Not if they invent immortality first. For it to be a tautology, it would have to be logically guaranteed to be true, not just incredibly likely.

Although I acknowledge that they're good workers, you should know that Mexicans aren't considered aliens in Mexico.

Trouble is, the real patent troll can't be made to pay. In case you're wondering, the real patent troll is the one that granted, not holds, the meaningless patent.

If there was anyone responsible for, and profiting from the whole patent mess, it is the patent office for granting all those frivolous patents and pocketing the fees while letting us pay the court costs, and even worse the opportunity costs of people too terrified of patents to do anything.

At least, not originally.

That would be naturally anti-balanced. Consider that the person who spent the most is likelier to win (even wrongly), and similarly that would mean a terrible expenditure on the part of the loser, who would lose both his case and the tremendous legal fees of the winner. The tenancy would then be for both sides to spend all their money on the case, and for the lose to go bankrupt.

Ideally, the legal system should have the following traits:
There should be a significant disadvantage for the aggressor, to discourage frivolous or non-frivolous but unnecessary lawsuits.
It should not be too difficult nor risky for someone who was clearly harmed by another, to take legal action against them.
The outcome should not be unduly influenced by money nor status. The less wealthy party should not face undue risk of losing, nor the more wealthy undue risk of being taken advantage of.
Those clearly innocent should not be unduly harmed by the trial, the clearly guilty should not be able to get off with a meaningless punishment.
The process should not be illegal. No violations of the Constitution, no perjury/parallel construction, no bribes/campaign contributions/threats of absurd punishment if one doesn't plead guilty

So he built a nice, indestructible, iceberg-proof capsule. I assume he has an unsinkable ship to go with it?

Possibly. One of the problems with spinal injuries is scar tissue formation, and another nerve elongation (or lack thereof). But with a head transplant, the surgeon could leave extra spinal cord on one or both pieces, and then reduce to the proper length in whatever manner is best for reattachment.

Of course, I fully expect the patient to be paralyzed from the neck down, followed shortly by death. Most likely death before the new body is attached or consciousness regained. Cryonics seems like a safer gamble.

It's not a tautology, because it is not logically guaranteed to be true.

Or it could be related to "Digital Rights Management", which is code for "we don't trust you enough to let you have your own copy, and instead you must rely on us and hope we never go out of business, make a mistake, or decide your purchase is obsolete".

Careful, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

(Almost) all cancers are the result of random mutation (there's a few infectious cancers in dogs and Tasmanian devils which aren't). And eating right can decrease the rate of random mutation, directly (antioxidants) or indirectly (general health, note also that stress increases mutation rate). Most likely the main benefits of eating right are metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease and general health, but those are themselves very good reasons.

Like with smoking, there are certain things you can eat which will increase your rate of mutation. Not eating those means you're less likely to get cancer than those who do. Agreed with you about the "organic foods" farce; those are sometimes better and sometimes worse, and worse is usually cheaper.

Too bad all those 2nd Amendment nutjobs forget about their fear of the government that they need guns so as to violently overthrow a tyrannical government, when the government tells them that someone is opposing the NSA's plot to secretly spy on Americans to find out which of them owns guns/"are a threat to national security".

I say we give him the guillotine, and all the heads of the NSA who lied to us and to Congress about the illegal violations of the Fourth Amendment.

I guess I'll have to vaccinate my kid, but as a protest I'll give him a spray bottle with measles virus to go spraying around the school.

You're conflicted because you're stuck on the idea of public schools. Imagine what outcry there would be, if the government decided that students can only receive financial assistance for state colleges. Why can't they do a similar system with education at the school level?

Put a different way:
What are the odds that a terrorist does something nasty to you?
What are the odds that your government does something nasty to you?

Any sane person* would be more terrified if their company was aiding their government, than if they were aiding the terrorists.

* except of course for people living in countries with daily terrorist attacks