Capital Punishment for anyone breaking any law or even for minor infractions. That will solve the problem real quick, or we'll run out of people to punish, or most likely we'll be overthrown by a revolt and executed.

Before the patent expires, the patent holder tends to do a smear campaign to inject FUD in further use of the pharmaceutical and discourages doctors from prescribing it. When the replacement medication is available it quickly supplants the old medication, even if it has more dangerous side-effects.

Medication is not a free market because the end-users are not the ones to make the decisions on which medication to purchase. It's a a decision made by doctors, who are often heavily influenced by sophisticated marketing campaigns from drug companies.

I'm fine letting the free market determine what I should pay for TVs, pajamas, corn, etc. Because I directly make the decision on what I buy. (note: corn is not sold on a free market)

CEOs like to use special language because they are all sociopaths and have trouble with the truth.

States occasionally rewrite their constitutions. But as I understand it for the US Constitution to be rewritten we would have to get unanimous approval of every state legislature, and that Congress alone does not have the authority to do this. (anyone, is this true?)

I don't agree that a traffic citation is reasonable cause to search for drugs. Maybe if there is reckless driving and the driver appears intoxicated, but that is already a felony. I would much rather that it took a related felony before drug searches are permitted.

If we all mostly agree to something then we can legislate it to enforce that agreement. Isn't that what democracy is about? Resolving issues when unanimous agreement is not possible.

You bring up a good point. There are people who legitimately need it as medication.

The price of pharmaceuticals is not really well correlated by supply and demand. It's priced based on how much money the drug company wants to make that quarter. (I wish I were being facetious)

At my US job I officially have 0 sick days and 0 PTO. I am paid a salary whether I work or not. I can arrange to not show up to work and continue to get the same salary. But there is no written standard for how much I can take, and I do not accrue any PTO that I can collect as a check when I leave.

This sort of weirdo policy is starting to become popular in the tech industry, especially in Silicon Valley. And it makes comparing job benefits almost impossible.

In the industry I work in, I am not permitted to form or join a union, as my job is considered to be a professional occupation and not protected by the state labor laws. (USA)

I don't see this changing in the US any time soon. (soon being before I retire)

Then let's all agree not to take it. As we really only care about the relative performance when compared against your peers. If all your peers did it, you'd be in the same place you are now.

Might be better is if we all worked less, got paid less and hired a few more people. I realize some people want to work 50 hours a week (or more), but I don't and it's been hard to not do that and stay in my industry.

It's tough to arrest someone carrying a firearm when no one else is allowed to carry one.

It's time we repeal the Fourth Amendment. Police need to be able to find all the criminals using any means necessary. Won't someone please think of the children!!

(And if you post arguments against this proposal, I'll push to repeal the First Amendment as well)

So when googlebot visits, I'll send it some bullshit to satisfy it. Then continue to operate my website without really having to commit to mobile content.

There should be no estate for Goebbels, precisely because of the person he was and the things he has done. It's that the copyright isn't valid, it's that the estate should not exist!

When I read the article it didn't seem like the normal excepts you find in a biography. The excerpts have been described as "extensive", and I think Random House could have went beyond Fair Use and into copyright violation.

Orthogonal to the copyright issue is that I don't understand why Goebbels has an estate to make a claim against Random House. It should never have been permitted to allow a convicted war criminal to pass property onto heirs or relatives and all of his property ought to have reverted to the state and have been sold at auction. So what the heck happened?

You should write it instead of cut and paste?

There is fair use, and there is lifting the work of another person. If this were an academic paper, I would be far more lenient. but this is a book written to sell a lot of books. The purpose is to make money here, and not letting publishers get a free ride is precisely why there are copyright laws.