why would one group of people (the regulators) be better at deciding what another group of people should do (those who are being regulated)?

So you're arguing that we should deregulate murder because politicians aren't any better at deciding what people should do than murderers are?

Nobody has ever been jailed for failing to fill out the long-form census

Not because they can't, but because they choose not to, for now. That doesn't stop them from threatening you.

basically nobody ever runs afoul of the laws. The census people just come and talk to you and help you fill out the form.

I certainly have run afoul of this law. I returned the American Community Survey with a head count. They eventually gave up trying to get anything else out of me, after about 6 months of harassment.

It's criminal.

So is racketeering by the finance industry. Cry me a river. Punish real crimes first, then we'll talk.

There's never been a freedom problem with the census.

Unless you value your privacy. You don't, but I do.

An accurate census is fundamental to any government that's interested in actually governing.

When we get a government that is actually interested in governing, let me know. When that happens, I'll gladly tell them almost anything they ask politely for. Today, I have no reason to believe my answers will be used to help me rather than oppress me. That's why we have rights in the first place, because you cannot count on the government having your best interests in mind.

Lots of stuff kills cells in a dish. Until they demonstrate this in vivo, it's not even worth discussing.

Well, if you have a wife, it's not really in your interest to kill her, is it?

The problem is that people, and corporations, don't always act in their best interest or the interest of others. This is why we have laws. No politician wants to be seen as soft on crime, but that's exactly what pro-deregulation politicians are.

Unfortunately, most of my fellow countrymen only care about one thing - the economy.

Good. Because someone who actually cares about the economy won't vote for conservatives.

Why scientists feel their programs should be immune to budget cuts when governments the globe over are practicing austerity is a mystery.

Because science more important. Look at the advances in quality of life made during the 20th century. The transistor, lasers, molecular biology, antibiotics, etc., etc.. Basic science is an investment that provides a higher ROI than anything else you can invest in, but those returns accrue to society as a whole. The only organisation suited to make those kinds of investments is government.

I think your fix would be more reasonable if you cited examples of when liberal politicians ignored science to match their agendas.

Any liberal politician who has ever voted for or in any way promoted drug prohibition.

First, one of the prized features of the Xbox platform is the Xbox Live services.

One of the prized features of the Xbox platform is playing games. Anything that gets in the way of this feature is a bad thing.

a feature that, guess what, you have been supporting for the lat 8 years anyways everytime you turn on the Xbox360 and its signs you into the Live cloud.

Has never happened, will never happen.

There is a demand for a connected experience.

There is also a demand for an isolated experience. Any console that doesn't provide it will not get my money.

My Atari 2600 has worked offline for 30 years.

Plug it into a power strip. Hit the master power switch on the strip when you turn off the console. I already do this for all my consoles (all 18 of them) anyway. Better to have them disconnected from main power during a lightning strike.

You can do it yourself. 'mencoder -oac copy -ovc copy -o video.avi video.flv' Then post a plain old download link.

Are you stupid enough to believe that Republicans wouldn't use "a $20million suit to punish a nurse for cracking ribs while providing CPR" as an excuse to indemnify doctors against all their wrongs? They have proven that they will deregulate everything, no matter who it hurts, just for the sake of deregulation.

Now if someone gets convicted, or slapped with a zillion dollar fine, then we'll have a story.

And if the government is too corrupt to jail its own, that's not a story?

It would have meant health care rates would have fallen after the GOP voted in the health care reforms they were asking for, like caps on malpractice and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.

The GOP had 8 years to pass health care reform under Bush. You don't really believe they would have passed anything, do you? You're not that much of a sucker, are you?

BTW, if you cap malpractice, who pays for the health care of someone who was injured by malpractice? If the slip of a knife causes someone to require tens of thousands of dollars of health care, where is that going to come from? This wouldn't be a problem under single payer, btw. What's the conservative solution? Let the market sort it out?