How the hell does Amazon walk away from this without a scratch? How are they not getting hammered for anti-trust?
No, because if it was then all government websites would require users to use Safari to access them. On OSX only, too.
At what point does exercising one's right to free speech become vigilantism? IMHO, there's a lot of the latter going on these days. Say you don't like some business owner's view on a particular issue. Does that give you the right to destroy that person's career? Do they not have an equal right to free speech? Why is it okay to destroy that person's career through activism and social media when you can't do it through the law?
Maybe the researchers were smoking pot thus making them stupid and then got the munchies but to cover their asses they blamed the food.
A) Those who earned their wealth through decades of hard work and ingenuity and B) those who got lucky and have money thrown at them often in very short periods of time. The former group are rightfully offended by those who say that they didn't earn it because those who say they didn't earn it are either members of group B, people who idolize members of group B, or people who want people who idolize members of group B to vote for them. The Group B and their acolytes have no understanding of what it takes to earn the money. They subconsciously know that they really earn their money but to make themselves feel better they have deluded themselves into believing that group A doesn't exist and their popularity allows to them to continue to delude themselves.
Ms. Swift has a ticket for Ship B.
When some sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to fine me for flying my UAV that finds a missing child alive and well.
"Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the child I just located. Now YOU explain to them why what I just did is a problem."
Or better yet, I can't wait for the day when said sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to stop me from using my UAV to locate a missing child.
"Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the missing child. Now YOU explain to them why we can't use every method to locate their kid,"
Day ain't over yet.
Seriously, though. I wonder why they don't to the drone equivalent of radiologists Nighthawk service. Set up a control base in Australia and run ops there for half the day.
IMHO, this is indicative of what's really wrong with this country. It's not the mean, evil, greedy, CEOs. It's the musicians, actors, athletes, and people who are famous for being famous who have been deluding into thinking that everything they do is awesome and worthy of perpetual fees. It's gotten so bad that these people think that they're brilliant at everything when in reality they don't know anything. But legions of fans are so blinded by the star power that they are willing to believe everything that comes out of their mouths no matter how wrong or inane. Further, it's gotten to the point where ordinary people aspire to be famous far more than they do to be a physician or a scientist. The most dangerous aspect of all of this is that these people subconsciously know that famous people don't have to work hard for their money. It gets thrown at them. Therefore, they erroneously believe that nobody who has a lot of money earned it through hard work and ingenuity. Ultimately, the people who have money thrown at them have no appreciation for the money and the hard work it takes most people to earn it.
I'll bet they'd love to collect a fee when a song gets stuck in your head.
If you're proficient in an internal language, you're more likely to remain working there. Eventually, you'll be paid in Google bucks or Apple dollars, which are not legal tender anywhere else in the world.
We don't want you as our internet service provider. KTHXBYE.
A sign that reads, "This homeowner donates lots of money to charity."
Would the criminals think "Oh, well, they're nice people so I won't rob them," or would they think, "Hey, where's my shorty, Morty? You gave money to everybody else, why not me too? You obviously have more than you need."
Or would they simply think, "Eff you. I need to fence your crap so I can fuel my drug habits."
Double-blind studies are standard practice for studies. So why not do the same with funding? Donors to a university don't get to pick and choose which researcher or topic of research will get the money (but it has to be guaranteed to go to research and not into the general fund). The researchers' funding is allocated by some random method and they don't know in advance how much they will get if any nor do they know where the money came from.