Of *course* they are. They're responsible for the consequences--but they also are right, Snowden's whistleblowing was also a cause. He has (with them) done probably billions of dollars of harm to the US tech industry.

Without him, it wouldn't have happened. Without them, it wouldn't have happened. They both did it for motives that they believed justified the cost.

You have it backwards. They move toward dishonesty because they are working in a culture that (without calling it dishonesty) does dishonest things. For example, recently there was a memo in the News showing that GM prohibited engineers from using certain words like "defect" so that those words wouldn't show up in future lawsuits. This process is insidious--by itself it doesn't *have* to be dishonest, but it distorts the truth enough to make people a little more comfortable with distorting the truth.

Military action is not out of the question--there is simply some criteria for it that has not been met yet. If Putin believed he could swallow up all of Europe, he would. He's taking Ukraine piecemeal to give his forces time to consolidate power and to make it seem like smaller moves, each of which is more tolerable. At some point he will move beyond Ukraine, and if he moves too far military force or a demonstrated willingness to use it (i.e. U.S. or British boots on the ground in the next likely targets) will be a necessary response.

Um... not quite. Rich people are less likely to go to jail period (because they can afford better lawyers, are targeted less, and less frequently have incentive to commit crimes like bank robbery and burglary that get people caught). You really have to look at rich people who are convicted of burglary and poor people who are convicted of burglary before saying that the jails really just exist to punish the poor.

As for rights, yes, prisons frequently violate rights, but consider the *flipside* of that. In the United States, we make it relatively easy for criminals to *sue* for violation of their rights. So pretty much *every* prison guard, no matter how good or honest, gets sued by prisoners. It's not like prisons are trying to violate rights--they're generally trying to not get sued.

What professional habits did you develop that helped you be successful enough to hold a high position in one of the world's important scientific institutions?

Actually, Comcast is severely undervalued right now, so their investors stand to profit either way.

Their EPS shows about a 5% return on market value, with near 20% annual earnings growth (geometric mean over five years, although mostly in the last three), but their market value is actually less than their equity. Now a lot of the equity is intangibles, but even if you take out fifty billion or so, they could still earn back their market value within three years.

(Pretax earnings are around 3B/quarter, total market cap is around 22B).

In the United States, prosecutors have the job of sensationalizing in order to get a conviction and longer sentences. They are spinning a story they design out of the facts, so they pick the facts which make someone seem as guilty as possible and of as big a crime as possible.

The defense attorney's job is to whittle that down. The jury has the job of guessing the truth from two competing false narratives (the prosecution and the defense). Only the judge can ask witnesses questions impartially, and he or she generally doesn't do that a lot.

They generally are, although it's up to the particular state. More importantly, the *exit polls*, which are not the actual vote but in which people say who they voted for, come out relatively quickly and can influence later voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Actually, the results here are important legally. One important persuasive argument in free speech cases is the chilling effect on speech. Empirical data showing that people do *not* engage in certain speech because of a government practice is useful for lawyers arguing against the illegality of those practices.

While there is a First Amendment issue here, the government almost certainly wins.

Time, place, and manner restrictions on first amendment activity are usually Constitutional so long as there is some rational basis for them. A reasonable time, place, and manner restriction with a public safety rationale would almost *never* be struck down.

Yup. We're talking about the FBI here, so that qualifies.

Google it; it's lying around if you look for it. Look up parallel construction of cases and read up a bit on deliberate withholding of evidence from the court.

Wrong in this context. Section 1983 actions are what you bring when you file a civil claim against the government for having your rights violated. Juries decide issues of fact in Section 1983 cases. Therefore juries devaluing accused criminals results in less protection of constitutional rights.

Haven't looked through the literature for it--you are welcome to look. I am personally aware of it happening to someone who the cops beat the shit out of.

They are allowed to have Bias if they admit they have Bias. If they claim not to have bias, or not to be sensoring results, they may be committing fraud / violating truth-in-advertising laws.

This.

When someone violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.

It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.

It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.

It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.

This. The story may or may not be true, but their willing and demonstrated duplicity in past Congressional reports makes it suspect. Here the story serves their interests by (1) making it seem like it's not really their fault they missed the guy, and (2) making it seem like should grab and harass near-matches and misspellings of peoples' names. It *ALSO* does not say *WHO* misspelled the name when entering it in the database. Because that person should probably be fired.

You've also got lame players who aren't cheating. Campers in a first-person shooter and the like.