Its not really that hard to read the article, is it? "As a leader you need to be making sure that these people are performing as well as they can, and if, frankly as well as they can isn't good enough, then you have to have the courage of your convictions and get rid of them", she said. You didn't have to get too far into it before this quote came up. Its pretty obvious that despite some flippant language, Zenna Atkins didn't suggest that we should seek out or retain bad teachers. SHE certainly doesn't need to lose HER job over it. SHE is leaving the job anyway.

This is an argument from ignorance. If the documents are available, we can make claims about their sensitivity based on what is in them. If they are not available, we cannot make claims about their sensitivity. We cannot assume that they risk lives just because there are many of them any more than I can say "There were 250,000 documents! Just imagine how many more documented murders there were!"

I agree that this is a punishable offense and that he knew it was when he did it. I also think that we should honor the sacrifice he made because if he hadn't done it, we wouldn't know a thing about this atrocity. It's possible, however unlikely, that this mans sacrifice will bring about an earlier end to this war, or perhaps just not a beginning to another war and save lives.

I think you made some claims that require support. For instance, your statement that any invention "deserves protection" is not automatically true. Granting an innovator the right to a monopoly on his/her product is only beneficial to society as a whole if it improves the availability of technologies to more people than not granting these monopolies. Some, such as Lawrence Lessig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs) have argued that patents stifle innovation and are a detriment to society. I believe that your question "if you were starting a business that provides a software solution, would you want to be able to protect your solution from competition?" is in the same mode as the following questions: "If you had one hundred million dollars, would you want to protect it from thieves?" "If you had control of the oil market, would you want to be able to gouge the consumer for your own profit?" "If all the world were your unquestioning slaves, would you want to be able to insure they could not escape?" From the point of view of an 'innovator', patents may seem intuitive, but unless the research shows that they ACT in the way they are INTENDED, they do not deserve the same reverence that we give to physical property with real physical scarcity. As for your argument that patents are a part of capitalism, consider that the hallmark of capitalism is supposed to be free markets with resulting competition and prices that (due to competition) approach cost for consumers. Patents disrupt competition and in light of this I find your statement unfounded.

I think a net would be very effective against trained sharks, unless of course.. .they had.. friggen lasers.. on their heads.