It's a lot easier to be heard when you have money. You know it, I know it. What Mayday pac and their friends want is to shut down voices that aren't sufficiently obedient to the left.
Incidentally, you stop hearing about the evils of money in politics for a while whenever Tom Steyer or Tim Cook opens his mouth, but as soon as another two-minute hate of the Koch brothers is invented, it's all over the headlines again.

...how many systems let you try new passwords ad-infinitum, rapidly? I know back when I was in college I could brute force Windows shared folders (script kiddie style), but nowadays I'd expect any semi-serious authentication system to limit the number and frequency of login attempts.

I am not an IT professional engaging in rhetoric; I'm actually curious.

You know nothing about San Onofre.

The reason the FBI isn't doing more to combat revenge porn is thus: It's not illegal.
I would expect Franken, or at least someone who works for him, to know this. Perhaps he just wants it declared illegal by executive fiat, as is the practice with this administration.
But really, this ploy, and Slashdot's new social-justice-warrior driven coverage of it, is driven more by a desire to distract everyone from foreign events, Hillary's email server, and Obama's frequent and blatant power grabs.
That's actually kind of funny, now that I think of it. There's been no story posted at all about Clinton's email shenanigans. Well, we know who Dice has thrown their lot in with.

Thank you for perpetuating the old joke that the Canadian national identity is based on Maple Syrup, Hockey, and 'not being America.'

In my defense, I did a google search before I posted. And I usually keep an eye on fark, though this week I've been busy.
Thank you for the actual links.
I do have a question for you- are you one of those sorts who finds every criticism of Obama to be coded racism?

'5, Interesting' is a high score for bullshit.
I know you leftists hope and pray that every new mass murder is a right-wing terrorist attack. You must be constantly disappointed that nut jobs with leftist sympathies and Islamists are doing the actual killing.

Such a system is easily subverted, and you have to be a fool or a democrat to claim otherwise.

...that we were promised. Maybe we can send John Kerry over to Berlin with a modified staples button that says "überladen" to try to make things right.

...that it didn't melt down. We get it, MD, you don't like nuclear power.

I've had a step counter running on my iphone 5, and it drains the battery faster than normal. It's also not something I care to wear when I'm doing cardio. My Garmin band (vivosmart) weighs essentially nothing and the battery lasts for days. Winner: Garmin.

I'm one whose behavoir aligns pretty well with the article. I start playing the lotto when the jackpot gets north of $150 million. Statistically and historically it's wasted money, but I can blow $10 here or there without much consequence. If I saved and invested all the money I wasted on powerball, I'd have maybe $1,000-2,000- not a life changing amount of money for me.

As I type this, a thought occurs to me- maybe I should double my lotto expenditures- every time I buy lotto tickets I deposit the same amount of money into a mutual fund of some sort- see where I'm at in another 10 years.

Anyway, the interesting thing about lotto economics is not middle class and higher people who use modest discretionary funds for a shot at the big jackpot. It's that lotto sales are highest in the lowest income communities- people with less money to waste, for whom $10 is a more significant part of their paycheck. The lotteries are funded largely by people with the least money to spare.
Now it's likely that in the absence of state driven gambling, illegal gambling would arise (or grow bigger), possibly with even worse consequences for the least well off among us. That's a significant factor in the moral case for or against state-sanctioned lotteries. There are some states without lottos- Hawaii, Alaska, Utah, Mississippi and Alabama- so there ought to be some information about this factor. A quick google search yields some leads, which I do not currently have the time to digest.

Your case doesn't sound like she kept her personal dog alive longer than the authorities thought proper. Negligence to the point of irrecoverable injury (as determined by 'professionals' who would have to put in the work to nurse the dogs back to health) isn't the same thing as caring for a dog when other folks think it best to put it down.
That's where this 'voluntary assisted suicide' thing goes, by the way. To the murder of the inconvenient.

Really? Where?
Anyway, Holland is having a grand old experiment with assisted suicide. There's a great deal of debate on the matter over there, some of it worth reading. You can start this little experiment in Canada with the grandest of intentions- and then find yourself in a spot where doctors kill off the elderly and invalids to free up hospital beds.

If that were true you would be able to cite doctors & studies supporting your position. But you can't, so you didn't.