Yes, it sounds like everything is the way it should be. Judges are pretty smart people, at least at that level, and most of them are quite capable to grasp technical concepts and the legally important aspects of it.

If I understand the article correctly, this does only concern TLDs, not your average domain name. Some of this thread's hyperbole thus seems to be misguided. It's also worth noting what the status quo is that is supposed to change: currently, only the US has such veto power. This will expand to a larger group of nations. This seems to be a compromise to a behind-the-scenes-battle. I have no idea what these other governments are threatening, but one could assume that that alternative is worse for the US. The effect will likely be that only completely innocent new TLDs will be approved - no .sex, .godisgreat etc. I don't see much of a problem with that, but that might just be because I don't see the purpose of new TLDs at all.

No free lunch,

The sentence is talking about the kid's offspring, i. e. their kids, not the initial subjects of the study.

Yes, next they should drop that silly government-knows-better requirement of shipping to everyone, everywhere. All those rural farmers cost us far too much. To further increase profits, they should be allowed to discriminate the material you mail. I'm sure there's more money in NOT shipping the ACLU's mail than in shipping it, if you ask the right people. Then, finally, the market will be free and everyone should be better off.

The UN eradicated smallpox. What have you done lately that is comparable? It's true that the UN isn't really efficient. How could it be? It's 200 countries with vastly different cultures, ideas and goals. Getting all these powers to agree on something is bound to be hard. But that doesn't change the fact that having a common forum to talk in is a fundamentally good thing. There's also no alternative. The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades, with decidedly mixed results. It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it. Politics is hard. Remember that the next time you can't get your family to agree on dinner.

The least they could do is abolish this insane idea of sending around cheques to transfer money.

The UN eradicated smallpox. What have you done lately that is comparable, except tying your own shoelaces?

It's true that the UN isn't really efficient. How could it be? It's 200 countries with vastly different cultures, ideas and goals. Getting all these powers to agree on something is bound to be hard. But that doesn't change the fact that having a common forum to talk in is a fundamentally good thing. There's also no alternative. The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades, with decidedly mixed results. It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it.

Politics is hard. Remember that the next time you can't get your family to agree on dinner.

If it ends up in a landfill right now, you're doing something wrong. Some countries (Scandinavia) have recycling quotas >90% already.

To nitpick a bit, your idea might be true, but your arguments don't necessarily hold up. Firstly, the discrimination against immigrants is mostly a social problem, not a political one. The policies in most of Europe are quite liberal, but people seem to be racists. In the US it's the other way around (at least to a certain degree). Reasons for that might be higher experience with immigration, the diversity of immigrants to the US which makes it harder for them form communities closed to the outside, and a positive feedback loop that starts with integration (giving them jobs etc.) leading to wealth and education which then leads to even more willingness to integrate immigrants. The success in the US also seems to be highly divergent for different groups, i. e. asians are much better integrated (at least economically) than blacks, even though the former immigrated more recently and therefore had less time to adjust.

Regarding social security, every EU country spends more (as % of GDP) than the US on welfare, thus making cuts more likely. If unemployment benefits are cut, the unemployed have to switch to cheaper cigarettes. In the US, they die. In numbers: the unemployed in Germany get 60% of their last income (67% with children) for up 36 months. After that, they get about 400$+rent+heating+ electricity. In the US it's 3x% for a few months, and apparently not even food stamps after that.

More importantly, admitting it was a DDoS creates an incentive for more attacks, where otherwise people would just give up. Anyway, I'm hoping they're right and the script kiddies failed. The wikileaks debate should be about the better arguments, not the larger number of nodes.

Wasn't that attack directed at their services at amazon from inside S3? I seem to remember a story about someone bragging about that.

worthless leeching motherfuckers who ought to be deported

Others call them children

Using the same think of the children excuse to further my goals that I criticize when used to support privacy invasions and draconic criminal laws just doesn't seem right.

You can enter into a contract in a number of ways. Signing and paying are two of them, but sitting down in a restaurant and eating food also completes a contract without signature or payment. It's more a "meeting of the minds" that's required. If the website has a visible notice one could argue that a contract exists. But people are used to free content and therefore it's highly unlikely that they actually wanted to enter into a contract, thus no meeting of the minds.