That wouldn't last. People would demand changes as they saw their children miss out on higher education opportunities.
Why should anyone be required to do this. It is their pipes. They own it. They run it. They should be able to do what they want.
I can't believe they're doing this. I don't care if a review is paid or not. If I can't think analytically or critical about a review(er) then I deserve what I get. How does the process even work. Can I go around submitting tons of accusations to an FTC site about any random blog? How are they defining a blog or blogger? How does a blogger defend themselves from accusations? On a separate issue, this is really terrible reporting. There is almost no information.
The main value in newspapers previously was their distribution network. They had a system in place to distribute information. Radio, TV, and the internet all compete with them for information systems. Each one added more competition, lower latency, and broader reach. In short they provided better value. A daily delivery of dead tree is a non-optimal delivery system. It is getting boring hearing about newspapers and TV news dieing. Why care? The replacement is here. It is better, faster, cheaper. It is the internet.
The government is supposed to protecty my rights. Especially my private property rights.
This says alot more about how useless most of school is. Typing is important, but what are children doing for 99.99% of the time that learning touch typing can be considered such an important cornerstone.
If cashback is something they keep around for two years or more I consider it as part of the search engine. At two years or more it must be part of their business model.
They're accountable to their customers, their shareholders, and their potential customers they want. There is a reason most people who have the money send their children to private schools: they're usually better.
Yes I remember how it was shot down. It was flying the same path over and over. It's LO not "stealth"
No it doesn't need to be regulated as the cost of the water would go up. You or your neighbor then cut back on the amount of water you use. If you don't cut back then there is enough money around to bring a supply of water that you are both demanding at that price point. No government regulation needed and the problem gets taken care of.
But we're ruining the planet! I watched a movie and food comes from cruel treatment of nature true story! Nature first! Humans second!
"So what it boils down to is that the Republicans, by their actions, have proven that they firmly believe in deficit spending, that we can borrow an endless amount of money for whatever our government wants to do. So yes, party allegiance makes a difference: if they're Republicans, they simply don't believe in following a budget." That is what Obama is doing right now.
So the least expensive item is more environmentally friendly. Who could have known?!
Are they correlated or one causes the other? I don't think its clear.
I'd like to spend the $5 where I want it spent. Preferably on something that makes me more productive. Might be food, might be entertainment, but I don't want to pay someone to dig holes. They could be producing something useful for the world. Digging holes will never be "responsible investing". It is no better than trading houses back and forth at increased prices each time. No where in my post did I say there should be neither no government nor taxation and I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from in my post. I do however sarcastically imply I want my money to be used productively instead of for hole digging.