Before cheap atrovent price dangers starting Cymbalta treatment, tell your doctor about any mental health order viagra lowest price dosage conditions you and family members have or have had. The buy t-ject 60 without prescription drug information contained herein is subject to change and is low price cialis not intended to cover all possible uses, directions, precautions, warnings, buy clonidine drug interactions, allergic reactions, or adverse effects. Although some parts serevent without prescription of the app are free to access, there is an cheap viagra in uk option to pay for a premium subscription, which unlocks additional viagra cheap price content. If younger people choose to use anti-aging products after cheap bentyl no rx consulting a dermatologist, they should do so slowly and carefully. acomplia for order People with only one functioning kidney can have a typical buy free asacol best price jelly life expectancy as long as they do not have other cheap petcam (metacam) oral suspension kidney diseases. The most effective treatment for lymphedema depends on the.

Last night a team consisting of myself, Siva Vaidhyanathan (of UVa, author of Copyrights and Copyrwrongs and The Anarchist in the Library), and Randy Picker (of Chicago Law School) debated a team of Esther Dyson (author of Release 2.0), Jeff Jarvis (author of the forthcoming What Would Google Do?), and Jim Harper¬†(director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute). It was fun for everyone, I think. I could have argued either side, but I was recruited for the affirmative. I focused my argument strictly on Google cooperating with the Chinese government by producing a censored version of its search engine, which I rather too dramatically also referred to as an “instrument of thought control” and likened to a “brainwashing serum” that no responsible American pharma company would make for a foreign government. It was an Oxford-style debate; I took it as my job to sway the crowd and win the argument, without lying but perhaps by exaggerating if the other side would let me get away with it. I think several of the other participants took it rather more as an actual religious war.

In the pre-debate poll, the voting was very much against the motion; when the poll was repeated, it was a dead tie, 47%-47%, with 6% undecided. By the debate rules — winner whoever changes the most minds — our team won. Fitting, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Harvard’s great comeback 29-29 win over Yale in football!

The debate is in the Intelligence Squared series. A bouquet to the sponsors and staff of the series; it’s a great thing to do. Last night’s will be up on Youtube by the end of the week and in an NPR one-hour edited version shortly thereafter.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am and is filed under Miscellaneous, Search. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.