"Scientists"?! Yeah, "scientists" from the NSA, maybe!!!! Those fuckers will stop at NOTHING to track every damn little thing and now this?! What did poor little DNA ever do to you, you fascist bastards?!

Good idea.

I've got an idea of who might best be able to help out. Lemme call him...

*ring*

*click*

"Hello and thank you for calling the Fucking Batman. I kick the asses of miscreants everywhere as well as providing consultation services for security and anti-criminal measures. I also am available for bachelorette parties on Fridays and Saturdays with at least 72 hours' prior notice and a minimum of ten ladies. Tipping for excellent service is optional but appreciated. Please leave a message with your name and number and a good time to call you back or activate the Bat-signal anytime from dusk to dawn and I'll get right back with you as soon as my schedule permits."

That's a little harsh, man. I worked all month for that "tribute to Bob Fosse" number.

That's direct democracy, which we do not have except in limited instances. Your example of the presidency is an excellent example of this, actually. Are you aware of this thing called "the electoral college"? When was the last time you voted for members of the electoral college? Okay, so the POTUS election isn't an actual "one man, one vote" type deal in the direct democratic sense. Plus, it's winner-take-all for each state and thus not even a true representation of how the various electoral college members actually voted. So, not directly democratic either even in the limited arena of the electoral college.

Okay, so how about the supreme court justices? Who did you vote for during the last election? Or hugely influential people in the various cabinets such as Secretary of State. Who did you vote for?

Huh. Okay, so while the US has some parts of government directly democratic ("one man, one vote"), there were deliberately set in place those checks and balances (a constitution and republican structure of other parts of government) to thoughtfully and precisely limit direct democracy, as the Founders felt that direct democracy would be too damaging ("tyranny of the majority" for example) and unwieldy to boot.

Woh. I wonder wu else he knows, though my guess is he's long gong by now so wei can't ask him.

"Here at Apple, we care about security. We care so much about security, in fact, that we refuse access to not only thieves and hackers but to our Valued Customers too!"

Use of the software constitutes acceptance, sure. Use of the car that the software just happens to be in, doesn't have the protection of copyright.

Exactly. Doctors do not need a coded door; they just need a body of water to walk on.

And Virginia doesn't?

Oh, I dunno, hopefully someone who has a clearer memory will be along to help me out, but I thought that his book, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus was a very good book and didn't seem to me to be all that homophobic or racist either. May want to give that one a try.

I believe you are correct. In fact, the only one on record that I can find was done by a cop who is automatically (no pun intended) exempt from the laws regarding ownership of fully automatic firearms in the US.

"On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."

Simply put, it doesn't. To be more precise, there are some powers delegated to the government regarding things like search and seizure, but I am fully able to, under the law, "enforce the law" as a common citizen. Some might argue that it is our duty to do so even.

Are you American? If so, you should know this already, if you feel yourself able to make knowledgeable comments on this topic.

That's very wrong. I pay my insurance premiums for decades until at some point when I need to be covered and the very same insurance company can deny coverage for that based on whatever reason. They do not suddenly refund all the premiums I've paid in since that time, do they?

That's the real disconnect when it comes to people and insurance companies. The vast majority of people do not want to rip anyone off; they just want the services for which they've been paying if the situation ever arises -- which is the whole bloody point of insurance, isn't it?

Hopefully this is not a stupid question, but how long would it be, approximately, before much of these data go stale (stale before it becomes useless)?

You can keep trying to insult me and poisoning the well; it does nothing to change the facts as I have already stated.

You wrote "[i]t is dangerous to text at traffic lights. You are more likely to be rear-ended, and more likely to cause a delay (And delays increase congestion and congestion increases crashes)." That is a positive claim against the null hypothesis that texting at stoplights is no more dangerous than just sitting there.

Your positive claim, your burden of proof. That you are not willing to come up with any evidence is fine; it just means that your statement is unevidenced opinion and can be dismissed as such. The null hypothesis stands.