Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
A Federal Communications Commission lawyer faced a skeptical panel of judges today as the FCC defended its repeal of net neutrality rules and deregulation of the broadband industry.
FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson struggled to explain why broadband shouldn't be considered a telecommunications service, and struggled to explain the FCC's failure to protect public safety agencies from Internet providers blocking or slowing down content.
Oral arguments were held today in the case, which is being decided by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Audio of the four-hour-plus oral arguments is available here.) Throttling of firefighters' data plans played a major role in today's oral arguments.
[...] The lawsuit seeking to overturn the net neutrality repeal was filed by more than three dozen entities, including state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups, and tech companies such as Mozilla and Vimeo.
(Score: 0, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday February 04 2019, @02:43PM (4 children)
Sorry loosers & haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest. And you all know it. You know. Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault!!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 04 2019, @03:00PM (1 child)
It's that unique, upside down perspective that got the orange elected.
When you divide by near zero, you get a very high number indeed.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04 2019, @04:03PM
Hellary got Trump elected when she bought out the DNC... It's as simple as that. Bernie should've got it, and he'd be POTUS instead of Trump. Hellary turned off more voters than Trump... So the least evil of the twins won.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Monday February 04 2019, @03:20PM
Wait, shouldn't that have been 'My IQ is Huuuuuge, the biggest! Soylent news is fake news!'
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 04 2019, @05:10PM
Not sure what Donnie's IQ is - has it been published? Oh, WTF, maybe I'll look at Snopes . . .
Can we put that baby to rest now? Or, if you want to insist that you're Really Fucking Smart™ give us some evidence?
Other "fact checking" sites seem to be less generous than Snopes.
But, we need to attempt to understand something. 100 is "average". Meaning, roughly half of the population has an IQ higher than 100, and roughly half of the population has an IQ lower than 100. 110 is just a little over average, 120 a little more over average, and so on. The number being thrown around, of 156, doesn't make anyone really exceptional. That only puts you in the 99.97 percentile. Good - damned good, actually - but not great. For every 10,000 people in the country, there's another person as smart as you. 156 doesn't put you anywhere near a Stephen Hawking, or an Isaac Asimov, or Arthur C. Clarke . . . need I go on?
Would you care to estimate how many Soylentils are as smart, or smarter, than Donnie? That is presuming, of course, that he actually has an IQ of 156. As stated above, I'm not believing it.