Exactly. A horrible name choice if you want to appear to be non-partisan.

I don't believe they are really heavily partisan, but their proposed reforms lean profoundly to the left.

I think in is entirely in the realm of possibility that if they were truly very effective in their goals we would see a tilt toward one party rule.

One party rule would, of course, be infinitely worse than having "money in politics". Cite: see the history of one party rule.

Unions don't tell their members to personally donate to politicians, they take their members money and give it to the politicians, regardless of what the members want.

Hey wait!!! That's exactly what you accused the CEO of doing.

To be fair, it is completely in the CEO's rights to ask employees to donate their own money to candidates.

The point here is that it would be the employees choice in either case.

You compared apples to oranges and then just stated that oranges are evil.

Looking at reforms, I don't see much that will do anything.

If they succeed in getting the money out of politics, we will still be faced with incumbents having a disproportionate amount of power in staying in office.

For me to root for the Mayday PAC, they must include implementing term limits on congress as one of their goals. If we don't get that, their "getting money out of politics" will solve nothing. We'll still end up with ancient geezers who have been in office forever writing crappy law about copyrights and patents because they know shit about technology.

I totally get that their systems very likely need to purge inconsequential data to remain effective. However, if the court forced a private company to retain data under a court order, it wouldn't care one wit about whether that was feasible within the system or not. If the private company did not comply, their officers would be held in contempt.

The NSA should not get special treatment in this case.

The irony here is that Version will claim no one is paying them to expand their capacity to deal with the Netflix traffic.

But then there customers should be able to ask and sue for an answer to the question: "If you don't have enough bandwidth to handle sending us data from Netflix, did you lie when you told us you were selling us X amount of bandwidth?"

I refuse to criticize Netflix for standing up to the ISP extortionists.

That's no longer really true. According to the NOT.ONE.MORE movement, we should impinge the rights of 100 in order to forbid the 1 potential criminal to take action. Even if impinging on their rights in the end may have absolutely no impact.

In the end ALL our freedoms will be destroyed by FEAR because we're demanding security and, well, fuck liberty.

And in the end the governments just giving us what we want. So what if it happened to be executed by secret laws, using secret courts that issue secret orders.

The only problem I have with what she said is that it basically boiled down to, "we need to improve Computer Science education by educating kids in a whole bunch of other basically un-related things."

Stories are circulating that Harry Reid is the one who exerted pressure on Lahey to pull the bill.

Reid is as corrupt as they come.

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

What, you mean I can't calculate all the physics necessary to play basketball and be ready to play the game.

You are exactly correct. So many disciplines utilize applied mathematics. It must be a skill that children can readily call to use (like dribbling in basketball). To master that skill, drilling is required, not optional.

Addition leads to subtraction, subtraction leads to multiplication, multiplication leads to division, division leads to suffering.

Disney spent 4 BILLION for Star Wars.

Yep. Now imagine that everyone be required to have one of those in their car. There would be a huge backlash from the general law abiding populace.

â¦. and no one has more firepower than they do.

What to do about it is easy.

We have to replace coal fired power plants with nuclear ones. All other technological options are not ready to start solving the problem (at the scales needed) right now.

I am actually frustrated that there is not a nuclear plant being built now near my city. I live in a very sparsely populated area that is geologically stable. We already have much of the power infrastructure in place for windmills and a natural gas power plant. Nuclear would be a sensible addition and expansion.

If you say you want to solve global warming and you say that we can't build nuclear power plants, you're a hypocrite.

Ironically the same people the argue with "deniers" about the problem argue against nuclear as part of the solution. So switching to working on the solution actually doesn't end the argument, it just creates a reactionary hypocrisy that makes your head hurt.