Ah the brilliance of youth -
"I have a script for an exploit"
"I can try it against the tax man"
"I won't get caught"
"I'm not going to use the results so no-bad"

"Hey what's with the cuffs!"

You may want to crack a history book. We were a Republic up to the point we adopted democrazy around a century ago.
Apparently there is a flaw in your internal dictionary. Not to worry, happens all the time.

Yes, yes I do. Do you have any depth of our history?

Yeah, it WAS kinda like shovin a crack pipe in their mouth.
Our leadership for the last century is shameful. Complete powerhungry greedy morons.

That is why I used the word reset.

A mix of bad decisions and really awful decisions mean I don't see how I'll ever be able to retire. :(

Which is bad, but what is worse is Development feels like a "young persons game". Rarely do I see anyone over 45 (not far off) coming for an interview, so I've got to move out of what I enjoy (creating stuff) and move to the next level (stopping other people from developing, err, management). :(

Umm.. so the article was focused on the abstract idea of increasing efficiency of thermoelectric generators. The practical idea (and even the article title) was about how it might be able to power a car more efficiently. But yet you focus right in on how it's never going to work. (Why yes, I DO understand the carnot limit of heat engines).

The article never talked about massive gains in heat efficiency for power plants, just scavenging waste heat. Right now we have massive cooling towers at power plants to get rid of waste heat, which sometimes provides problems for increased temperatures of waterways. If you could make an efficient thermoelectric device like this you might be able to take some of that waste heat and turn it into usable electricity, reducing your cooling needs and producing power at the same time. A 600MW coal plant going from a 33% efficient to 34% would produce an additional 18MW. That's not bad. At .02 a kilowatt hour, that's nearly $9000 a day.

So no, there's nothing really to "debunk" here, since no claims are really made about large gains in efficiency.

then why the recent decision ... that allowed individuals to contribute directly to *all* candidates, with no overall cap on contributions?

Because it'a a SUPREME COURT decision. We have three branches of government and only two are elected.

The supremes are appointed, for life (subject only to impeachment for high crimes, like the president). They have no re-election issues and can vote their mind without affecting their own tenure.

The court has repeatedly struck down campaign spending restrictions, because they're limits, not just on free speech, but on the POLITICAL speech that is the reason it is an enumerated right in the first place.

But it takes a while for a law to produce enough damage to give someone standing to challenge it, and to bring it to the supremes, and then they rule narrowly. Then, once a piece is struck down, Congress just turns around and does another version of it to evade the details of that decision, and the cycle starts over.

There are under 700 people that hit the max last time around, do you seriously think that decision will benefit the grass roots? Sounds to me like it's aimed squarely at giving the oligarchs more influence.

Of course it's the rich are the first who are bit and who have the resources to bring the suit. That's part of why the limits end up off the rich (like Soros) first, while they're still hobbling everybody else.

It isn't just the limits themselves that are an issue. There's all the reporting requirements, publication requirements, time limits, and maze of details that make compliance hard.

It's hard for candidates: They need a substantial political machine right off the bat. Getting dinged for campaign finance violations is costly, may involve jail time, DOES involve court time, and produces publicity that tarnishes the candidate's image and hurts his chances in future elections. This gives the professional politicians, especially incumbents with the machine in place, a massive advantage over any grass-roots upstarts trying to replace them.

And it can bring on reprisals against donors - including carreer-killing or physical retaliation. Who contributed to what political campaigns is public record and searchable online. This is an invitation to people with opposing views to exert social pressure or take revenge. (Within the last couple weeks we saw the CEO of Netscape forced to resign by just such pressure, as a result of the McCain-Feingold reporting of a past political contribution to a "politically-incorrect" campaign.)

It's the exact opposite of a secret ballot, which is secret to prevent such reprisals so the vote can be cast in safety. Why should financial support be any different? Why would publishing the amount and beneficiary of each contributor's political contributions be any less of a bias on the political system than publishing the way each voter voted?

Further, risking a job is far more of a hardship for a little guy living hand-to-mouth than a rich executive with millions in the bank and a golden parachute. So it's another force to suppress grass-roots opinion in favor of those who are independently wealthy or well-off.

The uproar was that with computers long term storage the IRS could do things like make you pay taxes on something your parents did 60 years ago, or use the power of tagging to harass specific organizations based on political leanings. What absurd notions those people of ancient times had!

Chuckle.

What could be worse than food!?

Taco Bell

The brittle feel of the paper ... the tactile quality of the old covers and binding...

It also makes the magazines difficult to wet or use as toilet paper, and hence means they tend to last longer as reading material for the John.

So, the more appropriate method is to ask (nicely, or send some guys with guns) the cell service providers to shut down all towers in the required area.

They are not going to do that because a cell tower covers a lot more area than any protest.

Consider the protest in Nevada recently over the Bundy Ranch cattle being taken by armed federal agents. If you shut down cell access for that group, you are shutting down cell access for a potentially very large area of I-15. That's just not going to happen.

The reason why the kill switch would be used is that it cuts off video/image feeds from newer devices, the older phones that still might work would not be as much of a concern. As long as the government can prevent video and images escaping real time they have a lot more latitude in dealing with civilians.

"And just for fun, he says 'Get a job'"

That's just the way it is, some things will never change.

In San Francisco you "have to see the poor" daily as well. Hows that working out for them?

The trouble with the homeless is that they are not just poor, there are usually multiple problems at work including mental issues... so seeing them and giving them money is usually not helping much.

If you really want to help the poor I suggest going to Modest Needs, that is the best place I've found to help the truly poor directly before they fall off the bottom rung of the ladder.