Nice that she used Scotland to testbed completely shitty policies as well--why? Because nobody in Scotland had any voting power to oppose her. Glad she's dead.

How much will this approach raise food-prices?

Zynga has a history of directly copying things--without regard to copyright. I think this call out was meant to point out a deviation from its normal behaviour of 'fuck the other guy'. " Zynga CEO to employees: 'I don't f***ing want innovation' " "I don't fucking want innovation," the ex-employee recalls Pincus saying. "You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers." Check it out: http://blog.games.com/2010/09/08/zynga-ceo-to-employees-i-dont-f-ing-want-innovation/

When corporations are not involved in the law making process, it would seem the likelihood of reasonable laws increases.

Or... the industry could actually honour the law rather than being assholes? The point is that energy conservation is a useful activity--let's presume for the legal entity at large, and maybe even the populace. In fact, the drive in energy efficiency is the sole activity that has allowed portable computing to take place--iPhones, Android devices, the works. Imagine the benefits of improving these things further.

This is incredibly dangerous. I suspect no account of the activities of the Nazi party are completely accurate. This law, in my opinion, essentially says that questioning these accounts are the first step toward putting yourself in prison. Apropos: How do we draw the line between questioning 'what really happened', and 'publicly denying' an activity? By the vary nature of speculation you must deny something at least temporarily. This law is a free pass for a one-sided argument; it's intolerant.

There is no internet without the voluntary collaboration of networks.

Perhaps not necessarily. Most nations practice some kind of censorship to their media forms--and have since the dawn of their use. Content that a majority of individuals find objectionable, such as child exploitation images, are the low hanging fruit examples of such activities. It is the case, perhaps, that some countries feel the ideologies of others (including sexual expression, gender equality, etc) are in fact 'offensive'. When queried, many folks in China feel that censorship is actually good for the people--perhaps in the same way some citizens feel about censoring images related to child exploitation. There is a gradient here--and it's unfortunately slippery at both ends.

I am under the impression scottish undergraduates pay nothing--but that if yourin need of a bursery, then you can have it as well. English students, and anyone outside of Scotland pays. However if I am wrong in my previous statements then I stand corrected.

These are all excellent points, and perhaps you are correct. My hope, regardless of how it is to be accomplished, is that an educated society is placed toward the top of that list of priorities in which we (the royal we), pay for. In this case, I would offer the thought that perhaps educated folks generate more income than others--a claim that I admit I'm not ready to support with citations. It is a claim however I feel to be accurate. I appreciate your thoughts.

I agree that people want regardless of what they may deserve; perhaps this is just another example of the tragedy of the commons. Also, Kudos for the Bender reference. :)

I agree but the 'pay' I recommend in this sense is effort, not money as it is now. If you perform poorly, you do not get the so-called 'free ride'. Essentially, it's a default studentship or scholarship, that you have to work to maintain.

Perhaps the US should do what they do in the UK, Germany, Japan, and other countries that value education: It should include University level education for free to its citizens who demonstate themselves capable of such responsibility. I know these systems are not perfect, but it seems like education is a good way to start to resolve many of our greater social issues. I also think it beats the $100,000 debt that cripples people from building any kind of financial stability in their youth, and perhaps it will encourage folks to try harder to get into Universities.

So, I suppose it depends on the 'academic' institution in question here--most of the older Universities started as Seminaries--but if your beliefs do not fall within the 'scientific method' and you apply to an institution whose primary focus is to advocate said method, you shouldn't get the job.

If this law passes, there should be one that says churches (private organizations), may not discriminate based on secular behaviours. Fair is fair.

I am very certain that if this was a caveat, the proposed bill would never pass.