Irish Toasts. Have you Wordled? If you for example words, you'll similar to Wordle (www.wordle.net), a Web area that generates "word clouds" from theme you supply. Know.

A nicely produced Web situate by The History Channel featuring videos, photos, audio and more. A great amassment of links and topics. Start here to sampler the flavor of the holiday. About St. Patrick's Day A downloadable 14-page record for juvenile readers that explains who St. Patrick was, why he has a daytime and the drift of objects associated with the day. St. Patrick's Day A gleaning of dirt and links interrelated to all things St. Patrick's Day.

Check out the enter of parades planned around the world. Speaking of St. Patrick's Day, perfunctory - when is Mardi Gras? Columbus Day? Rosh HaShanah? If you can't keep in mind the extract dates off the scale of your culmination for this year or 2010, don't worry. The Internet can help. Simply go to When-Is (www.when-is.com), thumb for the issue or festival you want or, better still, just sifting by the name.

You'll never again be at a downfall for the dates of hundreds of devout and civilian holidays around the world. Rumor busting An ancient Internet e-mail rumor is making the rounds around metropolis once again. It's an vital sounding report letting the cat out of the bag commonalty about a motion picture soon to be released that suggests Jesus and his disciples were gay.

The e-mail ends with a suit to continue your label to the bottom of a cant protesting the movie and then copy the e-mail to others. If you get an e-mail peer this, brush off it - the message is a digital changing of a 23-year-old rumor built around minuscule kernels of truth. According to the tale and rumor debunking placement TruthOrFiction (/www.truthorfiction.com), the e-mail before all began circulating around the Internet in 2001.

The intelligence is derived from a 1986 article in an Illinois announcement that reported such a talking picture was being proposed - but the moving picture never got off the ground. You can read more about this e-mail rumor (and many others) at the TruthOrFiction site. This is a great online note to corroboration whenever you pick up an e-mail that breathlessly passes along something grisly and urges you to transmit the note to others.

Check the TruthOrFiction Web neighbourhood at the outset before thinking about passing the e-mail essence along to others. Have you Wordled? If you have a weakness for words, you'll take pleasure in Wordle (www.wordle.net), a Web place that generates "word clouds" from school-book you supply. A word cloud is a gathering of words that are bunched together and sized according to how regularly they appear in the text.

The more times a data appears, the larger it is in tie-in to other words around it. With a dispatch cloud, you can tell at a twinkle what words are given prominence in an article. You can surely identify word preferences in writings by divergent authors. Word clouds also volunteer a unique and stimulating way of displaying the results of undeniable types of surveys.

Check out a promise cloud analysis of a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for a great prototype of this at. At the Wordle site, you can reduce the color, font style, demonstration composition and more of any word cloud you create. Try it out - it's skylarking and reasonable to get you thinking about ways you can use consultation clouds. Don't shame this site with (www.wordles.com), a great site for day after day cryptogram puzzles, word searches, words in words games and more.

If you find agreeable facts games, you'll tenderness this Web site.

Esteemed opinion link: there

Saving Private Ryan. Side with redeem disquisition on salty TV language. Hear.

But it's equally true-blue that the Federal Communications Commission, which has adopted increasingly combative but absently defined standards for laborious broadcasters who quality swear-word words, shouldn't have such a free leg up in suppressing speech. So the Supreme Court, which final week heard a receptacle testing the FCC's latitude to run "fleeting expletives" that appear on television, would do well to remonstrate on more restraint from the commission. Better yet, the court could also pressurize a fast point about the protections afforded even loathsome speech under the First Amendment. Assuring decency is one thing. Rogue censorship is another.

And the FCC seems to have forgotten the distinction. The specimen at the leading court springs from FCC declarations that several awards shows were suggestive because of profanity words (specifically, the f-bomb) that were uttered during the broadcasts. The FCC adopted a behaviour in 2003 declaring any use of that single declaration on video was indecent, after years of embracing rules that sought to out distinctions between intended or repeated use of assert words and isolated, or even inadvertent, utterances. The energy has said a get ahead in complaints about lubricous broadcasts led to the superintend change, but the networks disc that there has been no explosion of indecent pleased on their airwaves to warrant radical direction action.

The FCC's set here is noble: to keep the airwaves decent, generally to spare young relations from unexpected exposure to harsh language. But the FCC's swift replace in policy was hardly the way to do it. It was wayward and ill-explained, to begin with.

And it has been applied in a practice that is suppressing parlance that's protected by the First Amendment, and is appropriate to create a chilling impact on broadcasters who already govern the use of expletives on their networks mignon tightly. The FCC, for example, said the awards shows were indecent, but an uncensored airing of the talking picture "Saving Private Ryan" wasn't. A jazz documentary was also declared outrageous for raunchy vernacular hand-me-down in some of the interviews. Those contradictions should depute the FCC supervise seem plainly arbitrary, and therefore unsustainable, from the turned on court's view. Beyond the settle itself, though, the FCC should be reminded that the First Amendment compels management sufferance where language, no proceeding how salty, has administrative or other valuable purpose. Context matters. The FCC can't just determine it doesn't.

Already, the marketplace has nicely self-regulated to frustrate indiscriminate use of harm words on television. Under known FCC rules, the networks could gorge their late-night circulate with the filthiest content if they wanted. They don't, because the custom wouldn't countenance it. That's a better block on debase language -- and a more constitutionally pleasant one -- than the FCC's efforts, conspicuous by the rule change adopted in 2003.

The court should put in mind of the intervention of that with its ruling.

Opinion post: read here