If Amazon has "too much power" it is because they deliver the best shopping experience and customers choose to take advantage of it. Hatchette "owns" the biggest authors and book titles and as such should be able to take their ball and go play elsewhere. The problem is that they want to play with someone else's toys and they want to call the game and the rules too.

Hachette forgot the cardinal rule. One does not shit where one eats.

Bullshit. That would be laughed out of court, even if by some weird oversight it had been left on the books, which I find hard to believe in the first place.

They don't even need to pull out some ancient law. They just lie. I was pulled over a few weeks ago. I was leaving a Wal*Mart after some late grocery shopping at 2:30AM and was pulled over for an "unsafe lane change." This is despite the fact that I was in the same lane I entered after leaving the parking lot. I had no reason to change lanes since I needed to turn in one mile. After he checked my license, he admitted that he was looking for drunks since it was bar closing time. I just happened to be the only car on the road.

I was let go without so much as a verbal warning once he could see me in person and knew I had not been drinking. If I had anything illegal in the car, I would have been busted; all because the cop pulled me over on an absolute lie. I could have been mouthy and let him know I knew it was a lie, but I wanted to go home and since he was not above lying to me why would it be different in court?

The argument that there are so many laws that everyone is breaking the law every minute of the day, and so The Government can just pull you in and lock you up for life on a whim, is just an excuse to justify breaking any law that inconveniences you, on the basis that all laws are equally absurd.

It's hard to take the law seriously when the enforcers are willing to lie in order to catch "criminals." Either the law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

Boies may be a douchebag, but he's a douchebag who actively practices law and apparently reads the cases in full, unlike the good Professor Volokh, who has never actually practiced.

You may have a point, but given the bludgeoning that SCO took from IBM, I'd think twice before putting my eggs in the Boies basket.

He certainly did stretch that Gore v. Bush fame into a lucrative gravy train.

Michael Brown's stepfather at rally: 'Burn this bitch down!'

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/...

Real classy people...

Let me fix that for you...

I made up my mind based on the alleged and unsworn facts that the media have presented. I am open to having my opinion changed once presented with further compelling facts. Unfortunately, I can't be bothered to read the transcripts of the grand jury evidence that was unprecedentedly released to the public.

Gas prices sometimes vary 10% on a weekly basis. So when prices are down by 25% for a single month, the do-gooders want to raise it back up and "hope" we won't notice when gas costs rise back to their "normal" levels? So I should expect $5 a gallon gas when prices restabilize? I pay surcharges on shipping, trash hauling and a number of other services because of high prices. Fuel prices are one on the reasons the economy has had trouble recovering.

Take your social engineering tax and go suck my balls. When I get 20% annual raises, you can ask too.

You Windows 8 apologists never give up do you?

You said, quote:

Do you mean the OPTIONAL Windows Metro UI? No need to ever use that, you know...

I pointed out that in fact you DO have to use it for even the simplest of tasks. I also pointed out that in order to add an administrative user, you have to open and use TWO SEPARATE apps. This is undeniably WORSE than Windows 7. I didn't even add the part about how difficult it is for a novice to add a Windows 8 user without creating a new unwanted Microsoft account. Your only defense of this idiocy is:

The Metro UI app is as simple as the Windows 7 app to add a user. It's the same thing - just with different looks...

In fact, no, it is not "the same thing." It requires using two different apps on two different desktop interfaces. It demands the new user create or connect to a Microsoft Live account. And it directly contradicts your original assertion that you can get by without using Metro/Modern Interface.

I could go on and on about how Windows 8's features including the fast shutdown/startup makes virus cleanup difficult or how difficult it is to get into safe mode and nearly impossible to enter safe mode if the video driver fails, but you clearly are a Windows 8 apologist and will find some way to justify these foolish design changes. Microsoft jumped the shark on Windows 8. They gambled that their installed base and mindshare would let them leverage Windows into the mobile world and dropped a pile of junk in our laps. Those of us that have to support it realize how bad it is. Complacency and familiarity is what keeps Windows on the desktop and they decided to throw it all overboard to try to enter mobile. Epic fail.

Click users from control panel. Click add a new user. The control panel app closes and you are redirected to the "new" Metro users management app. After you create a new user, you have to return to the control panel app because the "new improved" app has no provision to create an administrative user or to promote an existing user to administrator.

You have to use BOTH apps to create a new administrative user.

Unless you need to create a new user or any of the myriad other things that require you to use it...

Windows 8 Fans must just hand their machines over to their betters when they need something other than starting up IE or Word. Wait until you need to clean up a few trojans or viruses and see if you still think the start button is the only thing we "haters" are complaining about.

Every time the cops go flying by with sirens blaring, I tell the kids that the "hot now" light must be on at the Krispy Kreme.

Have they issued the alert for all people of Canadian descent to open their box of faith yet?

Unless the method violated someone else's rights

I fail to see that rights are not violated for the accused irrespective of any others who may also be violated.

[...] or violated an inconsequential rule or regulation.

Rules and regulations of any import are ALWAYS considered inconsequential by those who choose to ignore them.

Yes, I am. Not all illegal methods of collecting evidence violate the rights of the accused against unconstitutional searches and seizures.

I made no mention of violated rights being limited to fourth amendment seizures. If the state has to break laws to investigate someone, their rights ARE violated.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence against the accused if he can show the independent source

Not in dispute.