Florida University would like to have a word with you....

I'd be satisfied if they were just fired.

What the law actually does is of no consequence, silly! The really important bits for the politicians are

(1) they do SOMETHING

(2) they look good doing it

(3)[optional] it's also a plus if they don't actually have to read the bill

This is free content, right? I don't see where they are wanting you to pay "MORE". Then again, my contacts should have come out about 30 hours ago, so I might just be misreading something....

If *this* is the reasoning, then that is truly horrible reasoning. (I'm not judging parent's reasoning, by the way.) If 100 people loot a store and one poor sap gets caught, I honestly can't imagine why the cops' (or feds' or whatever) inability to catch the other 99 should have anything to do with what sentence to give the one.

It wouldn't be surprising if people lied (or at least were mistaken) about their GPA. (Indeed this was something I didn't at first think about when I read the piece.) However, grade inflation is real. (Lots of data at that link.)

Nouns that denote scientific objects need reasonably specific definitions. The ambiguity of meaning is a problem in these situations. Those who are knowledgeable of the matter, those who need such a specific definition, are those who should make such decisions. (Specifically, a consensus of such specialists.) Certainly the noun might find itself used in a broader, more common, sense outside of science.

I think there is another point to be made. The reason "planet" has been used to describe this object we call "Pluto" isn't because of some sort of folksy wisdom that "of course it's a planet!" Most people's belief that Pluto even exists is based completely upon the word of such specialists. We have, for years, depended upon their definition of planet to include Pluto, but exclude other orbiting bodies. Now that these specialists have determined that a reclassification needs to be made, I find it a little silly to buck against this change.

If cell biologists, for whatever reason, decided that a ribosome does not fit the most reasonable definition of an organelle (a decision I think they are best suited to make), I would certainly feel a little silly telling people, "Well, it's still an organelle to me!"

I realize that, and thanks for the reply.

Is it more, then, that they have no grounds upon which to reasonably object? Because, once more, I do not see what they actually gain from the granting of the motion (that seeks an extension), except possibly in such cases as:

(1) They need more time themselves (for whatever reason). (This benefit would have to outweigh the risk of the DOJ deciding to intervene, defending the constitutionality of the act, and perhaps swaying the judge to side with the Plaintiff.)

(2) They believe the DOJ might intervene in their behalf. (This doesn't seem likely.)

(3) They believe a DOJ intervention on the Plaintiff's behalf (or at least to support the constitutionality of the act in question) would in some strange way *help* their case. (I don't understand how this could really be the case.)

(4) They believe that objecting to the motion is futile, and so such an objection would only waste time and resources, with the possible side effect of annoying the judge. (This seems rather likely.)

Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion states, in part, "Counsel for both parties do not oppose the motion." I understand why it is important to debate whether or not the DOJ should intervene, what stance the DOJ might take, and whether or not this motion should be granted. However, my question is the following (series of questions). What benefit does the Defendant seek to obtain by not opposing the motion? (Do they need time for other things, and this is a convenient opportunity? Do they have reason to believe the DOJ might intervene on Defendant's behalf? Does this [DOJ intervening and agreeing that a certain act is unconstitutional] happen often/ever?)

Presumably, the compassionate Commission "permits" this one device.

It is not unreasonable to expect different levels of functionality from one's home PC (or even netbook, as it were) and one's iPhone.

Let's suppose that "it" is true, and by "it" I mean the statement "the average consumer has open just over two applications [at any time]." Now we can only accept reasonable interpretations of this. That is, it cannot possibly be taken to mean that the "average consumer" only has some 2.xx applications running... EVER. In other words, there will be times that even the most basic Windows user will have more than this open. Even the most "basic" or simple Windows user will eventually run into the 3 application limit, and when this happens, they will be frustrated by it. In fact, as the general public becomes more computer savvy (and computers generally become more powerful, artificial software crippling notwithstanding), I would fully expect this "just over two" statistic will only rise.

Your forgot the part where they name the bill after the person whose life "could have been saved". You will hear, "A vote against this bill is a vote against little Timmy!" I've found that nearly every bill/law referred to by a person's name is horrible.