Impressive. Only Steve Jobs could pull off the final "One More Thing" after the most recent Apple announcements. It was as timely as could be, and it's sad to see a true visionary go.

He brought an artistic sense to the usually boxy engineering and computer world, and aethetics can make a big difference.

Good on you Steve. Thanks for giving as much as you did.

Within minutes of each other, we have one story here that says they will duke it out, and TechCrunch saying that they are now scared and are going to settle (http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/26/htc-warms-up-to-settlement-talks-with-apple/).

Seriously, there is way too much speculative journalism and hot shot CEOs all trying to put a good spin on where they stand.

In the end: Patents are killing everything, and we all lose. If it doesn't get under control soon, it will just be a big royal rumble cage match where everyone is covered in blood. And the cost of our devices will shoot through the roof due to lawyers fees.

Of course, it takes so long for Congress or the courts to do anything, that in the meantime, we all have to just duck and cover.

Seriously, I thought growing up I was supposed to have all the stuff shown on the Jetsons...

And politicians and society as a whole are more than happy to spend other people's money to make these things happen. As soon as it becomes about their money though, few want to do it.

I'll just put this up there with the perpetual motion machine, because there is always something that breaks any time it comes to energy, nothing is fully renewable. Entropy rules all in the end. I'll believe it when I see it.

If the stock market crashes, gold will do you no good. People will be bartering for food, gas, and other staples. Gold will not do a thing for you. Look at any economy after a natural disaster or crash - people will give anything for clean water.

Gold will drop just as well as anything else. It is not a safe place for investing.

Well, it is an interesting response for a few reasons:

1. It is best to have a number of defense options in court. You'd be surprised what a jury can allow to happen, especially in a civil situation, where it can only require a liklihood that it is true.

2. A person on a jury can be sympathetic to a person's percieved ailment. A lot of people have had pain they can't prove, and the man in this case could say it is too hard to prove he doesn't have the symptoms, so to err on the side of not making the man suffer. However, many people find that what they do in their own homes is inviolate, within reason, so it switches the focus from pity on the sick to trying to retain our rights which many feel are eroding anyway. It is a good response to percieved ailments that hits at the visceral level.

3. Yup, you can go wired. But, why should he have to? If one can prove the the strength of the signal erodes as quickly as it does, then why should he not be allowed to use his laptop in any room he wants. And who's to say the man's microwave isn't far worse for him?

I appreciate you playing devil's advocate. I agree - internet access is not a core right to be human (no matter what the Dutch say). But it can be an effective litigation strategy.

I didn't say the article had merit, I'm just letting you know it is getting a lot of attention lately in more than the usual places (although a different person is featured in the popsci article - I guess this is the new cool psychosis).

The right to control what you do in your own home certainly is, and some may say that the pursuit of happiness may include youtube, etc.

Many use cell phones and remote internet access to do work, so being able to work to do your job is likely a right.

The concern comes when rights intersect - Playing loud music, putting a billboard in your yard, windfarm on the cape.... The issue here is that unless he can prove his malady, it is frivolous, and frankly, the power companies are going to be sued next, and they are going to contest this to death.

So, yes, being able to use your laptop in your own home can be considered a right that on your property, you can do what you want.

And didn't the Netherlands just say internet access was a basic human right?

I was thinking the same thing after reading an article in PopSci a couple of months ago. It seems many are just willing to believe it is true. I think a nice double blind test would be in order (much like JREF does when having psychics, etc, prove their abilities). If they try and say it is a long term thing, where the issue is "build-up", then you can do a 5 day test for each. But first they have to list the symptoms....

Also, how much more interference is caused by the electrical wiring within the persons own house, not to mention tv, microwaves, etc. If you have to have a powered antenna to pick up the frequencies (which you do - hence the wifi card), then the frequencies are minimal compared to the tons of other interference out there. Can this person also never go to a concert where there are wireless mics (or a presentation, etc)? Frankly, how can they even work?

Actually this is a slippery slope. If one court finds that it is a real malady, it could be the next disability payment since the person can't work, can't go into supermarkets or any other store, etc. They just have to stay holed up in their house all the time.

So, generally we agree.

For my own edification however, I would still appreciate links to the "outright lies" you reference, so I can research them for myself, and come to my own conclusion.

If the register is incorrect, then I will take future articles with a bigger grain of salt. If you have no proof as to the lies and inaccuracies (other than the one I mentioned), I will continue to assume they were researched, based on the links which I followed from the articles themselves.

So, then I assume you are in support of the Resolution?

Since there appears to be misinformation on both sides (as always, and I'm not convinced the Register is wrong just because there have been articles questioning global warming - I would like references to the outright lies you reference, I know of a mistake about ice density, but the author issued a correction), it stands to reason we need to take a step break from our panic mode responses to have an in-depth verification and true peer-review of the data.

As we all know, statistics and numbers can be played in every direction. Everything is being cast as a "worst-ever" by politicians on both sides, and it is being used to push agendas, not to mention throwing money at solutions that may not exist.

Everyone needs to take a breath, calm down, and look at the real data (not the adjusted ones), and do some double blind and placebo testing (with intentionally false data to prove the models work the other way as well). Then we can properly evaluate our stance, and where to go.

Climate change has turned into a religion, with both sides covering their ears and screaming LA LA LA when they don't like the answers. Can we get some moderates with no stake in the game to look at this stuff?

Several notes, with me agreeing that energy shouldn't be needlessly wasted.

1. Most people don't want to spend money on any energy they don't need. Companies lose profits, people lose their hard earned paychecks. It is in everyones best interest to use energy wisely.

2. Future tech being more efficient does not mean we are being intentionally wasteful now.

3. The real issue here is people having to pay extra for sped up tech research on technologies that may or may not be ready yet (or the infrastructure is not there yet, see what happened to T Boone Pickuns), paying extra for carbon credits which are just profit centers for a few smaller companies (and the consumer ends up paying for), etc.

4. Seeing as the world is out of control with debt now, people using their pickups for 2 years to save up for a new car is far better than everyone going into debt on buying new cars. That is good fiscal responsibility.

5. The climate change issue puts everyone in panic mode, so more money is wasted on rushed ideas and research, with no proper testing and oversight. That's fiscal waste, and possibly bad for the environment as well. Stepping back to re-assess is a good thing.

Or, you could change the data retroactively:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/

Agreed on all points, and php5's fixed OOP is key to be able to do many of those things (including pdo) correctly.

I'm just frustrated as I want to try using a framework (such as symfony) for my sites instead of having to keep up my own cms all the time, but I can't because I can't use something which should not only be installed, but preferred/recommended by the hosting company.