To be honest I couldn't care less what's in their hearts, as long as their actions mirror what they say. They're a faceless corporation, not my grandmother; if the CEO secretly wants to murder kittens, well that's none of my concern, and neither is their secret feelings towards SOPA; as long as they don't screw the pooch by creating corporate policy for it, I say let them be.

*blink*

I would hope so, but even then it'll be quite a leap for a med student who has only ever practiced on simulations to go straight to real cutting on a human cadaver; however, I suppose those who have the knack for it will pick it up quickly, and all others probably shouldn't be doctors, anyway.

or alternately, and probably more common, "cleaning."

If that's true, then it's one of the biggest perversions of justice I've seen in a long time; I'm not a lawyer, and I realize double jeopardy laws may not cross over from civil to criminal cases, but it's ridiculous to be able to send somebody to jail for stealing your imaginary property, and then be able to sue in another court for the same reason.

There's a precedent for this in the computer security world, as well; it's not an uncommon practice for software vendors to prosecute or threaten to prosecute people who discover security holes in their products, instead of simply fixing said security hole. The problem is that in a lot of cases the flaws don't get fixed until they're out in the open; the thinking of the big software firms is that if nobody knows about it, then it's not worth the cost to fix it. This may seem like a legitimate action on the surface, but eventually somebody of a less savory character will rediscover the security flaw (especially if it's made known that a particular type of flaw is out there), and that's when legitimate users get burned.

I think the confusion is in the meaning of the word applies; most people are reading it as a passive verb, but it is meant to be read as an active verb.

You can have the most brilliant ideas in the world, but if you convey them like an uneducated buffoon then that's exactly what you will appear to be. Proper grammar may be optional in casual conversation (LOL wuzzup d00d), but in a setting where the conveyance of knowledge is the primary goal you should strive to do your ideas justice by relating them in an intelligent way.

So, let's clarify your point of view: Americans can't do math, and any American's who can do math aren't really Americans. Did I get the gist of it? Bigot.

I use Facebook ironically.

And how exactly will turning the prison system into an adult daycare promote rehabilitation? IMO, this is why the number of repeat offenders is so high. Give them high school and college courses, or let them otherwise learn a useful life skill; do anything but make prison an extended vacation for them.

Racism implies an erroneous stereotype; its no secret that law enforcement tend to single out the lower class and minorities, simply because the police themselves observe stereotypes of their own (i.e. if you don't have a lot of money, you're more likely to steal). A lot of police use these stereotypes as justification to bend the law, as long as they think they're sticking to the spirit of it.

What's the alternative? the knowledge that is the cornerstone of modern physics, knowledge that has been tested time and time again and found true, is upturned by one experiment? Sorry, my money's on a measurement error.

This isn't a fundamental difference between macroscopic and microscopic; what it boils down to is human perception. We exist in the macroscopic world, so we perceive things thusly. Quantum "weirdness" doesn't just happen on the microscopic scale, but the odds of a quantum event being observed macroscopically would equal the odds of the same quantum event happening simultaneously to every particle of a macroscopic object (quantum tunneling is the event that comes immediately to mind). The world doesn't change just because we're in it, regardless of what new-age pseudo-scientists would have you believe.

Some people are willing to shell out more money for a faster processor, while other people are not. It costs more to produce genuinely different CPU's than to just cripple one CPU, so the idea is that they make a large profit from the people who will pay for the faster CPU, and a lower profit from those who won't.