I believe this option was overlooked.
I think this was taken word for word from a review of The Breakfast Club.
I'm sorry. I don't see a world of difference between random mutations that propagate through the genetic code which may or may not be beneficial and purposely introduced mutations that may or may not be beneficial. It's all just "bits" of DNA; introducing some human code into the DNA of a potato and then claiming the potato is part human is like examining machine code to prove software IP infringement.
Antibiotics, growth hormones, and selling US meat in Europe are a completely separate set of issues. The need to bring them up in this context just highlights how flimsy the argument against GM is.
Aren't most vegetables and fruits that are grown today the result of genetic modifications, i.e. selective cross-pollination to promote beneficial qualities and mutations. I can't take these people seriously without ignoring 10,000 years of human agricultural practices. I understand and appreciate the people are concerned about long-term health effects, but anytime someone makes an argument based on some arbitrary limit, as in this is good and then you cross the line and now it's bad, I can't take them as seriously as I possibly should.
Let me get this straight . . . some douche European argues that Americans are worse at something compared to someone else because we haven't adequately lobbied our government to protect his ability to illegally download American movies, television, and music. Hmmm.... if he doesn't want American bullshit in Europe, he could probably start with not consuming American media.
To those that decides such things: can this be the new definition of irony?
Of course, you are correct. IMO, the difference between right to profit and right to try to profit is just semantics. If someone has property, be it real, intellectual, or other, that meets a need or want of society, they have the right to profit or try to profit from it.
Hard work? It's not like the citizens of these towns are all coming out on Saturday with their shovels and installing the infrastructure themselves like it's some sort of Amish barn-raising with a square dance at the end of the day.
Well, he couldn't have done any better, could he?
This. And the right to profit isn't explicitly enumerated, but I believe it would fall under the 5th Amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, but in most towns there is not a pre-existing private company that runs the bus line or installs water fountains in public spaces. And as far as schools go, in most towns, at least where I've lived, there is a public vote to approve increased property taxes to fund the new building. I know it's currently en-vogue to bash the telcos, but why shouldn't this be settled by a public vote rather than left to the desires and agendas of a few people in the city government.
With regards to under served communities, it's my understanding that they are exempt from some of the requirements in the NC bill.
I think the concern is that you can't subsidize the cost of the network by, say, charging extra for trash pickup or water and sewers.
I'm not so sure it would be feasible to fully automate the final assembly. I'm not aware of any computers that are made via fully automated processes. Certain components are, of course, but not the final assembly. You still need thousands of dexterous human fingers to put everything together as the last step. You are correct about setup costs though; I wouldn't be surprised if it costs upwards of a $100 million to fully tool and automate a final assembly line like the iPad.
I agree with your viewpoint, but Comcast, Cox, et cetera are not "natural" monopolies. They are government-created monopolies. With modern technologies like fiber optics, there's no reason why every home cannot be wired with 50 incoming optical lines (1 cm thick bundle), each one carrying a TV lineup. Then the consumer could choose if they want Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Verizon and so on.
Can you please elaborate on why you assert they are government-created monopolies? Didn't the cable companies themselves pay for right-of-way access to run the coax way back when? I think you are implying that because cable companies are government-created monopolies there are government-created roadblocks in place to prevent fiber from being run to every home. I'll have to do some research myself, but if anyone knows some background information I'd love to read it.
. . . to the nearest Pizza Hut. I hope he tipped well.
...16-year-old girls everywhere driving around with Facebook on the heads-up display. You might as well install a keg in the trunk with the tap in the dash for all this will do to teen accident rates.