You can't just offer unlimited until you get the market share or force competition out and then change terms.
You're right! Now that Google Drive, Dropbox, and the fucking billions of alternative options, are all out of business and MS completely dominates cloud storage... What the hell are you smoking if you think MS has anything close to a monopoly on cloud storage!?
For matters of criminal law. That isn't how things work at war, on the battlefield, under the Law of War.
Except you don't seem to appreciate how the laws of war operate. You'd be hard pushed to find a consensus on when they apply (certainly they were originally written to apply when war had been declared) and additionally they are written to apply only uniformed military fighting uniformed military. Additionally if the laws of war apply then ISIS etc are enemy combatants and must be treated as prisoners of war when captured; which the US is clearly not doing (Guantanamo being the most egregious example).
The fact that you think the US is justified in what it did in these cases doesn't mean you can't still have a rational appreciated of the law, and accept that it was in fact illegal.
I don't expect this to stop when O is finally out of office, but the precedent he's set for future Presidents is scary....unless we actually get one that is interested in trying to go back to a more Constitutional level of authority and power.
I don't think it's accurate to claim he set the precedent, even if he has continued it and perhaps used it for larger things. It's also an outright lie to claim he used the most, he's used less exec orders than Bush or Clinton and F. Roosevelt issued around 15 times as many as Obama has so far.
Why aren't the police stopping and searching Japanese tourists, if they're 'racists'?
Because you don't have to discriminate against all races, or all races but your own, to be racist; it's hardly a complex concept but you seem to have failed to grasp it.
I don't know if the kind of bollocks your on about gets much acceptance in the US, but fortunately there's a decent proportion of the population in the UK who think it's unacceptable for the police to target people because of the colour of their skin.
Feel free to elaborate how monitoring of their activities somehow prevents law enforcement from preventing "terrorism".
Feel free to admit whether you either missed his point or are actually naive enough to believe that the government never uses Terrorism as an excuse to stop things that that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism.
This ruins things for all the people that DO like and prefer the contractor paradigm.
What are you getting your knickers so twisted about, if your concern is valid and this is an example of contractor work then the courts will rule that way.
If it turns out this is an example of a company classifying people who are de facto employees as contractors to get away from their obligations to employees then your talk about paradigms isn't valid. If I can only work for one firm, have fixed hours and duties, and must act like a standard employee in every way exactly what paradigm do you think has shifted.
The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character.
I'm really not sure why it is. If I'm the first person to create a life-saving drug, I don't get perpetual ownership of that drug and all refinements of that drug, nor should I. If I design a distinctive type of building, I don't get to stop people creating buildings of similar shape for time immemorial. Why on earth does the guy who draws a cartoon mouse get such astonishing protection of his intellectual property compared to people whose intellectual endevours had a far larger beneficial impact on society.
In short: The world would not be a worse place if Disney couldn't copyright characters eternally for anyone other than Disney shareholders.
If a law says it's illegal for black people to sit at the lunch counter then it should be illegal regardless of any other criminal activity in the vicinity.
Not even a remotely imaginative straw-man – but what should I have expected – the presence of other illegality has literally nothing to do with whether a law discriminating against blacks is morally defensible or not. Come up with a more persuasive argument, you can't brush away any law you feel like with a half-arsed analogy to the civil rights movement.
People like you are why a law making it illegal to yell, "fire!"
And ACs like you aren't worth shit, grow some balls and get some manners then we can talk. Even a moron can see the benefits of clarity in laws and appreciate that it has fuck all to do with a kid and a pop tart. If I had a gun and any willingness to use it I'd want to have a decent idea of whether what I was doing was legal or not, having to estimate whether my life will or won't be ruined by the the police, jury etc own definition of what some generic reason-ability clause means isn't cool.
Unfortunately for you you're wrong: it was found that the downside of firing birdshot into the air is less than the downside of allowing drone operators to film someone else's backyard. Both are downsides but a court felt that the value of having one outweighed the value of having the other.
I hope that wasn't what happened in this case. If the law says firing a gun within the city is illegal then it should be illegal regardless of other criminality in the vicinity. If defending your property is a clear exception to the law then what happened here is that it was decided that this shooting fell within that definition.