Actually, handling at education at the federal level is actually a very unscientific approach to education. It is best to leave this at the state level so that you have a mix of successes and failures between 50 states rather than 1 failed experiment at the federal level. This allows states to learn from the successes and failures of other states and improve education quality using the scientific method. Handling education policy at the federal level also assumes that every state is the same as far as education needs which is a dangerous assumption to make. The closer policy makers are to the problem the better results that you can get. Education is being micromanaged at the federal level and the quality of education in the United States is considerably worse than it was 20 years ago.

Sounds like either 007 or Mr. Powers will be paying him a visit soon. Possible villain dialogue:

Zuckerberg dialog: "Mr. Powers. In the vacuum of space, I believe you will find my space lasers... breathtaking. [maniacal chuckle]"

Zuckerberg dialog: "It seems you still don't understand your situation Mr. Bond. I knew you were coming. I know your every move. I know what everyone is doing. I know more than Santa Claus, and you have been very naughty Mr. Bond. Do you think that I don't know about you and Mrs. Claus? She helped me test my space lasers. [assistant whispers to him] I must not keep my guest waiting. Goodbye Mr. Bond. [turns as if to walk away, then looks back] By the way, the test was a success. [smug grin]"

Sounds like either 007 or Mr. Powers will be paying him a visit soon. Possible villain dialogue:

Zuckerberg dialog: "Mr. Powers. In the vacuum of space, I believe you will find my space lasers... breathtaking. "

Zuckerberg dialog: "It seems you still don't understand your situation Mr. Bond. I knew you were coming. I know your every move. I know what everyone is doing. I know more than Santa Claus, and you have been very naughty Mr. Bond. Do you think that I don't know about you and Mrs. Claus? She helped me test my space lasers. The test was a success. "

Actually, if you see mankind as a virus on the planet and population growth as a threat, then you definitely aren't going to like capitalism. Capitalism has allowed our population to grow to the size it is and has allowed it to continue to grow and quality of life to improve. Socialism, on the other hand, is just about the most efficient mass murdering engine ever created by man. If you think mankind is a virus, then socialism is the cure.

Fake articles seems to be a new "approach" in Internet media that is becoming increasingly common. A title that is either favorable or unfavorable to a particular party with an article that says whose contents are the exact opposite with facts that are based on celebrity quotes or opinions rather than facts. This approach may have been used during the political process in 2016, but I have seen this style of writing growing. It seems to be turning Internet media into a supermarket tabloid across the board. I came across very few articles or videos online for Trump during the campaign. But there were a TON of them for Clinton. Maybe I fit the Clinton demographic rather than the Trump one, I don't know. The Youtube videos were particular frustrating because they would show up every two or three minutes and I couldn't skip any of them even though I had watched them like 100 times (30 second ads!). I was in high school and college in the 90s when Bill Clinton was in office. So I remember the Clinton presidency well. I didn't come across any Clinton ads that were complete fabrications, but quite a few were what I would call "factish". They would present something she did but omit some important details which were very misleading. This only made them more annoying to watch. I hope that both parties have learned their lesson and will stop deciding who is going to win the primary BEFORE people vote. They have picked John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton and all three have lost their bids. You can spend $1 billon dollars running Youtube ads that I can't skip all you want, but in the I am going to vote for who I think is the best candidate, period.

Abolishing the electoral college makes sense if you had 100% voter participation. Otherwise, the electoral college system is a better approximation. The Republicans in the last three presidential primaries tried to quell dissatisfaction with the party leadership's candidate choices (John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush) by changing primary rules in violation of their own rules and policies. They did this in order to achieve a false sense of party solidarity around their candidate choice. This in the end turned out to be meaningless since they all lost. This dissatisfaction with party leadership is what allowed Donald Trump to win the Republican primary. The Democratic party did the same thing in the 2016 primary. The primary race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton was very close right up until the end although it was not portrayed that way in the media. Hillary Clinton had the same kind of superdelegate advantage over Barack Obama in 2008 but most of the superdelegates moved over the Barack Obama once he edged ahead in delegates. For the 2016 primary, the Democratic party leadership decided that Hillary Clinton was their candidate choice regardless of what the voters wanted and did everything they could to help her beat Bernie Sanders. Hillary had to spend a good deal of money from her campaign war chest just to beat Sanders. I tend to believe that their is a lot of truth to the Wikileaks revelations since so many heads have rolled shortly after the releases. Heads don't rule if it is all made up. Clinton was given primary debate questions ahead of time, had favorable media coverage over Sanders her whole primary campaign, and had inside help from several members of the party. Bernie Sanders had the whole party and media against him and still nearly won. I believe that the Democratic party leadership has made the same mistake in this primary that the Republican leadership has in the last three primaries and that Hillary Clinton is their John McCain/Mitt Romney/Jeb Bush candidate. I also believe that this is why Clinton was so soundly defeated by Trump. I believe that it would have been a whole different race if Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic Party Nomination. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both evidence of a dissatisfaction by the voter base with party leadership. I think that discussing changing the rules to get the result "we" want is just a continuation of the thinking that has led to failures in both parties. If you want to replace the electoral college with a 100% voter participation system, then we might have a discussion. Otherwise, the electoral college is their for a reason and we should leave it as is and work on the real problem, the disconnect between party leadership and voters. The other thing I like about the electoral college is that it is a reminder that we are a republic and not a democracy. Just my opinion. :)

Are you attributing a vanity motive to the actions of his administration?

That is a terrible idea. The world isn't ready to know about the alien reptile people. Couldn't you have used something else as your example? Hopefully no one takes your post seriously.

Doesn't "sound" very pet-friendly to me. Perhaps some evil genius is looking for a way to fund the development of his doomsday device.

Remember, Microsoft has been suing droid phone makers and makes a tidy annual profit from those deals. It also pushed Google over the edge to buy Motorola and develop its own arsenal to help defend droid phone makers. Also, while a write down is usually not a good thing, it does carry with it some tax benefits in the present as well as years to come.

Putting the man in charge of the most successful division in recent years seems like a good move compared to the other options.

Also, reducing Gates influence over the company should help them to make better decisions. Gates has been more concerned with share price stability (since he has been selling large blocks of shares for the last decade) rather than growth and transformation which are essential for Microsoft to survive let alone thrive in the new environment. New classes of devices are changing the way we learn, work, and play and the majority of those new classes of devices do not run a Microsoft operating system. Microsoft needs to make its applications and server platform relevant to these new device classes rather than trying to own-it-all, which is a strategy that has failed for the last decade and depressed its share price.

Replace congressman with simple if then else voting logic?

The California climate changers have been working to drive coal power out of the United States which is driving up the cost of electricity which in turn drives up manufacturing costs both in the short term and long term. This has created low coal prices in the short term and in the long term causing China to double down on coal power to keep its energy costs low and to make its manufacturing base even more competitive in the international market. This means more manufacturing will be done in China which ironically will actually make the air quality in California much worse (better air quality for the eastern US though). I also think that it would be ironic if this ultimately kills US manufacturing to the point where the US becomes a third world country where all the wealthier nations of the world come to plunder the natural resources that many conservationists have fought hard to protect. But in protecting our natural resources, it has been taken to such extremes that it ultimately weakens our economy and in so doing our government and world influence. People forget that it takes strength to defend what you cherish (ideas, people, etc.) and that there are no given rules that all uphold. People cling too tightly and take for granted that things will remain as they are now. We must find a balance to remain strong.

There IS NO STEM shortage. There IS NO shortage of qualified electrical engineers in the United States. There IS a shortage of electrical engineers willing to work for low wages.

I believe that using hydrogen for a fuel on a large scale is a terrible idea since it is usually extracted from water and some of it will undoubtedly escape in to space. Over time, all of those leaky vehicles will bleed off more and more hydrogen into space reducing the amount of available water which is essential for weather patterns and life itself.