Which by the sound of what dnavid said, would require a constitutional amendment to achieve. Those are pretty rare, are they not?

Do you actually know how chemotherapy works? It doesn't "bombard the human body with radiation". The accelerator is calibrated and targeted to fire a very specific amount of radiation directly at an area only slightly larger than the tumour. Because cells are at their weakest during division, and cancer cells divide at an exponentially higher rate than regular cells, they are far more vulnerable than the healthy non-tumour area around them. Which means the healthy cells are largely unaffected by the radiation, while the cancer cells are killed because they are weaker.

If it's product samples for the purpose of research then yes, it does require informed consent. Same for blind taste tests.

The difference is the purpose of the research. Facebook was not attempting to gain commercial insight, they were attempting to modify and monitor psychological behaviours, to gain generalised insight. This is not market research.

What you're referring to is nothing like what happened here. What they did was generalised psychological research. It was not commercial research, where the sole purpose is to test the commercial viability of a product or gain other commercial insights. What they did requires informed consent, which demands that they make all participants aware of the researchers, the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, and get explicit authorisation to include them.

Facebook broke the law. Period.

No, because in other countries, what they did is blatantly illegal.

Actually, you're budgeting less - because Creative Cloud is cheaper than paying for a CS upgrade annually.

In all fairness, Adobe's "Creative Cloud" offering is actually more cost-effective than paying for Creative Suite was. At about $1000 for Photoshop Extended alone, plus $200 for Lightroom, total $1200. Assume you upgrade once every 3 years, that's $400 a year. Compare that to $10 a month for Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC - that's $120 a year. You can see the benefits.

They eventually revealed the reason they only show your content to a subset of your followers:

So they could charge you to reach more of them. Seriously. You can pay to "promote" your posts, and all that does is increase the reach within the people that have explicitly indicated interest in your content.

That's not informed consent as it would be deemed by any research institution or court of law. Informed consent requires a discussion with the subject on the nature of the research, its purpose, the manner in which data will be collected and used, and an explicit agreement from the user. What Facebook thinks it has is implied consent - which they frankly don't have either.

This study is just plain unlawful.

No it's not silly to think that. It is, however, silly to assume that.

That's true enough. Unfortunately I can't find any conclusive statement anywhere, so it would have to be tested to tell for sure. Side note, the Xbox One controller drivers make any game that supports an Xbox 360 controller work with an Xbox One controller.

No, that's a bad idea. Having a single rendering engine used by all browsers creates a monoculture, and monocultures are bad because they create behemoths like Microsoft. Trident needs to stick to the standards, and that's what they're doing. From what I've seen, any website that looks fine on Chrome or Firefox also looks fine on the latest versions of Trident.

No, because all they're doing is supporting the W3C GamePad API (which the IE status page at http://status.modern.ie/gamepa... says is available in Chrome, Firefox, and Opera already) which supports all gamepads, including the Xbox controller (with Xbox controller drivers, which for the Xbox One controller Microsoft has officially released).

What's particularly amusing is that probably one of the largest contributions to modern web application development - XMLHTTP - came out of, of all places, the Microsoft Exchange team.