So, Apple combined the dual-function (eSATA) port concept with the idea behind a splitter for a 4-wire phone line - which splits two lines to my fax machine and two lines to my phone. More comedy from the patent world...

My state (PA) already actively enforces the use of seat belts - while at the same time allowing motorcyclists to ride without helmets. I wouldn't be surprised if our irrational representatives would be fully in favor of this absurd idea.

I think the bigger concern would be calling 911 when some road-rage-nut-job is following you or when the suspicious looking unmarked "police" car is behind you on a deserted road.

The first malware will turn on your webcam when such fapping is detected.

"Even the Copyright Office itself faces challenges in meeting the growing needs of its customers - the American public."

Comical.
Since when is the "American public" considered the customers being served by the Copyright Office. Methinks there is a much more narrow description of the customers served by the Copyright Office. But, hey, it reads a lot better when you the widest description possible.

The patent appears to covers more than methods. It appears to cover the isolated DNA itself.

Since NIH and University of Utah (a public university) were involved in the discovery of the gene, there should be no way to keep the gene a trade secret.

The first seven claims in the patent are for "an isolated DNA" - the DNA itself, not some method of manipulating DNA or any treatment related to DNA.
Patent claims: http://www.google.com/patents/US5747282?printsec=claims#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think the patent is the isolated (from its natural state) gene sequence. This article on the US court case, linked from the one you provided, has more details on the patent and the arguments for/against:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics

I can't help but wonder what our world would be like if our current patent system was in place when man discovered things like gravity, fire, magnetism and electricity. I'm sure there are some good arguments for getting a patent on any and all use of those phenomena.

Bought a Chromebook for a family member for a gift - without realizing that the only printing option was "cloud printing." I hate it. I have to replace my barely-used color laser printer or setup a PC in the house to effectively be the print "server." Even so, I really think it bites to send print jobs through the "cloud" when the printer is five feet away.

I use variations of the same passwords, so I have memorized many more passwords than phone numbers. Usually I can even remember some infrequently-used passwords - based on using variations. However, the phone numbers that I have memorized have not changed for years, for the most part. At our company, it's actually pretty rare for people to forget their frequently-used passwords. However, I have no idea how often people forget phone numbers, since it is trivial to just look them up.

If all passwords followed the same rules, without requiring frequent resets, it probably would be relatively easy for people to remember a few passwords. But, keep in mind that 3 of the 10 phone number digits (the area code) is relatively meaningless, in terms of the need to memorize it. So, for the most part, people are only remembering 7 numbers - not exactly a large number of possible values, compared to the possibilities for passwords.

None of your phone numbers are changed every 30/60/90 days, while some of your passwords are.

The article, itself, states: The decision to launch the dna appeal came after De Vries in May broadcast information about a Playboy cigarette lighter found in Vaatstra's bag which contains dna traces that match the traces found on the schoolgirl's body.

It was more than a lighter exchange. Matching DNA was found on both the lighter and on the girl's body. That led to the DNA-dragnet. Apparently, the suspect's DNA matched the samples from her body and the lighter.

It's unfortunate that the "they-pay-nothing" argument is made by so many, including a presidential candidate. This statement is false.

Even the bottom 20% pays an average of 17.4% of their income in taxes. It is absurd for anyone to say that some group "pays nothing." It is grossly absurd for a well-educated, former governor and many supposedly informed supporters, including a member of the House Budget Committee, to say "they don't pay anything."

Here is one summary of the overall tax burden as a % of income in 2011:
17.4% - Lowest 20% (Avg cash income: $13,000)
21.2% - Second 20% ($26,100)
25.2% - Third 20% ($42,000)
28.3% - Fourth 20% ($68,700)
29.5% - Next 10% ($105,000)
20.3% - Next 5% ($147,000)
30.4% - Next 4% ($254,000)
29.0% - Top 1% ($1,371,000)

Source (pdf): http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf

There are so many people who start from the premise that there is no problem. Why does it take anything more than common sense to determine that it is bad for the planet to burn, in a year, many billions of tons of coal and many billions of barrels of oil?

I'd bet that most climate evangelists would be more than happy if people would simply use common sense & agree that there is a problem - with the expectation that agreeing that there is a problem would allow the focus to shift to solving it.

Carbon tax, or whatever, isn't going to make your ice cream melt slower today. Unfortunately, too many people jump from that point to ignoring/denying the problem, then burn some more stuff to make the air around their ice cream colder. Then, their great, great grandchildren can burn even more stuff to keep their ice cream cold.

Yeah, everyone knows that God was smart enough to create the Earth with a feature to counteract the effect of a few billion people burning stuff all day long.