Because cops in this country believe that everyone they come across just might be armed and planning to shoot them
Except that's complete and utter bullshit. Shooting deaths of police officers last year were the lowest since 1887. Yes, that isn't a typo, 125 years ago when the population of the entire US was only a little over 50 million. Overall deaths were the lowest since 1957 and most of those were traffic accidents. So tell me again why the police agencies are arming themselves with military equipment and weapons?
have passed laws greatly limiting doctor's liability for pain and suffering.
That's for malpractice, unwillful mistakes. This has nothing what so ever to do with malpractice. This is performing invasive risky procedures against someones will. They should have there license to practice medicine revoked and be facing criminal charges.
To be a journalist during an election takes a good relation with at least one of the candidates to get close enough to get the "good stories".
You don't get the good stories by having good relations with at least one of the candidates. You get the crap stories that are typical of the MSM. You get the story the candidate wants you to print. The good stories are the ones they don't want you to print. The good ones should piss them off.
If you are critical, you will end up with having to create your own stories.
Isn't creating (and I don't mean fabricating) your own story the whole point of journalism? Reporting warmed over press releases any monkey can do.
Last time I call Verizon customer service I told them I couldn't ping the DNS server IP. She told me try pinging www.google.com. I heard her say to the mid level tech on the other line "Now he's laughing at me. Why is he laughing at me?".
The point is technology has moved on to the point that a 'citizen' has no ability to stand against an army on his own, not with his own resources.
So I guess that explains Vietnam (both French and US intervention) and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. And yes there was some minor help from outside sources in both those cases but in neither case was it decisive. The reason US is not getting its ass whipped in Afghanistan right now has far more to do with a major effort not to fight the average citizen then any technological superiority over those average citizens.
Re: Is Google going to make the FULL works FREELY available?
And as I've said before, once in full control of such resources
Ummm...You seem confused. Google has no control over the material. They're just trying to make it more accessible. It's the copyright maximalist that are trying to gain greater control over it and deny it to the public not Google.
They also "may have contributed" to fairies coming out my ass. Although many have dug, no one yet has presented any reasonable evidence supporting either of those that I'm aware of.
In a free and open society anything like Wikileaks would be condoned and supported. Let me explain the reasons why.
First Wikileaks simple allows a channel for people to anonymously release information at least somewhat protected from retribution. The press use to be the channel for allowing this thus the protections for a free press in the US constitution as a check on government for it keeping it free and open. Unfortunately technology is changing the nature of how information is distributed. The main stream media is no longer the primary and exclusive means of distributing information. Because of this disruption of the gatekeeper role the main stream media has held in the past they are pushing the government to pass laws to help them slow down and/or stop the disruptive process. This pretty much negates the "free press" as being free from government interference as intended by it's constitutional protections. Add to this that even given the protections of the free press provided by the constitution the government has always had at least some limited ability to control the press. Historically they exercised this control often (likely far more often than we are aware of). How justified they were in doing this is no doubt variable and arguable. I have no doubt in many cases there would be a strong case it was justified. I also have no doubt there would be strong arguments in many cases the suppression was bordering on criminal. With Wikileaks they lose all control whether justified or not. In a free and open society, in my mind at least, the occasional release of information that would have been justifiable suppressed is far out weighed (I'll support this more below) by the suppression of information that exposes at best government inefficiencies or at worse down right criminal behavior by the government.
Now there are occasions where the suppression of information may be justified. The case I'll make here is that if such information has made it way to Wikileaks most likely the people who could use this information for nefarious purposes already have access to it (unless of course the nefarious purpose is to expose questionable actions by the government). Those people are going to typically be far more motivated to gain access to the information. In a free and open society, although there may be a significant cost, the information leaking to Wikileaks exposes weaknesses in how information is protected. This should allow the government to fix these holes in their security. This also helps fix a governmental problem. Although, again, there may be a cost associated with this it may also allow fixing the security thus eliminating a continuing information leak or an even more costly leak later.
The big problem with the recent documents Wikileaks published isn't that they "may have contributed to the death of soldiers" but who the government was trying to prevent from seeing those documents. First, given the obscenely piss poor security protecting those documents the information was likely already available to those who could use it to "contributed to the death of soldiers". Now obviously I have no way of supporting that assertion other than by general assertions as to the ease of which the security measures were circumvented. I will assert though that the primary person the government was trying to prevent from seeing those documents wasn't people who could use it to "contributed to the death of soldiers" but to the general public who would see many of the questionable things our government was doing. The rather scary part, other than operational and functional secrets our military shouldn't be trying to hide anything it does. Nothing functional was exposed that I'm aware of and Wikileaks tried to redact any operational information that could have put anyone in danger. And they would have been able do this much more effectively if our supposed "free and open" government had cooperated with Wikileaks in the redaction rather than working to attack them any way they could get away with. Wikileaks didn't leak the information. They just published it. But it's much easier to attack the message than to fix the source of the message they brought.
Where this could cross over to a net neutrality issue is if Comcast is threatening to disallow exclusively Netflix traffic in it's negotiations on a commercial peering agreement. If that's the case it's headed down that slippery slope of charging for specific traffic. If Comcast can establish that principal it makes it much easier to charge backbone providers for specific traffic that may compete with Comcast's other business offerings. The backbone operators would be forced to pass those additional costs on to the traffic originators. Without a lot more details of the negotiations and agreements it's difficult to say one way or the other if this is a step onto that slippery slope but it definitely has that potential.
Make all the politicians sign non-competes as a condition of serving in the government. They cannot work in any industry or job directly or indirectly related to government operations or any job or industry related to any work they were involved in while in government service (including legislation) for a minimum of 5 years after they leave government service.