Once personal data gets to the government, I would fully expect scammers, identity thieves, etc. to get a hold of this.

I'll confess to going through red lights. Not all of them though. But ones where there is not any pedestrian or car traffic. Also, in lower Manhattan there is a section I go through where it is less dangerous to go through the red lights. If I had to go through that when it was green, I would be constantly near cars trying to run me over. Going through the reds in this one area allow me to get ahead of stuck traffic and not get run over.

My suggestion would be to change the law to have bicycles stop at red lights and proceed if there is no traffic or pedestrians going through.

For the vast majority of my trip, I'm in a physically separated bike path and I'm all for that.

I've been bicycling in Manhattan for about 3 months or so now. There needs to be rules that make sense for bicycling. They aren't pedestrians and they aren't quite cars.

I'm thinking stopping at a red light and continuing if it makes sense to do so.

Do you think companies like losing their clients money? That is plenty of an incentive to avoid the problem in the future.

The U.S. Government gets somewhere between $200 billion and $225 billion a month in tax payments. I forget the exact figure, but let's say debt payments are around $50 billion a month.

We would only default if we chose to pay our debt with the lowest priority.

If you have money, you can mount a legal defense. If you don't have money, prosecutors can absolutely destroy you and your life even if you are innocent. There was a book detailing how everyone commits felonies because the federal criminal code, along with regulatory stuff, is so complex. It was called "Three Felonies a Day."

Basically, if a prosecutor wants to put you in jail, you're toast.

So good for Cuban.

You mean like Britain's with higher death rates?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html

I'm looking forward to the day when the federal government runs all of healthcare with their awesome efficiency and competence.

Usage determines meaning. If people start using it in a way, guess what? The meaning changed. Roll with it.

It's been literally used like that since the late 18th century.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/03/06/literally_definition_has_changed_over_the_years_dictionaries_recognize_this.html

I agree with you. But the only way your statement works is with God.

Evolution is a historical science so figuring out whether there is design or not can't be done with traditional experiments. With that in mind, there has to be a way to say "if I find something in nature with the following characteristics it is more than likely to have been designed."

That can't be done currently because teleology (design) is not allowed a priori. This actually makes Darwinism unfalsifiable because lack of design is part of its theory.

Roe v. Wade is allegedly based on a right to privacy in regards to medical decisions. I guess that only applies to aborting babies but for anything else it doesn't exist.

So let's assume I don't have a problem with common descent but I have a problem with random mutation being a driver of evolution. How would I go about falsifying such an assertion?

It seems the problem is that it doesn't matter what is discovered "neo-Darwinism did it". That's not science. That's philosophy interpreting results. It seems we know nothing was designed because it evolved (blindly). And how do we know it evolved blindly? Well, because nothing is designed.

For all the engineering problems at Chernobyl, what happened was this: some grad student wanted to run an experiment. The people at the plant told him "no", because it was not a good idea. They were overruled because his father was a big-time Communist in Moscow.

My friend's sister was a high-level engineer at Chernobyl, who unfortunately died of cancer.

So that was just human stupidity more than engineering breaking down.