Ed is Bill and depressive Edd is Marston or Pearson if both actually cared about other people.

They haven't had a problem in NZ and Aus.

It's the courts themselves that would have to break them up, so it's not an issue there. It's just a very high bar to clear because the courts don't care about anticompetitive practices unless it has a detrimental effect on the consumer. You'd be hard pressed to argue that things like YouTube and Gmail coupled with the cloud service, the ad service and the phone service are causing actual harm to the consumer that competition wouldn't. I don't see how YouTube would survive in its current form if it used third party ads, hosting, and CDN, the same way prime video and twitch are very dependent on Amazon Web services. Back in the day, for example, interurban electric trolleys were often owned by power companies. They used the power company's right of way for the electric lines for the tracks too and of course their power. That's anticompetitive, but frankly good for the consumer. That said, I wouldn't be sad to see it burn in a fire either.

What's funny is back in the day bottling was very local. Coke didn't even own the bottlers and still doesn't. Back then, if they had bottled water it would've straight up been from either your local or somewhere nearby's municipal water supply. In the 70s the bottlers consolidated regionally into things like Coca Cola United and Coca Cola Consolidated. Be nice to go back to that, with glass bottles going directly back to your local bottling company for reuse and no wasteful shipping of stuff you can frankly get locally.

Edit: In the 1920s there were over 5,000 bottling companies in the US. A bottling company for every 20,000 people. Thats how local it was.

The thing to keep in mind is there were a massive amount of people occupying the square. The key point is, the army did not massacre those people. They left after negotiations with the army. There was no gunning down the occupiers or crushing them with tanks. One person picked up in CIA/SIS Operation Yellowbird said that the tanks ran over tents with people sleeping inside them in the square, but that's frankly dumb, nobody would be sleeping. The others that were actually there noted that it was a largely peaceful dispersal if you compare it to what happened before with the protesters fighting the PLA on the streets of Beijing and the soldiers indiscriminately opening fire on entire apartment blocks because someone threw a rock.

Frankly the best evidence of it is Yellowbird itself, which smuggled more than 400 people out of China, many of them the leaders of the protest themselves. If they had kettled in and slaughtered the occupants, that wouldn't have been possible.

You'll do anything to avoid drawing hands won't you.

Because it's what happened. It's not a point of morals or anything else. The other poster is making a value argument that I don't particularly agree with, but when it comes to the reality of what happened, they're grounded. Go read the Wikipedia article.

Once again, that's not out of line with what he and I said. There were barricades and fighting in the streets of Beijing and the army killed whoever got in their way to the square, but the people occupying the square were negotiated with and peacefully dispersed. They then once again took all the ammo from the soldiers.

You do know that the pictures support what he said right? There's pictures of dead soldiers because they weren't given ammo when marching into the city. Once they started getting killed, they gave them ammo and they just started shooting everybody. Before then the protesters smashed their heads, stripped them, and burned them.

The ones who stayed in the square were mostly the peaceful hunger strikers and not the fighters so the square itself was cleared without much trouble compared to the march into the city.

I'm sure the big ones just appreciate the added texture to chomp down on. Remember, octopus and squid are short lived murderous carnivores that need lots of food to grow big fast and die. If humbolt squid get the chance, they'd happily eat you. I love these ones that hold the meat together so I can just grab it with my beak and scrape it off with my radula.

What do you mean by that? If you received an email, you are the witness that testifies about the email when it's introduced as evidence. Generally also not covered by hearsay when it's directly the issue of the entire case.

You're right, the clown and his nose is the final panel.