I think you meant "Ni!"

I think this is a good point but the analogy needs to be extended. You contract me to do work on your roof but only give me 50% of the money I say the repairs will cost. At the end, I tell you that your new roof will be fine for normal rain showers but that it WILL leak during a downpour. Then, when my prediction comes true, you blame me. This is where personal responsibility comes into play.

Although I may agree with the concept, the analogy is only possible due to the HIPAA law. Their privacy is not a guaranteed constitutional right. Medical records are treated separately under the law and therefore cannot be used to justify treating other information in the same way. Could we pass a law that explicitly states that electronic communication is personal regardless of the route? Sure, but we don't have one. One could also make a similar analogy to cell phones and voicemail. I assume (IANAL) that they also have laws explicitly protecting privacy of communications sent via them.

You points may be valid in theory...but who decides the drivers that are above average, average, and below average? If we all got to make that choice then we'd be in the mathematically impossible situation of everyone being better than the average.

Bad driving by itself is not always the problem. Driving 65 down a residential street may result in an accident (other cars backing out of driveways, kids playing near the road, potholes, etc.) that have nothing to do with the driver's ability. BAC may be arbitrary because alcohol affects each of us differently. Speed limits are more consistent. Nobody, no matter how good their driving skills, can stop a 2-ton piece of metal moving 65 mph in 20 feet.

This is a good example...one that has been recently addressed by the NIH public access policy, much to the chagrin of the "expensive scientific journals." As the Internet makes data mining more accessible (and therefore more common), I think we'll see more of these types of arrangements for government-funded projects.

I agree that it is difficult to write a general rule to determine if a method patent should be granted, but in today's technological world there is a big difference between the concept of performing an action and implementing that action. Myriad's patent of the BRCA genes is a perfect example. It is fine to grant them a patent on a METHOD for detecting a mutation in the target gene but ridiculous to say that they should hold the rights to all methods that could possibly perform the same function (even if that method has yet to be invented). To me that is like someone discovering the internal combustion engine and being granted a patent for any process that turns fossil fuels into energy.

I think the parent actually answered this:

We've had plenty of discussions here on /. about the consequences of being able to "google" people. How would you like have an anonymous comment link you to possession of child porn, only to have that comment as the top result when someone googles your name? Even if it is completely unsubstantiated, it is a hit containing your name and the words "child pornography." Furthermore, what if the person posting it didn't like you so they started writing it in many comments on many sites (enough that it became difficult for you to get them all removed)? This is a situation where I think anonymity should be trumped the rights of the individual.

This option illustrates an increasing problem in health care: The doctor knows better (and should) unless I do. Why did the doctor say "try it?" Probably because, especially for conditions like acid-reflux, everybody responds differently and there are no guarenteed solutions.

It is one thing for a group of medical researchers to release guidelines on standard practice for certain conditions. It is completely different when a non-medical professional types something into Google and now claims to be an expert.

What about the buying 15 to "see" if they work? Plenty of drugs, including proton-pump inhibitors, which you most likely were perscribed, take time before any effects can be seen. This type of thinking is why we have more and more antibiotic-resistant infections - people stop taking medication as soon as they feel better (or think it isn't working). Doctors can be (and are) wrong on occasion, but there are plenty of things they do that have a reason (30 days vs. 15 days may not be random, MRIs and X-rays DO NOT show the same thing) even if it isn't immediately apparent.

It is one thing for a group of medical researchers to release treatment guidelines for a certain disease. It is another when a non-medical professional types the name of a condition into Google and then claims to be an expert.

And how about Matlab? This is one of the most common software suites used in academia and scientific industries. The entire GUI is java.

Like on a $50 converter box!

Actually, this is one of the problems I have with how US law treats minors and their interactions with adults. If a minor lies about their age to an adult, it is the adult's fault/responsibility (statutory rape applies even if the minor lied about their age). However, if the same minor lies about their age to a police officer, it is the minor's fault/responsibility.

Also consider how many times you have read about an 18 year-old declared immature (not mentally disabled, just with a maturity level closer to that of a 15 year-old) and tried as a minor after committing a crime. Now consider how many times you've heard of a 15 year-old tried as an adult.

Inconsistencies in the application of the law allow people in the know (or with the right connections) to take advantage of everyone else.

But apparently creating your own website, publishing your letter, and then referencing it as a source would be just fine.

That is the problem with many of the edits of Wikipedia - their definition of a source is murky at best and negligence at its worst. I don't think every post/edit must have a source, but don't reject one because the current article references some random myspace page and the change contradicts it.

If it were up to me, I would only accept textbooks/journal articles as valid sources and relegate everything else to the "See Also" category (I know that textbooks and journal articles can be wrong, but presumably there was some sort of review process that doesn't exist for most other forms of reference).

You mean stop the democratic process from reflecting population shifts?

As opposed to with the current system in which a candidate concentrates on the swing states and ignores more than two thirds of the other states?

And that is OK. I live in Wisconsin and we know that most of the country considers us a "fly-over" state. We only get attention once every four years if/when we are a swing state in the presidential election...and that's OK. Do you really want the state of Wisconsin (pop ~5 million) having as much or more influence than the city of New York (pop > 10 million)? It is important to prevent the population centers from having all the power, but that is already implemented in congress. The electoral college serves no purpose most years (a candidate wins both the college and the popular vote) and enrages > half the country when they differ . At least a popular vote can be accepted by everyone. No ones feels their vote was more or less important (as IS the case right now...think of the citizens of Florida in 2000).

"Before the year was out more than a million had died from cold or starvation"

I'd like to see the actual breakdown of deaths from cold and from starvation. Even with buildings designed for warmer temperatures, I have a difficult time believing "Livestock died from cold in their barns..." at +5 F. The combined body heat of many livestock gathered in a small indoor space should have raised the temperature significantly.

Perhaps many of the memories of the harsh winter were influenced by the poor crop and subsequent food shortages the following summer?

This is a bad analogy. Microsoft charges money for Word and provides IE for free. Even if Windows and IE are separated, Microsoft will most likely not charge for IE as the other major browsers are also free. While including a browser may "stifle" competition, it is not the same kind of competition (read: the sale of products producing revenue) that we are used to. While I personally use Firefox, and have for some time, I recognize that the ability to browse the web and the ability to browse my computer are sure to merge within the next few OS iterations. I predict that future versions of Windows (Linux and Mac OS too) will use the same executable, display manager, and even window when viewing most locations; be they local or remote (this may even include simple text files). Windows already does some of this, though if you type a web address into explorer it will change to IE. How will you tell Microsoft not to tie IE to Windows when their response is: they are the same thing!