then lifting it on .info and .biz -- and throwing on .org to that discussion at the last minute!) Is the first step towards lifting the cap on all names, including .com. expect that the next time the Verisign contract is up, in 4y I believe.

Congress already gave him the authority: 50 U.S. Code  1701 and 50 U.S. Code  1702

From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives.

CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).

Such statements will be used against Pai when the FCC gets sued over this.

Hi! I actually have no idea why you think that. I had to search in my emails to even find out who "Goma" is.

Orbiting the shark at 1/3 the speed of light.

It says exactly what I said it does. Quoting verbatim from that decision: "Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."

I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.

Unless Grayned v. Rockford has been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is just not true. The government has a well-established right to regulate the time, place, and manner in which you exercise that speech.

There are a thousand and one websites that do this for you. For example, Google search for {youtube mp3}.

I fully expected the cops to not know or care what Tor was

I'd imagine that cops looking for child pornographers would have a pretty good understanding of what TOR is (even if they didn't think to check that it was an exit node)

I don't have mod points right now, so thank you for taking the time to write a sensible comment on a very fraught topic. :)

Original article author here: you have summarized the whole thing better than I did.