I do not know how this could even be possible given that the foreman has a patent of his own. Surely he had to deal with the possibility of prior art (or at least be made of aware of that that is) when he applied for his own patent.

Having read a lot of discussion regarding the qualifications of the jury, I thought they looked good -- on paper. However, when you account for the fact that most of them are fairly old, I cannot help but hold reservations on whether they are still "up-to-date" with today's technology, laws, etc. To me, this jury is highly unqualified for this case.

Here is the actual info from Wikipedia:

A sample size of 55 all from Georgia is hardly representative of the normal population. What would be really interesting is a survey done on women on whether they can even distinguish an erect, circumcised penis from one that is erect and not circumcised. When the penis is erect, the foreskin is naturally pulled back and an uncircumcised penis will not look that much different from a circumcised one.

Here's one youtube video on why circumcision is biased: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruJ62wHpHuw There was another one by a Jewish doctor who DOES NOT advocate circumcision. I cannot seem to find it, now. From what I have read, it appears that even today many doctors still do not know just precisely what the foreskin's function is (more precisely, the literature on this subject is quite lacking). On top of that, there seems to be a lack in education on how to care for the foreskin -- in part because the current situation is such that most men are likely circumcised, so any literature on skin care would be useless for a large number of men. I am also curious how many doctors today also follow religious or cultural practices of circumcision, further adding bias to the debate.

One of the commenting websites (I forget which) noted that Carreon and his wife were upset that his email was used to sign up for porn sites. I would wager that perhaps a Carreon supporter (or he himself) may be attempting to seek retribution by doing something in the same vein.

even if they want a society in which women are subservient, they still need women. Even at the most basic level, you cannot have sons without a mother. It is a pity, though, that some people feel so threatened by others of different gender (or race, education, etc) that they must resort to violence.

Soon, the government will further cut costs by removing all teachers from public education, and let citizens simply take online courses. How about we stop make cuts in places that don't need cuts, and cut out stuff like ridiculous travel expenses for congressmen?

A few of my acquaintances are pharmacists, and one of their biggest contributions to the overall health and care of patients is drug interaction and reconciliation. Basically, what this means is that they check that a patient's drugs do not interact with each other in a negative way. They also help patients reduce the number of dependencies on medication. When you start to automate this process, you will need to have a centralized system that handles all patients' drug information as you have now removed the role of various trained medical professionals. A patient will not know that his need for a prescriptive drug may adversely affect his health because he is already taking another drug. That's sort of why we have pharmacists and doctors.

The lack of real mobility is a myth. I can say this because I come from a family that emigrated and came to the United States and started off on welfare, living in government projects, and going to very poorly supported schools. What made the difference for me were parents to valued education and pushed their kids to go beyond what was considered average. They convinced me, my siblings, and themselves, that the government handouts were temporary aids for us, and that continuing to live off the government when we have the ability to eventually make it on our own is shameful. My parents were farmers and made it as far as completing elementary school back in their homeland. So it isn't as if they had a great start, either. Yet my siblings and I, on the other hand, completed college, and I completed my Ph. D. in mathematics -- and we all went through public schools prior to college. If I were an exception, then we might call it "lack of mobility." The problem I see is that our government has made it too easy for those who have to rely on its social programs to do it for so long. For many, it is much easier to accept a very modest, but not-uncomfortable lifestyle of welfare and food stamps rather than to make an honest effort to move out of their current conditions.

Many immigrants who come to the US will have very similar stories of how they or their parents moved to the US with hopes of finding better opportunities. They often come from places where the conditions are so terrible that even the living in government projects and relying on the US welfare system is heavenly in comparison. Yet they do not fall into the welfare trap and eventually contribute to society like the rest of US citizens who were born and raised here. What they have that a lot of folks who are "stuck on welfare" is a drive. In my own parents' case, what drove them was their belief that if they could escape a communist government (that sought to execute anyone who defied it) by risking everything on a 2-piston boat set off into unknown waters, then they can certainly get out of welfare. This drive is lacking in a lot of families who are currently relying on government programs (I'm referring to families in which welfare reliance occurs for generations).

I'd like to add that in determining the cost of "selling, informational and administrative expenses" they probably include their assessed value of the samples which they give. And if they are charging excessively high prices, that gets figured into the costs of samples. If pill A costs $1,000 (but arguably should only cost, say, $100), think of how much of that inflated 4.6 billion is inflated by ridiculous prices.

The emphasis on _could_ was intentional, and in fact was meant to include what you've described.

This is disputable. Your personal information may be considered a security risk and need to be kept private -- possibly even for your own safety. For example, your spouse may work for the CIA, and your spouse may not even have a Facebook account. However, the "enemy" tracking your spouse would find some very useful information about your address should they happen to know that their target is also married to you. Then you post something like "*sigh* my husband/wife will be gone again, and I'll miss him/her so much" and suddenly they know he/she is on a mission.

While hindsight is 20/20, common sense should have prevailed when it comes to Facebook and security. Social networks should, on a general basis, be banned from all parts of the government in which security _could_ be an issue.

...it could be the fact that those who have trouble sleeping are pre-dispositioned to having lower mortality. The fact that they also taking sleeping pills is a side issue. I'm just sayin...