The video on Yahoo's site talks all about all kinds of search features which all sound perfectly interesting as features of a search site.

But how exactly is it a browser? Or, I suppose, why? Everything it says it does could be done in a site accessible from any browser. Did they just decide to package the site in a stand-alone application because... someone doesn't understand the difference between a site you view in a browser (albeit a site you use to find other sites), and the browser itself which accesses and renders those sites?

And you've hit the nail on the head.

A lesson to the studios:
If you want to deter pirating, make the official and legal copy MORE CONVENIENT than the pirated version.
Yes, 20 seconds isn't a lot of time. But every time someone puts in a DVD and has to watch it for the 100th time, they're going to get annoyed. And maybe next time they WON'T buy your product because they feel insulted.
We could sit here and argue all night about whether pirating a copy to spite a studio is okay morally (and I'm very, very certain that's what will happen) but at the end of the day it boils down to this, right or wrong: Annoy your customers, and they'll go someplace else, legal or not.

You are jumping to conclusions. Being clearer and more concise about the limits placed on Federal government does not imply being more lenient on State governments, despite the country being full of morons who support that idiotic position.

My hypothetical changes have absolutely no bearing on the powers of State governments, because the limitations on them come from four amendments later, after the Civil War:

This has been generally interpreted to mean that the limits on the Federal government apply also to the State governments. My hypothetical clarification on the limits on the Federal government would thus apply via the 14th Amendment to the States as well: they have no powers except those explicitly granted to them, and their citizens have all rights not explicitly curbed by those powers, even ones that haven't been enumerated.

Or a magical palace on the moon.

With blackjack and hookers, of course.

And it could have been, and should have been, much more succinct in that purpose. They should have put the ninth and tenth first:

and

and then summed up the other eight in one fell swoop:

"Congress shall make no law restricting the rights retained by the people unless explicitly authorized by the powers delegated to it by the Constitution."

Makes it pretty clear, I think: we (the people) can do anything we like, except things we've explicitly allowed you (the state) to control; and you can't do shit except the things we've explicitly allowed you to.

GPP's point was that selection always comes eventually, and our present ability to preserve diversity means that when it does come, there will be a much wider variety to be selected from

At first I expected this to be a parody of a U2 song and just couldn't make it scan...

Of course, for this to be a sustainable trait, the breeding population who gets their kids taken away would have to produce enough smart/hardworking/etc kids to become the next generation of the government (and the productive taxpayers who support it). This non-reproducing upper class would then be biologically like the "gay uncle": not directly contributing genes, but contributing to the survival of genes they share.

Taken to the extreme, this would be a pseudo-speciation of the species into insect-like castes -- a breeder caste and a provider caste -- still the same species, but only one in ever ten children or some such is born a "provider", while the rest are born "breeders".

While this might be biologically tenable, it would leave the providers entirely burdened with the care of the breeders, and the breeders entirely beholden to the providers, and so would not likely be a situation any thinking human would want to encourage.

So say I make hand-crafted widgets out of my garage. I start doing enough business that I need to hire a secretary to handle the administrative minutia while I craft my widgets. But she won't stop going on about how great GWB was and how Obama is an evil socialist Islamist who wasn't even born here. I find that offensive and don't want to hear it in my shop. I can't get rid of her and find someone else I like working with better?

Something about this story sounds completely backward in every way, and maybe someone here can explain if it's the judge, the writer/editor, or just me who is sorely confused.

First of all, insufficient to count as free speech? Have we really come so far from not only the letter but even the spirit of the First Amendment that only certain special classes of speech deserve protection from censorship, rather than (as the law literally states) all speech being completely protected, or at least (as courts have long interpreted) only certain egregiously dangerous speech, such as credible incitement to violence, deserving censorship? Is it really now no longer "is this dangerous enough to censor it?" but "is this acceptable enough to permit it?"

Second of all, who is censoring who here? Someone got fired because their boss didn't like their opinion. In a private business (see next sentence before you jump on this) that's perfectly fine; freedom of association and all that, I don't have to work for people I don't like and I shouldn't have to let people I don't like work for me either; I've quit a job in part because of the owner's political expressions, why should the other way around be any different. In this case it's a public agency so I can see some stricter rules for hiring and firing being required, but nevertheless, in any case, this is a wrongful termination issue, not a free speech issue. This is not the government telling you "you are not allowed to say X"; this is an employer saying "we won't employ people who support Y". How the hell did this become an issue of free speech at all?