Your logic is 100% backwards. You are the one making the claim that the laws against fraud and racketeering don't seem to apply to companies over a certain size. In order to make that claim, you must have at least one example in mind. What is it? On the other hand, expecting a citation for someone being indicted implies that you know there is at least one case where someone should have been indicted, bringing us back to square one.

My point is that EVERY legitimate warranty claim is the result of something happening that should not have happened. So here we have a proposal to deny someone's warranty claim based on the fact that an eFUSE or whatever said they overclocked the chip, when in fact the state of the eFUSE itself could be a defect. That makes no sense at all.

Then it is completely worthless. Instead of having to try to determine whether the problem was caused by overclocking, you instead get to try to determine why the fuse was blown. Unless, of course, you are planning on them just rejecting warranty claims because it is 'unlikely' that it is their fault. OIn which case they might as well not include such a charade and just claim that it is 'unlikely' any problem is their fault and reject all warranty claims.

And of course it is impossible for the fuse to be blown by anything other than the user overclocking, right?

Can banks just decide not to do business with you? Yes. Can they keep your money? No, that would be theft. What does one have to do with the other?

Of course their are anti-discrimination laws, but what 'discrimination' they protect against is very narrowly defined (race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation).

What makes you think the Constitution applies to 'government regulated entities'? It certainly does not.

What is suspect about it? It plainly says the state has a 92.6% vaccination rate, and half of these facilities are under that.

Why? They asked people to rate the images based on personal factors AND technical factors, and found you could get the same ratings using only technical factors. What is wrong with that?

Neither the summary nor the article say anything about determining the 'beauty' of the SUBJECT. They are only determining the beauty of the PICTURE, by looking at things like sharpness and contrast.

Did you actually read all the way through the summary? For that matter, did you even read the title? It finds beautiful PORTRAITS, not beautiful SUBJECTS. It does this by IGNORING age, sex, etc and concentrates on sharpness, contrast, and exposure. What exactly is the problem?

Huh? They merged. The new company is called Office Depot. Office Max no longer exists. What is so hard to understand?

Apparently 'no one' bought $22.7B worth of stuff last year, with EBITDA of $1.46B.

What you described is NOT a homeopathic remedy. It may be a folk remedy or some such, but it sure isn't homeopathy. For it to be homeopathic you would not take elderberry extract to cure the flu, you would take water which had drop of flu virus added to it, then diluted about a billion times.

How dare the government make it so people can live and go where they want.

There is a world of difference between making money manufacturing existing drugs and making money bringing a new drug to market. I hope you can understand that.

'Just the cost of doing the chemistry and performing the trials...' WTF makes you think that is a 'just', especially when, absent patent protection, anyone else can make the same product WITHOUT spending that money? Here is a little clue for you - the AVERAGE cost of 'just doing the chemistry and perforrming the trials' is $2.5 BILLION.