I will agree with the fact that it could be an issue for small business. It depends upon implementation (which I have admittedly not look closely at in this matter). However, in my experience with the ADA (which is what I was thinking more in terms of), it causes less financial difficulty than you imply. It commonly breaks down to a matter of reasonable accommodations. Therefore, I would assume (maybe inappropriately) that if implemented reasonably, it should not be any more problematic than the original ADA.

On the basis of money being spent on accommodations for the disabled, we are talking about 1 in 5 Americans (seems to be the consensus on Google) or more than 40 million (from the article). That seems like a fairly large group, when considering the diversity of the United States. Your example with tennis is not particularly fair. The internet is not some tangential leisure activity. Many peoples' livelihoods depend upon the internet. If we followed the free market from accessibility, then many would be stuck in their homes, without means to do otherwise. If you are fine with condemning that many people to such a fine, that is fine, but I'm not.

Again, I encourage you to really consider the challenges of being disabled. I don't think you fully appreciate it. I don't think I fully appreciate it either, but I can say from my experience at least how hard it is. I'm just thankful there is some chance at normalcy from some.

Try having a disability. Then reconsider how well this strategy works. It doesn't. Having internet access is a significant part of most American's daily lives. Why should someone who is disabled (most likely not caused by a choice) be given less access? Should we also return to other types of discrimination?

I work on a project related to ITER. and we had a discussion about this yesterday. The funding will very likely show up. Some of the countries are just complaining about the amount they must contribute, but the funds will show up. ITER is a long way out, but it should at least get the funding to make it happen.

It is relevant if one is trying to make a case that this person should be prosecuted as a predator, which is what many of these comments have implied.

Yes, that is true as far as the legal system is concerned, but i would bet that to the school administrators, they were at the very least reminded of the previous incident. Humans connect things and their intentions probably came from a desire to prevent another overdose.

Other comments have implied that the person who searched the student was a predator or something similar. It was a female school nurse who was ordered by the principal to search the student in a locked room, away from any other student. Things went way overboard, and i don't believe that search should be conducted or allowed, but the people involved were acting with malicious intent.

Just to play the devils advocate, we did a simulation of this case in our government class. One point that that the summary and article leaves out was that another student had previously gone to the hospital for an overdose on ibuprofen. While i think the school administrators are in the wrong, they did not act completely without basis for a search. However, their search went way overboard.

If you going to blame anyone, blame John Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall). He created that interpretation in McCulloch v. Maryland, which created the broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause. In addition, Gibbons v. Ogden allowed for a broader interpretation of interstate commerce. Marshall worked to extend the powers of the federal government and these judgments extended those powers significantly.

In about:config, change noscript.firstRunRedirection to false. I don't know of a global way to do it though.