So, just for argument's sake... when I was 14 I video-taped myself masturbating on camera. 12 years later, tools came out that let me convert the video to an MPG. 12 years after THAT, is today. I'm an adult, who may or may not possess images of a sexual nature involving a minor (me). Tell me who is harmed if I decide to share them.

I saw it, and like many documentaries, it contained almost no facts, and was entirely filled with appeal to emotion.

Putting nutrition info on the cup work when you can change what you put in the cup. The soda machine at 7-11 has 5 kinds of soda, a couple kinds of diet soda, but also iced tea, Hi-C, etc.

A diet big gulp has no calories, but I'm sure that will be banned too.

Nah, it's just that we've already downloaded everything we want.

Also, my VCR which has been around for 20 years can already fast forward over commercials. Somehow that's okay but this isn't?

First, tracking chemicals are not a trade secret, the recipe is a trade secret. So for example, when I bake and sell cookies, I have to list the ingredients, but not the recipe. Everyone knows what's in fracking fluid.

On the second point I agree, the state should take the larger share of the profit for allowing the process.

Death is avoidable. Some people are going to die today. Some are going to almost die, but successfully avoid it.

By contrast the WoW client is more than 20 GB.

People are willingly giving information to Google, not the FBI. If I give someone my phone number, I know they're going to have it, store it, and possibly use it. I don't expect them to give it to anyone else who might ask for it.

But it's more than that. The FBI is making the argument that communication between citizens must be accessible to the government.

Then looking at images of dead bodies creates murderers. Anyone who views an image of a corpse should be tried as if they killed the person themselves. Right?

I've never understood why drinking and driving is punished more harshly than similarly risky behaviors, such as using a cell phone while driving.

Paper ballots.

The problem with the article is it says something nonsensical. CO2 + algae = more algae + light + O2. This is exactly what all plants do, minus the light show. The article seems to suggest that CO2 turns into light. It doesn't work that way, outside of a star.

I think if someone made bomb threats from an IP address, the FBI would FULLY investigate, because jailing the wrong person means the bomb still goes off, where the RIAA doesn't care if they sue the wrong person.

Organic doesn't mean no pesticides, it means no artificial pesticides. However, artificial pesticides are used because they're more efficient, and more easily meet safety standards.

Also, "chemical" fertilizer is nonsensical jargon. Everything is a "chemical", and ALL fertilizer has the same 3 chemicals - potassium, phosphorous, and nitrogen.