The purpose of the photo is irrelevant, has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law, the judge is clearly wrong, by any stretch.

Ideas are not covered by copyright -- patents do that. In the case of a work, like a photograph, the idea of a picture, even of the same item, area, etc. as revealed in the article, are not the same picture. No copyright infringement is involved here, the judge is very clearly wrong.

Technology and freedom are the most important tools to achieving abundant habitation & agriculture. Not to mention temperature. We need the sustained high temperatures of the last 6000 years of interglacial to persist. (Most of the last 1/2 a million years was spent in ice ages; all of civilization developed during the current interglacial)

Hear, Hear!

My guess is that you've only seen bad philosophies, and have thus turned away from the subject matter. However, nobody can escape philosophy.

When you look out at the world and make decisions about how to direct your life's actions, you are being guided by philosophy, whether implicitly or explicitly.

Questions like: "Is science valid?", "Is the universe knowable?", "What should I do now?" are all philosophical questions.

If you discover a profitable business model for TV/movies that doesn't require commercials, you would be providing a valuable service to people, and you would become rich. That would be heroic (as opposed to simply bitching and moaning *Gimme Gimme ... I want ... I want*)

Hillary made "I don't recall" a house hold phrase.

-- amazed? Microsoft says something about a product of theirs to try and generate hype and interest in it. This is news? OMG!

Non-evil? Are you kidding?

It's just part of a greater Microsoft strategy to get and keep the Microsoft brand in front of people. It's the same evil, different day.

-- they really need to use John Deere or Massey Ferguson tractor beams....

Protect it from who, what and why?

Why, our enemies, of course. ;)

Oh, yeah "Internet license" -- that sounds good, huh? OMFG

-- for the U.S. to immediately cease funding the United Nations. As in right f*cking now!

I was called to jury duty once, 1994. During the questioning of prospective jurors, I was asked a question about whether I could follow the judge's instructions on how to apply the law to the the case. I answered "There are two schools of thought on this, 1) that the jury must follow such instructions and 2) that the judge has no business instructing the jury on anything. I subscribe to the later." This got me a very dirty look from the judge, followed by her furiously typing something in about my answer. Needless to say, I was not picked as a juror that day. And, 16 years later, I have never been called back for jury duty. That may just be the odds of being called, however, I think the judge's note (whatever it was) was probably along the lines of "Never, ever summon this person for jury duty ever again!!!!"

-- just citing DSM-IV-TR, all by itself, is hardly a valid source either. The alleged maladies are simply voted on. No scientific proofs or tests to determine of someone is schizophrenic as opposed to OCD, manic or whatever.