You sound as if you think that laws are clear. I think that's why they wrote: "Other proposals concern training, monitoring and definitions."

I’ve found ChatGPT to be a spectacular and personalized teacher. It was so hard to learn programming in the past.

I want to tell my "representatives" in Congress to support it.

Get a grip. Don't you suppose they screened them out of the control group, too?

I think companies would be making a big mistake. Often twitter is the only way I can find to contact a company. We need some way to do that.

There appears to be no way to convince them to let me use it even though my Google Fi phone works great for SMS, phone calls, etc.

I'm kind of amazed that so many people here misunderstand what the Obama data was used for. It was not used to change minds, at least not primarily. It was used to identify people who might be persuaded to actually get out and vote and then to bug them until they did.

I don't think your definition of "work" and the judge's definition are the same. No one expects that this info won't be made public on the internet. By issuing a gag order, however, the judge provides legal leverage to prosecute or legally disadvantage dickheads who are harassing this family. What we have evidence you got your religious friends across the pond to post this info in defiance of UK law? Guess who's church is now classified as a criminal group collaborating with foreign religious extremists to undermine the lawful authority of the commonwealth?

Mind you, I don't particularly support the legal system to undermining the basic right of free expression, but at the same time if these people are claiming the legal protection of the law for themselves, they have to acknowledge that just because a law is not practically enforceable does not mean they won't be punished for breaking the law or encouraging those beyond its reach to do so. And in the end that may be enough to at least quash some of these religious nutjobs and keep them from harming innocent people in their attempt to force their own religious beliefs on others.

I think you're being particularly obtuse. There is no reason that you can't give anyone any job title you like so long as they are not a government official. What laws should do is make it illegal for corporations and foreign governments and organizations receiving donations from either to contribute money to election funds; run political advertisements; or provide gifts, food, travel/travel expenses, entertainment, lodging, etc. to anyone in political office (elected or appointed) or to their relatives.

Sure you may not be able to ban individuals from going to visit congress critters and appointed officials, but you can sure as hell make them less likely to be received since they won't be bearing gifts or swaying an election in exchange for wink wink whatever. Sadly because of absurd Supreme Court rulings, such a law would most likely require a constitutional amendment, one that specifically states corporations are not individuals with the rights of individuals. I actually think this is doable as a grassroots reform movement and people could really get behind an independent party or group of politicians honestly trying to reform the laws and clean up the system. It certainly has popular support.

Not completely ineffective, just not as effective as we'd like. The next FCC commissioner, for example, cannot have her over to discuss what Comcast would like changed by the FCC. That is a real benefit. The problem being that most people don't give a damn and are too easily distracted by other issues so they don't vote out the corrupt legislators that don't pass a similar ban.

It is actually quite interesting. The so called Tea Party is a combination grassroots movement and lobbyist/PR firm funded movement that manages to focus completely on issues other than lobbying. This is an issue where the vast majority of Americans: Democrat, Republican, and independent are in agreement. Not many people think it should be legal for companies and foreign governments to give gifts to or meet with lawmakers or provide them with campaign funds. It's just that people are too distracted by other issues to gather together behind reform candidates and vote on it. There is some chance, this is the purpose of the Tea Party, to prevent a real grassroots movement that does end up rooting out corruption and banning most lobbying.

Congress refuses to pass a law. The Obama administration, on the other hand, issued an executive order the very first day banning lobbying by former members of the administration to executive branch employees. So because the legislative body is corrupt, she can lobby Congress. The executive is slightly less corrupt, so she theoretically can't talk to former co-workers or anyone in the executive branch (including the FCC) about law and policy changes without that member of the executive being fired. That's about as close to honest as we've been able to come in recent decades.

Executive order number 2, from Obama's first day on the job, bans lobbying for 2 years by former members of the administration. So no, there is no law, but there is an order in place that gets anyone in the executive branch meeting with her to discuss changes to laws or policies fired.

You're wrong. Foxconn makes everything, the Kindle, The Xbox360, the Wii, The PS3, Motorola cell phones, Intel branded motherboards. Apple is a big customer, but only about 20% of their business.

Apple does have a good deal of say, for the factories supplying Apple, which Apple regularly audits and requires human rights policies to be upheld. You can read their audit and required remediations openly published on Apple's web site as well as see a list of the suppliers Apple has stopped working with entirely because of human rights violations. Now see what information you can find on what all those other companies have done. Have any of them ever done anything to make things better? And it is Apple the Daily Mail decides to pin it on. Brilliant!