No, actually. A democracy (direct or representative) uses "voting" to collectively decide things. Which is what we are doing when we go to the polls in November 2016. We'll never get 100% agreement, so you or I may decide that our opinions were ignored, but this is how democracy works. Non-collective agreements are what you get with dictators of various stripes who cannot be removed from office.

I'd be happier if the results were less skewed by billions of dollars of legal bribery (AKA campaign funding), but we've decided that we're okay with that, unfortunately.

Because market inefficiencies make certain necessary adaptations effectively impossible.

For example, if Company A decides they want to be responsible corporate "citizens" and shift their energy consumption to sustainable sources, then they increase their costs and can no longer compete effectively with Company B unless there's a mass movement to purchase A's products because of their energy policy. And unfortunately the existence of Walmart and the like is proof enough that the mass of Americans consider up-front price to be the single most important factor in purchasing decisions, even when it increases their own long-term costs (a $50 appliance that needs to be replaced yearly is far more expensive than a $200 appliance that will last indefinitely), much less indirect social costs whose full weight won't be felt for generations.

Granted, at the moment if we removed all fossil-fuel subsidies renewable energy would look far more competitive, but to really level the playing field we would have to also impose new penalties on "socialized-cost subsidies" that have long been grandfathered in: Coal for example imposes phenomenal pollution costs at almost every stage. If however we imposed well-structured penalties/taxes to reflect the actual cost of reversing that damage then it would be one of the most expensive energy sources available.

Sure it has; in the late 1800s and early 1900s there were almost no taxes and few subsidies. Everyone (but mostly the very rich) kept their money and spent it however they liked. The results were so unpleasant that the country decided that unions and OSHA, for all of their problems, were preferable to that state.

The problem with "spending our money as we see fit" is that we ignore externalities. I live in PA; our cheapest power comes from coal plants. Coal causes really bad health problems once it is burned and released into the air; modern exhaust scrubbers help but we still end up with lots of crud entering our lungs. But the health costs are an externality to the coal plants, so coal power's price is artificially low. I still pay the total cost in higher health care costs and a shorter working life, but it doesn't appear as a line item anywhere. By subsidizing solar panels and other less-polluting energies, the hope is to spend money now to reduce medicare and health insurance costs for the next 50 years. You may believe that this will not same you money overall, or that there is a better way to go about this, but it's not an illogical or crazy plan.

But then people should just buy the cheapest, dirtiest energy and consumer products that they could lay their hands on, regardless of the effect on others. After a very long time lawsuits might step in the sort things out I guess. Alternatively the government could just ban all coal, gas and nuclear energy but that doesn't seem very practical.

Subsidy of the things we, collectively, need is a good idea.

Found one, apparently no whitelist though.
Disable clipboard manipulations

They aren't exactly the same, because interstitial ads aren't just obtrustive, they're interfering. You can't simply mentally resolve to ignore them; if you want to continue you've got to either follow the ad or find a way to dismiss it. This presents the user with a Hobson's Choice: physically respond to the ad, or go back.

A lot depends on how motivated you are to get at the content. If it's something you've clicked out of idle curiosity, you'll back away. If it's something you really want to see you'll fight your way through. Since so much traffic on the Internet is driven by idle curiosity, the 69% figure doesn't surprise me at all. What would be interesting is to disaggregate that figure by types of target content.

Which is one of the many reasons why JavaScript clipboard functions should only be allowed for white-listed sites.

If anyone knows of an extension to fix this I'd like to know.

Doesn't make sense, if you have malware it could be keystroke logging - which would make a password manager more, not less secure if it auto-fills the user+password fields the user+password might not get sniffed.

Since my password manager is a simple piece of software - an encrypted database of my passwords that runs on my computer with the data on my computer, I'd say yes, I have no reason not to trust it. I wouldn't put my bank login details in to it though, because of vulnerabilities + trojans + keystroke-loggers.

Trust an online password manager - hell no.

For a non US-citizen can you explain what the buy-back is exactly? Do they have to refund the purchase price or simply pay market rate for the vehicle? The Jeep offer is a trade-in, so presumably you have to then buy another car from the same company to trade it against.

That might actually be a good way to get some publicity for this thing. I'm sure it will get shut down pretty quickly, but at least the news stories it will generate would embarrass the AG and maybe take him a step closer to being kicked out.

Who is next up the chain to complain to? I'm not in the US, I'm asking... The FBI maybe. Could someone file a crime report with them?

Most tax systems are based on the assumption that the rich need to subsidise the poor, otherwise the poor will suffer so much that they get desperate and start causing problems. First crime, then eventually revolution.

Education is a good example. Most people couldn't afford to give their children a good education, if private school costs are anything to go by. Society needs to be well educated though, especially in the west where the majority jobs these days are clerical and require skills (literacy, numeracy etc.) Without the rich subsidising education they would find that their businesses start to fail due to lack of skilled workers, and that the unskilled masses get fed up and take their wealth by force. That's basically what happened during the industrial revolution when modern taxation systems formed.

Someone from the Smithsonian was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 in the UK and explained the cost. They need to find and hire historians to figure out what the suit is made of (believe it or not the records are incomplete) and what modifications were made after it returned to earth (they intend to restore it to its original state when used on the moon). They then need to get materials experts to figure out how to clean, restore, maintain and preserve it indefinitely. It's not easy, especially when you have a mixture of unusual materials that were made using obsolete techniques back in the 1960s. It's also fairly unique, as later suits were improved versions, often with informal undocumented mods and changes made by staff and crew.

They also want to 3D scan the whole thing, inside and out. That will require some careful disassembly and reassembly.

Half a million bucks doesn't seem like a lot when you consider the salaries involved, the contracts and materials etc. You can't just grab some cotton swabs and alcohol.