Trolls sure have itchy trigger fingers in these municipal wifi threads. Don't bring up comcast? Why, because you'd be obligated to defend them? Nice appeal to vague conservative outrage with the obama phone namedrop, though.

In reality, there are many poor areas where no one can afford broadband, and sedentary ISPs like comcast have no incetive to develop infrastructure or lower their prices. That's the problem--not a bunch of poor folk who want "hand outs".

The the NSA is waging a cold war on every nation on the planet. But trolls here are of course more concerned with the russian and chinese boogiemen.

Wait, did I say comcast fanboy? I forgot, those don't exist. Guess I should have said:

Paid shill detected

Regardless of the mechanism for throttling traffic, Comcast's customers are being disallowed access to a certain network because Comcast allows congestion only for traffic to those sites. Comcast and Verizon have a direct conflict of interest, providing services similar to those of competitors that they are throttling.
The idea that there is a bandwidth "shortage" caused by services like Netflix is fucking laughable, and a total spoon-fed excuse to rob paying customers of the service they deserve.

You're comparing the hypothetical seepage of oil--which would in the ocean--to the loss of blood, which is rejuvenated. But I bet you guys felt really clever about the first troll account's unfunny set-up into your right-out-of-your-ass non-factoid. Cry more, BP trolls.

Aside from the fact that you're comparing the supposed collective seeping of a liquid into the ocean with human bloodloss and a bunch of random numbers you pulled out of your bum, I'm sure the fishers that are out of business due to the incredible damage to the marine food web are very thrilled that you think oil contamination is harmless, let alone the effects of Corexit, the extremely toxic that BP wantonly sprayed all over the spill to help hide evidence of the crime.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...


So now there are several hundred meter-thick swaths of death sludge, 100 meters thick in some places..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
But a little oil's harmless, right guys?

How typical.

An endless bevvy of incredibly unfunny and pointless jokes? Check
Long, rambling anecdotal accounts that have nothing to do with the topic? Check

People whining about "environmental whackos"? Check
Token crazy using allcaps and the N word? Check

It's all so formulaic by now that I can't help but wonder whether they've replaced the shills with AI by now. That's really how bad the oil trolls here are at what they do.

The dispersant Corexit was used to disperse the oil.. straight to the ocean floor.. The EPA told BP to stop using Corexit, which is carcinogenic and neurotoxic, and BP simply ignored that order--making potentially hundreds of thousands sick nearby. Oil is bad to touch, and Corexit is bad to touch, but the combination is a death-sludge. BP is a truly evil entity, in so many ways.

"but they only arrest people who actually commit the crime" ...after prodding them for months and giving them all the necessary training and materials to commit said crime. Then the FBI cheers as if it helped to solve a situation that it in reality created. You are delusional if you don't see the problem with that.

This is easy. See: Freedom Hosting.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/fbi-admits-what-we-all-suspected-it-compromised-freedom-hostings-tor-servers/
The FBI had compromised this guy's servers for months, and then viola, there's child porn on there. The fact that the dudes you know from the business seem like right ol' chaps is no reflection on the nature of the FBI or its sordid, filthy history.
You realize the FBI is constantly arming and training wannabe terrorists to the brink of action, right? http://occupywallst.org/forum/...

The chinese might break into your secure email server, but they won't plant child porn on it in an attempt to incriminate you. The FBI, on the other hand..

Volume is crucial in measuring how much taxpayer money goes to which entity. The total subsidies obtained by some of the richest entities in the world make solar and wind subsidies look like peanuts

Per KWh.. but not per total volume, which is what OP was arguing. It's also worth noting that we're largely comparing ridiculous freebies given to companies for simply existing or manufacturing in the US--funds that are never obligated to go towards any R&D--to tax breaks given in part to individuals for developing renewables on their own property.