Nope. I actually read a whole paper by a law professor about the topic. The subject of the parent post I replied to was "One constitutional amendment", not "a law".

Would my head (metaphorically) explode if an amendment was ruled unconstitutional? Absolutely.

Since you mention it, would my head (metaphorically) explode if a law that was SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION was ruled unconstitutional? Just as absolutely. I'm not sure what would happen if something so clearly illegal was done, though. Interesting times, for sure.

Suing someone who isn't infringing your trademark is not defending your trademark. It is harassing an innocent person.

Most also say they can chance the agreement at any time. An agreement that one party can change at any time doesn't really mean anything anyway.

Mine would. Constitutional amendments are part of the Constitution. It's not possible for a Constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.

No, the story is absolutely true, it's just that nobody reads the story. Some teenagers won a contest for an idea. They have no product, no technology, etc. It's not a thing, it's just a group of kids who said "Wouldn't it be cool if..." and won a prize.

No, it's not. John Q. Public is not constrained by HIPAA. If you tell me your medical information, I can tell anyone I want.

No, it doesn't. Anyone who has actually developed a product (or tried to) will tell you this. It has nothing to do with professional jealousy, and a lot to do with professional realism from spending time doing this sort of thing. The idea is the easy part. As others have said, why not a condom that cures STDs? I mean, hey, if all we need is the idea, right? How about one that cures any disease? Better yet, how about an app you can run on your Apple watch that cures all disease for anybody in the room? That would totally rock.

See why it's not enough to have the idea?

Why do you need a $80-100k professor to repeat the same words over and over for 10 or 20 years?

You don't. If that's all the lecture is, it may as well be done well once.

With a flesh-and-blood professor, how many times can you interrupt him in class with a question before he throws you out?

Any professor who would throw out a paying student for asking questions should be fired, unless that student is being deliberately disruptive. Instead, there's a point where you just tell the student to come to office hours to discuss, assuming, of course, that it's a line of inquiry the entire class isn't interested in following.

This is so true. I used to be very pro college, but now that my own kids are reaching the point of going or not, I've changed my tune. When they were little, I expected them to go to college. It was such a clear win. Now, I teach them how to evaluate whether they should go to college. It's not a clear win anymore.

Something has to change here. Tuition continues to rise much faster than inflation, yet students are supposed to be satisfied with videos and a "social networking tool". I'm sorry, but that's fine if I'm paying not very much, but for the price of a CMU education, I want a real live professor (not a TA) with actual experience and enough depth to answer most any question the undergrads can dream up.

Your imune system knows how to deal with naturally occuring herbs.

I don't know how to break this to you, but some plants are poisonous. The notion that natural == safe is nonsense.

And it is NOT in any way trying to say dilute it till it doesn't exist. Only stupid people, like all you idiots who beleive sensationalist healines, would buy into that bullshit.

No, it has nothing to do with believing sensationalist headlines. It has to do with knowing at least high school chemistry and being able to do basic math. That is more than enough to get you to "dilute it till it doesn't exist".

Not every crazy theory needs a full-fledged study, but I suspect a lot of good could be done by taking the top "fad" populist beliefs and making simple, definitive studies. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if a doctor could say "we studied it and there's no effect" instead of "there's no evidence that this has any effect".

We did this. We did this a long time ago. You know what we called the "fad populist beliefs" that were found to work?

Medicine.

Saying "there is no evidence..." is nothing more than scientific honesty. It leaves open the door that maybe someday evidence will be found, but now there isn't any. I can't prove the Loch Ness monster isn't real, but after a lot of study, there's no evidence it is.

I agree with you, and disagree very much with the dissenting views in the decision. It should never be ok to offer an "unlimited" plan, then in the fine print explain what the limits are. If you call it unlimited and it's limited, that's deceptive.

Now if both men had to spend a week in jail we would have equality in the system.

This is absolutely not true.

If the poor man has to spend a week in jail, he almost certainly loses his job. His kids may have no one to care for them, take them to school, make dinner, etc. Having a record will make it much harder to find a job in the future. Going to jail is ruinous.

If the rich man goes to jail, well, the nanny's already there anyway. Maybe the cook sets one fewer place. Maybe they order in. It's an inconvenience. Finding some jobs will be harder, but if he's rich, chances are he's not dependent on working for someone else anyway.

Right, so you're aware of the metric system. So am I. So is everyone. Your point is quite valid that having two sets of tools (which I do, too) is a small inconvenience and expense. Overall, though, it's just not that big a deal.

Actually, it would do us a lot more good to standardize on one language, if we're going to worry about enforcing standardization.