Don't need the car analogy here, you're spot on. The photographer is a PROFESSIONAL photographer, not just anybody with a camera. Pros retain the copyright and sell only the rights to use the image(s) for a specified purpose and duration. It's in the contract that the hotel obviously didn't take seriously. For that matter, the photographer can use (or resell) his image as much as he likes, as exclusive usage rights probably weren't assigned permanently to Sofitel.

And I want it off my lawn. </curmudgeon>

Actually, in most cases you're probably better off not using "moving on" either. I'm guessing the misused phrase leaked into popular culture from 1980's "corporate speak", when mid-level managers babbled this sort of faux intelligent gibberish in attempts to cover up the fact that they actually had little or nothing to say.

"Moving forward" is exceedingly annoying in sentences which already address the future (ie; "What we should do moving forward (or on) is x."). Get to the point; "What we should do is not use the phrase "moving forward" where it is only redundant. If you must add something, how about "from here on out"? At least that phrase adds a wee bit of additional meaning to a sentence. Not much though.

Let's start by banning the phrase "moving forward" unless you're talking about physical motion in a forward direction. Without a time machine there is no other direction for the "movement" of which you speak.

Carnegie was keen to advance from a young age, and was sharp enough to impress those who could help him up. His fortune was built on that, as pretty early on he was invited into a succession of sweet insider trading organized by his mentor, Thomas A. Scott (and John Edgar Thompson). Carnegie would not have convinced his mother to take out a mortgage on the family home so as to speculate with the funds if he didn't absolutely know his investment would pay off big. So, basically, corruption was his real ride to the top. (Surprise!!)

What, no apple jelly?!

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell

If we're gonna accept witchdoctor medicine (with iffy at best science behind it), might as well let in the homeopaths, no? Fair is fair.

A current trend in socio-political theory is Uri Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory which states: "...basic science needs public policy even more than public policy needs basic science". Get it? Policy drives the science.

Fox News has a Facebook page, right? Just thinkin'....

Why not put the whole computer in the power source form factor? It' almost there already: http://venturebeat.com/2015/01...

And a flashlight function too! You might need to sneak out of the workplace after you've up/downloaded the goods.

Previous phases of human exploration had a number of common or frequent driving elements that space exploration is not likely to have. Such as: zealous religious missionary activities, conquest at behest of the king, racist judgement and condemnation of indigenous cultures, imperialist overreach into another country for minerals, slaves or other goods, etc. Most of that ideology is driven by the social thinkers/drivers at the top (or the powers behind the throne) and the privileged class just below that, not by the average citizens who prefer to just raise their families in peace. Humans will probably not even make it into the "interstellar community" if the species can't shake off the rule of sociopath oligarchs.

If we can assume we've evolved enough to travel among the stars, we would have solved a number of social problems (anger management?) and tech ones as well. I would expect we'd be way, way beyond playing "Billy Goat's Bluff".

Ok, there's plenty of space out there. We might miss a few battles just looking up from earth.

Think about it, war is extremely unlikely among interstellar species. With that level of technology, you're not gonna be hunting for food. Nor will scarcity of materials be a problem. Come on, you can travel among the stars, and you're gonna find one particular solar system that you just gotta have, right? Because this one system is just soooo cool, and there are no others out there like it. So, you figure "I'll just kill off the other interstellar species using the planets there and it'll be all mine!"

Or maybe it's the other scenario: Some insect-like aliens are gonna scour the universe just to hunt down other life forms, just 'cause that's what scary lookin' (by human standards) aliens do.

Anyone who believes inter-species battles is likely to be encountered in space needs some serious help.

And informed of the jury nullification option.