ex_ample

Let's say you are the President of the National Association of Secretaries. You find out that there is a bill going through Congress that would raise the price of keyboards 200% due due to a specific tax. You obviously do not want this bill to pass so you hire a lobbyist.

Of course we understand what lobbyists do and this is exactly what we don't like. People using money to buy influence in politics. The example you gave seems pretty innocuous, but what happens when it's the association of pharmaceutical manufacturers trying to keep prices high for drugs? Or the association of insurance companies trying to keep rates high and coverage low? Or telecom companies trying to prevent net neutrality. Well, we know what happens: They get all those things!

You also only gave half the story: No one would give a shit what lobbyists had to say if it wasn't for the massive campaign contributions and influence cliques in DC.

Obviously everyone justifies the things they do, and you probably don't think your profession is hurting America, but it is. Take this metaphor:

If you were a professional baseball player looking to improve your strength you could just go to the gym and, with only your knowledge, lift some weights. Or you could hire a trainer, with his/her expertise in strength conditioning, that will design a work out program that will give you the maximum results you are looking for.

That's totally true. But what about people who can't afford trainers? On average people with professional trainers are going to be better baseball players then those without. That's not too big of a deal since pro teams are going to be pretty evenly matched. But that's not the case when it comes to interest groups. Even if lobbyists only did what you said, it would still give the advantage to groups with more money. And because government policy determines a huge portion of the economy, it functions in a non-linear function. Health insurance companies lobby for more money, get more money, and can now spend more on lobbying.

The fact that all the "experts" on subjects that tell congress what's going on means that basically all our legislation is compromised. The federal government should spend some money on researching legislation before it writes it. Hire enough teams of people to actually figure out what's going on in industries instead of just letting paid lobbyists tell congress what's going on. That would be my solution problem of congress being well informed: Non-biased scientifically valid research rather then bullshit from paid shills.

What was it supposed to be?

Interesting. I remember seeing a video recently where they discussed it. Here's a video I found of him sitting next to Ana Kasparian where she says Turkey should recognize the genocide (around 2:45), and he doesn't seem to disagree. Here's a tweet from her implying that he's changed his mind but not directly saying it.

Not sure what the deal is, but he's not actively denying it at this point.

Yes, that's so annoying - as far as I know a lot of the really brilliant mathematical thinkers were quite personable, like Richard Feynman, Einstein, etc.

It's still good to get the story out, hopefully people can do another movie with a better representation of him.

Because linux you have to tweak yourself. Now some people enjoy tweaking, and some people enjoy a polished perfect thing that has been tweaked by the best.

Me? I don't care about either so I run windows. So what if it's crap? So long as I can surf the web and move files around who cares?

That said I'm not planning on paying for an upgrade, I'll probably run Linux on my next personal desktop. But, if I get a laptop or something, I'll leave windows on it.