I'm not really following what the guy's saying, but it all comes down to trust.

In the US, I assume you need to have a certain level of certification to both open a cab company as well as be a driver in said cabs (insert rude jokes about cab drivers here..) and Uber is the laizez faire of cabs. Anyone can become a cab at any time, sort of like a car share, but on demand, and most likely participants who don't know one another (like cabs).

The problem comes from trust. When you step into a cab in the US, you have the assumption of not being ripped off, driven around the block, driven dangerously fast, robbed blind, etc.. If lets say I pull up into the Airport and see "NY Taxi Service" or "NY Economy Taxi Service", "Or NYC Taxi's" all posted on their cars, I have no idea if this is a legit signage from a company that has long ties to the area, or a fly by night that is going to take me for a ride.

Try going to countries that have any less enforcement and you get all people trying to look out for you to AVOID xyz because they'll take you for a ride, and maybe they won't and the helpers are just paid by a competing taxi service. Losing an industry that may be fat, but is forced to follow stricter rules for the public good seems like a justifiable trade-off, but I'm open to hearing other opinions on the matter.

I'll wait for EA games on Steam, and I've been quite happy blissfully ignoring any and all new EA releases.

As there are many shapes and forms to democratic process, can you reference an active government that have 'gotten it right' at least in terms of dealing with campaign / direct contributions that you find working well (or at least as close to what you're proposing to introduce)?

That all may be true, or it may not. Taking power away from the fed means that that vacant space is going to:
  1. State / local governments
  2. Organized groups with special interests
  3. The populace

Odds are #3 will have exactly as much say as they've always had, and there's more money to be had be groups 1/2 if the fed shrivles up. My opinion is that if you want power, you need to trade it off with harsh real panalties for violating the trust put upon you. The problem is the people with the most to lose from the scheme are the only ones who have the power to enact it (barring armed revolt). Have fun!

That's an easy one too. Set caps on campaign spending or set limits on the amount of TV/radio based ad time that can be spent on a campaigner. That would very quickly set a more balanced playing field for having people over the top bombarded with the message. It still allows for street signs, internet bombardment, etc.. but those are also generally grass roots in nature, so it may actually benefit people getting elected where they may not have been recognized prior.

If I wanted to block all telephone signals, I should have the right to. If I block emergency radio signals, I should have the right to. If I block all wireless communication signals on the planet, I should have the right to. Wahh wahh wahh. Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.

Dunno about that one, but here's a snapshot of much of the market:

http://www.zillow.com/visuals/...

The poor also buy cheaper cars that are generally lower consumption than the gas guzzling behemonths that roam the American streets. It may disproportionately tax the poor (that drive anyways), but at least its fair in the sene that its based on consumption. Fix the poor with income tax breaks if you must.

Our hosing bubble hasn't popped yet. Houses are at historic highs. Just wait a few years and things will go back to normal.

This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing. If these guys set up their own servers and host it themselves, the costs become cost prohibitive. If they've signed agreements with Google (however retarded these contacts may be) then who's to call either side evil? At least when I blindly agree to a EULA, I know I'm sticking my butt into the air and waiting for a company to do rude things to it.

It would be harder to channel profits back into the hands of root company investors which was much of the 99%'s complaints about corporate tax repatriation, etc.. Anyways, if the parent company owned more than a certain percentage of child company, I believe they fall within the same jurisdictional liability of child company, though I'm not certain how this would work on international levels. Maybe if they had two subsidiaries, one Google Data Inc., the other Google Canada Inc where two subsidiaries fed each other. Anyways, IANAL so its all just speculation on my part.

As dominant as they are in the search market, they are not a monopoly, nor do they leverage search as a carrot/stick for other products and services (at least they're in the lines of the law in most jurisdictions).

Google has the right to do business with any country that they choose, and if they don't want to follow the rule of law in said country, then they can bail out of it, much like what they did with China.

Slashdot most likely only has a business presense on American soil, so its doubtfull that a foreign nation could lawfully enforce their laws on the company; but they could issue arrest orders for any company employees entering said country if they chose to take such a strict response (or seize any assets they could get their hands on).

A company that chooses to do business in a country (any country) is required to abide by the laws operating in said country or choose to remove itself from said country. If Google had a gambling arm in say barbedos and the US told them to shut it down, Google would be forced to comply or be forced to remove all business presense from the soverign US. Its as simple as that.

Now one could argue that the court in this case overreached in terms of what they 'should' have done, but its their right to do so as long as they're still complying with international commerce treaties that they've signed into.