Why wouldn't the rhetoric that cameras in public places help prevent and prosecute crime not easily transfer over to "private" places? I would expect that most abuse and a fare share of murders occur in private places. Think of how many murders could be solved (and prevented) if we had cameras in houses. We would completely get rid of meth labs. Obviously the only people who wouldn't want a camera in their house are the ones who want to continue doing these illegal activities. Why should I get to commit crimes just because I put up a lean-to and it is now magically a "private" place.

The concerning thing about 1984 is that it IS a "democratic" society, that is controlled by fear. If I am so scared of crime in public places, why would I not be scared of crime in private places?

The major concern is not that people continue to investigate string theory, but that it is done en masse at the expense of following competitive theories. The string theory trail has certainly gotten colder, and it is time to start investigating other alternatives. I'm all for a few physicists beating the dead horse because it just may come back to life, but we don't need everyone doing it.

Really? Because my children had cognitive functions long before they had any sort of verbal language. For another anecdotal reference, many times I will remember a conversation, but not remember what language it was in, and quote someone in a different language than what they originally said. What is remembered is the idea behind each word, not the specific word itself (which has no intrinsic meaning).

it also would favor any trait that keeps you alive long enough to have more babies - say by being able to see predators at night.

And they will, which will in turn decrease their profit margins which will be unacceptable for shareholders. That, along with the "decrease" in oil availability because of the spill will result in higher gas prices for a while.

With large scale problems such as this, we can't be blind for the fact of who really foots the bill. Regardless of if governments or corporations front the money, you and I always end up providing the cash.

At least you figured out why he was after you.

What exactly is the power draw of an average website?

The change in diameter would change the moment of inertia for the planet. Since there is no change in angular momentum, the rotational velocity of the earth would need to increase to conserve energy (i.e. shorter days)

Yes, because people should live by social norms and measured responses, but Sony isn't a someone. We've been pushing free market to the point in which lawsuits are the only way to get a company to do what you want. The risk of financial damage when the PS4 is launched due to customers being upset now will not provide a quick enough response to the problem. Re-read you Ayn Rand, the company should only change if they are financially at risk. Lawsuits provide that risk.

To take it to the next step, wouldn't it depend on where the Google server was located that held the video? If it is in another country that doesn't have the same laws, why wouldn't we charge the ISP that was transporting illegal material into the country? If it is a local law, then putting video of this person is legal until you bring it into the country. It isn't like Google is forcing content into the country.

I think where you went wrong in your argument is when you equated trained and licensed medical doctors to the savvy motivated airport security personnel...