Errr... You claim to be a scientist and yet you say "All good scientists are skeptics at heart; they require strong empirical evidence to be convinced about a theory," .

Circular definition, circular argument. Also, false. Many scientists (like Darwin for example) form a theory and then look for empirical evidence to test that theory. Next time start that sentence with "In my opinion" and you get away with it. You didn't and you don't.

Reading your article, it says nothing. I would not hire you on the basis of what you have written here.

Pardon me if that seems rude but it was in my opinion, too superficial to ignore.

Oh! By the way, what you do has had a title for a generation. You are an analyst doing what analysts do. Analyse data.

Why are you sure that I was brought up "all or nothing"? I wasn't at all. I fact I am the result of a cross "all or nothing".

But twisting my words will not help you. A law is all or nothing. You obey it or you don't.

You seem to think that if a government passes a law that you disagree with then you are not required or obliged to obey it and that it has no right to make those laws And that appears to me to be exceptionalism. You are not a special little snowflake - no one is.

Your second paragraph is not just poor grammar, it is so badly written that it is ambiguous and incomprehensible. I would not mind the former but the latter makes it impossible to address. Please use either american, australian or english, I can handle those. If you meant what I think you meant then a contract may be legally binding but it is not a law.

I am an Australian and there are many "socialist" laws here. Thank FSM. There are consumer protection organisations that work - they actually have power. And more importantly there are laws and protections that you cannot sign away regardless of what any contract might say. For example, Apple computers offer a one year guarantee. But, so far, the consumer protection have decided that it is not long enough. So, if an Apple fails within three or so years then Apple will repair or replace if they cannot prove you damaged it. Another example, if a change in licence (or fees) makes a change that means you can no longer use a device or software in the way you intended and had been doing, it is simply invalid and unenforcable. Another, long and frequent changes to click-throughs are considered unfair and pernicious. Another, Any sold or rented item must be suitable for the purposes for which it was sold.

Your third paragraph I agree with you mostly but there is a nominal social contract that varies location to location that you really cannot avoid. In many cases it would be better to conform or move. e.g. A lot of people moved to Canada when conscripted in the 70's.

Interesting thing, while I was answering you I got a text from my phone company telling me they intend to turn on roaming for me and giving me a web address to change that. I have responded to the text that I do not want it and making me responsible for seeing it remains off wastes my time. Since I have told them (even if it is not by their method of choice) I do not want it, if they ever bill me for it their bill will be wastepaper.

Now you might call it a nanny state but I call it one where citizens have inviolable rights.

Eavesding? Wiretapping? Not a government? Do not pass Go......

Rubbish. Utter rubbish. It is the governments job to govern - not rule - the country or relevant state. That is by very definition. It is a GOVERMENT. Do you notice the similarities in spelling? While yes, I have time to look at this spy tv stuff but I do not have time for everything or even most things. Nor do you. So if you want the government to have no part in protecting you then say what you really want. I.e. no government, anarchy. Luckily for you there are older and wiser persons who have seen the miseries war and anarchy create so you are protected and shielded by them as much as possible.

Oh child, are you not aware that there have been eavesdropping laws for centuries? Wiretapping laws (Samsung is not the NSA) across the world. So, YES, BLOODY YES, this would be illegal in many of the world's juristrictions. "But you signed....." Explicitly does not work as in many places signing away a right is legally invalid.

Dunno about greasemonkey but Adblock only deletes from the stream. It does not add to it, so it should be ok. That might depend on precedents if different jurist fictions though.

Well, if you do all that then you know enough to ue the Apple Development kit and hence your claim becomes moot.

This may be informative but the information appears to be false. I have a number of different browsers on my iPad and they function in very different ways. I seriously doubt they are simply skins. Currently have Safari, Opera, Mercury, Chrome installed.

Which is the only way we will ever get rid of religion. Eventually, given humanity does not fall, evolution will defeat god as the fittest (mostly, not always) of the two survives.

That turns out not to be the case. Few vaccines are perfectly effective. The reduce the chances of contagion not eliminate it. When there are few sources of contagion then it is eliminated before the contagion spreads. Thereby providing the misnamed herd immunity for both vaccinated and unvaccinated. Herd immunity is not actually an immunity at all. It is just that you cannot catch what is no longer there to be caught.

Actually, I think it would be legal in most duristrictions. Most patent law allows an individual to make a private and non commercial copy of a patented device for private use.

There are degrees of biodegradability. Even gold is biodegradable in the longest term (you use some in your biochemistry). As I said, you have a choice of detergents. Pick the right one.

You have a choice of detergents. If you use a biodegrable detergent it will not harm the waterways. I've seen the difference on a farm with no 'mains' connections.

In the end, both.

Why? You ask me this? Shouldn't you be asking them? A US judge cannot order Microsoft Ireland to do anything unless it trades in his jurisdiction. Which I don't believe it does. Why should not a judge be required to understand everyone else's law? Every other country is required to understand the US's. All I ask for is reciprocity there. Oh, when are you going to turn over those CIA agents that broke international, Italian and US law by renditions? With a US government willing to kidnap and kill those that it chooses to the US cannot be considered a country that respects the laws of others.