No they didn't, because Congress set the limit by statute and did not give the FCC authority to override it. This isn't complicated but you're still getting it wrong.

I just hope we make it until I'm dead, humans are just about done. I'm glad I got to live through the 80-90s.

I was thinking same thing (the 60's-70's were GREAT too)...I hope to retire in a few years, and spend the last of my days, riding my motorcycle around, brewing beer, bbq'ing on my log burning smoker adjust generally enjoying my latter days.

PLEASE let it last till I'm done with it...after that well, who cares?

AI and viruses....What could possibly go wrong?

Some give him planes, some want him to build a resort on top of their genocide...

At this rate we will end ourselves with AGW before we achieve AGI.

But if not that, it'll be nukes or biotech.

It's looking increasingly like the great filter is that ambition exceeds ability while ability also exceeds restraint, and at the same time, a species gains the ability to destroy itself. TBF our sample size is small, but it remains compelling...

Really? They were deliberately choosing genes? They selected them from a list? We usually only see that in science fiction, please provide more information on this amazing technological development!

They're all part of one creature with an inadequate brain and too many assholes. It's money and power (but I repeat myself) versus humanity and always has been.

Is someone paying you to say stupid shit? How do I get that deal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      "(45:21) Interviewer: But theoretically, couldn't AI and biotechnology help you come up with a counter measure?
        Schmidt: Um, I had thought so, and that was the argument I made until I... I do a lot of national security work. And there's a term called offense dominant. And an offense dominant is a is a situation in a military context where the attack cannot be countered at the same level as the attack. In other words, the damage is done. And most people, most biologists who've worked in this believe that while the model can be trained to counter this, the damage from the offense part is far greater than the ability to defend it, which is why we're so worried about it."

And Mo Gawdat on ways to help prevent that:
"Ex-Google Officer: You Only Have 3 Years Left Before It Hits! - Mo Gawdat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "AI Expert Mo Gawdat returns to The Diary Of A CEO to reveal why AGI has already arrived, why 30% of jobs will disappear by 2027, and why the most dangerous thing about AI isn't the technology - it's the people in charge of it.
        Mo Gawdat is the former Chief Business Officer at Google X, founder of One Billion Happy, and co-founder of Emma.Love. He is a 4x international bestselling author, and his upcoming book 'Alive: A Human's Guide to Living in the World of AI', will be released in October 2026.
        He explains:
* How AI can give you a 400-point IQ boost, and why most people are wasting it
* Why Mo actually wants a machine smarter than all of humanity to take control
* Why Sam Altman said AI will "likely end humanity", and what he chose to do next
* Why capitalism breaks when AI replaces the workers who buy the things we make
* Why AI unemployment could trigger civil unrest before governments are ready for it"

Which all relates to my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

And also this essay I wrote: https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
      "There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

Having lived through the 80-90s myself, there were indeed a lot of great things about them -- but don't forget living in the shadow of nuclear war and "The Day After" and also "Peak Oil" and "Club of Rome" fears of running out of resources. Advanced of technology like PV and EV and 3D-Printing have made a lot of new things possible (both for good and bad) -- and as Mo Gawdat says we need to upgrade our social perspective and political discourse to use them wisely.

Personally, I feel it is plausible that the direction we come out of any AI singularity may have a lot to do with our social direction going into it. So it is absolutely imperative to get our social house in order before developing AI -- and that means building a more compassionate, wiser, sustainable, and just world *first*.

[citation needed]

Uh yeah, a bunch of years ago. That's why they removed the evil canary from their mission statement.

I like how zionists insisting that other people are mentally ill can only suggest horrible things and then think that proves anything other than that they are terrible

This tells you how important he is to the function of Azure, a "service" which has been hacked multiple times so badly that there are no logs and Microsoft doesn't know what happened.

They hired him for his recognizable name, and he's so involved with the business that he has time to do... this.

Perhaps Microsoft should try to find someone who can solve Azure's problems to run it.

OK, but our legal system doesn't actually permit us to punish the people who did it with as much harm as they doled out...

lolol obviously not the "he" I meant but you're so deep into your love of child molestation you can't see straight

The water has to come from somewhere. They will be using water. Where will the water come from? If they're not getting it from their own catchments then they are literally going to be "tapping" a water supply. I suppose it could be an "industrial" supply, are they putting their DC next to an industrial source of water? Otherwise they will be "tapping" a "residential or rural" water source.

Words have meanings and there's no need to fall over ourselves to defend a multi billion dollar company for abusing them.