I am not a polygamist personally, but the arguments look the same to me. This is just contract law. It seems silly to me to argue that one group of consenting adults is entitled to certain legal benefits and not others, just because some people don't believe in their choices.

Your opposition is based on the fact that some people in a group are bad, therefore, the entire group should be deprived of benefits enjoyed by the rest of society. Instead of addressing the problems, you are attacking the entire group. There are gay couples that abuse their spouses and children, does this mean that all gay couples shouldn't be able to get married? I just don't agree with this premise.

As the other respondent pointed out, polygamy does not just mean one man and many women, the opposite is possible as well. Another way of looking at the relationship is as equal partners. If the marriage was legally sanctioned, then each member of the marriage would be legally entitled to equal benefit, inheritence, etc. If one member attempted to capture more than their share, then legal recourse would be possible, whereas today it is not. It seems to me that by making the relationship illegal, it removes possible legal protections to remedy this issue and helps perpetuate the very problem you want solved.

This isn't a question of decency or history, it is a question of legal contracts and free will. Shouldn't consenting women and men be free to enter into any relationship they choose (note that these relationships involve legal consent; something an animal, toaster, or child cannot do)?

I disagree. Same-sex marriage advocates frequently campaign on the notion that descriminating against consenting adults by denying them marriage benefits is not constitutional. Once a state agreed, then they challenged the Federal law on the grounds of State's rights. The same arguements could be made for polygamy, where all parties are consenting adults. Other comparisons, such as animals, toasters, or children, are very different because in these cases, one party cannot enter into a legal contract.

As for restitution, the court did not order restitution for all gay couples who paid more in taxes during past years, for instance, so I doubt that issue would gain much traction.

If marriage was simply a legal contract, then only those eligible to enter into legal contracts could participate. In our society, animals are not allowed to enter into contracts, therefore, they could not marry. Likewise, children cannot enter into legal contracts and, therefore, could not marry either.

Two of the three guns were in a storage unit (one was an antique) and the handgun was registered in Virginia, but not in Maryland, where the man had recently moved. The man was clearly not trying to evade the law and considering he has a clean record, I doubt jail time would have been on the table even without the heroic act.

He admitted in court that he sprayed the field with RoundUp, intentionally killing off all the non-RoundUp Ready seeds. This fact weighed heavily in the courts decision. The majority opinion implies that the court might have (probably would have) ruled differently without the action of the farmer. The case does not create any kind of a broad precedent.

I used to feel the same way...until I got a tablet. I still use my desktop most of all (sheer power, multiple monitors, and my mechanical keyboard). I use my laptops mostly to connect to my desktop remotely (which is quite a bit actually). The tablet is used exclusively for content consumption. When I have a question and I want a quick answer from the internet? Tablet. When I want to search recipes for what to make for dinner? Tablet. When I am planning my next vacation while sitting on the couch? Tablet. I could use my phone for these things, but it isn't more convenient than the tablet and the large, clear screen makes the experience more enjoyable and useful (Nexus and iPad here). We now have three tablets in different form factors and all of them get significant usage. The phone is great for on the road, but if given a choice, I will almost always reach for the tablet.

As for windows8 and making software for tablets, I haven't run into this yet, but then again, I don't use Windows and the only Apple products I have run a mobile operating system.

Have you seen their marketshare? Five years is a little optimistic.

Are you suggesting that the server was public property?

The hardware was private and the intention of the company was for the information to be private. Now, they displayed the information in a manner that allowed anyone to gain access to it without explicit knowledge that it was private information. This is what I am trying to capture in the analogy.

My first reaction to this verdict was that a crime had not been committed, but the more I think about it, the less certain I am. I have come up with an analogy to help me sort it out:

A business writes the names and personal information of its customers on an ourside wall. In order to access the wall, a person must first walk down an alley. The alley leads directly to the street and there is not any security or signs indicating if the alley is public or private. I walk down the alley and see the data. I return later, with a notepad, and record all the customer information. I turn over the information to a local newspaper. It turns out the alley was private property.

Have I committed a crime? If yes, which crimes and what punishment could I expect?

The jury had some problems with a few phones. In one case, they ordered the phone had not infringed and then later ordered compensation for the phone. In another instance, the breakdown of compensation didn't equal the total compensation awarded (bad math on the part of the jury) and the judge doesn't know which amount they meant. There are probably more, but those are the first two I can remember.

So, the judge order new trials on all the phones she couldn't figure out what the jury meant or they clearly used "impermissible legal theory" in determining damages.

And without government, what is to stop companies from using tools such as physical violence to secure their markets. Conversely, without government intervention to secure a brand name, trademark, what would stop another company from selling an Apple iPhone that was not an iPhone? Without any protections, how would companies make any profits at all? I am not for government control of markets, but my concerns are the extent of government influence. I cannot envision a scenario where no government intervention would turn out well.

While I don't disagree with your assessment, are you suggesting that government is the only tool a company can use to gain a monopoly? Considering that the goal of most capitalist, free market, ventures is to become a monopoly, I would expect them to use any resource available to attain that end (and I see many alternatives to government). The benefit of government in this situation (good government at least) is to ensure that markets remain competitive despite the desire of all the participants to destroy each other (along with free market). If you take away government, what force will rectify the market once a monopoly has been achieved?

This seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I think most of the people here understand the protection of classified information. The concern is that too much of the government and military's operation is now classified. As a result, citizens have a difficult time becoming informed. The benign nature of most of documents released by Manning gives credence to that concern.

Many believe that uninformed citizens, marching lock-step with their leaders, is not a good foundation for a democracy. With the rise of secret courts and selective justice, targeting for assasination of citizens on the word of the Executive alone, and domestic spying on an unprecendented scale, some citizens are concerned. In that context, the wrongs of PFC Manning are weighed against the wrongs of the government. Some have decided that Manning's actions are the lesser evil.

This law seems quite broad. Just thinking out loud here, but if a soldier in the field gave a candy bar to a local child knowing that the child might or might not have connections to the enemy, wouldn't that be actionable under this law? It could be seen as violation of number 1, as a transfer of supplies or a violation of 2, as indirect intercourse.

I guess that is the value of vague laws, then the powers that be get to decide when to enforce them.

The website clearly states that it is a "fansite" and not affiliated with Ron Paul. While they could do more to distance their site from Ron Paul, that is not what this dispute is about.

They have raised millions of dollars for Ron Paul and built him a supporter list of 170,000 people. He did not refuse the money when running his multiple campaigns despite knowing its origins. Did Ron Paul ask the website to cease its operations at any time in the last 5 years? Has Ron Paul offered to pay the costs to build and run the website and mailing list during that time? It sounds to me like Ron Paul knowingly benefitted from the site for a substantial period of time. I would characterize that as, at the very least, implicit consent.

I think it is quite a stretch to call this situation cybersquatting.