How is it nonsensical? People clearly like big cars, but you don't, so it's nonsensical... yeah, cars are a lot bigger and roomier than they once were (not just SUVs) - this is a good thing.

Personally, I think people buying a Prius is irrational - but it's their call. And I love this attitude that "people only want it because of marketing" - as though that's a bad thing. Somebody convinces you to buy something you want? for some reason, that's a bad thing; but hey, government legislating what you are allowed to buy/required to have? all good!

In fact, we're so bad at making decisions, that they should decide everything for us... what to eat (no fast food), what to wear (nothing too revealing), what to watch (swear words are bad), what to view online, etc...

Whether we want them or not, huh? I'm so glad that we have people like you to make the right decisions for all of us.

If people thought small cars were better for them, they'd be buying them... If there is a negative externality that they are not taking into account - figure out it's cost, and add it to the product (for the record, I think the negative externality argument is overused and doesn't apply here - but I'd rather have a tax on some of my options than to have those options removed)

If people wanted smaller cars they'd be buying them... depriving them of this liberty under the guise of helping the environment (which this won't do) is a mistake.

For the record, I am somewhat skeptical about the climate change hype - which I think is over-exaggerated. But even if I accept CO2 as a negative externality (which I don't), then the correct response is a carbon tax. Cost the stuff appropriately and let the market decide - don't legislate inefficient results. Don't let the government "pick winners" and definitely not a cap and trade, which is too open to corruption.

A lot of these "rights" seem a bit wishy-washy. The US bill of rights works because they are primarily a list of "negative rights" - ie, a list of things the government can't do/take from you. These proposals read more like a list of entitlements (eg, net neutrality, the right to post anonymously) or government contractual obligations (eg, required to use open source). That doesn't necessarily mean that these things aren't desirable, but they don't belong in a bill of rights, imo.

For example, the "right to post anonymously on any internet site". Anonymity is good - but if it's my site, then it's my rules - this clause is a violaion of my property rights as the site owner. Don't like my rules? Post somewhere else. It's a similar case with net neutrality... I know this is a popular cause amongst fellow-slashdotters, but if I provide network access, then I should be able to constrain/restrict access in any way I please (provided I disclosed the rules when I sold access). Don't get me wrong - I want to see access open as well - but this is best served through the market. The only reason it's a problem now is because of government legislation creating huge companies or "regional monopolies", etc...

On a slight tangent: We don't even have a normal bill of rights in Australia - let alone a technological one - but whenever people talk about introducing one (which I love the idea of in principle), they talk of including things like, a "right to a job" and a "right to a free education". This is the challenge in any proposed bill of rights - to ensure they don't become a bill of entitlements to other people's property[1]

[1] Though IP rights are a separate issue here, since there's valid debate about whether or not IP is/should be considered real property or not.

This is appalling - the "facepalm" tag is spot on. I have a great fondness for the UK, even though I've only visited once, and the people there have my sympathies for such bureaucratic stupidity. Policies like this and ASBO's of the last few years have had a disastrous effect... government is getting way too intrusive over there.

Sadly, I think Australia is heading in the same direction, though at least the Australia Card/Access Card proposals have been shelved by the current mob (for now)

Are you kidding? We'd still be using dial-up if the telceomms industry wasn't de-regulated - and I'm sorry, but you can't de-regulate without privatising. Their big mistake was not splitting Telstra up before they privatised... though in fairness they needed a high price for it in order to retire the public debt.

Not necessarily... the more exciting an idea is, the more interest it attracts, and so the quicker its ideas are either proven true or false... or, since we're dealing with quantum physics, we'll discover a whole bunch of other stuff which makes absolutely no sense, but is nonetheless true.

And which way is that? How do you know your actions won't make things worse - or have higher negative consequences?

Ah... in that case, it was I who was being over-defensive.

Irony can be embarrassing, can't it?

Wow... you Mac fanbois are certainly over-defensive, aren't you?

I said nothing negative about the OS X - I was simply making the point that the Windows usage would be higher than Mac penetration of the market might seem to indicate.