Exactly what these "trade" deals prevent.

It really isn't that simple. If marriage is about having children, then there is a good argument that it makes a difference whether the parties are same-sex or not.

Free speech means people can make that argument.

In many places, however, marriage law is completely separate from child custody and support law, so the argument actually isn't very good.

Just not the salary...

Better known as 'learning' to everyone not trying to exaggerate an claim of artificial intelligence.

It's excellent progress, which is why I don't think it should be watered down by being compared to the simple algorithms.

That's the goal of a free trade agreement.

A "free" "trade" agreement like this one has the opposite goal.

What's creepy is that there's a patent for the obvious pairing of technology with the idea of a doll; archaeologists have found dolls tens of thousands of years old, so it's hardly original.

And then there's the way the public are not considered stakeholders.

It's cute the way they say "ensure that Congress, stakeholders and the public are closely involved before, during and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations." when the whole point of 'fast-tracking' is to prevent involvement or even awareness until it's too late.

Actual free trade (as opposed to "free" "trade" the slogan) is pretty much the simplest economic concept there is, so if the negotiations are complex, they're doing something else.

It isn't Britain without Scotland.

Start 1 mile + 1/(2pi) miles north of the South Pole.

There are, of course, infinitely many such points.

If you think every story that mentions women is saying the same thing, then 1) you didn't read any of them very carefully, and 2) you're one of the worst examples of sexism in existence.

Whereas the USA PATRIOT Act had, what, one dissenting vote? (Or maybe I'm thinking of the authorization of the use of military force?)

It's not. They stopped bothering to pretend.

It would take longer than the lifespan of a monkey too.

It's an idealization.

Whereas in the 19th century China had drug laws to protect.... the Chinese.

I'm confused now...