If you are using lynx you might find it interesting.

If tax payers don't pay for the government, where does the money for the federal government come from?

I think this will be great if done properly. The issue is that there are a number of ways the this could go badly. To me it is like buying a car, there are a million ways for the dealership to take advantage of you and you must be hyper vigilant. Currently, there are only a few lines to your house and cell service spectrum is owned by a few large carriers, so their can be no real competition. The infrastructure was mostly built through a partnership of government and private business and depended on the use of government eminent domain and franchise agreements, so it is ripe for being regulated. We must be careful during this change that we don't wind up with something worse.

Why is diversity so limited? Why does it only refer to ancestors location (skin color is not used, there are some dark "white people"), gender, and sexual orientation?Why are height, weight, eye color, hair color, travel history, etc. ignored? Height is interesting since I have seen studies that claim that tall people are more likely to earn more and be in a position of power. Rather than physical attributes, life experience and personalty are the most important aspects of diversity. Did you grow up on a farm, suburb, or city? Did your parents stay together? Did you travel? Can you empathize with others? Do you have a vivid imagination?

I believe you are missing the point. Verizon and AT&T will not be building out the last mile any more. Supporting the last mile is expensive and they can cover that will cell towers. This will replace the line to your house. This will have implications on Net Neutrality, since in mobile they cap the data and charge companies to not count against the cap.

The truly rich do not have income. They own assets and become richer based on the increased value of their assets. Warren Buffet makes a income that is dwarfed by the increasing value of his company. I have read that his effective tax rate is less than one percent. You are not taxed until you sell and the value is translated into cash. The truly rich never have to sell. If they want a yacht or new home they borrow against the value of their assets. Therefore they pay almost no taxes, since they have no income.

Kathy Sierra has written several books that were very helpful when taking java exams. She has the ability to clearly explain things that not many people have mastered. She also created the javaranch.com site which is a great place to look when you have questions about java. I appreciate her contributions to the community and wish there were more people like her.

I don't expect you to trust me. I expect you to verify. The issue is that this was reported as medical bills cause 62% of bankruptcies. In any given year, I have more than $5000 in medical bills and to this point this has not bankrupted me. So $5000 in medical bills is not a really good indicator of the cause of the bankruptcy, but don't let that stop you from attacking me personally. This issue is not the study. The issue is the study and how it was used. Yes the study information was correct, but it was set up so it could be reported as medical bills cause 62% of bankruptcies which was not what it showed.

Americans trust science too much. If you can cite a study to prove your point you have won the argument. This has been noticed by the political class and they have designed studies to allow them to win the political argument or get the headline they want. For instance, the famous Harvard study that came up with the conclusion that medical bills cause greater than 60% of bankruptcies used as a criteria that if there were over $5000 in medical bills that caused the bankruptcy. Just about every year I have that much in medical bills. I guess the real amazing thing is ~40% of people who declare bankruptcy have less $5000 in medical bills in the year in which they declare bankruptcy.

Unless the news and the public can distinguish between studies that were designed to give a result, science will continue to be misused. It is very easy to design a study that will give a specific result. If you wanted to create a study that said only 1% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills you could used that 99% of the debt in the bankruptcy had to be medical bills. The issue is that caused by does not mean what you would expect.

On of the buildings destroyed in Iraq was Jonah's tomb http://www.washingtonpost.com/.... You know the guy from the bible that was swallowed by the whale. I would say that is pretty iconic.

The pyramids are pretty iconic. Whatever building were destroyed in Iraq weren't.

Do you want proactive insurance or reactive insurance? The mob sells the former. You pay to prevent something bad from happening. If you pay enough your competition might even leave town. There is the long term issue where the mob completely takes over your business. This reminds me of in the Godfather the Godfather says "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns."

The statistic is not 97% of Scientists then is it. It is 97% of papers or 97% of scientist that published on global warming. That is not what the statistic claims to be.

She was beaten by a guy who outright lied about serving in Vietnam during the war on several occasions. So all her money/influence and she could not beat a guy who was caught blatantly lying.

Proportional influence is an interesting idea. So we should ban unions since their large membership will give their leaders disproportionate influence with politics? How about newspaper editors they have a large readership and their recommendations in elections can be very helpful? How about political bloggers if they write about one candidates negatives and the others positives? These people become disproportionately important to politician election chances and therefore they are given greater access and influence.

This is to say nothing of the large number of sub $100 donations that required just a name and address. There is no verification of this micro donations. If you want to give a candidate a million dollars that does not seem to be a problem as long as you donate under $100 at a time. Rocco