Andrewwhyte

Nice article on the subject written by a professor of comparative literature and gender studies. How could anyone possibly argue against someone with such high credentials and experience in the field? So you have nothing at all to say about the content of the article? All citizens are qualified to criticize their government, english professors just tend to do it with better grammar.

The fact that it failed during the fourth quarter indicates a catastrophic failure rather than mis-rigging.

Ya, not going to be sad to see the back of Lesnar. Never quite got the whole mutual respect between warriors thing.

Irony score=11

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is just not your thing.

I'm thinking you would have a real moneymaker there.

WTF? You feel that 90 years of strife was 'working well?' I take it you don't live in the north.

Because that worked out so well at your place?

You know how much trouble Sony has had keeping their playstation network up this year? They are in a bad position to go nuclear - Anonymous would kick their ass back to the Sega Genesis era. Perhaps, but I don't think we really want retaliation by Anonymous to be a functioning part of the justice system.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2291507521561

The real issue here is that it is a change from established law that effectively says that copyright, like patents, is a property and therefore civil issue. It is up to the owner of the property to enforce ownership in the courts. This law takes it out of the courts and the US government becomes an administrative tool for enforcement of what is essentially a private dispute. The fact is facebook and youtube have been forced to comply with copyright protection without this law is evidence that such measures are not needed.

Yup, blame the staff first, then the system. Leadership you can count on. Didn't most of his key staff quit a little while back.

The "We're way crazier than you" club.

So no chance of physically making it unnavigable a la Suez crisis.

Anyone know how deep the straight is?

Notwithstanding my views on capital punishment, it would depend upon the true position of the Irish government. Were they really in support of the allies but not saying so for public relations reasons, or were they truly in a cold peace with UK similar to what exists between, for example, Georgia and Russia. I really don't know the nuances of the relationship between Ireland and UK in those days. I remember well the schizophrenic relationship they had in the '70s when, despite the tensions of the 'troubles,' UK was Ireland's largest trading partner. It could be that Ireland was not unhappy with the help Britain received, but punished the men for pandering purposes only. Alternatively a victorious Germany could have taken a very dim view of Irish servicemen fighting against them, to the severe detriment of all Ireland. One thing I am certain of though is that summery punishment rarely serves the just. If these men broke Irish law (and they almost certainly did) then they should have been prosecuted under Irish law, or left unmolested. This is a principle of civilized societies that is being abandoned by our governments today, much to our (and our children's) peril.

Has the SCOTUS ruled yet on whether a hyperlink is legally a publication? Here is a story about the Supreme court of Canada ruling on the issue. The case involves liable in a defamation case, but the comments in the ruling will, I would expect, cover copyright law as well. The rulings of the SCOC have no bearing on how the SCOTUS will rule, but the two courts rarely vary far on fundamental points of law, particularly on the parts that come from our common heritage.

Of course you are right. That's my point. Anyone can shut down any 'open site.' News, pressure groups, political candidates, all gone from the web. The end result will be that the web will become television, it will be one way communication.

I think that according to the law they should have been shot. You may have a point that desertion during peacetimes is often a less onerous crime. The question of threatening the country's neutral position may also be pertinent (even more so for John's example of US Airmen attacking Japan with permission from the CiC). edited to add: Not that I think the American example places culpability on the Airmen, but rather on the Nation.

So; 1. Go to foxnews.com 2. in the comments section link to a song your partner owns. 3. Your partner demands foxnews.com be delisted.

Protecting the rights of teachers to discuss religion openly and objectively in the classroom might prove to be a double edged sword. Any witchcraft practicing teachers out there?

Weapons that are designated as such by the government.

Like the Flying Tigers that went off to fight against the Japanese invasion of China? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers Not quite From the Wiki: The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force in 1941–1942, famously nicknamed the Flying Tigers, was composed of pilots from the United States Army (USAAF), Navy (USN), and Marine Corps (USMC), recruited under presidential sanction and commanded by Claire Lee Chennault. The ground crew and headquarters staff were likewise mostly recruited from the U.S. military, along with some civilians. They did not desert.

Probably looked a lot like the devil and the deep blue sea to many. At least the facists were Catholic. I'm sure many Irish felt (not without grounds) that they would be able to appeal to Rome for terms.

Interesting. It was a tough issue to be sure. Frankly I don't know why they weren't shot for desertion. People might think that is harsh but desertion is desertion; these were active duty soldiers. Can you imagine if an active duty US soldier left his post to take sides in a war the US was declared neutral in?