... after I filed an informal complaint to the FCC about their data usage calculations and trying to sell me on a much more expensive plan ($40 per line per month for four lines). I asked them how they knew about my complaint and the guy whoâ(TM)ll called said they saw my name and cell number on the complaint. So companies are either notified, or they monitor the complaint stream.

Well said. Bravo.

The goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce corruption in our electoral and governing process. This is a good goal.

However, what is really happening on the ground is that past campaign finance reforms are CAUSING political corruption.

Campaign finance reform laws are being used to criminalize and complicate political participation. Right now in Texas, Wisconsin, Montana, Nevada and Arizona there are cases of minor politicians and citizens being criminally charged with campaign finance violations that are civil violations of complex rules.

The nub of the problem is that "corruption" is defined too broadly. There is a widespread assumption that campaign donations corrupt our politicians. First, this notion is largely unproven. Second, it dilutes the notion of real corruption, which is bribery, vote-buying and misuse of public power for private gain. Real corruption is highly illegal and we have good laws for that.

"Fake corruption" is really just free speech, and certain people don't like what other people are using their free speech for. They are afraid to let Americans listen and decide for themselves. "Campaign finance reform" should be called "muzzle the political process reform". There's no bogeyman of rich plutocrats who can buy American elections. There are rich people, left and right, who are politically, legally, active and who pay to get their message out. GOOD! We should have an active, raucous, loud, free political process.

So what if they influence politics! Politicians are there because voters put them there. Voters. Not anyone else.

If you are afraid that "corrupt plutocrats are buying elections", then that just means you don't trust your fellow voters, or worse, you want to control them, what they can listen to, what they can say.

Ad hominem attacks are intellectually dishonest. Your insults are not useful to your cause. "the elected person is now beholden to the piece of shit corrupt plutocrat" may or may not be true. You are making a big assumption, and a big leap of reason in attributing the gratitude of the winning politician to some of the people who gave him money to pay for his campaign staff, advertisements, travel and other costs of running a campaign. The reason the politician won, was not because he received money. It's because he received votes. Influencing votes with advertisements is called free speech. It's a good thing. Supporting candidates with financial contributions is called political participation. It's a good thing. In the end, voters decide. Money does not decide. Voters. The politician wins because he got more votes than anyone else. There are thousands of examples of the person with more money losing an election. Money is not the same as winning an election. Votes are far more valuable than money in winning an election. If you believe that votes can be purchased with advertising, you are wrong. Votes may be influenced, but that influence has a limit. More money, after a very reasonable point, does not mean more votes. The threshold of greatly diminishing returns in US Congressional elections is $500,000. Once you have $500k, you are in the race, even if your opponent has $100m.

Amazing British author Dianna Wynne Jones is just what you are looking for. Archers Goon, Homeward Bounders. Shes an amazing storyteller. Also Terry Pratchett, comedy sci-fi, very funny and accessible.

Consider the reverse: only consciousness itself could propose quantum theory, let alone explain it. Consciousness is prior. Isn't that obvious? Any "explanation" of consciousness by quantum theory would necessarily be contained in consciousness, which would make the "explanation" less than, or incomplete. Unless physicists are proposing an epistemology based on a theory of unconsciousness, which would necessarily be, well, stupid.

The Institute of Economics and Peace reports that the global peace dividend would be $7.2 trillion per year, or about 8.1% of the global economy. http://www.visionofhumanity.org/causes-value-peace/economic-growth.php

Why comment on it when you don't have the slightest interest in it? I think you have a slight interest. Also while you are right that the main plot has been done before, this movie adds a lot of nuance, and a thoughtful environmental message. Anyway, the movie is worth seeing for the sheer beauty of it. Go see it!

Objected. "Just entertainment" has powerful effects on humans, including me and you. There are tons of examples of movies that shifted society and how we think about it. Movies are art--some of it bad, some of it great, like Avatar. The fact that it is commercial art doesn't make it less artful--it's just a constraint of the medium.

This movie actually is deep, and merits a deep discussion.

Agreed. The film was not anti-technology. I thought it was anti-ugly. The local "technology" of plugging into trees and animals was a lot like USB.

The film was multi-layered and nuanced. The main message was to wake up, respect, and deal with the consequences of ecosystems, local cultures, and other ways of seeing. I loved it.