Why isn't a company offering something of value to a state government a bribe? Is it ok just because you are willing to pay a bunch of people rather than just one or 2?
So the infinite number of typing monkeys will not be able to copyright their works?
Some additional info
Sorry, those people do deserve lawyers. Because they are not those things until a court says so. Its the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
That's the case if they are a defendant. Plaintiffs do not.
Many places have someone you can actually speak to so that you can tell them there is a problem. While there are other companies that don't actually take phone calls, it would seem Google should have enough money to actually provide customer service.
Could someone please send a copy to our government and businesses?
Did the people who purchased the items get to keep them? If not then they lost real world money. That would at least count as fraud if not theft.
Friedman fans will recall his famous comment:
"I was speaking out in Minnesota — my hometown, in fact — and a guy stood up in the audience, said, 'Mr. Friedman, is there any free trade agreement you’d oppose?' I said, 'No, absolutely not.' I said, 'You know what, sir? I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.'"
"I like to believe I wound up relatively normal"
Tim, you are writing for Techdirt, how is that normal?
Also, I have seen some of the comments on your articles and some people might think you are an actual criminal.
I believe it is more of the adage "Charity begins at home".
As far as I know most homes have phone lines. This happened because of government incentives. Most if not all of the current lines used by ISP's run through government right of way. Given all this it is disingenuous to talk about ISP's being the result of free market forces.
That would be because they didn't have to. Drug use was legal in Victorian Times.
Unless someone is typing this in for you, you obliviously have a computer with internet access. Look this stuff up and correct you mistaken "impression"
You are asking people to prove a negative. If it is not reported how would you know it exists?
When you make a statement that this your view point you are not making a scientific argument. For example:
"Violence, sexual assaults and the like appear to have been on the increase since at least the last century." Ordinarily you would source this and we could discuss the findings. Since you do not I would be arguing with your viewpoint which is a waste of time.
"Why this is I have no idea -" Use a search engine of your choice and find out. Once you have a factually based idea then we could have a worthwhile discussion
They do little to prevent disease is a lie. Plus the speculation is based on a genetic analysis of how the disease can mutate. Fewer of the at risk population dies because of the flu when they are vaccinated.
No they aren't best guess. We actually know the pathogens and how they work. Spend less time at sea and more reading current medical literature. As for effectiveness. There are these things called boosters that you can get to increase a vaccines longevity. Of course they weren't particularly needed when everyone's children were being vaccinated
People are not immune to a vaccine. Also vaccines are effective against the disease they are used against. Smallpox only exists in labs because of vaccinations. You are placing other people at risk because of your refusal to actually face facts.
Not if the insult is true. There are people who lie. They are designated liars and should be called that. The anti vaxxers fall into that category.