This (second half) is as close as I have found: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money Permission granted to be amused by the 3rd listed "organization".

"This is a great remainder [sic] for all users not use the same password for two different services."

Not it's not. Not even slightly.

The amount of mental effort required by users to memorise a different password for every internet site is at best unreasonable, if not a completely insane idea. While using the same password for Hotmail and internet banking is really not a good idea, using the same password for wordpress.com and wordpress.org is just common sense for people who don't have a photographic memory.

Blaming the user here is unreasonable.

Here's a paper on the same subject from 18 years ago, and that was just the first result I found on google scholar!

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=256563

Obviously, there have been advances since then but this certainly isn't a new idea by any stretch of the imagination.

âoeThis suggests that the big tech brands have harnessed, or exploit, the brain areas that have evolved to process religionâ Interesting. Is there a good theory or evidence as to why processing religion is/was a selection pressure?

It's worth noting though that to top-up your Flattr account you need to use PayPal or Moneybookers (a UK similar service which also bowed to government pressure). So while this does make it possible, the sad fact is that your donation will not go as far. Flattr takes ~10% and I imagine PayPal or Moneybookers do similarly.

If you were hoping to take your custom away from these services and give others your money, this isn't the way to do it :(

"Perfect Citizen": Because the phrase "Big Brother" wasn't quite creepy enough.

That's the case I just settled. My client's didn't trust banks (go figure) and kept their cash in a safe. They got most of their cash from a legal action but they couldn't account for all of it because their job was tip based and they couldn't prove their expenses. Long story short, they went to make a large purchase, people got suspicious, and 90% of American currency has cocaine residue (either from being used to snort or simply going through money counters at a bank). Under a few states' laws and the former federal law, known as civil forfeiture, you are guilty until proven innocent. See e.g. USA v. $124,700. Only property connected with drugs is forfeited, but the raw deal is that innocent people must prove their innocence and guilty people must prove the proportion of their guilt to get the property back. Double Jeopardy does not apply and so the guilty person that proved his guilt to get his property back has proved the states' later criminal case.

My clients settled for less than their entire amount (like everyone does) because of the uncertainties of trial - they couldn't prove how much money they spent from their legal award and they couldn't completely prove how much they made in their jobs. Further, my clients were minorities and the case was venued in a minority unfriendly county.

Interestingly, Lomborg recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times where he spouts many views about what we need to do to fix the CO2 problem, seemingly forgetting entirely that he used to claim that it wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. Seems even Lomborg is skeptical of his own former skeptical self these days.

If you insist on the definitions and choices used in the report then no, I'm afraid this is not really a very exciting statistic at all.

From page 5:
"Security risks" ranked by importance, by IT Managers:

Cyber Attacks - 42%
Traditional Criminal Activity - 17%
Brand related events - 17%
Natural Distasters - 14%
Terrorism - 10%

So IT Managers are mostly concerned with threats to computers? Colour me surprised.