I agree, Nintendo has to protect their copyright & trademarks for them to remain valid.

However, in a lot of cases I think the lawsuit/legal threat method shows these companies don't have a lot of ingenuity or common sense. Unless it's obviously taking sales away, why not meet with the guy and draw up a license for him to use the content for those purposes? It would be cheaper than any legal action (save perhaps just a threat) and moreover it's likely to generate some goodwill for your company if you support the fans of your products.

Why no one looks for a solution outside of (a) cease and desist permanently and immediately or (b) lawsuit is beyond me.

Not to belittle the experience you went through, but this would happen less if people fought back against the banks. Remember, there is no such thing as identify theft. Nobody can steal a "number" from you.

The actual crime that is taking place is bank fraud. If someone walks into a bank (or online), fraudulently represents themselves, and gets money from the bank - exactly what part of that are you liable for? An appropriate legal threat for any personal ramifications or credit file tampering from fraud they brought on themselves should resolve the situation, and if it doesn't a lawsuit should bring you back to par (and pay for your legal costs too).

If this forces the bank to put in place more serious, even (gasp) inconvenient processes in place to verify someone's identity, so be it. That or suck up the losses they bring onto themselves.

The problem with your whole premise is that most "fossil fuel" or "big oil" companies are usually the largest investors in renewable energy source. If you look at most of the big players, they've rebranded themselves over the past decade as energy companies, and have taken lengths to diversify into as many energy sources as makes sense.

If you think the boards, shareholders, and major pension funds holding these companies are stupid or somehow you see something they don't you're a fool. They are more interested in long term asset preservation and growth, the pension companies could care less if this was from oil or solar. The money from these companies will always flow to where the need is. Ever wonder why "Big Oil" companies frequent the tops of "most sustainable" companies? Another conspiracy perhaps?

Or worse yet, now when I need to connect directly to my home router to figure out why the WiFi isn't working or is abnormally slow, I'd need to go find a real computer.

I don't necessarily agree. I did some reading into drone design lately, and pretty much every single model comes in a quad-copter design these days. The machines (some of them, the more advanced ones) are incredibly stable, can stop on a dime and maintain position and altitude, and take off and land with no effort whatsoever.

They can be very efficiently controlled by computers and GPS, and this had me thinking - there's nothing to prevent a larger model with a central passenger cabin and four shielded outer rotary blades. Seems to me we're already pretty close to meeting #2 and #3 above.

Yes we are left with the energy problem, but power requirements (especially if for short, programmed commutes) may not be that far out of reach and I highly doubt it cannot be done until we perfect fusion.

That's it, no more using words to describe the colors a person sees, only wavelength numbers allowed.

I don't know about all you other crazy people out there, but I clearly see 582 nanometers.

Right, I hear this all the time too, and we still fly airplanes.

This is false, pigs are used for inspection, not flow. Pumps maintain flow. The bitumen is diluted with (actually the term) diluent before injection into the pipe.

The Canadian oil deposits being mined for the source of KXL oil are not shale deposits.

As a Canadian myself, I fully support your right to have the viewpoint you do - as long as you realize you're in the minority and that most Canadians in-the-know don't see investing in additional pipeline infrastructure and new energy technologies as mutually exclusive activities.

Citation needed. (Disclaimer: I work in the pipeline industry, but not for TCPL nor have any stake in KXL).

This simply isn't true and is fear-mongering about pipelines at it's best. Sure, you can point to a few stories, but fact remains pipelines have over a 99.999% safe delivery rate. The vast majority of spills are where there's breaks in the line - eg. pump stations, terminals, manifolds, etc., and those are only are already-contained and monitored property. Opponents like to point to devastating spills, but the unfortunate truth is even in areas where major spills have happened, twenty years after the fact there is little to indicate it ever happened. The earth is very good at cleaning itself up.. not dismissing spills, but the long term effects are SEVERELY overblown, though any suggestion of this truth is impossible to discuss given the politics.

Wrong, wrong. Tesla's current market cap (valuation) is a little over $25B. Thus in terms of size they're about 40% as big as Ford, who no doubt sells millions of vehicles per year, pays a dividend, has huge product lines and a wide dealer base.

So, if Tesla's sales were to double along with their market cap, they would be a size roughly comparable to Ford, but their business is nowhere near as brisk as Ford's. What I'm trying to say is current investors have priced in perfection in reaching the company's goals of being a major auto player. A report like this is definitely justification to sell, because what do you know, reality is not as easy and rosy as investors had thought.

Apparently a similar funny thing happened in the wine industry in the 90s...

The French/Italian/old world wines had always been chosen as the "best", though international tasting competitions started moving to blind testing. Big surprise, the Californian/Australian/new world wines started winning much more often. So what happened? Well, they went back to looking at the label and choosing French wines again.

Big lesson - there's no such thing as a wine tasting expert.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. The ruling in this case is about people with terminal illnesses and/or those in irreversible chronic agony. This is not setting up a system where any random able-bodied person can choose to commit suicide. The people this targets are definitely no longer part of the workforce.

Bullshit.

Nearly everyone I know eats meat, and I doubt a single one would find burning an animal to death an acceptable thing to do.