That's my take on it too. It sounds like a proposal to guarantee one-sided arguments.

I'm with you on the Mozilla incident. That was absolutely out of bounds and I will never look at Mozilla the same way again. But that was different. Vocal opportunists saw an opportunity to make an example of a CEO and they took it. The guy already had the job. Someone mentioned that he still does code submissions, which further points to the position being the target and not so much the individual. If he was so reprehensible, they would still be complaining that he contributes to the project. All I hear now are the handful of people still expressing outrage at OkCupid, Mozilla, and the other malicious malcontents.

A lot of tech companies aren't even doing reference checks anymore. The last few companies I worked for did not. They're somewhat pointless. Many companies don't allow their employees to answer reference checks at all, other than to verify that the person was employed. Same reason, a person's former employer doesn't want to be liable should the candidate not get hired by the new company.

I can see this occurring in the past, but not the present. Everyone complains about everything online. If you really dig into someone's background, eventually you're going to find something objectionable. There would be hordes of people displaced if this was truly going on in significant numbers. A company can go after a worker, but it's going to be Streisand Effect. When they need to hire new talent, their candidates are also going to do a search. Who is going to want to work for a company that's notorious for silencing its workers?

At best, the employer might be able to reverse-direct-deposit the severance if the complainer wasn't smart enough to move the money. The courts aren't going to take a person's house or retirement savings, and that's probably as much "wealth" that the average American worker has at this point. Want to rat a company out? Grab a disposable phone and tweet away.

How often have you heard of employers going after employees who ignore that part of the agreement?

That's my point. There is no such thing as voluntary when it comes to taxes.

Ask Ed and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire how voluntary paying taxes is. They didn't, and were besieged by government agents.

How does equal protection give the federal government authority to tax people in one state for toys for the police in another state? We're innocent until proven guilty in this country. If the federal government thinks there's a case where equal protection was violated, they can investigate and take action if necessary. What they cannot do is decide what equipment the local police forces must have, nor should they be involved in anyway in funding local police forces. Local authority needs to be funded locally. We were never meant to have a strong federal government with weak power at the local level. It's supposed to be the other way around.

It shouldn't be a federal issue, partisan or otherwise. That's not what the federal government is for. If a community wants their police force to have cameras, let the community figure out how to pay for it. If this was common practice, we wouldn't have small police forces armed with Bearcats and enough firepower to take over Canada. If the feds are desperate to buy cameras for something, put them on the porous southern border to help direct Border Patrol agents. That's something that's actually a federal responsibility!

Was going to post the same comment. It's not the federal government's role to tax people in one state to buy toys for cops in other states.

The article does preface the $75 million with "proposed", so like most things the President proposes, perhaps nothing will come of it.

Already there: Pure Moon, among others.

No kidding. There's not much left after those, unless you want to warp back to the times of a simpler WWW.

That may change as it gains in popularity. Sounds like two major groups went to Pale Moon from Firefox.. those that detest the UI changes Mozilla keeps inflicting on its users and those that don't agree with Mozilla's stance on social justice. They're not necessarily separate factions either, I'm sure there's overlap.

Browsers don't need to do much. They render pages. They execute scripts. I can't for the life of me understand why there are so many updates to it. Many of them seem like steps backwards, such as screwing with a UI that everyone is familiar with.

Pale Moon might not be the long term, maybe, maybe not, but there's a vacuum looking for a long term option. MSIE isn't it. Chrome isn't it. Firefox isn't it. Which browser can appeal to the masses and stay true to its purpose?

Is that you, Putin?

What due process? They weren't harmed. There's no redress to be had.