Reason for this is very simple - the cost to the end customer would be astronomical as they would have to pay:
1. UPS fees which would be high due to remote location.
2. Your fees for obvious reasons.
3. UPS's and your profit margins.

This would result in living in the rural areas to be even harder than it is right now, emptying it out further.

Not really. I'm from a socialist country, and on of the key aspects to our prosperity and competitiveness is enabling private entities to get to compete for and win profitable infrastructure contracts.

This is because private contractors bring significant amount of expertise and capability that government would have to build from ground up without them, as well as force costs down through competition. Problems only arise when said private contractors become big and powerful enough to corrupt those making decisions behind these projects to favour them in various ways.

It's another one of those "capitalism works really well as long as it is properly managed and doesn't get big enough to corrupt powerful entities" moments.

Google et al likely figured out that instead of public lobbying, they have to do private lobbying. I.e. less publicity, more favours exchanging hands with important figures in government bureaucracy.

One sentence: Now you actually have a chance to have a decent internet service without massively overpaying for it in US.

It's going to be interesting to see how quickly municipal internet in US can actually challenge incumbent monopolies and force them to compete on quality and price.

At least on desktop, the differential is core number. i3 is dual core, i5 is quad core, and i7 is quad core with hyperthreading (8 virtual cores). That means higher iX will crush lower iY in parallel tasks like video encoding. But at the same time single thread application that only care about maximum speed of a single core, higher clock i3 has a chance to eat lower clock i7.

I'm getting a feeling that most people here are going to say some incredibly anti-democratic things in here in a moment without even realising it.

Reality is, democratically elected parliament isn't supposed to be a bunch of elites but a cross-section of electorate. That means it needs to have a few superstitious people to be able to properly represent the population which also has such people in statistically significant amounts.

That's nice. You arrest him. And?

Which would accomplish what exactly? Assange is still stuck in embassy specifically because while diplomatic immunity protects him while inside the embassy grounds, there's no way to move him out without British police grabbing him.

The logic appears to be that our immune systems are simply built to be under far more stress than they currently are. We are not evolved to exist in hygienic environments we have today.

As a result, our immune system a huge behemoth evolved to fight a massive and continuous war of attrition, yet the hostiles arrive in far smaller numbers than what it is designed for, often hopelessly outnumbered and weakened. A a result, it begins to seek enemies to fight, reacting to smallest abnormalities
.
Which is what allergy is. Hence, allergies make perfect sense. They are a clear sign of immune systems far too powerful for hygienic environments we live in, an excellent showcase of cultural evolution far outstripping biological evolution in speed.

That would be a biological rather than a chemical weapon if weaponized.

To be fair, these people make good money going that through very specific crowd on Patreon. It's their business model.

That is why they are called "professional victims".

1. Because even with cheap electricity prices, they are still very profitable. This is really not that hard to comprehend. Lower operating costs per unit of electricity produced = more profit.

2. Except that it's not "French tax payers" but "Areva". And Areva is in fact a multinational corporation, not a French government subsidiary even though approximately 90% of ownership is in French state's hands.
Their main problems right now are German decision to phase out nuclear power, reduction of nuclear design and building contracts due to Fukushima accident as well as Olkiluoto 3 problems. This has caused French government to increase capitalisation of the company.

The obvious angle here is aggression towards one another, not aggression towards other species.

To be fair, it almost did survive it. Other reactors at Fukushima in fact did survive it.

Too many factual mistakes on which your house of cards is built make it difficult to argue on merits. Examples range from "permanent unemployed underclass in Germany" (Germany is close to full employment with exceptionally easy ways to get training and a part time job) to "homogenous cultures in Nordics" (have you ever actually looked at demographics in Sweden?)

I'll just finish off with the simple statement that when someone says "just you see, in twenty or so years it will be different because I say so", that usually means "I have no evidence to show why the outcome I suggest is the realistic outcome, so I put it far enough into the future that any outcome can be judged as possible".

Examples of these arguments were claims that world will end in nuclear conflagration in 20 years back in the 60s, that Russia would be fully integrated into West in 1990s and other similar brain farts. In real world on the other hand...