Not so much. They say it's rocky and roughly liquid-water distance so it's probably close to Earth density, which limits the diameter. Spin rate might affect the perceived gravity but because of other factors is probably not very much of an issue.
Most likely, surface gravity would be roughly 3 times Earth gravity.
"Well, maybe it's time the organization brought in The Bobs to find out exactly what everyone's role is, and trim the fat a little."
Yes, BUT...
It is not enough to say the old system is bad. Good must be introduced to replace it.
Personally, at this time (late 2012) I would not put anything important out "in the cloud". Google Docs is slow, compromises your security, AND, quite frankly, is a pain in the ass to use.
None of the others are much better.
Get yourself a good kid who knows Ruby/Rails, or Django, or some other Web framework with database back end. Pay him a couple of hundred bucks, or maybe hire him a hooker. Make sure he's not finished until it's all writtent down. Job done.
Well, Obama certainly hasn't gotten "what the people want" very right.
But then, he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will.
"In a very safe country, where the large majority of people die from diseases (mostly at old age), the appearance of safety is as important as the real safety."
B.S.
That is the formula for "decadence", and a solid sign of decline.
"You can build the structure with LDAP, Kerberos and SAMBA with a bit of work. There are tools to simulate the group policy functionality or you can just script it."
No doubt. But that's my point. That's doing it right.
THAT is an answer. Thank you. But personally -- even though I make my living on the internet -- I find the opposite to be true. I can go on a camping trip for 2 weeks with no phone and enjoy the hell out of it.
But at the same time, direct democracy has the historical distinction of being, repeatedly, the shortest-lived form of government ever... next to really bad Kings.
"Read the constitution. While it doesn't say "you can't tell them how to vote" it does say that the electors annouce their decision."
I am presuming that you are basing your argument on the words "their decision". But there are many kinds of decisions... like "Vote the way the people of this state tell you, or walk." That is a decision, of a sort. It is also coercion, of a sort. But not the sort wherein someone points a gun at your head. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference.
"The govenor of Ohio can simply appoint a bunch of Republicans as electors, if the Ohio constitution/legislature allows it. But the govenor of Ohio shouldn't be able to tell them how to vote. But he does. Which is probably unconstitutional."
No, it's not unconstitutional. Each state (read that Constitution again) can decide for itself -- as long as it does not break other Federal laws -- how the people vote in Federal elections. Also how their electors will "decide" their votes.
But that also presumes that the people of Ohio both know of these practices, and approve of them. If not, they they are supposed to -- at the state level -- change it. In my state, we got fed up with the "2 party only" system of voting that was in force, and changed it. Several times. I won't go into detail because I don't publish my home state on Slashdot.
I should have qualified that. There is no Federal requirement that electors vote any particular way. But as far as I know there is nothing keeping states from passing such legislation.
"The simplest example is the raw internet - once you grok that the internet is "always on" (service glitches aside), your entire life changes forever."
Um, no. Once you grok that I was talking about what happens when you are out in the woods and there is no such technology available, your life will change for a few seconds.
"I only managed to sit in the dark for an hour before I reached for my CD player, stash of AA batteries, flashlight, and a book."
But there are 2 very visible reasons for that: (1) you were bored because with the power out in a modern home or apartment there usually isn't much to do, and (2) because you could. You had the player, you had the flashlight, you had the book.
Your argument does not impress me. My question was: how would you cope or adapt without those things? Would these claimed "brain changes" make you better or worse at getting along with your situation? Or is it all just a pile of sociological wishful thinking and bullshit?
"... you should really check this multiple parties thing... it will make your Democracy even more better."
We already have multiple parties. Some of them have people in Congress. We just haven't had a President from any of them lately. But... although we are traditionally a country of 2 main parties, there is no actual law to that effect. And in fact the "Big 2" parties have not always been the same 2 parties. They can be, and have been, replaced.
But the current "Big 2" have put in place barriers for others. If we want to have real change here, we MUST have a 3rd-party President. That will get the ball rolling.
There are many more ways to reach into your wallet than just taxes (which you would know if you knew anything about the subject at all). And Obama has been pushing ALL of them.
A third-party vote, even if it is not destined to designate the winner, can also be a strategic decision, not just a "wasted vote".
A significant vote for a third party sends a very strong message to the powers-that-be: you are messing up.
They listen. They have to, if they want to be elected again.
Further, a vote for a third-party candidate can help set up a better atmosphere for another third-party candidate 4 years from now.
According to polls, approximately 20% of the voting American public identify themselves as "independent" (in this case meaning they do not support the "Big 2"). That is the largest number in history.
According to other studies, it only takes 10% to make major changes, if they are persistent and sincere. We have twice that now.
Look out, Big 2.
And you can bet that I won't be voting for either of them. They're both so bad as to be laughable. Or they would be, if it weren't so tragic.
--
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
"... the Electors, chosen by the voters tomorrow, meet in their own state capitals..."
No, even though that is the way it is described in Wikipedia, that is incorrect.
The people vote for who they want to win the election. Not for Electors. The Electors then decide who THEY will vote for. They are not bound by the choices of the people. Regardless, the people vote for political candidates, not electors.
Slashdot Mirror
Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake.
Republicans are not the only other ones out there.
Hell, Romney wasn't even legally eligible. Those fundraisers he held overseas disqualified him.
Okay. I'll concede California. I haven't considered it part of the actual United States for a long time anyway.
How's that Prop. 35 coming?
Not so much. They say it's rocky and roughly liquid-water distance so it's probably close to Earth density, which limits the diameter. Spin rate might affect the perceived gravity but because of other factors is probably not very much of an issue.
Most likely, surface gravity would be roughly 3 times Earth gravity.
"Well, maybe it's time the organization brought in The Bobs to find out exactly what everyone's role is, and trim the fat a little."
Yes, BUT...
It is not enough to say the old system is bad. Good must be introduced to replace it.
Personally, at this time (late 2012) I would not put anything important out "in the cloud". Google Docs is slow, compromises your security, AND, quite frankly, is a pain in the ass to use.
None of the others are much better.
Get yourself a good kid who knows Ruby/Rails, or Django, or some other Web framework with database back end. Pay him a couple of hundred bucks, or maybe hire him a hooker. Make sure he's not finished until it's all writtent down. Job done.
Well, Obama certainly hasn't gotten "what the people want" very right.
But then, he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will.
Sure, it's safe. But now you have 147 apps for using the internet when you used to have 1.
(Each of them with their own bugs.)
Yeah. That's an improvement. Sure.
Apparently Scott Adams is fond of censoring blog posts with which he does not agree, no matter how factual they may be.
I have visited the blog page a number of times today, and he has censored nearly all of them that were made today. They were there, now they're not.
Smooth move, Scott. That was sarcasm, if you could not tell. I guess I'll stick with XKCD rather than Dilbert from now on.
Mod this person Secretary of the Interior.
"In a very safe country, where the large majority of people die from diseases (mostly at old age), the appearance of safety is as important as the real safety."
B.S.
That is the formula for "decadence", and a solid sign of decline.
"You can build the structure with LDAP, Kerberos and SAMBA with a bit of work. There are tools to simulate the group policy functionality or you can just script it."
No doubt. But that's my point. That's doing it right.
THAT is an answer. Thank you. But personally -- even though I make my living on the internet -- I find the opposite to be true. I can go on a camping trip for 2 weeks with no phone and enjoy the hell out of it.
You're both wrong, from both a factual and procedural point of view.
PEOPLE vote for CANDIDATES. The electors then take those votes and decide how to place their own votes.
People do not vote for electors. That's just wrong. That's not the way it works.
But at the same time, direct democracy has the historical distinction of being, repeatedly, the shortest-lived form of government ever... next to really bad Kings.
"Sym-Na-Tec. Sym-Na-Tec. Sym-Na-Tec." (Cut to scene of a guy with a huge penis diving off a building to eradicate the Evil One.)
Wait... was that a 70s flashback? I only have these visions when I'm in my Den.
"Read the constitution. While it doesn't say "you can't tell them how to vote" it does say that the electors annouce their decision."
I am presuming that you are basing your argument on the words "their decision". But there are many kinds of decisions... like "Vote the way the people of this state tell you, or walk." That is a decision, of a sort. It is also coercion, of a sort. But not the sort wherein someone points a gun at your head. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference.
"The govenor of Ohio can simply appoint a bunch of Republicans as electors, if the Ohio constitution/legislature allows it. But the govenor of Ohio shouldn't be able to tell them how to vote. But he does. Which is probably unconstitutional."
No, it's not unconstitutional. Each state (read that Constitution again) can decide for itself -- as long as it does not break other Federal laws -- how the people vote in Federal elections. Also how their electors will "decide" their votes.
But that also presumes that the people of Ohio both know of these practices, and approve of them. If not, they they are supposed to -- at the state level -- change it. In my state, we got fed up with the "2 party only" system of voting that was in force, and changed it. Several times. I won't go into detail because I don't publish my home state on Slashdot.
I should have qualified that. There is no Federal requirement that electors vote any particular way. But as far as I know there is nothing keeping states from passing such legislation.
"The simplest example is the raw internet - once you grok that the internet is "always on" (service glitches aside), your entire life changes forever."
Um, no. Once you grok that I was talking about what happens when you are out in the woods and there is no such technology available, your life will change for a few seconds.
"I only managed to sit in the dark for an hour before I reached for my CD player, stash of AA batteries, flashlight, and a book."
But there are 2 very visible reasons for that: (1) you were bored because with the power out in a modern home or apartment there usually isn't much to do, and (2) because you could. You had the player, you had the flashlight, you had the book.
Your argument does not impress me. My question was: how would you cope or adapt without those things? Would these claimed "brain changes" make you better or worse at getting along with your situation? Or is it all just a pile of sociological wishful thinking and bullshit?
"... and both parties enjoy ordering record numbers of wiretaps..."
Not to mention hookers. Also without warrants.
"... you should really check this multiple parties thing... it will make your Democracy even more better."
We already have multiple parties. Some of them have people in Congress. We just haven't had a President from any of them lately. But... although we are traditionally a country of 2 main parties, there is no actual law to that effect. And in fact the "Big 2" parties have not always been the same 2 parties. They can be, and have been, replaced.
But the current "Big 2" have put in place barriers for others. If we want to have real change here, we MUST have a 3rd-party President. That will get the ball rolling.
There are many more ways to reach into your wallet than just taxes (which you would know if you knew anything about the subject at all). And Obama has been pushing ALL of them.
Get a clue.
A third-party vote, even if it is not destined to designate the winner, can also be a strategic decision, not just a "wasted vote".
A significant vote for a third party sends a very strong message to the powers-that-be: you are messing up.
They listen. They have to, if they want to be elected again.
Further, a vote for a third-party candidate can help set up a better atmosphere for another third-party candidate 4 years from now.
According to polls, approximately 20% of the voting American public identify themselves as "independent" (in this case meaning they do not support the "Big 2"). That is the largest number in history.
According to other studies, it only takes 10% to make major changes, if they are persistent and sincere. We have twice that now.
Look out, Big 2.
And you can bet that I won't be voting for either of them. They're both so bad as to be laughable. Or they would be, if it weren't so tragic.
--
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
They have deliberately twisted things so that you don't care.
So... that makes you not care? That makes you not just a sheep, but a manipulated, castrated sheep.
Anybody for some mutton?
"... the Electors, chosen by the voters tomorrow, meet in their own state capitals..."
No, even though that is the way it is described in Wikipedia, that is incorrect.
The people vote for who they want to win the election. Not for Electors. The Electors then decide who THEY will vote for. They are not bound by the choices of the people. Regardless, the people vote for political candidates, not electors.
Right. And it wasn't Monday in most of the world anyway, when OP wrote his piece.
So it's just wrong. Tomorrow is not election day. Tuesday is.