So what's the difference? If cops in Canada or the U.S. can do whatever they want with no consequences, what's the difference between that and your "actual" police states?

Except the question is worded "suspected" terrorist. It's okay to kill people we're not really sure have done anything? And of course, no one would make up false accusations to appear tough on terrorism and score political points, right? Just wait America until your own government is using drone strikes against "suspected" drug dealers. Who cares if they get the wrong guy half the time, you don't hate 'murica do you?

The Tea Party also wants blacks back in chains and Christianity to be the law of the land, and don't pretend otherwise.

Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

I had a better response, but this is all you deserve.

So what does Starbucks do? Who shares their wifi with everyone? And other businesses? Is Starbucks guilty of anything their customers do on their wifi? And if they are legally allowed to share it, why can't an individual? Different laws for business vs individual? I see no reason why it would be inherently unethical and therefore must be against the law for a person to share his wifi with a stranger. It would also be a tough sell to say that legally you're responsible for anything done on your network, because you're an individual and not a business.

Except, those items ARE sold in the other countries. Then someone who now owns them, imports them and sells them in the U.S.

They could solve this with a tariff on such imports. That way, they're still "yours" but the inflated U.S. price is somewhat protected. The only problem is, that will NEVER happen. People buy way too many imports and companies are making way too much money selling cheap imports to Americans.

I'm not sure that explains it all. My girlfriend and I both hate our phone conversations but love our in-person conversations, and we certainly know each other. There's something about communicating with a device that ruins a lot of the non-verbal stuff we take for granted.

I don't know, maybe life wasn't what it expected it to be?

The paper

They don't go into detail about how the Roundup is exposed. In previous studies, they use adjuvants to help with delivery, which can increase toxicity. But they say nothing in this paper. They also don't control dietary intake. What if GM corn is tastier and they're eating more? Or less?

Furthermore, they observe the same health effects in the roundup group, the GM corn group, and the GM+R (both) group, AND these effects are not dose-dependent. Combine this with the small sample size, and the fact they're using a tumor-prone rat breed, you have a paper that's going to be crucified by peer review.

As of today, there is no citation for this paper by Food and Chemical Toxicity which means... I don't know. But it hasn't been published yet. Was this leaked during peer review process? This stinks and everyone should withhold judgement.

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

Then we better ban sunlight.

Calling Mr. Burns!

Using online polls limits the scope of the findings, it doesn't invalidate them, nor is it "bad science". It also doesn't mean this one study is the end-all authority on the matter. It's good information that can be collected into a larger view of things.

The risk of false positive isn't that meaningful unless they plan to convict solely on DNA evidence, which they never do. There has to be other factors, like they knew the victim, or live close by, or someone saw someone that looked like them, etc.

>Did you ever consider that maybe the genetic markers they are looking for only occur on the Y chromosomes? They don't.

It taught me that an 11-year-old can figure out how to operate a proprietary security system in 4 minutes.