Well played, sir! Well played.

What? Lets run some numbers, instead of pulling them out of our ass:

Surface Area of Land on Earth: 149,000,000 km2 (source)
Earth Population: ~7 billion (source)

Dividing the two, I get about .02 km2 per person. That's not a lot of room, on average. Can we pack more people on the planet? Obviously so, but claiming that the earth is 99% uninhabited seems extreme. Don't forget, we also need land for things like plants and insects and other animals. You know, an ecosystem.

So, your anecdote is that you've never had your life save by antibiotics. So what? Are you suggesting that the scientists are saying that 100% of the population will die without antibiotics? No, they are saying that many more people will die without them than with them. This seems self-evident to me, but apparently people like you are more difficult to convince. You do seem easily convinced by anecdotes, however, so, I'll see your anecdote with a couple of my own.

When he was about 5, my son was running on the deck and tripped. As he slid along the desk, a very then (willow) tree branch got shoved up into his leg about 4 inches or so. I pulled out as much as a could, but a good inch or so of tree branch broke off and got left behind. Our choices were to treat the infection and let his body gradually dispose of the foreign substance or cut his leg open and remove the branch. Either way, without antibiotics he would have been quite unlikely to survive.

As a child my mother got strep throat. Her family could not easily afford a doctor and so that waited to see if she would just get better. Instead, it developed into scarlet fever. She had to spend a year of her childhood confined inside and on heavy antibiotics or she would have died.

I myself have had numerous infections: strep throat (many times, mostly as a child), bronchitis, etc. At least one of these would have been fatal without antibiotics.

So, by these anecdotes, three of every four people will die without antibiotics, right? Wrong. Anecdotes aren't statistics, so stop trying to marginalize real issues with "well it's never happened to me" bullshit, OK? We are all very impressed that you've lived 50 years and never needed antibiotics except for preventative purposes, but you are not the norm.

Yep, it sure is! It works in all similar situations too.

Don't regulate spam. If people don't want spam, they can just turn off their internet.

Don't regulate traffic speed. If people don't want car wrecks, they can just turn not drive anywhere.

Don't regulate yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. If people don't want to be stampeded to death, they can just not go out in public.

See, this works for everything doesn't it.

Actually, I had a college professor who pounded this quote into my brain: "Technology is neither good nor evil, nor is it neutral." The point being that it's not the technology itself that is good or evil, it's how the technology is used. In the case of DRM, the preponderance of usage has been for evil, so I am generally opposed to it. This technology looks to be headed the same way.

What? I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying that if I check a "DNT checkbox" it indicates that I prefer not to be tracked. However, you also seem to imply that if I choose not to uncheck the "DNT checkbox" it does not indict my preference. Isn't it my preference either way? I either check it or decide not to uncheck it, they are equivalent actions.

What I think you are complaining about is that user's are lazy and many will not change the default. Therefore, many more users of IE 10 will have DNT enabled than users of other browsers. I believe this will be true. However, the excuse that this means it's not the user's preference is just that: an excuse. The truth is that advertisers were looking for any reason to ignore this flag, and Microsoft has given then an opportunity. That doesn't mean that Microsoft is removing my ability to express the preference that I want to be tracked, however, regardless of how the advertisers are spinning it.

And lots of people believe it doesn't exist, just like lots believe God don't exist. Skepticism in Science ...

What was your point again?

This makes a lot of sense, until you have kids (over 4 years old).

<rant>
That's when you realize that this system is pretty stupid as well. This movie is rated R, so I won't let my 10 year old watch it. That game is (what is the ESRB rating?) <something>-13, so my kids won't play it until they are 13, right? Oh, but you said "suggestion" because obviously the rating doesn't take into account my concerns or my child. Only, with the rating as they are right now I've got nothing else. These rating are worthless! My 10 year old can totally handle violence (although she doesn't generally like it) except violence against kids, or death. She is old enough to know that sexual innuendos exist, and they are gross to her even if she doesn't understand them. She knows that adults have sex, but doesn't like to see them kissing on the screen. What does a "R" or "PG-13" or any simple rating tell me that's worthwhile to me? Nothing, because my kid is not simple.

The people who have this right are Netflix. They have a "Iffy for 12+" and I can click it to see why! And usually, I decide it's OK for my 10 year old. Or "OK for 10" and I find that it's not OK for my ten year old. It's great. For those who don't want to parent, they give a clear simplification. For those who do want to parent, they give details so we can make up our own damn mind.
</rant>

Wow, I didn't realize I was so frustrated by the rating systems. Back on topic, that's what we need for games. My 7 year old can play violent games (Halo 2, for example) without problem. He has a friend that is a great kid, but after playing violent games he acts out. He hits his sister, or yells at his parents. They found that eliminating violent games reduced these behavior problems. So, tell me about the game, don't tell me that only 13 year old kids can play it, because some of them will get amped up by the violence. I hope studies like this lead to more "information" and less "judgment" in the ratings of games/movies (and we need ratings, 'cause I don't have time to play/watch everything!).

I'm pretty sure cursive and ascii suffer only the same difficulties in non-english speaking countries.

I disagree with the assumption that it's "just as easy". In some languages, it's definitely easier to write bad code. PHP is such an example. C/C++ is another one. In PHP it comes with the retardedness of the language. In C/C++ it comes with the freedom.

A good example for a language that has certain things in place to prevent bad coding, is Haskell. Type problems in running code are (except for the external input reader) simply impossible.

You've got to be kidding. Your math is pretty bad here.

First, you say most pirates cost the distribution companies a couple hundred dollars a year (let's pick $200). I'll even ignore the "worst" offenders.

Then you say that all the pirates put together cost the media companies maybe a hundred thousand dollars. Here's the problem. My math says:

~350 million Americans. About 200 million adults. Let's say half are online, so 100 million online users. Let's significantly underestimate the percentage of pirates at 1%. So that's 1 million pirates. At $200 a year, that's $200,000,000 a year.

So, who is the bigger criminal you ask? The pirates that all told cost the media companies at least 200 million dollars, or the media companies that cost everyone hundreds of thousands of dollars?

See, use math and these arguments are much less "obvious" than you make out.

P.S. I am NOT a fan of the RIAA, and would like to see them lose these court cases, but making them out to be bigger crooks than those who steal from the companies they represent is not reasonable. I will agree that the RIAA is organized crime, however, and therefore should be subject to racketeering laws.