The point that you are missing in your post is that it would have beneficial for Germans to know that the German government had been disallowing visas to Jewish refugees. A problem commonly cited by older Germans is that the polulace simply had little to no idea about what the govt what actually doing during the war years. There was secrecy and disinformation and little else. Floyd Abrams is an asshat, his "journalism" is staggering is its fact selection. Oh, why don't I include a link from the NYT documents nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov ...yah... He TRIED to engage the gov't in meaningful dialogue. They don't need to with shills like Abrams on their side. GIve me the truth dammit, I waould way rather deal with difficult truth than ever be in a position where i have to justify lies...

Simply amazing. WikiLeaks has made it abundantly clear that the 5th estate is not working in our best interests anymore, the media in the general sense has simply become a tool. By feeding us a special blend of half truth, fear and innuendo our attention is kept where it is needed most, on Miley Cyrus smoking a bong and Jon and Kate's divorce. WikiLeaks has unearthed more truth in a month than the rest of the worlds media has since the Pentagon papers in the 70's. Now, in a simply dazzling show of both confidence and obfuscation the media( both left AND right leaning) have reframed whats occurred. You will note that not one gov't or media agency is disputing that the facts presented by WL are all true. Instead of a discussion on why the gov't and media are working in concert to keep the citizens in the dark and fed lies at a level not seen since Nazi Germany, we are treated to discussions on Julian Assange's sex life and dating history. We are invited into a discussion about a sexually frustrated Army private (the privates' privates!) and then told that this man is a terrorist for telling us the truth! We debate freedom of information acts, Federal espionage acts, and extradition law, all the while moving farther and farther away fromthe end result of all of this will simply be the status quo. The discussion we so badly needed to have as a populace and the moral outrage that should be absolutely simmering across america has been rendered inert and impotent by a reframing of what actually occurred. sigh.....

I'll finish this post tomorrow, I'm tired

A day where no company will wish to host a site, or register a company in the US. When extortion becomes acceptable under the guise of business people will look elsewhere.

So is it free speech if a go into a crowded sporting event and yell "fire" at the top of my lungs? Should the people hurt in the resulting panic just have the constitution quoted to them? There is intent to cause harm there. As with burning the Qu'Ran. We can logically assume there will be dead Americans at the end of the day. For what? So some asshat in Florida can pretend impotance for a day?
As for a comparative between pedolphilia free speech and the right to burn Qu'Rans, are you implying that one is more or less right than the other, they are both gauranteed! My point is that for either to use the constitution as a shield is ridicuous. I don't need a law to tell me murder is wrong, common sense does, i don't need a time machine to tell me this was not what the founding fathers wanted for the 1st amendment... common sense does.

You are full of crap.

Sexism, racism, ableism, heterosexism, classism and anti-semitism are not about individual acts of discrimination (what some conservative commentator might have specifically said to offend someone or some group). These terms do not primarily refer to acts of discrimination (They refer to systems of privilege that "normalize" a particular way of talking about and thinking about particular groups of people in society.

The effects of some speech when launched into public space are not simply situational. They are another series of burps in the historical and existing framework that has normalized a particular way of thinking about Muslims, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups. Is yelling "Fire" in a church/ synagogue or mosque when its crowded (furthermorer, even a crowded mall) protected, or is its intent to cause harm? Do we allow the KKK to burn crosses on people's lawns in the south? Is this acceptable?
People talk about the constitution as though its some perfect shield hat should act as either armor or a sword to defend completely abhorrent behaviour. People who deny the holocaust, or talk about pedophilia as being desirable are NOT what the founding fathers had in mind. GROW UP! You have so sadly been marked as insighful.

HOMER
Oh, what am I gonna call my Internet company? All the good names are taken. Oh wait, I've got it! Flancrest Enterprises! (looks in a book) D'oh!

MARGE
What exactly is it your company does again?

HOMER
This industry moves so fast it's really hard to tell. That's why I need a name that's cutting-edge, like CutCo, EdgeCom, InterSlice... come on, Marge, you're good at these! Help me out!

MARGE
How about... CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet?

HOMER
Fine, it's not important... What really matters is my title. I think I'll make myself... vice president. (excitedly) No, wait! Junior vice president!

The phone rings, and Homer answers it.

HOMER
CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet, junior vice president Homer Simpson speaking, how may I direct your call? (disappointedly) It's Patty.

Homer hands the phone to Marge.

Princeton has now been able to PROVE that getting a serious illness, or divorced is harder on poor people. WOW! Amazing! GO IVY LEAGUE

RUBBISH I live in Canada, where we have hate speech laws. They work great...

Not all speech is not just "free" (i. e. bias-free, objectively sent out into the atmosphere). The effects of some speech when launched into public space are not simply situational. They are another series of burps in the historical and existing framework that has normalized a particular way of thinking about Muslims, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups.

The "free speech" discourse protects power and privilege by acting as a shield against such challenges. If you dare challenge free speech as a normal social value, you dare challenge the founding ideals of Western-style democracy. WHich is bullshit

all speech is not free, neutral and deserving of utterance.

Yah that so awesome that nazi's and homophobes can run off at the mouth...whooooooo hooooo. Thats great..er.really

with how often the lead actor changes I'm like Dr. Who?

Then the rhetoricians/magicians will notice where Apple cleverly palms a card

Among the methods considered are voice print analysis, photo analysis, heartbeat analysis (!), hacking attempts, or even "noting particular activities that can indicate suspicious behavior."

By including "hacking attempts" in the list of considered activities they allow themselves the ability to say 'we didn't know you were jail breaking your phone when we wiped it, we saw a hacking attempt, assumed the machine had been fully compromised and did what we thought was best'. Or even shutting down already freed phones by saying, 'we know the OS isn't supposed to work like this, its obviously been fully compromised to we wiped it'

By making jailbreaking that much of a pain in the ass (see disarming functionality from the article" while its still "legal" its more heartache than its worth apple wins....

The average amount of energy that reaches the the top of Earth's atmosphere was what I clearly stated, you counter with telling my how much your flat plate collects at sea level aimed at polar noon....uh...ok... So uh....where exactly is my serious factual error? If anything my awful spelling undermines my authority, but rarely my math.
Here is a calculatpor for my area http://www.apricus.com/html/insolation_levels_canada.htm (yes, i know this is sea level as well)
or just look up the top of atmosphere data from somewhere else.

I still feel my arguement stands though, my error was not fully explaining my calculations(like some kindly AC did), like the profs always say "show your work!"

Yes, I was.
For the puspose of simplicity i was attempting to simplify and not get bogged down in arguements about direct vs. diffuse, the radiant power of different portions of the spectrum or any kind of trig. I was attempting to illustrate how Global warming, or dimming for that matter is actually achieved by using broad simple analogies and numbers. Sigh... i was so frustrated by the anecdotal evidence i see that i resorted to dumbing down, which ended in someone (rightly i might add) pointing out that I myself had selectively chosen variables. Thank you