haha

And Cops. The burden of proof to arrest and convict someone of a shooting is rather high. Especially with a culture that does not "snitch". This leaves the police unable to arrest & convict people they know committed crimes but cannot get anyone to testify to. Drug charges provide all the evidence needed. So police will arrest someone for a drug charge because they can't get them on the real crime they committed.

The show ended with the discovery that all modern humans traced their linage back to 1 ancestor - The human/cylon hybrid child.

That could have been a great series.

One of the main reasons for this is LEGO cannot patent it's bricks. But they can copyright a licensed set like starwars.

Side note (Because of your sig)

Why would you want to repeal the 17th Amendment? I don't see the benefit to the American Government by becoming LESS democratic.

Here is a NYTimes article about how the US's Carbon emissions are at a 20 year low. Also notice how the US has been growing it's economy without growing its Carbon output.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/a-20-year-low-in-u-s-carbon-emissions/

Unfortunately, it is the people that don't learn - not Apple. Shady business tactics like that work great for Apple as they increase revenue. And the consumers say things like "this is how Apple ensures quality".

I believe you meant Apple when you said Microsoft.

OR maybe you and Steven Drozd enjoying using sucky apps?

You certainly make good points. stopping the ability of Corporations to project speech while allowing groups like Fox News and MSNBC to openly project a point of view would be (in your words) "outlaw[ing] speech by anyone who doesn't own a printing press".

Which is why I think that the DISCLOSE Act is a good idea. Allowing Corporations access to their protected speech. But not allowing them to hide that Protect Speech behind a SuperPAC. If a Corporation wants to exert its right to speech, let the Corporation take credit for what it promotes.

The Argument against would be that the people have rights, not the Corporation. Restriction rights of a Corporation does not infringe on the rights of he Individuals.

Saying that Corporations could not donate to Political Campaigns would not infringe on individuals making donations in their own names.

Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees with this position.

Furthermore, Apple isn't abusing it's power since it's their store and they can do whatever they want.

That's a pretty poor argument. Doing whatever you want is what entities that abuse power do. See Microsoft and the Explorer situation. It was their Operating System, they could do what ever they wanted. What they wanted to do and did was abusing their power.

The problem is that people hold some careers to an impossible standard. Parents will complain about teachers drinking at bars. Teachers the parents saw while they were drinking at a bar also.

Eh. Technically you still uploaded. Working to diminish your uploading while still uploading does not negate that you were uploading.