Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation 355
An anonymous reader writes "In a statement of policy on Tuesday, the White House announced that President Obama will veto upcoming legislation that would undermine the FCC's net neutrality rules. According to the statement (PDF), the rules 'reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation.' The statement continued, 'It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world.'"
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
It does read like unexpectedly good news. Maybe a bit too good, even?
Is there any way this could hold up? Is it even remotely possible that white house policy would side with the interests of common people against those of whichever are the industries that have opposing interests? I'm afraid I can't believe that. I'd love to be proven overly cynical.
If this is real, a more likely reason would be that there happens to be big enough players whose interests by chance happen to line with the common good in this particular case, at this point in history, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Is it even remotely possible that white house policy would side with the interests of common people
No, it's just that with the election a year away, he's decided that it's time for him to pretend to give a shit about his base.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean as opposed to when he had the DoJ stand down over DOMA and got DADT repealed or used a tremendous amount of political capital to get healthcare reform?
He's cared up until this point, it's just surprising hard to fight with bat shit insane.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to the internet at least, I believe that Google and Facebook have my interests more at heart than the **IA's. Or at least our interests line up more than the **IA's.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there any way this could hold up?
It should, at least until Jan. 2013, when a GOP president is likely to be sitting in the White House (thanks to the economy not turning around), starting to actually act upon their own "regulations are killing us," campaign rhetoric.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
GOP isn't going to win.Obama is up in the polls and the GOP is still retreating to the right. It's shocking that Obama is presently ahead in the polls given how poorly the economy is doing. But, he did take down Osama bin Ladin, get health care reform passed and likely staved off another great depression like the Great Depression or the depression of the 1890s.
At this point, it's mostly just the hardcore conservatives and mentally enfeebled that are still touting a GOP candidate as the winner next election. There is still quite a bit of time left before the election, but it would require a whiplash inducing flip flop for any of the current GOP candidates to win over the moderates necessary to win the election.
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. The current crop of GOP contenders:
- One dealt with a state drought emergency by doing a rain dance and prayer.
- One was found hiding behind the bushes of a gay-rights rally.
- One actually implemented a universal health care system, before he flip flopped against it.
- One was the CEO of a company that made pizzas that suck even by chain standards (and that's the least of his faults, as it turned out earlier this week).
So yeah, unless Obama devours a live baby on live national TV, he'll most likel
Re: (Score:3)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
It does read like unexpectedly good news. Maybe a bit too good, even?
If this is real, a more likely reason would be that there happens to be big enough players whose interests by chance happen to line with the common good in this particular case, at this point in history, right?
The cynic in me keeps hoping that someday, the majority of the people will be treated like a "big player" and the "big players" will realize that screwing the majority of the people is not really good for the "big players" in the end.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Right...who cares about getting a country to overthrow it's dictatorship without using our troops to force it....
Re: (Score:3)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Right...who cares about getting a country to overthrow it's dictatorship without using our troops to force it....
People that don't think it's okay to kill brown people with drones and carpet bombs just to have access to oil?
Re: (Score:2)
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign
As a Libyan I think you need to get your head checked. And then wash your mouth out with soap.
Yea, right, sure. Must be a lot of cheap Viagra floating around there these days as military surplus, amirite?
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
Actually it was the French who did that, but I won't tell if you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
He was certainly cheaper than Osama or Saddam.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
Well, yes it does impress me, but not in a good way [in-other-news.com]
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Except, of course, that this isn't covered by the War Powers Act because it was a peace-keeping operation under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which was ratified in Congress over 60 years ago:
"All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Obama's Office of Legal Council disagreed [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just goes to show you that lawyers don't know everything then. Either way it is a highly debatable topic. If you get away from the opinions on legality, though, you can't argue against the morality of it. It is ironic, though, that Republicans of all people would complain about getting involved in a war.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
What republicans complained? The only person willing to actually do anything about the President's criminal war was Dennis Kucinich. He actually introduced a bill calling for the President to obey the War Powers Act. Republicans killed the bill [opencongress.org] when it appeared it might pass. Republicans wanted the war as much as they want every other war, they just don't want to support Obama publicly.
Re: (Score:3)
How about the House Speaker Boehner? Considering he is the highest ranking Republican I would think his letter to the Presiddent would count as Republicans in general complaining.
Re: (Score:3)
There are many reasons [in-other-news.com] to impeach Obama, or Bush [impeachbush.org], or Clinton [wikipedia.org], or HW Bush [wikipedia.org]...
I guess a presidency without impeachable crimes is too much to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you living in a reality-distortion field?
Actually, there were a lot of antiwar-demonstrations against Bush and I don't recall anybody calling him a "war hero". (Can you cite a source for that outrageous claim?)
In fact it's completely reverse: Bush's illegal wars get critizised (and rightly so) and of course he lied about them. Obama on the other hand does not get critizised [in-other-news.com] and doesn't even bother to tell about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. I'm sure he'll work out a compromise where the the Republicans get this bill and several other major concessions and he gets a lovely gift basket.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
You've got to admit his administration is doing a lousy job of PR, but please... In addition to removing insurability/wealth as a prerequisite to medical care, he's managed to do quite a bit with a (post-2010) hostile congress.
Take a look at this list [blogspot.com] (or one of the others turned up in a quick Googling).
Re: (Score:3)
That's a long list of mostly disingenuous accomplishments.
He's even listed "Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture". And yet Guantanamo is still open, and no torturer was held accountable for his crimes.
You're really going to give Obama credit for prohibiting torture, when it was already illegal under the law? How exactly is failing to prosecute people prohibiting torture?
The list is too long to dismant
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure about that. When I listen to the people who know about presidential history, they invariable say that Obama has been an exceptionally active president. Some of the accomplishments aren't amazing, for example, while he order the closure of Guantanamo, the actual closure hasn't been completed. But the list credits him for ordering the closure, not accomplishing it.
I think many Americans are upset over the economy, ideology, or skin color and refuse to give Obama credit for what he's actually done with possibly the most obstructionist congress the U.S. has ever seen. Obama has literally taken plans that the Republican party approved of and offered it as legislation, only to have them turn on it and declare it's now socialist because it has Obama-cooties.
There may some truth to the charge that Obama is a bad negotiator, that he isn't a ruthless, cold-hearted, and dangerous as his opponents. I think he's caved a few times because he feared the consequences to the American people if he stood his ground, mind you, I'm not talking about his political career but literally what would happen to the people of the United States. He may have sacrificed political victory for what he believes is the greater good on the Bush tax cuts and Debt limit. So I agree he should definitely be punished for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Who does he start prosecuting for torture?
Everyone he can prove knew or should have known that it was occuring.
What would be the consequences for the U.S. is Bush and Cheney were arrested for suspicion of ordering war crimes and torture?
Reinstatement of the rule of law. Undoubtedly a good thing.
What would Fox News claim was happening? What would the idiots who believe that Fox News is actually "Fair and Balanced" do?
Are you really willing to abandon the rule of law because of Fox News? Chickenshit.
Is ther
Re: (Score:3)
While the quality of the legacy will depend on who's propaganda you believe, here are a list of things that should at least make the U.S. and/or the world a better place:
1) Averted a second American Great Depression (stimulus package)
2) Reformed Health Care to allow 30 million Americans access to it
3) Increased government transparency (we may not like the answers provided)
4) Created a federal CIO
5) Ended stop-loss
6) Wound down American troops in Iraq (aren't they supposed to be all gone by the end of the ye
Re: (Score:3)
What, by giving bonuses to bankers who then didn't lend the money out?
2) Reformed Health Care to allow 30 million Americans access to it
You mean the "no insurance company left behind" act? Touting the public option while cutting a deal with the insurance lobby?
3) Increased government transparency (we may not like the answers provided)
Not even close. Obama has exceeded Bush II in classification of anything and everything.
4) Cre
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
1) Averted a second American Great Depression (stimulus package)
What, by giving bonuses to bankers who then didn't lend the money out?
That would be the Bush Bank bailout, which was not the stimulus package. The stimulus package is the one that prevented GM and Chrysler from going bankrupt. While some people may say that it would have been better had they actually gone bankrupt, preventing the bankruptcy most likely kept at least 1 million Americans employed and that was only part of the stimulus package.
Why do you hate the internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control. Oh well, we didn't care about freedom anyway I guess.
Anytime someone in the thrall of Hollywood votes on something that pertains to an open network, be afraid... be very afraid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You fell for the trap the telecoms want you to believe. Government control over the Internet is infinitely better than Big Telecom. If the government *wants* to control the Internet, they *will* do it one way or another. So, let's abandon that argument and note that the government is a lot more likely to give us freedoms than Big Business which wants to rape us of everything. What's the worst the government could do? I still have hope for this administration.
Re:Why do you hate the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control.
The Internet was started by the US Department of Defense. The telecoms who currently make up most of the backbone have always had lots of regulation about what they can and can't do, and have also typically operated with subsidies to build capacity. Unix, which has formed the software basis of a huge number of Internet nodes, was created by the heavily regulated AT&T. The FCC has always had some authority to regulate Internet traffic.
Saying "Keep your government hands off my Internet!" makes about as much sense as "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!".
It's Executive Power (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I want to know is who paid for THIS decision?
And hope they're still there when 2012 comes around.
Re:Wow (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
No one needed to; it's an appeal for popularity at the next election. Kind of like why we're seeing the responses to the petitions crop up in the news.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you joking? How many voters do you think even know what Net Neutrality means?
I've heard people, educated people, who think it's like a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
Do you think Obama cares about his popularity among open source geeks?
Let's face it. As hard as it is to swallow he may have just gotten this one right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard people, educated people, who think it's like a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
THIS
Although I know plenty of educated people who are idiots. At least outside of their expertise.
Cognitive processing (AKA common sense) eludes some of the brightest minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the President isn't the one wasting his time writing legislation like this. Nor was he the one wasting time voting to reaffirm that "In God we Trust" is our national motto or that the mint should print Baseball Hall of Fame coins.
Right now he's the only one making any attempt at fixing anything with the limited powers he has. Even if you don't agree with what he is doing at least he is DOING something.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that the President isn't the one wasting his time writing legislation like this. Nor was he the one wasting time voting to reaffirm that "In God we Trust" is our national motto or that the mint should print Baseball Hall of Fame coins.
Right now he's the only one making any attempt at fixing anything with the limited powers he has. Even if you don't agree with what he is doing at least he is DOING something.
I wouldn't say he's the "only one", but I would say that the majority of the executive branch is doing something, whereas the majority of Congress is not.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all your last sentence amounted to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Irrelevant! Uncontructive! Let's get dangerous. (Score:4, Insightful)
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
-- BMO
I don't know where you got your information (you neglected to include the references), but I can only assume you are referring to an earlier Bush Administration program called “Wide Receiver.” It was similar in that it also involved letting guns walk into Mexico. It's very different, however in the (1) the guns were actually traced the whole time, and (2) the Mexican LEO authorities knew about, were involved, and continued tracing the guns when they crossed the border.
Re: (Score:3)
So Obama made it easier for a very small fraction of the population to fight and die for corporate profits. BFD.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to human decency and respect for your fellow man?
What part of heading off to foreign countries to kill people you've never met because a guy in a suit told you to counts as "human decency and respect for your fellow man"?
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you need to join a military organizations - particularly a fairly "interventionist" like the US' - so that you can have hopes of a college education is nothing to celebrate either.
Re:And if the OP wasn't impressed by that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't let anyone know your sexual preferences.
So what you're saying is that the guy who goes on and on about his wife and kids is ok, but the guy who lets something slip about his husband and kids...
Oh, nevermind. There's no talking sense into you people. "Family values" is a sham, and it makes me sick. Real family values might mean including your child who turns out to be homosexual or transgendered in your family instead of throwing him out with your trash.
Not like I care. Turns out I didn't need my family after all, just a shame they missed out on their child buying his/her first new car and buying a home because "family values" says that someone who isn't cisgendered and heterosexual can't be part of a family. It's also why when I want canned soup or chili, I buy Campbell's exclusively, even when something else is on sale. At least Campbell's soup thinks I deserve to have a family despite being LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ and has the balls to advertise to people who aren't heterosexual and to go tell "family values" to screw off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How did you get self-loathing out his 3rd paragraph? Sounded more like bitterness against his parents b/c they kicked him out when he came out to them. "Child rejected by parents feels bitterness" might qualify for some
Re: (Score:3)
You're a fucked up bastard. Like all fucked up bastards you are likely using extremism of your POV to mask your secret desire to engage in the activities you claim so much to hate.
ACTA will pass, so who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, for Christ's sake, dude, this is a nerd site. How can you have a six digit UID and not know what ACTA is?
The first two results were Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The third is American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), then Alliance for California Traditional Arts, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority... none are anything you would expect to see on slashdot.
Sorry, dude, but you're trolling and should be modded accordingly. The rest of your comment is redundant.
investment == marketing pukes and ruining things (Score:4, Informative)
quoting: protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment
I do not want it to 'attract investment'. that usually means money and business people and those are the very ones who have ruined what was an excellent and freedom-based comms medium.
investment means 'I own this!' from some big daddy's point of view.
that's always going to be bad.
the more you throw those insane business-minded folks at what we have, the more they ruin it. its like farting in a pool. we don't want those guys around; they ruin everything they touch.
when the internet was run by techies, it worked. now its well on its way to beign a segmented totally-ruined system. ALL because the money folks came in and polluted what we had. bascially they hijacked our internet as a 'sales tool' when it was SO MUCH more than that and so much more elevated in what it was accomplishing.
10 years from now, the internet is going to be like what TV (broadcast) is now. no one intelligent will be able to stand the bullsht that it will grow to become. I cannot stand to sit in front of a tv anymore; even 1 commecial turns me off and the 'programming' is insulting at best. give the internet 10 more years at the direction its going and it will be worthless to anyone with half a brain cell.
hope there's a new thing that we can jump to before the knuckledraggers come and ruin THAT, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First, writing fixed width doesn't make your point better. Stop it.
Laws Should Originate from Congress (Score:2)
I don't care your position on the matter, one way or the other. If there's a complicated rule that wasn't clearly given as a task for a regulatory body, the rule should come from Congress.
I would rather be ruled by a democratic, if incompetent, body than a bureaucracy that has aggregated powers to itself.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a law originating from Congress... Even if the President vetoes it they can still override it with a large enough majority.
Something actually passed (Score:2)
Let Obama know of your support (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to let Obama know of our support for this action. You can kevetch and criticize other things or the timeing or the lateness, but you need to show your support (as in email to the White House) for things done right and that emboldens him to do more and take more postitive steps because he knows he is working from a supported position.
Had to parse the headline a few times (Score:5, Funny)
That's good
That's... also good I guess. I forget if we want laws on this or not.
That's bad
That's... let's see. It's anti-anti-net-neutrality. The anti's cancel each other out so we're just left with... ok that's good.
That's also good although... wait, has Slashdot ever run a favorable Obama headline since he took office? Maybe the stem cells thing...
FCC rules already struck down by Federal Courts (Score:3)
The FCC chose to re-implement rules that were already struck down by federal courts. By re-implementing something that the courts have viewed as outside the power of the FCC, it could be argued that this is a power grab. The proposed law, promised to be vetoed, is Congress' attempt to define the role that the FCC has - and codify what was already ruled upon by the courts.
Why should the FCC have the power?
The EFF would probably have something to say (Score:3, Informative)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.
The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”
Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.
This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.
Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.
Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise [eff.org] (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux [eff.org] (May 2010) - issue revisited
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 [eff.org] (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to nitpick but you also started a new thread to address this instead of just replying to yourself?
Sorry.
How would you have nitpuck if picking nits would have been what you would have went in for?
Re: (Score:2)
it's what the internet was created for
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yay Obama! (Score:5, Informative)
You might disagree strongly with his politics and his presidency - that's completely fine - but calling him names and resorting to insinuations about his intelligence adds nothing useful to the public political discourse.
Further, what's your evidence that Pres. Obama is a good lawyer? I'm not saying he wasn't, I just only know what little there is on Wikipedia about his legal work. He only practiced law for 3 years before he entered politics (and became a consultant for a law firm). Obama was never really a lawyer, he wanted to be a politician - law was a means to politics (I'm not saying that's necessarily bad). He's never done anything long enough to get a good gage of how good or not he is at it (other than running grassroots campaigns). He's very successful but a few years doing one thing and then a few years doing something else doesn't leave much of a trail by which to judge the quality of his work. Based on his record, a 4 year presidency would fit the pattern of his life.
I'm not saying these things to be negative, I'm simply offering critiques.
Re:Yay Obama! (Score:5, Insightful)
He got a 1206 on his SAT's. That doesn't make him bright but pretty much average - even I scored higher. He went to Yale and Harvard because of who his father was and we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there.
Of course, it is possible that he intentionally played dumb to be more attractive to his illiterate constituency. Some say the same thing about Sarah Palin. If you want dumb people to vote for you then you have to relate to them on their level.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok just a small correction: the SAT scores have been "re-centered", and 1206 is actually a bit higher then 1300 right now.
"we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there." -- troll aloud. That's a very faulty argument, specifically designed to discredit the facts when they in fact exists, and targeted at the "dumb" public. I can say that there is absolutely no evidence your mom did not spend a night with me a few years ago....
If you want an elitist snob as your leader then go ahead. You have
Re: (Score:3)
You can't seriously believe anything you said. Obama an elitist snob? He is probably the most approachable president we've had since Carter. I can easily see sitting down and having a beer and talking sports with Obama.
And he cares a lot more about the poor than anybody running for the Republicans right now who want to tax them more and the wealthy less.
He is right about the guns, religion, and xenophobia (and I would add homophobia). These are people screwed and lied to for years and because their educ
Re: (Score:3)
If you want an elitist snob as your leader then go ahead. You have to know though, that the reason average American people prefer a guy whom they can relate to is because he will understand they wants
Wow, using "whom" and ebonics in the same sentence
*head asplodes*
I bet you that a person like Obama before he became a senator and a president would not even let you within 100 feet of him
*head asplodes again*
And the high-born Bush would have sat down with you at Felber's bar and bought you a beer?
He can not r
Re: (Score:2)
Doing a quick google on the subject, that puts his IQ in the 130 range. Yes, I used a different source than the one that put his IQ at 125 at the bottom of their chart - apparently the SAT was changed, and the older one had slightly different results.
Which, last I looked, made him bright. Not necessarily brilliant, but bright. Say, in the top 5% of the population.
The fact that you got higher doesn't
Re: (Score:3)
The SAT is not an IQ test, and should never be used as a means to determine who is "smart". As with most standardized tests, it tests you on your ability to take a test. Along with some test of knowledge of Math and vocabulary.
Not only that, but when he would have taken the SATs, most colleges other than community colleges would not have accepted a 1206. 1350 -> 1400 was the usual that most prestigious colleges required.
Standardized testing is just stupid in most cases though. I've seen exceptionally br
Re: (Score:2)
You might disagree strongly with his politics and his presidency - that's completely fine - but calling him names and resorting to insinuations about his intelligence adds nothing useful to the public political discourse.
While I completely agree with your points, I'd like to point out the *ahem* high level of critical analysis usually proffered by Obama's detractors regarding his parentage, intelligence, species, etc. duing their "whining" about him being elected.
Granted, W. had above average intelligence, but one episode from his youth crystalizes my opinions about his "fitness to lead" - something about a joyride in a military jet [seanet.com]? By itself, not a damning act, but coupled with "Mission Accomplished" and all of his other
Re: (Score:3)
He was quite bright (estimates based on SAT scores) and is a voracious book reader (mostly biographies and histories).
That is true, but what's also true is that Bush deliberately cultivated the "Bush is a dummy" meme. "Jes' one o' the boys", as ignorant as the drunken off-duty construction workers he was wooing. An example -- once he was praising some intellectual (I don't remember who) who "Wrote four books when he was in college. I read a book when I was in college," Bush said.
The GP's incorrect vision o
Re: (Score:3)
This is why it is so good to have a President who is also a good lawyer, instead of that barely-literate, inbred President Dunsel we had before him.
I fail to see anything better coming out of Dunsel the Second. Drones instead of troops, and the troops can announce their sexual preference before they get sent to die in the desert. Woopee he's defending "Net Neutrality" - completely worthless once PROTECTIP or E-PARASITE gets passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah thats exactly what we need - more lawyers, especially one who has 3 different aliases, 2 different social security numbers including one in Connecticut, and can't even cough up a birth certificate.
Here ya go -> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live in America, but it's nice to see that some people in the government appreciate the internet for what it is.
If that were really true, somebody would be trying to stop the "PROTECT-IP" act and the similar PARASITE act. But I don't see that happening. If Obama threatened a veto on those, he would lose to much Hollywood campaign funding.
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
How ironic, you've fallen for the trap.
Net Neutrality IS about being neutral. The only choice it makes for you is that it forces you to choose a neutral ISP, because it doesn't allow for non-neutral ones. I hope this demonstrates what a silly word game you're playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm sure the government would love to censor the Internet, but that's not what net neutrality is about and it won't help them do that one bit. You should be worrying about ACTA and E-PARASITE, not net neutrality.
Activate the Slashdot EFF widget and you'll see a long list of real threats to the Internet.
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is... we can't choose ISP's in the US. I don't know where you live but I have a choice between 10/1 cable (which behaves like 8/512k) and if I'm lucky 1/128k (DSL). Verizon FiOS said they were coming for the last couple of years and we even had a petition to urge them to come but they never did.
My parents have a choice between 5/128k cable and... that's it. They can't even get cell phone reception at their house so 4G is out too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if you are paying $7 for that CFL that's your fault. They haven't been that expensive in years! You are shopping at the wrong place.
There is plenty of reason to fear the go
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think that net-neutrality was anti-free market, and I'm generally against new regulations (and many old ones) that violate free market principles. Then I thought about it for a while, and came to an interesting conclusion... Netflix is not Comcast's customer, I am. I pay for the bandwidth, I have an agreement with Comcast, and I want that bandwidth used for downloading content from Netflix.
So the question occurs to me: by what right would Comcast have in charging Netflix a premium, or throttling content from Netflix, when it's Comcast's own customers that are requesting that content using the bandwidth they've already paid for by agreement with Comcast?
Imagine a city that wants to charge Walmart extra because so many people are using the roads to get there instead of charging the people actually using the roads... it makes no sense.
Now if I'm being a bandwidth hog, then Comcast needs to talk to me... not the entity I'm requesting the bandwidth from. It's certainly anti-consumer to sell unlimited bandwidth at certain speeds and then throttle or charge extra for it. It's anti-consumer to sell certain speeds even with a bandwidth limit and throttle content when I haven't hit that limit yet.
On top of all that, charging content providers that compete against your own content is definitely anti-free market. I don't like a lot of regulations, it's true, but the ones that keep the free market free are fine by me; anti-monopoly, anti-lockout, anti-price fixing, anti-collusion... and when you're talking about an entity that was allowed right of way (and even monopoly status way back when they started to create their infrastructure - and in many cases maintains that broadband monopoly), it makes it even more compelling that they remain neutral w.r.t. content providers.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that we would be worse off if the government, not corporations, regulated the internet? I have some questions:
1) How could government conceivably manage to turn regulations preventing the blocking or rerouting of traffic based on its content into the power to block or reroute traffic based on its content, let alone censorship?
2) Exactly what kind of homework should I be doing to convince me that private business is more trustworthy than government?
3) What benefit is
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Interesting)
You may have your complaints about the ISPs, but you can switch to another one if you don't like the one you're on.
I can choose Comcast or AT&T. Not much of a choice. I don't want either one of them regulating the internet -- regulation is government's job. If I don't like the FCC's regulations I can vote against the curent Chief Executive. If I don't like AT&T's or Comcast's "regulations" I have no recourse whaever.
But now, the FCC is trying to usurp the power to regulate the Internet from the ISPs, thus restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose the ISP he likes best
That makes no sense to me whatever. How do FCC regs prevent me from switching to Comcast from AT&T (again, my only two choices)?
It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.
How in the hell did your comment get modded up? "At the state or local level" means state and local GOVERNMENTS. And the feds do have constitutional authority to ban incandescents under the Commerce Clause. And your inflamatory rhetoric shows either your ignorance or your dishonesty; Far from being "full of mercury", CFLs have less mercury than is released by a coal-fired generator providing the extra power needed for the incandescant.
Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'.
Wrong again, son. Net Neutrality says that ISPs must pass any data you request from any data provider you request it from. It's so Comcast can't restrict you from going to Hulu or CBS.COM or YouTube, which they would gladly do to get you to sign up for cable. Net Neutrality doesn't regulate YOU, it regulates your ISP. It prevents your ISP from fucking you over.
I'll bet you were all for California deregulating the power companies (like them blackouts and brownouts?) and the Feds deregulating the banking industry (how's your 401k? Hows the value of your home?).
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I always wondered what devout free market libertarians actually think the world would be like in a purely "let the consumer vote with their dollar" approach.
I imagine it something like this: you would wake up at 5:00 in the morning and start checking the internet and newspapers for any and all scraps of information about companies you may purchase products from. Perhaps your fruit suppliers are now using unethical labour practices (it's up to you the consumer to police that and stop buying from them of cour
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Obama is faced with reversing eight full years of extensive Bush/Republican wreckage!
My theory is that Obama wants to help America go in a sane and good direction, but that he knows that only four years as president would not be enough time to accomplish his goals, and that being followed by a Republican president would totally sabotage whatever progress Obama had made.
So, Obama does what he can to accomplish positive results for America, but cannot risk losing a second term.
I'm hoping that Obama gets a sec