More importantly, the judgment found something glossed over in the summary -- the court did not recognize Righthaven as an entity that had any significant rights in the copyright, and therefore could not sue in the first place.

That's because the agreement with Stephens Media was so specific in carving out Righthaven's rights to the copyright that the only right they really had, according to the court, was the right to sue others to protect the copyright. This is not a recognized transferable right.

That's a pretty big finding. You can't just assign your copyrights to another company for the sole purpose of suing others.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/

As usual, the summary leaves out an important modifier -- this only applies to Google APPS, not Google.

From TFA:

For this reason, soon Google Apps will only support modern browsers. Beginning August 1st, we’ll support the current and prior major release of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari on a rolling basis. Each time a new version is released, we’ll begin supporting the update and stop supporting the third-oldest version.

Google will still support all older browsers on its search engine. It wouldn't make sense to discriminate there.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/

So I'm sorry, someone basically took the Miserable Users hack for vBulletin originally released in 2004 and -- 7 years later -- ported it to Drupal??

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=59727&page=8

Astounding. Neither original, nor news, nor particularly interesting.

There are many powerful, easy-to-use and easy-to-develop for open source CMS systems available; Drupal is not one of them.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/

While the headline and blurb suggest that indeed Facebook is being targeted in some manner, the article body itself makes absolutely no specific reference to Facebook. What this suggests is that the headline and blurb (introductory text to the article) were written by someone else -- an editor, usually -- who either didn't read the article very carefully, or made an assumption about what is actually being done.

It's odd how this could have been published as-is on a respected news website like the Telegraph.

I think many commenters here don't understand how a free-market system and capitalism works.

A company can charge ANY price it wants for its products, regardless of the cost to make them. Do you really believe, for instance, that a BMW 5 series costs $20-30k more to make than a similarly equipped 3 series? Heck no -- in fact, the two cars share a lot of the same major parts (like engines in certain versions of them).

A manufacturer can set any price it feels the market can bear. And from a marketing and computer upgrade standpoint, this move by Intel makes perfect sense for the normal consumer market. Instead of having to upgrade your whole computer in 2 years, pay Intel the $50 and your computer may be good for another 2 years.

This "you're being ripped off" bit is ridiculous and would only be a logical argument in a socialist system where all prices were pre-determined by a government entity and set according to exactly what it cost to make the product + X percent markup.

Luckily, we do not live in such a system.

--
Mental health and psychology at Psych Central

C'mon, this is old news! We reported on this a week ago...

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/04/13/fast-food-induces-haste-impatience/

ECT is not the "tool of choice these days" to treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. If I had mod points, I'd mod this one down.

ECT is used -- rarely -- to treat major depression. And in a few years, when ECT manufacturers will be required to submit actual research proof of this technique's safety and efficacy, I imagine ECT may not be an option for clinical depression long.

The MMPI (and its subsequent editions) have decades worth of research backing up their validity. So while your opinion is noted, it doesn't really refute the empirical evidence in peer-reviewed journals.

Having the questions available to you ahead of time is completely useless. Without knowing what questions are scored according to what scale, you have no idea in which way to answer them.

And even if you did, what you get from the MMPI-2 is a personality profile (heavily weighted to look at disorders or problems with personality -- other tests do a better job looking at the positive aspects and the whole of one's personality). A profile is not "good" or "bad," but an employer or such might be looking for a specific type of profile that best fits within their company.

The MMPI-2 is most often administered as a part of a larger psychological battery, to help a mental health professional understand what's going on with a person. While it can also be used for employment testing or in the courts (forensic psychology), it's primarily used to help professionals better help people who are seeking their help.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/

Psychologists have shown that, in fact, there is virtually no connection between playing violent video games and increased violence, so the Congressman from California has it exactly wrong:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/17/the-link-between-video-games-and-violence/

I'm all for research supporting reasoned legislation, but in this case, it is ignorance and misconceptions supporting "feel good" government nannies.

--
Yes, the answer is no.

Laws are laws, and if you disagree with a law, work to get it overturned or changed.

But to argue that a prosecution of a law is bad because it might or could or may lead to someone thinking they might or could or possibly get someone prosecuted if they are bullied online and then kill themselves relies on a lot of "what-ifs" and assumptions.

Really? Do you really think there's this huge morass of online people just waiting for a verdict like this so they can go and say, "Wow, now all I have to do is get someone to impersonate someone else, get them to bully me on MySpace, and then make sure lots of people know about it, and then take my own life, and I'll get my revenge!"

Agree or disagree with TOSs, but they are there for a reason. And if you don't like the fact that if you violate one, you can face prosecution (or even criminal prosecution if your actions lead to someone's harm or death), well, that's your choice not to visit that site then. There are millions of websites, and the nice thing is, nobody's forcing anyone to visit a particular one.

Decisions like this one are not bad, nor are they likely to lead to some sort of strange epidemic of people who work hard to try and commit suicide while implicating someone else for causing it. They are reasonable interpretations of law and proper repercussions for people acting in an unlawful manner. And people who are suicidal aren't going to start changing their entire set of behaviors to conform to this decision, to try and implicate another person.