Biometrics have one fatal flaw that has always scared the hell out of me. If someone wants past biometrics, they will either develop fake body parts that work as good as the original, or they will just remove the actual body part.

I observe every single thing done to my car. I am there in the shop as they do them; not in the waiting room. I have seen belts put on backwards, i have seen a mechanic raise my hood into the ceiling. I also come out with a full understanding of what needed to be done on my vehicle and why. Healthcare is the same. You should have full access to YOUR records.

What they said... "Time Warner Cable: No Consumer Demand For Gigabit Internet"

What they meant... "Time Warner Cable: No Consumer Demand For Gigabit Internet at the prices we would be willing to sell it for."

Nothing stops a publisher from selling a DRM free ebook, if they choose to do so. Nothing stops a user from buying a DRM free ebook and using it on their reader. Check out the Calibre program. What these publishers want is to force publishers to sell all ebooks in a drm free format. Not gonna happen.

find /tmp/* -mtime +14 -exec rm {} \;

You have the power here. Remember if you as a consumer refuse to buy a overly locked down console it will fail, and they will go back to the old way of doing business. Punish abusive restrictions on your rights by voting with your pocketbook...

If they want everyone to have access to the web them they will have no problems bringing back the unlimited usage plans...

This is total bullshit. ATT can choose to provide tech support to the users who need it by assessing a tech support fee. Instead of charging people who have a smart phone more for the privilege. The only support I have ever asked for is paying my bill. I shouldn't be required to subsidize the stupid.

1. Require the plaintiff in a patent suit to actually manufacture and sell a product using the patent in question. No patent holding companies putting their tax on innovation.

2. Require patents to be available under a statutory rate which must to the lowest license fee charged to any of the current licensees.

Laws say what they mean, If they meant State Constitutions they would have said state constitutions. Instead they said "the Constitution." What you said had merit only if they said "their Constitutions".

Translation: "we want to allow the outsourcing of 300,000 American Jobs as an insidious tool to force down wages for skilled labor in America." It's the race to the bottom. There's no shortage of trained IT people in America, there is a lack of desire by these companies to pay the wages and benefits required to hire them.

Actually google provides a much better definition...

notwithstanding /nätwiTHstandiNG/
Preposition
In spite of.

So if we read the applicable term from the constitution,

"and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"

This is what it would say written in modern English...

"The Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and our International Treaty Obligations are the supreme law of the land. Judges are required to honor our treaty obligations; in spite of anything the Constitution or laws of any state may say to the contrary."

No it gives the President with the approval of 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate the power to override our Constitution and the laws of the individual states. Article II section 2 of the US constitution defines the powers of the president and says "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

I was about to post the same thing. Thanks for covering it.

Actually it does as the agreement which created the WTO is a treaty and the U.S. is required to treat their treaty obligations as equal to the U.S. Constitution.

Under Article II section 2

2. The agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter
referred to as "Multilateral Trade Agreements") are integral parts of this Agreement, binding on all
Members.

We are in violation.