Who said Verizon's engineers think this is a better idea? I'm sure their input was limited to,"Can we do this, instead of that?", not,"Which is the better solution?"

You used the word nothing. A large capital expenditure, a large infrastructure, a questionable business plan, and the EC itself (a barrier which prevents Amazon from operating there) are not nothing, and they are not minor, and they are not irrelevant. While you may find lots of information about revenue per user at Amazon, you probably can't find anything that says they've actually turned a profit - until that is answered in the affirmative, it is by no means "beyond question". There are seventeen complainants represented, and many are much smaller than Amazon.

Google has threatened phone manufacturers over forks of the code. Amazon doesn't use Android to describe Kindle's OS, though it is a fork, because Google won't allow it. Google has consistently favored specific hardware manufacturers with preferential access to the code. If I contribute changes to the code you won't see my code unless it is incorporated in the release version. Those are all issues which are contrary to "open."

Google's behavior is a major reason no one chooses to compete. The complaint according to fairsearch.org's release includes accusations of "anti-competitive strategy", "deceptive conduct to lockout competition", "predatory distribution", and that “Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a ‘Trojan Horse’ to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile marketplace, and control consumer data,” Those are anti-trust issues.

Nothing except a huge barrier cost of entry, which is a consideration in anti-trust cases. Few companies have the capital (intellectual and monetary) to succeed (make a profit) in such a venture. Most are either competitors or partners with Google. The competitors have no interest in making the Android customer experience better, and the partners have an implicit agreement not to compete. As for a startup, tell potential investors that you plan to beat Google on their playing field, with their ball, and be careful of the scramble as they rush to fund you /sarcasm. Amazon is the one true exception, and they do not offer such a service in many countries, in part because of EC activism/intervention such as is being requested in this case.

You keep the person on the line until you reach the old style phone in the other room, pick up its receiver, hang up the cordless phone and slam down the receiver of the old style phone. You do realize that the value of a land line is reliability, and that a cordless phone is the weak link in the chain? A phone that requires no power other than what it draws from the phone company is needed for real emergencies, and most landline users have at least one in their homes.

Intransitively is a perfectly cromulent word. And it's use is valid, if something of a stretch.

A cow with a full udder is very uncomfortable; if you delay milking her, her body will reduce her milk production. Chickens start feeding as soon as the sky brightens before sunrise, if you don't feed them when they are ready, they won't eat as much and their egg production may suffer. You feed pigs before the heat of the day because they eat less when they are hot. The time of day for shoeing a horse has little impact on one's daily food production, so it waits.

Facebook should really show 'em and shut down permanently!

You are an unrepentant APOLOGIST. The criticism you would (rightly) voice against a Republican President for signing it is the only legitimate response to Mr Obama signing it. Signing it is endorsing it. Voting for it in Congress is endorsing it. Not voting against it is chicken shit endorsing it. Our country is being ruined by voters ignoring what politicians do and believing what they say.

The speech generator in my browser converts libel to slander. The speech recognition engine in my word processor converts slander to libel. Isn't technology wonderful?

Your argument fails completely because sole-sourced != scarce != valuable != expensive. Henry Ford's Model T was available from only one manufacturer, but it was very inexpensive and valuable to its owners. One-eyed, three legged dogs are scarce, but only of value to a small number of people. Tickle me Elmo was scarce for a time, not because of the artificial constraints of trademark or copyright but because demand simply exceeded manufacturing capacity, it was very expensive, but never valuable in any intrinsic sense. Copyright (and trademark) allows the seller to set the price. but the marketplace still sets the value and that determines whether the product is common or rare. If you want to be free of progress (under any economic system), eliminate rewards to the creators and innovators. The Soviet Union was able to compete with the West on an Military Industrial basis and at the Olympics, but was largely devoid of nice consumer products because the Government rewarded the athletes, and arms innovators and manufacturers, and not the makers of washing machines or sanitary pads. I'm not arguing for the free market or for copyright, per se, so much as pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument.

Yeah go ahead and ignore the important part. I guess the inability to read three whole sentences is part of the gun grabber mentality. By the way, no justification is needed, it is a right.

You are correct, In Illinois the pump says "up to 10%"; the State mandates 10%, no less. So Illinois does have the highest ethanol content in the country.

Vietnam and Afghanistan have showed that "well regulated" is not necessary to win a war. So by your reasoning we no longer require close order drill for a proper militia. OTAH, If you diagram the sentence structure of the 2nd Amendment you will understand that the militia statement is superfluous.

Evil is correct. We have rights, stated clearly in the Constitution. If you want to take those rights from us there is one legal means to do so - amend the Constitution, any other means is subversive, illegal and evil.

The "well regulated militia" part is an introductory subordinate clause, as such it is completely unnecessary, and we needn't worry about its interpretation. The right is stated in an independent clause that stands by itself.

It seems to me that this data falls under one of the exemptions to FOIA: "Personnel, medical and similar files, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)" and/or "Records compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)." Perhaps someone in the office that provided the information needs to review the procedure.