How do you achieve negative revenues (as opposed to profit, where negative values make sense)?

If that were true, why did he repeat said campaign promise post-inauguration?

All the articles I have read indicate that both Suggested Sites and the Bing Toolbar were enabled, not that the search term was being entered into it. Where are you getting that the search term was entered into the Bing Toolbar itself?

You are correct in your facts, but I disagree with your interpretations. The problem I have is not that MS got information on a link clicked, but that the got information on the related search term as well. This means MS was either capturing screen input or parsing the google url to extract the search term. Either way, google is arguing that Bing is using novel information created by google's well crafted (or in the case of the honeypot, intentionally malcrafted) algorithms, even if that information is filtered through users first.

Oceans are bigger. So big, that there are only 3-5 of them: Arctic?, Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, Southern?? The smallest (the Arctic) is neary 5 times the size of the largest sea, which is similar in size to other large seas.

Would you rather see the value of your money drop because your government (which you have some small say in the operation of) decided it was for the best, or because some random person in Africa found a gigantic super rich seam of gold?

I always thought the fun failed because it was easier to tell a computer how give you the correct answer than to solve it yourself.

Just because guns a legal doesn't mean Toys 'R Us has to sell them. If Toys 'R Us was the only store in the country however...

That's because it is not a "reality show"; it is a documentary.

But that is how the SCOTUS works. It rules on a CASE where there is confusion as to what the constitution and law say. When it rules that the constitution overrides the law, it technically only rules for that case. However, to keep the SCOTUS from being bothered repeatedly by the same issue, lower courts take that one case as a precedent for similar cases. The law is not "struck down" or removed, it is simply ignored by the courts as being overridden by the constitution. Creating firm rulings where the law is ambiguous or contradictory seems like "judicial Power" to me. Perhaps "judicial Power" meant something else in Jefferson's time?

Fixed

Doesn't the Goedel just require an axiom taken to be true but not provable? Science has that: The Principal of Uniformity of Nature, which is the logical basis of all scientific induction.

If you don't believe science rests on at least one truth that science can't itself prove (called faith by some, an axiom by others), then Godel's incompleteness theorem says you don't believe science is consistent. All of science requires scientific induction to work. We can't prove it out of nowhere, and without assuming(believing) it, or some other axiom that can be used to prove it (e.g. the Principle of Uniformity of Nature), we can't prove anything with science.