You're a lawyer, and the restrictions on speech you propose will certainly lots of opportunity for lawyers to exercise power and get additional work. You personally are almost certainly part of the 1%, and if you insinuate that businessmen try to influence politics for their monetary gain, why shouldn't we assume the same about you? Furthermore, while you propose restrictions on the political speech of other people, you don't seem to be proposing restrictions on the political speech of newspaper corporations, universities, or their employees.

To the degree that your proposals are specific at all, it looks to me that they amount to a self-serving attempt at further concentrating political power and the ability to engage in political speech in the hands of political incumbents, lawyers, the media, and universities. And in the many areas your proposal is vague, I don't see why I should assume that you are not simply pursuing your self-interest with your political activities, which, being a member of an intellectual elite and "the 1%", almost certainly don't coincide with the interests of average Americans. So, why should we trust you?

You're missing the point. These devices are for embedded applications and robotics, where low power and low cost matter. SATA, HDMI, and (in many applications) multiple cores are not an advantage. I think the UDOO is too big and too expensive for applications where you want an Arduino.

No, it doesn't have the same specs: it's missing the Arduino. People buy don't by these boards to run Android, they buy them to develop embedded applications.

Arduino is coming out with the Yun, another combination of non-real time Linux chip and real-time ATmega chip, and it includes WiFi. It also is ready to go when you power it on, and allows you to upload sketches over the air. It looks like a better deal and better design to me for many applications.

The UDOO has HDMI output and some other features, but it's not so clear to me what the advantage of UDOO is over just plugging a regular Arduino into a Raspberry Pi via USB (and the resulting combo is cheaper to boot).

Climate change will cause one half of species to decline

That's not what the article says. The article says that a third of the animal species will see a substantial decline in their range. It says nothing about a decline of species or even their populations.

We don't need evolution to fix this. With increasing global temperatures, more land will probably become suitable for cultivation of mainstream varieties of corn and other food staples. In addition, we have a wide range of other varieties that we could plant.

In fact, climate change does not mean that you can simply add the average increase to local temperatures to get the new climate. Higher temperatures have historically meant an extension of plant growth to more northern latitudes without an increase of temperature near the equator. Instead, regions near the equator just tend to see higher precipitation. Overall, AGW may well result in a significant increase of arable land both up north and near the equator.

The article talks about a "dramatic decline of habitat range" for "half of plant species" and a "third of animal species". This does not mean a dramatic decline of species or anything like that.

You could describe the same result as "The study shows that almost all species will have more than enough habitat to survive even under the worst case scenarios of global warming and pessimistic assumptions on their ability to adapt".

A lot of "CCTV" cameras are private webcams on people's private property. You're saying I shouldn't be able to put a webcam in my window and make the pictures publicly available? I shouldn't be able to take pictures in public spaces? Why not? Should press be permitted to do so?

And if the bombers get caught, doesn't that indicate that these cameras may be useful after all? I mean, the objection to them used to be that they didn't actually help in catching criminals, but one can revise that belief in light of new evidence, right?

The companies I have worked for have looked for the best educated and qualified applicants. They post on mailing lists, network, and find people through word of mouth. People send in their resumes, some get invited for interviews, and the best get offers. At no point does nationality or salary play a role, either way.

Only once the companies have already decided who they want to hire do silly US regulations, like posting to "Sunday newspapers". Geez, who gets hired based on responding to a Sunday newspaper ad anymore? Day laborers? So, yes, people who are saying that these ads are a sham are absolutely right, they're just wrong about why people are posting these ads.

Don't kid yourself: if you can't get a job as a software engineer now, you won't get one even if no foreign labor gets admitted to the US. The consequence of restricting H1b visas is simply that the jobs themselves move overseas.