He found a "solution" which may lead to him becoming a shuffling zombie. It's in no one's best interest to defend that.

I don't believe "he was convicted of and illegally broad search", as I don't believe that any such charge was ever filed in that court.

Please note, this doesn't mean I believe that he shouldn't be charged and tried for such an offense (though I'm not sure what the charge would be, precisely). Merely that he has not, as of yet, been so convicted. And "improper use of military equipement" should be an additional charge filed at the same time, as it was comitted as a part of the same offense.

Caution: IANAL. These are just my opinions. Adopt them if you wish.

That, definitely. I'm not really sure he's "scum", but he's certaily demonstrated that he doesn't undertstand the law well enough to be trusted with enforcing it.

Well, ozone is fatal to most cells, so I suppose that if you exposed cancerous cells to it, it would kill them. Hydrogen peroxide is easier, though, and just as deadly. Hell, even pure O2 is pretty deadly.

Most embryos die within the first few days. Nobody notices, but I expect that it cleans out the "mitosis-invariant ageing".

Well, the only key resource we're actually in danger of running out of is phosphorous. Anything else we have lots of, can recycle, or can substitute for.

Or if something serious happens, like a wheel falls off. Keep both hands on the wheel.

Once you successfully stick them with driving while using a cellphone, you have the basis to also slap them with driving while distracted, if they're speeding reckless endangerment as well...

That doesn't even make any sense as an interpretation of what I said, given what it was in response to.

Well, you should be modded down as flamebait, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I don't notice anything useful in your comment.

Of course, you may be a troll, in which case shame on me for responding. But I wasn't even nearly the first, so I don't feel too bad.

More than just that. One of the causes of aging appears to be "tired mitochondria". So you need to make sure that the mitochondira of the cell line is in good shape. Difficult, as (AFAIK) we don't know how to tell when mitochondria aren't acting efficiently in a single cell, only in an organ. And mitochondria are subject to a high rate of mutation, so if you grow a clone*, you want to ensure that all cells in that clone have efficient mitochondria.

*A clone is a cluster of cells grown from a single cell. This would cover an organ as well as an organism. Say, e.g., a new liver or kidney.

OK. Sorry. Make that "canonically isomorphic".

That may be Wikipedia, but it doesn't match standard usage. In neither Norway nor Sweden are the means of production owned by the state...except for some of them, and that's true in the US, too. (E.g., the state owns the Hoover Dam, which is definitely a "means of production".)

And in almost EVERY nation "some sectors of an economy " are "run in a socialist manner, while others" are "run in a capitalist way". Including the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, etc.

Yes, I am claiming that in every state to the extent that social services are supplied by the state, that state is socialist. And it is not one dimensional. Some states cover some areas, other states cover other areas. A few just leave you to die if you can't make it on your own.

Sample areas of coverage:
1) unemployment coverage.
2) minimal housing
3) minimal heat supply
4) minimal food supply
5) clean air
6) clean water
etc. I notice that I left out health care, but it's just one of many areas I left out. I also, e.g., left out public defenders, police protection, emergency rescue, and many others. Note that every one I've explicitly mentioned is provided, at least to an extent, by the US govt. (sometimes indirectly).

I would also disagree with your definiton of capitalism, though that's certainly a lot closer to being accurate. I think Adam Smith might agree with your definition, but to me the ownership is irrelevant. What's relevant is control and personal reward. Thus to me it would make no difference whether the stock in a corporation were owned by private groups or by a collection of states...what matters is that the control is vested in an individual who is not the representative of a government, and is at most an indirect agent of one. (Adam Smith didn't consider such scenarios, because he disliked corporations, though he did admit that they were occasionally needed...e.g., it would have been difficult to come to another means of dealing with the situation handled by "The Lord Mayor and Corporation of London".)

No, as per TFS it bears load at the joints, where it's going to put more strain is on the skeletal system.