Where I live we have 2 choices (disregarding DSL as at 7Mbps it does not rate as broadband anymore). 1 is Cox Communications, they actually service the whole state. The other is a small company called Full Channel, they are a very local cable company servicing my county only. When FIOS did their rollout here they wired the whole state except for my county since it already had "competition". If Cox wanted to they could lower their prices for 6 months and drive Full Channel out of business, but they won't. And Full Channel does not really have any say in their prices as they must try and stay competitive with Cox if they want to keep their customers. Basically Cox uses this little local company to give the appearance of competition.
"The TV shows are already being sent, so it costs them nothing to turn on the reception at your house. So why should you expect a discount?"
Yes because the Cable companies can just freely broadcast what ever they want and it costs them nothing. Is that what you are trying to say? They have to pay each content provider for every one of their customers who is subscribed to their service. You ignore one of their largest costs to make your argument.
" Every time government gets involved in something, costs go through the roof as does the red tape"
Oh god, that tired and easily refutable refrain.
You should go tell that to the health insurance industry, where the government is by far more efficient and cost effective. I mean it's not even close there.
If the Government can mandate that everyone must have access to phone service, I am pretty sure it is not a much bigger step to mandate that they have access to broadband.
Yeah, someone is going to risk their livelihood and deportation just so they can vote. There is no evidence that H1B visa employees are risking everything to vote in an election that they probably could care nothing about.
Ok, but that is not what I asked. The GP claimed doctors were NOW proposing raising the limit to.15. Posting that it was the limit in 1938 in no way supports his claim.
Actually BAC has a pretty direct correlation to impairment. You may not notice it, but it readily shows up in tests. Your reaction times will be slowed, your judgement will be impaired, whether you think it is or not.
Because unlike alcohol, testing how much THC is in blood tells you nothing about the impairment of the driver. One could have smoked the previous weekend, been sober for several days and then get a DUI for something they did a week ago. Because everyone's metabolism is different you would have no way of knowing when your system has purged all readable amounts of THC.
I am trying to find a place where Facebook has ever said they were just an unbiased aggregate. Can you please cite your source of the quote "we are just an unbiased aggregate"?
I am not sure how you could inject hash oil as it is a thick viscous and sticky. In fact I can find no reputable source of anyone ever injecting hash oil.
No doctors recommend raising the BAC limit to.15%. If you ar going to claim something as ridiculous as that you should have some evidence to back it up. I could not find 1 instance of a doctor recommending an increase and most states have extra penalties for levels.15 and higher.
Blood tests can show a positive result for THC for up to a week after use (for regular users). So basically you would be barred from driving all week long if you were a weekend smoker.
What that THC lingers in your blood for up to a week? That is not a fairy tale, it is reality. (the month is for urine tests which do not test for THC but the byproducts created when your body breaks it down).
And because the THC content in your blood has little to do with your state of impairment. The fact is that THC hangs out in your system for far longer then it's effects last.
I don't care on whit about a CEO's political leanings. Corporations cannot have rights, our government was never granted the power to bestow rights and a corporation is a construct of the government.
simply put:
The US Government recognizes rights it does not grant them.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless your programs aren't on the dock, then launching programs is a pain. It's why I put the application folder on the dock.
Extremely, and I bet there really aren't any legitimate support services using these types of ads.
Where I live we have 2 choices (disregarding DSL as at 7Mbps it does not rate as broadband anymore). 1 is Cox Communications, they actually service the whole state. The other is a small company called Full Channel, they are a very local cable company servicing my county only. When FIOS did their rollout here they wired the whole state except for my county since it already had "competition". If Cox wanted to they could lower their prices for 6 months and drive Full Channel out of business, but they won't. And Full Channel does not really have any say in their prices as they must try and stay competitive with Cox if they want to keep their customers. Basically Cox uses this little local company to give the appearance of competition.
"The TV shows are already being sent, so it costs them nothing to turn on the reception at your house. So why should you expect a discount?"
Yes because the Cable companies can just freely broadcast what ever they want and it costs them nothing. Is that what you are trying to say? They have to pay each content provider for every one of their customers who is subscribed to their service. You ignore one of their largest costs to make your argument.
" Every time government gets involved in something, costs go through the roof as does the red tape"
Oh god, that tired and easily refutable refrain.
You should go tell that to the health insurance industry, where the government is by far more efficient and cost effective. I mean it's not even close there.
If the Government can mandate that everyone must have access to phone service, I am pretty sure it is not a much bigger step to mandate that they have access to broadband.
Yeah, someone is going to risk their livelihood and deportation just so they can vote. There is no evidence that H1B visa employees are risking everything to vote in an election that they probably could care nothing about.
Ok, but that is not what I asked. The GP claimed doctors were NOW proposing raising the limit to .15. Posting that it was the limit in 1938 in no way supports his claim.
Actually BAC has a pretty direct correlation to impairment. You may not notice it, but it readily shows up in tests. Your reaction times will be slowed, your judgement will be impaired, whether you think it is or not.
Because unlike alcohol, testing how much THC is in blood tells you nothing about the impairment of the driver. One could have smoked the previous weekend, been sober for several days and then get a DUI for something they did a week ago. Because everyone's metabolism is different you would have no way of knowing when your system has purged all readable amounts of THC.
"ISP offers unlimited broadband ONLY to TV subscribers" FTFY
Are you so weak willed that others must be silenced so they don't tell you how to think?
licensed would be the correct term, It sounds like they are purchasing access to something like WestLaw with a better search engine.
Holy crap that sucks. A talent-less hack getting my by flaunting her ass.
I'm sure China is more like this.
I am trying to find a place where Facebook has ever said they were just an unbiased aggregate. Can you please cite your source of the quote "we are just an unbiased aggregate"?
Decarboxylation happens over time regardless of heat. Heat does hasten the action (a lot) but it is not required.
I am not sure how you could inject hash oil as it is a thick viscous and sticky. In fact I can find no reputable source of anyone ever injecting hash oil.
No doctors recommend raising the BAC limit to .15%. If you ar going to claim something as ridiculous as that you should have some evidence to back it up. I could not find 1 instance of a doctor recommending an increase and most states have extra penalties for levels .15 and higher.
Blood tests can show a positive result for THC for up to a week after use (for regular users). So basically you would be barred from driving all week long if you were a weekend smoker.
What that THC lingers in your blood for up to a week? That is not a fairy tale, it is reality. (the month is for urine tests which do not test for THC but the byproducts created when your body breaks it down).
Between 2 and 7 days for a blood test. So you are basically saying that if you regularly use marijuana you can no longer drive.
And because the THC content in your blood has little to do with your state of impairment. The fact is that THC hangs out in your system for far longer then it's effects last.
Great so I would have an updated OS that couldn't actually do anything because it lacks the manufacturers drivers.
Not at a 2 grand buy in. If they thought it was going to be widely adopted they would have gone with a more acceptable price point.
I don't care on whit about a CEO's political leanings. Corporations cannot have rights, our government was never granted the power to bestow rights and a corporation is a construct of the government.
simply put:
The US Government recognizes rights it does not grant them.
WHOOOOSH!