Ok, but the correct response was to send a DMCA counter-notice. DMCA Safe Harbor requires them to take down infringement, unless a counter-notice is filed.

Are you kidding? More than 70% of attendees received financial aid in 2010. Are you suggesting that a Harvard english major is a member of the one percent?

Google wanted the patents to protect themselves from Apple et all, by joining them in an alliance, they would be unable to use those patents to protect themselves.

You might want to consider reading up on the First Amendment. Not being able to restrict speech is a very big part of free speech. Restraining speech before it occurs, or regulating where it can occur is a dangerous, immoral thing.

On the subject of the law being "crap". The law isn't crap, the gross violation of the law that ICE used to seize these domains is the "crap". Every single possible constitutional protection we have in regards to free speech, search and seizure, was violated and then this judge for wholly unimaginably, illogical reasons. This ruling flies directly in the face of SCOTUS precedent and outright ignores many of the issues brought up by the involved parties.

But at the time, the moon rock was assumed to have little value, due to the expectation of future moon explorations.

How could you possibly believe, even for a second, that claiming to be a child's parent or guardian, over the internet, would result in any criminal charges? Is he going to somehow use this claim to lure the child to his house and have his way with him? Has this claim resulted in any contact (let alone sexual) with the child, whether written, verbal, or otherwise?

After reading this article, I have to wonder, how did A + B = C? No one has seriously argued that classics no longer need to be read, no one is saying education is important and no one claims that knowing the exact date of the Hundred Year War is a necessary part of every single person's life! There is a huge difference between necessary information and tertiary information, aka trivia. This editorial fails not only to differentiate the two but also to clearly understand the points other articles, cited within this one, attempt to elucidate.

The often cited, rarely understood article referring to a programmer's need (or lack there of) for a formal education is a great example of ways this article fails to understand the very material it references. No one has ever argued that programmers require no education. No one truly believes that coder's are born with silver keyboards in there mouth. The article simply states that a formal education is not strictly necessary. This of course leads back to the overarching flaw in this article, the juxtaposing of formal and informal education into one swiftly discarded container. Obviously for the sake of this argument, informal education is anti-intellectualism. No matter how self-educated One is.

As any reasonable amount of observation will tell you, there is a constant public outcry to remove all difficult readings from public schools, or to cut up Romeo and Juliet into smaller, twitter-sized bites. Similar to Dan Brown's rather pathetic style of writing. While it is hard to argue that there has not been an attempt to dumb down, censor, rewrite and remove the flavor of classics, see for instance, the attempts to change Huckleberry Finn's "nigger" to "slave", completely ignoring the "free niggers" who would become "free slaves, and of course in some ways this does lead to an anti-intellectual slope, the vast majority of the population still strongly believes in education! Yes, many want the world to be black and white, and to eliminate all shades of grey, but thankfully for the geeks, for the nerds, for the erudite and the elitist, one can become as educated as one chooses to be as long as one has access to the internet. Look at Project Gutenberg, with the thousands of public domain books available, listen to Jon Stewart and pay close attention to the allusions he makes to literary figures, that require a great deal of knowledge! Read XKCD and discover that you barely understand the jokes! Check out a Physics forum and boggle at the complexity of the discussions currently going on in this anti-intellectual society!

~$6 billiion to ~$50 million, either there's a huge chunk of information missing, a large percentage of the represented class is going to opt out, or something is up. Obviously the vast majority of the class has no dire need for a short-changed payment, and can stand to sue individually, or as a group in order to get multiples of this settlement.

The grandmother in question had all charges dropped according to the link in question...?

Case Dismissed? Great! Let me just look up the case number in the docket... wait, there doesn't seem to have been a lawsuit? My legal counsel is suggesting that this might have been a question of "morals" and "ethics".

The newspaper's update seems to make it pretty clear that the author ripped off the blog post, and rather than give than linking to that blog, decided to act affronted that research performed by a third party deserved some modicum of respect. If the author had responded and even gone so far as to actively deny and politely deny the claims, I might be more willing to side with you.

The "theory of intelligent design" as the bill mentions, is not technically a theory. So from a legal standpoint, wouldn't this bill not protect those who believe in it?

Dell Streak was updated to Froyo, November 15, 2010. Considering that fact, I wouldn't trust the source you cite.

If you'd like a reference for that: http://en.community.dell.com/dell-blogs/Direct2Dell/b/direct2dell/archive/2010/11/15/android-2-2-froyo-and-the-dell-streak-details-on-how-the-upgrade-will-work.aspx

Also, as a follow up, the vast majority of phones released, have been updated to 2.2 or better, if you're willing to change the ROM yourself.

You're right, middle school students should be expelled for calling there teacher bipolar. I'm sure any reasonable parent would applaud a school district willing to expel there student for being disrespectful! /sarcasm

Not only did the school overreact, I firmly believe it overreached. To claim that actions taken outside school, that have no reasonable impact in school, are actionable is ridiculous. These are the very same things kids say about there teachers to there friends and even if it was posted in a semi-public forum, no one with any logic would believe that any of the children were stating facts.

One of the most important parts of libel, and one that you overlooked, is that libelous statements have to be believable. Would anyone in there right mind believe that this teacher is really a pedophile, based on a bunch of students calling him a "pedophile", "bipolar" and other statements in that vein?