The only people who *need* privacy are those who are a) doing something illegal or unethical and want to keep others from finding out or b) doing something competitive and want to keep their progress from their competition.

You are stating a common fallacy, and you are dead wrong. You make the false assertion that anyone who doesn't wish to share everything about himself has committed some heinous misdeed. I choose what personal information I care to reveal about my self or my doings -- and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is illegal or unethical.

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect." -- Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, 1928

Of your proposed solutions, only half of #2 (insulation/thermal mass), and part of #3 (commuter electric vehicles) have any hope of making a real contribution. All the others have no chance of practical application on any measurable scale.

Remarkably insightful and well said. I marvel at how few people stop to consider that in fact, we are only a part of nature, and are just as likely to change our environment as any of the species who came before us. Maybe that's as it should be.

I enjoy the many science shows on cable that track the monumental changes that have been documented in the Earth's environment, over and over again. Recurring ice ages, tropical rain forests, migrating continents, reversing magnetic fields, myriad species evolution and extinction, mountains uplifted, oceans drained or dried up, volcanoes and meteors, oh my! And yet, after all these massive changes, here we are. We are the product of these same changes.

It is typical of newcomers to think that the neighborhood has to stay exactly as it was when they arrived even though they themselves changed it by moving in. Mankind is a relative newcomer to the 'hood, and we have certainly changed it by moving in. Many seem to think that the neighborhood must now cease changing, and that we have to preserve it exactly as we found it. I like it the way I found it too, but I recognize that it will change, in part due to the actions of man, but much more due to the inexorable forces of nature.

The biggest single thing we as a sentient species could to to improve the place is to quit reproducing so vigorously. Since that won't happen, we might as well enjoy the ride!

For me, 3.0.11 defaults to the last printer I used, which could be my default printer, but often isn't. I find this convenient and I like it.

Wouldn't it be nice if people (such as the summary writer) understood that "may" inherently includes the uncertainty as to whether it actually "does", or perhaps "does not"? Then they wouldn't feel compelled to append the completely redundant "or may not" every time.

Are they paying the TSA for exclusive use of equipment and personnel?

The TSA is screening the same number of people per hour. There's no additional cost.

When the "first class" lane is empty, they'll take plebes from cattle class.

I've run across some very bright kids who were surprisingly modest, to the point being self-deprecating. These kids know they're very bright, but they need to respond to the never ending stream of (invariably less bright) adults who are constantly telling them "Oh, you're so intelligent!"

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want without the government penalizing you. It does not mean that you have "rights" to insert your speech into private forums, nor does it mean that non-governmental organizations must tolerate your rants.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But the goal is NOT to move 3 tons of steel and plastic, it is to move one or more persons totaling a few hundred pounds. The 3 tons is only packaging and entertainment. It seems to me that more than 90% of non-commercial vehicles I pass on the road have only a single driver on board, and 5% or fewer have any significant "load" -- cargo, trailer, or soccer team. 2500 pound cars are perfect for 1 or 2 persons, and acceptable for 4. Such a package typically burns less than half the fuel compared to a massive SUV.

The problem is that you only see the benefits. Others point out the prospect for insecure systems and operators being breached, and your information getting loose -- that's a concern. But I worry much more about the the absolutely certain demand that will come from the insurance companies to get wholesale access to all patient data from any physician who 'participates' with the insurer. The financial incentives will make it impossible for doctors to refuse. The result will be major increases in insurance companies' ability to identify and correlate all sorts of pre-existing conditions, and selectively deny coverage on a scale that has never been seen before. Be careful what you wish for....

While the focus will be on preventing data from being accessed when the PC is stolen, this will come with the rather severe side effect that a significant number of users will irreversibly lock themselves out of all their data by losing/forgetting their pass phrase. Too bad you can't reduce the first problem without increasing the second.

Amen on the Billy Mays. I always change the channel as quick as I can the moment I hear that jerk.

You're unlikely to ever know what your references or prior supervisors say about you, either good or bad. If you get rejected, they won't say it's because a certain person gave you a bad reference -- you'll just get a non-specific "so sorry, but thanks for your interest". You'll have a difficult time establishing any libel or cause for legal action.

But since OP already has his next job, establishing a solid record of performance at the new job will be much more important than worrying about what his current PHB may say, because those references will be top of stack the next time he is in the job market.

For government (not companies), you have a point. However, it still only really extends to data that's shared with the citizens, not systems that are only used within government offices. But remember, the government is accountable to the citizens, and theoretically "of the people", so you certainly have a right to lobby for your government to make an OSS-only rule, that all of its systems must run OSS. Unfortunately, you're only one citizen, and if other citizens disagree, their voices have equal weight.