Amazing how many people are missing this point....

You filed a lawsuit basically for copyright infringement and won. Might have been a tough battle, sure. But you won. BE HAPPY. Besides that obviously judges are going to protect other lawyers yada yada yada, no offense, you got greedy. Instead of taking your $19,000 and change and being happy that you were a little guy who won a case against "the man" you had to be juvenile and take it to the next level and file a lawsuit because of what the lawyers tried to do during the original lawsuit? I am glad that you won your original case, and I am glad you lost this case.

I support measures to increase privacy, but not government enforcement or government decided rules. We need SMALLER federal government, not bigger.

I need to learn how to cook. :(

So basically you are willing to relinquish all your rights to software (and eventually hardware) so that there can still be "price discrimination"? Are you thinking that this is the reason the software companies like this case so that they can price discriminate?

That is another major part of the problem: there are people who as the consumer think too narrowly. Like this judge, it doesn't seem you fully understand the extending ramifications of this decision that affects YOUR rights as a consumer.

Software companies are not trying to do all this so they can price discriminate. They are doing this because of GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. This is about people who have millions and in some cases billions of dollars who aren't happy with the millions or billions of dollars they have and are now trying to get the legal system to limit our rights as a consumer so they can make MORE MONEY.

WAKE UP. Our freedoms, liberties and rights as consumers and as citizens in this country are being taken away to appease the INSATIABLE GREED of these corporate pinheads.

Lol... I see what you did there. The problem people keep forgetting is that the film industry goes after anyone they THINK is pirating their shit. They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.

It wasn't sarcastic. That is the direction we are heading and it is outrageous for them to implement such a plan at a school. Again, read my original post.

First, clearly you did not read my comment. We are talking about the food that the cafeteria serves the children. They should be feeding them what they are supposed to be eating ANYWAY. Why not just ship the schools what they are allowed to serve?

Secondly, my kids won't be eating what the school serves them, they will be eating what I prepare for them for their lunches. Because as a responsible adult, I will take responsibility for my own children rather than depending on the school to feed my children healthy foods.

1984 here we come! This is absolutely outrageous. They say it is for ensuring that what the school feeds the kids comply with sate laws. My question is that is this statement implying that the students MAY receive meals that go against these new laws? Wouldn't the better and less intrusive way to ensure the food served is "nutritious" is to only ship certain foods to the schools to serve? That sounds a whole lot less expensive than setting up an electronic system that DOES track what each individual student eats.

I 100% agree with you, but unfortunately Component is going away come Dec 31st. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/02/19/1936209/2010-mdash-the-Year-AACS-and-HDMI-Kill-Off-HD-Component-Video

I really hate that hackers are blamed for every crime involving a computer. At least so it seems. We are talking less than 5% of all hackers do what they do for destruction or selfish means. I definitely will not promote Norton's products now. HACKING IS NOT A CRIME.

Well I am sorry you see it that way. You are only fooling yourself. Your concept of America is NOT how it was set up to be. The federal government was never meant to have as much power as it does. Your willingness to just accept it for what it is shows your complete lack of education of the principles and set of checks and balances our government was founded on.

I pity your ignorance.

Nice how you ignored a whole other section to what I said.

Also, I never aligned myself with the left or the right and I am certainly not anti-american. I am anti-socialism.

So basically you made all too known that you don't mind if the government forces you to buy healthcare or not cause it's "essential". Granted, it may be, but that still does NOT justify it being forced down our throats.

You clearly only watch CNN, which btw is just as unreliable a news source as Fox News. The two are identical to each other except for the obvious fact that they stand on either side of the two-party spectrum.

If we continue to grant the federal government more power, the closer we will get to a totalitarian state. Sad to see that someone who appears to be so intelligent could be so easily fooled and brainwashed into believing the rhetoric simply because it satisfies your needs.

You also imply that you support American ideals, well, forcing your citizens to do something against their will is not an American ideal. So congratulations you are your own contradiction.

Both parties need to go away. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are doing anything to truly help us. They both are only giving the illusion of trying to help. The sooner more people get over themselves and realize this, the better chance we have to remain free.

You should really read more rather than blinding believing what your TV tells you.

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

If by 'quite a large number', you mean 'about a third', sure.

Of course, they're paying 15% more or so for said insurance compared to large companies.

My point is that they are out there.

So let's break this down. Did she have insurance at the time?

Was it employee based, or did she have her own insurance.

Or was she uninsurable because of some heart defect?

She had insurance, but it wouldn't cover the cost. The cancer institute only deferred it until she was done with treatment. She is more difficult to insure because she has lupus.

You've apparently mistaken my statement I can't get insurance for some sort of sob story, and thus think you should top it with some other sob story. I am not asking for sympathy, or a handout, I'm POINTING OUT I CAN'T GET INSURANCE.

Or, at least, that was the story. Luckily, now, in 2014, I'll be able to buy insurance myself, thanks to the mostly teethless 'reform' that was just passed

Yet you are giving a sob story. I understand you can't get insurance, but now in 2014 you will, but at what cost?

You say, "I'll be able to buy insurance myself" as if you will have a choice. You will be forced to buy healthcare whether you can afford it or not.

If you still can't afford it and don't buy it, you will be fined.

So you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of choice for yourself and for the rest of the country so you can "guarantee" yourself to get healthcare; when you don't really know whether or not you will be able to afford it come 2014. Prices haven't been announced.

Playing devil's advocate, say come 2014 you can't afford to get insurance? Would you just say, "well, it was worth a shot supporting this."? Or would you feel regret?

Or, let's now say that it works. Flawlessly. Great, right? Still don't have a choice in it. Which you may not care about. Certainly doesn't seem like you do. But you think it will stop at the health insurance? No.

What will happen is everybody will have all this faith and belief in the government again. They don't have to worry about healthcare. But wait, we still have terrorism, global warming, the war, crime, the economy. And they have convinced us that these are "national security" risks.

What will happen is the people will easily turn over the solution to the government on those issues as well. And what we'll get is the end of net neutrality and anonymity online. If you don't do anything bad online thats a small price to pay, right? But what comes from that loss of privacy? Justification to abolish warrants.

Justification to ignore the 1st amendment by shutting down anti-liberal and anti-global warming blogs. Which, btw, the Obama administration has already tried but failed. But not if they can get you afraid of it enough to abolish the 1st amendment.

What will happen is we will get to a point not that different from the imagining of 1984.

Times are scary. Who wouldn't be scared? War, terror, disease. There are a myriad of problems, but they are being conspired to corrupt our reason and rob us of our common sense. Fear is getting the best of us, and in our panic we are turning to our federal government. They are promising us security, they are promising us peace, and and all they demand in return is our silent, obedient consent.

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin