I'm guessing because it's so obvious. "There's a far right bias in the media!" Oh, you mean Fox news, Rush limbaugh, Bill O Riley, Glenn Beck, blah blah blah? Yeah, we know. "There's a liberal bias in the media!" Wow! Really!?!?

I hope you meant "pictures of." Otherwise, who did you piss off that they severed limbs and tied them to various computers around the world?

Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.

If Tesla is only keeping tabs on reporters, then it sounds like that's entirely justified. Should they have warned him that he has no privacy while driving the car they loaned him specifically to report to the world about it? I don't know. In this specific case, I'm guessing he simply would have found other ways to tarnish Tesla's reputation. They may have actually, it sounds like John Broder is incredibly stupid.

If Tesla is keeping tabs on consumers, then that's definitely a bigger sin than Broder lying through his teeth. Any proof they do this for everyone? I'd be more likely to believe they only do it if you're driving THEIR car which they loaned you for a test drive for you to report truthfully on. Probably not safe to just assume they respect your privacy more than your cell phone company does though.

And it is high time someone pointed out how stupid that is.

You're engaging in defeatist hyperbole, possibly as an excuse not to care about politics. Or maybe you're trying to look for someone besides voters to blame.

Consider how few people bother voting in primaries. Or even the general election. When so few people express an opinion in a meaningful way, it's pretty easy for one interested party to dominate. If 51% of the country voted against telecom interests, it would take an armed coup on the part of the telecoms to stop it.

It's okay, good even, to be cynical about politics, but for fucks sake, we still live in a representative democracy. That we aren't using it very well doesn't mean we don't have it, at least not at the moment.

And they jump out of buckets of water anyway. I work with frogs. If the tupperware lids aren't closed, they'll jump out, even in the refrigerator.

... this is not the first time I've realized I have a fucking weird job.

New? Oh right. Only Obama has used his executive powers. I forgot.

Did you read the summary or any of TFAs?

Seriously. Unless I'm utterly failing at reading comprehension (considering I'm late for something, I might be) this is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. This sounds like a move to prevent CISPA/SOPA from rising from the grave. The ACLU and EFF are in favor of it and were opposed to CISPA/SOPA.

COnsidering there were reports from "sources" that Obama would enact CISPA, I'm a little hesitant to jump for joy. And again, I was only skimming.

I strongly disagree. The two party system isn't the cause. It's the cost of campaigning and apathy on the part of the voters that keep corporations winning. Corporations can buy off any number of parties, like they do in plenty of other countries with more than two parties. Voters could easily vote for candidates who would get tough on white collar crime in both parties. They don't simply because they don't care and they get flooded with commercials for pro-corporate candidates.

One wonders when or if we'll reach a tipping point where voters realize that overgrown corporations and overgrown governments both can threaten their rights. Especially when they intertwine. Maybe voters will at that point start actually taking back control of regulatory agencies. Crazier things have happened, and revolutions often happen when no one is expecting them.

According to their FAQ, they're only publishing biological and medical research. You can do some meaningful research on bioinformatics with just a computer I suppose, but really, most of the research, $100 is going to be insignificant. And there's nothing to say they wouldn't waive the fee if you absolutely couldn't pay it.

I'm not quite clear on where the $3000 per article costs are coming from though. Reviewers aren't paid in most journals. Printing costs aren't an issue: I'm not sure many journals still offer print versions aside from the really big name ones, and I suspect they'll be going online-only shortly. I'm not sure how much editors get paid. That might be quite the racket, but I get the impression that a lot of editors do it for cheap or free. I can't imagine copy editors get paid that much.

Some journals seem to spend a lot on promoting themselves at conferences and such. I'd assume that's where most of the costs come in. The journals run their own ads, so they should be generating revenue.

eLife is a recently launched open access journal. They're funded by several universities, the publishing fees will be waived for a while, presumably until they build up enough steam to start charging for it (at least according to the rep I was talking to.) So they're sort of doing the experiment: if the journal flops immediately upon going pay-to-publish, or if it flops before then, that will be a test of how viable such a model would be.

Sadly he's describing gradualism. Which doesn't appear to amount to much in evolutionary history. Hence the fact that there are still stupid people around.