BC's health plan will cover a portable word processor or cheap laptop, if you have some sort of fine motor problem that prevents you from writing legibly. A friend of mine "tried it" as you say, and was successful. Got a nice cheap thinkpad, since he has a nerve disorder prevents him from writing. I don't know if it would be covered by other provinces, but BC does. BC also charges premiums if you want their health plan though. (Universal != Free)
There necessarily is 15+ year old code in Vista and Windows 7. If the TCP/IP code wasn't in Vista and Windows 7, they wouldn't have needed the patch, either, not unless MS made the exact same mistake twice when they rewrote the stack from scratch.
Yeah. When I was a kid, we were all about Bill Nye and Beakman! Couldn't wait to see what they would do next, couldn't wait for Nova. But talking to my young cousins-in-law (or whatever they're called?) they hate shows like that. They're all in love with Chris Angel, Mindfreak though. Absolutely rapt. "I can't wait to see what he does next! Psychic teleportation I bet! I still can't believe how he levitated all those people, even through the TV!" They think scientists are stupid people with closed minds, and who won't believe in anything.
Usually, making broad assumptions on limited experiments is fine, depending on your conclusion. If you're testing if something is possible, and you pull it off, it's a valid conclusion. They do have to make assumptions about what words mean. But, they're never particularly bad assumptions, that I recall. My only issue is when they "bust" things just because they can't reproduce them. They've busted several things that have video evidence, just because they couldn't do it themselves, which is stupid. They need another classification "unable to reproduce", or "unlikely". After all, just because Jamie couldn't shoot his rifle through a rifle scope and kill the dummy looking through it, doesn't make it impossible. (Especially since they tried again in a later episode and found that yes, it can indeed happen). But conversely, if he had succeeded the first time, a conclusion of "confirmed" would be appropriate. Things aren't symmetrical, after all. You can easily confirm things as true by reproducing them. Failure to reproduce them doesn't make them impossible though, which is their only mistake. Absence of evidence etc. And you're wrong, they always have a control group when possible. But it's not possible. Take the shooting through a sniper scope, for example. What possible control could there be? Can you shoot the guy dead without a scope in the way? Pointless test. The other thing is, their "limited testing" isn't as limited as it seems on the show. They show doing it once. Usually, unless it's a very pricey or difficult test, they do many many trials and only show one. Time constraints, etc. I've never taken issue with their conclusions of "confirmed" or "plausible". If they do something, and it works, its confirmed, at least within their assumptions. And given the vague nature of what they're testing, they have to make broad assumptions. And they usually stick with "plausible" meaning they showed it could happen, but are not confident in their assumptions. Again, they just need a fourth finding, for things they couldn't reproduce, but for which there is no definitive way to call it impossible. In the case of the sniper scope, that was "unlikely", since with dozens of direct hits, they never penetrated more than half of the scopes length, but should never have said it was impossible. On their more recent episode, they actually pulled OFF the myth (skydiver lands on a see-saw, sending little girl 7 stories up and landing her safely on a building). They actually overshot and went more than 7 stories up! But, they said that even if they had aim and landed her right at the top of her arc, the initial force that accelerated her that high was lethal. So, busted. No matter how perfectly impossible the aim was, a soft landed wouldn't matter, its basically "impossible" to survive that much acceleration over such a short distance, you'd need a ridiculously long see-saw, and they already had to over-engineer a stupidly strong one just to have it not shatter or bend on impact.
Well, except for lions. In lions, the male is truly massive compared to the females. But the male just sits there sleeping, easting, and having sex, and also occasionally eating its own young so the females will want to have more sex to repopulate. So, a larger male doesn't necessarily mean the male is the hunter. It could also mean that the male protects the rest of the group while the females are away hunting smaller prey that needs a fast hunter, rather than a massive pile of muscle, in order to bring down. But yes, lions are just about unique in that regard. It would be most unusual if humanity's ancestors were like that, since as you say, we're pregnant for far longer than greater cats, and babies need the care of their mother (or at least A mother) for far longer than most mammals.
It's not symmetric through. Multiple cases of no reaction, few cases of a fearful reaction. That implies that the reaction is not hard wired. Most of the women I know were not raised in a rural environment, so I doubt they have overcome a hardwired fear, but rather, have just never acquired a cultural fear. Having seen it would disprove me if I was saying it never happens. But, I'm only saying it doesn't always happen. I'm also talking about a truly frightened reaction, rather than a startled reaction, which are quite different. If a mouse startles you, you may indeed jump up and shriek. The difference is, somebody startled will say "oh, hahaha", where as somebody frightened will stand there shrieking until somebody else catches the mouse. My mom has been startled by a mouse jumping out at her when she opened a bag of birdseed, and did scream and jump back. But a second later she picked it up and carried it outside calmly. She didn't react with fear, but with startlement. Same with my wife. If something runs out from behind a box or something, she'll jump, and so will I. But only if it's a spider does she continue to scream, forcing me to stop what I'm doing and get a glass;) My sister in law has a severe phobia of butterflies. If she sees one she will become very nervous. If one flies near here she will run shrieking and be shaken for quite a while afterwards. But I conclude that's a phobia, rather than a property of women.
I always thought the mice thing was a construction of television, much like the toilet seat wars. I've never once seen a girl who reacts to a mouse with anything other than "Awwwwwwwwwwww, look at the mouse". Certainly never seen anybody, male or female, jump on a chair and shriek. Now, I've seen girls freak out at rats, but not out of fear of the rat. Out of television induced germophobia. "My god, it's full of disease, quick, get the antibacterial soap and the antiviral lysol aerosol spray! I'm sure a spray that says it kills 99.99% of airborne viruses is legit, and won't cause harm when I inhale it, not like all those rat viruses floating around in here now! Also, I better badger the doctor into prescribing some antibiotics and tamiflu, just in case"
Well, those four points that are really two aren't very good points. They don't deserve any more refutation than they received. The first point, that all biologists are in agreement, is demonstrably false. Citing biologists who call viruses alive is more than sufficient to demonstrate it as such. The next three points are all invalid appeals to Occam's Razor. That is "this way is easier, so it's the truth", which is only a good guideline, and you can only use it if the simplest way accurately represents the way things are. A tree is, unfortunately, too simple to represent phylogeny. Take bacteria, for example. A highly amusing quote on the matter is "Bacteria trade genes more frantically than a pit full of traders...". Viruses help them, but they have other means of transfer. So, any argument that viruses have to be included because of "multiple inheritance" issues must necessarily disqualify bacteria. And actually, even higher forms of life can have genes transfered between them due to recombination. Life isn't a tree. It's a weighted, directed acyclic graph. You need viruses on there in some way or other to represent gene transfers across species boundaries. Depending on your definition of "alive" viruses may or may not be. They self-replicate (with help) but have no metabolism. But they have to be on the "tree" of life, there can be no debate. Another poster has called them "mistletoe" on the tree of life. Fairly apt. They connect branches. Without them on there, your "tree" is wrong.
Absurd. By testing, the doctor would have collapsed the wave form. Thus opening him up for malpractice suits. "By preforming the test, the doctor altered the outcome."
Actually, it's doesn't work both ways. You can easily prove that something halts (given an unbounded amount of time to do so in). It's only proving that it doesn't halt that's an issue;)
You recall incorrectly. According to the CDC, its mortality rate is about 0.1%, and the WHO says it is between 0.06% and 0.24%, which is very comparable to the (estimated) mortality rate for standard influenza of 0.1% to 0.2%, depending on how bad the individual flu season is that year. The WHO also says the most likely people to die from H1N1 are the elderly, the very young, or those with some sort of immune deficiency. Just like a normal flu. If the mortality rate is higher for healthy people, and lower for sick people, nobody is saying so except for news anchors, certainly not the CDC or WHO.
Look at the pictures. He's got a couple of hairs attached to copper posts of some sort. It's not solid hair. Its surface area isn't a fifth of a square meter. More like a hundredth at most. It would have to be almost 200% efficient to come close to the 18 watts. Plus all the other reasons its laughable.
His point is it says it produces "9 volts (18 watts) of energy", and neither of those units is energy. Why is that so hard to understand? My new car is able to travel 200 horsepower (90 miles per hour) on a single tank of gas. Nothing objectionable about that statement?
Why would they object? The Nirvana fallacy. If you could convert the USA to 99.9% solar, and one single coal plant in the entire country, environmentalists will say "This is an imperfect solution, so it should be scrapped so we can save that money for when we find a 100% green solution"
Give objective and clear definitions for theft, vandalism, and murder, without requiring the jury to have mind reading abilities. You'll find your definitions will contradict actual law, where absolutely every criminal charge requires you to know what was going on inside the head of the accused. People aren't psychic? Too bad. If you tap somebody on the shoulder, they jump in fright, fall over and hit their head and die, that's nothing, you had absolutely no intent of causing them harm. If you shoved them, that's manslaughter, because you intended to cause harm, you just didn't intend that MUCH. If you shoved them with intent to kill (like off a cliff), that's murder. If you grab the wrong cellphone accidentally, that's not theft. If you grab that iPhone because its way more valuable than your POS, that's theft. For a conviction you always need "mens rea" and you need to get inside their mind to establish that. That's why they have this thing called a jury, to determine their intent. If you didn't need that, just plug the facts into a spreadsheet, it says if they are guilty or not.
The hate crimes laws have a few flaws, but being subjective is not one of them. This clause is a problem, as are a few of the provincal laws. They are too broad, they go beyond genocide and hatred into "scorn" and "discomfort", which I'm sure almost every bit of interesting speech will cause to someone or other. Another problem is that they can drag for years before a judge actually says "this is dumb" and dismisses it, and you don't get a free lawyer from the court like you would in a real court. The final one is that people have started machine gunning complaints in the last couple of years, and there are no repercussions for doing so. Stream line it, and give the accused a free lawyer who can handle it for them, and pay for that lawyer with huge fines for filing obviously false complaints, and everything is well. Leave hate speech to calling for genocide or other violence against a group, as its defined in the rest of the law, and get rid of the "discomfort" bullshit. Even those definitions aren't so easy to pervert as you think. Some Canadian Mel Gibson went on a rant about how Hitler had the right idea, kill all Jews to solve everything, etc. He got a fine, but it was overturned, since the judge said it was disgusting, but just an opinion that would never convince anybody to do anything. Muslim groups file complaints, and they always get dismissed, because you can satirize rioting Muslims who are smashing and beating in response to being called violent, and that's called a political cartoon, live with it. The only conviction ever to be upheld was some gay-turned-secretly-gay-zealot who stuffs mailboxes full of fliers with pictures of assorted corpses and graphic violence, saying that all diseases are caused by God's wrath at gays, and that we should either throw them in concentration camps, or just summarily execute every last one, in accordance with Divine Will. The only conviction in 10 years. Fix the long pointless trials that always end in dismissal, and the bullshit internet add-ons from TFA and it will be working as intended.
The very earliest Dr. Who serials, on occasion, dedicated an entire half hour episode to cutting back and forth between the Dr. + companion, and another group, both walking through corridors or caves on the way to meet up. Sometimes they wouldn't even be talking, just a 5 minute shot of them walking and stepping over debris.
You chose a funny country to cite in your "USA=Crazy" post. If you buy a body kit in Italy and put it on your car to make it look like a Ferrari, YOU will get fined. They busted up a ring selling such body kits threw them all in prison, then tracked down their buyers and went after them, too. Seized all of their cars. In Europe, trademark violation is the most serious thing there is. They're full of ancient companies. Even possessing a counterfeit item is illegal in Europe.
The Stormtrooper armor also did a great job of deflecting blaster shots, and in the opening scene, they defeat dozens of soldiers while losing only one or two of their own. Only when they start fighting the heros, not other generic foes, does their aim become terrible, and their armor become useless. All movies everywhere are like that. Modern, Sci-fi, Fantasy. The bad guys have 0% accuracy with their rifles, blasters, and arrows. At best they can hit your shoulder, which in movies has no major arteries. Also their armor is useless. A 4 inch dagger can easily pierce a sold steel breast plate and instantly kill the bad guy knights. It's a universal trope, and hardly limited to star wars.
It's not just information, it only applies to HEALTH INFORMATION. And it's not before collecting it, it's before collecting it for marketing aggregation purposes. The guys who wrote this list are the scum of the internet. Pretty much the entire list is "wahh, fucking privacy laws, it should be a crime NOT to collect the medical history of minors and sell it to drug companies."
whose EULA's allow them to conduct raids and search+seizure, and hand out $100,000 fines for having one workstation that has XP installed, but they can't find the License that came in the box (The CD sleeve with the key is NOT proof of license, and you WILL get a fine if you only have that!) My OEM copy of Vista that came with my laptop doesn't seem to have the hologram encrusted license that my boxed copy of 2000 came with, so I imagine I'm automatically guilty if they ever send in the SWAT team for a surprise inspection.
Slashdot Mirror
BC's health plan will cover a portable word processor or cheap laptop, if you have some sort of fine motor problem that prevents you from writing legibly. A friend of mine "tried it" as you say, and was successful. Got a nice cheap thinkpad, since he has a nerve disorder prevents him from writing. I don't know if it would be covered by other provinces, but BC does. BC also charges premiums if you want their health plan though. (Universal != Free)
There necessarily is 15+ year old code in Vista and Windows 7. If the TCP/IP code wasn't in Vista and Windows 7, they wouldn't have needed the patch, either, not unless MS made the exact same mistake twice when they rewrote the stack from scratch.
Yeah. When I was a kid, we were all about Bill Nye and Beakman! Couldn't wait to see what they would do next, couldn't wait for Nova. But talking to my young cousins-in-law (or whatever they're called?) they hate shows like that. They're all in love with Chris Angel, Mindfreak though. Absolutely rapt. "I can't wait to see what he does next! Psychic teleportation I bet! I still can't believe how he levitated all those people, even through the TV!" They think scientists are stupid people with closed minds, and who won't believe in anything.
Usually, making broad assumptions on limited experiments is fine, depending on your conclusion. If you're testing if something is possible, and you pull it off, it's a valid conclusion. They do have to make assumptions about what words mean. But, they're never particularly bad assumptions, that I recall. My only issue is when they "bust" things just because they can't reproduce them. They've busted several things that have video evidence, just because they couldn't do it themselves, which is stupid. They need another classification "unable to reproduce", or "unlikely". After all, just because Jamie couldn't shoot his rifle through a rifle scope and kill the dummy looking through it, doesn't make it impossible. (Especially since they tried again in a later episode and found that yes, it can indeed happen). But conversely, if he had succeeded the first time, a conclusion of "confirmed" would be appropriate. Things aren't symmetrical, after all. You can easily confirm things as true by reproducing them. Failure to reproduce them doesn't make them impossible though, which is their only mistake. Absence of evidence etc. And you're wrong, they always have a control group when possible. But it's not possible. Take the shooting through a sniper scope, for example. What possible control could there be? Can you shoot the guy dead without a scope in the way? Pointless test. The other thing is, their "limited testing" isn't as limited as it seems on the show. They show doing it once. Usually, unless it's a very pricey or difficult test, they do many many trials and only show one. Time constraints, etc. I've never taken issue with their conclusions of "confirmed" or "plausible". If they do something, and it works, its confirmed, at least within their assumptions. And given the vague nature of what they're testing, they have to make broad assumptions. And they usually stick with "plausible" meaning they showed it could happen, but are not confident in their assumptions. Again, they just need a fourth finding, for things they couldn't reproduce, but for which there is no definitive way to call it impossible. In the case of the sniper scope, that was "unlikely", since with dozens of direct hits, they never penetrated more than half of the scopes length, but should never have said it was impossible. On their more recent episode, they actually pulled OFF the myth (skydiver lands on a see-saw, sending little girl 7 stories up and landing her safely on a building). They actually overshot and went more than 7 stories up! But, they said that even if they had aim and landed her right at the top of her arc, the initial force that accelerated her that high was lethal. So, busted. No matter how perfectly impossible the aim was, a soft landed wouldn't matter, its basically "impossible" to survive that much acceleration over such a short distance, you'd need a ridiculously long see-saw, and they already had to over-engineer a stupidly strong one just to have it not shatter or bend on impact.
Well, except for lions. In lions, the male is truly massive compared to the females. But the male just sits there sleeping, easting, and having sex, and also occasionally eating its own young so the females will want to have more sex to repopulate. So, a larger male doesn't necessarily mean the male is the hunter. It could also mean that the male protects the rest of the group while the females are away hunting smaller prey that needs a fast hunter, rather than a massive pile of muscle, in order to bring down. But yes, lions are just about unique in that regard. It would be most unusual if humanity's ancestors were like that, since as you say, we're pregnant for far longer than greater cats, and babies need the care of their mother (or at least A mother) for far longer than most mammals.
It's not symmetric through. Multiple cases of no reaction, few cases of a fearful reaction. That implies that the reaction is not hard wired. Most of the women I know were not raised in a rural environment, so I doubt they have overcome a hardwired fear, but rather, have just never acquired a cultural fear. Having seen it would disprove me if I was saying it never happens. But, I'm only saying it doesn't always happen. I'm also talking about a truly frightened reaction, rather than a startled reaction, which are quite different. If a mouse startles you, you may indeed jump up and shriek. The difference is, somebody startled will say "oh, hahaha", where as somebody frightened will stand there shrieking until somebody else catches the mouse. My mom has been startled by a mouse jumping out at her when she opened a bag of birdseed, and did scream and jump back. But a second later she picked it up and carried it outside calmly. She didn't react with fear, but with startlement. Same with my wife. If something runs out from behind a box or something, she'll jump, and so will I. But only if it's a spider does she continue to scream, forcing me to stop what I'm doing and get a glass ;) My sister in law has a severe phobia of butterflies. If she sees one she will become very nervous. If one flies near here she will run shrieking and be shaken for quite a while afterwards. But I conclude that's a phobia, rather than a property of women.
I find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I always thought the mice thing was a construction of television, much like the toilet seat wars. I've never once seen a girl who reacts to a mouse with anything other than "Awwwwwwwwwwww, look at the mouse". Certainly never seen anybody, male or female, jump on a chair and shriek. Now, I've seen girls freak out at rats, but not out of fear of the rat. Out of television induced germophobia. "My god, it's full of disease, quick, get the antibacterial soap and the antiviral lysol aerosol spray! I'm sure a spray that says it kills 99.99% of airborne viruses is legit, and won't cause harm when I inhale it, not like all those rat viruses floating around in here now! Also, I better badger the doctor into prescribing some antibiotics and tamiflu, just in case"
Well, those four points that are really two aren't very good points. They don't deserve any more refutation than they received. The first point, that all biologists are in agreement, is demonstrably false. Citing biologists who call viruses alive is more than sufficient to demonstrate it as such. The next three points are all invalid appeals to Occam's Razor. That is "this way is easier, so it's the truth", which is only a good guideline, and you can only use it if the simplest way accurately represents the way things are. A tree is, unfortunately, too simple to represent phylogeny. Take bacteria, for example. A highly amusing quote on the matter is "Bacteria trade genes more frantically than a pit full of traders...". Viruses help them, but they have other means of transfer. So, any argument that viruses have to be included because of "multiple inheritance" issues must necessarily disqualify bacteria. And actually, even higher forms of life can have genes transfered between them due to recombination. Life isn't a tree. It's a weighted, directed acyclic graph. You need viruses on there in some way or other to represent gene transfers across species boundaries. Depending on your definition of "alive" viruses may or may not be. They self-replicate (with help) but have no metabolism. But they have to be on the "tree" of life, there can be no debate. Another poster has called them "mistletoe" on the tree of life. Fairly apt. They connect branches. Without them on there, your "tree" is wrong.
Absurd. By testing, the doctor would have collapsed the wave form. Thus opening him up for malpractice suits. "By preforming the test, the doctor altered the outcome."
Or zombies.
The thing about taking funding from the people who build smart bombs, tanks, and ballistic missiles, is they have all the bombs, tanks, and missiles.
Actually, it's doesn't work both ways. You can easily prove that something halts (given an unbounded amount of time to do so in). It's only proving that it doesn't halt that's an issue ;)
And that's why said con artists passed a law making it illegal ;)
You recall incorrectly. According to the CDC, its mortality rate is about 0.1%, and the WHO says it is between 0.06% and 0.24%, which is very comparable to the (estimated) mortality rate for standard influenza of 0.1% to 0.2%, depending on how bad the individual flu season is that year. The WHO also says the most likely people to die from H1N1 are the elderly, the very young, or those with some sort of immune deficiency. Just like a normal flu. If the mortality rate is higher for healthy people, and lower for sick people, nobody is saying so except for news anchors, certainly not the CDC or WHO.
Look at the pictures. He's got a couple of hairs attached to copper posts of some sort. It's not solid hair. Its surface area isn't a fifth of a square meter. More like a hundredth at most. It would have to be almost 200% efficient to come close to the 18 watts. Plus all the other reasons its laughable.
His point is it says it produces "9 volts (18 watts) of energy", and neither of those units is energy. Why is that so hard to understand? My new car is able to travel 200 horsepower (90 miles per hour) on a single tank of gas. Nothing objectionable about that statement?
Why would they object? The Nirvana fallacy. If you could convert the USA to 99.9% solar, and one single coal plant in the entire country, environmentalists will say "This is an imperfect solution, so it should be scrapped so we can save that money for when we find a 100% green solution"
Give objective and clear definitions for theft, vandalism, and murder, without requiring the jury to have mind reading abilities. You'll find your definitions will contradict actual law, where absolutely every criminal charge requires you to know what was going on inside the head of the accused. People aren't psychic? Too bad. If you tap somebody on the shoulder, they jump in fright, fall over and hit their head and die, that's nothing, you had absolutely no intent of causing them harm. If you shoved them, that's manslaughter, because you intended to cause harm, you just didn't intend that MUCH. If you shoved them with intent to kill (like off a cliff), that's murder. If you grab the wrong cellphone accidentally, that's not theft. If you grab that iPhone because its way more valuable than your POS, that's theft. For a conviction you always need "mens rea" and you need to get inside their mind to establish that. That's why they have this thing called a jury, to determine their intent. If you didn't need that, just plug the facts into a spreadsheet, it says if they are guilty or not.
The hate crimes laws have a few flaws, but being subjective is not one of them. This clause is a problem, as are a few of the provincal laws. They are too broad, they go beyond genocide and hatred into "scorn" and "discomfort", which I'm sure almost every bit of interesting speech will cause to someone or other. Another problem is that they can drag for years before a judge actually says "this is dumb" and dismisses it, and you don't get a free lawyer from the court like you would in a real court. The final one is that people have started machine gunning complaints in the last couple of years, and there are no repercussions for doing so. Stream line it, and give the accused a free lawyer who can handle it for them, and pay for that lawyer with huge fines for filing obviously false complaints, and everything is well. Leave hate speech to calling for genocide or other violence against a group, as its defined in the rest of the law, and get rid of the "discomfort" bullshit. Even those definitions aren't so easy to pervert as you think. Some Canadian Mel Gibson went on a rant about how Hitler had the right idea, kill all Jews to solve everything, etc. He got a fine, but it was overturned, since the judge said it was disgusting, but just an opinion that would never convince anybody to do anything. Muslim groups file complaints, and they always get dismissed, because you can satirize rioting Muslims who are smashing and beating in response to being called violent, and that's called a political cartoon, live with it. The only conviction ever to be upheld was some gay-turned-secretly-gay-zealot who stuffs mailboxes full of fliers with pictures of assorted corpses and graphic violence, saying that all diseases are caused by God's wrath at gays, and that we should either throw them in concentration camps, or just summarily execute every last one, in accordance with Divine Will. The only conviction in 10 years. Fix the long pointless trials that always end in dismissal, and the bullshit internet add-ons from TFA and it will be working as intended.
The very earliest Dr. Who serials, on occasion, dedicated an entire half hour episode to cutting back and forth between the Dr. + companion, and another group, both walking through corridors or caves on the way to meet up. Sometimes they wouldn't even be talking, just a 5 minute shot of them walking and stepping over debris.
You chose a funny country to cite in your "USA=Crazy" post. If you buy a body kit in Italy and put it on your car to make it look like a Ferrari, YOU will get fined. They busted up a ring selling such body kits threw them all in prison, then tracked down their buyers and went after them, too. Seized all of their cars. In Europe, trademark violation is the most serious thing there is. They're full of ancient companies. Even possessing a counterfeit item is illegal in Europe.
They didn't issue a DMCA take down notice. And, in fact, Slashdot fake summary notwithstanding, copyright isn't mentioned at all. It's trademark.
The Stormtrooper armor also did a great job of deflecting blaster shots, and in the opening scene, they defeat dozens of soldiers while losing only one or two of their own. Only when they start fighting the heros, not other generic foes, does their aim become terrible, and their armor become useless. All movies everywhere are like that. Modern, Sci-fi, Fantasy. The bad guys have 0% accuracy with their rifles, blasters, and arrows. At best they can hit your shoulder, which in movies has no major arteries. Also their armor is useless. A 4 inch dagger can easily pierce a sold steel breast plate and instantly kill the bad guy knights. It's a universal trope, and hardly limited to star wars.
It's not just information, it only applies to HEALTH INFORMATION. And it's not before collecting it, it's before collecting it for marketing aggregation purposes. The guys who wrote this list are the scum of the internet. Pretty much the entire list is "wahh, fucking privacy laws, it should be a crime NOT to collect the medical history of minors and sell it to drug companies."
whose EULA's allow them to conduct raids and search+seizure, and hand out $100,000 fines for having one workstation that has XP installed, but they can't find the License that came in the box (The CD sleeve with the key is NOT proof of license, and you WILL get a fine if you only have that!) My OEM copy of Vista that came with my laptop doesn't seem to have the hologram encrusted license that my boxed copy of 2000 came with, so I imagine I'm automatically guilty if they ever send in the SWAT team for a surprise inspection.