Then Libraries should partner with Amazon. Like the book. Try it in the library. Order it, and your UAV will drop it off at your house before you get home (or upload it to your Kindle). There's already lots of "free" places to browse books. The library. I don't see the problem.

That's not how it works. Celery has calories (in the sense that burning it will generate heat), but has negative digestive calories (in the sense that pulling the nutrients from it and pushing the waste out will burn more calories than gained by the process).

Some people have low absorption. They eat anything they want, and don't get fat. Others are much more efficient. The efficient can eat according to any diet you pick that is sustainable for an inefficient person, and still gain weight.

You don't make fat from nothing, but some people can get fat on 1/2 the calories of someone else. Blaming the person with the efficient metabolism for eating "only" 75% of the other person (despite having a nearly identical hunger response), makes you a gigantic asshole.

So you don't consider a car named "Faster Than The Mustang" to be a product claim of any kind? If GM launched that (and didn't run into any trademark issues), you wouldn't consider it a problem if the car was slower than the Mustang?

Now, the claim would need to be related to the product. Like it's fraud to sell "fruit cocktail" in the USA that doesn't have the right percentage of cherry. And that's dependent on the product name, and is in the USA. And it wouldn't be fraud to sell the Toyota Wish, as no reasonable person would think that buying a crappy minivan would grant you a wish.

I mentioned outside the US, because "common sense" as expressed outside the US says fraud is illegal. I know fraud in a product name is illegal in the US for some meats, fruits, and fruit cocktail. But I don't know about other areas. You assert no, but you did so absolutely, and I know for a fact you are wrong, at least with some products, so I don't trust your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... Reality proves you wrong. Your move.

They've been offered freedom, with the condition that they stop trying to kill Israelis. They refused.Their movement is restricted because Egypt closed their borders as well. So why is nobody complaining about Egypt?

Yes. When they shoot back, they will always hit civilians. Nut Hamas refuses to stop giving them reasons to shoot back.

They had freedom of movement. It was ended when Hamas used that freedom to attack. They had freedom of trade, until Hamas used that freedom to trade in arms to attack with. All the problems in the area were caused by Hamas. Israel sits at the negotiation table trying to find a better way, but Hamas refuses to show up. And yet, it's all Israel's fault.

Most countries outside the US (with any consumer protection laws), product names are advertising claims. I consider a product name that is advertised, to be an advertisement.

Israel has tried. They were rebuked.

But is it wrong to shoot back? What if he always travels in the middle of a paid crowd that knows he's up to no good?

It isn't that old. It "started" with the numerous invasions by numerous people over time. The reason is because it was a crossroads to Africa, Asia, and Europe. Yes, aside from the Suez canal, it's possible to walk from Africa to Asia/Europe. They are one land mass, and one of the most convenient places to pass between them is the middle east.

The Crusades were because of economic envy, not religion. The area was so "important" that England held it for a while, which is how it was able to be "gifted" to the WWII refugees. And it's been war ever since with the neighbors trying to finish what Hitler started.

Between the crusades and the creation of Israel, England has more to do with starting this than many who lived there.

I don't bother to follow that mess. There's nothing I can do about it, so it's pointless to try. But, in response to your accusations, I looked and found nothing that supported the story.

Your quote confirms that Hamas used the school as a human shield, deliberately firing from there, which those near knew. But rather than evacuate, they stayed at the launch site for an attack on Israel. Why? Oh, Hamas refused them passage to safety. Hamas kidnapped them for human shields. And Israel is in the wrong for hitting Hamas back, because Hamas had kidnapped human shields still on site.

Yes, all Israel's fault.

By your measure, Emminant Domain in the USA is illegal by the Geneva convention, so long as the landowner secedes.

Hamas sends no warnings to targets. Israel sends warnings to targets. Hamas deliberately tries to encourage civilians to be human shields. What response would you have Israel give to an attack from a (claimed) sovereign nation? More foreign aid?

How does that work with a free game?

And it does not "ban" any people, innocent or otherwise. It bans anonymous edits from an IP. That isn't a person. That is just one of the many ways of making edits. It certainly isn't a "ban" as they still get "use" of Wikipedia, reading and otherwise. They just can't edit, anonymously, from that IP. Edit anonymously from home, or get a login. It's not a hardship to anyone.

Just because you advertise it as being something doesn't mean it is or needs to be? Nope. That's false advertising.

Nope. The corporate owners can take their corporate profits and have speech. The question was about the corporation having its own voice, above and beyond that of the employees of it (with tax implications of using pre-tax money for post-tax activities).