1) If they actually have a case against you, they'll take you in front of a judge and file charges. No need for interrogation.

2) If they haven't filed charges but want "to talk to you", they don't have a solid case and are trying to get you to incriminate yourself. So ask to speak to your lawyer, and otherwwise STFU.

>> The Spanish flu was thus named because ***IT WAS SEEN*** as particularly prevalent in Spain...

Complex situation. "Spanish Flu" was worldwide, hitting Europe hardest. Remember that this was in the midst of World War One. Censorship was *DAMN* strong. There was no commercial radio, or internet, or long-distance phone network. Censoring newspapers was sufficient. For morale reasons, the military combatants in WW1 downplayed the flu in their media.

Spain was neutral, and had no reason to censor reports about the flu. Since Spain was the only country ***OPENLY REPORTING THE FLU*** it was seen as Spanish-based, even though it was worldwide.

> When you have dual 8k Christie laser projectors, a 17m wide
> screen, and a sound system that would have the police show
> up to your house 5 minutes into the film due to being a public
> nuisance then you can start talking about comparisons.

Simple law of physics... If you get closer to to a screen, you need a lot less screen to cover the same field of view. So a smaller screen will suffice. And as for sound... I'd prefer not to have to use hearing aids in my older years, thank you.

> If that's true then why was my local independent theater
> always $3-5 cheaper a ticket than the megaplexes?

The studios collect 99% for the first few weeks after release, and then a sliding scale. Your "local independent theater" probably only shows "classics" or "cult movies" all of which are okder. Hollywood will charge a lot less for older movies.

> This shield-like coating is made of calcite with high levels of magnesium

How woukd the economics of breeding and "refining" these ants compare to regular "hole-in-the-ground" magnesium mining?

> BTW: I'd prefer one in the nice part of the athmosphere of Venus
> over Mars. Because you can go outside there, with just a light
> breathing mask. I'm not sure if clothes are even needed.

You're kidding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

> The Venusian atmosphere supports opaque clouds of sulfuric acid, making
> optical Earth-based and orbital observation of the surface impossible.

> Right now this is about the USA, where there are a LOT of people not being
> well-served by the existing telecoms networks, and using WISPs or GEO sat for
> the same kind of money, but with worse service. Later, hopefully the hardware
> cost will come down, and they can serve some lower-income markets.

Similar situation here in Canada. Once you get outside of cities, broadband service is either lousy or non-existant. BTW, SpaceX has applied for and received a Canadian BITS (Basic International Telecommunications Service) licence https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... Those antennas are two-way, and transmit back to satellites, and hence have to be licenced like any other radio thransmitters.

> How about this instead. Make new city planning requirements three dimensional in
> the inner metropolitan area. All commercial buildings will have retail on the ground
> floor and as many floors up as they like and then they can do commercial office
> space for as many floor as they like and then they must cap off every single building
> with residential space which must represent at least 25% of the floor space of the building.

Errr, uhmmm, skyscrapers in earthquake-prone locations is not a great idea.

> Is one still a "cord cutter" if he never had a cord in the first place?

The term you're looking for is "cord-never". The growing numbers of "cord-nevers" is worrying the Pay-TV industry. Younger suckers... errr subscribers, are not coming in fast enough to replace older subscribers who are dying off.

> Excuse me, cameras are serious, life or death business.

If you think so, go buy "a serious camera". If it's a wedding or other big solemn event, I'd hire a pro photographer to bring in his $10,000+ worth of gear to do the photos. The other 99% of the time you can get by with a $100, compact, 16 megapixel, pocket camera from Walmart or your local "drug store" chain. Even more convenient is a "good enough" camera in the smartphone that you're already lugging around.

I don't get the hobbyists who spend $5,000+ on "serious cameras" or "serious sound systems" or "serious gaming rigs". If you're a pro photographer or DJ or rock band or professional gamer who makes their living off their gear, that's another story. But that doesn't apply to most of us.

The fig leaf of "Canadian Content" is really about Canadian-government-regulated-content. Here's a link to an archived article from almost a quarter-century ago (1996). The CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) is our analog to the FCC. http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/...

> In a TV interview last week, Francoise Bertrand, the new
> chairwoman of the CRTC, made some disturbing remarks
> about the Internet that obviously shows her lack of
> understanding of it.
>
> In a nutshell, she wishes the CRTC to control content of
> the Net. When asked how, she flails all over the map, from
> wanting to use software at the client's end to making the ISP
> community responsible for all content viewed by their users.

>> the President is elected based on electoral votes.

> Which is basically gerrymandering to disenfranchise select
> portions of the electorate and effectively ensures a minority of
> ultra conservatives has a disproportional chance of winning.

From a foreigner... Read your history, American. The "United States" started off as a collection of former British possessions that declared independence, and formed a loose confederacy. As time went on states were admitted that were not former British territories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Note that "States" is plural. It's more like a United Nations or European Union, where each member state has one vote.

> and that allows you to shove your values down
> the throats of the majority of the populace.

Read your history, American. The US originally started off as a loose confederacy. The federal powers were basically military, diplomacy, treaties, currency, federal taxes, ***INTERSTATE COMMERCE***, etc, The federal government didn't originally have much influence over individuals' lives. But it (ab)used the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution way beyond the intent of the founding fathers, to amass more powers.

See the "Wickard v. Filburn" Supreme Court decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The US government set up maximum wheat quotas. One farmer grew more than allowed and was fined for it. He argued that he was growing wheat on his own farm, to feed animals on his own farm, for local consumption. At no time did any wheat leave his farm, let alone cross state lines. And it was never sold, so it shouldn't qualify as "commerce" of any type in the first place. Therefore "Interstate Commerce" was not occuring, and the feds had no authority to set quotas on his local production. From Wikipedia...

> The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities
> reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed
> on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus
> interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the
> Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small
> amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted
> would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative
> actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would
> become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the
> federal government could regulate Filburn's production.

    The federal government was never supposed to have this type of power. Blame activist judges for the fact that voters on the other side of the country have so much power over you.

> a new paper from progressive think tank the American Economic Liberties Project

Progressives are control-freak fascist-socialists. Back in "the good old days" they controlled the MSM. They still control the MSM today, but the MSM no longer controls the conversation. Their response is to attempt to shut down all dissenting voices.

This is not a new phenomenon. See https://www.breitbart.com/the-...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s White House feared
> that ***THE INTERNET WAS ALLOWING AVERAGE CITIZENS,
> ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVES, TO BYPASS LEGACY GATEKEEPERS
> AND ACCESS INFORMATION THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DENIED
> TO THEM BY THE MAINSTREAM PRESS.***
>
> The infamous 1995 âoeconspiracy commerce memoâ tried to demonize
> and discredit alternative media outlets on the right to mainstream
> media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.