Once you get to the general election, it is already too late. Start in the primaries by rallying behind a candidate that runs on a platform of freedom and civil rights. Do it on both sides of the aisle. Don't care about other stuff too much. If she's a democrat and supports copyright extension ad infinitum, so be it. If she's a republican and wants to slash Medicare, so be it. Do the same in races for congress, on the state level, etc. Even if your candidate doesn't end up winnng the general election, you'll raise visibility for your issue, which will change things for the better in the long run.

But the cow could reach even more states if it broke the stick into thousand little pieces and scattered them all over the place. No tasty food here.

URL or it didn't happen. Google does not announce Android security updates on their official mailing list nor anywhere else. They don't publicly document the vulnerabilities they fixed with a new point release nor do they reserve CVE numbers for these. Not even speaking of publishing patches for individual vulnerabilities.

Not wanting to spoil your argument, but basic economic theory says exactly the opposite.

I think for low-profile journals which are edited by active scientists, it shouldn't be a problem to move to something like arXiv overlay journals, which comes as close to free as you can get. High-profile journals like Nature and Science, however, are a completely different story. Here, you have full-time editors paid by the journals who actually have to do tricky tasks such as finding good referees who will not reject a paper on political grounds or promote a paper because it was written by one of their pals. Therefore, it is not too bad if you have editors whose careers do not hinge on whether a topic becomes hot or not. If you remove this part of external quality control to save costs, chances are that scientific publishing will become even more politicized than it already is.

Actually, I'm inclined to believe that algorithmic patent generation might actually make it much harder to claim non-obviousness. If your patent claims can be generated by a person having ordinary skill in the art just by running a computer program, what is the actual contribution by the inventor?

Come on, this is ridiculous. The GPL has been found perfectly enforcable in many cases in many jurisdictions, with some eventually going to courts. The reason that most cases are settled out of court comes from the fact that defending a GPL violation is such a hopeless endeavor in most situations.

While I understand that this can happen, it effectively means you are advocating against using the GPL not based on the actual content of the license, but because of the (quite likely irrational) behavior of a third party.

The H Security: Treacherous backdoor found in TP-Link routers

Until recently, I was regularly shuffling money back and forth between the US and Europe. No matter whether I did an international wire transfer or wrote a check, there were always quite substantial fees associated, although they were considerably lower than with "specialized" sevices like Paypal or XE. I haven't done the full math, but looking at the fee structure of various Bitcoin exchanges, it seems you could end paying much less.

Your two points are correct, but the work of this Australian guy has been largely overlooked for good reason because:
a) It relies on an extension to QM not backed by any experimental observation.
b) It does not solve an outstanding problem.
I'm not saying that this work is bad or anything. It's good solid work relevant for people working in a specific sub-field, but not of such broad relevance that we have to rewrite our textbooks and give this guy a Nobel prize.

I strongly disagree. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are extremely useful if someone wants to cover your work (e.g., figures) in a textbook or review article and needs to make some editorial changes. Extremely annoying for everyone if non-free licenses are being used and a lot of paperwork has to be done. Same goes for the case when people deem your work so important or interesting that they want to put it into Wikipedia. Great for the scientists, but a real PITA if the license of the paper is incompatible with the one used by Wikipedia.

Contrary to your claims, the seminal paper on decoherence by Joos and Zeh is from 1985, so this even predates Weinberg's nonlinear QM paper by several years. I'm not claiming that we understand everything about decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition, but it is extremely unlikely that the gaps in our knowledge can be filled by looking at exotic extensions to QM not backed by any experimental findings, no matter how mathematically appealing they might look in the first place.