most states would split their vote X vs X+1 every single election, which makes your state nearly meaningless
Double failure. First off, some states go 66% one party 33% the other. Secondly, that wouldn't make your state meaningless, it would mean that the people in your state are evenly divided.
What it would mean is that there were only a few votes up for grabs in any given state. That would lessen the concentration on swing states, and put it back on 50 states, roughly equally. Although with higher populations would come higher numbers of swing voters and thus votes. Also, more risk if you piss off large states somehow.
The only caveat is that you have to be registered with your municipality, which you have to do anyhow for various different reasons (municipal tax, getting passports/ID/driving licence...).
In America you don't have to register with you municpality to vote. However, when you get a license (at least in my state), there's a box you check that registers you to vote on the forms without any additional paperwork. Or the mail in forms are freely available, free to post, and just need name, address, social security number and a signature asserting it's all true.
Or perhaps you're referring to subsidies the government hands out
I am. Price controls are a term more general than price caps. And, yes, I think it is a fantastic government program. Since there is an oligopoly of four between farmers and consumers, the fact that farm output prices plummitted after '96 didn't result in a huge benefit to the consumer. And now there are fewer family farms.
In addition, I think that security of food, water, electricity and healthcare are too important to trust to the vagrities of the free market. Possibly telecommunications as well (or at least heavily regulated... yay net neutrality.)
I'll avoid quoting your next spiel. Suffice it to say that I could afford better healthcare. I could, but it should be cheaper. Examine the cost structure. Or, to put it another way, let me buy into Medicare now. Oh, and I don't blow money on any of the crap you assume I do.
You then make a bunch of claims, without any evidence, that government sponsored healthcare would be inferior. Please demonstrate how?
Evidence seems to indicate that supply-side economics and deregulation fail miserably (look at Wall St.)
ANd I have nothing against the superrich, I just think they owe a debt to society.
Price controls inevitably lead to either rationing or shortages, period.
Yeah, I remember the horror of the 1980's and 1990's, when US price controls led to a shortage of food.
What you want to say is "Given perfect competition (neglible cost of entry: which limits distingishing between brands, high up-front or per-period-fixed costs, professional certification and/or limited education, equal and easy access to distribution, etc. ) price controls lead to shortages (rationing is one way of dealing with a shortage) -or- overproduction (in the case of price floors.
Of course, this doesn't apply to health care, where my Hopkins educated doctor has to work in a hospital where they can afford the multimillion dollar machines to diagnose/treat me.
So what you propose may bring "universal" healthcare to the masses, but it will be both lowest-common-denominator healthcare, you'll have to wait on a list to get to it, and the government will decide who you get to see despite any preferences you may have to the contrary.
That's not the way it works in any country with socialized medicine. Well, at least not any Western country (to head off comparissions to the Soviet Union's ineptitude at everything). Although my HMO does have a lot of rules, lists and limits what doctor I can see. I think I'd rather have the government limit me than an unaccountable company.
No thanks. I'll pay my own way,
And I don't know of any Western society where the socialized plan is not augmented by private consumption.
I use a TrueCrypt encrypted USB disk to store and run VMWare virtual machines and I see no difference in speed over using a non-encrypted USB disk (same model
That's because the biggest costs from Truecrypt come in random access, not reading linear data. And USB disks don't have the random access issue.
They were forced to look at just the creditworthiness of the person in question and not take into consideration the neighborhood that they were buying in.
This seems fine to me. After all, if Bill Gates wants to buy land in South Central, he should still be viewed as a credit risk. Why should it not be the case. Your arguemnts earlier were that these areas had a higher rate of foreclosure. My contention is that that is a correlation because most people with good credit scores choose not to live there. Please explain why this is not the case.
The other point you made is the banks then voluntarily made it easier to buy a house in those areas (not requiring 20% down, etc.) which they were under no obligation to do. My theory is that the banks saw all the money they made on the mandated expansion into those territories and got greedy.
They had to meet a certain quota of loans in areas that typically had high rates of foreclosure, and, not surprisingly, a lot of those loans have gone into foreclosure.
They weren't forced to change their standards for each loan. There were not quotas. They opted to do that. Or show me evidence to the contrary.
I don't understand your point. Because teh banks were forced to use the same standards for approval... what? All you say is that the banks gave subprime morgages to those who couldn't afford it (and I know of people buying $850,000 homes whose loans fall into the same category). No one forced them to do that. You say most homes in foreclosure are under $50,000. But how many of the homes in foreclosure are by people with a good credit rating or better? I bet they just own fewer $50,000 homes. Correlation is not causeation.
They were forced to give mortgages to people who, well, couldn't qualify for mortgages
Actually, they were forced to apply the same qualification standards as white people in ritzy neighborhoods about what they could afford to black people in slums. And, since those ritzy neighborhoods have lost more value than the previously redlined areas, it was a positive for the banks.
a bunch of Germans and -- yes -- Frenchmen came over and taught us how to fight as an actual army.
More Polish than German, but then again the borders back then weren't the same, Germany and Italy being comprised on many little pieces. But a more important complaint: we were still losing once they taught us to fight like an Army (after all, there were ex-soldiers leading the milita). The 10,000 soldiers the French sent, the Navy, the guns and ammunition, probably all helped more than the expertse.
And you left out that the "private weapons" he mentioned included cannons (the most sophisticated weapons of the time), and other British Army weapons.
No alien civilization is expending the mammoth amount of resources needed to traverse the vast distances of interstellar space just to stick a probe up your ass. Deal with it.
Joyriding teenagers at faster than light travel certainly might think it worth their while.
To end users the "IT guy" is always getting in their way
That seems true more often than not. There are certainly a lot of incompetitent/power-tripping/cannot-consider-exceptions-to-procedures IT people. And since I know what I'm doing, the IT guy is usually in my way.
That said, it's a good IT person's job to get in the way of people installing "Uber-Smiles".
How are you going to find several e-mails from my friend Achmed if he tries to disguise them as spam?
Well, Stenagraphy may work. Encryption does not however.
Or another thing - he can just use direct encrypted connection to SMTP-server on my computer to deliver mail.
Sure, he could. Bu then there's a direct connection between your machines. The fact that he then uses e-mail doesn't mean that e-mail survillence doesn't work. After all, with access to your site, there are a thousand ways for you to recieve the message, and e-mail or not is irrelevent.
Well, the prospect of Obama being president appeals to me more than Palin, if only because he seems like he will be less effective and do less damage. But Obama was a shitty choice by the Democratic party.
That said, he's a shitty choice for reasons other than the right-wing sewage that you're regurgitating. He's not far-left, he's moderate (like Bill Clinton)... at least on the issues I care about. But, since I only vote on economic issues, his views on race relations, etc. aren't really known by me.
Americans, the story goes, wouldn't be interested in "The Madness of King George III" because they missed parts I and II.
It was never called "The Madness of King George III", it was called "The Madness of George III". So the marketeers were worried that Americans, unlike the British, would parse it as part three since "[First Name] [Roman Numeral]" is rarely used instead of "[First Name] [Middle Intital] [Last Name] [Roman Numeral]". The difficulty being that Americans don't think of monarchs and their naming conventions.
You said you wouldn't vote for McCain becuase he's untrustworthy. I'm saying that what he says he will do is the same as what you accuse Obama (exclusively) of doing. The end result may be the same, but the logic and justification is not.
As one example, right in their platform, they say they want to sell off the national parks. Now, you may think that's a great idea, but I think it's fair to say that most people think that's not just radical, but outright insane.
I used to believe that the national parks should be sold off, thinking people will take more care of something they own personally. I don't anymore.
Moreover, he's the only candidate willing to make the tough decisions. If you make a mistake, ever, in your life, don't worry. He will rescue you. Get a loan you can't afford? No problem!
Well, McCain's idea is to spend $300 BILLION to have the federal government buy bad morgages and then have the homeowners repay only a part of that to the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Double failure. First off, some states go 66% one party 33% the other. Secondly, that wouldn't make your state meaningless, it would mean that the people in your state are evenly divided.
What it would mean is that there were only a few votes up for grabs in any given state. That would lessen the concentration on swing states, and put it back on 50 states, roughly equally. Although with higher populations would come higher numbers of swing voters and thus votes. Also, more risk if you piss off large states somehow.
What if I don't like any of the third party candidates running either?
In America you don't have to register with you municpality to vote. However, when you get a license (at least in my state), there's a box you check that registers you to vote on the forms without any additional paperwork. Or the mail in forms are freely available, free to post, and just need name, address, social security number and a signature asserting it's all true.
I am. Price controls are a term more general than price caps. And, yes, I think it is a fantastic government program. Since there is an oligopoly of four between farmers and consumers, the fact that farm output prices plummitted after '96 didn't result in a huge benefit to the consumer. And now there are fewer family farms.
In addition, I think that security of food, water, electricity and healthcare are too important to trust to the vagrities of the free market. Possibly telecommunications as well (or at least heavily regulated... yay net neutrality.)
I'll avoid quoting your next spiel. Suffice it to say that I could afford better healthcare. I could, but it should be cheaper. Examine the cost structure. Or, to put it another way, let me buy into Medicare now. Oh, and I don't blow money on any of the crap you assume I do.
You then make a bunch of claims, without any evidence, that government sponsored healthcare would be inferior. Please demonstrate how?
Evidence seems to indicate that supply-side economics and deregulation fail miserably (look at Wall St.)
ANd I have nothing against the superrich, I just think they owe a debt to society.
Yeah, I remember the horror of the 1980's and 1990's, when US price controls led to a shortage of food.
What you want to say is "Given perfect competition (neglible cost of entry: which limits distingishing between brands, high up-front or per-period-fixed costs, professional certification and/or limited education, equal and easy access to distribution, etc. ) price controls lead to shortages (rationing is one way of dealing with a shortage) -or- overproduction (in the case of price floors.
Of course, this doesn't apply to health care, where my Hopkins educated doctor has to work in a hospital where they can afford the multimillion dollar machines to diagnose/treat me.
That's not the way it works in any country with socialized medicine. Well, at least not any Western country (to head off comparissions to the Soviet Union's ineptitude at everything). Although my HMO does have a lot of rules, lists and limits what doctor I can see. I think I'd rather have the government limit me than an unaccountable company.
And I don't know of any Western society where the socialized plan is not augmented by private consumption.
That's because the biggest costs from Truecrypt come in random access, not reading linear data. And USB disks don't have the random access issue.
This seems fine to me. After all, if Bill Gates wants to buy land in South Central, he should still be viewed as a credit risk. Why should it not be the case. Your arguemnts earlier were that these areas had a higher rate of foreclosure. My contention is that that is a correlation because most people with good credit scores choose not to live there. Please explain why this is not the case.
The other point you made is the banks then voluntarily made it easier to buy a house in those areas (not requiring 20% down, etc.) which they were under no obligation to do. My theory is that the banks saw all the money they made on the mandated expansion into those territories and got greedy.
They weren't forced to change their standards for each loan. There were not quotas. They opted to do that. Or show me evidence to the contrary.
I don't understand your point. Because teh banks were forced to use the same standards for approval... what? All you say is that the banks gave subprime morgages to those who couldn't afford it (and I know of people buying $850,000 homes whose loans fall into the same category). No one forced them to do that. You say most homes in foreclosure are under $50,000. But how many of the homes in foreclosure are by people with a good credit rating or better? I bet they just own fewer $50,000 homes. Correlation is not causeation.
Actually, they were forced to apply the same qualification standards as white people in ritzy neighborhoods about what they could afford to black people in slums. And, since those ritzy neighborhoods have lost more value than the previously redlined areas, it was a positive for the banks.
More Polish than German, but then again the borders back then weren't the same, Germany and Italy being comprised on many little pieces. But a more important complaint: we were still losing once they taught us to fight like an Army (after all, there were ex-soldiers leading the milita). The 10,000 soldiers the French sent, the Navy, the guns and ammunition, probably all helped more than the expertse.
And you left out that the "private weapons" he mentioned included cannons (the most sophisticated weapons of the time), and other British Army weapons.
I have USB zip and floppy (3.5) drives.
Joyriding teenagers at faster than light travel certainly might think it worth their while.
I still have a 133Mhz machine. I just avoid bloatware on it.
That seems true more often than not. There are certainly a lot of incompetitent/power-tripping/cannot-consider-exceptions-to-procedures IT people. And since I know what I'm doing, the IT guy is usually in my way.
That said, it's a good IT person's job to get in the way of people installing "Uber-Smiles".
Well, Stenagraphy may work. Encryption does not however.
Sure, he could. Bu then there's a direct connection between your machines. The fact that he then uses e-mail doesn't mean that e-mail survillence doesn't work. After all, with access to your site, there are a thousand ways for you to recieve the message, and e-mail or not is irrelevent.
If it's content based, sure. But if they're going for connnections and volume, you cannot hide the recipit of AN e-mail.
Well, the prospect of Obama being president appeals to me more than Palin, if only because he seems like he will be less effective and do less damage. But Obama was a shitty choice by the Democratic party.
That said, he's a shitty choice for reasons other than the right-wing sewage that you're regurgitating. He's not far-left, he's moderate (like Bill Clinton)... at least on the issues I care about. But, since I only vote on economic issues, his views on race relations, etc. aren't really known by me.
It was never called "The Madness of King George III", it was called "The Madness of George III". So the marketeers were worried that Americans, unlike the British, would parse it as part three since "[First Name] [Roman Numeral]" is rarely used instead of "[First Name] [Middle Intital] [Last Name] [Roman Numeral]". The difficulty being that Americans don't think of monarchs and their naming conventions.
McCain famously told Iowans during their caucus he was anti-ethanol. Or if he didn't announce it, it was highly publicized at the time.
Good thing I judge a president by how well they can manipulate me then. WOO PALIN.
Idiots out there using "issues" and "philosophies" to make decisions.
You said you wouldn't vote for McCain becuase he's untrustworthy. I'm saying that what he says he will do is the same as what you accuse Obama (exclusively) of doing. The end result may be the same, but the logic and justification is not.
I used to believe that the national parks should be sold off, thinking people will take more care of something they own personally. I don't anymore.
Well, McCain's idea is to spend $300 BILLION to have the federal government buy bad morgages and then have the homeowners repay only a part of that to the government.
Well, any party that gets more than 5% in a nationwide vote. Sometimes third parties make the cut (look at Perot).
Either there is something wrong with my "Find" function, or the word children doesn't appear in the article.