Translation: If you want that merger approved, you'd better pay up.

While still appalled, I'm just no longer surprised. A cable lobbyist passes through the revolving door, Obama/<insert-other-wealthy-donor-funded-politician-here> does his usual PR game (in addition to the usual industry bought PR), the corporate media barely makes a peep about it (or presents a misleading view of it) despite the blatant conflict of interest and despite reputable public interest advocates sounding the alarm, and then the ex-lobbyist advocates for anti-competitive practices that will hurt the vast majority of Americans and further enrich the plutocrats he formerly worked on the behalf of (just like the public interest advocates said he would). And just watch this guy's compensation skyrocket when he transitions back through the revolving door into private industry--he will be rewarded well.

And it's the same story over and over again. The US continues to degenerate into a plutocracy as a result of rampant corruption (*legal* corruption, but still a corruption of the intent of the system itself--the intent being to serve the public good). More and more Americans seem to be arriving at this conclusion, but the vast majority still gets its "news" from the corporate media and is thus completely uninformed and misled. The corporate media is quite happy with this situation due to the vast monies being spent on political advertising, and candidates that actually have the public interest in mind do not even end up on the radar because getting coverage means competing with the wealthy-donor funded candidates (in other words, it's too expensive, e.g. a senate seat is usually around $4 million).

So I'm probably just about as apathetic as any other American, but here's at least a start on a solution: the problem itself, a solution in the works, an online movement to accompany that solution, another related movement, and a motivational speech for these movements.

Only broad generalities are being stated on the promotional page, but are they trying to fuse the best of both PC and console worlds? (and then some?) My overly optimistic side interprets it as something like this:

For the user, you have both the reliability of it "just working" (like a console, standard hardware) and absolutely no limitations on customization (e.g. run your own linux applications, install a different linux distro, run the OS on different hardware altogether, change the hardware, run an indie game that is not on Steam but still conforms to the standard hardware, do that thing you've always wanted to do with your PS3/360 but couldn't because they're greedy fucking assholes and/or are afraid of getting sued). And just as important for console users, you also have simplicity beyond "just getting things to work": a standard UI tailored to gaming (where everyone is connected, voice chat, a marketplace, "cloud", etc etc).

For developers, you have consistency (meaning no more custom tailoring your game to tons of different hardware configurations, controllers, etc etc, and also the ability to milk the most out of the hardware), a partially community-run marketplace owned by people that aren't assholes (and the ability to, if necessary, operate outside of it while remaining on the same platform), flexibility (nothing stopping you from adding in Oculus Rift support or whatever else), and an OS specifically optimized for gaming.

That's quite optimistic though. But if this is what they're going for--or at least something close to it--it could change everything (and upset a lot of established interests). And supposing this ideal were to come about and SteamOS gains traction, this could put a lot of power in the hands of a single company. The temptation to be greedy could be too great--especially as management inevitably changes. In other words, I'm hoping they'll proactive about putting in safeguards against their future selves, because my optimistic side (which, I must say, is usually wrong) says this could be big.

There is an alarmingly widespread mindset on slashdot that seems to suggest that every action taken by humans must be solely motivated by improving the "success" of our species (where "success" is resource acquisition, improvements in technology, whatever else increases the expanse and longevity of our species), as if we're in some galaxy-wide race to proliferate ourselves. But increasing the expanse and longevity of humanity does not necessarily mean we will be happy (the only thing which humans truly seek to maximize, even if we're quite often ineffectual at doing so). It only has the *potential* to create a condition for it, and while it is certainly a worthy pursuit for this reason, to make it one's sole pursuit (or even something close to it) is absolute insanity (as one never stops to do that which makes them happy). Life is not a fucking RTS.

So when we talk of sending humans to europa or mars, there is no miscalculation about e.g. the inefficiency of using a human body in those environments when compared to that of a robot. The fact is that sending humans is *the entire point of it*. We want to observe the *human experience*--it is the next best thing to experiencing it ourselves (humans have this wonderful thing called empathy, the ability to (approximately) experience something through another ... well, most humans do). The satisfaction of curiosity, the overcoming of all of the challenges and risks, the feeling of being on the frontier of human exploration, etc etc all experienced through another--this is why we want to send humans. In other words, there is no reason other than the most fundamental which humans possess (it makes us happy) and there is nothing as sufficient--it is what people live for.

Now perhaps this "human experience" and "empathy" stuff doesn't matter to you (given that you're reading this I suspect you're lying or in denial, but so be it), or perhaps you really don't think the costs/risks are worth it (i.e. you don't think it will make you happy). Fine then, don't support the effort and move along. Just don't try to claim there is some sort of objective foolishness to sending humans instead of robots, as that simply means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and why so many want to send humans in the first place (and I could understand why one would be upset with NASA or other taxpayer funded efforts using humans for this purpose, but in that context you have your vote).

Almost 10 years ago I bought a Rio Carbon MP3 player (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Carbon ). It still has the same microdrive that it shipped with and I've used it almost every day since--jogging, walking, biking, driving, etc etc. No, my continued usage of it isn't a hipster thing (even though I do have a strange, nostalgic attraction to it just because it has been with me for this long). I'd actually prefer to use a smartphone but can't go that route for various reasons (mainly the fact that here in the USA just the monthly fees would set me back by a third of what's left over of my monthly take after necessities are taken care of).

"Stop! Just stop with the global warming news already! We were wrong, OK? OK guys?! Just because we chose to believe the "research" of our libertarian and conservative "think tanks" funded directly by the petroleum industry and its investors (or by 501(c)(3)s to conceal the donors), and then ended up falling for the same PR tactics used and perfected by the tobacco industry (e.g. front groups, industry-propped/-organized "grassroots" movements, misleading media reports, fake controversies, etc etc) doesn't mean we need to be humiliated like this! First we accepted it was real, then we accepted it was man made, and now we've accepted that it's actually a problem. Just how many more stages of denial must we pass through before you're all satisfied?! Now those same "sources" that deceived us before (but for some insane reason we still listen to) are essentially telling us that "there's nothing we can do about it anyway" and "by golly, it's actually a good thing, so burn away!"--must we concede on these obvious lies too? Where does it end! I swear to god, there's a slashdot article almost every day on the negative effects of climate change and every time we see a new one it's like a pie in the fa-*splat* oh god now yosemite is on the verge of burning..."

- The inner thoughts of a depressingly large portion of slashdotters

The ITIF is an industry sock puppet. It should be no surprise that they do not disclose all of their funding and that almost every stance taken by the organization aligns with the interests of the telecom industry.

Here is a good rundown of why you shouldn't trust anything the ITIF says: http://stopthecap.com/2013/02/13/telecom-sock-puppets-attack-industry-critics-facts-dont-matter-only-how-you-interpret-them/

What is scary is that congressmen actually take the ITIF's word seriously (should be no surprise why).

Agreed. It is "corruption" in the sense that *the intent of the institution* (e.g. to act in the public's interest) is corrupted. Just because it is legal does not mean the system is working as intended.

But regardless, anyone who justifies their or some else's heinous behavior with a "because it is legal" argument is too far gone to be worth your time anyway.

(1) I don't know if this is possible yet, but it needs to be inconspicuous. I have no desire to secretly record people. Rather, I just don't want to wear a device that attracts attention. Not only do I not want the negativity that comes from being associated with something that will disrupt peoples' privacy, but I'm not into conspicuous consumption (and frankly I'm the type that would prefer to avoid most attention--I just want to go about my business without impediments).

(2) I should be able to plug it into my own device--and not just android devices. Honestly, I don't really care for some (for lack of a better expression) "toy OS" functionality. I'm not saying I want my full blown programming environment, but just consistency and interoperability with my normal computer usage. How I'll be able to accomplish the "inconspicuous" requirement with a wire leading into my pocket is a mystery to me (maybe I'll lead it along my headphone wire).

Accomplish these two things and I'll start wearing fake glasses just for this purpose. There is so much information that I want to keep up with (particularly in politics) but can't as I'd spend every moment of my free time doing so. The multitasking potential of something like this is huge--especially for those of us with jobs where focusing on something else does not disrupt our work (e.g. like myself, a stone mason. Right now, it's just audiobooks and radioshows).

It costs you a mere 10 seconds and 2 mouse clicks to sign a petition. The ability for the public to gauge the collective support behind an issue like this is worth that cost by itself (the corporate media sure as hell isn't going to channel such concerns). The possibility that the petition may "go viral" and gain enough signatures to make a politician a little less comfortable is only a bonus.

If you feel "cheated" by petitions, you were expecting too much in the first place--especially in the context of the US where what's in the public's interest is often in direct conflict with what gets a politician re-elected (money). They are not a substitute for other avenues of political activism, but they are certainly worth the almost nonexistent cost. You should be signing one every day.

Actually I don't know if that is the right solution, but I'm tired of seeing NASA being manipulated as a jobs program (and to be clear, I'm not talking about NASA being able to dictate the size of its budget). NASA could have so much more potential if it was able to focus on long term goals and could allocate its resources correctly. If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve depending too heavily on the limited nature of private enterprise (and the luck of people like Elon Musk--those that have bigger dreams than using their wealth to accumulate more wealth--getting rich), it would be great if you could share it.

And increase the size of NASA's budget.

Of course I believe there are much more important things at this particular time than issues relating to science and technology, so I took a look at your wikipedia page Justice Party's wiki page and it all looks very good. Campaign Finance Reform, does not accept corporate funding, abolishing corporate personhood, favors a financial transaction tax, repeal of Bush tax cuts, raising the cap on the payroll tax, reinstating Glass-Steagall, single payer health system, ending the war on drugs ... etc etc. It looks like the party supports a lot of the good things democrats say they are for, but without the corporate dependence that goads them to do the opposite.

Now to see if you have anyone running in New York...

Quite informative, both in the proliferation and ease of paid reviews, and the extent to which unempathetic people like yourself can openly rationalize unscrupulous behavior by blaming the victim--the "freedom to screw over peopl"--oh I'm sorry, I mean the "personal responsibility" mentality.

However, if you want to continue on the stepping stones you've created for yourself and put your moral vacancy to better use, I recommend pushing ARMs and other exotic loans for large financial institutions, and/or perhaps pushing some rehash of "consumer driven" plans in the healthcare industry. A lot more money to be made. ":P".

These were mostly already available, but the value here is that they are now easily accessible and searchable. In addition, there is a history of previously declassified documents becoming re-classified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._reclassification_program

http://www.statisticbrain.com/laptop-malfunction-rates/

Alright, so your laptop is actually more likely than not to last more than 3 years given the above data, but those failure rates are still fucking abysmal (1 out of 6 or 7 of the *best* brand fails within 3 years? And 1 out of 4 for HP? Even for the low end, that's inexcusable), and the data certainly matches up with my own experience. Just about everyone I know that goes out and buys a new laptop (not just HP or cheapos here) has hardware problems within the first 2 years or so. More often than not, it seems to be those damn power connectors. They are so fragile that I suspect they're designed to fail.

Now this is only anecdotal evidence, but I bought a $500 Dell laptop a long time ago (says it was manufactured in 2004, and that sounds about right) and it is still going strong. I've kept it on almost 24/7 since I bought it. I've dumped a whole mug of green tea on the keyboard while it was on. I've fallen down a hill with it in my back pack. It has been dropped many times. It's even using the same damn 40GB hard drive.

The same experience has been relayed to me by many others: the new ones fail a lot more frequently than the old--including the high end ones. I would really like to see some data on laptop failure rates over a long time period, because what I see personally wreaks of planned obsolescence.

In short, I just want a laptop that isn't designed to fail in order to sustain an extremely wasteful business model.

I don't think any but a small minority actually expect the government to respond to a petition like this in a way that will actually change anything. However, it seems there are a lot of people that think these petitions do not have a net benefit, but just about anyone thinking this is probably expecting way too much from the start. At the cost of a few seconds and a mouse click, they allow the public to gauge the collective support behind something, and also get a potential mention in the media. Knowing that you and all these people (whatever number of people these 100k signatures can be extrapolated to in terms of the public's sentiment) are mutually concerned about something is only a good thing--especially when the cost is so miniscule.

But again, I don't think this alone will actually change anything. A significant step, in my opinion at least, is to create an environment in which change *can* actually happen--namely a system of publicly funded elections allowing candidates to run without becoming dependent on the wealthy for their campaign costs (the average person rarely ever hears about the ones that don't). There are a few campaigns pushing for this at the federal level and one is materializing in NY, but this, however, is a completely different topic...