Actually, there are hundreds of flags that are flown up there and on the roof of the US Congress. You wouldn't believe the amount of business that is done selling flags that have been flown up there. Even I got one as a present.

Look, it can be summed up pretty succinctly: the premise behind US laws is that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, then it is allowed. Thus the laws like this one, which expand protections provided elsewhere into the online world.

Oh, so there isn't an offline protection against impersonation? But of course there is. Most states make it a crime to, say, call someone's current employer and pretend to be that person's former boss. It's not mere impersonators that is forbidden, but impostors. A small difference, but an important one. It's the difference between actors impersonating a real person in a play or movie, and an actor impersonating a real person outside of that setting, not providing clues that it is just an impersonation.

Or another example: if your name is Dan Brown, as long as you don't try to convince people that you're the famous author of The Da Vinci Code (assuming you aren't him, of course), then it isn't impersonation. As long as you don't try to convince people you're one of the other JW Smythes out there, you aren't an impersonator. Just a homonym.

Oh, and as to why some things are forbidden (like texting while driving) and others aren't (doing X while driving), it goes back to the old adage of "what isn't explicitly forbidden". Until enough incidents occur where, say, leg shaving played a role in an accident, it won't be explicitly forbidden. It will be assumed enough people know better to actually make it illegal.

I read the article and the statute quote contained in it, and the summary does mislead: Fake Steve Jobs would have been safe even under this law because he is not impersonating Steve Jobs. Calling himself "Fake" up front puts enough distance so that you don't get fooled into thinking he's the real Steve Jobs.

A greyer area might be the parody article claiming Justin Bieber was in favor of the "Ground Zero Mosque" (which isn't really anywhere near the former WTC site, but that's drifting off topic). Even though it was clearly a intended as satire, just enough people thought it was real to call for boycotts (though to be honest, the people calling for boycotts weren't the sort to buy Justin Bieber merchandise in the first place). But I think even that is safe because it didn't actually make any imitations of Justin Bieber; it only lampooned the current level of reporting.

It's a fine line, and I am not disagreeing with the anonymous parent. Only clarifying a little more what the law really tries to solve: how easy it is to imitate a classmate or an authority figure so that you can bully others. Whether for good or bad, it does leave a grey area for how much parody is allowed, but I personally feel that grey area is unavoidable and better than a codified definition of parody.

Look at Palin, Huckabee and all the other blowhards trying to do their own version of "will no one rid me of this damnable priest".

I know, Assange is no Thomas Becket, but not of these pundits are nearly as important as Henry II was, either

In American terms, he is being investigated, but hasn't been accused (much less indicted). Without a formal accusation of committing a crime, there shouldn't be a warrant.

Actually, the cleanliness part is misleading, in the titles of both this Slashdot entry and TFA. Instead it should be "Exposure to BPA and Triclosan can lead to more allergies". You can still be scummy and filthy yet have exposure to these two compounds.

So don't think you can get out of washing your hands just because two compounds may cause allergies. No one said you can't use normal soap and water yet... ;)

Not girls. Guys. You need to listen to "Bobby Brown Goes Down" again. :)

You added an "m" in there that you really don't need.

That's just the thing: Safari/Webkit's "Inspect Element" is nowhere near as useful as Firebug is. I personally have Firefox and Safari or Chrome running most of the time.

It is common in business: if there is something that you don't want to do but can't risk saying so outright, then you ask for more than the person asking is willing to pay. The tricky part is deciding to be teasingly high (the diplomatic no) or ridiculously high (the barely concealed insult).

Actually, the fee-paying neighbour's house was damaged thanks to the inaction of the fire department. Subscription fee or no, it was in the interest of the community and the fire department to extinguish the fire as quickly as possible, and in that respect it failed.

That in itself should be reason enough to make it a tax: your property, no matter how remote, still presents a potential hazard to others should it catch fire. A fire department's primary task is to save lives, and preventing property damage comes in second. You shouldn't be allowed out of paying for a community service. Selfishness is not a way to run things. Greed is not good, after all.

Cubase ist good, true, as is Final Cut.

BUT

Those are professional solutions, and let's face it, these guys probably don't have the idle cash or enough need to justify buying either application. If they did, then it would make more sense to invest in a handheld interview mic first, and then think about better sowftware.

In all fairness, 90% of the time when it's a "let's be friends" breakup, both parties will keep the friend status, and it can be useful to avoid awkward situations. Anti-stalking, where you find out what places to avoid to prevent awkward situations.

But I read the GP's post as being about the wall posts and status updates that Facebook keeps tossing out, where the ex happily broadcasts too much information, and you can't bring yourself to block just yet... :)

You haven't tried mediaeval fencing or studied actual swordmaking, I can tell. :)

Seriously, though, you want the weight of the blade to be centered near the cross, so that the blade is easier to control. Leaf shaped blades are actually more susceptible to break, as the inertia of the tip combined with the weight of the pommel and hilt would centre the stress before the hilt at the blade's weakest point. Leaf shaped blades are also less suited for thrusting attacks, which for a short sword is more common—short swords were meant for close quarters combat, where you don't have the room to freely swing. Thrusts also are better at penetrating chain mail or attacking exposed areas near the cuirass.