Slashdot Mirror
Rechargeable Batteries - Yes or No?
TheFifthElephant asks: "I currently use quite a few devices that require various size batteries and I feel horrible just tossing them when they die. I saw a recharger at a retail store today and was thinking to myself how much waste it would reduce by using rechargeable ones. Which units have you used happily and/or which units have you heard of/read about satisfying someone else? Are the more expensive units better? What chemical rechargeable batteries last the longest/recharge the most?"
Yeah, and he got his nick from fellow Republican Gherald Fhord! : D
I don't know about that, man. Sure, CNN sucks, but Fox News is far and away the most jingoist blantatly biased News station here. When you watch them, you feel like you've stepped right into some book written by George Orwell. There's Bill O'Reilly who is the "no-spin" journalist that conveniently spins everything to the right. It's just amazing if you haven't seen it you'll have to take my word for it.
Oh yeah, here's an example. When the war in Iraq was going on, Fox News would find some way to have the main color theme on the screen to be red, white, and blue. There was a always a big banner saying, "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and you essentially felt like the channel just reminded you of a giant flag, that's if the flag wasn't on the screen somewhere. Usually there is a small flag in the corner of the screen, or perhaps a flag behind a reporter that's giving you the news. It was non-stop reporting of the war, except for maybe talk shows where they would stand behind the president, who was obviously doing the right thing. I don't think you kind media like Fox News even in the most totalitarian state, at least not without having people make fun of it, but for some reason people take it seriously here.
Actually, the biggest poponents (thus far) of the communist lie have been white (Soviet Union (effectively Russia) ). Discrimating against a belief system may very well be discrimination, but it is NOT Racism.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Ummm actually...
Many of the framers of the constiution were in favor of the electorial college because it prevented a more direct democracy based strictly on the popular vote.
Remember, it isn't just a point system, electors were (and still technically are) the people that one would elect to do the 'real' voting for a particular candidate. In the past, electors could and have have voted against the will of the people in their states, though it has been extremely rare and even then hasn't really swayed an election.
Listen up guys: the founding fathers feared that, if given the direct (aka popular) vote, the people might do something 'silly' like socialize or redistribute the nations land and wealth (remember the initial property ownership requirements as well?). Electors were supposed to be educated gentlemen who would know better and thus would not allow people to elect despots who would undermine democracy (as they understood it).
Remember folks, America was the first western democracy, but it sure as hell didn't start off as modern as it is today. What you are talking about is more of a modern argument for not abolishing the electoral college. It is also suspiciously slanted, given when I started hearing it (Nov. 2000), and also given who rural voters tend to vote for.
It's just a funny little anachronism, which we've MAYBE kept around for such reasons- but remember folks, when this country was founded, it was nearly ALL farmers. The idea that most of the people would someday be clustered in industrialized cities was something very few people would have been worrying about. Most people, like Thomas Jefferson saw the vastness of America and saw a nation of small, self sufficient farmers.
Establishing the rights of property owners was clearly an issue that would have overwhelmed any concern such as that. But I'm not bashing America by any means. In 1795, with the exception of slavery, this was a much more free country than many are today. Make no mistake though, it would be revisonist to see the electorial college any other way. Just my two American History 101 cents.
Odds are, the french don't like you -- why go out of your way to kiss their ass?
I've seen karma whores appeal to the moderators for special treatment, but appealing to the meta-moderators is a first.
Kudos to you, Mr. AC, for pioneering the frontier of meta-whoring.
Actually I am in favor for the electoral college because it helps to eliminate mass voter fraud. If the president was popularly elected, that means that every fraudulent vote counted in the election. With the electoral college in order for those votes to have an effect they have to be done in enough quantity in every district to throw the votes IN that district. Close elections will be easier to examine because then you only have to look at the places where the vote was close (like florida).