Imagine a FOSS project that does this in reverse. Regular citizens point their webcams out the window at smart-phones out the windshield. Some fancy P2P shenanigans and there is a huge public database that shows the locations of everyone. Now we all see where our police and pols are at all times too. How many hours before our masters are knocking at our front doors to shut down this egregious violation of their essential rights to privacy?

I blew it by not being here earlier. The US system of at fault driver liability isn't the only model out there. Some countries have a 50/50 rule. Then there's the NZ system that has the insurance being a government function, you have an accident and your reimbursement schedule is a national standard (pittance compared to the payouts here in the US). A new model could evolve to deal with this new development. (I realize I'm way too late to this thread.)

I think it's adapted from a really big Jello mold: http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_215:_Power_Erupts

This is the kind of threat that security is supposed to protect us from!

I don't see buying a keyboard as a hack. I could see nice keyboard/mouse sets being sold specifically as a docking station for a an Android tablet. Really, a tablet is going to be more like the monitor/TV that you carry with you to more and more people.

But will it get me into the carpool lane?

Article I, Section 8, clause 7: "to establish post offices and post roads" It is specifically listed as a power that the congress is allowed to exercise. However is says nothing about it being mandated to. Nor who runs and provides services in those offices or on those roads.

Governments don't have rights, they have powers. This whole debate is fraught with fallacy of false analogy. Under this analogy, it's more like when that college kid "hacked" Palin's email and posted it ot 4chan. The kid got busted, but nobody prosecuted Moot for maintaining the forum.

I am nephew of most glorious king of Nigeria. We have on good authority that by electronic means you having received illegal copy of wedding video featuring your music stars performance of Britney Spears. Wire $1,000US to account now to avoid embarrassing expensive litigation.

I worked at a small community bank for a number of years. The software we used actually did track the decimal out a few places beyond what you see (used mostly for interest calculations). However, the larger infrastructure isn't built (yet) to handle those sub-cent values between banks. Also, smaller institutions have a tendency to have a lot of those transactions printed on paper and stored as per federal regulations (paperless is always almost here!) so there is an actual cost to tracking those little tiny transactions, not to mention that small unnoticeable transactions are the floater transactions that fraudsters use to test the viability of raiding an account. When it comes to cash, it's time to move the opposite direction, nothing less than deci-dollars is worth striking up in coin, drop pennies, nickels and quarters.

I just can't consider copyright a part of free trade or capitalism. It's a special privilege given by the state to reverse the freedom of speech and press of others. A legal power to silence others is incompatible with the "free" in free trade.

The roll-out was just terrible (like, in a different way, to Buzz). They should have just added a sweet little "wave live!" button to g-chat and gmail one night. Those wanting to turn it on could have just pressed the button and been like "whoa, this is neat." But instead, Google got way too caught up in their own hype machine and the endless feature implementations.

Given that their citizens can deduct their state income tax from federal, why do states even have the sales tax? It would seem that they could get some of their citizens federal money back by shifting away from sales tax and into income.

And what effect this sort of technological uptake have on health cost containment?

Depends on the /.-er for the most part. But the more radical anti-copyright stances are still very reasonable sounding. Something along the lines of, creating art doesn't imbue you with a supreme power of censorship. Also, the point of copyright isn't to make an artist's money (that's the mechanism, not the purpose) but to make sure that there is a wide variety of art for the public to enjoy. Once law starts handing out monopoly rights basic economics says that supply will be restricted to enhance profits. For copyright to even make sense on its own grounds, it is necessary to prove that the monopoly power fueled restriction in product does not exceed the art spurring promise of a specific business model for art monetization. With the recent crackdown on re-mixing culture and the like, it seems quite possible that more art is actually prevented from reaching people than is encouraged into existence.