The compazine prescription pleura is a thin, double-layered membrane that lines the inside erythromycin for sale of the chest cavity and covers the lungs. Research is buy advair pills still investigating the best ways to manage cognitive dysfunction in purchase cheapest bentyl delivery MS. Certain disease-modifying drugs may be helpful in managing MS order cheap prozac online and cognitive symptoms. In the days following the extraction, individuals buy diflucan without prescription should follow a soft diet, avoiding hard, crunchy, or sticky generic aldactone foods that can interfere with healing. The exam must be buy synthroid online performed by a Medicare-approved eye doctor who is legally allowed order natural tetracycline no prescription to conduct the test in the state. The drug information cheap viagra contained herein is subject to change and is not intended best price for viagra to cover all possible uses, directions, precautions, warnings, drug interactions, triamterene allergic reactions, or adverse effects. Gluten occurs naturally in certain clozapine buy online grains, such as wheat and barley, and any foods containing alesse (ovral l) online stores these grains, such as pasta and bread. In other cases, an.

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.