Wireless spectrum is limited. Right-of-way access is limited. The number of potential customers is limited. Sources of capital needed to build infrastructure is limited.

I heard your technical monopoly (artificially created by government) theory before, but I believe that when it comes to supplying "the last mile" of high speed internet there is no such thing as pure technical monopoly.

It's my humble opinion that if systemd stops you cold, you ought to be in another profession.

Why look for another profession? It is easier to look for another OS.

It's obvious you like systemd. On the other hand, I have no pressing need for systemd and am quite happy with RHEL6.

There is a good chance that your attitude is one of the reasons why systemd has met some resistance.

You are completely missing the point. Raising the minimum wage does NOT reduce the number of poor households, because most minimum wage earners are NOT poor.

I completely see your point. You've skewed the statistics (actually repeated an argument made by the conservative Heritage foundation and the collection of political bloggers) to make it look like minimum wage doesn't affect the poor. The problem with your slight of hand is that its obvious that your argument falls flat when you realize that total population of minimum wage earners is not the same as the total population of poor households.

To put it another way... You are arguing that the plurality of minimum wage earners aren't poor, instead of the more applicable argument that the overwhelming majority of poor employed households are minimum wage earners. Your argument has the convenient side effect of ignoring the current problem with encouraging people off of welfare by getting a job that pays less than what they get by simply staying home.

Someone else who hasn't bothered actually reading stuff written in support of minimum wage legislation...

Your worst fear has come true. I'm reporting the arguments given by conservatives that support the minimum wage hike. They make very credible arguments about how not raising the minimum wage to match inflation is nothing more than a government subsidy to industry that only pay their workers the minimum wage (Ron Unz made the argument when talking about the minimum wage in California) .

Except that you are taxing the creation of low wage jobs. That is probably not smart policy. People are poor, not because of low pay, but because of NO pay. Most poor households have no earned income at all.

You are trying to subdivide the poor in order to push a solution that isn't necessary good. All poor households have low pay and this includes the ones with no pay. Creating more low pay households in order to reduce the no pay households do very little to help the population of poor households and instead continues the status-quo that benefit business at the expense of tax payers who have to fund government services that make up for the difference.

I would counter your argument by saying that if we reduced the total number of poor households with an increased minimum wage, even if we increased the number of no pay households in the poor household population the overall governmental cost would be lower.

Yet they think raising the minimum wage will increase the demand for low skill workers, they think wage and price controls will reduce demand and increase supply, they think capping surge pricing will increase supply and reduce demand, on and on the hypocrisy goes.

Wrong. They argue that by raising the minimum wage, we lower the amount of corporate subsidy in the form of welfare and medicaid. If they pay their employees a livable wage, we as taxpayers wouldn't be spending as much government money to make up for the difference. The idea they proposed was not to reduce the total unemployment, but instead the number of under-employed workers.

The money not spent on subsidizing the living standards of the minimum wage could (in theory) be used to subsidize new jobs by redirecting that money into actual job creation in the form of subsidizing job training and education or helping with start up costs for industry that serves the nation's long-term strategic interests.

I think the product is dead because of the douchebag glassholes.

I don't think all Google glass owners were obnoxious jackasses, but unfortunately it only took a minority that are to ruin the product for the rest of them.

TBH, it doesn't matter, though you are incorrect on more than a few points: Saturnalia ends a few days prior to Christmas. Traditionally, Christmas begins on December 25th and lasts until Epiphany (January 8) - well outside of most pagan calendars, which centered around or ended on the Winter Solstice (Dec. 21).

You fudged the dates a bit. "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" (Birthday of the unconquered Sun) was celebrated on Dec 25th. It was replaced by Christmas during the reign of Constantine.

I never have understood the world's fetish with the US dollar.

It's because the US has both a stable government and a large economy.