Print 43 comment(s) - last by homebredcorgi.. on Oct 20 at 5:35 PM

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates (Left) and former President Bill Clinton (Right)  (Source: All Things D)
Microsoft made the announcement at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in New York yesterday

Microsoft announced that it will help one million students from low-income families obtain broadband Internet access through a three-year commitment with the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a philanthropic organization operated by former President Bill Clinton.

According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), there are approximately 100 million people in the U.S. without access to broadband. Within that 100 million are 9.5 million students that fall into a category known as the "digitally excluded."

A lack of Internet access can negatively affect a student in today's world because many aspects of our lives are now digital. The Internet is critical for research and even communication with the teacher and other students. Many schools even have websites where parents and students can check on school events, student grades and other pertinent information. Without the Internet, children do not perform as well in school and are more likely to drop out of high school, according to All Things D.

Students without Internet access are lost in the "digital divide," which refers to the social and economic challenges some people deal with when they don't have access to the Internet that many others take for granted. Microsoft wants to help bridge that gap through the three-year commitment with Clinton. This commitment aims to provide broadband access to the Internet for school-age students in low-income families.

Microsoft made the announcement at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in New York yesterday.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By amanojaku on 9/21/2011 11:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
Those "stupid laws" impose term limits, which are the only effective means of preventing dictators. When a president does something right, his/her successor would do well to continue with it, and this is brought up during the campaign. So, in theory, loosing a "good" president should not effect us negatively if we vote the right replacement in.

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Flunk on 9/21/2011 11:15:07 AM , Rating: 1
Canada doesn't have term limits and hasn't been taken over by dictators. The UK also doesn't have term limits.

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By therealnickdanger on 9/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Paj on 9/22/2011 7:36:41 AM , Rating: 1
what's yours?

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Iaiken on 9/21/2011 12:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Further, Canada and the provinces requires any such changes to the actual political system to be ratified by referendum. Any attempts by a political figure to seize greater power has always been voted down by a brutal margin.

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Fritzr on 9/21/2011 1:14:39 PM , Rating: 3
American term limits came in when Roosevelt realized he was the first President since Washington to have a good shot at becoming President for life. One of the things he did right is make sure no one else would get a shot at it without amending the constitution.
However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787–88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic."[5] Both Jefferson[6] and George Mason[7] advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation."

As predicted, now that Senators are elected, we have multiple Senators-for-Life in office today. It has been noted in other places that a US Senator has great difficulty losing a reelection bid.
The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done....

Wiki may not be the most reliable source, but it makes a good starting point.

By NellyFromMA on 9/21/2011 2:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nor do I wish the USA to be anything like either of those two countries... btw, Clinton was ok, not that great. Not bad, but not phenominal. Most of the benefits you perceive as originating because of Clinton actually were risidual from President Bush before him.

Further, Bill Clinton actually planted the initial seeds of the mortgage crisis by even opening up sub-prime lending to begin with to those that couldbn't truly afford or simply were not responsible enough to pay them.

You know, the people that refuse to accept responsibility for contributing to causing this mess we're in. Ohw ait, its only the financial instutions that were greedy right... not the people who wanted homes without being financially able to and then expected to be relieved of responsibility without losing the property, right? lol...

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Taft12 on 9/22/2011 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
Uh... Yes we have been taken over by a dictator. When was the last time you ever heard a Conservative MP say something that wasn't towing the party line handed down from the PMO?

By homebredcorgi on 10/20/2011 5:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
They can also kick out their leaders at any time through a no-confidence vote.

The kicker is they can elect the replacement in less than a year too. Unlike the two-year long, constantly-campaigning even-while-in-office "election" process we have.

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By kleinma on 9/21/2011 12:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
in theory, almost no one on the internet ever knows that loose and lose are two different things.

RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By danjw1 on 9/21/2011 5:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Was FDR a dictator? He was the reason that the amendment was passed. I don't mind limiting terms to 8 consecutive years, but I don't think a lifetime limit makes sense. He he can win again after leaving office, more power too him.

By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 7:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's bad enough we have career politicians and "public service" means you get to be a millionaire. But you people want career PRESIDENTS??

Fuck that. Besides President's aren't supposed to rule, they are simply supposed to be a steward of the nation for a few years.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki