post_meridiem

If you don't drive drunk, what do you lose from starting the engine via breathalyzer, rather than via key turn? Why is one more intrusive than the other? Most governments already require you to carry insurance, have a license/training to drive, wear seat belts -- in what way is this different?

"be sure you're ready for that level of intervention before you ask for this level of investigation."

There's no good reason not to, for example, have every car use a breathalyzer to start the engine -- those driving drunk on occasion would protect themselves from DUIs, lives would be saved, etc. Or to implement other, similar deep regulations. But the ideology around cars ("freedom"), vs. planes ("safety"), is too different to allow for such levels of intervention.

I'd also be interested in something like a WordNet similarity comparison score; i.e., how semantically different are words that are used together. To me, that's a better measure of linguistic creativity than unique words or rhyming words.

I'm Swiss German and don't understand half of the Swiss German dialects. Swiss German must be the ultimate hard case for machine translation.

Wow. So sorry to hear. 'baldfat' and 'stevoski' too.

The 4th does state that it is "The right of the people to be secure in their [...] papers [...]." I'd love to witness a judicial argument that seeks to extend this to code/binary 'goods.'

The problem is that in the U.S., we don't have a fundamental right to privacy. Constitutional guarantees of privacy are either specific (e.g., to practice religion) or indirect (e.g., search/seizure).

But I do agree that it should be a more broadly defined fundamental right.