Steve, is that you?

Well, sure. But your opinion of global warming is going to influence how you go about solving those problems. Oil has a limited supply, but there is still quite a bit of it. Instead of phasing it out before it runs out, we might like to invest in politically stabilizing the oil pumping regions (I don't know, but there are arguments that this is what the Iraq war was supposed to do). Similarly, instead of phasing out coal we might like to make mining safer, and invest in "clean coal" which aims at much of the pollutants in burning coal, but not the GHGs.

Also, your opinion of global warming is going to influence whether you think global approaches to these problems are worthwhile. Mining coal is dangerous, but Americans probably don't care all that much how many people in China die in coal mines. Burning coal is dirty, but the brunt of the particulate emissions are in the immediate area of the coal fired power plant, again Americans don't care how much of this happens in China. On the other hand, if you think global warming is a problem then you'd like to figure out a way to get China to stop using coal.

While I respect your skepticism of the scientific press, I think this reasoning suffers from two flaws. First

Relying on the press to get your scientific information is going to be incomplete. The press reports particularly sensationalistic doom & gloom stuff, whereas most science goes out of its way to take a neutral tone. It is too much to ask a non-scientist to pay attention to the leading journals (I'm thinking of Science and Nature here), but we are also at a point in our history where science needs to inform our politics. This is obviously troublesome for democracy, and why I sympathize with your skepticism of science.

Second,

This reasoning is suspect because, aside from global warming effects, green house gas emissions aren't very harmful. It is relatively easy to see the pollutant effects of particulate emissions: they make things dirty and also hard to breathe. GHG emissions, on the other hand, are fairly clean and only have a mediated effect on human health (through climate change). Your strategy would have us fix only the easy to see problems even if there are more important environmental matters that require advanced scientific techniques to understand.

The interaction between EULAs and the first sale doctrine is really interesting. Essentially it comes down to this: if you license a copy of a copyrighted work then first sale doesn't apply and the copyright owner can limit the possessor of the licensed copy from transferring it to somebody else. If you sell a copy of a copyrighted work then the first sale doctrine does apply and the copyright owner can't limit the new owner's ability to transfer it to somebody else. The idea here is similar to renting or leasing. Obviously if you're just renting your copy from the software maker then you can't sell it.

What makes a license a license and a sale a sale is still up in the air. Some courts say that if you get to keep the copy forever (there is no provision saying you have to give the copy back) then it is a sale. There are some courts that say if there are enough limitations on transferability then that itself makes it a license, because those limitations themselves show an intent to create a license not a sale.

I am not a lawyer, but a law student (although I'd like to be a lawyer some day, in this economy that future is in doubt).

After playing World of Goo for pc and wii, I have much more respect for the wiimote pointing function. In case you haven't heard of it, the game involves placing little balls using drag and drop mechanics to build structures. In some cases you have to be very fast and very precise and the wiimote handled it beautifully. It was at least as good as a mouse, and I think some extra polish on the wii controls actually made the game better on that platform.