Yes, you can. But we know far more about the composition of a AA battery than we do of the composition of the earth. We've also drained many a AA battery to its end to come-up with and tweak those averages/extrapolations so that they are accurate. So still not a fitting analogy. Not that you can prove via analogy anyway.

First, I assume you are talking about a non-brand new AA battery. Second, you say we can do that by examining the power profile over time. However, that seems an awful lot like counting to me, even when combined with averaging and extrapolation you still counted first.

Firstly, individual privately operated cameras and centralized government dragnet surveillance are two different things and I am only commenting the governmental one. Secondly, the main analogy for the justification for their being little-to-no expectation of privacy in a public space is that their are other people who can see you there anyway. However, the people who can see you, you can also see, they have no authority to wield over you, and are not following you around all day, every day. Meaning that in order to get the full picture of ones activities (or a group of people's) you'd have to find and then talk to lots of people and fit the pieces together yourself. If a single person were to follow you around, all day, every day, and compile a detailed account of your activities, that would be harassment and you could file charges if that person refused to cease. So the analogy doesn't fit with centralized government surveillance. It does fit with individual privately operated cameras though.

Yes, obviously. There would then be permanent documentation of every move everyone makes while in public which can be accessed now or at any time in the future for reasons which will not be made clear and will be subject to change at any time.

No, what they want is their right to not be harassed upheld. Their right to not have every moment of their public activities stored as part of a permanent record. It is not unreasonable.

Who said he drives it around all the time? No one, you just assumed that. Me, I would assume that he was trying to move it from an insecure location to a secure one and was short on time which would also explain why he overstuffed the compartment to the point of it not opening again. He seems pretty anxious to not be continually risking it in his car since he was trying to get the compartment open, presumably to get the money out of the car.

Well that right there says volumes about you. Me, I only know that which I can prove (to myself). Everything I cannot prove to myself to be true I do not know for a fact. I either assume, believe, or am inclined to believe but I do not know. See I reserve that word (know) for those things of which I am certain.

Really? The only way to make $800,000 is through the drug trade? Well, better rush all those $1,000,000+/year + $1+ Million/Bonus Executives to jail straight away. Those lottery winners as well. That assertion is not just false, it is ludicrous. Remember, this guy built compartments for securing storing valuables of which, cash, is chief among them. He was under no obligation nor had any authority to question where the money came from since it was perfectly legal cash.

Okay, so he assumes the customer is a drug lord (because he happens to have a lot of valuable cash in his compartment designed and made to hold valuables) and your advice is to deny the customer service because they have provided him information that makes him liable if he does not report it. Now if you think about that, even for just a minute; what would a drug lord do in such a situation? Certainly not leave a witness around, especially one that now has no use. That would effectively be a suicide-sentence for the installer (unless he was dealing with amateur criminals). His only, rational, self-preserving choice was do what he did, limit his exposure to information (to protect himself from both the law and the customer) and to get those people out of this driveway, happy.

Except you left out the word "Now" which was at the beginning of the sentence, placing it in sequential order after the preceding statement.

One question: if there is, and has only ever been, one true god, why would there be a word to describe a class of entities as gods? Wouldn't there be only one word that means the singular entity that cannot be confused or compared to any other?

Sounds like someone slept through history class. If you think all of the reasons for the second amendment no longer exist, then you obviously missed some of them.

Well, if you don't want to have the means to protect yourself, your house, your neighbors and/or your family from a foreign invading force, then that's your decision, as ill-advised as it may be. Me, I'll need as many options as I can get and have prepared my self to have. I will not be exclusively relying on others for my own protection, my house may not be in a militarily strategic location and could be considered an acceptable loss.

How long they last is not a relevant question. How could they possibly win is also not a relevant question. They are not relevant because the answers do not matter. What matters is that the people have a right to fight against a tyrannical opposing force, foreign or domestic. They have the right to stand up honorably for what they believe in and fight for it to the death if it comes to that. They have the right to be equipped for that fight for all-in-all they have the right to live. With the right to life comes, without exception, the right to protect that life. The second amendment makes that abundantly clear for all to see - in this country, the people not only have the right to live they also have the right to the means to ensure that their right to live is not taken away. If you really think guns and an armed populace are anachronism, then perhaps you should live with those who think more like you, I hear the UK feels that way and you won't even have to learn a new language. You can leave this free country to the men (and women) who have the courage to accept the price freedom costs for it has only ever been paid for with blood.

People don't claim to feel better, they do feel better. There is no incentive for them to lie, in fact, there is a disincentive for them to do so. The reason behind the cause of the "placebo" effect is in the mind of the patient. The patient believes they should be getting better and then they do. Power of thought, belief and, if defined correctly, faith. Really, it is the power of consciousness which no one fully understands.

This can be applied to apparent differences in audio formats. The observer believes that one source should sound better and then it does. Since qualifying better/worse is entirely subjective, objectivity has no place in the argument.

To know of a crime and not report it makes one an accessory to the crime, after the fact. Whether his evidence was sufficient enough for arrest and/or prosecution would be up to the police and DA to decide.

Emphasis mine. Yes a 7/10 would be reasonable if the DRM issues were possible and could cause hiccups in your game. However, the facts upon their revised review were that the DRM issues are happening and they do cause hiccups in the game turning 9.5/10 rating (when there was no observable reason to believe the servers were anything but flawless) to 4/10. Personally, it should of dropped to a 1/10. The fact it still got as high as a "4" is the evidence I'd use to say the review was bought and paid for.

It's a matter of leverage. If the confirmation is something the Executive wants, it will have to give the Senate what it wants.