Well, we don't know that Mr. Fusion was available in 2015. Doc Brown might have traveled further into the future, after all.
Transit riders and drivers/pedestrians are all navigating... they're just navigating entirely different sets of routes. The transit rider has a much simpler set of possiblt paths, but with the added complexity of time constraints (i.e. last subway at 3am, this bus line doesn't run on the weekend, if I catch this one I have to wait an extra 45 minutes *here*, etc).
And blaming the driver.
Actually, I think most people are looking at a picture of a lump of scorched metal that used to be a car which was going fast enough to be completely wrapped around a small tree, and blaming the driver.
You don't need to know the technical specs on the engine or the portfolio of the driver to spend a whole lot of time coming to that conclusion.
Looking at the pictures of the scene its hard to imagine that they were driving anywhere close to the 45mph speed limit.
Yeah, that's pretty much my sense of the whole thing without even RTFA. There are relatively few vehicles certified for road use that would be inherently dangerous when driving near posted speeds under typical conditions. That these "experts" are even considering a problem with the car rather than the driver points to a fundamental problem with the "fast car" enthusiast mindset. If you're driving very fast while barely in control outside of a closed track with full safety gear, you're an idiot.
Obviously, government need not "slavishly enforce" conditions which are against the law.
Well, the entire point of the discussion has been about changing what the law is. There isn't a fixed, universal law of contracts, remember; it's whatever arbitrary things we want it to be. If the law is changed so that ratios concerning pay must be adhered to for the contract to be enforceable, then that's how it is.
It is morally wrong because it requires intervention to prevent two parties from engaging in what both deem is a mutually-beneficial contract.
And yet, we do this all the time.. Plus, you forget that there is a difference between an agreement and a contract. Two parties can agree to something all they like. Contracts only become relevant when they disagree and need a third party to resolve the dispute. If two contracting parties are going to rely on the government to handle disputes, the government now has a perfectly legitimate opportunity to set the rules which will govern the agreement. It need not slavishly enforce whatever happens to have been put on a signed piece of paper.
and yet, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the kinds of things that come out of an average politicians orifices.
Surely you're referring to their mouths.
I'd like to think so, but I'm not a xenobiologist.
The above post may contain toxic doses of sarcasm.
Never give personal information to a cold call. Never believe anything you hear from a cold call. If you think it could be legit, conclude the call, look up the *real* number of whatever institution purports to have called you, and call them. Real institutions (even creditors) will understand when you insist on doing this. Do I really have to say, do *not* believe a cold call when they give you a number to call back.
Can't mod you up more than you're at, so I'll say that if this was placed verbatim on a placard stuck to every single device with a connection to the outside world, there'd be a whole lot less of this nonsense.
A work-grade Matter Compiler, an electron microscope, and a few loupes and precision drivers. Oh, and some prototypical mediatrons I've been compiling that can share a bus when the sheaf is arranged like a book...
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
It is cited in the opinion as the Clancy declaration, with the specific paragraph noted. You can probably dig it up yourself. This would've been available not only to the judge, but also to the opposing side, and they had the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. Apparently they either didn't or didn't provide anything more convincing than what Google had. Part of what courts do is settle disputed questions of fact. If this was disputed, it is now settled so far as this case goes: the links are not ads. And as this is a generally applicable precedent, other companies are free to do the same ad Google and expect to also be protected.
How do you know that it generates revenue for Google? Further, how do you know that the links always generate revenue for Google (as opposed to it depending on the book displayed on the page, the book's copyright status, and any pertinent license agreements between Google and the book's copyright holder)?