You do realize that going on public (repeat PUBLIC) record is the very purpose of signing petitions, right? If you truly believe what you promote, then why back away when it proves unpopular? Why the insane "but really it just that I don't believe in the legal institution of marriage" deflection? No courage to your convictions?

(And it is now entirely legal to give billions to support causes secretly through front organizations. If you don't take advantage of this when advocating for causes that embarrass you to support, then you are an idiot, as well as a "well lubricated weather vane".)

How can I take your bet? Since we are proposing the odds are 4-1 in your favor, how about I take you up at only 2-1 (heck I would even do even money)? Name your stakes.

Homes and schools being built in an industrial area where large amounts of explosive petrochemicals were stored and handled. Really? I take it that the fact that this confirms the absence of sane zoning laws is completely lost on you.

The West Intermediate (Middle school) was just 1000 feet from the plant. I guess those school kids had it coming...

This is one of the most astonishing turns in right-wing thinking (using the term loosely) - attempting to extract themselves from the tar pit of principle-free support for denying equal rights by pivoting and declaiming that the legal institution of marriage be abolished.

Religions do have religious marriage ceremonies they like to perform, and the state grants religious practitioners the authority to act as legal officiators and witnesses to the formation of this contract (same as judges and sea captains), but marriage is just that - a legal contract with deep and vast ramifications throughout society. The idea that marriage is properly only a "religious rite" with no legal consequences is just stunning in its lunacy and denial of basic facts.

Far from being something remotely "conservative", this sudden inspiration to abandon a core set of laws as old as Western secular civilization, is the most extreme, radical proposal I think I have ever heard presented with a straight face. And note that there is no real justification offered for such a bizarre proposal - it just sort of pops up at the end of a disclaimer that "I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but...".

Interesting. So the real problem with Prohibition was not that it was a bad law, but that Americans were bad people, self-centered law breakers who should have respected this fine piece of legislation.

Good to know.

Then you know nothing about the California "three strikes law" which was written by the prison guard union, and passed through an aggressive ad campaign that the union funded which invariably and exclusively used the stock phrase "violent criminal" to give the voter the impression that these were the only people being locked up for the rest of their lives.

But the law only required the first two "strikes" be "serious", not violent, crime and the third strike could be virtually any thing at all (given prosecutor's ability to upgrade almost any charge to a felony of some kind). "Serious" crimes included simple robbery, and since it has long been a practice for poor, lower class defendants to plead guilty to questionable charges to get light sentences - large numbers of defendants found that old pleas (some quite ancient) suddenly made them "three strikes" fodder for any offense. In fact a large majority of "three strikes" convictions are for minor crimes.

The EU law (not passed) referenced in the article you link to is a good example of IP rent-seeking, corporations trying to suppress competition to their patented products by writing laws and getting legislators to pass them.

The best way to get the gist of the proposed EU law, is to read the FAQ the law proponents wrote to defend it. Critics hardly need to add much to the "defense" to show how damning it is.

Basically it states that no commercial operation (unless small enough to be a "micro-enterprise") can sell any seed that is not "registered" under the law, which costs something like 3000 Euros per seed variety to do. Wild seed, natural seed, heirloom varieties, newly bred or selected varieties by seed savers - all banned from sale unless "registered".

Of course it claims this is a Very Good Thing and amazingly claims that it will "grant more responsibility and flexibility to businesses dealing in plant reproductive material" and will "cut red tape and costs by making the rules more flexible and efficient across the EU".

Except for the EULA printed on their packets this is very similar to what the very well established Seed Savers Exchange has been doing for decades.

For reference the actual operative text of the EULA is:

It is the actual work of the seed savers group - saving, reproducing, distributing seed - that is preserving these varieties for future generations. Imposing this transfer clause seems to make these OSSI varieties less likely to be redistributed, so it may actually have a negative effect on their propagation. I don't see that having someone taking an heirloom variety and developing a patented variety from it is impeding seed saving and exchanging.

Heirloom varieties are under threat - the number of them in circulation is dropping, and strains are being lost since they do need to be periodically "grown out" to preserve the seed stock. But it is not being caused by heirloom varieties being patented - it is because commercially produced seed is being used by most gardeners for very real conveniences they provide.

Wrong question. What should a socially responsible megacorp that has overwhelming dominance in the primary communication system of the 21st Century do when confronted by a corrupt political process? Just quietly do business-as-usual, supporting the corrupt process, further entrenching it?

Google cannot avoid engaging with the pay-to-play system, but should it actively support it, or use its wealth, power, influence and access to challenge and expose it?

Voters have negligible power to make any change in the iron triangle of bought politicians, mouth-piece "think tanks", and corporations eager to buy legislation and elite "opinion".

This blog extolling Dutch road design innovation is nonetheless quite dismissive of the "glowing paint" idea, and mentions the use of glass bead retroreflectors (as in the UK) as a much better idea. It makes a good case.

A snow covered road is unsafe to drive on for the general public (no 4-wheel drive and no snow tires/chains) - so removing the snow is generally a very high priority (plows and salt). The times when snow is covering the strip will be rare.

This is a Poe's Law post if every there was one.

Is this guy serious or being over-the-top satirical?

We knew the "Don't Be Evil" motto was an ideal that could not withstand the rigors of the modern international marketplace. But how large a portion of "evil" is Google now comfortable with?

We "nuts" will forgive you when you do decide to examine this intellectually.

Your current offering fails to even attempt this.

You start with "I may be a bit ignorant on the subject" and then go on to show that indeed, you truly are. To address this "intellectually" you need to actually be willing to do a little hard work - read real research summaries and become familiar with why the objections you pull off the top of your head make you look foolish (hint: they actually are foolish).

Ah, the awesome combination of towering hatred and towering ignorance!

No, the all-powerful hippies are not holding corporate cowering helplessly in their thrall.

Do you know how many actual, real nuclear power plant projects in the U.S. have been halted by environmentalist opposition? None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It is impressive in fact how completely all attempts to halt nuclear power plants through protest failed.

But weren't all those nuclear power projects abandoned at the end of the 1970s halted by those d*mned "extreme environmentalists"? Nope. It was lack of electrical demand - those plants were planned under the idea that the rapid growth in electricity consumption of 1950s and 60s would continue forever.

The high capital costs of nuclear power plants make them unattractive investments compared to coal and natural gas plants. Only government subsidies (or a carbon tax) could make them cost competitive. It is good old profit-maximizing capitalism that has been holding nuclear power back.

There are in fact nuclear power plants starting construction right now - Units 3 and 4 at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georiga. The plants project might have started a couple of years sooner - but what was holding it back was were the federal subsidies demanded by the private companies. At the start of this years the final i's were dotted on those subsidies ($6.5 billion in loan guarantees) and the plants are going forward.