People may forget, but originally GMail was invitation only and the tech world was clamoring for invite codes. All kinds of message board threads where people would throw them out there and others would scramble to use it before someone else grabbed it.
This whole thing with Glass reminds me of that. Whip up a furor over Google Glass being "exclusive" but this time around charge $1500 for the privilege. I would be surprised if very many people were being turned down. By now it's feeling more like a marketing campaign.
Except for the environmental toxins that would release, I would agree with you.
What we really need is a local black hole to chuck unwanted devices into. Guaranteed information destruction baby!
I've been trying to tell people this for years (no, not in a serious crackpot physicist way, just a vague pet idea). Should've tried it with a voice synthesizer...
And, oh I don't know, maybe with the backing of an advanced system of mathematics proving the viability of your theory?
Oh that's nice. All a man has to do is sign away his rights/claims and he is no longer responsible. That would be convenient for all the deadbeats out there.
There is no contract without a meeting of the minds and mutual consent. The key here is that the man wanted to sign away all of his parental rights but also (and this is the key point) the lesbian couple wished to assume those rights. Such a contract is not a "get out of jail free" card for deadbeat dads. It would be similar to a mother and father signing away their parental rights in order for a child to be adopted. At that point the state no longer legally considers them parents of the child but the rights and responsibilities of parenthood and assumed by another couple. I think this decision is silly.
Well if you're trying to be 100% equal then you're going to have to subsidize surrogacy for men in same-sex partnerships who want to raise a child. Because having a woman carry your child to term is going to run into the 10's of thousand at least. Because otherwise the state is just trying to prevent same-sex couples from having kids, right? Or we could be rational about this and realize that it's really biology working against them and not some massive conspiracy to outlaw same-sex couples.
It's harder for same-sex couple because they absolutely require outside assistance to have kids. We don't complain about how expensive it is for otherwise infertile heterosexual couples to have kids with medical help because it's a choice the couple makes. Same deal here. Sucks for the guy in this case though. I'd have thought such a contract would be valid and enforceable.