For example, Virginia could be competitive with rural South Korea and rural Japan without government support... IF you could convince rural South Korea and rural Japan to not ask their government to wire them up at high speed. In effect, they would be asking to get crappy rural Virginia bandwidth. Why would they ever do that?
Only if they don't believe in taxing others to fund their broadband. Libertarianism is not a failed ideology just because others are socialist.
$300 installation per customer and $80 a month for broadband speeds and latencies you'd find a decade ago.
He's offering 10 Mbps. While that was available "a decade ago", sadly it's still quite fast in most of the USA. It's faster than my DSL service, although my DSL includes voice and is cheaper.
I think you should try reading the statements of some of his customers in the article. 50 cent discount? Seriously? Some of them WERE with the the big satellite providers, and it simply didn't work.
It may have been due to the fact that it would not have been profitable, and thus subsidized by taxpayers who may have not wanted-- or even been able to use-- the wireless internet service. Regardless, Clear now has a presence.
Or, you could find a wife like mine, who doesn't like gold and doesn't care if a diamond came from an African warlord's mine through DeBeers or chemical vapor deposition. I bought her a nicely-sized created diamond on a silver ring (rhodium plated, of course; it's now three years old with no tarnish) online for a stupidly low price.
First of all, thanks for replying to my post, instead of modding it down like the leftist moderators.
The problem people have is thinking that they're somehow entitled to other people's money. If you have money, it is your duty as a human being to help out those less fortunate. Using the state to force others to contribute to a cause is wrong. It's also nonsense, as ultimately the state answers to its own desires and is not a benefactor.
A person making as little as $25K needs to live someplace where the living costs are reasonable and manage their finances. If they're not able to make it on this amount, they need to do something to improve the situation. I am OK with public assistance for TEMPORARY issues such as this caused by poor educational opportunities, single parenthood, and other solvable problems. I also favor entitlements where one has to contribute, such as UI.
A percentage is a proportion and is thus mathematically fair. If you want to make things UNFAIR by taking from the successful and giving it to the less successful, please say so and stop with the deception.
Our tax code can be both simple AND steeply curved so that the very wealthy in society pay their share
If we had a flat tax rate, everyone would have the same share, which would be fair.
based on notions of social justice
Ah. Heh heh... social justice means giving people what they don't deserve, and for the wrong reasons.
and the fact that they are only wealthy because they exist within a larger society that has allowed them to become so and must pay back into accordingly.
Allowed them to? Does F=MA because Newton allowed it to? There is a way to the universe due to scarcity, and attempting to totally eliminate the scarcity results in the kind of misery we've come to expect from socialism. Human greed cannot be eliminated.
See, I have a source-- one that's present in many thousands of MS-- that says there was one. The fact that there is no EXTANT clear record of a Roman census at the right time (there is circumstantial evidence that there was one at CLOSE to the right time) does not mean that it never existed. So, tough-- because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean you can claim "no fair!" and summarily dismiss the evidence from the opponent.
I'm sorry, but in our universe in a logical discussion the burden of proof lies with the person making the argument. The poster said that Jesus could probably read based on information in the New Testament, for which we have good documentary evidence. You claim that 1st century Galilean carpenters were "almost exclusively illiterate" with no evidence. Besides not having evidence, "almost exclusively illiterate" leaves open the possibility of ONE literate carpenter (or carpenter's son, as we have no evidence Jesus took the trade). Your second argument ridicules the straw-man claims of flying and having x-ray vision, and is thus invalidated.
Please provide your evidence that 1st century Galilean carpenters were illiterate before continuing to participate in this discussion.
Honestly, this must be the worst submission and summary ever. I read the article, and nowhere does it claim that this legislation has been created because "Democracy" has "Democrat" in it. Besides, it doesn't unless you spell it "Democratcy". Then we have the last line of the summary, that argues a false dilemma: Utah must solve all of its other problems before it sets educational curricula. Setting the educational curricula needs to be done all the time regardless of whatever else is going on, and it seems that this legislation is setting a standard for how forms of government are to be taught. From my experience, most students aren't even being taught about the different forms of government discussed by Aristotle, and this legislation sets that minimal standard.
Please everyone, use your brains, and stop witch hunting.
Sex is not marriage. In fact, the betrothal period of Jesus's time was considered marriage before a wedding, if you will. It took up to a year for the husband to prepare for the wedding. That being said, I don't think that a loving couple on a desert island have anything to worry about, for the reasons I stated.
No, that's a toner cartridge you're thinking of. Or maybe an NES cartridge... I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure you don't want to open your laser printer and blow on it. I have the sooty complexion to prove it.
Both you and the parent poster are trolls and deserve to be modded down. This has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Mistakes were made and they are being corrected. Welcome to the wonderful world of science.
The Bible proscribes fornication several times. Obviously, if you were alone on a desert island you could only have a monogamous relationship or remain celibate.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, but I'm sure the answer involves using the main deflector.
Sure, as long as you're willing to use eminent domain to seize about 5,000 acres of land for each power plant.
Only if they don't believe in taxing others to fund their broadband. Libertarianism is not a failed ideology just because others are socialist.
He's offering 10 Mbps. While that was available "a decade ago", sadly it's still quite fast in most of the USA. It's faster than my DSL service, although my DSL includes voice and is cheaper.
I think you should try reading the statements of some of his customers in the article. 50 cent discount? Seriously? Some of them WERE with the the big satellite providers, and it simply didn't work.
"Far right wing" means "anyone who disagrees with me".
It may have been due to the fact that it would not have been profitable, and thus subsidized by taxpayers who may have not wanted-- or even been able to use-- the wireless internet service. Regardless, Clear now has a presence.
Really? That sounds slightly contradictory.
Ah... definitely not a Star Wars geek. My bad.
Or, you could find a wife like mine, who doesn't like gold and doesn't care if a diamond came from an African warlord's mine through DeBeers or chemical vapor deposition. I bought her a nicely-sized created diamond on a silver ring (rhodium plated, of course; it's now three years old with no tarnish) online for a stupidly low price.
So remember girls, when you become engaged, make your fiance sign an affidavit on the ring's provenance and don't forget the pre-nup later!
First of all, thanks for replying to my post, instead of modding it down like the leftist moderators.
The problem people have is thinking that they're somehow entitled to other people's money. If you have money, it is your duty as a human being to help out those less fortunate. Using the state to force others to contribute to a cause is wrong. It's also nonsense, as ultimately the state answers to its own desires and is not a benefactor.
A person making as little as $25K needs to live someplace where the living costs are reasonable and manage their finances. If they're not able to make it on this amount, they need to do something to improve the situation. I am OK with public assistance for TEMPORARY issues such as this caused by poor educational opportunities, single parenthood, and other solvable problems. I also favor entitlements where one has to contribute, such as UI.
A percentage is a proportion and is thus mathematically fair. If you want to make things UNFAIR by taking from the successful and giving it to the less successful, please say so and stop with the deception.
If we had a flat tax rate, everyone would have the same share, which would be fair.
Ah. Heh heh... social justice means giving people what they don't deserve, and for the wrong reasons.
Allowed them to? Does F=MA because Newton allowed it to? There is a way to the universe due to scarcity, and attempting to totally eliminate the scarcity results in the kind of misery we've come to expect from socialism. Human greed cannot be eliminated.
See, I have a source-- one that's present in many thousands of MS-- that says there was one. The fact that there is no EXTANT clear record of a Roman census at the right time (there is circumstantial evidence that there was one at CLOSE to the right time) does not mean that it never existed. So, tough-- because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean you can claim "no fair!" and summarily dismiss the evidence from the opponent.
Josephus and Tacitus. By the way, under your standard the existence of Julius Caesar is not much stronger.
And Chewbacca was a wookiee on Endor! That just doesn't make sense!
[citation needed]
Please provide your evidence that 1st century Galilean carpenters were illiterate before continuing to participate in this discussion.
Honestly, this must be the worst submission and summary ever. I read the article, and nowhere does it claim that this legislation has been created because "Democracy" has "Democrat" in it. Besides, it doesn't unless you spell it "Democratcy". Then we have the last line of the summary, that argues a false dilemma: Utah must solve all of its other problems before it sets educational curricula. Setting the educational curricula needs to be done all the time regardless of whatever else is going on, and it seems that this legislation is setting a standard for how forms of government are to be taught. From my experience, most students aren't even being taught about the different forms of government discussed by Aristotle, and this legislation sets that minimal standard.
Please everyone, use your brains, and stop witch hunting.
Sex is not marriage. In fact, the betrothal period of Jesus's time was considered marriage before a wedding, if you will. It took up to a year for the husband to prepare for the wedding. That being said, I don't think that a loving couple on a desert island have anything to worry about, for the reasons I stated.
Red herring. Both sex and violence are big deals, and no one said otherwise. Do try to make logical arguments. Oh yeah, we're on slashdot.
No, that's a toner cartridge you're thinking of. Or maybe an NES cartridge... I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure you don't want to open your laser printer and blow on it. I have the sooty complexion to prove it.
Both you and the parent poster are trolls and deserve to be modded down. This has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Mistakes were made and they are being corrected. Welcome to the wonderful world of science.
No, it says it all about the writer's opinion of the portrayal of sex in the media and his affinity for hyperbole.
The Bible proscribes fornication several times. Obviously, if you were alone on a desert island you could only have a monogamous relationship or remain celibate.
The venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies and emotional distress may have something to do with that.