I agree that protecting franchises is not pro consumer per se, but that was their original goal and result until the 1950's, the franchise laws of most states have gone too far in protecting the franchisees because legislatures fail to understand that the 20% of the total sales taxes they take in and 7% of the retail employment in their states are paid by consumers, not by the dealers. Disassembling the existing system by giving manufacturers the power to impose shrink-wrap terms and conditions on consumers is not a move in the right direction. Boyko either lied about the situation, or he doesn't understand it himself. Tesla spent more money in Texas trying to influence lawmakers than the car dealers association. Texas lawmakers failed to enact an exemption specifically for Tesla. I do not think a bill that cuts out an exemption (even from dubious laws) for one company is a good idea, but apparently this wannabe politician does.

So what you are saying is that this Democrat (who we all know favor strong consumer protection) wants to eliminate one of the oldest consumer protection laws on the books? If he had anything intelligent to say on the subject he would have proposed how to accomplish letting the manufacturer sell directly and provide the same protection to the consumer instead of lying by stating that the politicians acted to prevent Tesla from selling directly (as 47 other states also do, so perhaps it actually has some rational basis). Too many Democrats and Republicans alike are all about picking who wins and who loses, and not on reason, equality, or constitutionality; and this guy's true colors are showing in that regard. It sounds to me like he thinks politicians are for sale and he just wants in on the gravy train.

Find (the) one that has actually been used - properly documented, it old be worth a fortune.

I worked for a retail company that applied lie detector tests to their employees. They had a written test for aptitude and general truthfulness followed by a polygraph test. The manager said I was their only employee who was not required to take the polygraph based on the written test results. I wonder how I would do today on that same test thirty years later when the world isn't so black and white in my mind.

Giving any credit to WikiLeaks for their "offer" or laying blame on the Government is either incredibly naive or extremely partisan, for it doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. Do you really think the Government could accept such an offer? Let me paraphrase the offer so you understand. WikiLeaks: " We have this pile of information, most of it is unbearably mundane and of no interest to anyone; we have no interest in releasing it as it will put our audience to sleep; some of it is really juicy and embarrassing to you and could be used to blackmail you, some of it could be worth millions of dollars to your enemies. Would you help me categorize it so we can do with it what we please?

The problems surfaced after only five generations. With four breeding pairs initially, inbreeding would not have been a problem at that point. The real issue, and the one which modern man faces, is lack of external forces selecting against those who are not fulfilling their genetic and social roles. The name he chose for the enclosure, "Mortality-Inhibiting Environment for Mice" should be the obvious clue to the root of the problem. A couple of cats, or other form of selection, would have kept the mouse population healthy for many, many generations.

Actually it is since methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. (This presumes that releasing greenhouse gasses is bad, which is the current consensus among those representing themselves as scientists.)

And the pages with words will be burnt to light the walls of the cave on which the pages with pictures will be hung.

The law is not wrong. The actions those documents expose, and the classification of the documents in order to prevent the discovery of the abuse are wrong. Those responsible have violated their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and should be dismissed from their positions.

You do not recognize the world of hurt you have potentially exposed yourself to as a result of making a copy and putting it on your storage device? The law IS crystal clear on that one too. You must have a mechanism for dealing with claimed copyright infringement. Not every video YouTube sends is sent legally, but by agreeing to quickly remove videos that are claimed to be in violation, they are acting in good faith under the DMCA. If you're making copies, and you do not have a mechanism for determining whether something has, in fact, come legally to your device and for deleting copyrighted materials, you may get the opportunity to contribute to bottom line revenue of the RIAA or MPAA. Pointing to YouTube and saying you thought the copy was transmitted to you legally is unlikely to carry much weight.

Who said Verizon's engineers think this is a better idea? I'm sure their input was limited to,"Can we do this, instead of that?", not,"Which is the better solution?"

You used the word nothing. A large capital expenditure, a large infrastructure, a questionable business plan, and the EC itself (a barrier which prevents Amazon from operating there) are not nothing, and they are not minor, and they are not irrelevant. While you may find lots of information about revenue per user at Amazon, you probably can't find anything that says they've actually turned a profit - until that is answered in the affirmative, it is by no means "beyond question". There are seventeen complainants represented, and many are much smaller than Amazon.

Google has threatened phone manufacturers over forks of the code. Amazon doesn't use Android to describe Kindle's OS, though it is a fork, because Google won't allow it. Google has consistently favored specific hardware manufacturers with preferential access to the code. If I contribute changes to the code you won't see my code unless it is incorporated in the release version. Those are all issues which are contrary to "open."

Google's behavior is a major reason no one chooses to compete. The complaint according to fairsearch.org's release includes accusations of "anti-competitive strategy", "deceptive conduct to lockout competition", "predatory distribution", and that “Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a ‘Trojan Horse’ to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile marketplace, and control consumer data,” Those are anti-trust issues.

Nothing except a huge barrier cost of entry, which is a consideration in anti-trust cases. Few companies have the capital (intellectual and monetary) to succeed (make a profit) in such a venture. Most are either competitors or partners with Google. The competitors have no interest in making the Android customer experience better, and the partners have an implicit agreement not to compete. As for a startup, tell potential investors that you plan to beat Google on their playing field, with their ball, and be careful of the scramble as they rush to fund you /sarcasm. Amazon is the one true exception, and they do not offer such a service in many countries, in part because of EC activism/intervention such as is being requested in this case.

You keep the person on the line until you reach the old style phone in the other room, pick up its receiver, hang up the cordless phone and slam down the receiver of the old style phone. You do realize that the value of a land line is reliability, and that a cordless phone is the weak link in the chain? A phone that requires no power other than what it draws from the phone company is needed for real emergencies, and most landline users have at least one in their homes.

Intransitively is a perfectly cromulent word. And it's use is valid, if something of a stretch.