The Cold War – even history itself, if you interpret Francis Fukuyama's contested thesis in the triumphalist fashion that the historian himself disavows – came to an end.
No preparation of the data is necessary before the interpretation session if you interpret within 48 hours.
Even if you had read (and correctly interpreted) the entire contract, and decided to take your business elsewhere, odds are you would have seen the same clause in every competing company's terms-of-service agreement, too.
If we interpret the theory as postulating actual distant action, say between the moon and the earth, then it clearly must be mistaken; but even if we interpret it less strongly, as merely postulating that distant action between the moon and the earth is possible, that would presumably disqualify the theory as well.
However, even if we interpret the associative > forgotten > non-associative pattern of activity as representing successful encoding or retrieval of the associative component we are left with the conclusion that the amygdala, the perirhinal cortex, entorhinal cortex, parahippocampal cortex and the hippocampal region can all show this pattern of activity indicative of an "associative structure".
Actually, even if you could obtain, analyze, and correctly interpret ALL of that data immediately before making your decision, you'd still be pretty likely to get it wrong.
So even if you prioritize one set of texts, you still have to interpret the other two in a way that neither negates them nor explains them away.
Even if the courts interpret the law to disallow manual recounts, you could still argue that the machine count is unfair because one party's voters happen to be less adept at following the machine's rules.
