Show me one other alternate universe.

Fox "News".

There goes my alternates chance with Kate Upton.

worse, you've been rejected 482,360,237,103 times.

Toddlers must be profitable!

"Look how you can get a spreadsheet to do your boring repetitious homework for you."

at the current rate of increase of smog production, Earth is going to transform into a gas planet

Fitting: Uranus created by your anus. Or perhaps rename it Ouranus after we fuck our planet up.

The general concept is one thing, doing the math and science to show it's naturally feasible is another.

What makes you say they are targeting Mercury-like planets?

Notice how the article used Neptune instead of Uranus as an example.

Here are a few acronyms that most citizens hate: IRS, NSA, CIA, DHS ....

I hate dental visits also, but I still go. And citizens generally prefer "protection" from foreign threats. Whether it's all warranted or not is highly debatable. DHS wouldn't exist if not for the 911 attacks. The pendulum of public opinion on such seems to swing back and forth, depending on attacks.

flea problem

Rather than argue with them, bet them money. If they are so certain of the quote, let their stubbornness make you richer. Mine stupidity. And slapping them with their own wallet my wake them up. 2 benefits.

history has shown over and over and over again that big government is very bad.

Too much of anything is bad. Some water is good for you, too much and you drown. Some big company influence is good for us; but too much and we get corporate fascism and/or corporate communism (which may degenerate to regular communism).

The slippery-slope fallacy can be used to justify any position.

Overly-influential banks already had a big hand in crashing the world economy recently and almost got us into another Great Depression. (True, gov't mistakes contributed to it, but run-away greed was the main cause.) I thank Big Gov't for having prevented another Great Depression...in this case.

What conservatives often fail to grasp is that "less government" and "more competition" are sometimes at odds. We need referees to enforce a competitive environment. It's too easy for big co's to buy away competition. We want them using their resources to make better & cheaper mousetraps, not to keep out other mousetrap makers.

Most voters don't know the difference. They don't know what they are missing in order to get a "smaller gov't". They hear the oligopoly viewpoint because the oligopolies pay a lot of money to get their view out there and to get politicians to mirror their view.

So 87% of Americans have Microsoft Access. Thanks for clearing that up :-)

Technically 100% of Americans have potential broadband access; it would just cost an arm and leg to get it in many places. For example, a billionaire may have high-speed satellite connections if their mansion is in a remote area. Having access is not a "Boolean value".

If one wants a practical formal definition of "having access to broadband", then one may have to apply a price threshold.