Not true. In fact there's an entire government program for this: The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. It funds all sorts of research with the aim of commercialization. The goal is for the government to eventually have a source to buy from. It's how the government gets private industry to develop products that the government needs, but are not feasible for companies to develop on their own.

For example: need vitamins for the dolphins you use to find underwater mines? No company would ever develop such a product on their own. So the government decided to fund that research and production: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbir.gov%2Fsbirsearc...

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

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.

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.

I fully expected the cops to not know or care what Tor was

I'd imagine that cops looking for child pornographers would have a pretty good understanding of what TOR is (even if they didn't think to check that it was an exit node)

The mandatory fee is the "catastrophic claims" fee which pays the medical bills of anyone in a car accident. I don't think uninsured/underinsured is actually mandatory.

Where does it say that?

Perhaps we don't understand the question because you've not adequately defined what you're asking for. From your responses it seems you are taking a very narrow definition of artificial intelligence and excluding things like machine learning that very much belong under the umbrella of "AI".

So are you taking the position that things like Watson, Google Deepmind, etc are not advances in AI but rather old techniques coupled with an increased computational capacity and knowledgebase that weren't available before? If so, then who cares? If not, then what is your point?

I think "MS in Information Assurance" was referring to a Master of Science degree, and not a Microsoft cert. But don't let me get in the way of you telling off someone about their reading skills. :)

I'm not really sure how to respond to this comment.
.

>NOMINATE scales people based on their choices relative to contemporaries

That's exactly *why* it works across decades. Because it allows a continuous chain of comparison even between people who never served together. (E.g, person A served with person B, person B later served with person C, person C later served with person D, etc)

> "JFK was more conservative than most conservatives are today"

BULLSHIT!

Keith T. Poole at the University of Georgia has built his career on quanitfying the liberality/conservativeness of politics.

I couldn't find his numbers for John Kennedy, but he gave John Kennedy a -.318 during the 83rd Congress, making him the 15th most liberal member of that body. By comparison, in today's Senate, he'd rank as the 31st most liberal senator, between Senators Wyden and Murphy, and more liberal than EVERY SINGLE Republican in Congress.

> BTW, the deficit reductions under Clinton were the direct result of the policies of Reagan and Gingrich.

Bullshit. The Clinton surplus was created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which every single Republican in congress voted against.