I don't see how that would work out. If a garden shed based inventor comes up with a novel, useful nuclear reactor design and patents it, your law would ensure that he'd have to go into the energy business.
And what's wrong with that? He can use it, or he can sell it to a company that will use it. Either way he profits and the technology is used and society benefits. Maybe he could've made more money licensing it, but I don't see the societal benefit of maximizing this one person's profit when it enables other entities to do so much rent-seeking.
The government is discontinuing rural home postal delivery and moving to community boxes. This is no different than most Canadian cities have done for years already. They are doing this because the traditional mail volumes are so low that the service has become very expensive to provide. There is no doubt some will be inconvenienced, but it's not like they are discontinuing mail service entirely. I prefer a government that adapts to changes in society, rather than wasting money to keep "feel-good" services running.
That being said, I hate Harper as much as the next guy, but the postal decision makes sense.
I say take it to the farthest level. Let's say he was smoking and taking a phone call during the climax of the movie. Is it justified now? Still no, of course.
And I call bullshit on the shooter feeling physically threatened, which was reported in one article. A popped bag of microwave popcorn weighs about 65 grams, the potential for actual harm is laughable (unless you consider trans-fats). Even if he didn't know what hit him, I bet it sure as hell didn't hurt him. No - the only thing threatened was the shooter's ego. After being hit with the popcorn he became enraged and shot the guy. We'll see what comes to light.
Please enlighten me, because I don't understand the arguments against this.
Today Netflix pays some ISP to make their content available, and today I pay my ISP to be able to download content. The service being offered would allow Netflix to pay my ISP my side of that transaction where their content is concerned. From the information available, this is not rent-seeking or removing my ability to choose what I want to download with my available bandwidth, nor is it degrading the Netflix offerings because if Netflix doesn't use that service then everything is status quo. This doesn't seem like blackmailing content providers into paying premiums for normal service levels.
So if there is some compelling reason why Netflix should not have the option to pay my ISP for my bandwidth if they choose, please explain to me how this is different and worse than Netflix's current practice of providing OpenConnect to my ISP to lower my ISP's costs (which theoretically lowers my bandwidth costs)? Is it not the same thing in principle - giving money/resources to the ISP to increase the value of the service?
Wink slyly and say, "That one's just between the two of us, friend?"
Why the hell does that have an Australian accent in my head?
In other words, some people give, some people take. It's part of life. If you feel superior because you are one and not the other, then you are missing out on how life really works.
I would say they are morally superior for contributing to the system rather than leeching off it. The system would work fine if everyone contributed. It wouldn't work at all if everybody leeched.
Disney sued because the packaging of GoodTimes' products was so similar to their own and released at the exact same times as their own products as to create consumer confusion. Now perhaps the article you linked is biased but it does not make a great argument against Disney. While I'm sure what they did was technically allowed, it is certainly in poor taste and misleading as they were arguably purposely riding the coattails of Disney's marketing to sell their own product. Also the lawsuit resulted in no fines, but GoodTimes had to put their brand on the packaging which seems entirely reasonable to me. Granted while the judgement was reasonable, perhaps they were suing for millions (the article doesn't indicate).
The monument is overtly Christian - note the book illustrated top-left
You might want to link to an image of the actual monument. The image in the article you linked is not a picture of the monument being discussed, it is just a picture of some wooden billboard with the 10 commandments written on it and a statue of Jesus standing next to it. The actual monument is stone and does not bear an image of the bible - it actually appears to have images of the tablets.
Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.