The problem is that government is being used to choke out the competition, especially at a local level: http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w...

Comcast uses government regulation as a shield to block competition. So yes, the libertarian solution would be to remove these blocks and open up the options.

And you are naive to think that anyone in government, especially Democrats, will regulate Comcast. Obama has been in bed with Comcast for a while http://thehill.com/policy/tech.... And Comcast owns NBC, which owns MSNBC--the Fox News of the Democrat party.

Sorry to bust your Government/Democrats good Republicans/libertarians bad bubble.

The Republicans have blocked every good treatment so far so why should we expect their kind to allow this?

Choke on the barbed cock of Satan, asshole.

My wife just died of breast cancer this week -- she did not live to be 40 -- so articles and research like this give me hope that, when our child grows up, cancer will not be something that takes people's lives away from them so quickly and so young.

Mine passed a year ago last Saturday of uterine cancer; she was 33. You're probably feeling absolutely gutted right about now. Things will improve slowly, but they will improve. Just yesterday, I was looking through photos for something to illustrate a fundraising page for a run benefiting cancer research. I got a bit choked up on an engagement photo, but that only served to tell me that was the picture to use. Those kinds of things will most likely keep happening for a long time to come...probably forever, at some level. They'll come along less frequently, though, and mostly around things like birthdays and anniversaries. Keeping busy—with work, friends, hobbies, etc.—might help; it seems to have helped me out, at least.

It should be the car that is disabled (or your license taken away)

Exactly - as they do already in the UK: get caught driving while using a mobile phone, you get 3 penalty points. That puts your insurance premiums up in itself, and if you reach a total of 12 points, no more driving for a few years. The penalty may be increased to 6 - in which case, get caught driving on the phone twice, you're in the passenger seat for several years. If someone's been caught driving on the phone (whether texting, talking or reading Slashdot), why let them continue driving at all? Will disabling the phone stop them driving while fiddling with the radio, eating, shaving etc? Of course not - so get them away from the wheel and let them text all they like as passengers.

It is against the law pretty much everywhere. However that law is enforced pretty much nowhere. It is just simply too difficult to enforce it, as a police officer has to catch the person in the act to even write a ticket. And then the ticket is so laughably small in terms of the monetary penalty as to be pointless to even write.

Here in the UK, the penalty is that you get one-quarter of the way to no longer driving (3 penalty points, where 12 means a driving ban); the government announced earlier this year they were considering doubling that to halfway, i.e. get caught doing it twice (within 3 years) and you won't be driving again. However small the risk, I suspect that's a big enough deterrent to scare many - particularly since it would often mean losing their job too. You don't have to be caught red-handed, either, just suspected enough for the police to investigate, then they check the network usage logs and confirm you were using the handset at the time in question. (Or get seen on a traffic camera, of which there are many.)

The idea in the article is just silly, though.

No - it isn't. That's funny. I did that pretty late at night.

All my personal sites got messed up and I had to fix them a week or two ago.

Simple -- they're at a MegaChurch near you.

But what they do, when, say, Ted Haggard gets high and engages in gay sex, is say... well, he wasn't really saved before. But this time (after the whole rededication / rebaptism) it'll stick -- pinky swear.

And that's really where I think a lot of my Protestant brothers are incorrect -- they focus too much on whether a person is "saved" and not what happens afterward. What MUST happen afterwards that the faith should bear fruit, otherwise, the faith is dead. (Those who keep the faith to the end...)

So what is that fruit? Corporal works of Mercy, becoming more Christ-like, always continuing to refine one's self, abandoning venial sin habits, etc. Those are the fruits of a faith that is alive and well.

tl;dr: Don't just be a pew sitter on Sunday morning because you like the coffee or the praise band (Prayer Bolt.. ) or want to feel like you're part of the club. "Oh hey, we're part of Faith Grace Meadow Church -- yeah, the one the size of a Wal-Mart superstore. Yeah, the praise band makes me feel happy, and the pastor just talks about what's in the Bible."

"Oh, I was thinking about trying Grace Faith Meadow, they say they teach just what's in the bible too"

"NO THEY ARE DIRTY HEATHENS!"

And so on, and so forth. The riff on the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front from Life of Brian was intentional.

And while I'm wound up...

The segregation I see in the Protestant Community really bothers me. "Oh, we only send our kids to christian school (or homeschool)" -- meaning that there are fewer points of light in the public schools.

Or, "We only buy Christian media" -- fine, but then without Christian influence the culture rots faster.

It's time for Christians to stop segregating ourselves, and START FIGHTING THE CULTURE WAR. Start throwing some (metaphorical) punches at the culture.

There is a misconception that the Catholic Church has a "point system" -- it doesn't.

What the Church encourages is to live out your faith -- and, as James eloquently points out -- a faith without works is a dead faith.

Logically, this makes sense. If you've truly accepted Christ, and His commandments to be more like Him, then your life *should* be different from what it was before.

You are correct that none of us can get to Heaven on our own. We need Christ's grace and mercy -- my point is simply, we can turn back on that journey of ours at anytime.

This is what "those who have faith at the end" means -- those of us who have the faith at the end of our lives enter in to Glory.

Many Christians mistakenly believe that once "saved", always "saved", therefore they can do as they please because grace covers it. So it's OK to cheat on their spouse, steal, murder, etc, because after all, well, they just love Jesus enough and He died on the cross for it, so no worries, let's party!

This line of thinking is folly.

I'm not persuaded that, once properly accepted, salvation can be relinquished

That flies against free will. One could, theoretically, at some future date, reject Christianity and lose their salvation.

The Protestant argument is that they never had Salvation to begin with... so when they rededicate their life (again), are they truly saved that second / third / fourth time?

For some of us -- because I've experienced Christ present in the Eucharist, I could never turn away from my faith. But the choice remains mine.

This is probably the wrong venue for this discussion though. If you would like to continue, shoot me an email.

As for faith bearing fruit: what specific fruit did the saved thief on the cross beside Christ bear?

Acceptance that he was a sinner who deserved his fate, and earnestly asking Christ to deliver him.

I disagree with that a little; Salvation is a gift that must be accepted. You have free will, you can choose to accept -- or even later, abandon that gift -- however you wish.

But you have to make that choice if you are able to.

And... your faith must bear fruit.

(Children and the severely mentally impaired are not able to make that choice.)

there is nothing under the sun we can do, individually, or collectively, to be redeemed.
Of course there is: "Repent, and sin no more". (And since you're fallen... repeat as necessary).