Of course, there are always exceptions. For example, Jane Roe had already given birth by the time of the ruling in Roe v. Wade, so her case was moot. The Supreme Court made a decision anyway, because it would be difficult to complete a court case during the period of a woman's pregnancy.

My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
Or it could just be that the corporations found a way to screw the consumer out of a quick buck, and that we don't live in a universe with unlimited resources and competition? Seriously, it is within the realm of possibility that a government can Do Good (tm).

That's because no customers who would benefit from something like this would want to publicize the error, and lose their ill-gotten gains.

...Judge Judy is not actually a US judge, just so you know.

uh, do you understand how trademarks work at all? Because Rosetta Stone Inc. doesn't suddenly have control over the phrase 'Rosetta Stone'. They only have rights with respect to the business of language learning--if someone else tries to deceive a consumer by selling a language learning product while using the name 'Rosetta Stone', they are in violation of trademark law. This is a totally sensible and non-draconian law: Rosetta Stone Inc. spends a lot of money marketing and building their name's reputation, and people shouldn't be able to cash in on that.

*woosh* that's the sound of it going over your head.

I'd suggest you learn your economic theory from something other than an Ayn Rand book: the free market would only function the way you think it does if everyone had equal access to all natural resources and intellectual properties. In reality, monopolies form (not in and of itself illegal) and then abuse their position as a monopoly to manipulate the market in other ways (which is illegal) You are right that monopolies in themselves are not inherently wrong. No one believes they are. It's when they leverage their position as a monopoly to do bad things. Go read up on deadweight loss, predatory pricing, price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and price gouging and learn why anti-trust laws exist, for your own good, please.

Um, studies, the creators of correlation, are a hugely important part of science. They can't show causation like experiments, but they can still be used to make predictions, just like theories resulting from experiments. Climate science is just as much a science as psychology, sociology, biology, and astronomy. (I'd like to see you do an experiment to figure out planetary motion)

Birds have notoriously poor senses of smell, and this takes place in a lab where the smell of plastic would probably be overwhelming to that ability anyway.
Could you read the article, please, instead of automatically assuming the researchers are dumbasses who don't know how to formulate an experiment?

Communism is a term that describes communities organized by communal social structures, while a socialist society is simply a society characterized by equality for all individuals with fair or egalitarian methods of compensation. Socialism is an incredibly broad term referring to an entire field of social and economic beliefs and theories. Fascism is an ideology whose believers seek to create a single-party government through authoritarian means, for their own purposes.
This is how people in the world understand these words. A country could be communist but not socialist or authoritarian, or socialist but not fascist or communist (France), or fascist and authoritarian but not socialist or communist (Britain is headed here). These terms refer to directions like north, south, east, and west, and can not 'fail'. They are used to describe. That's the purpose of adjectives. To say that they're all failures is simply stupid: Socialism is going strong world around and communism is cropping up in the form of communes and co-ops around the world. Whether this is a bad or a good thing is up to the reader.

But whatever, I'm going to go get my soy half-caf. (I didn't go to college for five years, thanks)

No, fascism, socialism, and communism are all quite different, actually, regardless of what you read in an Ayn Rand novel.

um, maybe you should read Origin of the Species for the first time before you tell other people to read it again. Darwin was christian; he believed his research was simply exploring the wonderful world and systems in it that his God had created, he never challenged religion.

Science and the nature of scientific realism preclude the notion of proving positives. Learn how theories are made, please.

...CALIFORNIA

It has been demonstrated that our carbon output is quickly destabilizing our climate. Black cars use more gas with air conditioning or to make up for the drag of having windows open. I don't think this is the greatest measure to solve the global climate crisis, but it's not exactly out of bounds

Why do you need the 'freedom' to do damage to my planet? RTFA, it isn't a ban on black cars, but simply requires that the car reflect a certain amount of heat.