Chrome doesn't read your emails and what personal information the browser does "phone home" to Google can be disabled if you so wish. The scanning of emails for ad targeting is done server-side for Gmail; still, if you replace "Google's browser" with "Gmail" then you'd have a statement I'd probably agree with. Personally I don't mind my email being checked by an algorithm to generate keywords for advertising; the keywords are only used while that specific email is open on-screen, so it's not like Google is amassing a database of every keyword ever found in any of your email -- that WOULD concern me.

Percentages can be negative; that is a perfectly normal and correct way to show the magnitude of a decrease.

Laws constructed under the Commerce Clause authority to restrict the interstate sale of alcohol have been ruled unconstitutional; maybe this will mark the end of our prohibition-era drug war nonsense. This could well be a can of worms the Attorneys-General will regret opening.

Last I checked there was no amendment giving the Federal gov't authority to create drug laws; it's an interpretation of the commerce clause that's been used as legal justification. Wikipedia has an interesting break-down of the source of constitutional authority for drug laws here. The argument is tenuous and based on the idea that if the federal gov't refuses to tax something, then it has the authority to make laws criminalizing all trade. It's an argument which gives the fed broad reach beyond the letter of the US Constitution; it doesn't mean it's right or wrong -- just that it's the kind of interpretation liable to being changed as our society loses it's hard-nosed Puritanical belief in regulating the private lives of others.

When you speak you exhale; if your airway is restricted or partially-blocked you can still potentially force air out by creating high pressure in excess of 1 ATM using muscles. When you inhale, however, the force to move the air comes entirely from the pressure difference between your lungs and the environment; assuming you could pull a vacuum with your lungs the best you can EVER achieve would be 1 ATM of pressure forcing air into you -- without external help. EMTs can use bag-valve-mask hand ventilators to provide a source of high-pressure air to help force it into you (assisted breathing) but that would require the cops to actually give a crap and get help.

Agreed. We've hired cops who aren't genuinely prepared to risk their personal safety for the benefit of their community. In any given cop-citizen interaction the cop is almost guaranteed to react to perceived threats with excessive force because they don't have any incentive to NOT shoot first -- there's no reason for the officer to wonder if it's the citizen who is in the most danger. I live in a smallish city, but I routinely go out of my way to avoid being near cops; I've got a couple friends that are officers and them I like, but the rest.. I'm not taking the chance.. I don't trust their judgement in situations where the line between threat and non-threat isn't black&white.

Depends on the state in the US, but many of them are at-will and you can be terminated at any time. They can fire you with no reason given and it's legal; if they cite a reason then you might be able to sue, if you can prove an illegal reason for firing.

Would it be much different? They already dress up like soldiers; at least soldiers follow rules of engagement and have proper training.

You're right about the fact that a sworn officer of the law is supposed to be risking their personal safety by giving the benefit-of-the-doubt and not shooting immediately. Unfortunately we've allowed a culture to build up where the cops are trained to make sure they "come home safe" by erring excessively on the side of shooting first. Your idea about killing them is dumb, but the cops who shoot first are also not true police officers -- they've forgotten that serving and protecting also means protecting innocent citizens from use of force, too.

It's a problem of incentivization. No one wants to be hurt or killed, but being a cop means putting yourself into unpredictable situations. The officer has lots of incentive to shoot first, because we (society) haven't given them any good disincentive NOT to. In any given cop-citizen interaction the citizen could be a threat, or could be a harmless innocent; we need to give the cops incentive to look carefully before they shoot, because right now anytime you talk to a cop you have an INCREASED chance of being shot than if the cop wasn't around. The cops need to know they'll pay big-time if they don't take care to protect us from their own fight-or-flight response.