I think the act of reaching out the Democrats in and of itself is a non-issue.
If the message was "hey, I'm wanting to reach out to you because..." it'd be one thing. A "vote for me" message.
However, the message of the call is "Let's send Mitt Romney a MESSAGE!" A "vote against him" message.

IMHO, this is not quite the scandal everyone seems to be whipping it up to be, it's just "in your face" negative campaigning.
Can we talk about what candidates would do about Syria, now? Or maybe African genocide? How about finance reform? Hungry for real issues.

Trolling so hard... it's full of stars!

Because citizens tend to react differently when the nightly news says congress is trying to pass a bill called "Stop Online Piracy Act" instead of "Rights Aborted by Pushy Executives..."

Just offering up:

A person or a company pays for the "rights" to something (a song or a game) *in advance* of earnings because of that entity anticipates revenue in excess of the money they are risking up front. They are risking their current equity in the hopes of recouping revenue in excess of the equity as well as inflationary depreciation.

The content creator accepts this "risk equity" payment from the entity in lieu of sales. The content creator is thus ensured a livable wage which enables them to continue to create (assuming this content creator has good legal representation or exceptional negotiation skills). The reasons for accepting this are varied. Maybe the artist is unsure of the value of their product? Maybe the artist is poor? Maybe the artist doesn't want to be bothered with distribution?

(Which brings up why things like SOPA are so bad because IMHO they are the digital equivalent to empowering the buggy whip manufacturers to write our transportation laws and designing our roads / highways)

In the argument of the depreciation of the car- the point is that by duplicating the supply of the content you proportionality devalue it (aka supply and demand). This doesn't hold exactly true, but that sort of the argument. If I had a magic ray gun and could clone cars - I think GM, Ford, and other car companies would have a real problem with all their equity risk, investment, and knowledge is simply taken with no compensation to the content creator (or holder of rights to content created). And they'd get REALLY pissed off if was simply duplicating the cars on their showroom and giving them away for free.

(Granted, this goes into the whole who really pirates and why, etc. which is entirely moot - this is about why / what duplication of a product does to its market value)

So, if your job is creating content that does indeed have value even if you are deceased - yes. Your job still pays. Perhaps not you, but maybe your employer. Or your agent. If you are working to produce retail software that will be sold over and over again, you are compensated in the form of salary and benefits in lieu of any claims to revenue generated from each sale.

Some employees have uniquely valuable knowledge that affords them the ability to negotiate a royalty of each sale, or accept royalty in lieu of salary on especially risky ventures (common in the gaming community among start ups).

So - yes, if you die your job will still pay. Maybe not you, but maybe a spouse (if your company provides that as a benefit) or a person / company that has compensated you for future earnings.

This is just how I see it, but I'm easily the dumbest person on the Internet.. and some people think I'm giving myself too much credit in saying that.

because if enough legitimate users rise up, doesn't it throw the entire position of megaupload only "existing for piracy" into question?

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

Worth every second it takes to watch it and, more importantly, SHARE IT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

  process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.

Bingo - well put. Would mod if I had points.

I LOVE meat. Steak, hamburgers, brats, chicken wings - you name it.

My wife, on the other hand, has shifted to a pescetarian diet (like vegetarian + fish and dairy products). Which means *my* diet has shifted as well, in a much healthier direction.

Frankly - when I go a few days eating tuna and other healthy meals - I am happier and have much better concentration.

So, FWIW, that's been my experience... but don't come between me and a great rib-eye!

After Dec. 21st of this year it seem pretty moot...

No matter what - focus on restore procedures.

That will presume backups - so start there. If backups are shoddy, FIX THAT FIRST. If there's one thing you can almost always get budget for its disaster recovery.

But *always*, *always* backup with the focus on how to *restore*. Backing up is easy, restoring is the hard part.

By doing this, you will identify dependencies, settings, installation procedures, etc. You'll also identify which systems are less critical than others.

Subsequently, you will know how long it'll take you to bring a system back up.

Lastly, you'll know how to save your ass if you break something.

Start your restore process by the simple edict of following the money. Work from the financial transaction outward.

You are right, we don't have an absolute free market.

Above I said government screws things up by putting their thumb on the scale. To clarify, I don't consider labor laws to be altering the scales, but to be changing the rules.

Unions served the purpose of getting the "rules changed". With OSHA, a minimum wage, and other labor laws, the grievances of unions became law.

IMHO - Unions have served their purpose. In non right-to-work states, they're more like an extortion racket who hold the keys to good paying jobs. You have to pay them a kick-back out of every check for a job it seems to me. I'm sure some people appreciate the benefits the Union provides, but to force people to be a member? Seems damn near legalized organized crime to me.

Government setting their thumbs on the scales screws everything up. Just look at housing and tuition.

You are ignoring things like marketable skills, professionalism, competition, and negotiation. Unemployment is currently high, which puts downward pressure on wages across the board because other people will offer the same services for less. If unemployment were at 5%, the companies would pay more because they need employees to increase or maintain productivity.

If colleges churn out a bunch of "it experts," wages go down. If there are fewer skilled people available and higher demand of IT workers, wages go up.

You are also ignoring how *expensive* it is for a company to hire and keep someone employed it is. These costs go up. For example, companies could probably hire more people if healthcare costs hadn't have doubled in the past 2 years due to the Affordable Care Act. They offer health benefits to their employees to be competitive and to attract better skilled employees (AKA The same free market you are saying would push people to poverty level).

So now we *have* employment law, so it *doesn't* suck for the 99%. Quite the contrary. The poor in America are rich compared to the rest of the world. Many of the poor in the United States have cars, cell phones, TVs, etc.

This really is simple. The onus isn't on the company to pay you more, the onus is make yourself more valuable. It all starts with the individual.

Hello?

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.