Farther north and your weekend is filled with the sounds of snowblowers and chainsaws, the ping of salt and gravel bouncing off of undercarriages and windshields, the scrape and roar of plows etc...
I started in the central valley of California but temps up to 120F in Summer, where opening your front door felt like getting punched in the face by an angry fire god, got annoying. So I moved to Northern Pennsylvania and found that shoveling 2 feet of snow every morning to get the car out of the driveway, spending all night listening to the sound of trees exploding from -20 temps and having to don 80lbs of clothing before opening the front door got annoying even faster.
So I moved to the midsouth. Temps rarely go beyond 100F for more than a couple days at a time in summer, very rarely go below 0 in winter and a couple inches of snow shuts down the entire region. And if bikinis are your thing, you can always find a fat woman in a bikini at 3am in the local Walmart winter or summer! :)

They'll obviously give you the option of having a physical credit card.... for $20/month extra.

And did/will you go out and get a Ph.D. in Infant Nutrition before you have a child and need to feed them? Be sure to pick up a degree in math, science and English while you're at it so you can be qualified to help them with their homework.

They aren't looking for funding to build a bridge, they just want to make a campy little entertainment program to encourage kids to read.
Some things require training and expertise to do well. God help our species if getting kids to read is one of things.

It seems to be "density of neighborhoods". Places with lots of multistory apartment buildings, subdivisions, etc tend to be cheaper than places where you'll commonly see a residential house flanked by a warehouse and a 7-11.

Local competition of course drives prices down. The price per Mb in Omaha and Vegas are over $3 where the only real competition is wireless carriers but it's well under $3 in Phoenix where Cox has competition from Cable One. Of course there's numerous other factors, from easement restrictions to local infrastructure to geography, that can also affect the price or offerings.

A more apt analogy is you're that alcoholic and you have a friend who has been given permission to enter your home. He finds out that while you were drunk, you made a lecherous pass at his sister and so, in anger, he comes in when you are drunk and takes pictures of you covered in vomit passed out on your bathroom floor and then starts passing them around to your friends, family, coworkers and the Internet.

Do you really believe your poor judgement in giving him consent to enter your home and then doing something to anger him gives him the right to use even worse judgement in abusing that consent in an attempt to defame you to the entire world?

Not to interrupt your rambling Limbaugh fellating, but Cox doesn't spread costs across their entire customer base.
They use regional pricing based on the cost of serving that area, in theory anyway. I'm sure that in reality, they charge whatever they think they can get from the people in that area. But areas with more densely packed residential areas do tend to have lower prices and don't seem to significantly subsidize service offerings in less densely packed areas which usually have higher prices.

No. It's just that "The big AV firms are using the same old scare tactics to try and shift the market away from their old AV products to their new "Data Loss Prevention" products." isn't news to most /.ers.
It was inevitable. PC users have plenty of AV available for free or cheap and few of the typical tablets or phone users have much use for AV as they don't root their devices and don't sideload apps they get from torrents found on a Chinese forum so AV companies see the writing on the wall.
*YAWN*Steak is a far more worthy and interesting topic.

Ahhhh. Classic French Fine dining. Where in about 80% of the restaurants the motto is "We serve you horribly over seasoned food that's soaked in butter and olive oil then cooked by walking it through a warm room, charge you $80 because we make it look pretty on the plate and then when you tell us it's inedible we have some Belgiun waiter tell you that you that if you weren't an uncultured oaf you'd enjoy eating food that tastes like horse shit."

I'm on context, you should take some.
Like most people do these days you chose to ignore context and decided you could be confident in judging my stance on an issue based on limited information. Which is the same thing the media and politicians do to make surveys like these to get far more attention than they deserve.

The point I was arguing against, is that a theory shouldn't be held believed to be fact unless it's disproven as that just makes Science another name for God for people wrapped in a delusion that they're not religious.

Has science proven that God doesn't exist? Has science proven that everything we observe is real and wasn't just *poofed* into being by God 4000 years ago? Is that rock really 4 billion years old or did God just make it in a way that we'd think it was as some part of His grand plan? By your "if you can't disprove it, we should teach it" logic, Texas has it right and we should be teaching religion in schools as science.

Until it can survive without the host, a fetus is a parasitic infection. Denying the right to abort because that infection will eventually spawn a living human being is almost as silly as denying people the right to take anti-biotics because someday those bacteria could one day evolve into a higher life form.

Not quite. Their jobs are safe either way as California (and most other states) has far more prisoners than they have capacity.
What they are interested in is protecting themselves as a prison full of non-violent offenders who can look forward to getting out relatively soon if they behave is far safer for guards than a prison full of violent felons who will remain in prison for decades no matter how they behave. Police unions usually oppose drug law liberalization for similar reasons.

And yet the climate change sensationalists will CLING to the idea that studies like this aren't as useless as doing studies in an effort to convince the Pope to become an Atheist.
I don't need a study to know that there will be people who either don't care, are incapable of grasping the issue or are purposely duplicitous. The purpose of studies like this are not to convince climate change deniers. Really, at this point studies like this are only a way for scientist to exploit Climate Sensationalists for grant money.

Those who can be convinced climate change is occurring already have been. What few have been convinced of is what should be done to address it.
We have been convinced however, that the sensationalists' theories that driving a an electric car full of batteries that have to plugged into an electrical socket every night, putting solar panels on their roof (and more batteries in their home) that are made by some Chinese factory that produces millions of pounds of toxic waste each year and/or tightening emissions regulations in countries that already have such regulations in place and enforce them isn't going to do anything significantly positive to stop or reverse global warming worth the likely significant negative impact they would have.

Of course they're telling the truth. They just aren't telling the whole story.

"No, we didn't exploit the Heartbleed bug. You're accusing us of stealing a Ford Focus when we've got garages full of Ferraris and F-16s. Puh-lease! Why would we bother exploiting something that gives such rudimentary and fleeting access to data and could just as easily be used by the Chinese or Russians when we have the espionage skills and resources available to us to install our own secure backdoors that only we can use and give ourselves full, unrestricted access to everything on any system we want access to?"

Prop 8 violated Civil Rights. Specifically, the right to enter into a contract, which isn't a basic human right.
Marriage, so far as Government entities are concerned, is just a contract. Under Prop 8 they could still get married, they just couldn't get their marriage contract recognized by their State Government. Which means they would not be granted the legal privileges and responsibilities such a contract affords.
But under US law, denying a person the right to enter into a contract based on their gender (or national origin, race, color, religion, disability or familial status) is a violation of the Civil Rights granted to every citizen. Prop 8 would have violated that by denying people the civil right to enter into a contract based solely on gender. As a CEO, supporting contract discrimination based on gender was directly relevant to his job duties so of course it was an issue.

Free speech is a right. You can't lose your right to claim free speech. Ever. Even hate speech is protected. But, as he was reminded, the right to speak freely only protects people from consequences imposed by Government. Employers, customers, investors and the general public are not the Government and the first amendment doesn't guarantee any protection from them.