Call the bank and ask for their "agent of service", This is the first step you take when you sue a corporation: find out the lawyer you need to send the paperwork to. Not that you will actually be suing them, but if anyone can light a fire under the bank's IT staff it's their lawyer.

Most likely, the non-profit sold your email address (along with the rest of their list), leading to embarrassment all around when you contacted them about the spam.

Isn't that consideration based on the assumption that the individuals have a long term private relationship, something that would lead to an expectation of privacy? Letters to a casual acquaintance wouldn't fall under that rule, would they? How about selfies sent by someone being flirtatious with someone they don't know very well yet?

Pick your definition for empiricism. In modern science (my experience is protein structure prediction) it involves calculating average parameters from large datasets (empirical: CHARMM, AMBER) as opposed to generating them ab initio (theoretical: Hartree-Fock). It certainly doesn't involve cherry picking anecdotes from websites that hawk anti-aging supplements.

So your answer to the problems of false positives and statistical failures are studies where n = 1.

Ok.

Meanwhile, in the actual article:

Article is firewalled and the abstract doesn't speculate on mechanism, but discussion centers on the higher heart rate. So it might well be related to the benefits seen from exercise.

Completely missed the point of my post:

It's just as true for weight training.

Plus: anecdotes?

Really?

Tangential but relevant: You take a picture and send it to someone. Or write a letter and send it to someone. What conditions have to be met before there is a legal expectation of confidentiality for that someone? Written contract? Verbal contract? Can just having an intimate relationship create the contract? Can the nature of the picture/letter alone create that contract?

Can someone with a legal background connect the dots for me?

Here we go again - confusing correlation with a causal relationship.

Cite? I'm genuinely curious. The trick is finding research that is based on intervention, not just observation. For example: studies of runners. People who are still running at age 55+ have been intensively selected by their joints over the years, many people will have experienced knee/hip/ankle/back problems well before that age and quit. How do you establish the control group: people who could keep running but choose not to? Otherwise you are conflating the benefits of not being at risk for arthritis, tendinosis, vertabrae/disk issuses, torn meniscus, etc. with the benefits of exercise.

10 year lease on each TLD. 9 years in each goes to public auction which determines the rate for the next 10 year lease.

So then you just have to send copies of your one time pads to everyone you want to have conversations with. What could go wrong?

You are aiming at the wrong target. It's not some sort of zero sum game where spending more on physician samples or TV ads means spending less on R&D. Each dollar spent on ads more than pays for itself in extra revenue. And the system doesn't put HR, advertisers, and sales people above R&D - their jobs are all just as short lived these days in pharma. If you are going to blame anyone blame the investors - every free dollar goes to stock buybacks, not advertising. Anyway, I don't really see the congress and the senate directing the NIH on which drug candidates to pursue and which congressional districts to spend the money in working much more efficiently.

Well, the money end of drug development (Pharma) went through massive layoffs and shrinkage during Bush II the Lesser's reign. I think more people were laid off than actually employed in Pharma at any one time (and no, quite a lot of them did not find further research jobs).