Yahoo! suing Facebook is interesting. At first glance I would think “patent troll” again. However if you stop and think about it, much of what Facebook prior to 2007/2008 is exactly what Yahoo! was .. on steroids.
I really hope Yahoo! can blow Facebook out of the water — getting a huge judgement — and a stiff future royalty payment. That is in the courtroom. Once wonders however, if Facebook users would “politically kill” Yahoo! for winning. It would, in the long run, affect what Facebook is — and could become, probably for the worse. Would Facebook users put up with that? Or — like they did with the death of MySpace — would they just move on to the next social network?
I really, really like this article. Just where should we draw the line? Should we not bomb mosques even though, for that reason alone, they are being used to store munitions to be used against us? Should we still respect the Koran if that ONE physical copy of book is used to transmit extremist messages?
I abhor book-burning more than most. It is anathema to me, the idea that someone would take knowledge, any knowledge, and send it up in smoke — simply to prevent that knowledge from being passed down. However, my north-american sensibilities mostly stem from books being burned that promoted things like “free speech” and art that the government (or organizations) proclaim as wrong.
I have come to the realization that sometimes it is okay to burn a book when doing so saves lives. Sometimes it is okay to bomb a mosque when that mosque is used to store munitions that are used against us. When the enemy stops holding their religious artifacts and trappings with what we see as proper regard, why should we?
My opinion? We should not have apologized! Any religion, by the way, that holds the physical object, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, in greater regard than the words and ideas it contains has some major issues.
“The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans,” Holder wrote. “Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA.”
excerpt of Ninth Circuit justice Stephen Reinhardt’s opinion:
All that proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their commited relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).