Christy42 wrote: » Also you say there is little left after the corrected stories. How many stories were run during that first week of December that were negative towards Trump. I am going to give a quick Gamble and say that 4 is not the total.
C14N wrote: » But that's not the logic anyone here is employing. It's not just "ISPs = bad, therefore this = bad". Honestly, the fact that other tech giants like Google and Microsoft oppose the repeal should give some pause, although closer inspection reveals a pretty basic reason that they and consumers have a mutual interest. The point is that this repeal allows a specific thing, and that one thing is bad. Even if it was a very reputably and popular company or person pushing for it, if the thing they were pushing for was to hurt consumers, it would be bad. And I don't understand your logic on the second part. Nobody here is making blanket statements that all regulations are great. We're talking about just one. The fact that we could think of some other one that's a bit annoying is completely irrelevant. Until 2005, ISPs were considered common carriers and couldn't do any of this anyway. In the years between, net neutrality was always in a state of limbo. The reality is that legislation hadn't been made either way at the time, which is why there was a big fight to have it implemented when the FCC was writing these rules. If this repeal goes through though, it will be a pretty clear license to say ISPs can legally discriminate different types of traffic, which puts us into new circumstances. Also, newspapers have nothing to do with this. A newspaper or other content provider deciding to charge for their content is perfectly fine. They made it, they can decide how to distribute it. An ISP being allowed to step in the middle and charge for it is completely different and can effectively turn websites and services that were supposed to be "free" into paid services instead.
Noel82 wrote: » With that set of variables, logic says they won't. If anything I see the probes, the people within them and how they were initially setup go be going in the opposite direction.
mcmoustache wrote: » That being said, having Trump's National Security Advisor by the balls after 6 months is pretty good going.
Noel82 wrote: » I wouldn't care what happens if the same level of scrutiny was applied to everyone in Government to keep noses clean but it isn't the case and that's what makes it interesting for me. You'll say that's whataboutery or deflection but these last 18 months are all intertwined and there's no avoiding that.
Noel82 wrote: » Of course it's relevant, why do you think the Dem's woke up one day and 20 of them suddenly threw Franken under the bus? They did it to create the moral ground to go after Trump and the allegations surrounding him since the Russia stuff is going no where.
pitifulgod wrote: » Mueller's strategy in terms of building his case is very similar to his Enron investigation
Noel82 wrote: » You mean the case that bankrupt the company, intimidated witnesses, hid information and wrongly sent people to jail that was overturned 9-0 in the supreme court?
Calina wrote: » I would like a citation for this please. I suspect you are talking not about Enron, but about Arthur Anderson. Jeffrey Skilling did not have his conviction overturned, for example, and he was CEO of Enron. Enron and Arthur Anderson are not the same company.
Noel82 wrote: » Yes you're right it was Anderson. According to that Hill column it was the fifth court of appeals that overturned the mass of the case.http://www.secactions.com/prosecutorial-overreach-convictions-of-ml-executives-in-enron-barge-deal-are-reversed/
Noel82 wrote: » Only time will tell and if they find a bombshell in a fair manner well then that's it. What I see, there's been 18 months of spying/investigations by people within bureaucracies who absolutely despise him and they still haven't gotten anything to nail on him.
Noel82 wrote: » You mean the case that bankrupt the company, intimidated witnesses, hid information and wrongly sent people to jail that was overturned 9-0 in the supreme court? Andrew Weissman ( the same person who emailed Sally Yates saying he was in awe of her after refusing to follow though on Trumps travel order ), who's Mueller's second in command was responsible for that. Sounds great all in all.
Calina wrote: » So why did you get it wrong?
listermint wrote: » Because he took it copy and paste of one of the conspiracy forums without bothering his arse to do a fact check much like the stuff he gives out the msm for doing.. He will be along shortly to issue and apology and retraction no doubt
Noel82 wrote: » Only time will tell and if they find a bombshell in a fair manner well then that's it. What I see, there's been 18 months of spying/investigations by people within bureaucracies who absolutely despise him and they still haven't gotten anything to nail on him. With that set of variables, logic says they won't. If anything I see the probes, the people within them and how they were initially setup go be going in the opposite direction.
Water John wrote: » Really strange, when you consider how unfavourable it is, worse the Trump himself. But they need a win under the belt, it seems.
listermint wrote: » I would like YOU to tell us what harm this regulation is doing, in some detail with your understanding of why it was brought in please.
I would like YOU to tell us what harm this regulation is doing, in some detail with your understanding of why it was brought in please.
aloyisious wrote: » Looking at CNBC on TV it seems the bill will not be home and dry til around Tuesday when all the hoops and whistles are done. Closing Bell guests discussing Companies buying back their stocks from public/private ownership. I can see how this would help profits if it meant less need for dividends payouts to outside stockholders, more cash for intrastructure etc... One of the other money-market channels on Thursday mentioned something similar about buy-backs in respect of Asian Co's. I think it was quoting from some S&P markets comment.
Manic Moran wrote: » In the meantime, some new idiocy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.637b0f23306cThe Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
Manic Moran wrote: » In extremis: Earthquake hits San Francisco. Infrastructure takes a knock, but is still functioning with limited capability. NN requires that traffic from hospitals, utilities, government, and other organisations be treated on an equal basis to traffic coming from Youtube users uploading their videos showing how they experienced the quake. Fundamentally, this is a problem. The telephone/common carrier network thing was mentioned, but the FCC/Federal Government has a Wireless Priority Service program, in which telephone traffic is absolutely not treated equally (Though, interestingly, if you dial 911, you are not given any priority on the telephone network, as regulation covers only if you have a WPS code).
Manic Moran wrote: » In a more practical commercial service, consumer internet usage varies by time and hour. You can imagine that a whole bunch of us get home after work, have dinner, and at about 8pm, we're all watching Netflix or Youtube or whatever high-bandwidth thing we are doing. Customers would like their service to be smooth without that dreaded "Buffering" wait symbol, which means that data transfer is time-sensitive. Non-time-sensitive information such as email, under NN, must be given an equal priority. In most cases, it doesn't matter so much if an email is delayed a minute or two, so why not allow an ISP to jiggle the data transmission so that the materials which must be given priority in order to have a better customer experience are? Is Hotmail or Yahoo News going to suffer significant harm if their pages take an extra moment or two to load, as opposed to the intermittent Netflix or Youtube experience? This is not a factor of paid priority for certain services, this is looking at it simply a matter of efficient optimization of a finite resource: Bandwidth. Instead of spending tons of cash upgrading lines, the same lines can be better utilised. A win for all concerned.
The lobbying is for profiteering and nothing else
Manic Moran wrote: » Of course it's for profiteering. Comcast (my ISP) is going to want me to love its service and pay them lots and lots of money. And be so happy with my service (my wife and I tend to use our bandwidth for movies and gaming) that I will tell all my friends how happy I am with them, so they will also go pay Comcast lots of money. All without their having to spend metric tons of money in upgrading infrastructure. That's not to say that I cannot benefit from it at the same time, though. There is such a thing as a win-win. Why do I pay anyone money for a service, but because I believe I get value or enjoyment out of it?
One of the top executives of a consulting firm that the Environmental Protection Agency has recently hired to help it with media affairs has spent the past year investigating agency employees who have been critical of the Trump administration, federal records show. The firm, Definers Public Affairs, based in Virginia, specializes in conducting opposition research, meaning that it seeks to find damaging information on political or corporate rivals. A vice president for the firm, Allan Blutstein, federal records show, has submitted at least 40 Freedom of Information Act requests to the E.P.A. since President Trump was sworn in. Many of those requests target employees known to be questioning management at the E.P.A. since Scott Pruitt, the agency’s administrator, was confirmed. Mr. Blutstein, in an interview, said he was taking aim at “resistance” figures in the federal government, adding that he hoped to discover whether they had done anything that might embarrass them or hurt their cause. “I wondered if they were emailing critical things about the agency on government time and how frequently they were corresponding about this,” he said. “And did they do anything that would be useful for Republicans.”
