Says you. If it's true, why hasn't it been stopped? You just need to get one honest person on the bus and the jig is up?

But it's not true...

Name one.

You don't have enough money for US law enforcement to care about someone in Ukraine stealing your identity. Seriously. International law enforcement is for the corporations to use. Not you.

Are you new here? That is exactly what "it" is. The purpose of some portion of Anonymous is exactly what that portion of Anonymous says it is today. But they probably aren't talking to you. Tomorrow some portion of anonymous will decide to do the same thing, or something else. Pray that some portion of anonymous doesn't decide that making your life difficult would be teh lulz.

And that's why Anonymous will still be here tomorrow. There are no "leaders" to arrest. Because everybody speaks for Anonymous, nobody speaks for Anonymous. Anyone who tells you why Anonymous does something probably wasn't there when the decision was made.

Even if I shout at the top of my lungs, the only voice that the politician will hear is that of the lobbyist.

If I had never been born, I would not notice that I was missing. If we were to wind the clock back to the day before I was conceived, the chances that I would be conceived is essentially zero, and the chance that any child would result from my parents having sex that night would not be much better. I do what I can to make my existence useful. But it was never necessary.

The death penalty is only effective against nonviolent people. Violent people are unlikely to be deterred by it. The people most likely to be subjected to it (the mentally incompetent) can't be deterred by it. Someone bribing a congressman is more dangerous to society than someone who kills at random anyway.

If it's at 11:59 and they feel the need to move it forward it will be because missiles are in the air. 11:59 is your last chance before doomsday.

Lets imagine the scenario. The clock got moved to 11:58 because Russia is engaged in a two front war against Europe and the United States in the west and the United States and China in the south and west. It went to 11:59 because the Russian western front is collapsing and Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons if foreign troops step on Russian soil. So why would we need another step forward? General Grosgrave has the hiccups?

You are so barking up the wrong tree there. When Kim Jong-il died people cried in the streets and flogged themselves. The was because that when Kim Il-sung died who did not grieve hard enough or publicly enough were arrested, tortured and in some cases executed. We have no idea what's in Kim Jong-un's brain and who is feeding him what information. Does he think his father and grandfather were gods? Does he think he's a god? Does he care if his people are killed? North Korea makes Iran look sane in comparison.

And that's before you mention that North Korea has the bomb and Iran doesn't. And Iran has had demonstrations against its leaders. Nobody in North Korea would dare.

Depends how we go. Triggering an ice age could leave some descendants of the great apes around, but as a family the great apes have been a pretty dismal failure with only 7 species in 4 genera. I'd be pretty surprised if any survive. Triggering excessive heating might even be worse for large animals. Nuclear exchange followed by nuclear winter would probably get rid of large species. I would guess your best bet is a small burrowing omnivore. Temperatures underground might be moderated with the possibility of better access to fresh water. Once the climate stabilizes for a while we've got half a billion years of viability left in the planet, so something we would consider intelligent might evolve.

Of course if we trigger a runaway greenhouse, the point is moot. If there are bacteria in mantle rocks or deep crust, they might survive for a while. Once the water is baked out of the mantle and plate tectonics stops, that's all she wrote.

People who like humans might consider either one to be sad.

What are they supposed to do, wait until climate change has gotten to the point where a world war is going to happen in six months? The point of the clock is to convince people to do something to prevent the destruction of civilization, not to tell them to get ready because it's too late to do anything about it.

And just because you don't understand climate change doesn't mean that climate scientists don't. Personally, I wouldn't ask you to adjust the temperature on my refrigerator because the complexity might overwhelm you. It's not that had to see where the climate is going and that is has moved well beyond any natural feedback that could produce anything like the prior equilibrium unless we reduce CO2 emissions to a point where we can maintain a stable level.

Yeah, I'm sure that nobody has, even though we've got hundreds of people on the payroll with lots of resources dedicated to planning for scenarios like this that nobody has thought about what might happen in a nuclear attack on the US. I'm sure that they haven't made hundreds of plans based on how the weapons were delivered, how many, and where the missiles came from, and whether we know those things. And sure that the people making those plans would be just as clueless as you as to the state of the US missile defense systems (could only work for a very very limited strike from specific countries, and even then unlikely to work) as you are. And I'm sure none of the response plans include counter-strikes be they immediate, delayed, limited or everything we've got.

I hope you could hear the sarcasm dripping from that

In this bill "private-sector" doesn't mean private sector. It redefines "private-sector research" to be work funded by the government performed by anyone except the federal government so long as it is edited or peer reviewed by a non-governmental organization. So someone at the University of Illinois doing NASA funded research who sends something to the University of Chicago Press for publication cannot be required by NASA make copies available at a eprint server at no charge. If you want to see the research you paid for, you'll need to pay the University of Chicago Press.

(This is just an example. I don't know the preprint or reprint policies of the University of Chicago Press.)

I guess that you can't read enough far enough to find out that the legislation was introduced my Darrel Issa, noted Republican and car thief. Wouldn't want that to get in the way of a good tirade, though.

Then make the punishment commensurate with the crime of attempting to subvert the government of the United States. I'm typically not a death penalty supporter, but I'd go with both the individual death penalty and the corporate death penalty violations of campaign finance laws, for both the donor and the recipient. Kill the briber and the person who was bribed. If it's a corporate "donation," kill all the board members, too. Dissolve the corporation and sell its assets.

You'd only have to carry out that penalty once for the implications to sink in. Self preservation is a strong instinct. A corporation wouldn't risk thinking it could hide a bribe. The bribed politician would have eternal blackmail material against the briber, and vice versa.