"Science"? I think Yahoo! took the "Google Labs" thing a little too literally

I think I support this... I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...

That's not what I was saying at all; re-read the post.

The first was a prediction you made, i.e. that fair-use was likely to prevail as a legal theory for file sharing.

The second was the first of many cases in which fair-use was dismissed as a legal defense.

Look, it's okay to be wrong. But when you describe something as a "nail in the coffin" even though it clearly isn't, that's when I must take issue.

Admittedly, I'm only a third-year law student, so I don't claim to have the knowledge and wisdom of someone with decades of experience. That being said, dishonestly is a lot easier to allege than it is to demonstrate, sir.

You know how whenever Fox News is mentioned, a common response is "How can people watch that? It's just telling conservatives what they want to hear?"

Look, we all want the RIAA to die an awful, fiery death. But deluding ourselves about the chances of a given case is not going to help the situation.

In fact, one might even call it "completely dishonest."

The alternative is writing articles entitled "Defendants submit a very persuasive brief to the court detailing why the RIAA is wrong" instead of making these outlandish predictions about this being the "nail in the coffin," which is going to be proven false in three months.

Re-reading this, it sounds like I have an axe to grind. This isn't really the case, it just bothers me that we keep getting into this cycle:

• Everyone is told that some legal theory is the best thing since sliced bread, and the RIAA and DoJ are shaking in their boots
• Three months later the court rules for the RIAA and we all post angry comments about the justice system works, but nobody ever brings up the fact that we were totally mislead three months ago

Anyway, end rant. Mod me down as Flamebait and all that.

Thank you for calling him out on this.

Considering that virtually every single one of NewYorkCountryLawyer's predictions has been wrong, at some point Slashdot should just admit that it needs a less biased legal reporter.

I would try to refute your claims using quotes from the article, BUT THERE ISN'T ONE

Wow, that's some pretty edgy writing.

I fully agree with your post if you remove everything before "I prefer".

Compiz should run by default, and they should have a nice, blue theme such as the one you suggest.

... I was just wondering if there were plans to move the default color scheme away from burnt orange.

It just seems that if Ubuntu wants to appeal to more mainstream users, a good approach would be to have a color scheme that doesn't look like a desert wasteland.

I see the authors are using the phrase "Microsoft to get" to mean the less-common "Microsoft may get if a bill proposed by one Representative is passed by both Congressional bodies in its current form which is not going to happen."

Scintillating!

I think we should stop and give thanks to the author of the article for couching the story with "this is likely not the first DoS attack, but here's a neat story anyway."

It's so refreshing to see Internet writers not making outlandish, unverifiable claims about things like this.

So, props.

Some people simply say that they are not a lawyer, rather than feeling the need to prove it dramatically.

It creates no such assumption. The summary never says that the same developers are migrating.