sillygeese

The tech industry certainly has competition, but the juicy margins make it much less of an "issue".

Of course not. We shouldn't have governments at all, because all they do is exploit us. That's why they exist.

All you need to see is that they're taking our money by force, and you can make sense of everything they do - it's all about keeping us blind to the exploitation so that they can keep on doing it.

King's had "The Divine Right" to rule over everyone else, and governments have "The Social Contract", which amounts to the same thing.

What he means to say is that a nuclear meltdown can fuck up a huge area for millenia, but a coal incident can't.

Well the way for a reactor to "demonstrate an improvement" over Fukushima would be to withstand the same kind of earthquake + tsunami that Fukushima didn't.

It doesn't make sense to say it's hard to demonstrate improvements when it's not even under our control.

But demonizing nuclear power has nothing to do with it.

That's all fine, but for example Fukushima is still not under control, and may still cause enormous harm.

That kind of stuff is why we need to get rid of nuclear power altogether. All that's holding us back is politicians and their bribes.. and of course, to a lesser extent, people who rationalize not moving away from nuclear power.

It's just politicians and their cronies benefiting at the masses' expense, i.e. the system working as intended.

Yeah, but more accurately, his bribes might depend on "not understanding" something.

Politicians "not understanding" something is an age-old excuse. They don't even give a fuck about anything besides themselves, because they're psychopaths.

They're smart too, because otherwise they wouldn't have managed to climb up the hierarchy of political power to their current positions, what with all the other smart psychopaths jockeying for position along with them.

So if it's in a politician's personal interest to vote X on whatever, then he will do so. If it's not, then he won't. It's as simple as that.

Understanding has nothing to do with it. It's not like they couldn't get someone to help them understand, if they wanted to.

Also, the Australian government (along with any others that can) has been doing the things listed in the article already. They don't need permission from themselves.

No thanks, I don't want to play your games.

> The plaintiffs/petitioners presented only a tenuous case that their records were actually collected, which reduced their perceived likelihood of success on the ultimate merits of the case enough that they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

So let's see.. Because a person can't prove to the government that the government is violating its own rules, the government decides that the person doesn't actually have a case, even though everyone knows the government is spying on everyone, and thus violating its own rules.

Rright. So even if the government decided the case against itself, i.e. forbade itself from spying on everyone, why would anyone think they'd actually curtail their spying activities?

If a wolf had been eating sheep left and right, and suddenly declared he'll stop doing that because eating sheep is Ba-a-a-ad, would the sheep have reason to believe he'd actually stop?

Eating sheep is in the wolf's nature, and he's never had a problem with it before, so why would he stop? It would serve the wolf's interests to distract/placate the sheep though, so that they'd be easier to eat!