...Welcome the new King of Kong!

I don't disagree, I think I was kind of saying something similar. However if you pay attention you will notice how often people change their tune about so called free speech when they like or dislike the person in question or what was said. For example very few of the people defending the duck commander actually disagree with his comment, and very many of the same people called loudly for Bashir to be fired.

FYI, this is common to everyone, not just one group. Still some people do rise about it somehow.

Anonymous nobodies can say dumb thing all day long with lesser consequences because they have less to lose. If you are making your money in the public eye, you also suffer from its displeasure. There is no way around it. Also, everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff, people turn from supposed supporters of free speech, as if that should protect your job, to demanding resignations for saying the wrong thing all the time.

...you have 10 seconds to comply

Capitalism is how money works when society sets up a certain set of legal rules. Say, for example, the government arresting you or fining you because you failed to follow some kind of copy write law, or sold a medical drug the government thinks another company owns. Indeed the idea of property itself requires a certain social norm and agreement. Genghis Khan is how money works when it is left alone.

FYI, if Capitalism worked perfectly, there would never be economic bubbles or monopolies.

Kind of in the way not living near tigers makes you less likely to be eaten by one. Sure an escaped zoo tiger *might* eat you, but is just very unlikely.

No disease is magic, basic behavioural changes can be very effective in reducing their spread. We need to remind people we already know everything needed to stop the spread of HIV.

Here is the direct answer to your question, it has to do with the economic intersts that each policy affects.

Defense and security spending is a type of economic stimulus and makes many people a lot of money.

Global warming is about using and spending less and potentially costs people money.

As a result people evalulate the risks of these two situations differently.

One more thing, parody of the MI complex was already done and done better. It is called Bill the Galactic Hero.

FYI, the reason so many love Peter Jacksons films is he delivers exactly what he is promising you. He recognizes that the works he is retelling are masterpieces and stays true to them.

By comparison, so many SF works get butchered by Hollywood and a lot of it is deliberate. Before going to see Starship Troopers I was very confused that Hollywood had made it into a movie in the first place. I was well aware it expressed ideas and concepts that Hollywood would not be comfortable with. I just didn't understand at the time that movies makers thought they should "improve" or "comment upon" these classics, but would give them the same name to sell tickets. Mind you, I am only a moderate Heinlein fan, while Troops brought up interesting questions, I did not always agree with Heinleins answers, which is fine BTW.

I walked away from the movie understanding is was at least farce. I did not see it as satire and still do not because the director does not really satire the work in question or address the issues brought up, he really just goes off in his own direction. Rather than make his own movie and have his ideas stand on their own two feet, he simply told the audience they were getting one thing (starship troopers) and instead gave the audience another (was it anti-fascist propaganda? An assertion the current military are fascists? the world of the movie bears little resemblance to our own and how exactly would you deal with an enemy you simply wants to kill you? FYI that is what wrong with Troopers also, our real world enemies are nothing like the bugs)

The same was true of I Robot and so many other movies, it is unclear if Hollywood does not understand the books or if they just think (incorrectly) that the stories they want to tell are better. Paradoxically, many great movies really are just retelling of classic stories that Hollywood renamed, perhaps to hide their origin and make it look like their own work? So here is a tip for Hollywood, we the audience DO understand what is going on, you are not fooling anyone. If you want to retell a great story, do that and tell the audience we are getting that. If you want to tell your own story, then do that and make it clear before I pay money for the ticket. Until then we have no choice but to pay very close attention to what those critics you so hate say about a movie, because we have no other way of know what we are putting our money down for otherwise.

Interesting aside, I really liked Fight Club, but at first had no desire to see it. The commercials made it look like another dumb fist fight movie, I only saw it once I found out it was something more.

It is an outrage, and possibly a crime.

Utilities are monopolies and thus government regulated. Because everyone must purchase services from the utility, they have very stringent ethics rules of necessity. And trust me, if they HAD been contributing to liberal causes, politicians, especially conservative ones, would have been beside themselves with outrage.

As for solar power itself, power utilities donâ(TM)t like them because they reduce utility profits, period. There is no real science behind their dislike. As for the specifics of the propaganda against solar power, maybe it was accurate, maybe not I suppose we would have to see it first. But if money is being sent secretly and lied about, on the face of it I am unsure how much I would trust such information.

"Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window and think it's a great way to dig yourself out of a hole and into prosperity.

I'd be happy to help... only I seem to have misplaced my slingshot..."

Just so you know, this argument is easily debunked, or rather in no way applies to our government domestic spending today. A most basic first problem is the argument assumes 100% waste, literally no public benefit however minor. Wars might be another matter, and frankly based on history are probably closer to what the author was talking about in the first place.

The parable for our current situation is more like, government takes window for school, hospital, or orphanage, person has to buy new one. The basic logical flaw people who look at the argument often make is they are confusing increased GDP with increased human benefit. It is perfectly possible to increase GDP while lowering human benefit, which is what is happening in the example given in the parable, you are just exchanging uncertain consumption for certain consumption.

...then you effectively are proving everyone knows what the term Scout is used for in reference to youth organizations. They could as easily been the Hacker Pioneers, the Hacker Navigators or the Hacker Pathfinders.

I know this will be unpopular, but this is probably one of the less bad infringement cases I have heard of.

Wait, IANAL but. Under Slander and Libel you have to show harm. False advertising is prosmising something you don't deliver on. Opinions that "these are the best waffles in the world" and "my salesman was the nicest and most helpful person ever" have never been an issue because they are opinion. Heck resturants advertise the best waffles in the world all the time, and since it can't be objectively proven...

So again what is the exact crime, breaking Yelp's TOS?

You are wrong, maybe not technically but in theme. Being careless can and in many cases should be a crime. No drunk driver intends to kill anyone.

Zimmerman is certainly NOT guilty of any aggravating circumstances and I can even believe that he is probably a basically good person who intended to do the right thing. The basic problem is his behavior was reckless and in a way that was clearly dangerous to other people.

When a policeman confronts a person he clearly identifies himself for a reason. He is saying, " I am armed, will take lethal action if needed and BTW I am acting under the authority of the community and government. If you have problem with that take it up with the judge, but for now you need to do what I say. " Police get LOTS of training on how to approach people and control a situation. These procedures exist because they really do work and it is dangerous both to the police officer and the community if they are not followed.

Zimmerman simply did not have this training, was not qualified to do what he was trying. As a result he was very much a danger to the community, I am sure that was not his intent, but is was none the less true. Zimmerman was ignorant of this, as BTW are many here apparently, and to an extent had been misled by a great deal of misinformation propagated for various political and personal reasons. Still the same could be said of drunk drivers, they just did not know how dangerous their actions really were, it took public education and laws to enforce behavior to turn the corner on drunk driving.

Which is why I am posting this, I want people to understand that conflict avoidance IS the best policy unless you are trained to handle a situation. Watch and report is fine, but anything further and unless you happened to be a cop, you do not know what you are doing.

Basically that is the problem, the prices do not reflect true delivery costs by government mandate. The USPS is mandated to provide certain types of services at a certain cost no matter what.

Effectively Netflix got low prices because they knew how to get their packages classified as protected mail. Also they really DID work very hard to make their packages as easy to sort and deliver as possible. They spent a lot of time working closely with the USPS to make a package that was easy for them to sort, they even went so far as to hire a bunch of USPS personnel to consult on how to do this.

One more point, CDâ(TM)s are super cheap, the costs are controlled by the publishers, so they can make or break Gamefly and Netflix.