Governments do go out of business. They lose elections, and the cronies they appoint end up working honest jobs. And they don't spend "other people's" money, they spend our money because we choose to give it to them to spend. You don't have to like democracy, but that's how it works. If you would rather live in e.g. some libertarian utopia, by all means go and set up your own.

In Australia it's illegal to drive through a yellow light. Nobody gets fined for it, but it's the way the law is and should be. Both red and yellow mean "stop", but red also means "you will likely kill someone if you don't stop". Don't be the asshole who thinks of yellow meaning "you have 3 seconds, maybe more, before things get lethal."

Please someone! write an app that can detect and remove the sound of me taking a shit (and the toilet flushing).

I will buy whatever phone it runs on. If you need motivation for this innovation, you can patent it--- when the revolution comes, I will make sure there's a special clause that means that your patent remains valid.

I find myself strangely happy that OBL is dead, and I don't much care that he didn't get a trial. If he was innocent he should have had the decency to come forward and tell his story even if it cost him his life. If he was guilty he should have repented and come forward, and asked for forgiveness --- again, even if it cost him his life. This guy was so bad that simply getting shot was the right outcome.

I agree about the excessive collection of information --- I think the expansion of DNA collection by law-enforcement agencies is scandalous and disgusting. It stratifies society, creating a group who are presumed to be a criminal underclass.

But we have to fight it on legitimate grounds. The objection you proposed (that it could be in some sense a "root password" for personal information) is just wrong, and I explained why. The AC who also replied to me kindly illustrated just how silly the shrill objections to DNA collection are.

Alright, a few quick responses to the things that aren't a bit of security-through-obscurity.

(1) Make my day! That would be an awesome compliment. (2) Just like a DVD, copying me does not take anything away from me. (3) But it would be a very sneaky way of finding out how big my willy is.

(1) Nonsense. There's a vast gap between knowing your DNA sequence and using it to create a child. (2) See point about implication of crime --- it would be a useful defence against paternity suits as well. (3) See point about awesome compliments. (4) What kind of warped view do you have of children, that they are weapons?!

My psychological profile is available to anyone who knows me. I'll tell you my credit history: I've never been in debt, and have some cash in the bank, I'm gainfully employed. I don't have a social security number. My email password is nothing to do with my DNA. I'd attach a photo of my house keys --- in fact I live in inner Sydney and usually leave one door unlocked. And no, you can't have a sperm donation, that wouldn't be fun at all.

I think that's very misinformed on two grounds. (1) The "root password" metaphor is inappropriate. (2) Understanding the biological basis of disease is not something to be afraid of.

There is no "root password" to real life. That metaphor belongs firmly in the domain of magic. Your DNA will not make it possible for third parties to influence you --- at least, no more than having your photograph, or knowing your true name.

Without doubt, there will be some surprising personal information encoded in DNA. Maybe one day we will be able to tell that you find other men rather more attractive than you would like us to believe. Or are motivated entirely by selfishness, or that you're a deeply conservative person, or incapable of sincere love. But these surprises will be special cases, and as society starts to understand the biological basis of things we now regard as deeply personal, the social construction of identity will adapt to make these things seem less personal. Mostly, the personal things that make you "you" are not defined at birth.

As a precedent, it seems to me that over the last few centuries, the biologicalisation and medicalisation of disease has led to the de-stigmatisation of things that would previously been considered personal issues. (As a current example, consider the medicalisation of alcoholism.)

Sure DNA information can be abused. And Americans will no doubt defend their right to do so in the interests of economic advancement or national security. But that's a very different problem.

Dude. You "won't allow" your wife to make purchase decisions? Stick with "suggesting" instead.

Given that his heart needs to maintain the same blood flow, it will need to generate higher pressures to get the blood through the less elastic aorta. That will increase the strain on his heart (W = PV, V is constant, P is increased), though presumably it will return it towards normal from a low level, rather than increase it to a dangerously high level. I am not a doctor either (whimsical account name!)...

Sure. But if it were (properly) open source, the bug would have been patched long ago, and any user still inconvenienced by it would have themselves to blame (and could easily find instructions to fix it).

I have a 3G and it's time to upgrade. This --- very real example of the inconvenience created by closed source --- is the single biggest reason I have identified to switch away from iphone.

Rubbish. The road has been there for far longer than trucks have been using it. Cyclists have been there for far longer than trucks have, and will be too. If you make the road dangerous for cyclists then you are wilfully endangering a human life and should go to jail for that crime.

(Obviously I don't know your medical condition but...) it's wrong that people least able to work are those who most need to.

And out of curiosity, do you have kids? From your budget, I assume not.

There is nothing immoral about taking someone else's work and using it without compensation, unless you've agreed to compensate them before accepting the work. If some content creator has an inflated sense of their self-worth, or their work's worth, then there might be an argument about what constitutes due compensation. Claiming moral outrage just because someone thinks you're less important than you do is pretty juvenile.

So while these people may be breaking the law, accusing them of immoral behaviour really is a bit silly. What is immoral is when people are deprived of their wages or pensions after a corporation collapses.

And put in in a format that I can have confidence that I will be able to use in 20 years' time, and don't complain if I share it with my friends. (My actual friends that is, not my 25,000 closest friends on the internet.)

Very true. Corporate desktops are often frustratingly insanely slow, but this is usually not related to the basic power of the machine (i.e. due to doing stupid things on inadequate networks or similar). Unfortunately it is probably easier to believe the logic that "your computer is slow, so you need a faster computer" than "I need $100k for a new network infrastructure".