I'm all for free speech

No, you're not, you lying, subhuman filth:

I support the NSW police, aka government, on this one 100%. Make the possession of printing instructions for a weapon of this type illegal

You want people to be forcibly dragged out of their homes by armed men and thrown into a prison cell for possessing facts. You are, quite literally, violently opposed to the very notion of free speech.

And what, pray tell, are your qualifications?

Bearer of common sense and good taste.

In other words, absolutely nothing whatsoever. You have surrendered the argument unconditionally.

Remember that the context of this conversation is meat grown in a lab/factory setting.

If it's ground at the plant, it's going to be in transit and storage way too long to be suitable for raw consumption (again, unless it's vacuum-sealed or something).

If the meat is shipped "whole" and then ground right before cooking, then that's no different than traditional hacked-off-the-cow meat, so Jartan's statement that the lab-grown burger is safer to eat rare is still incorrect; the risk level is identical at best.

About the only way I can think of where ground lab-grown meat would be safer to eat raw (compared to good old dead cow) would be if it could be grown at home, since the meat would have the shortest possible exposure time.

All that said, I'm a fan of the concept, and I hope it can be made workable on a large scale.

We're talking about ground meat here, Einstein. Not a steak. Far more surface area exposed to bacteria. If you think that's safe to eat raw, you've pretty well forfeited any high ground for criticizing anyone else's food-safety standards.

I don't think #1 applies. The texture of ground meat comes from physical damage done to the fat and tissues (and from the subsequent mixing of the two). You'd still have to grind it. Trying to grow "pre-ground" meat would be like trying to grow a broken bone.

Consequently, #2 wouldn't apply either, unless the meat was ground in a completely sterile room and stored in vacuum-sealed containers or something.

No where in it does it say that anyone anywhere can carry a gun they bought thirty seconds ago at the Kwik-e Mart.

By that reasoning, since First Amendment doesn't say that anyone anywhere can post on the Internet, it's okay to outlaw Slashdot.

I think you'll find that the average conservative actually has a problem with "marriage" due to the first amendment and its separation of church and state, and marriage being predominantly a religious institution. As a conservative, I don't give a damn who you bang, but marriage is a religious thing, and I believe in the first amendment. I tend to think most conservatives want to see the abolishment of the concept of legal marriage as it's a bastardization of the first amendment.

Huh? What's your basis for believing that the "average" conservative feels this way? The only ones I've ever known to espouse it are libertarians, many of whom don't identify as conservative and none of whom can honestly be called "average" by conservative standards.

Once upon a time (and by that, I mean 15 years ago), after the elections ended, the winners did a little thing called "governing."

In what country?

While I have no faith in Microsoft's honesty, I can see that they would have no reason to lie about this particular thing. If the 720 requires an Internet connection to function, there would be no way to hide that fact. They would get much better traction by spinning the requirement as a Good Thing(TM) than they would by denying its existence only to have the denial proven false in a matter of minutes.

That said, it's academic for the moment because the poster you replied to is wrong; Microsoft hasn't denied (or confirmed) an always-online requirement yet.

And a zip gun can be made easily enough by someone who really wants a gun, but doesn't have thousands of dollars for a 3-d printer, not the knowledge to print one.

The cost and knowledge barriers for building a zip gun are relatively static. Those same barriers for 3D printing are dropping rapidly. Within a decade, it will be easier and cheaper to print a gun than build one from scratch, and the end product will be much more reliable.

And while we're at it, we have the highest death-by-firearm rate in all of the first and second world

The cause of which is not guns. Violent crime is driven primarily by poverty and mental health issues; we need to be addressing those problems rather than waste time on crusades against inanimate objects.

go ahead, tell me Australia, or the UK, or France is less "free" than we are. Prove it.

Off the top of my head:
Australia's government takes it upon itself to decide what movies you can watch and games you can play. Note that Australia's constitution doesn't even name a right to free speech.
The UK's libel laws are notorious for the burden they place upon defendants. Even when the allegations are objectively, provably true.
France passed a law banning "any visible sign of religious affiliation". No points for guessing who that's really aimed at. But I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Buslims".

And then of course, you have good old Switzerland, with its high rate of gun ownership yet low rate of violent crime, refuting by virtue of its mere existence the simplistic assumption that guns create crime.

I propose manditorily treating guns *exactly* like cars, including licensing and insurance.

In CCW states, that is already the case. I'm sorry, did you think you needed a license just to own a car in the US?

Plastics have reduced the murder rate. Plastics have vastly improved medicine. With improved medicine you have decreased murder rates, because whenever surgery is performed to save a stabbing- or shooting-victim and a life is saved, there's one less murder.

Hang on...that means plastics have increased the rate of attempted murder! We have to ban plastics immediately!

and in a right to work state, they have the right to tell you your services are no longer required

The term you're thinking of is "at-will employment". Right-to-work is a different animal.

Yes it will, because not everyone's past is equally embarrassing, and there's always a reason why yours is worse. The "transparent society" idea is wishful thinking at best.

Even if quantum entanglement worked that way (it doesn't; that's just the most palatable way to present a concept that's too weird to understand without years of intense study), that doesn't change the facts. Relativity still means FTL communications would violate causality if they were possible.

While you might contemplate that something can be sent with a nearly infinite speed, no speed will be so great that the time since transmission is a negative number.

It's perfectly obvious that this is true. However, it actually isn't true at all.

Relativity is a mind fuck.