This reminds me of Office Space and Michael Bolton
It's cute the way you image how people different than you think.
What part of my post do you think requires an advance degree in environmental science and climatology?
As demostrated by quoting incorrect information in a slashdot summary, you screwed up and showed that you will belive anything that backs your bias without doing any research.
Or do you think I need a degree to click the link on the summary?
I love your post. It demostrates how much blind trust you have for infomation that is pro-climate change.
I'd be willing to bet that any anti-climate change info you read, you do the same lack of research and simply assume it's a lie from Big Oil.
You blindly believed and quoted (without any independent research) the summary of a slashdot article.
The article itself gives a different number and submitted mentioned that the 98% was a typo.
That number made sense to you because it agreed with your viewpoint so you did no research and blindly accepted the information you were told (and proudly changed the subject line.)
Because that should definetly be the benchmark, right?
So what? Do you advocate lying, cheating, and stealing to make that money? I ask because Verizon signed an agreement to make FIOS available to everyone in the city and they are now trying to weasel out of it.
My comment was toward the quote (which I quoted in my comment) that buisnesses should not be expected to live up to their promises and the implciation that profit is evil.
To answer your question: if I was losing money working for a company, yes I would break my contract and leave - and I would understand that I may be sued for breach of contract.
I've read several articles on this and while Verison is not blameless, the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. Should they break into the buildings/apartments that refuse to allow to install FIOS despit the tennants wanting it? A lot of apartments have deals with existing internet companies.
That said, Verzion should be sued for breaching their contract with the city and let them defend themselves in court or pay up whatever fines were agreed too.
Verizon is in the business to make money - Providing access to Internet is just one of the by-products of Verizon's quest in making money
On the other hand, places such as the Bronx, where the only real way to make money is to sell drugs, where is the impetus for Verizon to provide FIOS there?
Nice claims but I honestly doubt that verizon (or anyone else) cares if they are paid with drug money, employeement money, wall street money, etc.
When Verizon promised to provide FIOS to NYC it hinged on one thing - profits
I don't work to break even on my monthly bills. I work to make as much money as I can - even if it's more than I "need." I do not understand why people think that buisness should be started and ran with a different principle.
Are you relating two seperate issues or does the EPA ruling have something to do with Free Speech?
Also, you think buisnesses should be bound by the 1st ammendment? Do you understand the point of the Bill Of Rights and what it was suppose to be limiting (Goverment..)
I don't register my bike which is a better anolgy unless that is one hell of a huge drone
Same court that the libs hate for Citizen United will now act like this should be a done deal - but will keep moaning about that ruling. Hell, there is already moaning about the recount stuff from 14 years ago.
There was no way other than handing the presidecy to Gore that would have seen non-biased to you, was there?
Well, SCOTUS has managed to redefine two words this week.
The nazi flag isn't allowed in Germany.
Which would be relavnt if we were talking about Germany and it's right to free speech.
So what is the difference between disallowing someone to sell a cake for a gay wedding and not allowing a confederate fled to be sold for that gay wedding?
In THIS day and age, there are STILL numerous people in those states who would love to see segregation re-instituted and/or interracial marriage banned again.
You say that based on TV and the northern media very much wanting to maitain their moral superiority to the South. They do this by amplifing a very small, very fringe group of people in the South. You can probably find the same views from people of North if it suited the powers that be to find them.
Should all flags from countries we fought or groups we are fighting not be allowed to be sold?
How do you not see this as a slipperly slope?