They will still be able to continue to sell this with the same exact claims. So long as it's a "supplement" and not a medication, nothing can be done under current regulations. The only thing that would get it removed from shelves if it was proven toxic, and even then maybe not.

I think the answer is quite clear, BAN PHOTOSHOP NOW! Or the terrorists will win

The holdbacks you mention are definitely true. But many of the comparisons made with other countries fail to point out just how huge a country america is. Covering that much area is quite a difficult task and involves greater expense. And it isn't just covering blank areas of the map between urban centers. Our cities also have tons of urban sprawl to make the job harder. Don't get me wrong, it's a task that can be accomplished if the telecoms stop their massive massive fail/theft. But the problem to overcome in the states is harder than europe/south korea/japan ect...

Regardless of any indemnity, a clever tort lawyer has got you at the very least with strict liability.

When the devil hands me a gift I'm wary of opening it...

People are still willing to pay to go to the movies for the superior screen/sound and crowd experience. Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

I'm totally with you on that. I see the harms of the cliff we've fallen off of but realize the futility of flapping our arms.

But the sum of all your purchases, searches, emails ect... becomes a very accurate picture of who you are (or your behavior anyway). Google may not have nefarious intentions, but the profile now exists in a form which is not even promised to be private.

Given the experience you had with the data sharing between corporations and government, I'm surprised you don't see the potential negatives. A profile of your whole life and lives of all those around you is just a subpoena away. Maybe less than that.

There was an old russian KGB adage which went something like "everyone has committed a crime, it's about who we decide to prosecute".

Self-diagnosis is so prevalent these days it's ridiculous. Most people with issues that affect their ability to function to do not talk about them.

Not trying to be antagonistic here, but I have to ask. Do you think your co-worker was being paid in-line with the amount of work he was doing? My only fear with this concept is that they may be taken advantage of.

The variance has more to do with the test grading criteria I think. I have heard my professors at my school tell us that women score higher on average, but tend to have less very high scores. Their reasoning is that women tend to be less aggressive and declarative of their opinions in papers. Excellent mastery of the material, less willingness to make very large assertions. Big declarative papers are a gamble. If you get it right, you get a killer score. If you get it wrong, you get a really terrible score.

Do you honestly feel that the bias against females in the workplace or academics has been alleviated? It continues to this day. You can't fault a female for trying to hide their intelligence. A large part of American society still frowns upon the outward expression of intelligence (as many of us here may have experienced) of any kind. For women much more so. This feels like a very glib interpretation of the plight of the women in the modern age. Criticizing misguided attempts at forcing equality does not mean that inequality does not exist.

There are so many theoretical & methodological problems IQ testing. Any analysis with IQ scores as a data set in inherently flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

1% of the most profitable users > 30% of razor thin profit margin users. That is why the iphone is a success, it has nothing to do with userbase. It's all a function of effort to profit. Most users aren't that profitable. Fat middle aged housewives using a $1500 iphone to occasionally call starbucks to see if they left their purse there where the $$ is at.