This excites me. At first I was all like "Wait, so whats going on. Who's doing this? US? Europe? Japan? Whos launching stuff now? But then a bit of further reading of the summary, the mention of COTS, put it into perspective. I had not heard of SpaceX before now. The only commercial endeavours into space I had previously heard of were Virgin with its probable Touristy trips up into LEO for a bit, with possible plans to do very expensive trips to the ISS in the future.
Seeing more companies take up the struggle that is space flight makes me glad, for a number of reasons. For all the reasons capitalism is fraught with problems, its nice if and when competition DOES happen, it'd be nice to know that in maybe 10 years, while space station trips would probably be too expensive, its possible that just getting in orbit might be something one might afford in their lifetime. You know, how right now getting into space is kind of like being a rock star, you have to be severely lucky. Right now, owning a brand new corvette is difficult but if thats what you really want its not impossible for someone with a regular paying job to save up for one. That's what I'd like to see, trips to space, while obviously are always going to be relatively expensive, I want to know that those people who dream of being up there not only have the possibility to - but there will also be jobs related to that field.
It used to be that if you wanted to work on space technology (in North America), you had to work at NASA. Well it seems I could now apply at a few different companies to work on that kind of stuff. And that's exciting. More jobs in the field means more research, more activity, more growth. And Space exploration is one field that is exciting for Growth. I mean it kind of sucks when NASA's budget gets cut, but if Taxpayer money can go towards other things while Corporate America foots the bill for Space travel, well I have no problems with that.
So yes. This is good news. Obviously its not quite at the stages that I describe, but we're getting there. Baby steps.
As a side note, I know some people don't see the idea in space travel, that we should be trying to fix this planet before going and ruining another one. My thoughts on that are like cleaning viruses off of a Hard Drive. It's a lot easier when I'm not on it. If saving Earth requires a massive reduction in human population, then either a nomadic or far away colony is an optimal solution.
I guess I need to say something interesting in order to keep myself from getting modded down.
In regards to the story posted and Eldavo's comments - no I don't think George has been ruining acting Careers. He merely takes the whole talent pool from an entire set of actors and imbues it into a SINGLE actor or actress in every trilogy. In the original, it was Harrison Ford. In this latest one, its Natalie Portman. You MIGHT be able to argue that Hayden Christensen is another one - but I actually think he's some sort of anomoly that was immune to this process, he didn't get any better or worse. But seriously, Ford and Portman seemed to be the only ones who have managed to successfully LAUNCH their careers into the higher echelons of Hollywood, who can now demand millions for being on set.
So - here's what I'm hoping. George takes a bunch of Dead Actors and Actresses. They're already famous, and George will put them along side someone we haven't seen before on film. If my understanding of Osmosis is correct - George won't be able to take the skill of 1 actor and spread it throughout the Dead Actors. Dead people can't GET any better at acting, unless they are playing the role of zombie. No, I think more appropriately, George will make all the dead actors SUCK - like it will be really painful to watch and you'll wish it was just the Star Wars Holiday Special. But somehow, this one live actor he has in the film, will manage to escape with the power of multiple famous dead actors and actresses, producing another celebrity for people everywhere to fantisize about while not doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!
Once again the same kind of shameless ignorance seems to rise to the top.
Like many people have pointed out already - that does nothing to truly affect Mastercard, they still have people owing them money, all that does is attacks the people who use mastercard. It's going to be hard to generate sympathy when you make people's lives considerably harder.
On top of that... Do you understand how the money traffic servers work? They're not like publicly accessible HTTP Web servers, you can't DDoS them. All the purchase requests that go through Mastercard enter the MC network and get sent off to the hundreds of servers that process them -
In order to even reasonably take this down you not only need to know the IP of where these are entering (It COULD be the same as the web server, but I doubt it) - the only way you're gonig to manage that is to somehow get some kind of tracking on your packets when you make a legit purchase - or gaining access to the server you are starting your purchase on (For example, the Steam servers when you purchase a game). These may make a request to the webserver to point them to the nearest Mastercard payment processing server - there might actually be hundreds spread out across the world to ensure fast processing.
Then, suppose you've figured out your point to attack, you need to figure out the vector. Using the LOIC as is won't cut it, they probably have the most minimal of firewalls that knows to just drop anything that looks like an HTTP request - so in order to really DDoS it you'll need to figure out which port your using (Which shouldn't be too difficult if you've managed to reach this part) - but then you might also need to form your requests in such a way that they don't appear malformed either, lest they be trended and dropped.
But no - really - if you've figured it all out, you know the logistics of how to attack the money-traffic servers, AND you can prove that this is a better idea than taking out their webserver right now? By all means, write them an email, I'm sure they'd be glad to hear about it.
We need more seminars that explain that Surveillance != Security.
Okay, you've got footage of a dozen people in ski masks trashing your nativity scene and then you use the GPS the next day to track down 12 different locations where they've been scattered in random fields.
Congrats guys, that think tank sessions sure paid for itself. And so did the electronics.
I'm not sure whether you think it's cool they have it or are mocking it, but I'm quite impressed.
It's a little bit of both. When you go to school you have a general idea of what position you want to be in, whether it be software design, server maintenance, Database Admin, Management, that kind stuff. I've never heard of a position specifically on the topic of privacy though - it sounds a bit like one made up in order to have him sound important when someone else with another title has already had that work load.
For example, all matters of Network browsing at our company are dealt with by a Network admin, he handles the firewall, email traffic in and out, password security, yada yada yada. Anything to do with ensuring the privacy of our employees on the network would generally be his responsibility. If he were to dump those responsibilities off on someone else, you could call them the "Network Assistant" or even "Technician" of sorts. You wouldn't call him the Chief Privacy Strategist. This suggests there might be many other privacy strategists (strictly as their job) - and privacy engineers who work sole on implementing the strategies devised.
It just seems a bit odd to have a whole department based on what can really be considered a once in a while feature. Once you stop tracking cookies, and use HTTPS on everything, you've already cut out a lot of the privacy concerns, everything else can almost be ignored. If this was a network engineer, why not just call him a network engineer, who's task is focusing on privacy issues right now.
I don't think you quite understand how it works - the idea is not only to keep them from reading stuff off your machine but also some level of anonymization on the net.
Right now the big practice is to put tracking cookies on your computer. Seriously, let your parents browse the web unfiltered and unrestricted for about a month, then do a good Antivirus scan and if you come back with any less than 100 tracking cookies I'll be surprised.
So thats one issue they are trying to tackle. The other one is as you said, what happens when my information is being tracked on the server? That's where anonymizing protocols come in handy. You are never the same person twice when visiting the web site, you always appear to be a new client. As such, they'll never have previous records on your computer.
Couple that with an increase usage of HTTPS possibly built into the browser, and no third party adserver can "snoop" what goes on between you and the server. Brilliant.
How many companies even HAVE a Chief Privacy Strategist? Where do you go to school for that? I can only imagine a Computer Science Degree with a high focus on networking and security - but even those don't always focus on the issues of PRIVACY on the internet.
Can I get a job at Apple as their Chief Privacy Strategist? I know I could totally just point the Safari team at HTTPS Everywhere, tell them to get crackin', get a better "Secure viewing" mode in that browser. Then walk away with my 6 figure paycheck and get a mention on Slashdot!
I realized that might be misleading. What I mean is, we'd be dead, before we'd really know it was coming, not that it would be "un-noticable".
We're working on a system to detect them earlier so that we might have some chance of survival deep underground but... basically consider yourself lucky once again!
I'm not up on these sorts of things, it does look quite spectacular though. Does anyone know what kind of effects we might have seen on Earth if this had been directly towards us?
We wouldn't be seeing much of anything if this had been coming straight for us.
Eric Schmidt: Okay guys. It's time for the choppin' block. Whaddya got for me?
Tablet Lead: We just announced our tablet today!
Eric Schmidt: Way to set the bar high! Next! You!
Chrome Browser Lead: We... err... Overhauled our Javascript Engine! 100% faster! Totally! We'll announce it this afternoon
Eric Schmidt: Good good! I'd hate to have to fire you. I like you. Next! You there, what good news do you have?
Notebook Lead: Err... We... uhh. Yeah, we can totally announce our new notebook as well! Definately. It might not be READY till Mid 2011 but we can definately announce it oh god please don't fire me.
Eric Schmidt:... *Flips a coin*... You got lucky this time. Next!
Search Engine Lead: There's... err... Nothing new to report... Not even a doodle for the main page today... I... I'll go pack my things. It was really nice working here.
Eric Schmidt: No need, I'll have security escort you out then throw your belongings out the nearest window.
So would you agree that the problem is that there aren't any titles for the PSP that grab your attention?
If they were to announce a sequel to one of your favourite PSP titles, would you possibly start using it again?
The point we're trying to argue is that its more about games than it is about phones. I haven't played my Xbox in a long time simply because there isn't anything new that I find worth picking up.
a full 27.2% of consumers who indicate that they play games on their phones only (and not on the DS/PSP) actually own a DS or PSP, but do not actively use the device(s).
I'm not saying this quote is wrong but I am awfully suspect of that figure. They claim an online sample size of 9,000 but they don't say how many of those actually own both a gaming phone and PSP/DS. I would be interested in the hard numbers.
I'm more suspicious of how they've ran their implications. At first glance it makes you think "So a quarter of people who own both a phone and a DS don't use their DS" - but thats not what its saying at all.
It means of the people who play games on their phones only - which is probably not as big a number as you think it would be - have claimed that they have a DS or PSP but only play games on their phones and not their handheld system, at the current moment. This isn't to say that they don't enjoy DS or PSP games, because they obviously did at one point, otherwise they wouldn't even own the device. At that current moment, however, they simply prefered whatever game they got on their iPhone instead of their PSP.
Like you said, there are titles that have been exclusive to consoles, I bet you if they were to launch a new Metroid, Brain academy, Zelda, Mario, and 1 other popular Nintendo Title for the DS tomorrow - and something similar were to happen for the PSP - I'm willing to bet that number would drop to practically 0%.
I think you are misunderstanding what interpol is.
It's not like the movies, they aren't some police agents who get to roam freely and act as officers of peace in every nation. They don't inspect shipping barges like in Lord of War, they don't hunt down Assassins like in Hitman.
Interpol merely acts as a mediary between nations to organize police efforts. If a murderer from the States runs off to France - the US has no jurisdiction over there, but they might want to inform France of what is headed there way, and help provide information. The US calls Interpol, which says "Hey, we've got a criminal." Interpol says "We'll inform the world for you". Whether or not France wants to help capture him and possibly extradite him is entirely up to them, they are under no obligation but it usually bodes well for foreign relations if you put forth some effort.
So yeah - the "Full Resources" of Interpol is pretty much an unlimitted Long distance phone plan, and Internet Access.
No, if they are correct that this might have some reference to Caligula - then it makes sense that something as simple as spelling would be totally illogical and backwards and probably from some perspective absolutely insane.
Ah, the old "flip side of the coin". It's actually sillly logic. You can have perfection without mistakes. That would in fact be the definition of perfection. Saying "You can't have one without its opposite" is possibly the worst argument you can stand your basis on.
It's about as silly as saying "There has to be aliens on the moon because you can't have not aliens without aliens".
I know you're probably trying to sound a bit philosophical - how could we possibly know what perfection is without a reference to imperfection - from a practical standpoint, we've seen more than enough and perfection should now be much easier to achieve. We have our reference points set. Perfection should be the goal.
Judging by the summary, it seems you outlined the early prototype, but they had to make some alterations.
They dropped the Wirless for sleek. They couldn't have bluetooth while being black They were going to have an SDHC card slot, but decided to drop it to fit the 10-inch form factor. They decided that if they didn't include a USB slot, they could bump it up to a NVidia dual core CPU.
Millions of dedicated citizens do still wield more power in this country than corporations. The problem is I don't think most people are as dedicated to the cause as you seem to think they are.
I suppose thats the part I have trouble believing in. It's easy to say that the citizens have more power but never exercise it, thats an argument I can't possibly refute because I will have no evidence against it, but in the same way you have no evidence to support it.
What I DO have evidence for is that lobbying is extremely effective, and that lobbying takes a lot of money, and that corporations hold more money than most of the people do.
Slashdot Mirror
All the South has to do is survive the initial rush. After that, their eventual victory is pretty much assured.
Sounds like they've already started their wall of photons canon then.
Is it? There's no markup?
(I think thats what the AC was getting at)
This excites me. At first I was all like "Wait, so whats going on. Who's doing this? US? Europe? Japan? Whos launching stuff now? But then a bit of further reading of the summary, the mention of COTS, put it into perspective. I had not heard of SpaceX before now. The only commercial endeavours into space I had previously heard of were Virgin with its probable Touristy trips up into LEO for a bit, with possible plans to do very expensive trips to the ISS in the future.
Seeing more companies take up the struggle that is space flight makes me glad, for a number of reasons. For all the reasons capitalism is fraught with problems, its nice if and when competition DOES happen, it'd be nice to know that in maybe 10 years, while space station trips would probably be too expensive, its possible that just getting in orbit might be something one might afford in their lifetime. You know, how right now getting into space is kind of like being a rock star, you have to be severely lucky. Right now, owning a brand new corvette is difficult but if thats what you really want its not impossible for someone with a regular paying job to save up for one. That's what I'd like to see, trips to space, while obviously are always going to be relatively expensive, I want to know that those people who dream of being up there not only have the possibility to - but there will also be jobs related to that field.
It used to be that if you wanted to work on space technology (in North America), you had to work at NASA. Well it seems I could now apply at a few different companies to work on that kind of stuff. And that's exciting. More jobs in the field means more research, more activity, more growth. And Space exploration is one field that is exciting for Growth. I mean it kind of sucks when NASA's budget gets cut, but if Taxpayer money can go towards other things while Corporate America foots the bill for Space travel, well I have no problems with that.
So yes. This is good news. Obviously its not quite at the stages that I describe, but we're getting there. Baby steps.
As a side note, I know some people don't see the idea in space travel, that we should be trying to fix this planet before going and ruining another one. My thoughts on that are like cleaning viruses off of a Hard Drive. It's a lot easier when I'm not on it. If saving Earth requires a massive reduction in human population, then either a nomadic or far away colony is an optimal solution.
That comment is so rife with irony...
I guess I need to say something interesting in order to keep myself from getting modded down.
In regards to the story posted and Eldavo's comments - no I don't think George has been ruining acting Careers. He merely takes the whole talent pool from an entire set of actors and imbues it into a SINGLE actor or actress in every trilogy. In the original, it was Harrison Ford. In this latest one, its Natalie Portman. You MIGHT be able to argue that Hayden Christensen is another one - but I actually think he's some sort of anomoly that was immune to this process, he didn't get any better or worse. But seriously, Ford and Portman seemed to be the only ones who have managed to successfully LAUNCH their careers into the higher echelons of Hollywood, who can now demand millions for being on set.
So - here's what I'm hoping. George takes a bunch of Dead Actors and Actresses. They're already famous, and George will put them along side someone we haven't seen before on film. If my understanding of Osmosis is correct - George won't be able to take the skill of 1 actor and spread it throughout the Dead Actors. Dead people can't GET any better at acting, unless they are playing the role of zombie. No, I think more appropriately, George will make all the dead actors SUCK - like it will be really painful to watch and you'll wish it was just the Star Wars Holiday Special. But somehow, this one live actor he has in the film, will manage to escape with the power of multiple famous dead actors and actresses, producing another celebrity for people everywhere to fantisize about while not doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!
Once again the same kind of shameless ignorance seems to rise to the top.
Like many people have pointed out already - that does nothing to truly affect Mastercard, they still have people owing them money, all that does is attacks the people who use mastercard. It's going to be hard to generate sympathy when you make people's lives considerably harder.
On top of that... Do you understand how the money traffic servers work? They're not like publicly accessible HTTP Web servers, you can't DDoS them. All the purchase requests that go through Mastercard enter the MC network and get sent off to the hundreds of servers that process them -
In order to even reasonably take this down you not only need to know the IP of where these are entering (It COULD be the same as the web server, but I doubt it) - the only way you're gonig to manage that is to somehow get some kind of tracking on your packets when you make a legit purchase - or gaining access to the server you are starting your purchase on (For example, the Steam servers when you purchase a game). These may make a request to the webserver to point them to the nearest Mastercard payment processing server - there might actually be hundreds spread out across the world to ensure fast processing.
Then, suppose you've figured out your point to attack, you need to figure out the vector. Using the LOIC as is won't cut it, they probably have the most minimal of firewalls that knows to just drop anything that looks like an HTTP request - so in order to really DDoS it you'll need to figure out which port your using (Which shouldn't be too difficult if you've managed to reach this part) - but then you might also need to form your requests in such a way that they don't appear malformed either, lest they be trended and dropped.
But no - really - if you've figured it all out, you know the logistics of how to attack the money-traffic servers, AND you can prove that this is a better idea than taking out their webserver right now? By all means, write them an email, I'm sure they'd be glad to hear about it.
We need more seminars that explain that Surveillance != Security.
Okay, you've got footage of a dozen people in ski masks trashing your nativity scene and then you use the GPS the next day to track down 12 different locations where they've been scattered in random fields.
Congrats guys, that think tank sessions sure paid for itself. And so did the electronics.
I'm not sure whether you think it's cool they have it or are mocking it, but I'm quite impressed.
It's a little bit of both. When you go to school you have a general idea of what position you want to be in, whether it be software design, server maintenance, Database Admin, Management, that kind stuff. I've never heard of a position specifically on the topic of privacy though - it sounds a bit like one made up in order to have him sound important when someone else with another title has already had that work load.
For example, all matters of Network browsing at our company are dealt with by a Network admin, he handles the firewall, email traffic in and out, password security, yada yada yada. Anything to do with ensuring the privacy of our employees on the network would generally be his responsibility. If he were to dump those responsibilities off on someone else, you could call them the "Network Assistant" or even "Technician" of sorts. You wouldn't call him the Chief Privacy Strategist. This suggests there might be many other privacy strategists (strictly as their job) - and privacy engineers who work sole on implementing the strategies devised.
It just seems a bit odd to have a whole department based on what can really be considered a once in a while feature. Once you stop tracking cookies, and use HTTPS on everything, you've already cut out a lot of the privacy concerns, everything else can almost be ignored. If this was a network engineer, why not just call him a network engineer, who's task is focusing on privacy issues right now.
I don't think you quite understand how it works - the idea is not only to keep them from reading stuff off your machine but also some level of anonymization on the net.
Right now the big practice is to put tracking cookies on your computer. Seriously, let your parents browse the web unfiltered and unrestricted for about a month, then do a good Antivirus scan and if you come back with any less than 100 tracking cookies I'll be surprised.
So thats one issue they are trying to tackle. The other one is as you said, what happens when my information is being tracked on the server? That's where anonymizing protocols come in handy. You are never the same person twice when visiting the web site, you always appear to be a new client. As such, they'll never have previous records on your computer.
Couple that with an increase usage of HTTPS possibly built into the browser, and no third party adserver can "snoop" what goes on between you and the server. Brilliant.
How many companies even HAVE a Chief Privacy Strategist? Where do you go to school for that? I can only imagine a Computer Science Degree with a high focus on networking and security - but even those don't always focus on the issues of PRIVACY on the internet.
Can I get a job at Apple as their Chief Privacy Strategist? I know I could totally just point the Safari team at HTTPS Everywhere, tell them to get crackin', get a better "Secure viewing" mode in that browser. Then walk away with my 6 figure paycheck and get a mention on Slashdot!
Perhaps I'm mixing up my solar activities, flares and CME's and whatever elses.
I realized that might be misleading. What I mean is, we'd be dead, before we'd really know it was coming, not that it would be "un-noticable".
We're working on a system to detect them earlier so that we might have some chance of survival deep underground but... basically consider yourself lucky once again!
I'm not up on these sorts of things, it does look quite spectacular though. Does anyone know what kind of effects we might have seen on Earth if this had been directly towards us?
We wouldn't be seeing much of anything if this had been coming straight for us.
Eric Schmidt: Okay guys. It's time for the choppin' block. Whaddya got for me?
Tablet Lead: We just announced our tablet today!
Eric Schmidt: Way to set the bar high! Next! You!
Chrome Browser Lead: We... err... Overhauled our Javascript Engine! 100% faster! Totally! We'll announce it this afternoon
Eric Schmidt: Good good! I'd hate to have to fire you. I like you. Next! You there, what good news do you have?
Notebook Lead: Err... We... uhh. Yeah, we can totally announce our new notebook as well! Definately. It might not be READY till Mid 2011 but we can definately announce it oh god please don't fire me.
Eric Schmidt: ... *Flips a coin* ... You got lucky this time. Next!
Search Engine Lead: There's... err... Nothing new to report... Not even a doodle for the main page today... I... I'll go pack my things. It was really nice working here.
Eric Schmidt: No need, I'll have security escort you out then throw your belongings out the nearest window.
This is a good point. 100% improvements should actually be easier as time goes on.
So would you agree that the problem is that there aren't any titles for the PSP that grab your attention?
If they were to announce a sequel to one of your favourite PSP titles, would you possibly start using it again?
The point we're trying to argue is that its more about games than it is about phones. I haven't played my Xbox in a long time simply because there isn't anything new that I find worth picking up.
Haven't you SEEN that commercial where they shoot the potato through the dicer in front of the computer screen? That was close!
I think they hope to have the page load before the table salt hits the apparatus.
Yes but they whispered it into the microphone.
a full 27.2% of consumers who indicate that they play games on their phones only (and not on the DS/PSP) actually own a DS or PSP, but do not actively use the device(s).
I'm not saying this quote is wrong but I am awfully suspect of that figure. They claim an online sample size of 9,000 but they don't say how many of those actually own both a gaming phone and PSP/DS. I would be interested in the hard numbers.
I'm more suspicious of how they've ran their implications. At first glance it makes you think "So a quarter of people who own both a phone and a DS don't use their DS" - but thats not what its saying at all.
It means of the people who play games on their phones only - which is probably not as big a number as you think it would be - have claimed that they have a DS or PSP but only play games on their phones and not their handheld system, at the current moment. This isn't to say that they don't enjoy DS or PSP games, because they obviously did at one point, otherwise they wouldn't even own the device. At that current moment, however, they simply prefered whatever game they got on their iPhone instead of their PSP.
Like you said, there are titles that have been exclusive to consoles, I bet you if they were to launch a new Metroid, Brain academy, Zelda, Mario, and 1 other popular Nintendo Title for the DS tomorrow - and something similar were to happen for the PSP - I'm willing to bet that number would drop to practically 0%.
I think you are misunderstanding what interpol is.
It's not like the movies, they aren't some police agents who get to roam freely and act as officers of peace in every nation. They don't inspect shipping barges like in Lord of War, they don't hunt down Assassins like in Hitman.
Interpol merely acts as a mediary between nations to organize police efforts. If a murderer from the States runs off to France - the US has no jurisdiction over there, but they might want to inform France of what is headed there way, and help provide information. The US calls Interpol, which says "Hey, we've got a criminal." Interpol says "We'll inform the world for you". Whether or not France wants to help capture him and possibly extradite him is entirely up to them, they are under no obligation but it usually bodes well for foreign relations if you put forth some effort.
So yeah - the "Full Resources" of Interpol is pretty much an unlimitted Long distance phone plan, and Internet Access.
I think you are under appreciating the achievement that is a KDE Product that doesn't start with a K.
No, if they are correct that this might have some reference to Caligula - then it makes sense that something as simple as spelling would be totally illogical and backwards and probably from some perspective absolutely insane.
Ah, the old "flip side of the coin". It's actually sillly logic. You can have perfection without mistakes. That would in fact be the definition of perfection. Saying "You can't have one without its opposite" is possibly the worst argument you can stand your basis on.
It's about as silly as saying "There has to be aliens on the moon because you can't have not aliens without aliens".
I know you're probably trying to sound a bit philosophical - how could we possibly know what perfection is without a reference to imperfection - from a practical standpoint, we've seen more than enough and perfection should now be much easier to achieve. We have our reference points set. Perfection should be the goal.
Looks like we caught CmdrTaco Red Handed not proof reading his postings.
Judging by the summary, it seems you outlined the early prototype, but they had to make some alterations.
They dropped the Wirless for sleek.
They couldn't have bluetooth while being black
They were going to have an SDHC card slot, but decided to drop it to fit the 10-inch form factor.
They decided that if they didn't include a USB slot, they could bump it up to a NVidia dual core CPU.
I hope you are still willing to buy.
Millions of dedicated citizens do still wield more power in this country than corporations. The problem is I don't think most people are as dedicated to the cause as you seem to think they are.
I suppose thats the part I have trouble believing in. It's easy to say that the citizens have more power but never exercise it, thats an argument I can't possibly refute because I will have no evidence against it, but in the same way you have no evidence to support it.
What I DO have evidence for is that lobbying is extremely effective, and that lobbying takes a lot of money, and that corporations hold more money than most of the people do.