Not true. Thyroid, autoimmune issues (certain diseases like Crohn's), gut flora,... can absolutely have a significant impact on metabolism or one's ability to properly digest foods. The body often compensates by either burning/storing more or less depending on certain circumstances. Even environmental conditions contribute to the big picture. Its an oversimplification of the metabolic process to say everyone responds the same to the same diet.

Actually, the constitution doesn't touch on privacy rights, however, the Bill of Rights does reflect some of the spirit of the right to privacy in the sense of freedom of speech (1); privacy of the home (3); privacy from searches and seizure (4); abuse of government authority and due process (V) -- however there is no amendment that specifically states a right to privacy.

I'd agree though that the judicial branch's interpretation of the Bill of Rights is grossly out of whack. While they extend the privacy of the home (3) (specifically worded as 'No Soldier [can] be quartered in any house without consent') as extending to mean 'No agents of the State'; severely restricting law enforcement from entering the home in (nearly) any capacity. Meanwhile they interpret "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" as 'we can read your emails, personal conversations, and Netflix recommendations on demand, and if you're doing something we don't like, expect us to bust down the door.'

Moreover, the supreme court ruled in Olmstead v. United States (back in good ol' 1928) that a wiretap violated neither the 4th or 5th amendment; this set the precedent that has turned into the status quo for the government law enforcement branches... Bush then passed the Patriot Act to make us safe from the terrorists. Then the Library of Congress gets to decide that unlocking cell phones isn't allow[comment truncated due to anti-American propaganda]

We also don't have to get up early to shoe our horses anymore. Bummer.

This cuts to the core of my original ('poor attitude') comment. International royalty / licensing fees increased from US$2.8 billion in 1970 to US$27 billion in 1990, and to approximately US$180 billion in 2009 – outpacing growth in global GDP. When you have a nut that skips an order of magnitude every decade, based upon intellectual property alone, we're left with crazy disparate ownership of IP on the side of businesses.

IIRC, around 1980, only about 60% of US companies were IP based. Now its over 95%. Basically, the entire US economy now runs on IP. Its not individuals who are benefiting from this increase in business owned IP. Enforcing your patent, on a big business, is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. They would likely settle out of court, or bury you depending on how much your asking for, perhaps both. Yes, the law is on your side if you are victim of legitimate patent infringement, and in the 1980s, you might have had a shot at enforcing your patent, up to and including jury trial. But now, the court system itself is where enforcement of ownership now comes to die, instead of an reasonably affordable and speedy trial.

Its turned into a poker game, where big business holds all the chips, and individuals barely have enough for the blinds to even play.

Until you realize that the court fees will bankrupt you because you're being sued by McDonald's. I think this thread has totally lost the spirit of the article.
If you patented an invention that was remotely related to McDonald's, while on the clock or off the clock, while being employed by them or not; you LOSE in court. Period.

You're right, cause in real life all those Facebook programmers did cocaine.