jeangenie

It's interesting to note that it's not just comments that can be manipulated but also the stories that are upvoted.

Makes sense. Thanks for responding.

Curious how OP got this idea.

USA PATRIOT Act Sec. 1013 (a)(10), (b)(5,6) mentions research, distribution and stockpiling of vaccines but nothing about liability.

There was a decision in 2011 that might be of interest: http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2011/02/cant-sue-drug-compa... http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/us.scotus.vaccines/index...

It's also interesting because modern American politics seems to be primarily driven by corporations.

What this says to me is that we should immediately stop pouring money into conflagrations overseas.

"Prisons are built with stones of Law, brothels with bricks of Religion." William Blake

What makes you think paintings are supposed to be educational? What properties must something fulfill to be educational?

Happen to have any more info for finding this talk from Moglen?

What's your point?

Right to be skeptical of what, precisely?

> uncontroversial, accurate factual description.

Are you so obsessed with minutiae of definitions that you are unable to see that both terms describe reprehensible acts performed by people against other people?

How can you distinguish between two chiral molecules and two identical molecules one of which has been rotated 180 degrees with respect to the other?

> It does represent the will of the people.

So you're saying the UK government held a vote asking "Do you want to be surveilled?" and a majority of citizens answered in the affirmative? I can't remember anything like that happening here in the US.

I have a silly question: how is it determined which side is up and down?

I understand your meaning but that's not what I'm asking.

> being open to accepting a mistaken belief.

This is odd. Do you think "mistaken beliefs" are clearly labeled so you can reject them without examination or experimentation?

> The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life.

I often reflect on this sentiment and have half-convinced myself that the current definition of 'life' we use in this sense to be far too limited to capture the infinite diversity of existence.

In other words, our explorations will never reveal any creature like us (or other known forms of life on Earth) because the life that develops in other environment will be uniquely suited and predicated on existing in that environment exclusively.

I would add to what Sagan said: the whole universe is alive in ways we have not yet even conceived or be capable of conceiving.

And how effective have those regulations been?

This is a great point. In some circles we would refer to this as commoditization (clichéd but effective). It seems to be a consequence of continued profit-seeking outside established and competitive marketplaces.

Thanks for telling your story. I have an odd question. How do you feel about the way current members of the military and veterans are treated w/r/t painkillers like Oxycontin?

I'm referring to the effect red light cameras have on drivers rather than pedestrians.

Anecdotally, switching to a button-fly rather than zipper led to a dramatic decrease in me walking about with my fly open.

If most articles are private (due to added cost) but all GF articles are public then will there be any practical consequence?

I had a similar thought. This hypothesis could also be applied to red light cameras.

As somewhat of a casual expert on jaywalking I can report that one of the chief issues that this does not solve is that inattention and carelessness--not lack of slavish obedience to lights--are primary sources of danger in urban street crossing scenarios. Keep your head on a swivel.

Do you imagine it would be difficult to convince a citizen the government shouldn't be allowed to steal their property?

In theory we live in a democracy that should make fixing this easy.

My guess w/r/t constitutionality would be that many seizures are executed in connection with drug prosecutions in which such rights are abridged. It's arguable this is also constitutionally suspect.

You are conflating two clearly distinct uses of "privacy".

What's a reasonable limit of government surveillance to you?