A reporter asking questions about a public, newsworthy paper you published under your own name is not a violation of your privacy.
Not really true, at least in terms of conditions for life being better than on Mars. The Late Heavy Bombardment probably ended about 3.8 Ma ago, and even the more conservative estimates have life leaving identifiable marks by 3.6 Ma, and there are arguments for rocks even earlier than that -- and we don't have many of those. Life seems to have appeared on Earth not long after the crust cooled enough for such to survive.
He's not going to jail for teaching people how to beat polygraph; he's going to jail for conspiring to defraud. There are any number of entirely legal actions you can take that become illegal when you use them to commit crimes. Want to do sleight of hand? Lovely. Want to use sleight of hand to defraud someone? A crime. And yes, teaching someone sleight of hand for the _specific purpose of defrauding people_ becomes conspiracy to commit fraud.
Yup. They are greedy; they want all that sweet extra crash - and despite the attempts of people to mau mau the numbers to convince the naive that ebooks cost as much for the producers as paper books, it's simply not true. The fact they don't have to factor in the risk cost of returns alone makes them vastly cheaper, even before considering materials costs and storage and transportation costs.
I'm simply not going to pay hardback prices for an ebook, and I suspect there are plenty of others who feel the same way.
Yeah, the result is likely to be paying the same amount of money for smaller numbers of channels -- they already know that you'll pay $100 a month for 300 channels to get the 10 you really want, so they'd just charge $10 per each of those channels. Some number of people will end up better off, some (probably larger) worse off, but they'll extract the same amount of money in the end, except you won't have access to the penumbra of channels you watch things on occasionally.
I'd probably be one of those better off, since I could care less about sports, so I'm not against it, but I wouldn't expect it to change much except perhaps killing off some more of the more generic filler channels.
Because the players are bigger and stronger. The average offensive lineman is 60, 70 pound bigger than even 30 years ago, much less 60. More mass, more impact.
There's probably also other factors -- I suspect training is also more intense, and all those training hits add up too. But the sheer size of your modern football player is a big one.
Note that the deputy mayor of Giglio, the island they ran into, boarded the ship from a tender at 11pm, before it had even tilted, and found only a single junior officer left on board, and the evacuation in chaos. That's criminal irresponsibility, and the captain and probably some of his officers will go to jail for it. Though I agree with the other commenter who said that the truly criminal part will be the lying to the coast guard and telling passengers to go back to their cabins despite the fact that the ship was clearly hopeless. It's almost mystifying -- did he think that giant rock was going to somehow vanish?
The recovered episodes are broadcast versions from Australia, which had bits censored out of them. The Australian censorship board was very diligent about filing the sections they snipped out, however, so those segments still exist, we just didn't have the rest of the episodes until now. Now they can rejoin the edited version + copies of the censored sections and have two completed episodes.
Nope. I've worked for the government; I assure you the first amendment did not mean I got to put whatever I wanted on my office door, or do whatever I wanted on government property.
In summary, the consumers are paying pretty similar prices as before, but are getting far less channels. If a movie comes up on AMC that one of us wants to watch, none of us can.
Yah, this is what I expect to happen. The cable channels know that you are willing to say, pay $50 a month for cable. If that's just because of four channels, then that's what those channels are worth and that's the price they will extract. With bonus extra profit because now they don't have to give you anything else. Some individuals will be better off, some worse, since cable won't be able to charge users individual rates, but overall customers will end up paying the same for fewer channels.
You're like (I used this example, because something similar really happened and is well-known):
Hey, that dude went to the back of his motor home to make a coffee *while on the freaking highway*, crashed, and now can't walk.
Nope. Long running urban legend, constantly morphing according whatever the current society or teller wants to bash (in your case, disabled people.)
Also note that "Lectures in the Philosophy of Education" isn't written by Dewey -- it's from a student's notes during Dewey's lectures at the University of Chicago. So even if the quote exists and isn't taken out of context (i.e., "Some say that children who think for themselves..." being negated), it's still secondhand at best.
Nah, you give too much credit to Coulter. She took it from "None Dare Call It Education" , written by crazy Bircher John Stormer. Who quotes it from Human Events, which is mostly right-wing propaganda.
Well, half of it-- the other half that she claims Dewey said, "You can't make socialists out of individualists", is actually Rosalie Gordon from "What's Happened To Our Schools", which was a rant back in the 1950s about the eeeevil of progressive education.
If the quote exists at all, it's in Dewey's "Lectures in the Philosophy of Education", but there's no electronic copy and I'm not trawling through the whole thing, given the dodgy reputations of the people claiming the quote. And given that one of Dewey's major focuses was getting a child involved in their own education instead of just sitting in a chair and being lectured at; that's part of why Christian conservatives hate him.