Perhaps you shouldn't post bullshit on public forums in future then? If you don't know what he did, or didn't, do then why type uninformed noise?

No serious economist supports the minimum wage.

You're uninformed and have a vastly over-sized opinion of your own knowledge. Plenty of very credible economists support the idea of a minimum wage, in fact many support a minimum wage nearly 50% higher than the current US minimum wage source here

You know when you see 'stupid' people saying they don't see why doctors, lawyers, scientists, programmers etc get paid so much because they don't understand what they do and thus think it must be easy? That's like you commenting on what 'serious' economists think when you clearly haven't got a fucking clue.

You'd also better be very clear that the internet use included in the rent isn't actually full internet access, and sites that the users are likely to want may be blocked. If I rented a property that advertised internet and then blocked things I wanted because the service wouldn't accept the extortion you can bet I'd be finding a lawyer and discussing with as many other students as possible going for a class action for misselling.

You likely do considerably better by doing a deal with providers to advertise to students for them (leaflets, posters, special deals etc) rather than doing this.

The issue here is that we're expecting companies to put vast resources into validating and controlling trademark issues like this, while we choose where to shop based on price which motivates them to spend as little on it as possible.

The issue is with both 1) possibly the government for allowing such a generic trademark, but primarily 2) with the fact that he hasn't/can't been sued out of existence for making clearly baseless claims.

If more trademark/copyright trolls paid very severe penalties for what they are doing then there would be less trolls. Expecting companies to act as arbiters on legality is never going to have a good result. Now what Zazzle could do to get some good will is help the aggrieved producers organise a lawsuit against this twat, which would be in their own interest anyway.

You think he agreed to bullshit terms that limited his right to have thoughts and opinions and to reveal them in PRIVATE CONVERSATION never intended for publication?

Yes; it's not a hard question because he did, whether you're butthurt that people might be held to account for being racists or not. If you're a racist you won't get my money, support or help and that's regardless of how I find out that you're a racist; that's my freedom right there :P

Rather than Sun, Yahoo and dozens of tech companies that have imploded during that window. The fact you try and pin the decline of "PCs" on MS just emphasises that your position is based on your dislike of MS rather than anything rational.

Those who try to fashion a world where no one is free to THINK whatever they want can preferable go STRAIGHT TO HELL.

If you've got a point then I suggest getting to it. Sterling isn't being prosecuted for what he said. A private organisation has asked is using powers he has agreed to it having to remove him because that is what the majority of its members want. That in itself is freedom; stopping the NBA and its members from kicking him out for being a racist would be restricting their freedom.

Just because there are plenty of good old titles doesn't mean one shouldn't read new titles.

What's particularily naive about his logic is that the chances are all those old books that he thinks mean there is no need for new ones almost certainly were written hundreds, or potentially thousands, of years after books in the same genre that were considered to be excellent at the time. Stories about Gilgamesh come from 4,500 years ago and exist to this day, which means they were clearly quite notable. Does that mean that all stories of heroism written in the last 4 millenia were pointless? There's debate about whether The Lord of the Ringswas heavily influenced by a Wagner opera or the same talesthat the opera was based on. Perhaps we should still be reading those rather than Tolkien knocking up pointless repeats ;)?

There's always someone who can't see the point in something new. The good news is they're generally wrong and invariably don't influence the creation of more work!

Do you produce stuff that you think you should completely regardless of whether the person who pays you wants you to or not? If not, you're just as much of a sell out as he is; you just have the dubious distinction of being a hypocrite as well.

other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.

So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok ;)

So at the very best, whoever came up with that slogan was naive and unthoughtful.

People who think that are narrow-minded. The moment you start trying to define 'evil' you invariably miss out things that you would want to discourage. A company that says "do no evil", and accounts for that when hiring, should be able to answer the question "Is threatening to de-list musicians from YouTube if they don't accept our streaming terms a little evil" without needing a 20 point list of 'what evil means'. Like any big organisation though you need the senior management to hire, train and live those values because no matter how well defined a value is it means nothing if the organisation doesn't believe it in.

What's your point? That's like dismissing complaints about companies putting DRM on products because ways around the DRM exist if you go and look for them.

you can say google is evil,but spotify doesn't let anyone upload videos for free for the whole world to see

Given the advertising revenue Google makes off YouTube I don't think they, or you, will get very far trying to pretend it's some kind of charitable service that somehow justifies them being dicks (if they in fact are) about something else.

Google may or may not be a bad guy here

If Google did threaten to screw musicians on YouTube that didn't sign up for their streaming service then Google ARE the bad guys here. I like Google and I think they do a lot of good, but let's not pretend that using your dominance of one market to force musicians to accept your terms in another isn't a jackass move.

Not being annexed by Mexico and Canada respectively, that's quite a benefit.

Because every 'small' country (California probably has a GDP around that of Mexico's...) is immediately annexed by its neighbours. I didn't think I needed to specify that benefits had the be remotely realistic to stop people posting nonsense points ;)