According buy cheap diovan side effects liquid to the Epilepsy Foundation, this difficulty with diagnosis is because tizanidine online electroencephalograms (EEGs) cannot easily detect the unusual brain activity that lipitor without prescription prompts gelastic seizures. Lastly, maintaining an exercise routine (you can get cheap amikacin best price tablet start at any age) and staying active will help with amoxicillin cheapest price mood (people who exercise regularly have less depression) and improve purchase generic viagra side effects and alcohol the mind (there is less risk of dementia with controlled purchase cialis overnight delivery blood pressure and regular exercise). During the surgery, the surgeon buy discount diovan sale jelly creates a small incision in the front of the neck, buy cheap arcoxia creating an opening into the trachea. Lymphoma is a general ampicillin purchase term for cancers that start in the lymph system or cheap (metacam) from usa lymphocytes (white blood cells). If you need financial support to discount viagra side effects usa pay for itraconazole, consider looking into websites that offer cost resources.

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.