> The suit is about maintaining a free market in labor.
> Union membership is one way that individuals participate in that free market.

Lol. Did you just say that collusion, enforced by the government, is "free market"? Unions, organized, enforceable collusion, are exactly the opposite of free market.

A free market means I can hire your teenage son at $20 / hour to change lightbulbs, if you want to do that job at that price. Unions mean I better contract that job out, because I'm only allowed to hire electricians at $65 + $40 in benefits for anything related to anything electrical.

The illegal behavior these companies for busted for, the collusion, is PRECISELY what unions do. Anti-competive collusion is the PURPOSE of a union.

While we're at it, let's make it illegal to murder someone in_the_morning. Oh wait, California already did that I bet.

Half of the companies involved have already paid up. With the most recent ruling, the judge is saying the others will probably be held liable too. As the Palm CEO said, this is already illegal and has been for along time. We don't need more laws, a few million pages is enough.

Oddly, it's the opposite going the other way in some states. Employees are REQUIRED to collude and stick by that union collusion even if they don't want to.

Most captchas were cracked 17 months ago.
It's time for something that's easier for humans and harder for computers. For example, these images have been tweaked such that the standard routines don't work:

https://bettercgi.com/sb5/

Whether you make up a new "right" or not, you can't pay someone for paternity leave if the money is already spent on government mandated BS.

You seem to be confused about the definition of the word "right" is, though. When you talk about giving people new "rights", you've made the word virtually meaningless, turning it into a synonym for "entitlement" or "privilege". This is important, very important

The right to free speech means I can voice my opinion EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OR GOVERNMENT DOESN'TLIKE IT. You have the right to a fair trial even if the government would rather ramrod you. The Bill of Rights is a list of freedoms the government "shall not infringe". Note it doesn't say "should give you", it says "shall not infringe". Rights are not at the government's discretion. They can not take your rights away because your rights don't come from the government. Your right to think your own thoughts is intrinsic to your humaness; government can only infringe your rights or not. They can not take them because they did not give them.

Your natural rights as a person include your right to have your own thoughts, and your right to your own production - to eat what you grow in your own garden, to live in the house you built.

If you build your house for your family, I do not have the "right" to kick you out and take it for my family. I do not have any right to take your food you grew in your garden. My wife is pregnant at the moment. That has zero bearing on your rights to your own food. You may choose to share some tasty vegetables with me, but knocking up my wife doesn't give me the right to take your stuff.

You want to create a new government mandate? Fine. Do not lie and call it a "right", though, because as soon as you pretend that government creates rights, government is justified in taking away your rights that "they gave you".

> Amazon will abuse its power once it has attained monopoly status as
a supplier.

So you predict that Amazon will have a monopoly , ignoring the fact it isn't possible (some customers prefer a bookstore, so they will always have customers).
You then predict that after Amazon achieves this impossible feat, they could abuse their position.
Based on those two predictions, you wish a horrible death on your fellow man.

You're a vile, twisted person aren't you.

They are using their accumulated wealth to start selling books at discount prices? How, pray tell, do you imagine Amazon got that wealth? They've been selling books at low prices since day one, that's their original business.

That's funny. Obama's the lead editor on the new Constitution, I understand.

The most free market of all markets is the internet, where anyone can readily access any site, anywhere in the world. (Save a very few totalitarian countries with national firewalls.)

You claim free markets lead to monopoly. Therefore, the most free market system, the internet, has only one web page, correct?

Choice leads to differentiation, my friend. In a free market, I can choose Walmart pants and you can choose Abercrombie. Both serve a section of the market and both thrive. A government controlled market is the market for a driver's license. Government control is monopoly (and the DMV serves it's customers SO well).

In some areas of the US, the government enforces a monopoly on internet access, and you get 5-10 Mbps for $55. In Texas, it's mostly free market and we get Google's gigabit fiber, two cable providers, DSL, wireless, satellite, all kinds of choices.

Obama was right about one thing and the French missed it. "If you want people to stop doing something as much, make it more expensive."

More expensive books = fewer people can buy fewer books.
I realize you liberals aren't that smart, but this isn't complicated principles that actually require thought, this is basic shit any third grader should understand.

Assuming you mean the owners of the business could keep it, they could keep half after assorted business and personal taxes.

Although the the heat from some servers would make zero difference given that the ocean currents mix with the entire Pacific Ocean, this is California. Specifically, San Francisco. Last I heard, you need a permit to urinate in SF because the odor could effect air quality and if you can get a piss permit it takes a few years.

That's right. In those states, you won't be allowed to hire people unless you spend $2,000 putting in an electric charging station that none of your employees have any interest in using. Here in Texas, you're allowed to make your own decisions. You can hire people and psy them that $2,000, or have paid maternity leave, or spend it on a gym that your employees actually want. We call it "freedom". (Those examples are some of the ways my employer spends their money, rather than spending it on government mandated nonsense.) Freedom not your thing? That's cool, you can stay in California where the bureaucrats tell you what to do.

Most drivers will use one of the closest available spots. If the charger spots are far from the door, gas drivers won't use them unless the lot is full. That will keep them available for EV use without needing yet another law.

If that also messes with some selfish prick's sense of entitlement because he thinks he should get the best spot due to his $80,000 car that the rest of us had to pay half the cost on, so much the better.

If the earlier checks suggest it's likely to be a bot, use a harder captcha to double check. If it's likely to be a human, use an easier captcha as confirmation.

If the system is pretty sure it's a returning user, FaceTuring doesn't require a captcha at all. I don't know if recaptcha ever goes as far as not requiring the captcha at all.

I would expect Google to be looking at this those things. FaceTuring from bettercgi does. Then aagain, faceturing is readable from five meters away, so maybe recaptcha hasn't quite caught up to the little guys.