You could argue that exact opposite with the same data set. Maybe it proves that putting the criminals in the spot light reduced their violence by 60%, and reduced false "police brutality" claims by 90%

Without knowing anything about these patents it is impossible to put that value into perspective; Did MS just taking a tremendous loss or did they score big time? They paid 4.5 billion, now a few years latter how does that price look taking this sale into consideration? Did Microsoft end up losing their shirt, taking only like 20% of the cost for 66% of the patents? Or is and was 80+% of the value of the hoard in the remaining 33%?

What about the 1977 version. At the very least it would be a better length to show in class.

"Now, I don't really think that "women get their porn in text" explains the difference in at least perceived (I haven't looked for numbers) rates of reading for enjoyment between men and women however" Well that is obviously not likely to heavily influence these children, but I would say it is 100% of the adult difference. Of the hard core reading crowd I have noticed, if anything more males than females. If you take a specific, none erotica, book event, I doubt you would find more females than males. But like how porn is 80% of the internet, porn is probably 80% of the "novels". I think you will only find that women outnumber men in reading when you consider text based porn as literature.

This. LOTR was pretty much flawless. The Hobbit, at times is no better than a very good amateur effort; The cosmetics are not even as good.

I thought one was bad, comparatively to LOTR, but was sort of won over with the extended cut. At least by then my expectations had fallen enough to admit that at least it is better than the rest of the crap Hollywood is shoveling. It is getting so bad you pretty much have to watch foreign films if you want a film with some class and sophistication; At least a lot of the really good stuff is either dubbed or done in English.

I do not see any problem with however long he wanted to make them; there is more than enough content for a dozen movies. It is sort of interesting that he mixed all this LOTR prequel stuff into it; though I do not think that he did a great job of it, as the childrens tale elements really seem to jive with the mature gritty action and LOTR premonitions. My problem is the sort of things he specifically did. Like have an elf falling helplessly in love with a dwarf because he implied his penis was huge (I am guessing that was not in the appendixes).

Show me the law book that defines person-hood, ie the legal state that grants you special rights and privileges, as "a ;lifeform that exhibits agency". Show me the human beings who have had their person hood taken away because they could not prove agency.

A hotel is not exactly, "your property" in that sense. A public business absolutely does not have the exact same rights as a private residence.

I think the court case would be interesting and non trivial. I think the main difference is intent. If the structure of the building happens, or absolutely needs to block transitions, that is one thing, if the owner knowingly set out to interfere with government agent communications, that is another.

So I hotel could build a structure that make cellphones useless inside of it, that make calling 911 not work? That disconnected cops and ambulance workers from connecting to HQ through whatever radio frequency they use? I am sort of thinking that would be illegal as well.

Which is an interesting idea. If the hotel could guaranty that not an iota of it escapes their property, can they jam communications?

And then will neighbors legally be allowed to broadcast signal blocking interference, to protect their wifi from the hotels?

I don't have any rights because of my consciousness, my emotions, or my intelligence, I have rights because I was born of two humans. It does not matter if I was brain dead, it does not matter what my genetics, my form, or my brain looks like. It is possible my exact dna could be grown a lab, and I would not even be considered a person, but instead a possession. So by what legal reasoning could an Orangutan be considered a person, any more than a rock? How does a court have any say, this seems like something that up to the law makers, not the law enforcers.

Is it completely different in Argentina? Do they base personhood off of intelligence or something? Are retarded humans considered Animals there?

They would fo gotten in trouble either way. Unless you are suggesting that the average user never install any security updates?