Yeah ... except that your spy van in your target's parking lot housing the high speed camera and its zooming lens will be obvious.

Why should a high speed camera look any different from a regular one?

Don't want your ISP looking at your emails? Encrypt your emails.

Probably best avoid using their webmail option.

Don't have the ability to understand how to encrypt your emails and want someone to manage it for you because technology is all so hard but you still want to use it? Suck it up and learn, or pay someone to do it for you and stop whining about your own ignorance.

Of course with the latter option you may find out that you have gained little or no security...
There's also the problem that you can't do much about emails people send to you.

That Israel has been manipulating public opinion through its control of the media is obvious at this stage.

Zionist propaganda has probably been influencing the media for at least a century. It, no doubt, played it's part in the creation of Israel in 1948.

Look how far from the discussion is the fact that this whole conflict started with an escalation over the murdered teenagers. Murders that, to this day, have not been investigated.

There dosn't appear to be any obvious connection between these murders and Gaza either.

What do most Americans know about the background to the Israel Palestinian conflict, which has been going for 67 years?

That's as long as it could have gone on for. Considering Israel didn't exist prior to 1948. Though Zionist terrorist groups appear to have been active since the 1920's

To replicate an experiment, you take the description of the conditions, tasks, environment, fixed independent and dependent variables, analytical method and results provided by the original experimenter in the (peer-reviewed) paper they published. If you can show the same results, with the same statistical significance, then it's reasonable to assume that the experiment shows a valid scientific phenomenon.
If you can't then one of the two experiments got it wrong and more work is needed.

Actually it would be at least one of the two "got it wrong".

I once read a study that claimed that porn makes people have a callous attitude towards women. To 'prove' this, they asked college students how long rapists should be sent to prison. Then, they showed those students some porn videos. Afterwards, they asked the same question, and some of them supported reduced sentences for rapists. The arbitrary, subjective conclusion they came to in the face of the subjective data they gathered using biased methods was that porn makes people callous towards women.

Did they have a control group who were shown other videos for the same length of time? Were there any cases of the subjects increasing thei sentence length on the second round of questioning? Was it clear to everyone exactly what the definition of "rape" being used was?

For example, try extrapolating behavior from 2 billion young men to older women. You can have huge sample sizes and yet still have sample bias simply because you've excluded an important category (such as the people you actually wanted to study).

Even if you try hard for a "representative sample" you can still have a problem where you lack a "box" to "tick" for something which turns out to be important.

I think that too many "studies" set out to prove a hypothesis instead of test a hypothesis. The drive to prove something puts bias into the study and skews the outcome. No one wants to be proven wrong. This is especially important when the measurements are subjective as in many psychology studies.

But hardly confined to "psychology". Possibly even not confined to "soft" sciences. Since attempts at falsification can easily turn out to be very politically incorrect.

With our Military starved for funds, our schools in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbling, I can think of no better use for Federal tax dollars then to ensure that some corporation makes a profit.

How much tax does said corporation pay anyway?

Their biggest loss will be the revenue lost from all the people that will get to see ahead of time what a turd this will be - BEFORE the Hollywood Bullshit Mega-Hype Machine has a chance to launch the hypnotic media assault that will try to trick the masses into thinking it's a good movie.

With the irony being that tame reviewers and those who nominate for industry awards are often able to see the thing in advance anyway.

Make it 10 times the retail cost of the copyright infringed item plus court costs and call it a day. But the person sueing has to prove that you're the one that infringed copyright. Not just a blind IP address.

Of course for something which isn't released the "retail cost" is zero. With the "plus court costs" bit probably not being applicable with vexatious litigation either.

a) a book downloaded million times even before it's out would also be sold in millions of copies because it is clearly a most wanted book;

That would also be a good thing if you were a new or relativly unknown author. Since for these people the biggest problem can be getting their books published in the first place. Something which "self publishing" can help with.
Though in such a situation you don't know how many of those people would have bought the book. You can't even know if it would have been so popular as a free ebook in the Amazon Kindle store.

Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to.

The question isn't if they have the right to do so. It's if doing so is a sensible way to go about making money from movies. Which is ostensivly what Liongate is doing.Where rights may come into it is that courts in places such as Canada take a very dim view of suing for copyright infringement in relation to products which arn't "on sale" in the first place.

I'll LMAO when the reveal comes that the leaked copy turns out to have little, if anything, to do with the actual movie they release.

Alternativly maybe someone should just tell them that "sitting on" a completed movie might not be the most sensible of business models in the first place.

Auto theft is primarily driven by economics, the demand for parts, rather than a desire to have the vehicle intact.

It's possible for a vehicle to be worth more as parts than as a complete vehicle. As well as being less tracable in that form.
Keeping a vehicle largely intact would probably require it to be given the identity of a scrapped one. So that would also tend to make popular models more likely to be stolen.