" Thus, they believed, someone who invented something truly innovative should be temporarily guaranteed the exclusive right to make that invention."
That wasn't really the intent. The purpose of the patent system is less to encourage innovation (although that's a part) and more to offer an incentive for inventors to reveal what it is that they invented so that others can build on what they did.
I agree that a patent system can be a very good thing. I also agree that the patent system we have is broken and doesn't do much toward accomplishing its goal.
That doesn't offer any real value to other readers of the site, and we'd all wager that the scorched Earth nature of comments section just stifles real conversation.
Right, because nothing will increase the value of comments to other site readers like making commenting impossible.
No, Facebook, Twitter, etc. aren't even close to substitutions for a comment section for a bunch of reasons, starting with the fact that lots of people don't use those services and as a result are just locked out completely.
In terms of acute toxicity, aspartame has an LD50 (the dose required to kill half of a population) of 5 grams per kilogram of body weight. The LD50 of other sweeteners vary widely, but they are all very high doses, far larger than you'd accidentally ingest.
Long term toxicity is a more difficult problem to quantify for a lot of reasons, but a couple have been studied long enough and intensively enough that something intelligent can be said about them. Perhaps the most famous one is saccharine.
In the long term, saccharine does not appear to have any toxicity associated with it above what we accept in all of our other foods and food ingredients. So, based on that alone, it is inaccurate to say that "all artificial sweeteners are deadly". Saccharine is not, and it's very likely that lots of other artificial sweeteners are not as well. Probably the overwhelming majority of them.
If you want to be extra cautious about them, the thing to do is to avoid the new ones and stick with the ones that have been around long enough that we have good data on long-term problems resulting from their use.
"You can't just complain the law isn't "right". The defendant in the previous stated case tried that and the court of appeals said he (and you) are wrong. But I guess you're smarter than the collective opinion of the appeals judges."
Of course you can. I think you're confusing two different things: whether a law is right and whether a law is legal. Those two things are independent of each other. We have lots of laws that are wrong in the sense of being immoral or unethical while at the same time right in the sense of legally supported.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:04pm
"It's better to keep your information on the cloud."
Even better than that, don't take these devices on the flight at all. Ship them separately. If you really need a cell phone during the trip, buy a cheap prepaid one (I can get them for $20 at my local department store) to take along.
"We were well drilled on what truths to tell, though, and how best to tell them."
So in other words, you lied. Lying is communicating with the intention to deceive. It is possible (and common in sales & marketing) to lie like a rug without uttering a single factually incorrect statement.