The talks with psychiatrists etc are there to break up the monotony of solitary confinement, as well as giving the prisoners something to think about during solitary. Plus starving the prisoners of human contact is probably the only way to get them to actually talk to a psychiatrist.
Have a first time offender spend about a week like this (let's say it feels like a year for him/her), Do you think that person will be more or less likely to re-offend then someone that spent a real year in general population, breaking the law just to survive and being forced to join a gang for protection?

The number of acceptable deaths in this scenario is the whole of humanity-2 (or even 0 if we have machines that can keep the colony functional while growing the next generation of tube grown humans), since the scenario otherwise is the extinction of humanity. I'm not talking just about the situations where Earth survives as a planet. There are things out there that could destroy the planet itself. In that situation no amount of caves will save anyone there.

As for the quality of life I repeat, volunteers. People are willing to do many crazy things if it means they get to do them first. And why do you suddenly forget about caves when it comes to other planets (or moons)? If they can live in caves on Earth then they can live in caves elsewhere. That helps with the whole radiation and no children bit, so the situation suddenly becomes not so pointless.

Again your plan only includes the fairly benign disasters that could happen, and even for those you're wildly optimistic. Exactly how many shelters do you think humanity is likely to build? I'd be surprised if we even reach enough for a million people to survive for a few months unless there is a clear indication that something is going to hit us (and by that time there is likely to be no time to build anything new). Just look at what such relatively common disasters as tidal waves or hurricanes can do and how well humanity is prepared for them. (BTW how would you decide who goes into these shelters, since you're so worried about discimination).

The point of the offworld colonies that they can function as shelters for humanity without that being their primary purpose. They can be built as research stations or even eventually for profit, but still save at least some small number of humans in case something very bad happens.

Who said anything about a life boat? I'm suggesting we don't stick to only having one one ship. The colonies won't be empty all of the time and just waiting for the chance to save the highest bidders in the event of a disaster. They'll have their own populations. Hopefully high enough to be able to sustain humanity if the population of Earth dies.
  As for who will be 'allowed' to go live there - whoever volunteers. Life there won't be as easy as that on Earth, so I'm guessing the population will be mostly made up of those that are underpriviliged on Earth. And they'll move there a long time before we figure out that something is going to happen to the Earth.

BTW how does your plan(living in deep holes) deal with your complains about saving only some of humanity and being racist/culturalist about it?

Settling space doesn't imply abandoning Earth. It just increases the chance that at least some humans will survive in case something takes out Earth.

1) My guess is that declaring the woman partially nude in that case would cause her a lot of problems with other laws. Would it even be legal for her to be partially nude in public?
2) Her privacy and dignity are not important in this case unless there are laws that protect them. And there don't seem to be any in this case.
3) The police don't have the best record of knowing what the law is. Most cops are not lawyers and even those that are don't have the right to decide what the laws mean.

Why blame the court and not those that wrote ambiguous laws? Would you like it if the court decided that yes, she was partial nude so the photographer was sent to jail, if they at the same time convicted her for indecent exposure?

The laws governing secret photographing. The court found that they do not forbid upskirt photos. And the blame for that should fall on whoever wrote the laws and any latter politicians in power that did not change them to include upskirt photos.

This is the opposite situation. You're asking people to punish someone for something that is not (yet) illegal. The person that should be punished is the politicians for writing bad laws.

This situation is more similar to you living in a house that is 50% open to the public. You then forget to lock the dividing door and are shocked when people wonder into the part where they are not supposed to be - even when it is not marked that THIS part of the house is not meant for the public.

Yeah, sorry about that.
From what I've read, the judge basically ruled that the jury couldn't say that EA made a derivative work, without the jury seeing the two games running side by side. So he didn't care about the source code, just the look of the games and ruled that the look was more important than anything else (such as the expert testimony).

But wasn't the ruling exactly the opposite of what you said? The judge said that because the jurors didn't see the appearance of the two games side by side they couldn't rule that EA reusing code. From what I've read there was nothing about source code in the ruling.

Does the expert opinion not count as evidence? If you had a vet testify that yes, CmdrTaco is a horse that likes to walk across keyboards, and the other side did nothing to refute that, why shouldn't the jury rule that CmdrTaco is a horse? Especially since the defense refused to present him to the jury to show that he is a human.

But if defense doesn't present any evidence, doesn't that make it an automatic win for the plaintiff under preponderance of evidence? After all, even someone just saying that he believes that they stole something from him is more then silence.

Wouldn't increasing pay also increase the number of things that the workers buy, increasing the profits of the companies? You know, trickle around economics instead of just trickle down.

But that could make the train derail and kill all 6.

And isn't that how it works now?