Sportsbook also comes to mind.

these things need to be told to your doctor, not a facebook page. your doctor will then report this to the company...

Typically, a doctor's primary communication with any drug company is through a sales representative, and that sales rep earns a living by making information flow FROM the drug company TO the prescriber.

While I will totally agree that disusing issues with your provider is important, the belief that the information will magically make its way back to the manufacturer is nonsense.

Oh, just twist that Idea around a little bit. I have no problem with a firm patenting a gene, as long as that also means they are 100% responsible for it if it causes harm when it gets loose in the wild.

"The bad news is you have cancer. The good news, is that some fool patented the gene responsible. These lawyers over here will make sure you are compensated and get the best treatment possible at that fool's expense. That gene was after all his invention."

Seems fair to me.

Tortious interference doesn't involve truth, just interference with intent to disrupt a business relationship without privilege in that relationship. When Hoff went directly to the employer, the University of Minnesota, the line was crossed, and it stopped being journalism and turned into tortious interference. I'm not attempting to justify this as right, morally or otherwise, but it does follow the logic of the law.

If I were to be looking for a real villain, I'd pick Don Allen, who involved Hoff's blog in his personal shot at Moore, the mortgage fraudster, via the U of M, then as co-defendant, settled with Moore and turned witness against Hoff. There is no integrity to be found in those actions. It appears both Allen and Moore both deserve to burn in their own hells. But, good luck Johnny Northside; you're going to need it.

Their commercials implore me to "Imagine Greater." Therein lies the problem; I do.

Hmmm, "...prompted before it attempts to use a service, .. allow or deny access."

I can just imagine just how useful that would be for the programs that protect you from private data exposure and unauthorized phone charges in the event of phone theft.

"May I please read this incoming SMS to see if it contains authentication from the legitimate owner?"

"May I please brick the phone now that the legitimate owner's request has been verified?"

You grant permissions up front. It isn't wrong, it is different.

The last time I used Win 3.1 it was using SoftPC on an iBook running Mac OS9.

Seriously.

I was trying to run an old install kit to grab a specific font. It wouldn't run on anything newer than Win 3.1. The SoftPC CD was there, the iBook was there, and it all worked. There was linux box in the mix to get the floppy contents to the Mac.

Sure, I could have just used a different font, but where would be the challenge in that?