Pennsylvania actually goes even farther, not only does it require all parties be informed, all parties must consent.
You mean allowing two terribly run companies to get government bailouts together.
Zhou's definition was predated by the GP's which developed in the 1950s. While Zhou's is the one that more closely resembles the modern world, it is not the one that people usually reference.
Not psychotic, sociopathic, a significant portion of politicians (and CEOs for that matter) are sociopaths.
She was depressed that she was going bald.
Unless the difference in efficiency drops to the point where the transportation costs are greater.
While your argument may have some merit, using firearm related deaths as your statistic is ridiculous. Of course you're going to have more firearm deaths in a place that allows firearms, that doesn't mean it's less safe, just that a particular cause of death is more likely. A better comparison would be the intentional homicide rate plus the accidental firearm related death rate.
What you're talking about is a Professional Engineer. Often there will be many engineers working on a project with only one PE to sign off on it. As for requirements on calling yourself an engineer, they are state based, not universal.
While I don't disagree with the overall idea, I doubt the government could provide the same benefits without greatly increased costs.
The problem is that if everyone pays the per-unit cost, movies can't be made, only distributed. For the system to work everyone has to pay the per-unit cost, a share of the overhead, and a bit of profit.
That said, I disagree that pirates only want to pay the per-unit cost, many would be willing to pay the regular price to get things in the format they want at the time they want. Since this is frequently not available, they resort to piracy.
The download was probably quite a bit smaller as the audio was compressed for download, it then had to be uncompressed for the installation.
And yet none of those problems are fixed by using uncompressed audio.
Your argument only works if police are required to use the device and the case goes to a jury. If they aren't required to use it there's no reason why people should expect there to be a recording. Without the recording, there's a good chance the case will be dismissed for lack of evidence as judges are prone to trusting the word of cops.
Your money only disappears if you give it to shady people to hold for you.
Just because it's heavy oversight doesn't mean it's effective.