You are confusing a number of concepts.

1. Precedence can only be set by a court higher than the court you are presently in. Even the same judge can ignore the way he ruled on an identical case. This judge was essentially outlining all the loop holes that the defense could have used but didn't, essentially outlining every way in which the defense's lawyer failed to make a convincing argument and creating a road map for lawyers who deal with a similar case in the future.

2. Amicus curiae is a brief, submitted to an appellate court, which deals with to a specific issue in a case, tailored to the facts of the present case to persuade the court to rule in favor the the amicus curiae's position. The case today is not an amicus curiae because it was not written to the facts of a case presently being decided by a court, it is about a case that happened in the past.

This case is a good road map for defendant's attorneys to learn what not to do.

Create a limited access user profile for non-tech savvy family members. Lock it down as much as possible. Or use the guest account feature that clears the profile when the user logs out.

Using an operating system other than windows is a good idea also, but unrealistic that it will result in a better situation for the tech support family member. Your virus issues will be replaced with compatibility complaints. If the family doesn't want to learn how to avoid viruses they don't want to learn a new operating system.

The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.

Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company, shuts them down, turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture, and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books.

Please educate yourself.

The article says that Idaho is the most SPAMMED, as in it receives the most spam. The article does not say that Idaho sends out the most spam.

Your comment about population is also irrelevant because this is not a measurement of volume of spam. The article measurement is a a percentage of legit mail received by people versus spam, so even the "best state" has a spam rate in the low 80%.

This article is pretty much an advertisement for Symantec products.

Morgan Stanley is the place for this kind of article because Morgan Stanley does stock analysis. Money managers pay alot of money to get these analyzes and rely on stock analysis information from financial analysts. The Money managers then use that analysis as a basis for investment strategies. This 15 year old boy's article is an analysis of stocks that fit into the category of media. This will very likely cause money managers to change their investment strategies to reflect what the boy says, because popular media companies make money.

To put it in layman's terms:
Money managers know nothing about nothing and get by, by BSing people. Money managers read financial analyzes to get buzzwords and keep up on "whats hot." Twitter used to be a big buzz word, this 15 year old boy has now destroyed the buzz.

Not everyone is going to agree on everything and making donations a Boolean value is pretty silly.

Instead of punishing them for having a view point that doesn't completely match your own, how about rewarding them for doing a good job on the stuff you do agree on.

If you hate spam 70% of the time, hate patent trolls 30% of the time and would have donated $100, then donate $30.

The reason that the wall street journal is able to charge for access to its website is that it comes up with quality articles based on independent reporting that people are willing to pay for.

With articles like Dont tax bigger boobs during crunch The sun is Murdoch's only hope to achieve a business model similar to that of the Wall Street Journal.

Cablevision has announced that they are going to offer 101 Mbps service. Hold off on giving them credit until they actually do it.

You sound like somebody that jumps to conclusions and creates fantasies rather than live in reality.

1. The author identified NO defects with the hospital software. He speculated on defects in the software based on 2nd or 3rd hand information. Speculation in this case is useless. The defects I could clearly see were with the humans in the story.
2. In fact, the computer software could be absolutely perfect and the hospital staff was not trained in how to use it properly. Their ignorance is not the software's fault.
3. If you genuinely think that a hospital is "an environment that doesn't lend itself to patience, thoroughness and careful consideration" you have watched way too much TV and need a reality check. Life is not ER, doctors don't just do stuff without thinking, measure twice cut once is even more applicable to flesh.

You need to wake up and focus on actual problem in this situation. The hospital staff. They have a higher ethical obligation to patients than to blame their failings on an inanimate object.

Your point is irrelevant, the author's doctor gave the author written instructions that were not read or reviewed. The author had his medical information in his hands and nobody looked at it.

Don't blame the computer for human incompetence. The computer system is symptomatic of a broken communication system in the hospital, not causal.

People have the ability to speak and think, none of the health professionals in the article did that. Blaming the computer is not acceptable for their failure as professionals.

This article reads like a lifetime made for TV movie. Heavy on emotion devoid of logic.

The author was repeated asked for his medical information, his doctor's written instructions were ignored and different departments within the hospital did not communicate. Therefore the problem is Obama's computerized data record system that doesn't exist yet.

The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for the author to tie his experience to how computerized medical records are bad. He never did, his experiences were caused by humans that did not care enough about patients to read computerized records OR paper records.

The author fails to explain how his experience proves anything other than that particular hospital is terrible and that the health professionals employed there are less than friendly.

Either you missed the point of the OP or are ignoring it on purpose. There is no reason for the power grid to be on the consumer internet and you cited none.

The power grid was designed before the internet.

The controls you described to switch power between providers already exist. There is not a human being flipping switches at every substation with "walkie talkies", there is already an automated system to switch power which is completely independent from the internet. If you want to upgrade this already existing network to include modern hardware, do not connect it with the internet.

You are acting like it is impossible to create a network of computers without WWW access. The power grid doesn't need twitter, or even a GUI interface, it just needs to send simple signals between embedded systems. transmitting signals between embedded systems can be accomplished without connecting the power grid to facebook.

That statute says exactly what I said.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K3-707
Please note part (c) second sentence of the section.
However, no person charged with violating this Section shall be convicted if such person produces in court satisfactory evidence that at the time of the arrest the motor vehicle was covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7â'601 of this Code.

Which means... if you bring proof of insurance to traffic court, you will not get fined, which is what i have been saying from the beginning. The thing the cop rights is NOT a fine it is a summons to appear at court to determined whether you should be fined.

No, that is the way it is today.

It is illegal to drive with out proof of insurance, the penalty is a fine, which can be rebutted by providing proof of insurance at the traffic court hearing.

What? You think you can get fined for legal activities?

This is already the way it works. If you can't produce your insurance card when you are stopped by the police you are issued a ticket that can be rebutted by producing proof of insurance at the traffic court date.

Everyone is making a big deal out nothing.

Even if the city decides to go forward with the plan (which it probably will not) false positives will infuriate insurance customers, who will complain to the insurance companies/ change providers, which will cause insurance companies to lobby that the law be revoked. The problem will solve itself.