True capitalism at work, everything is for sale, even the laws.

Um put an agent inside iSEC, although we know the NSA would above that. Spying is not their job.

I agree that most people would not be able to fly a car, but getting cars to fly themselves is possible, probably easier in some ways, you don't have those pesky pedestrians to get in your way, you can make all flying cars computer controlled from the start so you remove other stupid motorists from the equation.

That is mere speculation, If so you should see a dip heart attacks right after daylight savings, as the people who would have died don't.You don't know, there is no evidence for that. It maybe that daylight savings also increases your chances of having a heart attack over a lifetime. I have no evidence for my theory either.

I would hope the majority of heart attacks happen to older people, who are more likely to be retired, weekends may not mean much, the impact may even be greater on old people than 25%.

In general I am, they are far to often used to make people feel, superior, just like other jargon. Just because you don't know what ISP means doesn't mean you don't know what an Internet Service Provider is, or does. The purpose of language, for me at least is to communicate, acronyms in general only make it harder.

You could say the US supreme court. It is simple, and clearer to larger set of people.

While I also think women don't actually get paid less in general, when taking into consideration other factors, like hours worked (over lifetime), other rewards such as more emotionally gratifying jobs. Women an men are different we may in general look for different qualities in jobs. Is that such a bad thing?

All the surveys I have seen, seem to be look at the average wage of a male, compare it with females, and say oh no we have wage inequality.

But to play devils advocate it, maybe profitable to pay women less money and still hire more men, because women maybe willing to accept less for some physiological reason. (Women in general may be just be less pushy). You still have to hire people, and there is only a limited supply, it is skilled labor which may mean getting the right person may be more important to your bottom line than paying them a bit less. So out of 100 potential employees you pick the best, say 10% are women, assuming random skill level you hire 10% women. Then you negotiate in sexist manner either, consciously or unconsciously.

The simple fact is wages are not fair, they do not accurately reflect skill/effort put into it. If it did why do fund managers get paid millions when their funds under perform the market (basically you would expect trained monkeys to do better). I doubt they work harder than say a fruit pickers either. You may say they have more risk, but that is not really true either, say they loose all your money, as long as they didn't commit a crime while doing it, the worst that will happen is they will have to get normal paying job like the rest of us. If you want fair you are living in the wrong world.

Frivolous patents, my well be abuses but they are also a direct result of the patient system. The patents are all about controlling, obtaining a monopoly, the more "Ideas" you control the more you benefit.

It is in a companies very nature to maximize profit, as such it will always push the patent system to its limits. Using its vast resources to do so, by lawyers, and bribing, ops I meant lobbying politicians, to change the laws.

I am not completely opposed to a patent system but patents should be very short lived, just enough for you to have a good chance of establishing a market share.

Or perhaps the length of the patent should be based on the effort needed to create it.

because that's not how it works in real life.

If Megacorp wants to crush you, it will, It will put into play its warchest of patents, with its army of lawyers, you will go bankrupt paying legal fees long before you make any money.

Your best hope is remain unnoticed until you are successful enough to compete.

sort of like the government printing "real" money. except you are also wasting paper, and ink.

The shareholder produce nothing, the provide capital yes, but actually expend zero effort past that point.

The workers are the ones that actually produce something. It is true that all parts of the system are required to produce something, but paying your employees a living wage should be a priority, if the shareholders can't support themselves off the profits of their shares after that, perhaps they should get off their lazy butts and get a job, where they too would be earn a living wage.

Yes I know a lot of shareholders actually work.

I don't think copyright law actually helps increase, arts literature, and even has a detrimental effect, people who create do so because the want to. Copyright law creates large business that must make money over being creative. It also hinders derivative works, which face it all works are.

There are reputable studies that show paying people more decrease creativity.

I also find it incredibly hard to believe that once an artist is dead, that any monetary intensives offered after the death of the artist will encourage them to spend more time on their work. To those people who say but what to stop people killing the artist, the same thing that stops people over people getting killed for money, societies morals, and murder laws. Anyway once they are dead it would be public domain so not that valuable anyway.

While I agree with you that attribution can remain for ever but copyright, patient should be limited. Attribution is basically don't lie.

Attribution must have practical constraints as well, if it is a significant part of the creation then by all means, give credit. But giving credit for every single thing for ever seems impractical. Would be giving credit to the designer of every screw, wheel, cog etc in a car? The list of attributions would be long and nobody would read it because nobody would care.

If you wrote a song, would you have give credit to every song you ever listened to because it possibly influenced you in writing your song?

Or, the spooks will kill him and blame some nut job.

Or realize that your vote is not that powerful and wasting it isn't really such big deal in the first place. You wouldn't want to waste your vote because the other party might get in, guess what they will get in maybe not this election, but eventually they will

So vote for a third party if you wish, it will make little or no difference to the election outcome either way.

c) is just accepting the status quo, they want you to think that a vote for someone else is a wasted vote, that how they keep their power.

If there was a third party, the people who run the country would have to start bribing, oops I meant to say making political contributions to them as well, it would be more expensive. Guess what I think they are as bad as each other, and the whole thing is just a show to give the impression that you have a choice.

Nothing will change, if people just keep on doing exactly what they have been doing in the past.