I found it hard to complete every issue every week until I discovered the aforementioned audio edition. Now my drive to work is much more bearable (bordering on a pleasure!). If you have a short (or no) commute, YMMV of course. :)

Yes, I agree completely. The summary spoke exclusively of cell phones (although the title didn't say so), even the land line phone system will crash under the load during an emergency situation or other unexpected event.

I once tried to call my father (who was at his work) from our home (land line to land line) immediately after a moderate earthquake. The call would not go through because all the lines were taken up. We managed to complete the call and speak to each other after waiting about 15 minutes. Capacity problems are not inherent to the cell network.

I read The Economist (every week) and I am constantly amazed by its quality and informativeness. Although, I must mention, I technically don't read most of it since I consume the Audio Edition during my commute to work. The articles I don't get to during the week (because my commute is slightly shorter than the average audio edition length) I typically try to catch up on with the dead-tree edition that is delivered. If the USPS ever ends Saturday delivery that's one thing I'll miss: getting my delivery of the economist before Monday.

The subscription price is a little steep (about US$120), I feel like I could not go without it.

All patient records should be open and available to the patient. Those records will have the caveat that they can never be used against the doctor or hospital which produced them. If the credit ratings agencies can claim that their piss poor evaluations of mortgage-backed securities were protected speech then the same can certainty apply to medical records. Establishing this in law is simple and straightforward.

I couldn't agree less what what you say. Doctors only have their interest in mind and when I talk to doctors I listen as a skeptic, usually verifying what they say with a lengthy search on the internet (on websites like webmd, mayo clinit, nih/cdc etc) to check for consistency.

ALL your medical records should be open to you, and even better, HANDED to you as you exit the clinic/hospital. HOWEVER, the content of those records should not be used, in any way, against the doctor. It should be protected speech. This would have two effects: 1) the doctors would be more honest with patients 2) Statements like

would disappear in the explicit sense but still be hinted at to those who can read between the lines.

You might be surprised to find out how many people fail in one, if not multiple of the points you mentioned. Take, for example, me:

IPv6 Capable operating systems: Not really. I run Mac OS X 10.6, which, wile "IPv6 capable" does not have support for a critical IPv6 component DHCPv6.
IPv6 Capable router: Not really. My router does not support IPv6 without some serious hacks. Plus it doesn't support DHCP-PD at all.
IPv6 Capable cable modem: Yes, but only because I just (two months ago) bought a new modem.
IPv6 Capable internet service: Yes, and it's been available from my ISP for a long time.

The major problem with the majority of devices is not the "first level" IPv6 support (e.g. ability to get an IPv6 address via SLAAC) but second level and beyond (DHCPv6, etc). IPv6 is a protocol which is still very young and not "fully" supported by most software/hardware, mostly because it is still changing. It will be a long while before IPv6 has the maturity of IPv4. I just laugh when I read marketing drivel with statements like "IPv6 supported!" because until they provide more details, I just assume that it means it can self-assign a link local address and that's all.

Yes, and there are examples that the Classroom + Khan is an effective model. The Economist has an article describing how the Los Altos school district is using Khan's videos to provide the "dry lecture" which is assigned for homework while classroom time is used for supervised problem solving with the teacher roving about helping any struggling students. That model makes complete sense to me especially since we keep hearing stories about how parent's can't do their kids homework (I've been called in to help my little cousin with her math homework at times when her parents were thoroughly confused).

Try this:

4 USC 1

Reminds me of the Ali G bit where he asks whether they are prepared that someone might crash a train into the White House

Les Guignols de l'Info (a french mock news show, somewhat like Daily Show but with puppets) had a mock interview with the Priminister of India. The conversation went like this:
Presenter: Why did you choose the Rafale for your air force?
Prime Minister: Because we are a non-violent country.
P: I don't understand...
PM: The French are the only country to produce a non-violent fighter jet...

Time index, 2:04

Since when does not being elected mean they are not accountable? The wonder of political pressure is, if an appointed bureaucrat screws up then the person who appointed them (the President in the case of the Dept. of Education) either sacks the appointee or looses votes.

Actually, the real power comes in funded mandates. Which are you most likely to react to: a rule which you get no money to implement or a rule you must implement or they take away $5M from your school? The true problems occur when you're forced to do something or you loose huge piles of cash.

Well, not exactly. There are three aspects to the government printing money, a loss to the holders of currency, a gain by the government, and dead-weight loss. If inflation was a direct transfer from money holders to the government then there would be no need to ever raise taxes, but since there is dead-weight loss too (and the dead-weight loss from inflation can be very unpredictable) it is far more efficient (read: popular) to have a codified system of taxes rather than the government simply printing money when needed. Hyperinflation is as bad for governments as it is for the population and thus happens infrequently.

Yes, I understand and agree with what you say. I think standards bodies are important, but the problem lies in when you are legally required to go with the guild member, even though a non-guild member would do just as good work, but would cost vastly less. Essentially, when you go to a lawyer for a will or something similar, you're getting a paralegal to do the work but paying a lawyer-level price. You have more guarantees (i.e. the member of the bar stands behind the work of the paralegal) but you also have extra costs. It's the laws that are the problem not (existence of) the guild.