"The only criterion they don't meet is that they sell out to the wealthy capitalists too often, but if they continue to embrace the Tea Party, they'll end up meeting that criterion as well."

If you look up the actual classical definition of "fascism", you will find that this meets the definition very closely indeed. In fact, it probably fits even more closely than other items in your list. You see, fascism is the government working hand in glove with business. In fascism, government does nothing that business does not like. It doles out generous tax breaks and eliminates regulations.

While this cell phone monitoring does seem innocent the next steps in phone monitoring might not be so nice. It's like the proverbial frog in boiling water. If you put the frog in hot water, it will jump out. If you put it in cool water and then increase the temperature gradually, it will stay in the water until it boils. Do we really want to wait until the monitoring increases to ridiculous levels before we complain? It is easier to complain right now before it becomes a big problem.

Actually, this is an old issue in databases. The file is the data and the different programs are transactions. The file access control in personal computer operating systems is quite weak if a change by one app is not immediately reflected in the other apps. The program sending via email or printing should ensure that the most recent incarnation is used even if those changes are in memory only and done by a different app. The use of tokens, semaphores etc has been debated for as long as computer science has existed. It's probably time for PCs to get current. At the very least, the consumer app could warn the user of the discrepancy.

The matter of putting the knowledge of building an atomic bomb ando actually producing an atomic bomb is a wholly different matter. The facilities to make one are enormous. Before Neils Bohr was aware of the Manhattan Project he stated the opinion that ( I am paraphrasing) making an atomic was theoretically possible but to make one you would have to make a factory the size of an entire nation. When he later became a member of the Manhattan Project he toured the facilities and then stated (again I am paraphrasing)... I said that making an atomic bomb would require a factory the size of an entire nation and that is exactly what you have done! (He was probably talking about a nation the size of Denmark, his home.)

Granted, the knowledge of how to build an atomic bomb is easy to master. In fact, it is easier to prematurely detonate a "Little Boy" type bomb than to actually deliver one to a target and THEN have it go off. An implosion type bomb ("Fat Man") is much safer as far as premature detonation. There still is the high explosive component of such a bomb which can go off prematurely. The chances that the resulting conventional explosion will cause a nuclear explosion is quite small. The explosion would be like a "dirty bomb" going off.

PS. If you are interested in the history behind the Manhattan Project, I highly recommend reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It is easy reading and I understand that it is fairly accurate.

Before we talk about possible applications, maybe some research into detrimental side effects is warranted. The widespread use of a product and later having to ban its use after the damage has been done is legion. Some examples...

Thalidomide - A sedative drug that was found to cause serious birth defects.
DDT - An insecticide that was later found to causes reproductive problems in birds.
PCB - A flame retardant that was used as a coolant in transformers.
Freon - A refrigerant that was later found to be destroying the earth ozone layer.

I could go on and on. Maybe we should start checking for adverse effects before putting something new on the market. OK, some would start crying would stop progress, but I am not advocating that. I'm just saying "Look before you leap".

I wonder how they propose to changes in a persons reactions? I had a stroke that dramatically affected my reaction time, balance etc. The reason does not have to be a stroke, you could have a bad auto accident. What if your security is based on a retina scanner and you loose that eye in an accident? A provision for such body changes are a must. Biometrics are not a magic bullet to the security problem, just another tool you can use.

  I use a keyboard differently than I did before having a stroke. Does this mean I would be locked out of all the old computer accounts I had before the stroke? My responses ave very variable (I have good days an d bad days) would I be locked out whenever my reactions go to one extreme or the other? Will I have to go through a complicated reauthorization procedure to get back into my accounts?

Yes, people always rant and rave about the evils of big brother (government) but often are silent when little brother (business) is worse. As it is now, little brother has gotten bigger than big brother. They can ruin your life with frivolous lawsuits which, even if you win, can leave you with huge lawyer bills. They dictate how you can use a device or software through questionable EULAs, contracts or licenses. Often when you are in the right, they offer a settlement where they admit no wrongdoing and you have to accept a non-disclosure clause. You can't offer your side when others criticized you but can't speak on the subject to offer your side. To make matters even worse, business is accountable only to their shareholders and recently seem to have much more power than government.

All of these problems could be reduced if you maintain physical separation between critical equipment and the outside Internet. Yes, it might require prison personnel to use a physically different computer to access the Internet but sometimes the inconvenience is justified. As far as court documents, the document handling parts of a prison would be on the Internet side of the separation. Of course, this could equally apply to nuclear power plants, chemical plants or any place where it is imperative to keep hackers or viruses from taking over vital systems.

Why not put a tax on stock trading which would encourage long term investments. Currently in the U.S. capital gains are all treated equally, you pay the same rate if you hold the stock for a few seconds or a few years. Why not increase the capitol gains tax on short term transactions and reduce it on long term investments. For example...

If you hold on to the stock for five years, your capital gains tax would be decreased by 50%.
If you hold on to the stock for one year, your capital gains tax would be decreased by 25%.
If you hold on to the stock for one month, your capital gains tax would be unchanged.
If you hold on to the stock for one day, your capital gains tax would be increased 25%.
If you hold on to the stock for one hour, your capital gains tax would be increased by 50%.
If you hold on to the stock for one minute, your capital gains tax would be doubled.

Of course, I haven't considered what the actual numbers should be. Instead of benchmarks, the changes could be made continuously so there might not be actual steps but a gradual increase in the tax rate as the time scale decreases. If you want, you could adjust the numbers so it could be revenue neutral.

I did not mean to imply that this can be done! All that I meant was that triple damages might be appropriate. The laws of a country might not allow such penalties but maybe they should be changed.

Like blocking the site will do anything. They will simply invent a new name, get a new domain and be back. It could be like the different spellings of "VIAGRA@" in spam emails. One possibility could be "P1RATE BAY", I'm sure that they could get quite inventive. Of course, the new spelling could be quickly spread around the internet. It's like the game "Whack a Mole".

Actually, the overuse of acronyms is more problematic. For example...

Let's say we were discussing a program written in Ada (the programming language) that somehow solves some compliance issue of the ADA (American Disability act). It's easy to see why the use of acronyms can be confusing. The solution is simple, the first time an unusual acronym is used, the users of slashdot should put the acronyms meaning in parenthesis immediately following.

Another irritation is the use of texting abbreviations. There is no message size limit so their use should be avoided. The use of texting abbreviations is slowly diminishing on this website and I think we should try to stamp out their use entirely.

Now that I am off my soapbox, you can return to what you were doing before,

I think that awarding triple damages in this case would be more appropriate than just paying for lost sales.

I totally agree with you!. The psychology of the situation is flawed. Consider the following situation...

One of the test subjects has a serious life threating situation, say a heart attack or a stroke. He needs much more care than can be provided in the test environment. Do the people running the experiment just let him die or stop the experiment to help him? I'll bet they would not let him die, it's just human nature to do something if it is possible.. The subjects of the experiment know that the experiment can be stopped in such situations even if they are told that nothing will be done. What can the experimenters do, let him die? Therein lies the flaw in the experiment, on an actual trip to Mars, it will be impossible to get him more medical care than what is available in the space capsule.

In these situations, the authorities must do some "digging" into the business relationships to get at the actual culprits. So many people say "think of the innocent workers that will lose their jobs" if a corporate "death penalty" is imposed. Their solution to this dilemma is to do nothing!

What I propose is that the corporate shield barring lawsuits should be lifted. This would allow anyone who held stock in the culprit corporation to be sued. Of course, this lifting of the corporate shield would apply only to the culprit corporation. This surely would make stockholders think twice before allowing the corporate board to "run wild". The workers who lost their jobs could file a class action lawsuit against the stockholders and operators. Maybe such a lawsuit could be automatic and the lawyers could be publicly provided. This would deter greedy lawyers from taking the majority of the settlement. This would take care of the workers. The rest of the companies assets could then go on auction to offset the publics costs. Maybe I am overlooking things (I probably am!) but this could be the first step into putting responsibility back into the corporate picture. Other suggestions or comments would certainly be welcomed. I do not want to imply that I and I alone am thinking about how this problem might be rectified.