Ask instead why my ballot only essentially has a row A and row B. Why not row A through ZZZ with all possible combinations.
What would be the point?
As it is now, you need to show at least enough support to be a viable candidate. If you don't have that support before election day, you're simply not going to win.
I'd love to see more options, and I wouldn't weep at all if the idea of major political parties went away, but it does make sense to limit the ballot to declared candidates with actual support, rather than just hand people a phone-book sized ballot and saying "go crazy"
Right. Then you will guarantee the same results. No change. Without a plethora of parties, the usual games will go on in American politics. Even if ballot access were more inclusive, it is impossible to play with the two big parties, as they will always have the millions to support whomever they please. That's how it is. You start as a local hack, play the game (kiss babies, get on camera whenever possible, etc.), then if the respective party vets you clean, you'll have their permission to run for higher office. Move slightly toward an independent position, and you won't get supported any longer (reference Joe Lieberman). The only exception I know of is if the candidate is independently wealthy, in which case no law denies him/her the ability to fund the whole campaign (see M. Bloomberg, Mayor, NYC).
Third party candidacies should not only be allowed, but encouraged. The major political parties are no longer relevant in the information age. Your point is well taken, but only in a time when candidates had to rely on newspapers, flyers, or word-of-mouth to garner votes. Today, the voters can and must vet the candidates, and have the ability to vote for whomever regardless of party. Take the $ from the DNC and RNC and spread it around. I'll take the phonebook, thanks.
You are asking the wrong question, for it is not the democrats vs. the republicans. The two parties are the same species, just minor variants of one another. Ask instead why my ballot only essentially has a row A and row B. Why not row A through ZZZ with all possible combinations. The system is conservative, not in the political sense, but in its tendency to preserve the status quo. Why isn't the "Silly Party" on the ballot? Simply check the laws for ballot access in your state. Want to scare them further? Mention term limits.
Microsoft's Turner said that Linux netbooks are being returned at a rate 4 to 5 times higher than Windows netbooks. Dell hasn't disputed this fact at all. Linux netbooks *are* being returned at a very high rate, and Dell's Finch says so right in the article:
Where consumers have returned machines, Finch said, it wasn't because of technical problems but because they'd bought a low-priced machine expecting Windows and opened it to find a different interface.
The difference is that people are returning the Windows netbooks because of technical reasons (broken hardware) and Linux netbooks because they don't want Linux.
That's a win for Microsoft, no matter how you spin it.
Please don't tell us you believe anything/everything MS says. I doubt the figure, but fully understand from experience that Dell support blows, and Dell/Linux support blows harder. Most likely Dell is acting as a MS agent, so with hails of derisive laughter they can claim, with great audacity, that any version of windoze is superior for thin-client computing than Linux.
Indeed I do get it. Universal anything is a utopian argument for those who still don't understand that the Wilsonian theories either failed, or got us into more trouble than they were worth. Universal means having to say you're sorry in perpetuity.
Again, keep the damn lawyers off the backs of those who actually got in to medical school (you know who you are), and legislate strict tort reform. I remember what medical costs were like before the legal feeding frenzy started, and those costs were on a par with other professions. Doctor's are taught to do no harm. Lawyers are taught to harm everyone, and if possible, to eat their own. Ever see the US commercials which ask, "Have you been hurt by anything?"
Doctors ARE scientists, though I'm not so sure about these slashdot commentators. If you want universal health care, let's go for it, but don't fail to include the tech community, developers, engineers, research scientists, etc., many of whom work to further the advancement of medicine. Next time you write a computational neurobiology application, better check with the government to be certain it follows the model, and accept "reasonable" compensation for your work.
"To each according to his contribution..." Now where have I heard that before.
Lastly, who would you rather see at the bottom of the ocean, a hundred doctors or a hundred lawyers?
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Few could argue that the government means well, initially, but when has the state managed anything better than the private sector? Medical costs can be substantially attributed to doctors who fear medical malpractice suits. Thus the meaningless pap tests. A better solution would be comprehensive tort reform. But nooo. Look at the top donors to the two parties. The trial lawyers. Tort reform will never happen.
As for outmoded practices, another easy solution. Board certification should never be permanent. A combination of CME credits and re-certification by exam every five years for MDs will help ensure best practices are followed.
----
First, do no harm. That's Washington's job.
Perhaps e-voting machines are vulnerable, but let us not forget that computers are responsible for tallying results all the way up the chain to "the winner is..."
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps by 2010 we will all have access to Neutrino networks, which will solve the problem of dead spots.
What would be the point? As it is now, you need to show at least enough support to be a viable candidate. If you don't have that support before election day, you're simply not going to win. I'd love to see more options, and I wouldn't weep at all if the idea of major political parties went away, but it does make sense to limit the ballot to declared candidates with actual support, rather than just hand people a phone-book sized ballot and saying "go crazy"
Right. Then you will guarantee the same results. No change. Without a plethora of parties, the usual games will go on in American politics. Even if ballot access were more inclusive, it is impossible to play with the two big parties, as they will always have the millions to support whomever they please. That's how it is. You start as a local hack, play the game (kiss babies, get on camera whenever possible, etc.), then if the respective party vets you clean, you'll have their permission to run for higher office. Move slightly toward an independent position, and you won't get supported any longer (reference Joe Lieberman). The only exception I know of is if the candidate is independently wealthy, in which case no law denies him/her the ability to fund the whole campaign (see M. Bloomberg, Mayor, NYC). Third party candidacies should not only be allowed, but encouraged. The major political parties are no longer relevant in the information age. Your point is well taken, but only in a time when candidates had to rely on newspapers, flyers, or word-of-mouth to garner votes. Today, the voters can and must vet the candidates, and have the ability to vote for whomever regardless of party. Take the $ from the DNC and RNC and spread it around. I'll take the phonebook, thanks.
You are asking the wrong question, for it is not the democrats vs. the republicans. The two parties are the same species, just minor variants of one another. Ask instead why my ballot only essentially has a row A and row B. Why not row A through ZZZ with all possible combinations. The system is conservative, not in the political sense, but in its tendency to preserve the status quo. Why isn't the "Silly Party" on the ballot? Simply check the laws for ballot access in your state. Want to scare them further? Mention term limits.
Microsoft's Turner said that Linux netbooks are being returned at a rate 4 to 5 times higher than Windows netbooks. Dell hasn't disputed this fact at all. Linux netbooks *are* being returned at a very high rate, and Dell's Finch says so right in the article:
The difference is that people are returning the Windows netbooks because of technical reasons (broken hardware) and Linux netbooks because they don't want Linux.
That's a win for Microsoft, no matter how you spin it.
Please don't tell us you believe anything/everything MS says. I doubt the figure, but fully understand from experience that Dell support blows, and Dell/Linux support blows harder. Most likely Dell is acting as a MS agent, so with hails of derisive laughter they can claim, with great audacity, that any version of windoze is superior for thin-client computing than Linux.
Indeed, Lance Link would have know how to deal with these arrogant apes.
Indeed I do get it. Universal anything is a utopian argument for those who still don't understand that the Wilsonian theories either failed, or got us into more trouble than they were worth. Universal means having to say you're sorry in perpetuity. Again, keep the damn lawyers off the backs of those who actually got in to medical school (you know who you are), and legislate strict tort reform. I remember what medical costs were like before the legal feeding frenzy started, and those costs were on a par with other professions. Doctor's are taught to do no harm. Lawyers are taught to harm everyone, and if possible, to eat their own. Ever see the US commercials which ask, "Have you been hurt by anything?" Doctors ARE scientists, though I'm not so sure about these slashdot commentators. If you want universal health care, let's go for it, but don't fail to include the tech community, developers, engineers, research scientists, etc., many of whom work to further the advancement of medicine. Next time you write a computational neurobiology application, better check with the government to be certain it follows the model, and accept "reasonable" compensation for your work. "To each according to his contribution..." Now where have I heard that before. Lastly, who would you rather see at the bottom of the ocean, a hundred doctors or a hundred lawyers?
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Few could argue that the government means well, initially, but when has the state managed anything better than the private sector? Medical costs can be substantially attributed to doctors who fear medical malpractice suits. Thus the meaningless pap tests. A better solution would be comprehensive tort reform. But nooo. Look at the top donors to the two parties. The trial lawyers. Tort reform will never happen. As for outmoded practices, another easy solution. Board certification should never be permanent. A combination of CME credits and re-certification by exam every five years for MDs will help ensure best practices are followed. ---- First, do no harm. That's Washington's job.
Perhaps e-voting machines are vulnerable, but let us not forget that computers are responsible for tallying results all the way up the chain to "the winner is..."