funny or not, the voting machines here print out automatically all the data inserted, so you can validate the results.
If those pieces of paper are collected and can be used to perform recounts, and if the voters validate their choices before dropping the paper in the collection box, then that's an excellent system. IMO, the best.
I agree with this sentiment. It's a simple solution that is actually extremely effective. If there is any reason to doubt the results, they have hard copies that people can go through by hand. Makes it completely transparent.
To be honest though, I'd normally trust the results of a computer collecting tallies over people counting them by hand.
Some even go so far as to eliminate 100% of property tax for businesses abiding by environmental regulations. They also have pretty big grants for the initial installation.
I'm pretty confident the electric companies also want you to produce power and put it back on the grid. They still make money and don't have to produce as much power.
I agree though, I hope power goes more distributed over the next few decades. Not only government and power companies making renewable sources, but individuals taking on the responsibility. I think it'll happen as it becomes more and more cost effective.
Eh, for me it was cheaper to get an iPhone, both phone wise and plan wise than a Blackberry or any other 3g capable device.
I couldn't care less about MMS, I can upload photos to facebook or get stuff off of my e-mail.
I also have no desire to watch videos, if I'm going to watch TV or a movie, it's going to be off of my DVR or computer on my 52" TV and 7.1 surround system on my comfortable couch with a beer, not on my tiny ass cell phone. Youtube, the internet and the app store provide more than enough instant entertainment if I'm stuck somewhere or bored.
I have no need for turn by turn directions either, I actually prefer google maps + GPS.
My biggest complaint about the iPhone is that you have to crack it to do certain things, like copy over ringtones.
The iPhone doesn't suck, you're just being anti-trendy and generally pissed. I'm not a fan of trendy shit or Apple in general, but the iPhone is a pretty good device.
Exactly, the good thing is you're both following a budget and not going in debt heh.
Personally, I also use only my debit card because it's simple and easy for me to track.
I very much wish I could just use my cell phone or debit card for a vending machine. I would have even less reason to carry around cash then, I fucking hate cash.
I don't even have time to play all the games I've bought.
The only reason I'd ever consider buying a Dreamcast is to play 1 or 2 old games with friends that I'd just burn a copy of. Like Power Stone 2. I'd actually buy that game on 360 if they added it to the arcade.
I'm getting hard nipples right now just thinking about Power Stone HD.
I have a friend who has every Dreamcast game ever created burned and in a giant CD case, I think he's played like 3 of them more than once.
I think you're missing that the monopoly is really in the OS. I don't believe them including and heavily using their own browser with their own OS is illegal. No more than Apple integrating Safari on an iPhone being illegal or Mott's using all Golden Delicious from Mr. Mott's apple farm in their apple sauce.
I just don't think that law should dictate what a company does or doesn't include in their default software stack. If you don't like Microsoft's windows package, install Linux or modify it after it's been installed... or create your own windows install package that essentially does the same thing.
Now, if you were going to say that Microsoft should be broken up due to a monopoly on OS's, you might have something more to stand on.
It's not difficult to install a new browser. Someone who doesn't know about other browsers or how to install them isn't going to be installing Windows out of the box anyways. They're going to be installing a pre-packaged image from some company... or they got their computer built by some technically knowledgeable person who knows about other browsers.
IE is integrated pretty heavily into Windows as well.
I dunno, I'm all for people having choices and having knowledge... but this seems stupid. I mean, what's next, make them include iTunes with the default windows package?
As an IT professional and engineer, I'm not even sure that I would WANT them to have other browsers installed, by default, on a system... I want it to be as clean as possible by default.
That's fine, they don't have to perform live to make their living... just don't expect me to buy their CD's for 15 dollars when I can get it for free. If it's on iTunes or available for download for cheap I'd consider it or I'll listen to it with ads for free. I compensate bands and musicians I like by going to their concerts or buying their merchandise. If they don't tour and I REALLY REALLY like it, I'll pay for the music.
After it's been let out into the air, it's just sound though.
I have no moral problem with making a recording of someone's music and listening to it myself. I have a problem with selling that copy or profiting from it, but just listening to it myself and enjoying it? Hell no. IMHO, we've been conditioned over the past 100 years to recording music is somehow morally wrong by people looking to profit (extort) from us by manipulating laws.
For the record, I feel differently about movies and I go to theaters and buy DVD's. Movies, as a body of work, are more of a piece of art than a music recording. The music itself is art, not the recording, it's different with movies.
The artist can choose the venue he performs at, it doesn't always have to be at the House of Blues in whatever city you're in.
The ones you are referring also are oftentimes closely connected with labels so if someone signs they have to perform at certain venues. Yea, if it's a really big venue it's going to cost more to get in and use, but there's also room for many more customers and more money for the band. Also, if you sign with a label for promotion, you're obviously going to lose a lot of your cut.
I can definitely get on the bandwagon of using law to improve the band's cut of live performance revenues though.
My problem is with, what I consider, the extortion that's been going on for years by record labels for a recording which is entirely over valued. And now their tirade against their customers.
In the end, they're just going to fail... recordings are just too easy and too cheap to produce and securely distribute. They need to adapt and provide us with super easy and inexpensive access or flounder and die.
If Bose creates a brand new headphone model with some top secret technology and my friend buys one then I reverse engineer it and create an IDENTICAL copy for myself but do not profit from it and just use it myself. Am I really stealing from Bose? IMHO, no.
It's exactly the same thing with music and video, the only difference is that they are unlucky enough to have something that is 1000x easier to copy.
Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE. Not by EXTORTING MILLIONS for themselves and the recording industry through recordings?
It's not the musicians just trying to get by that really care about piracy anyways. It's the filthy rich ones and the recording industry grasping for branches on their way off the cliff.
Sorry, the recording industry as we knew it back when the only way to distribute music recordings was through records or CD's made by big corporations extorting both the artists and the customers is DYING.
I, for one, will be grateful for its demise and musicians making the majority of their incoming through LIVE performances or through the countless distributions readily available on the internet. Recording industries will still have a place in promotion, but it won't be nearly as profitable.
Slashdot hint... you'll only be modded up in the majority of non scientific topics if it's a conspiracy theory or a "the world as you know it ending" pessimistic outlook. Also, bashing Americans as an American is usually a home run.
Things working out just isn't as entertaining a viewpoint as you don't have anyone to be pissed off at... anyways.
I agree, it really is our problem and our solution to make. The US economy receding is probably related to it as well. Nobody actually knows why it's receding, but plenty of economists (arm chair and degreed) will be happy to give you some BS post fact thesis about it.
Labor in China is cheap enough that transportation costs don't increase the cost of goods to the point where it's efficient to produce in the US. That's pretty much the deal with China. Until it becomes more efficient to produce in the US or until the citizens of the US start only buying US or until China starts increasing their quality of living it's not going to change.
I personally think a middle ground will be met between becoming more efficient to produce in the US, with jobs lost and people becoming willing to work for less and automation, and the Chinese people demanding a higher standard of living.
If China becomes "the most powerful country" by whatever measure they use to determine that, their citizens are probably going to start demanding higher standards.
I'm also of the opinion that China's economy is going to implode before they have a chance to crown themselves as the most powerful country in the world. Just too much corruption and lack of human rights.
What you are saying, hypothetically then I guess, is that they are really getting the short end of the deal. I mean, they are making our stuff and in reality giving it to us because we are borrowing money from them to buy it. Kinda like slave labor, huh.
I guess another question is, if we can't pay them back, what are they really going to do about it?
From TFA... The legislation would only go into effect IF AND ONLY IF states constituting 270 other electoral votes agreed to do the same thing.
So, while yes politicians would focus on dense population centers, that is something that already happens.
One huge benefit of a true popular vote would be that politicians wouldn't have to focus only on swing states whose population is 50/50, but could still see some gain from trying to garner votes in a state that is 80/20 one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
You win the prize.
lol, I'd mod funny.
I, for one, think that this technology is bad ass.
I don't get it, some people act like they're jealous they didn't come up with it or something? lol
funny or not, the voting machines here print out automatically all the data inserted, so you can validate the results.
If those pieces of paper are collected and can be used to perform recounts, and if the voters validate their choices before dropping the paper in the collection box, then that's an excellent system. IMO, the best.
I agree with this sentiment. It's a simple solution that is actually extremely effective. If there is any reason to doubt the results, they have hard copies that people can go through by hand. Makes it completely transparent.
To be honest though, I'd normally trust the results of a computer collecting tallies over people counting them by hand.
I'm sure you guys looked into this but... most state governments have a lot of incentives, both tax breaks and grants, for using alternative energy.
There are a lot of sites on it:
http://www.dsireusa.org/
http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/
Some even go so far as to eliminate 100% of property tax for businesses abiding by environmental regulations. They also have pretty big grants for the initial installation.
I'm pretty confident the electric companies also want you to produce power and put it back on the grid. They still make money and don't have to produce as much power.
I agree though, I hope power goes more distributed over the next few decades. Not only government and power companies making renewable sources, but individuals taking on the responsibility. I think it'll happen as it becomes more and more cost effective.
Thanks, I'll check this out when I get home from work.
I mean seriously, what are you going to watch, Maury Povich? Oprah?
I could watch TV on my Game Gear back in '89 or whatever... but I never did.
Eh, for me it was cheaper to get an iPhone, both phone wise and plan wise than a Blackberry or any other 3g capable device.
I couldn't care less about MMS, I can upload photos to facebook or get stuff off of my e-mail.
I also have no desire to watch videos, if I'm going to watch TV or a movie, it's going to be off of my DVR or computer on my 52" TV and 7.1 surround system on my comfortable couch with a beer, not on my tiny ass cell phone. Youtube, the internet and the app store provide more than enough instant entertainment if I'm stuck somewhere or bored.
I have no need for turn by turn directions either, I actually prefer google maps + GPS.
My biggest complaint about the iPhone is that you have to crack it to do certain things, like copy over ringtones.
The iPhone doesn't suck, you're just being anti-trendy and generally pissed. I'm not a fan of trendy shit or Apple in general, but the iPhone is a pretty good device.
"But hey..to each his own."
Exactly, the good thing is you're both following a budget and not going in debt heh.
Personally, I also use only my debit card because it's simple and easy for me to track.
I very much wish I could just use my cell phone or debit card for a vending machine. I would have even less reason to carry around cash then, I fucking hate cash.
I don't even have time to play all the games I've bought.
The only reason I'd ever consider buying a Dreamcast is to play 1 or 2 old games with friends that I'd just burn a copy of. Like Power Stone 2. I'd actually buy that game on 360 if they added it to the arcade.
I'm getting hard nipples right now just thinking about Power Stone HD.
I have a friend who has every Dreamcast game ever created burned and in a giant CD case, I think he's played like 3 of them more than once.
I think you're missing that the monopoly is really in the OS. I don't believe them including and heavily using their own browser with their own OS is illegal. No more than Apple integrating Safari on an iPhone being illegal or Mott's using all Golden Delicious from Mr. Mott's apple farm in their apple sauce.
I just don't think that law should dictate what a company does or doesn't include in their default software stack. If you don't like Microsoft's windows package, install Linux or modify it after it's been installed... or create your own windows install package that essentially does the same thing.
Now, if you were going to say that Microsoft should be broken up due to a monopoly on OS's, you might have something more to stand on.
Of non technical people making technical decisions.
Which browsers make the cut and which don't??
It's not difficult to install a new browser. Someone who doesn't know about other browsers or how to install them isn't going to be installing Windows out of the box anyways. They're going to be installing a pre-packaged image from some company... or they got their computer built by some technically knowledgeable person who knows about other browsers.
IE is integrated pretty heavily into Windows as well.
I dunno, I'm all for people having choices and having knowledge... but this seems stupid. I mean, what's next, make them include iTunes with the default windows package?
As an IT professional and engineer, I'm not even sure that I would WANT them to have other browsers installed, by default, on a system... I want it to be as clean as possible by default.
That's fine, they don't have to perform live to make their living... just don't expect me to buy their CD's for 15 dollars when I can get it for free. If it's on iTunes or available for download for cheap I'd consider it or I'll listen to it with ads for free. I compensate bands and musicians I like by going to their concerts or buying their merchandise. If they don't tour and I REALLY REALLY like it, I'll pay for the music.
After it's been let out into the air, it's just sound though.
I have no moral problem with making a recording of someone's music and listening to it myself. I have a problem with selling that copy or profiting from it, but just listening to it myself and enjoying it? Hell no. IMHO, we've been conditioned over the past 100 years to recording music is somehow morally wrong by people looking to profit (extort) from us by manipulating laws.
For the record, I feel differently about movies and I go to theaters and buy DVD's. Movies, as a body of work, are more of a piece of art than a music recording. The music itself is art, not the recording, it's different with movies.
That was also more of a rhetorical question.
If I'm not mistaken, I haven't search engined a source, but the majority of bands get their highest revenue from touring.
Free recordings are free promotion. (sorry for re-statement) And really do the most hurt, if not all of the hurt, to the labels and not the bands.
I guess that further makes the point... how is pirating really hurting bands? If anything, it's free promotion.
Oh wait.. it's not really hurting the bands, it's hurting the leeching record labels.
The artist can choose the venue he performs at, it doesn't always have to be at the House of Blues in whatever city you're in.
The ones you are referring also are oftentimes closely connected with labels so if someone signs they have to perform at certain venues. Yea, if it's a really big venue it's going to cost more to get in and use, but there's also room for many more customers and more money for the band. Also, if you sign with a label for promotion, you're obviously going to lose a lot of your cut.
I can definitely get on the bandwagon of using law to improve the band's cut of live performance revenues though.
My problem is with, what I consider, the extortion that's been going on for years by record labels for a recording which is entirely over valued. And now their tirade against their customers.
In the end, they're just going to fail... recordings are just too easy and too cheap to produce and securely distribute. They need to adapt and provide us with super easy and inexpensive access or flounder and die.
http://www.hulu.com/
http://www.pandora.com/
http://www.netflix.com/
Well said.
Actually, the analogy holds quite well.
If Bose creates a brand new headphone model with some top secret technology and my friend buys one then I reverse engineer it and create an IDENTICAL copy for myself but do not profit from it and just use it myself. Am I really stealing from Bose? IMHO, no.
It's exactly the same thing with music and video, the only difference is that they are unlucky enough to have something that is 1000x easier to copy.
Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE. Not by EXTORTING MILLIONS for themselves and the recording industry through recordings?
It's not the musicians just trying to get by that really care about piracy anyways. It's the filthy rich ones and the recording industry grasping for branches on their way off the cliff.
Sorry, the recording industry as we knew it back when the only way to distribute music recordings was through records or CD's made by big corporations extorting both the artists and the customers is DYING.
I, for one, will be grateful for its demise and musicians making the majority of their incoming through LIVE performances or through the countless distributions readily available on the internet. Recording industries will still have a place in promotion, but it won't be nearly as profitable.
Until then... LONG LIVE THE PIRATES!
Slashdot hint... you'll only be modded up in the majority of non scientific topics if it's a conspiracy theory or a "the world as you know it ending" pessimistic outlook. Also, bashing Americans as an American is usually a home run.
Things working out just isn't as entertaining a viewpoint as you don't have anyone to be pissed off at... anyways.
I agree, it really is our problem and our solution to make. The US economy receding is probably related to it as well. Nobody actually knows why it's receding, but plenty of economists (arm chair and degreed) will be happy to give you some BS post fact thesis about it.
Labor in China is cheap enough that transportation costs don't increase the cost of goods to the point where it's efficient to produce in the US. That's pretty much the deal with China. Until it becomes more efficient to produce in the US or until the citizens of the US start only buying US or until China starts increasing their quality of living it's not going to change.
I personally think a middle ground will be met between becoming more efficient to produce in the US, with jobs lost and people becoming willing to work for less and automation, and the Chinese people demanding a higher standard of living.
If China becomes "the most powerful country" by whatever measure they use to determine that, their citizens are probably going to start demanding higher standards.
I'm also of the opinion that China's economy is going to implode before they have a chance to crown themselves as the most powerful country in the world. Just too much corruption and lack of human rights.
What you are saying, hypothetically then I guess, is that they are really getting the short end of the deal. I mean, they are making our stuff and in reality giving it to us because we are borrowing money from them to buy it. Kinda like slave labor, huh.
I guess another question is, if we can't pay them back, what are they really going to do about it?
I laughed heh.
From TFA... The legislation would only go into effect IF AND ONLY IF states constituting 270 other electoral votes agreed to do the same thing.
So, while yes politicians would focus on dense population centers, that is something that already happens.
One huge benefit of a true popular vote would be that politicians wouldn't have to focus only on swing states whose population is 50/50, but could still see some gain from trying to garner votes in a state that is 80/20 one way or the other.