Yes.

Yes, you can. But what happens if you've done your due diligence (and maybe even the seller has too) and you don't know until after closing? I suppose you could write in that broadband be installed before closing to prove it, but if they have multiple offers then having an extra clause like that could be viewed as an extra pain in the ass (and an indication that there's higher chance that you'll back out for some other nonsense reason even if they do install it) so you're less likely to get your offer accepted.

All these people blaming the homeowner have probably never bought a house before, or at least if they did, they didn't pay enough attention to know what was really going on (which is what the realtor's job, so that doesn't mean they're stupid) and they didn't encounter anything unexpected.

I would say it's more like qui habet pecuniam pro advocatorum

And what if the people living in the house didn't have broadband because they weren't interested in it? There are still plenty of people, although a small percentage, who don't have a computer at home, especially older people. On a previous rental I had, I asked the owner if it had broadband available and he didn't know because the previous tenant (who had been there a long time) didn't have it. On my house that I bought 2 years ago, I called both the phone and cable companies (only 2 options in my area) and both said I could get service. If they later told me I couldn't, what would I do? The seller listed that it had DSL available on the seller's disclosure, but they also listed that it was on sewer (there is no sewer in the area, which I already knew) so clearly that wasn't reliable. Sure, it could be used as a reason to back out of the sales contract before closing, but once it's closed, what are you gonna do? Sue the seller for being wrong in the disclosure? Good luck with that. Sue the cable and phone companies for being wrong? Good luck with that too.

And if it had analog cable but no digital or broadband available, that would be pretty meaningless, right? Or, if it wasn't wired for cable just because the previous owners didn't care about it doesn't mean it's not available.

How do you bake cakes without the help of the government? Ingredients were produced with the help of government farming subsidies. Those ingredients were delivered to your wholesaler on roads built by the government. Water and power are delivered to your kitchen using government built and/or subsidized infrastructure. The stuff contained in your bakery is protected from thieves by laws created by the government and enforced by police provided by the government. If your neighbor's place catches fire, it's prevented from spreading to your bakery by the government funded fire department. The list goes on and on...you get the idea.

Do you know what a chemical is. Without chemicals you'd be dead. Your misuse of the word is blaring example that you have no clue what you're talking about.

The problem is that people don't understand what that term means. It sounds like it means it probably gives people cancer. What it does not mean it that it causes cancer in normal use. For example, nitrates are on that same list. This includes sodium nitrate, which is in all cured meats (bacon, ham, lunchmeat, sausage) - even Organic & natural ones (check ingredients for "celery powder" or "beet powder"). So, under normal rates of consumption, a human isn't going to get nearly enough to be carcinogenic. But if you give massive quantities to rats, it is.

So with glyphosate, what is it? Is it just carcinogenic if you give massive amounts to rats? Is it carcinogenic if you inhale it but not consume it? Is it only carcinogenic in liquid form but not after it dries? Do people get enough of it in their diet to be carcinogenic? How 'bout if you live next to a farm that uses it? What about farm workers? The classification of "probably carcinogenic" is essentially meaningless without proper context.

Canadians get to choose? Here is Soviet USA, ISPs choose YOU!

Apple essentially invented a new market, just like Starbucks did. Were MP3 players (and expensive espresso drinks) available before that? Yes. Could you download music before that? Yes. What Apple did that wasn't so readily available before was made a device that could hold tons of music and had the market power to negotiate contracts to make music available for purchase on iTunes. Apple (and Starbucks) made their market readily available to the masses - whether it being available to the masses is a matter of perception or of a superior, easier to use product is irrelevant, what matters to the market is whether or not people are actually buying it.

The streaming video market is already pretty big and available to the masses through Netflix and Hulu. What's not so available to the masses is being able to stream the major networks in "real time" (which really means not having to wait a day to watch a new episode on Hulu). Sure, there are options, but those options are not so readily available to the masses - again, whether it's perception or a difficulty of use for non-geeks is irrelevant, what matters to the market is whether people are actually doing it. People hang on to cable either because (1)Hulu/Nextflix doesn't offer them what they want, or because (2) they're afraid of change. For group #1, offer them what they want and make it easy to obtain (and cheaper than cable) and people will go for it.

And people don't want to spend hours and hours figuring out new shit (or driving more than 3 blocks to a coffee shop), which is part of making things available to the masses.

Sheesh, it's just semantics. Definitions are for communication, if they call them brown dwarfs then you know what they're talking about. The IAU's considered an object with a mass capable of fusing deuterium a brown dwarf, which is 13 Jupiter masses. Don't like it? Too bad, as long as it's qualified with "brown dwarf" then you know what they're referring to. So, the term "closest start to Earth" is another issue of semantics. In the context of this article, it means, "closest object outside of our own solar system with a mass over 13 Jupiters." Now, if they start handing out medals and big prize money to stars for being the closest to Earth, then go ahead and debate it, otherwise who cares?

More like a look-alike. I'm not trying to play semantics here, but the term knock-off implies that either it's pretending to be the same thing. These watches are made to look like the Apple watch (whose pics have been available for a long time) but they don't carry the same name (Ai-watch, D-watch) and there is no indication at all about functionality. It's like the difference between a knock-off Rolex that actually says Rolex on it and a cheap watch from Wal-Mart that is made to look like a Rolex.

If this becomes more widely used, either way, this would probably not be something that would be done in lieu of a biopsy. If a doctor had reason to suspect cancer, they'd likely still do a biopsy. This could be done in addition to the biopsy as an additional datapoint, but mostly this could be done as part of a routine screening. You're not going to get a thyroid biopsy as part of a routine physical, but a K9 scent screening could be added to a standard urinalysis.

I know you're trying to reference newspeak, but OMG to think that language will be abbreviated in such a way is totes cray, lol.

So, where does it say anything about criminal charges, or even expulsion? The are closing down the frat chapter. Beyond just being racist, this is probably what did them in the most, FTA:

First off, it is illegal (though not criminally) to deny somebody admission to anything based on race. Secondly, they don't have to commit a crime to be banned, in general universities have policies and codes of conduct, and if you violate those you can be expelled. In this case it appears the frat is being closed down because they violated university policies, not because they committed crimes.