I would certainly hope that is their devices default. Yes, I know most people will just give whatever permissions are requested, but that would at least give a few of a chance.

Wouldn't it be much more expedient to only allow those who don't worry about such things to go into space? This really is such a low priority issue it is almost laughable. There is so much more important survival factors to focus research on instead of wasting it whether someone with undected artheroscralosis survives.

None have diied of a heart attack so far, and there's no reason for the great unwashed to fund research/technology to handle some future hypothetical event. If that's an issue for you, simply don't volunteer. No one has ever been forced onto a ride to space, non-humans excluded.

Exactly! It way too early to worry about anything except perhaps to screen out those most likely to have an MI during spaceflight.

Then that is where research should be focused, how to better screen those who are apt to have a heart attack in space. Better biometric data recorders ;perhaps?

At this stage of the game it would probably make more sense to limit space travel to those with the lowest risk factors rather than waste money on treatment. First and foremost, research today should be 100% geared to how to successfully and consistently move humans from this planet to another. Treatments for the less than healthy can wait until that is accomplished.

"Activist" judges, the ones who are willing to overrule laws based on Constitutionality no matter what Congress or the President says, have been pretty much shackled by will of the people who want their personal prejudices enforced.

Probably, but these guys are from the branch of government that determines what is constitutional and what is not.

It's electric storage that is the problem. Fix the range problem, and I'm not talking about the average or median range here, and we"ll all be golden.

I foresee an uptick in the sales of Guy Fawkes masks, and it isn't even November.

It fails to run on all my devices, and most of my friends say it won't run on the majority of theirs either. Funny how MS still thinks it rules the world, isn't it?

If IE follows web standards it will remain relevant. Trying to lock developers into supporting a certain OS will only hasten its death though. Oh, and just a reminder to Microsoft, there are more devices running other systems than there are devices running Windows nowadays.

So removing the benefits of making a profit would do away with scientists seeking to make a profit? I guess that makes sense, but how could it be accomplished? Even MickeyD's won't poney up a burger if you don't have coin.

Profiteers make their money on the innovations and discoveries of others. Their whole purpose is to thrive off the work of others. They are parasetical in this regard.

If it weren't for proiteers, you might have achieved you goal already.

The same could be said for human pain and suffering. How many people today would be alive if someone else didn't suck the life out of them to increase their own wealth? Whether under the guise of Democracy, Communism, or Facism, those who seek personal gain suck something from someone. They have to because, in order to profit they have to have someone to profit from.