1000 imaginary terrerists [sic]

According to TFA, the terror attack included snipers shooting at the electrical equipment. That's not "imaginary", that's as real as it gets.

A hard-working and benevolent (as opposite to "lazy and greed") corporation would've been just as helpless against a determined group of attackers like that.

the criminally shoddy work of a corporation that managed to explode an entire neighborhood.

I don't think, it is fair to accuse a corporation of "shoddy work", when it took an armed group — sophisticated enough to be still at large — to cause the mayhem.

Or do you want each power-transmission mast to be guarded by soldiers? What about fiber-optic cables, which were cut — should that too be patrolled by the military — the alternative to "corporations" you despise so much? To me the "cure" you are implicitly proposing — nationalization of power- and Internet-infrastructure and heavily armed guards for all facilities — is worse than the disease.

Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday was brought before the Senate Energy Committee to explain why the FERC disseminated via insecure media a sensitive document describing where all the nation's power grids are particularly sensitive to a physical attack. FERC responded with assurances that databases are currently being scrubbed and procedures being implemented to safeguard critical data."

A little late to be scrubbing them now that the information is out there... Better begin addressing the enumerated problems ASAP instead.

For years highly-moderated posts on this very site kept repeating, that, because by copying a file one has taken nothing from the owner of the original, such copying can not be called "theft"...

And now this... What happened? Could we really be so shallow in our convictions, that they change to opposite as soon as the victim of a crime is someone we find easier to relate to? A small-time photographer vs. a large studio or a music label? Why is it Ok to steal from the latter, but not from the former?

Gonzales who said habeus corpus wasn't really a right

So did Abraham Lincoln...

Who said that torture was OK?

For the umpteenth time: waterboarding is not torture. At most, it is "torture-lite" — anything, from which the subject walks away without bodily harm, does not qualify.

Sorry, but pretty much anybody from the Bush era (and quite honestly a bunch who are still in Washington) has no business working at a place which has a privacy policy.

First of all, Obama's era is only worse in this regard. I understand — and share — your contempt for all government officials, because, regardless of the party they all tend to buy into the "government knows better" concept. But a company with a privacy policy must be able to balance users' privacy with the government's requests (and demands) for cooperation.

Whats worse, a AG who doesn't know or AG who knows and ignores it anyways.

Definitely the former. Absolutely. Because the law-enforcer ignorant of the law is likely to violate far more laws — in a worse manner — than the knowledgeable one, who'll only break those he must.

And, BTW, it remains rather arguable, whether Gonzales has broken any laws...

I am disconnecting anything which I have which still points to DropBox since I haven't used it in a while anyway.

And I am going to install their app on my parents' phones too now, whereas before I only had it my own.

You might as well appoint Alberto Gonzales as a Constitutional scholar and privacy expert.

I'll certainly take Mr. Gonzales over Mr. Holder, who, without being much of an expert in anything (not even manners or sense of decorum), presided over dramatic expansion of warrant-less surveillance.

My thoughts exactly. How can the same people, who answer every criticism of a Black President with deep and loud suspic..., nay, accusations of racism, boycott a Black Secretary of State?

Not only are they racist themselves then, they are sexist too.

I would've never learned about it, had it not been for this boycott. I'll definitely make greater use of the company's services.

The boycott is so blatantly racist...

When you are at war for your basic human rights

Being recognized by the rest of society as "married" is not a human right.

However there is a serious problem of pesticide producing crops

Regardless of how serious this problem is, it does not affect consumers — not directly, not even the "first-level" indirectly — unlike Comcast's shoddy practices. Whey then did Monsanto not only appear on the list run by an organization called Consumerist, but also made it to the close second among the worst?

The only explanation is that Monsanto's competitors are behind the hysteria.

Comcast narrowly edged out Monsanto in the finals with 51.5% of the vote.

The only reason I can see for Monsanto even appearing among "contestants" is the serious negative PR work by its competitors. Despite years of trying, anti-GMO crowd is yet to find a provable bad thing to say about GMO in general and Monsanto in particular.

All they have is FUD, but, apparently, very powerful FUD...

Andrew Sullivan — a prominent Illiberal — has drawn some fire upon himself by claiming, "we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

While Andrew's employment remains secure, I take an exception with this statement. Though there surely were (and remain) anti-gay bullies, I can not find a single case of a CEO being fired (or forced to resign) simply for being either a homosexual himself, or for supporting a homosexual cause. The only thing, that comes close is the US military — but even they stopped doing it over 20 years ago, when "don't ask don't tell was implemented".

This makes today's Illiberals not "no better", but worse than the "bullies of the past". Much worse...