Yeah, in her view, the mission of the agency is to serve the monopolists, and to strengthen the market stagnation by preventing any trace of competition. Of course in exchange for generous bribes (aka donations) to the likes of her. Why are such people even being voted for?
Somebody coming from real estate, like Trump, sounds like the ideal person to put someone like that in that role. However, coming from law or politics also would be a great background, as well.
>Why are such people even being voted for?
When was the last time a self-made engineer, scientist or doctor was president? Ever?
The qualities it takes to become president in modern America are the exact qualities which should disqualify you from being President. This includes both Clintons, Trump, Bush and yes, even Obama.
(I feel funny)
Your best bets would be Carter, Hoover and Jefferson.
He declined.
He was on the board of deputies of Hebrew University and donated his papers to it
>a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.
source: https://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYork...
Today it's not hard to find op-eds criticizing Einstein as being "wrong" on this.
Disclaimer: I went to school/am friends with him. I'm a software engineer and he's also a better coder than me and he still gives me shit for using an IDE rather than emacs =P
Ted Lieu, a member of Congress representing a district in Los Angeles, has a BS in Computer Science from Stanford.
Slim pickings
Politics selects for people who are well suited to politics. Great, that's the cost of doing business in a democracy. For my part, I'll take a scummy politician over SV's platonic philosopher-kings.
"Said Marsha Blackburn, whose top campaign donors include AT&T, Comcast, and the National Cable & Telecommmunications Association...."
It's shameful how easily she's sold out her constituents.
Trump also was very sparse on detail and very big on emotional oversimplifications, and now that he's in he gets to implement his real agenda.
It could become a huge issue if the worst-case hypotheticals that the pro NN groups talk about come true. Something like this http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1566998/images/o-NET-NEUTRALITY-GO....
But that won't happen. Even when there was no net neutrality regulation, the only major violation of NN principles was Comcast blocking BitTorrent traffic. And they only got away with it because bittorrent was so tied with piracy.
Companies can play shenanigans and give themselves an uneven playing field, but it won't lead to a catastrophic failure of the internet.
Whether AT&T gets an advantage in the mobile TV streaming business isn't a core issue for anyone.
Define "too much". No net neutrality, means abuse by bigger players against smaller competitors. Especially when those big players own part of the network (such as ISP who are also media companies). Impact here is very obvious.
The core issue here is the usage of the network.
Be careful of what you wish for.
You could argue that net neutrality is just ensuring that competition is allowed in a space that is dominated by one or two local competitors.
Or you could say that net neutrality is a restrictive regulation that tells T-mobile it can't let you have free music streaming.
Reasonable people can disagree here.
It doesn't help this is who was running against her the last couple of election cycles:
http://www.nashvillescene.com/news/article/13041553/tharon-c...
http://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/politics/election...