What bothers me about this isn't the free internet. No, that part is pretty cool. What bothers me is the underlying political philosophy. What is a "right?" When do they start? Who creates them?

According to what Jefferson laid out in the Declaration of Independence, rights are inborn into the nature of each person. They are endowed to everyone by their Creator. The distinction here is critical. Rights are inherent in the nature of the human being and an integral part of human dignity -- they are not given by a government. A government cannot give or abolish rights. A person has rights regardless of what his government says. A government can only protect or infringe them.

(That said, a person can abrogate his own rights through the exercise of criminal activity -- this is why governments can licitly infringe on the rights of criminals by imprisoning them.)

Now, if someone has a right to a broadband connection, that means he has always had this right. All humans in all times and places have always had the right to a broadband connection, because this right is a part of their nature. Now, given the fact that broadband connections have not always existed, it's difficult to see how having a broadband connection is an inherent part of human dignity.

It bothers me that lot of Americans seem a bit fuzzy on the concept of rights and are departing more and more from the Locke-Paine-Jefferson school of thought. Ask any given sample of Americans about the subject, and I'll bet 95% of them would say that rights come from the government. A people who look to their government rather to themselves as a source of their rights is a people cowed by tyranny.

how many people here know the resistor coloring codes to even know if they were looking at a 150k Ohm 1 watt resister with a 5% tolerance?

I remember the mnemonic for it. Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly. Black=0, Brown=1, Red=2, Orange=3, etc.

Learned it from my dad, a cold warrior who spent his Air Force career in a ballistic missile silo and had to know basic electronics in case something went wrong.

Tamiflu is rx only because it can cause psychotic symptoms, particularly in pediatric patients. It's not as safe as most otc products and requires closer monitoring.

Another reason to make it rx only is to prevent people from hoarding it and profiteering from a pandemic. This might happen anyway, but it's harder to do. Pharmacies are under a lot more scrutiny regarding their financial practices than John Q. Public.

Yet another reason that it's good to be rx only is that Tamiflu is covered by most people's prescription insurance. Were it over the counter, insurances wouldn't cover it. When Zyrtec made the switch from rx only to otc, insurance plans dropped it like a hot potato.

And then there's protecting physicians' income streams. Docs will gladly write you a prescription for Tamiflu, and charge you a $45 office visit fee. Were it otc, that income stream would dry up.

Same here. Gotta work all day. People need their drugs, holiday or not.

One of the things you give up when you enter the pharmacy profession is the right to take the same holidays as everyone else.

Why can't aircraft engine manufacturers retrofit engines with a sturdy 2 inch mesh screen over the air intakes of their engines? That would keep birds from being sucked into the intake manifolds.

I work in a pharmacy. Per state law and Board of Pharmacy regs, the door must be closed and locked at all times. However, we do have a drive-thru, and windows where patients drop off and pick up meds, and consult with me. Most of my work is done facing those. Do those count?

But when you retire, you won't be making any taxable income, right? I don't think you've thought your clever plan all the way through.