Assuming the statistical analysis is correct, I will give the answer:

As the fly flies by, the alternate dark and light banding confuses the fly into thinking it is the moving shadows of some threat from overhead, like a hungry bird.

Go write a paper and list me as lead.

ISPs advertise, amd charge more for, higher speeds to your house.

It's fraud to deliberately degrade Netflix to attempt to extort from them a portion of what I pay Netflix.

Pepsi sales did not unfurl.

If a pizza delivery guy, who is reimbursed to use his own car, creams someone on the way to work, and not while delivering, is he personally liable?

In any case, this isn't about insurance -- that's a smokescreen. It's about using one issue to restrict competition for established players. New companies can get insurance, if that's the established players' only beef.

Look in the mirror and repeat after me: "...but it's not."

"Lack of knowledge is lack of power."

You regulate the electricity costs, so your fingerprints are all over it already, "The People".

STEM != computer programmer

It's been pointed out these people are holding the same position President Obama did until about a year or so ago.

Hehe, 3 or 4 fish hooked! Reel 'em in, rossdee!

I am no fan of Obama, but "income gap" is a useless and purely rhetorical metric.

If you are concerned with "the poor", you need to look at mass average measurements of wealth and health. These tend to skyrocket in economically free areas, and suffer in non-free ones, whether hat be because of a failed state, a dictatorship, a corrupt state with kickbacks everywhere, or a heavily-taced one.

Currently, said average wealth of poor ***is*** skyrocketting -- in China and India and similar.

The reasons you list are meme cover stories -- some valid, some not.

None of it has anything to do with limiting the number of taxi drivers instead of letting them compete.

In a free country, no, you don't, in fact, get to use government to carve up my access to product and limit it to whoever has the ear of a politician.

This is one argument I cannot agree with. It would decrease peanut butter demands, which would filter throgh the entire peanut butter market. I can't imagine much, are people just guessing this is a reason?

One person gets sick and dies, there goes your "worth $2.6 million".

Not five articles away, slashdotters are bitching over GM making a decision to risk lives for profit. Here, they bitch about not risking it. Or not risking money to help poor, or some damned thing.

Where's that pill Stan took last night? I need it when browsing slashdot.

The half-size one. No, wait. The full one.

> and sugar

The heathens in Europe don't know what a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is. When living there, I wanted to make one, and the only peanit butter I could find was for cooking.

No sugar and salt is completely gross, dude. Thou knowest not of which thou speaketherino.

Still waiting for a diagnosis of the feeling of superiority concrete canyon dwellers get, when studies show too many rats in a cage they start eating each other. At least they don't vote, telling field mice how to live.