People running their child to the doctor for no reason is going to happen with or without data. At the very least, there are some parents out there who can extrapolate from data and realize that nothing is wrong with their child when they otherwise might think there is. As with any technology its going to be misused by a few but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. If the data is useless scientifically, they won't make any money with it and the issue will solve itself. I am not a researcher though so i cannot make that judgment.

I actually think this could be a great thing. As long as insurance companies or other companies cannot link the data with who the baby is for profiling purposes, this could be a great way to keep parents informed about their child and also help us study possible causes for SIDS or other infant issues. Besides all the research benefits are the possible lives saved. I have had a couple friends who fell asleep with their baby and their baby suffocated on their chest. If the other parent is in the room and an alert goes off that their child has stopped breathing that could be a life saved.

Okay, now I am not a physicist, just a guy who reads their books. But if I understand the last Hawking book I read your argument about matter doesn't hold water. While you are correct, energy cannot be created by the laws contained within our universe, universes can in fact be spontaneously created. They don't follow our rules and with a lack of gravity to balance out the positive energy in our universe, they can spontaneously create themselves. Then, within those universes, their own particular set of physics laws(which may or may not be drastically different from our own) may allow for energy to be created or not. As for the complexity of our universe vs being intelligently designed, You say the possibility of us not being ID is astronomical but when there are an infinite number of universes, astronomical numbers aren't so big. 10^14812349872349873249238742938749293847347 is still a lot smaller than infinite. I'm not saying that even all of this isn't intelligently designed, but it is possible without a "god."

*disclaimer* I do not agree with people being raped in prison. Having said that, I believe a lot of people are okay with it and even encourage it because today's prisons are hardly a punishment to most career criminals. Many prisons are more crime college than punishment. Criminals go in ametuers and come out pros. Hell, nowadays after watching gangland, half of the guys on there claim that going to prison is what gets you cred on the street. We're not only teaching the criminals how to do what they do, we're giving out diplomas in the form of prison tattoos and rap sheets that they can use as resumes for their hometown gangs. I guess people who hope for rape and such are hoping that while being punished... something unpleasant or punishing happens. Even if it isn't the government doing it.

Even if they were going to cause problems for the person receiving them(and they shouldn't) most people who are on a transplant list are desperate. Willing to accept anything that will give them that next breath. The next day with their family. If the man chooses to end his life in a way that saves others, more power to him.

Just because people want the internet to be free and the government not to screw with my freedoms doesn't mean I want them to be terrible at doing the job they are SUPPOSED to be doing. You don't have to choose between a government that does everything or one that does nothing. That's the point. Let the good kids run free and send the bad ones to detention. Or in this case, federal prison.

Wouldn't it be easier to use a laser light and burn out the sensor in the camera itself? Then it really has to be replaced.

The fact that he said "But to each his own" shows he isn't fundamentalist.... In fact, he showed that while he has his own believes he accepts the beliefs of others. Almost the opposite of fundamentalism.

While I understand your desire, I disagree with it a little. Your profile being deleted, that makes sense. If you want it gone then it should, as you put it, be nuked. But the posts you make should remain on the site. Maybe with a "by poster deleted" or something of that effect, but not removed. Several times a day people link to past stories or comments on this site as references. If I were to read a conversation someone linked to and half the comments, or even one just really important one, were missing... it would throw off the entire citation. Slashdot postings provide a history at the very least of the viewpoint of the slashdot community. If a researcher really felt the need he could pull up past comments and do research on the trend in nerd rage or something equally bizarre. Detaching your name from the comments, Sure. Removing them from the community at large? No. You gave them to us willingly, we're not giving them back.

This is another perfect opportunity for a AGW debate though. Every time I see a post like this it's like Slashdot just set up a mock mortal kombat arena for the supporters and objectors to do battle in.Slinging facts, hyperbole, talking points and as you said "FUD", the battle gets us nowhere but it sure draws a crowd. I guess I'm just waiting for mother nature to scream FINISH HIM.

This wouldn't be the first time a large company bought a start up to prevent it from possibly ever becoming a competitor though. Better to spend peanuts now to buy the possibility then spend a fortune later to fight off a competitor you didn't see coming.

That's what she said?

The problem is that anytime you step outside of the laws, you put yourself in danger of litigation. You're right, this is ridiculous. But it's mostly our fault as a people. Had they tried to help him and he fell anyways or someone was hurt, saying Well it was his fault he was in the tree wouldn't remove yourself from jeopardy. Sadly.

First, This will initially raise insurance costs but only insofar as the insurance companies will be upset they cannot screw over people like they used to. Also, health care as a whole will benefit due to people not going to the emergency room without insurance and receiving treatment thereby passing the cost onto everyone else like they do now. Secondly, Unconstitutional? This is one thing the commerce clause actually SHOULD cover. The health of americans drastically effects commerce. If for for no other reason then healthy people are more productive. Thirdly, The government already forces people to buy things. Wanna buy a car? Guess what you have to buy, license, plates, and *gasp* Auto insurance. Fourth, You say it will harm the economy but with insurance companies being forced to spend 85% of the premiums they get on actual healthcare, the ridiculous amount of extra money we waste on healthcare will drop dramatically. At the very least with all that money not flowing into the healthcare system it will flow elsewhere. Say maybe the economy? If I don't have to spend that extra 300 dollars on my premiums, maybe I will go buy that thing I've been wanting. Look, more purchases, more jobs! More purchases, More taxes! Five, raise the debt? you wanna fix the debt problems, fight that bill. Fight the pork they put in other bills. For the first time, the government has placed regulations on something that makes sense. it's a buisness that makes it's money based on not servicing it's customers. The less they help, the more they profit. Such a business NEEDS regulation. and sixth, The legislation and the fines on people for not buying health insurance has been watered down so much to be almost non-existant. But guess what? We should have some sort of fine. because when a person doesn't have health insurance and they go get treatment anyways, everyone else gets fined instead. We have to pay higher health care costs because they choose to keep their money or spend it on other things. It's not my fault they decided not to have insurance. and now that the insurance companies cannot deny you based on preexisting conditions, no one has any excuses now for not having some form of insurnace other than blatent poverty. And in that case they are setting up programs to help those people too. Thats the thing that never ceases to amaze me about the people who get their talking points from Fox news. They scream bloody murder if you tell them anything that Glenn Beck has told them is social-commie-marxist-facism-anti-americanism.

Blizz will never *ever* open source their game or let players develop areas because of one main fact. Blizzard is extremely focused on their storyline. Say what you want about their servers, the graphics, or how terrible you think their pvp is. The company can tell a story. Yes, they kill off a bad guy every expansion and are probably running out of baddies to off.. but they stick to their lore. If you're curious about why anything happens in almost any part of the game you can pull out a book and look it up. If any Tom, Dick, or Harry could code an area, throw it up, and let people run wild over it, they will lose complete control over the lore aspect. If the dev's would shitcan anything that isn't 100% in keeping with the lore, they would probably deny 99.9% of areas. We'd hear more bitching about denials on /. then we do about apple's appstore. What's the point? They already have in house people who they can hand a book to and say, Read this, write an instance around the place between pages 55-70. As much as I hate how Blizz does things sometimes, they have reasons.