Well, considering I posted a link with all the evidence necessary to prove you wrong, and you posted not one iota of evidence to the contrary, I fail to see what you think is so definitive about your argument.
Perhaps if hundreds of years of court decisions, case law, and opinions from Constitutional Scholars didn't disagree, you might have something.
As it is, you're a guy who links to his own bloviating as though it were proof of anything, which would be humorous if it weren't so sad.
"Given the astronomically high latencies of satellite, not to mention the *severely* limited upstream"
Straight to the hyperbole, that itself speaks to the strength of your argument.
"Uh, no, it does deserve an answer"
No, it doesn't, it's really a very dumb attempt to do what you did, rant about the shortcomings of satellite while completely ignoring the large amount of people who irrefutably prove my point.
"please, tell us, why is satellite even in the same league as terrestrial broadband?"
As soon as you tell me why you think "viable alternative" and "in the same league" are synonyms.
Can you respond without the obvious overstatement, hyperbole, and straw men? If not, then don't bother.
"So you want a federal government to fund science that has no application for the masses?"
First of all, that not what he said. He said "near-term" which you conveniently ignored, but shouldn't have.
That said, YES I want the federal government funding science with no near term application for the masses. Why? Because scientific advancement is itself a desirable goal, and I'd like to prevent "big" science from being shackled by small minded marketroids like yourself. The advancement of science, even if it NEVER produces a marketable product, is still a worthy achievement, far more worthy in my opinion than seeking a new erection pill or wrinkle cream.
And I really don't care one bit whether you agree or not.
"The Constitution does not give the authority to the U.S. to do things that are in the USA's best interest, but only those things which the Constitution specifically allows the U.S. to do (Tenth Amendment)."
Um, actually that's not right, as the Constitution does, in fact, give authority to act in the USA's best interest. And the "specifically allows" argument is wrong too. It's something people trot out when things like this get discussed, but it isn't true and really never has been.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Now, SPECIFICALLY what is the "general Welfare" and how can the US go about providing for it?
NO. NO HOWEVER. You ranted about a subject on which you WERE NOT educated, and as a result, gave FALSE information. A someone who wants the same outcome as you, your behavior was irresponsible and childish.
We do not have the luxury of ignorant fools like you running off at the mouth making false claims that damage credibility.
You were wrong. Your "HOWEVER" makes it clear that you don't care that you were completely wrong, and that ranting is more important that being correct.
"It's the US justice system that are a bunch of fools."
That my be true, but at least they bother to know the law. The same obviously can't be said for you.
"Most cable areas have ZERO competition for broadband."
Do you have a source for this, or is this another one of those ubiquitous but also spurious slashdot claims that fall apart under real scrutiny?
Satellite is available throughout most of the US. That pretty much kills your un-sourced argument right there. Of course, now the trolls will try to act like satellite doesn't count, that always seems to happen when they're told it's existence makes their "cable monopoly" rant fall apart.
"Now kindly offer that as an option to unborn human beings, and the problem is solved."
Ok, unborn human beings are now allowed to decide on whether or not they have an abortion.
Of course, that has no effect on whether they themselves will be aborted, but should an unborn human get pregnant, I will personally stand up for its right to have an abortion.
"That's the key question, said the Toronto Star in an editorial. Emery is a victim of Canada's failure to enforce its own laws. Under extradition law, a Canadian can be sent to the U.S. for trial only if the offense he is charged with there is also a crime in Canada and if he has not been charged in Canada. Selling marijuana seeds is, technically, illegal here."
So, when you say "He broke no Canadian laws" you are wrong. Your entire argument is based on your own flawed understanding of the law, nothing more.
I went back to check, because I remember cracking Opera back in the day, long before there were ad supported versions. I did that because I didn't want to pay for it, at least, that's how I remember it happening, but it was college...
Anywho, I was right, you weren't. Opera wasn't ad supported until version 5, before that it was shareware with a trial period.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, considering I posted a link with all the evidence necessary to prove you wrong, and you posted not one iota of evidence to the contrary, I fail to see what you think is so definitive about your argument.
Perhaps if hundreds of years of court decisions, case law, and opinions from Constitutional Scholars didn't disagree, you might have something.
As it is, you're a guy who links to his own bloviating as though it were proof of anything, which would be humorous if it weren't so sad.
"Given the astronomically high latencies of satellite, not to mention the *severely* limited upstream"
Straight to the hyperbole, that itself speaks to the strength of your argument.
"Uh, no, it does deserve an answer"
No, it doesn't, it's really a very dumb attempt to do what you did, rant about the shortcomings of satellite while completely ignoring the large amount of people who irrefutably prove my point.
"please, tell us, why is satellite even in the same league as terrestrial broadband?"
As soon as you tell me why you think "viable alternative" and "in the same league" are synonyms.
Can you respond without the obvious overstatement, hyperbole, and straw men? If not, then don't bother.
"So you want a federal government to fund science that has no application for the masses?"
First of all, that not what he said. He said "near-term" which you conveniently ignored, but shouldn't have.
That said, YES I want the federal government funding science with no near term application for the masses. Why? Because scientific advancement is itself a desirable goal, and I'd like to prevent "big" science from being shackled by small minded marketroids like yourself. The advancement of science, even if it NEVER produces a marketable product, is still a worthy achievement, far more worthy in my opinion than seeking a new erection pill or wrinkle cream.
And I really don't care one bit whether you agree or not.
"The Constitution does not give the authority to the U.S. to do things that are in the USA's best interest, but only those things which the Constitution specifically allows the U.S. to do (Tenth Amendment)."
Um, actually that's not right, as the Constitution does, in fact, give authority to act in the USA's best interest. And the "specifically allows" argument is wrong too. It's something people trot out when things like this get discussed, but it isn't true and really never has been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_Clause
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Now, SPECIFICALLY what is the "general Welfare" and how can the US go about providing for it?
Now you see why that argument doesn't work.
"Why don't you tell us why it is a viable alternative to cable internet."
This question is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve an answer, even though you know the answer already.
Seriously guy...
None of which has anything to do with the fact that Paul's positions make him unelectable.
Thanks though.
"So you are right - it is illegal."
Nuff said.
"HOWEVER..."
NO. NO HOWEVER. You ranted about a subject on which you WERE NOT educated, and as a result, gave FALSE information. A someone who wants the same outcome as you, your behavior was irresponsible and childish.
We do not have the luxury of ignorant fools like you running off at the mouth making false claims that damage credibility.
You were wrong. Your "HOWEVER" makes it clear that you don't care that you were completely wrong, and that ranting is more important that being correct.
"It's the US justice system that are a bunch of fools."
That my be true, but at least they bother to know the law. The same obviously can't be said for you.
Ah, you didn't answer my question.
You don't know, thanks.
"If that's not momentum, what is?"
It's not momentum. Your guy has ZERO chance.
And, if the polls are inaccurate, how can you use them to judge an increase in "momentum"?
You can't. Have a nice day.
"Most cable areas have ZERO competition for broadband."
Do you have a source for this, or is this another one of those ubiquitous but also spurious slashdot claims that fall apart under real scrutiny?
Satellite is available throughout most of the US. That pretty much kills your un-sourced argument right there. Of course, now the trolls will try to act like satellite doesn't count, that always seems to happen when they're told it's existence makes their "cable monopoly" rant fall apart.
"Ron Paul is UNELECTABLE"
I fixed that for you. Nothing else you said matters, because that point is true.
And no, flaming me won't make Paul more electable. Nothing will actually, he can't win.
"Because his campaign is growing tramendeously. The polls don't say so..."
So how do you know?
"Now kindly offer that as an option to unborn human beings, and the problem is solved."
Ok, unborn human beings are now allowed to decide on whether or not they have an abortion.
Of course, that has no effect on whether they themselves will be aborted, but should an unborn human get pregnant, I will personally stand up for its right to have an abortion.
http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/they_see/33066/how_they_see_us_picking_on_canadian_pot_dealers.html
"That's the key question, said the Toronto Star in an editorial. Emery is a victim of Canada's failure to enforce its own laws. Under extradition law, a Canadian can be sent to the U.S. for trial only if the offense he is charged with there is also a crime in Canada and if he has not been charged in Canada. Selling marijuana seeds is, technically, illegal here."
So, when you say "He broke no Canadian laws" you are wrong. Your entire argument is based on your own flawed understanding of the law, nothing more.
I went back to check, because I remember cracking Opera back in the day, long before there were ad supported versions. I did that because I didn't want to pay for it, at least, that's how I remember it happening, but it was college...
Anywho, I was right, you weren't. Opera wasn't ad supported until version 5, before that it was shareware with a trial period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_web_browser
"December 6, 2000: Opera 5 was the first version which was ad-sponsored instead of having a trial period."
Opera was not "always free".