Why is it my job to feed the starving kids? Why isn't that the responsibility of the parents of those kids?

Does it matter? If it helps a child to become more educated and intelligent, that benefits everyone. No one's asking you to start running the school cafeteria here.

Beat me to it - I think it's a few tens of thousands per month. An investment of "hundreds of thousands" may not add much value.

Rs: "RAH FREE MARKET!!!!"
Biden: "Let's make sure people have better access to information"
Rs: "NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

"Tulip bulbs should be planted in the fall."

I have worse news - tulips grow to 8 feet tall in Australia and are likely to bite, maim, or otherwise eat you.

I don't think I've been in a Fry's since 2001. And even then, they had sparse inventory of what you actually needed or wanted.

Sure, they gave the appearance that there was plenty of inventory, but what I noticed was that a lot of it was the repackaged/returned merchandise, which (in my own experience) worked maybe 25% of the time. To me, it seemed they were just churning out bad inventory, counting on the fact that some customers didn't want to deal with the return process, especially when it probably wasn't actually worth the time to do so.

If they simply said there was no evidence of mass fraud, I'm guessing the majority of Trump voters would have believed it.

Thatâ(TM)s basically what election and state officials have been saying for some time now.

The majority of Trump supporters didnâ(TM)t believe it then and wonâ(TM)t believe it now, and the sour grapes are not making the crow confit taste any better.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Otherwise libel and slander wouldn't exist (and in the rare cases of yelling "fire" in a crowded place). I am somewhat torn on this myself, I think if people were less gullible we wouldn't need the torts of libel and slander. But I figure that real progress in this area is somewhat delayed by a few decades just due to the fact that old mindsets take some time to clear out.

My theory is that a lot of people in the US believe that they are so anti-authoritarian (note that I say "believe" and not "are") that even when confronted with facts from people who know what they are talking about, they will react negatively.

It's almost as if the idea of being anti-authoritarian has inverted itself, something which a real authoritarian can easily exploit.

I thought that the White House was now requiring that all data be reported to HHS, and not the CDC (which is where it was going previously), and that this change was made a couple of weeks ago. At the time, it seemed oddly suspicious that they were requiring this change.

What's needed is a general solution that lets me stay logged in (to any site that's not stuck in the retarded 90s with login timeouts and "use our mobile app just to stay logged in" nonsense), but reduces the power of cookies irrevocably and understandably, across the board, not with some manually-maintained whitelist pushed down by a central party that can sell off corruptions to the whitelist as a revenue model like AdBlock.

There is something like that. But nobody really uses it.

I personally do not think much will change, if anything... there is little practical downside to the choice of the FCC, and so much fear mongering from the other side of things that it greatly strains credulity.

In the next 1-2 years? Sure. There's no way they're going to go full corporate dictator at the outset. The first thing they'll do is start negotiating with the big content providers, while fending off the inevitable legal challenges. They'll also need to go full throttle on getting friendly Congresspeople (mostly Rs) reelected next year.

After that? I think we can expect to see a lot more zero rating packages and more investment in their own content services. Data caps will be pushed down to make these services and zero rating more attractive. Further down the line, they'll be extending their "partnerships" with more and more edge providers.

Eventually, they'll have enough deals that cover just enough of what people use that they can start throttling down anything else while most people will neither care nor notice. It may not happen in a year or two, but watch for *this* to happen. It won't at the outset.

You really think they've been pushing and spending this much because they *don't* expect to maximize their revenue and control?

The sad part is that they do not understand that Net Neutrality works to make sure that the Internet is there for the new companies and services that have yet to be imagined.

I'm certain they understand that. They just don't care. And that is maddening, not sad.

And yet, somehow we still keep coming up with new jobs that begin to exist because of the increases in technology.

There may be an inflection point when needs required by new technology can be fulfilled by technology itself, or fewer people due to advances in tech. I think we are seeing the latter already, and it will steadily progress to the former. There is no turning back.

History can teach us many things, but we can't ignore that some events are unprecedented.

Do you know how close Germany and France were and are culturally?

Geographically, yes. Culturally, are you kidding?

It wasn't just the numbers. The Shermans were easily serviceable as well. Much like the T34s, but more so. In other words, technology doesn't mean jack shit if it doesn't work all the time!