ARPANET was the first working prototype of the internet which was the DOD. AT&T didn't even get into the internet mix until 1969 when they developed UNIX, which was merely a workable portable OS to work on the internet. You've been consistently wrong in this thread from about nearly every post you ranted on.
You are wasting your time trying to feed me your libertarian male bovine excrement. This is why conservatives don't like colleges, or college educated people. Your "history" would be mocked at, in an achedemic setting.
UNIX was merely a workable portable OS to work on the internet is kind of funny. Anyhow, how do you think the internet works. Computer equipment has two parts to it. Hardware and software. Most of what people think of, as the internet, is software. The underlying hardware is the phone grid, with cable added in. AT&T had built that grid long before anyone thought of computers. At a certain level, when you access the internet, you are essentially making a phone call.
What do you think the internet runs on? Why do you think it is, that one gets their internet from the phone company?
False. GDP per capita per state Political affiliation by state Center part of the country is pretty productive there. TBH, its pretty evenly split, so the claim that the democratic states are "economic superior" is patently false.
https://online.jefferson.edu/communications/internet-history-timeline/ I think you are purposely conflating two TOTALLY different events to troll, or you are merely that oblivious.
I don't know, Colorado, Washington and California come out towards the top, no matter how you cut the pie. Same with New York, Vermont, and Massachusettes too. .
Your mind seems to be made up, and have this need to prove me wrong, but the lines, the multiplexing and switching equipment and whatnot, are all phone company equipment, plus some cable. It all runs over the phone lines. There are private intranets that run on their own lines.
My mind is made up because you've done absolutely nothing to persuade me. Everything you claim is anedodtle as you provide no citations to validate your argument while other have. Support your claim with some impericle evidence. I have NO problem stepping up and admitting when I'm wrong. But I do expect so e evidence.
I'm a conservative, not a libertarian. I was invited to join the history honor society in college even though I wasn't a history major or minor. So I ended up in four different honor societies. All of my professors were liberals, of course, but they appreciated that I would argue with them.
You excuse is absurd, and california proves it, california food does pop out of the ground, its the countries biggest economy and they are leaving by the DROVES, they are running out of the state because of progressive insanity. There are more homeless in california than anywhere else, they have a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities, and they have homeless americans living like animals. Progressives are ridiculous and absurd and I seriously hope the country rejects them soundly
Prior to the Enlightenment, people were ruled over by hereditary Kings, who's legitimacy was secured by religious approval. This was a primary complaint of the Enlightenment era philosophers. A wrong to be righted. The gripe was that the people toiled under the dead weight of monarchs and clerics. As the era progressed, the ideas progressed. As to religion, it began with harsh criticisms of Christianity, which led to a rejection of Jesus as a god. Taking the arguments to their logical conclusions, there could be no gods, thus kings could have no legitimacy. This idea can be seen in the United States Constitution. In Article six and in the religious clause of the first amendment. By the way, Wikipedia terms John Locke "the father of liberalism", and terms Edmund Burke "the father of conservatism". Classifications that most historians agree with. The primary difference between conservatives and liberals is conservatives rely on belief, even glorifying blind belief, as if it were an honorable trait. Liberals rely on empirical evidence. John Locke was one of the first to promote the idea of empiricism. Hume marked the beginning of the end of the intellectual acceptance of religion. Some of the most fun I had in college, was watching the Bible club crowd freak out in a Philosophy class. It was when it first became clear to me, the emotional nature of religious/conservative thought (belief).
You're still misusing the terms "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" here is meant in the 18th & 19th century idea of "freedom" and "conservative" here is meant in the 18th & 19th century idea of "resistance to change". Conservatives of today look to both Locke AND Burke as intellectual forebears without any cognitive dissonance at all. Liberals of today are the intellectual descendants of Marx, Rousseau, Voltaire. Liberals of today have about as much connection with Locke as they do to Adam Smith, i.e., none. It's a lie that liberals rely on empirical evidence, because if they did, they would abandon socialism post-haste. Every bit of empirical evidence available shows that socialism is a complete and utter failure as an economic system, but liberals stubbornly cling to it despite all evidence. Looking at the Wikipedia entry on liberalism, it's clear that the point of separation happened when the early "liberals" like Locke, who believed that individuals had rights that trumped the rights of the state, were replaced by liberals like T.H. Green, who believed the "common people" had rights that trumped the rights of the individual. It is a fundamentally illiberal position, at once at odds with Locke and Adam Smith. "In the late 19th century and early 20th century, a group of British thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and argued in favor of state intervention in social, economic and cultural life. What they proposed is now called social liberalism.[5] The New Liberals, including intellectuals like Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Hobhouse and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances.[6] In their view, the poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed that these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented and interventionist state.[19]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism This is modern liberalism.
My concern: Supposedly Socialism is fine until you ultimately run out of other people's money. So Socialists move to freer states to set up shop there for a while. New Hampshire, for instance, home of the "Union Leader" used to be reliably red. Bunch of blue state refugees later and it is now purple, headed towards full blown blue. They actually voted Hillary in 2016. How to be red, and safe from the blues?
And they were right And, in the final analysis, BOTH conservatives and liberals agree on this. It's a question of degree. Liberals don't cling to socialism. I don't know of any well-regarded liberal theorists of the present day who are anything but Social Democrats and Social Democrats are NOT Democratic Socialists, conservative propaganda notwithstanding. Socialism has been dead since the 1970's
And, yet, "liberals" (I don't think you are liberal, as everything you promote is the opposite of liberalization) believe firmly in the mystical authority of winners of popularity contests and the determination of morality from the same types of contests. In other words, your belief in government authority, and it's right to use violent police powers to give you stuff, is as blind as any conservative's blind belief in the Bible.
I think that you are barking up the wrong tree. I mean, it's probably okay to have a boogyman in your head, but it ain't me.
Jackson Hole will always be booming due to unique factors, like Santa Fe, Aspen, Monterrey, etc. People aren't flocking there because it's liberal, they can go to Chicago for that.
rich people buy homes in beautiful places near recreation they want to experience. the people who lived there first pretty much hate and resent their homes being made their playground.
