Just n=1, but I did this exact same thing in grad school (except it was engineering, not art). We contacted the City to ask permission. The City thanked us for asking, and actually allocated City resources to help us install the cameras. That was ~15 years ago, and the University-owned cameras are still in operation as an educational resource in studying traffic patterns.

They don't matter as far as the operations of the legal system are concerned.

But insightful, educated speech about important matters is, in my opinion, pretty important to society in general. So, to me, it matters.

The status of legal guilt is not open to opinion. The mechanisms by which that guilt was decided are certainly fodder for opinion. This isn't the Middle Ages.

Yet that's exactly what a lot of actual IEDs look like.

No, but it's a reasonable prerequisite for those who are expressing strong opinions about the outcome.

This entire idea is championed by one of the authors - James O'Keefe. He's made this his cause celebre'. I find his conclusions not well supported by the evidence. He makes jumps. And then the media takes it and runs with even more eye-catching headlines.

I think it's simply to bring some transparency and visibiity to the number and scope of secret warrants.

I don't think it's an overreaction. Everything went by the book.

Most cops aren't trained to ID bombs either by "taking a look at it" or any other means. There's protocol. EOD guys ID suspected ordnance. Everyone just calls in "suspicous" looking things. And the thing did look suspicous.

Just FYI, inspecting something up close to see if it's a bomb is a pretty bad idea.

And you absolutely can't look at the thing and be 100% sure. I coudn't.

Depends on the market conditions.

Laws that apprently weren't backed by enforcement (e.g. regular randomized testing like a lot of FDA regulation for other ingestible stuff)

So what does it take to implement that enforcement, which is probably needed? Money.

Or the supplement manufacturers could pre-empt government action by self-regulating through a trade organization, and stamping a "RealSupplement" sticker on each bottle that served as a notice of some level of testing, etc. That sticker would command a price premium, mostly likely. But the industry didn't do that, despite probably a good amount of insider knowledge in the industry about what was going on.

In this case the government did kind of save us. There was nothing preventing concerned citizens from performing their own private testing of products, publishing the results, and then initiating lawsuits against the offenders.

But they didn't.

The government did (except the lawsuit part, but I assume that's coming).

That depends on the context of his use of the word "required." I believe it's different than yours. E.g. not required in order to have unfettered access to the full sphere of public spaces. But I could be wrong. Trouble is that Christie himself has been awfully mealy-mouthed about what, exactly, his position is.

I disagree with you there. As a competitive runner through the 80's and 90's I took "science" and "delayed gratification" by cutting fat in my diet to the extreme. Because there was a good amount of science that at the time telling us that fats were bad. To this day we still live with a lot of the "low fat" mantra that resulted.

In retrospect I put myself through a lot of misery that actually probably damanged my performance significantly rather than improved it.

First off, hepatitis can certainly be spread through non-sexual contact. So that's out the window.

It's really unclear what Paul and Christie really mean, if anyone. I think they're waffling now that public opinion is starting to swing against the anti-vax movement.

In what I think is the same Paul interview you're referring to, he said this, "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children, who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." So we have a public figure using the media to further perpetuate nonsense that's been scientifically debunked. Using anecdotal evidence.

I was warming a bit to Paul due to some of his more rational-sounding moderate positions, but I'm pretty much done with him now.

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

I don't know which studies you refer to, but there are also "scientific studies" which demonstrate gender bias towards science students.

http://news.yale.edu/2012/09/2...

OK, you're up. What studies are you referring to? Game on.