Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

I hope the percentage of criminals who get caught for bragging is high... Because if for every one of these guys in the article, there's one who can keep his mouth shut, then we may be in trouble.

A "global extinction event" is "highly probable"? And the future is wind and solar?? Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

You know what's bad if you have motion sickness?

Watching a video of a guy on a roller coaster watching a video of being on a roller coaster.

FoxBleed is one. It doesn't block the connection, but it lets you know about the problem.

You should be fired.

It's an F-350. It's tornado-proof.

Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!

Would you care to read the summary and try again?

That's one of the most well-articulated statements as to why Bennett's posts are worthless. Thanks!

I feel I should point out I was being ironic in my original post. In the comments for previous essays by Bennett, he has attempted to defend himself by challenging everyone to find any incorrect statement. Of course the lack of incorrectness is ludicrously insufficient to justify his posts, as you point out.

Can you find any statement that is incorrect?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solar+pan...

That's pretty much what I said. Why do you call me an idiot?