Oh you stupid lying fuck.

Haters gonna hate... Sigh...

Only if you follow the "Austrian School" line of thinking

Of course. Everything else is an attempt to turn Marx' feces into chicken salad.

it's because the town doesn't want to pay obscene 90+% profit margins

The "obscene" profit margin would, presumably, have been to some kind of Comcast. My question was, why — if people capable of running an ISP live in or near the own — would they not form a private ISP of their own, enjoy the modest 45% profit margin and the adoration of neighbors?

The people of the town can elect or depose the leaders of city hall.

Yes. Same applies to the State legislature.

What do you mean?

What I meant is that if the town does not have people capable of running an ISP, but creates one anyway, the service will be horrible and yet, because of governmental monopoly, nobody else would offer competing service either. The townfolk will be settled with that bond (or, more likely, a tax-hike) and shitty service. Congratulations.

step in when the market fails

Except that does not really happen. Pretty much by definition.

If the government entity receives no unfair treatment and has to play by the same rules as every other company

Begging the question, aren't you? A giant "if"...

It is pretty bad, when local governments keep would-be challengers of private companies out. When it is the municipality itself, that's running it, things can only be worse — because, infamously, you can not fight city hall. Very simply, if the town has expertise to run an ISP, why wouldn't not those people form a private company to do it? And if they don't, their establishing a governmental ISP anyway will preclude anybody with a clue from ever setting up shop...

It is like Slashdot's earlier obsession with "Municipal WiFi" has not taught anybody anything...

Equality before Equations!!:

WASHINGTON, DC - President Obama announced in a Rose Garden press conference today that in light of the recent Amtrak accident he is calling on the Congress for bipartisan action on Physical Law Reform, and if they don’t act, he will.

Mr. Obama stated that if the Congress refuses to act on this reform of the laws of physics, he will sign an executive order repealing them outright and implement reform on his own. “Reforming these so-called ‘Laws of Nature’ is the right thing to do, and it will help working families and keep them safe.”

Said Mr. Obama: “The deadly Amtrak accident is just the latest example of how the GOP’s refusal to act has put many in danger with deadly consequences”.

“This reform will have immediate benefits from instantly efficient electric cars that no longer need to obey the ‘laws of thermodynamics and energy density’ to the being able to drive around a curve at high speed without needing so-called ‘Centripetal force’ to keep you on the tracks.”

Obama continued “So if the Congress refuses to act, I will issue an executive order repealing these so-called ‘laws of physics’, We cannot continue living in the past having to follow ‘Laws’ handed down from Sir Issac Newton over 300 hundred years ago, this is not who we are”.

“It’s time to put equality before equations, people instead of physics and fairness over formulas,” the president said.

Obama dismissed the simplistic Newton’s laws of motion as a holdovers from a bygone era of racism where the ‘majority’ felt they could impose their vision of the physical world on everyone else with their so-called ‘classical mechanics’.

In a related development, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement that President Obama's Physical Law Reform does not violate the Constitutional separation of powers because the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee that people of the future would be so stupid as to fall for this kind of malarkey.

That the Big Education discriminates against Asians and Whites has long been very well known.

Citation needed.

I did offer a citation. Here it is again.

None of these links cite any studies.

Ah, so you did see them — you just didn't like them. Why, then, did you pretend, I have not offered anything? Could it be something personal?..

The first is the story of a girl who believes

What? Since when is one girl's account not enough to prove everything and destroy the reputations of all involved?

But, jesting aside, the 2011 article you dismiss as "one-girl story" says:

Studies show that Asian-Americans meet these colleges' admissions standards far out of proportion to their 6 percent representation in the U.S. population, and that they often need test scores hundreds of points higher than applicants from other ethnic groups to have an equal chance of admission. Critics say these numbers, along with the fact that some top colleges with race-blind admissions have double the Asian percentage of Ivy League schools, prove the existence of discrimination.

Seems rather convincing to me — which is why I cited it in the first place.

primarily to allow them to admit "legacy" students, who are children of other Harvard alumni

In that case, they wouldn't be favouring "underrepresented minorities" over Whites. The phenomena you describe may well exists, but it would not account for all of the observed discrimination. And, besides, I've encountered plenty of Asians among Harvard students even 20 years ago. Their children are now "children of alumni" too, which further reduces the effect, with which you try to explain the existing anti-Asian bias.

They simply must discriminate against the more successful races, because otherwise they will have disproportionately many Asians and too few Blacks. This would make them a target of various boycotts and governmental investigations by the assholes favoring equality of results over that of opportunity ...

Why isn't it discrimination to select students who score higher on a standardized test?

Of course, my objection was to the objectionable sort of discrimination — such as that based on race or sex.

And I protested the term "reverse" discrimination, because it has no direction — whether Purple Americans discriminate against Green ones, or the other way around, it is still racial discrimination and neither direction is "reverse".

Actually, affirmative action is reverse discrimination

Though I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, the term "reverse discrimination" is a misnomer at best and discriminatory at worst — because it implies, that discriminations are or can be different. They aren't and they can not — any preference given to one race, sex, etc. is discrimination and there are neither "forward" nor "reverse" among them.

Back to the topic, I'm surprised, it took so long. That the Big Education discriminates against Asians and Whites has long been very well known. Asians in particular have been advised to not identify their race at all — this would put them into the same category as Whites, which is an improvement. For ultimate win, claiming to be Black — if you can pull it off — is the best. The suit, apparently, compares the treatment of Asians with that of Blacks — which is a safer ground — but the real outrage is the Black privilege ... Too bad, the claimants in this suit are too chicken to go all the way.

I can not imagine, who — other than people with serious dislike for America and a wish to hurt it — would impose such policies on the country. No one would set out to find a surgeon of a particular race to treat them — why is it Ok to seek out a firefighter or a judge of a particular origin? It is so patently idiotic, a sinister motive is easier to imagine...

They don't mean "barter", when they talk of "cashless society" — and it is the Statists' prescription for everyone , not just Argentina.

The electronic transactions will be subject to the same surveillance our phone-calls already are — who (other than the totalitarian Statists) would seriously consider it, is a mystery to me.

I'll agree with this statement the day you can't use The Bible or the Torah in your first sentence and justify the exact same attacks.

You can't, but that's a separate topic — your attempt to point finger at other religions is against the "rules" I set in my original request. Fail.

From their own site:

Menuet isn't based on other operating system nor has it roots within UNIX or the POSIX standards. The design goal, since the first release in year 2000, has been to remove the extra layers between different parts of an OS, which normally complicate programming and create bugs.

So, if you want to port your own application to it, you'll need to rewrite it too. And you may need to do it in assembly — although there is, apparently, a C-compiler for MenuetOS it is billed as "low-level", which, I gather, means no (or limited) libc, and other exciting and challenging limitations.

Like, say, Iraq? Or someone's fetus?

I'm pretty sure, the conversation was focusing on the alleged propensity of Republicans to "grab" wealth. Neither Iraq, nor fetus qualify.

Run along and keep your talking points fresh till next time.

clean air, clean water, safe food

Oh, this is so sweet... Clean air, is what I pay taxes for? As we used to joke back in USSR, "Spring has passed, Summer arrives, thanks be to the Party" (it rhymes in Russian).

YOU, on the other hand, want to be a fucking thief

Don't curse, asshole, it annoys your audience and your argument, such as it is, falls flat.

In a sense you're right...taxation isn't charity. It's responsibility

You got it. Whatever taxation is, it is not evidence of high morals or ethical standards of those, who want more of it — contrary to Grishnakh's above assertion. Case closed.