They should be forced to essentially 'buy' back ALL of the effected cars.

Not at current value, but at the original value of the vehicle at the day of sale.

Maybe a heavy loss of having to buy back all of those vehicles, and and then not being able to sell them ever, would be enough of a punishment.

$200 on a machine that plays 30+ year old games....

Yeah, this is DOA..

It's simple: No one wants to work in the trades anymore.

It's hard work, you get completely wonky hours and you are expected to go at anytime.

You are always in the field and you may not get a break, plus long hours.

ALSO, in some areas (like where I am, Manitoba) no one can even get into the trades because no one will accept new apprentices - the wait list is literally a few years long. That instantly makes it not worth it, as you can go right back into school and get another degree or certification in that time in another area.

Why would anyone want to wait 'years' to get an apprentice, just to get wonky hours, long hours, and being expected to go at all hours of the day. It simply is 100% not worth it.

This kind of shit should be 100% illegal.

The makers should have their patent confiscated and given freely to another party who will price it more reasonably.

Maybe the government should just order all cars on the road to be stopped every time there's a death in a car accident.

Oh wait, that'll make cars completely useless since no one can drive them.

Why can't they put a hardware lock on GPU's which detects and prevents cryptocurrency mining, and separately sell a card which is solely used for mining?

Getting tired of seeing GPU's going for 2-4 times their original price. It must be putting a dent in the PC builder market.

I hope the city throws this out with the evidence presented by the owner of the self-driving car.

Self-driving cars can simply be programmed to follow all rules of the road. If a pedestrian breaks the rules (jay-walking or not crossing at a designated cross walk), then that's on the pedestrian, not on the car.

Also, if the ticket does stick, then an update can be released to all of the self-driving cars over the air with the new rules, and the city can't collect traffic fines. Eventually, the city would either have to relent that self-driving cars will reduce revenue or that they'll continue to make up new violations to the point that cars would be completely illegal as you couldn't go anywhere without a ticket being issued.

Fewer ads just isn't going far enough.

It has to be fewer ad + true a la carte + lower prices + no rental fees for boxes + better customer service + no package requirements for anything, and I mean ANYTHING + access to the service through an app and not a decade out of date box.

Maybe charge the person who made the fake SWAT call with attempted murder.

A few horror stories about people going to prison, or facing massive financial penalties because of a video game will make people stop.

Wouldn't this just make employers leave LinkedIn, so that applicants can't know what the expected salary is so they can low-ball ?

So....how many billions did Big Oil promise the Trump Administration?

Unlikely to happen.

State contracts are incredibly lucrative, and the ISP's love money.

They would be leaving money on the table if they just pulled out, and it would probably cost the ISP's more money if they just pulled out entirely. They would rather make money and follow the contract rules, than to pull out and make nothing.

It actually does not.

It doesn't say that 'All ISP's MUST honor Net Neutrality" It says "Any ISP that wants a state contract must honor Net Neutrality."

The ISP's are free to choose if they want a contract with the state or not. It doesn't force them into it.

And the ISP's really can't go to the FCC or the Federal Government and say "Those people don't want to do business with us, make them!" No body can ultimately be forced into business with anyone else. Even if the ISP's try to file a lawsuit, it'll be thrown out, as a judge can't say "You must do business with this party" It's clearly against States Rights, and it opens up a massive can of worms that no one wants opened.

AT&T is just reacting to the story about Montana tying Net Neutrality into state contracts, which creates headaches and potential lawsuits for any ISP that operates within Montana that wants to do business with them.

This isn't a law that undoes the FCC ruling.

It basically says that if ISP's want to do business with the state and wants their contracts, Net Neutrality is one of the agreements.

ISP's have a choice if they want those contracts or not. And there's NO law anywhere saying that State governments absolutely must do business with the ISP's. No such law can exist because that would be immediately squashed in court.