Not sure if you meant singular or plural there, but it should be either adversaries' or adversary's.

So, you knew what I meant by arresting the press then? You could have instead replied that freedom of the press is not violated by the summary arrest of members of the press as that was not what the framers had in mind. I would argue though, that giving the government the power to arrest members of the press in order to keep them from reporting on events in a public space is a freedom of the press issue, at least in spirit.

You are correct up to the point when the press identify themselves and are then arrested as happened several times during the Occupy protests. No matter who was right, it *is* a freedom of the press issue, and we as a society must chose which takes priority. Do we allow officers to prevent journalists from observing on public land, which is the point you argue with "If everyone is being removed from an area for reason X, then that includes the press." Or, do we value the public's ability to gain knowledge via our journalists to keep the government in check?

For your edification, from the OED:

So what you are saying is that arresting the press at a gathering on public land is not a freedom of the press issue? What you mean is that we can say what we want, but are not permitted to observe what is happening on our land?

That's the environment being hostile to the consumer then. In the summer, solar energy is available, harvesting it is clean. In the winter, solar energy is less available, so we burn coal, which is dirty. We assign different values to those two sources, for a variety of reasons.

More than 0.5% of the population is openly gay. I fail to see how you are forced to think anything by anyone. You are free to be a bigot if you so choose, and others are free to react to your viewpoint as they see fit.

Microsoft was supporting of same-sex couples' equality before Google existed.

I think that our copyright laws are deeply flawed, but the slippery slope you describe does not start at a provider that happened to have copyrighted content, but it starts with people that knowingly gave money to uploaders for works they knew were copyrighted with the intent of enriching themselves with advertising and subscription revenue. That's a far different case, I think.

If you would read the indictment, it's not a single complaint. It's the fact that the owners were sending emails to each other about how they were paying uploaders cash for copyrighted works to drive traffic and subscriptions.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment

Now, one could argue that shutting down the entire service was the wrong way to go about this, but one should not argue that a single complaint was the cause of the take-down of the entire cloud.

As for being extra-judicial, that indictment was signed by a judge and the foreman of the grand jury that heard the arguments.

The link was not labelled typical use but heavy use. Which of those states is most like 'heavy use'?

They are aiming for under 5 lbs, that's an awful lot of weight to add to a 5 oz phone. A sixteen-fold increase might be a bit much to say one is adding medical instrumentation to a phone--it might be more accurate to say one is adding a phone to a medical instrument.

I see your point, but the minor law does say to wear the manufacturer's seatbelt, only a seatbelt. I agree that you should do what's safer for you, but finding a seatbelt solution that works is safest, and satisfies the law to boot. Not wearing a seatbelt is less safe and breaking the law to boot.

Or you could go to a shop and have them modify the seatbelt for you, which would be the safer thing to do than squabble about minor laws when your safety is at stake.

He said 30 days, or monthly, so 12 (December's password) becomes 1 (January's password).