Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Actually, we do need a couple more aircraft carriers. Right now, the current fleet isn't large enough to cover everything, since for every carrier that's deployed, you need 2-3 others in maintenance, on training, ect. That said, we're building one right now and have two more planned/in the early stages of construction, so...

Each Ford-class carrier is a direct replacement for an existing ship, which will be scrapped before the replacement Ford comes online.

I thought we needed more Aircraft Carriers? At least a few more as we're getting a bit strained with the carriers. Also, with the debacle that is the Zumwaltz, I'd probably wait for the newly built ship to go through sea trials first before scrapping one of the older carriers.

[Sergarr]

I don't remember if this has been already mentioned, but in case it wasn't:

Trump administration would ignore WTO rulings it sees as anti-U.S.: FT

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to ignore any rulings by the World Trade Organization that it sees as an affront to U.S. sovereignty, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing a report prepared by officials.

The draft document, due to be sent to the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, marks the first time the new administration has laid out its trade plans in writing, the Times said.

"Ever since the United States won its independence, it has been a basic principle of our country that American citizens are subject only to laws and regulations made by the U.S. government -- not rulings made by foreign governments or international bodies," the report said, according to the Times.

"Accordingly, the Trump administration will aggressively defend American sovereignty over matters of trade policy," the report said, according to the Times.

The Wall Street Journal, which also said it reviewed the document, said the policy represents a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which emphasized international economic rules and the authority of the WTO, a body that regulates trade and resolves disputes among its members.

By contrast, the Trump administration will more assertively defend U.S. sovereignty over trade policy, ramp up enforcement of U.S. trade laws, and use "all possible sources of leverage to encourage other countries to open up their markets," the document said, according to the Journal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I see Alex Jones has been getting his calls in. I wonder when we'll get the FDA tasked to identify and remove contaminants that cause homosexuality.

[TheBiggerFish]

I still don't get what makes so many people gleefully reveal every detail of their personal life for everyone to see. Same about selfies everywhere. Weird.


FCC Chairman and His Predecessor Set the Stage for Another Battle Over Net Neutrality

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is no fan of the agency’s current approach to net neutrality, and on Tuesday, he made it clear that loosening the current regulations is on his agenda.

Speaking at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Pai said that it has become “evident that the FCC made a mistake” in its passage of net neutrality rules in 2015, in which the agency reclassified internet service as a common carrier. Pai, along with other critics of the move, consider the approach “last-century, utility-style regulation to today’s broadband networks.”

“Our new approach injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market. And uncertainty is the enemy of growth,” Pai said at the event. “After the FCC embraced utility-style regulation, the United States experienced the first-ever decline in broadband investment outside of a recession.”

He said that the agency was now “on track” to return to what he called “light touch” regulation.

Pai has not said how he will pursue a revise or repeal of the rules. In his speech, he said that they “recognize that government does have a role to play when it comes to broadband.”

“So our approach will be not zero regulation, but light-touch regulation — rules backed by long-standing principles of competition law,” he said.

SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Lord Shonus]

Actually, we do need a couple more aircraft carriers. Right now, the current fleet isn't large enough to cover everything, since for every carrier that's deployed, you need 2-3 others in maintenance, on training, ect. That said, we're building one right now and have two more planned/in the early stages of construction, so...

Each Ford-class carrier is a direct replacement for an existing ship, which will be scrapped before the replacement Ford comes online.

I thought we needed more Aircraft Carriers? At least a few more as we're getting a bit strained with the carriers. Also, with the debacle that is the Zumwaltz, I'd probably wait for the newly built ship to go through sea trials first before scrapping one of the older carriers.

The first ship, USS Gerald R. Ford was built for the purpose of replacing the single Enterprise-class carrier, which was not only wholly obsolete but was a prototype with significant design flaws. She would have been scrapped regardless, and there were plans to replace her with another Nimitz before the decision to proceed with a new class was completed. USS Gerald R. Ford is already completed, and is expected to complete trials and enter service this year.

[smjjames]

I don't remember if this has been already mentioned, but in case it wasn't:

Trump administration would ignore WTO rulings it sees as anti-U.S.: FT

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to ignore any rulings by the World Trade Organization that it sees as an affront to U.S. sovereignty, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing a report prepared by officials.

The draft document, due to be sent to the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, marks the first time the new administration has laid out its trade plans in writing, the Times said.

"Ever since the United States won its independence, it has been a basic principle of our country that American citizens are subject only to laws and regulations made by the U.S. government -- not rulings made by foreign governments or international bodies," the report said, according to the Times.

"Accordingly, the Trump administration will aggressively defend American sovereignty over matters of trade policy," the report said, according to the Times.

The Wall Street Journal, which also said it reviewed the document, said the policy represents a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which emphasized international economic rules and the authority of the WTO, a body that regulates trade and resolves disputes among its members.

By contrast, the Trump administration will more assertively defend U.S. sovereignty over trade policy, ramp up enforcement of U.S. trade laws, and use "all possible sources of leverage to encourage other countries to open up their markets," the document said, according to the Journal.

I see Alex Jones has been getting his calls in. I wonder when we'll get the FDA tasked to identify and remove contaminants that cause homosexuality.

It's part of Trump's whole 'America First' schtick. Though if anybodys fingerprints are on that, it'd be Peter Navarro, not Alex Jones.

Similar article from CNN.

However, it could easily backfire on them. I'm under the impression that the WTO is a sort of UN for trade and provides a legal framework to air grievances and agree to follow the rules instead of going off on their own stuff and possibly escalating into a trade war.

The Trump administration is saying it could go around the WTO. That could dilute the credibility of the WTO and could risk countries taking matters into their own hands and becoming more protectionist.

The paper also acknowledges that there's a cost to not playing by the WTO's rules. If the U.S. loses a WTO case against other countries, and it refuses to change its laws or practices, then under WTO laws, the complaining countries have the right to hit the U.S. with trade sanctions.

"The complaining countries would have the right to be authorized to retaliate by imposing trade sanctions on the losing country," the paper said.

[Criptfeind]

Wait, is that a radical departure from our current stance? It seems pretty common to hear stories about the US ignoring rules regarding trade and rulings about it. Not saying that's the right thing to do, just that I'm not sure if this really is... Well, a change.

[Sergarr]

They haven't announced it as an official policy before.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While the US often uses its hegemon status to ignore or dispute rulings where others cannot afford to, in matters such is this the style is more important than the substance. International deals of all kinds rely on confidence that both parties will follow through. What Trump is doing here is less along the lines of "the US won't comply with this specific inconvenient ruling for whatever justification" and more like the pariah state style of "we will never validate the international oppressors".

The loss, sorry, the intentional surrender of any confidence in our international dealings if Trump decides to throw a shitfit is the big problem here.

[Max™]

I swear Pai is such a perfect fit for this administration, a big piece of shit heaped on a burning pile of shitpeople.

Seriously, fuck those lying fucks for saying this shit last year, and fuck the shitspewing holes in their faces for crapping out more lies this year because we can just check the actual investors reports:

In its most recent earnings report, Comcast — the nation’s largest broadband provider — noted that in 2016 year over year “capital expenditures increased 7.5% to $9.1 billion.”

Well, maybe those were investments in Comcast’s many non-broadband ventures like its NBCUniversal entertainment division or its theme parks? Nope.

The lion’s share ($7.6 billion) of that $9.6 billion went to the company’s Cable Communications division, “primarily reflecting increased investment in line extensions, a higher level of investment in scalable infrastructure to increase network capacity and continued spending on customer premise equipment related to the deployment of the X1 platform and wireless gateways.”

In case you were wondering, that $7.6 billion was an increase of 7.9% over the previous year.

[smjjames]

It's just a draft though, so, it could change.

They haven't announced it as an official policy before.

Yeah, and what's 'an affront to US soveriegnity'? Hint: Whatever you want it to mean.

edit: I just realized that Trump doing that could make other countries decide 'Oh yeah? Screw you, we won't abide by the rules either because we'll be against stuff that are against our sovereignity." because as the global hegenemon, we are a role model of sorts.

[smjjames]

Lol this Mexican congressman (of the Mexican Congress, obviously)

Guy wanted to make a point on the wall and scaled it and sat at the top (didn't go over to the American side), but somehow it seems more likely that Trump will just go "I'll just make the wall/fence UNCLIMBABLE[/b], it'll be the most unclimbablest wall you've ever seen!!"

[Sergarr]

It'd be admittedly pretty easy to make it unclimbable, at least without special instruments - just put barbed wire on top. Cheap and simple.

[smjjames]

I was being satirical.

They probably do use barbed wire for urban areas, but I don't know where that location is, evidently they don't use it there.

Trump is having a design competition for the companies that know how to build walls/fences anyway.

[Frumple]

Depends a lot on the barbed wire and what you consider special instruments. Plenty of the stuff that's not really that difficult to go through without all that much in terms of kit. It's simple, sure, and arguably cheap, but effectiveness is an entirely different subject