Not to mention the idiotic FDA regulations which reference Body Mass Index, which is the most ridiculous way to measure fat % I've ever seen.

Just for one example, body builders often have a rather extreme BMI. But treatments for fat people are not even remotely appropriate for them.

So why is this ancient, discredited, obviously-ludicrous-on-its-face measure being used in medicine at all?

Which is why speculative markets arguably should not exist. The historical record of the damage they have caused is long and sad.

Speculative markets are not "capitalist" in a strict sense of the term. Price signals in speculative markets are not sufficiently attached to the actual value of a good, which in turn is attached to utility.

That is not, strictly speaking, true. It is only true in the context of a grossly irrational market (like the current U.S. stock market, which is very far from rational and therefore subject to outrageous bubbles).

In a rational market, the stable price of any commodity will be slightly more than the cost of production + distribution. Bitcoin was originally designed to have very little cost of distribution, so this boils down to little more than the production cost. And make no mistake: production cost of Bitcoins today is considerable.

Speculation is not the same as a rational free market. They are vastly different. Speculation does not generate Adam Smith style free-market price signals. In general, it is speculation that causes bubbles. It is the speculative price that fluctuates wildly, not "fair market value". In economics one must keep in mind that price and value are often not the same things.

The peak price of Bitcoin was pretty much a classic case of a bubble caused by irrational speculation that did not take actual commodity value into account.

"Times smaller" is an excruciatingly ambiguous phrase anyway. It is very much open to interpretation, even if you presume they mean volume.

What he said. Also, Tizen is NOT "OSS from the ground up". It is a mishmash of licensing schemes and some of the software is very definitely proprietary.

It does have a separate name. Two, actually: force and fraud.

That's why I said it isn't Capitalism. In an actual free-market capitalist system, force and fraud are prohibited. That's why monopolies, for example, are supposed to be prohibited in most cases: monopoly is force.

In all honesty, I don't think she's relevant anyway.

Despite all the Democrat noise about running her in 2016, I think if they stopped to really think about things, they'd realize she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected, but on the small chance she did, it would be a disaster for their party.

Just take an objective look at her political career. Hillary Clinton is a traitorous, corrupt, lying sack of sh*t who would sell the US out to China at the first opportunity.

I don't care if they want to run a woman for President. But if they run Hillary, they're making a huge mistake. After 2 years of her Presidency nobody would ever trust a Democrat again for the rest of their lives.

No, I'm pretty sure it was Much Ado About Nothing.

This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.

Perhaps you should take a better course in mind-reading.

No, the reason I said it is that OP was clearly full of shit. Capitalism is based on voluntary trade. Forcing a "trade" at the point of a gun is not voluntarily, and therefore is not capitalism.

Yes, precisely.

But no, owning guns is not a capitalistic practice. Capitalism does not rely on force for production. Production happens via voluntary exchange. That is one of the fundamental principles of a capitalist system. Taking something with guns does not involve a "voluntary" exchange, therefore it is not capitalism.

You didn't "point out the Constitutional authority". There is none.

And while some of your reasons may be valid... there are valid reasons to do lots of illegal things. So what? The fact that they may have justification does not make it more legal.

Nonsense. I repeat: only if you're not doing it right.

I worked as part of a team who mostly worked remotely and we actually worked BETTER that way. We actually communicated BETTER and more often remotely, via IM, Campfire, and telephone, than when we were working in the same office, in the same building. Just truth, no exaggeration.

Management has to be willing to set things up properly so you can do that. But as much as I hate to keep repeating myself, it can work BETTER than the other way.

By the way: our product turned out great and was acquired by a multi-Billiion $$ corporation.

I have worked that way ever since and it has usually turned out okay. There have been a couple of exceptions. I worked for one outfit that claimed to be Agile but that actually turned out to mean they tried to use Pivotal Tracker to micro-manage anyway. That isn't Doing It Right.

What gets me is that the criminals are labeled as

Um... no. This just sounds ignorant. It's no more "capitalist" than any other criminal organization that wants money. Hint: they existed in ostensibly "communist" countries and in socialist countries as well. There is nothing "capitalist" about it.

Dear OP: please choose your words better. Or take a course in economics. Or something. But leave the propaganda out next time.

First, part of the reason you don't understand this is because you are under the impression that copyright infringement for personal use is a crime. It is NOT. This is a civil matter, not criminal.

Generally speaking, copyright infringement is only criminal if you are doing it in bulk for profit. Historically, that meant what has been known legally for about 100 years as copyright piracy, which again in general refers to making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works and selling them.

It is today's media industry which has deliberately attempted to confuse you by labeling downloads of copyrighted material for personal use piracy. It is not. Piracy is a legal term referring to PROFITING from unauthorized copying of copyrighted works.

Now, back to the case at hand: being a civil matter, and not criminal, the court need not require probable cause in order to demand that evidence be produced (although it probably can't be seized beforehand. However, because of this, people have been known to destroy evidence after being served notice of a lawsuit. If they do that for the purpose of hiding the evidence, and the plaintiff can show that, it may be ruled spoliation of evidence, and could result in a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

But despite this not being a criminal matter, plaintiff still bears the burden of showing that spoliation happened, via genuine evidence. In this case, plaintiff's claim of spoliation was not backed by evidence; it was a claim without substance. Defendant had a reasonable explanation for the drive's demise, and plaintiff could not show otherwise.

Remember that this is a civil matter. Standards of evidence are different. If a reasonable person would believe that the drive contained evidence, a judge might ask that it be produced. It very much depends on the circumstances.