"I'm dead, Jim."

Or, put slightly differently, you have people who don't break the law, but your cops just can't stand the idea of somebody not respecting their authoritah, and write tickets for non-offenses.

Sounds like you need a better class of cop. Perhaps you can find a model with a "self-control" upgrade.

...an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills.... ...

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

Nah. Here in Oklahoma, we just had a string of mid-to-upper seventies. It was nice to run around barefoot, in shorts, at the end of January.

No, you don't understand: he's special, so the rules need to contain an exception for him. Rather than following the same simple-to-comprehend directions as everybody else, he needs to be provided with proctors who can screen his incoming messages and pass them along to him. Because, you know, if his server goes down while he's taking the test, he's going to have to call a time-out to go fix it and resume the test when he's done.

Quite a bit less than halfway, actually. The logistics of return trip are considerably more challenging than the outbound leg.

It doesn't say how old the kids are. My dad is a father of three, and the youngest is twenty-five.

Kennesaw, GA. The last I heard, violent crimes dropped to nearly-zero. How nearly? The last I heard, in the time period from about two years after enactment to today, there had been one murder, and it was a stabbing, not a shooting.

Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.

No, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do. Anybody trying a stunt like that would be slapped with sanctions under Rule 11 in short order. And ordered to go back and do it right.

Close. You don't have a right to operate, you have permission to operate, subject, as you say, to informed consent. If you had the right to operate, the patient's consent wouldn't be an issue. You have the right to speak freely, without the consent even of those about or to whom you're speaking. Big difference.

And, as a patient, I would deny consent if I thought you were not competent for whatever reason, be it fatigue, intoxication, or just plain being a lousy doctor. Informed consent requires that the patient understand the risks to which he is being subjected. Your fatigue--or drunkenness, or your six trips to the review board--are a relevant risk.

And what's wrong with that? The patient has the right to expect his surgeon to perform competently, just as the passenger has a right to expect the airline pilot/bus driver/etc. to perform competently, and to hold him responsible if he is negligent.

If a trucker on a long run gets tired behind the wheel and runs into you, do you want to be able to sue him for damages?

If your government is anything like ours, it has foiled more terrorist plots in recent years than even existed.

How many private entities have the ability to either print money or seize money from others through force (taxes)?

That's why the private sector is more efficient: even with profits, private entities still have to work within budgets. Governments don't earn money, governments take money, and if they have cost overruns, they can just take more. Where's the incentive to be efficient?