Not necessarily. Is it not reasonable to say "I think taxes should be lower overall, and I don't think funds should be distributed to X, Y, or Z. However, since I'm forced to pay those taxes, I may as well avail myself of services X and Z. I'd be happier not to pay and not to use them, but since I've already paid, I may as well make the best of it"?
My kingdom for a mod-point. Moodle is designed to do exactly what you ask - it's admittedly not the absolute best piece of software I've ever used, and there are a few rough edges, but it does its job.
The only real competitor is the utter monstrosity that is Blackboard, which I believe starts at $10k/year. For that low, low price, you get a piece of software which is slow, buggy, and has a web interface which manages to disable such revolutionary new browser features as 'the back button', and 'middle click'.
I don't know that there is a method to do it completely anonymously, but the fact we're even treating the mere operation of an exit node as a crime, and something to be hidden at all costs, is a rather depressing indictment of the current state of our legal systems. Ideally one should be able to proudly and publicly make a stand for anonymity - that's where my comment about a decent amount of money comes in. A higher profile name who sets up a (charitable?) organisation with limited liability (not a perfect protection, but something) and loudly announces to the world how they're standing up for the First Amendment rights of all Americans (or some local equivalent) makes for, at worst, a protracted and public case in which the government can easily come out looking like the bully.
It's imperfect, certainly, but plenty of people have made the world a better place in the process of being fucked over making a stand against their governments. Many others have won. Some have disappeared into the legal system for all eternity. Sometimes the sacrifice is in vain, sometimes it isn't, but it almost always packs a better punch if you have the money and publicity to manage it well.
It's a public service, helping to preserve people's ability to practice their right to free speech. Plenty of us believe extremely strongly in that, and I'd consider it at least as worthy as many other philanthropic causes. If I had a decent amount of money (i.e. enough to consult a lawyer beforehand, take reasonable legal precautions, and kick up a stink rather than just disappearing if I ever were taken to court) I'd do it like a shot.
Even so, I'm not sure I buy the whole "two cars" argument - going on the lifestyle you assume, the time taken to call up a rental place and say "I'm making a trip, can you drop a Porsche Cayenne off at my address tomorrow morning, please." is hardly significant. Or just ask your PA to handle it...
Interesting. If anyone else cares, a somewhat enlightening bit of Googling on the subject seems to indicate that it varies from doctor to doctor, and that the main concern is the metal interfering with electrocauterisation equipment (in the case that something goes wrong during surgery, even if it wasn't intended to be used originally) and causing burns. It's a risk mitigation thing, and it appears that some places won't budge, whereas others will have you sign a release, with further variability based on the inherent risk of the type of surgery in question.
Seriously? Any chance of a link with some more info on that?
The anchors themselves are transdermal (through the skin), not subdermal (entirely under the skin) as the headline states. The magnetic caps sit on top of the steel which is protruding outside the skin, and the iPod then sits on them.
If you look at TFA, they seem to be inert transdermal anchors with magnetic caps, so there shouldn't be any risk of pinching the tissue between them.
Also it appears the ones used in TFA are actually inert transdermal anchors with magnetic caps - in this case there's no reason to embed the actual magnets, whereas I'm assuming you got them for the whole 'extra sense' thing?
Looking at the article, I was actually thinking this would be a lot cooler with a nice watch face than an iPod. Having it just sitting there without a strap seems like a subtle but kind of interesting way to modify a fairly standard accessory.
It's fair to say that the figure is pretty damn likely to be incorrect. But I quite agree, the Forbes article should've gone one step further and done the correct calculation for the 2010 data (since, by their assertions, it seems that 2011 data is not yet fully available).
I didn't say 'instead of', but it sure as hell gives you an advantage. In my experience it's a sliding scale between ability, appearance and confidence - the more you have of one, the less you need of the others. A vast generalisation, of course, with somewhat overlapping criteria, and it breaks down at the extremes (you don't get surgeons with zero ability, nor business executives with zero confidence, for example), but not a bad rule of thumb.
A very reasonable post, although I must say I disagree with your implication that I'm 'pushing' anything. If you've looked at things from both sides and made your choice then I applaud you - it's certainly not my place to tell you how to behave. That said, I obviously think my way is the right way of doing things (hell, who doesn't?) and to that end I offer my opinion as best I can.