WSJ Gets It Wrong
Monday, December 15th, 2008 by Harry Lewis
Medical cheap mirapex in uk News Today has made every effort to make certain that compare dexamethasone prices all information is factually correct, comprehensive, and up to date. buy generic free online To find out what the cost of Zoryve will be retin-a without prescription for you, talk with your doctor, pharmacist, or insurance provider. norvasc prescription If you need financial support to pay for Zoryve or clomid for sale help to understand your insurance coverage, help is available. To buy glucophage online learn the exact cost you'd pay for this medication without cheap viagra no prescription insurance, ask your doctor or pharmacist. But if you have online pharmacy viagra health insurance, you'll need to talk with your insurance provider levitra sale to learn the actual cost you'd pay for Zoryve. The azor online stores absence of warnings or other information for a given drug estradiol pharmacy online does not indicate that the drug or drug combination is safe,.
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.