WSJ Gets It Wrong
Monday, December 15th, 2008 by Harry Lewis
Unlike buy artane from us palliative care, hospice care does not provide curative treatments, such buy cheapest artane no prescription as treatments to help cure an illness or prolong a viagra medicine person's life. Although people typically associate lice with poor hygiene, cheap viagra in canada having lice does not mean someone is unclean or lives viagra pill in unsanitary conditions. The NIH reports that these adverse health spiriva without prescription events can include behavioral disorders and diminished IQ scores. Doctors lasix for order can work with a person to decide which medications will atenolol prescription most effectively treat their asthma. There was only a short-term best price for atarax reduction in the saliva samples immediately after exposure to ciprofloxacin. order clonidine low price drugs People can contract O. volvulus as a result of sustaining find accutane on internet a bite from a blackfly that is infected with the zofran price parasite. A doctor may prescribe medications such as letrozole, clomiphene, and.
A Wall Street Journal story about a proposed agreement between Google and Internet Service Providers suggests that Google is pulling a double-cross, given its prior commitment to Net Neutrality. Unfortunately the details of the proposal haven’t been made public. But the consensus of the knowledgeable is that the WSJ misunderstands what is going on and that Net Neutrality is not threatened by Google’s proposal. A greater worry is perhaps about the implications of Google’s increasingly monopoly power over bits, but that wouldn’t mean that its packets got delivered faster than those of some minor player.) Thanks to Steve Schultze for pointing me to this collection of comments.