These tests don't identify the same DNA sequences that are used in criminal databases, and they can't be used to identify people. If an infant does have one of those diseases, that fact eventually goes into their medical record when the parents bring their (dying) child to the pediatrician or emergency room.

Of course it's not the tests for diseases that are at issue - it's the retention of the blood specimens obtained to perform these tests.

Retention policies vary by state - in Washington State, the policy is to retain specimens until age 21, though as far as I know there's no way to verify destruction of the samples (it's not as though they're returned to the parents, for example.) See http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehsphl/PHL/Newborn/privacy.htm.

When I had my child in Washington, I had the tests performed - but subsequently contacted WA DOH to have the sample destroyed pursuant to WAC 246-650-050.

-Isaac

I posted this elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge here (not enough slashdotters with kids):

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm [ncsl.org]

Who needs footprints? The states already have the DNA of almost every kid born in the last decade.

-Isaac

What happened to only getting DNA evidence from felons? This seems insane, there's no reason at all that someone ACCUSED of a misdemeanor crime should have to submit (and, most likely, pay for!) DNA samples unless it was important to the court case. If this goes through, I can only wonder what they'll be asking for next. Getting DNA from children to put into a database, like they've done with fingerprints in some places?

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm which is unfortunately from 2002.

So, yes, the state has the DNA of virtually every person born in the US in the last decade (albeit not necessarily in a form usable by law enforcement agencies, say.)

-Isaac

Actually glossy is a superior technology for imaging hobbled by having only 8bits per color channel. Similar problems have arisen with wide-gamut displays. 8bit precision means fairly coarse steps between shades as the range of reproducible colors (gamut) increases. Glossy screens have better color gamut because environmental light contributes less "white pollution" because most sources are reflected away, not toward the viewer. Using a matte screen is more like looking through a layer of milk. Your mind's eye sees around the matte effect because of its uniformity across the screen, whereas residual reflections are distinctly localized in the glossy case.

Specious. Uniformity across the screen is more important to me than "white pollution" - not a term of art I've ever heard, but I know what you mean.

The detailed reflections on a glossy screen are distracting and really slow me down when working with images in the field (i.e. real world laptop use.) In practice, even in a room with controlled lighting, I can still see my reflected face in the dark areas of images where I'd rather be seeing the image I'm working with.

Gamut doesn't really enter into the glossy vs. matte debate. I only brought up the expanded gamut of the new LG laptop panels with RGB LED backlighting being shipped by Dell and HP as an example of how Apple is failing to deliver a truly premium product for the dollar ask of their latest line of so-called "pro" laptops.

-Isaac

Apple is running away from the niche markets (like imaging) that sustained them through their dark days as fast as they can. The new unibody Macbooks (and the 24" ADC^H^H^HMini-DisplayPort external LCD) are slightly faster but in many ways less functional than the models they replaced. Glossy is a bug, not a feature.

Meanwhile, HP and Dell are shipping laptops with RGB LED-backlit displays with 105% NTSC color gamut. Apple is slipping, badly, from this user's perspective.

-Isaac

I'm not even sure what a good example of a marketing-based company is.

Coca-Cola. It's not like they're going to make a new and improved Coke so marketing is all they have.

-Isaac

Bluetooth is a security nightmare. (Seriously, enable it at your own risk in an urban environment.)

Bluetooth mice also eat batteries like crazy and have to deal with a relatively complicated communications stack making them glitch-prone. Logitech's RF protocol is mature, demands very low power consumption (battery charge lasts months, not days), works as smoothly (low latency) as a wire, and is secure enough for mousing use.

Bluetooth is a nice idea but in practice doesn't work as well for mice as other RF protocols.

-Isaac

Hm, my M13 (P/N 13H6705) has a numeric keypad. I didn't realize there was a true M-series spacesaver with trackpoint. (I do have an 84-key opal spacesaver with no trackpoint in storage, great keyboard as well.)

Lack of USB isn't really a problem - PS/2->USB adapters are cheap and plentiful.

Better yet, the model M13 with Trackpoint. Replace the default, smooth Trackpoint II cap with a "cat's tongue" cap (standard on later trackpoints) and never take your hands off the keyboard again.

-Isaac