I know you're attempting satire but who exactly are you satirizing? I'm not aware of anyone here or in any professional environment who has suggested that "we can never be allowed to bring that up." A better objection would be, on what rational basis can the OP make the glib assertion that the US is "importing millions of young Hispanics who possess demonstrably lower results on IQ tests than asains[sic]/europeans"? Especially when TFA itself mentions that, "Over the past several years, multiple studies have shown that IQ scores are dropping in many European countries." Should we, without a shred of evidence, blame that on Mexicans as well?

See here for an explanation: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurity.googleblog.co...

TL;DR is the entire TLD is on the HSTS preload list.

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

The problem with the monorail is that it was designed as spectacle, not as transit, yet even as spectacle it fails because it's so out of the way that most people never even stumble across it, and if you do take it, all you see are the backs of hotels. It's even priced as spectacle. $2.75 gets you anywhere in New York City via the subway and bus, but it costs $5 to take the monorail just to go 4 miles along the backs of casinos in Las Vegas.

The monorail should have been built in the middle of the Strip. The Strip is a dystopian nightmare highway bifurcating one of the most walked streets in the United States. It's so dangerous that in many places there aren't even any at-grade pedestrian crossings; you have to go up stairs/escalators set back from the strip, go across a bridge, and then back down, often being forced to detour through one or two casinos in the process. It's the ultimate triumph of automobiles over people for no goddamn reason at all.

The mass transit should have been run right down the middle of the Strip. Instead it was forced to the margins where it remains unused, when it was really the car traffic that should have been forced to the margins. Las Vegas should do a NYC-style "Summer Streets" a few times per year and entirely close down the Strip to car traffic for half a day and let pedestrians use it as they'd like, like Mardi Gras. Then people would realize what they've been missing.

No.

About 600 of them work directly on Firefox.

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.

FYI, the HSTS preload list is used by all major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, IE, Edge, Safari, Opera, etc.). This is a good thing, of course; online security shouldn't be enforced conditionally depending on which browser you're using.

The linked article got it wrong. This isn't about Chrome adding TLDs to the HSTS list, it's about the TLDs' owner (which also happens to be Google) adding them to the global HSTS list.

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.

Sorry, I see nothing about a Mozilla and Microsoft partnership there. Care to be more explicit?

Can you say more about this Mozilla and Microsoft partnership? Thanks.