First, there is a difference between being educated and being informed. The people at the time of the Constitution may not have been formally educated, but most made it their responsibility to be better informed about their world. The electoral college had nothing to do with dealing with an "uneducated" populous (for one, only land owners could vote and the vast majority of them were educated or at least literate)... it had more to do with the Founding Father's vehement opposition to pure democracy, which they viewed as one of the worst forms of government. The electoral college was intended to soften the volatility of pure democracy.
Second, you request a "Citation" in reference to my assertion that a person with lots of "4"s would end up being president. Allow me to illustrate.
Population: 100
Each person gets 5 "votes" (i.e. ranking 5 people from 5 to 1 in order of preference) 51 people give candidate A a "5"... the other 49 people give him a 1. Giving him a total of 304 "points" (255 from the "5"s and 49 from the "1"s).
Candidate B only needs to get 64 "4" votes and he'd win.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think our current two-party system is very good, but I wouldn't rush to solve the problems by throwing our entire system. First, I'd try to prune off those things that were hastily added to begin with, then once we've pared it down to that, let it work for a few cycles and revisit any problems that crop up, but in a more measured and careful manner.
I appreciate your out-of-the-box thinking, but your specific suggestion for changing the way the president and vice-president are elected is problematic at best. This would lead to horrendously confusing presidential elections. For crying out loud... we have problems choosing ONE president... now you want us to rank among numerous candidates? You'll have situations where one candidate will get the majority of "5"s, but another will get more "4"s and when all the numbers are tabulated, the guy with more 4s wins. That's just confusing as hell. And don't even get me started with your idea of negative numbers. Yowzah!
I say we keep the electoral college, but eliminate the process by which a candidate can win the whole state, even if he/she only gets 51% of the vote. That is how we end up with screwy elections results. If a state with 10 electoral votes is split 60-40 between the two candidates, you'd have 6 votes for one and 4 for the other. That is only fair.
The way it is now, if you live in a state that votes predominantly toward one party or another, the people from the other party are essentially silenced in the presidential elections. For instance, in Washington State, the vote usually goes towards Democrat, so all the people in the state that vote Republican essentially don't really get a vote because their vote just ends up getting tossed out by the overwhelming majority. Or take Texas which predominantly votes Republican... all the Democrats are silenced. It gives the illusion that there are "Red" and "Blue" states, when each state is a dynamic conglomeration of people of varying political sympathies. The Electoral College should reflect that.
I think the only fair answer is to return the electoral college to proportional representation.
In other news... Not to be outdone by some mere galaxy, Dolly Parton has contacted her cosmetic surgeon to see if implants come in "Gamma-Ray Bubble" size.
Actually, the Constitution does not give a monopoly to the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison and everyone just accepted it, but numerous Founding Fathers specifically said that no one branch had that monopoly and that either of the other two branches could declare something constitutional or unconstitutional.
So, no, I don't accept the idea that the Supreme Court is the final word on what is or is not Constitutional. The second we do, we can forget being a free people.
Yes. Of course, the theory is that only people of above average intelligence go to law school (hence, the grueling test known as the LSAT) and that after working as an attorney for many years, you have the wisdom and knowledge necessary to accurately and fairly apply the law as a judge.
But sadly that isn't the case. And we wonder why the country is going down the crapper.
It isn't the Constitution that I don't like, but activist judges and conniving legislators who have "interpreted" all governmental restriction out of the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson referred to the "chains of [the] Constitution" and that these chains would "bind [government] down from mischief".
What I was referring to was the fact that the Supreme Court has supported Congress in ignoring these chains, teasing out of the Constitution powers that were not there to begin with. Many SCOTUS decisions have flown directly in the face of the explicit meaning of Constitutional provisions.
So, what I meant was that the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the middle finger to the rest of the Constitution.
IAAL and I would say that many (not just "some") judges are f***ing morons.
Example:
Client gets a restraining order put against him several years ago, moves on with his life. 3 years later he wants to move in with GF who lives with the protected person (with me so far?). He remembers that there was once a restraining order, but can't remember how long it was in effect for. So, being the reasonable person he is, calls the court and asks if there is a restraining order. Clerk tells him "I can't find it in the system. That means it has either expired or was never entered in correctly."
He thinks, "Great!" and moves in thinking restraining order is a non-issue. Lives there for 1.5 years and all of a sudden gets charged with violating the restraining order. Turns out clerk was wrong.
So, we want to present his testimony that he'd made this call. Judge says that the evidence is "not relevant". Needless to say we lose. Just got done with the appeal and the second judge has also said the evidence is not relevant.
Let's also keep in mind that the only reason oil is approaching "peak" is that we aren't continuing to drill. "Peak" oil has nothing to do with the amount of oil available, just how fast we're able/willing to access that oil.
Now, if the government allowed drilling in certain verboten areas, we'd be further away from "peak". But do we really care about "peak"? So what? What we really need in order to bring gasoline prices down is more refineries (which have been getting closed all over).
Indeed, it is about content... but Hollywood has leaned on the crutch of Special Effects for so long, I think many/most studios have forgotten how to provide good content.
You know, I could give an equally ridiculous sounding recitation of fundamental scientific principles. The ability to mock something does not prove that the thing is ridiculous... it usually just proves that an individual has a skewed or inaccurate view of the thing.
The point is that religion is not full of "nut cases". After all, since any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, we can work that backwards... Anything we may think of as "magic" or "miraculous" is simply the application of very advanced science.
What "creationists" do is irrelevant to what scientists do. Why should the claims of creationists worry scientists? Why should creationists pushing creationism in schools worry scientists?
How many great scientists have succeeded and excelled within the confines of a creationist society? Nearly every great scientist lived in a society that predominantly favored the creationist (or superstitious) model. They still found out the truth (or at least got closer to the truth) despite the pull towards superstition.
So, who cares if creationists continue to push a particular non-scientific view? Will it hinder or change science? History suggests otherwise... or at least it suggests that the impact would not be as catastrophic as some claim.
That article is poorly researched and poorly written. Example: The article claims that recycling saves "natural resources" like "trees, oil, [and] minerals".
It doesn't save trees because all paper products in the US come from trees harvested from tree farms where the trees are specifically planted so they can be harvested. Reduce the need for new paper and we reduce the number of trees that are be planted. (There are more trees in the US now than there were before the industrial revolution).
It doesn't save oil because plastic is made from oil AFTER it has been processed for fuel/lubricants/etc... In other words, if we stopped all plastic manufacturing today, we would have an enormous amount of unused crude oil.
It does save minerals, which is why minerals recycling is (and has always been) a very profitable venture.
Second, the article claims that recycling would reduce energy consumption. Well, long story short, it doesn't except for minerals recycling. Because paper and plastic have already been processed, they have to go through a somewhat complex de-processing in order to be used in making new paper/plastic products. It is not a simple process of grind it up, melt it down, make new stuff. There are lots of chemicals that are used at each stage for various purposes and unless those chemicals are purged, it makes the new product inferior.
Lastly, the article claims that it would reduce the environmental impact by reducing the need for "clear-cutting [and] oil drilling". Again, this is false for reasons already discussed. We don't "clear-cut" as most people think of the term. Clear cutting is used on tree farms (where the trees were planted for that very purpose). In addition, clear-cutting has been shown to actually be a benefit to the environment, since it reduces the likelihood of forest fires (nature's form of clear-cutting) and it gives the ground time to recuperate the minerals and nutrients that trees consume. (Yes, believe it or not, trees consume resources and those resource need to be replenished from time to time.) As for reducing the need for "oil drilling", as I mentioned plastic is made from the left-over crude, so the only thing that is really going to reduce the need for oil-drilling is not needing it for fuel any longer.
I am eager for pro-recyclers to give good reasons for recycling, but other than metal recycling, I haven't seen one compelling reason to do it.
The waste in an ex-landfill doesn't affect the park above it, since they cover up the landfill with several feet of dirt before building the park. By the time they open the park up, what little harmful substance are still around do not affect you any more than the harmful substances that are already present at regular parks.
But corporations are made of people and somewhere along the chain, someone knows that what is going on is wrong/bad/harmful/etc... Corporations like to PRETEND that they didn't know, but someone always knows.
Also, what are all the variables they are taking into account? If I have a screaming fast ISP, but the server I'm connecting to is hosted on some dog slow server, then the site is going to slow me down. It's not my ISP's fault, it's the site I'm visiting. Do they account for this and filter out the server's speed?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just address a few issues.
First, there is a difference between being educated and being informed. The people at the time of the Constitution may not have been formally educated, but most made it their responsibility to be better informed about their world. The electoral college had nothing to do with dealing with an "uneducated" populous (for one, only land owners could vote and the vast majority of them were educated or at least literate)... it had more to do with the Founding Father's vehement opposition to pure democracy, which they viewed as one of the worst forms of government. The electoral college was intended to soften the volatility of pure democracy.
Second, you request a "Citation" in reference to my assertion that a person with lots of "4"s would end up being president. Allow me to illustrate.
Population: 100
Each person gets 5 "votes" (i.e. ranking 5 people from 5 to 1 in order of preference) 51 people give candidate A a "5"... the other 49 people give him a 1. Giving him a total of 304 "points" (255 from the "5"s and 49 from the "1"s).
Candidate B only needs to get 64 "4" votes and he'd win.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think our current two-party system is very good, but I wouldn't rush to solve the problems by throwing our entire system. First, I'd try to prune off those things that were hastily added to begin with, then once we've pared it down to that, let it work for a few cycles and revisit any problems that crop up, but in a more measured and careful manner.
Mod parent "+1, The Only Gorram Sensible Comment in This Thread"
I appreciate your out-of-the-box thinking, but your specific suggestion for changing the way the president and vice-president are elected is problematic at best. This would lead to horrendously confusing presidential elections. For crying out loud... we have problems choosing ONE president... now you want us to rank among numerous candidates? You'll have situations where one candidate will get the majority of "5"s, but another will get more "4"s and when all the numbers are tabulated, the guy with more 4s wins. That's just confusing as hell. And don't even get me started with your idea of negative numbers. Yowzah!
I say we keep the electoral college, but eliminate the process by which a candidate can win the whole state, even if he/she only gets 51% of the vote. That is how we end up with screwy elections results. If a state with 10 electoral votes is split 60-40 between the two candidates, you'd have 6 votes for one and 4 for the other. That is only fair.
The way it is now, if you live in a state that votes predominantly toward one party or another, the people from the other party are essentially silenced in the presidential elections. For instance, in Washington State, the vote usually goes towards Democrat, so all the people in the state that vote Republican essentially don't really get a vote because their vote just ends up getting tossed out by the overwhelming majority. Or take Texas which predominantly votes Republican... all the Democrats are silenced. It gives the illusion that there are "Red" and "Blue" states, when each state is a dynamic conglomeration of people of varying political sympathies. The Electoral College should reflect that.
I think the only fair answer is to return the electoral college to proportional representation.
In other news... Not to be outdone by some mere galaxy, Dolly Parton has contacted her cosmetic surgeon to see if implants come in "Gamma-Ray Bubble" size.
Actually, the Constitution does not give a monopoly to the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison and everyone just accepted it, but numerous Founding Fathers specifically said that no one branch had that monopoly and that either of the other two branches could declare something constitutional or unconstitutional.
So, no, I don't accept the idea that the Supreme Court is the final word on what is or is not Constitutional. The second we do, we can forget being a free people.
Yes. Of course, the theory is that only people of above average intelligence go to law school (hence, the grueling test known as the LSAT) and that after working as an attorney for many years, you have the wisdom and knowledge necessary to accurately and fairly apply the law as a judge.
But sadly that isn't the case. And we wonder why the country is going down the crapper.
Oh, and I am working to "fix it".
Who said I don't like the Constitution?
It isn't the Constitution that I don't like, but activist judges and conniving legislators who have "interpreted" all governmental restriction out of the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson referred to the "chains of [the] Constitution" and that these chains would "bind [government] down from mischief".
What I was referring to was the fact that the Supreme Court has supported Congress in ignoring these chains, teasing out of the Constitution powers that were not there to begin with. Many SCOTUS decisions have flown directly in the face of the explicit meaning of Constitutional provisions.
So, what I meant was that the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the middle finger to the rest of the Constitution.
IAAL and I would say that many (not just "some") judges are f***ing morons.
Example:
Client gets a restraining order put against him several years ago, moves on with his life. 3 years later he wants to move in with GF who lives with the protected person (with me so far?). He remembers that there was once a restraining order, but can't remember how long it was in effect for. So, being the reasonable person he is, calls the court and asks if there is a restraining order. Clerk tells him "I can't find it in the system. That means it has either expired or was never entered in correctly."
He thinks, "Great!" and moves in thinking restraining order is a non-issue. Lives there for 1.5 years and all of a sudden gets charged with violating the restraining order. Turns out clerk was wrong.
So, we want to present his testimony that he'd made this call. Judge says that the evidence is "not relevant". Needless to say we lose. Just got done with the appeal and the second judge has also said the evidence is not relevant.
Judges suck balls.
I literally (and I do mean literally) fell off my chair laughing.
Commerce Clause = Middle Finger to the rest of the Constitution.
Also, Necessary and Proper clause = "... and we're gonna do whatever the f*** we want anyway, so screw you."
Let's also keep in mind that the only reason oil is approaching "peak" is that we aren't continuing to drill. "Peak" oil has nothing to do with the amount of oil available, just how fast we're able/willing to access that oil.
Now, if the government allowed drilling in certain verboten areas, we'd be further away from "peak". But do we really care about "peak"? So what? What we really need in order to bring gasoline prices down is more refineries (which have been getting closed all over).
Indeed, it is about content... but Hollywood has leaned on the crutch of Special Effects for so long, I think many/most studios have forgotten how to provide good content.
You know, I could give an equally ridiculous sounding recitation of fundamental scientific principles. The ability to mock something does not prove that the thing is ridiculous... it usually just proves that an individual has a skewed or inaccurate view of the thing.
The point is that religion is not full of "nut cases". After all, since any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, we can work that backwards... Anything we may think of as "magic" or "miraculous" is simply the application of very advanced science.
What "creationists" do is irrelevant to what scientists do. Why should the claims of creationists worry scientists? Why should creationists pushing creationism in schools worry scientists?
How many great scientists have succeeded and excelled within the confines of a creationist society? Nearly every great scientist lived in a society that predominantly favored the creationist (or superstitious) model. They still found out the truth (or at least got closer to the truth) despite the pull towards superstition.
So, who cares if creationists continue to push a particular non-scientific view? Will it hinder or change science? History suggests otherwise... or at least it suggests that the impact would not be as catastrophic as some claim.
That article is poorly researched and poorly written. Example: The article claims that recycling saves "natural resources" like "trees, oil, [and] minerals".
It doesn't save trees because all paper products in the US come from trees harvested from tree farms where the trees are specifically planted so they can be harvested. Reduce the need for new paper and we reduce the number of trees that are be planted. (There are more trees in the US now than there were before the industrial revolution).
It doesn't save oil because plastic is made from oil AFTER it has been processed for fuel/lubricants/etc... In other words, if we stopped all plastic manufacturing today, we would have an enormous amount of unused crude oil.
It does save minerals, which is why minerals recycling is (and has always been) a very profitable venture.
Second, the article claims that recycling would reduce energy consumption. Well, long story short, it doesn't except for minerals recycling. Because paper and plastic have already been processed, they have to go through a somewhat complex de-processing in order to be used in making new paper/plastic products. It is not a simple process of grind it up, melt it down, make new stuff. There are lots of chemicals that are used at each stage for various purposes and unless those chemicals are purged, it makes the new product inferior.
Lastly, the article claims that it would reduce the environmental impact by reducing the need for "clear-cutting [and] oil drilling". Again, this is false for reasons already discussed. We don't "clear-cut" as most people think of the term. Clear cutting is used on tree farms (where the trees were planted for that very purpose). In addition, clear-cutting has been shown to actually be a benefit to the environment, since it reduces the likelihood of forest fires (nature's form of clear-cutting) and it gives the ground time to recuperate the minerals and nutrients that trees consume. (Yes, believe it or not, trees consume resources and those resource need to be replenished from time to time.) As for reducing the need for "oil drilling", as I mentioned plastic is made from the left-over crude, so the only thing that is really going to reduce the need for oil-drilling is not needing it for fuel any longer.
I am eager for pro-recyclers to give good reasons for recycling, but other than metal recycling, I haven't seen one compelling reason to do it.
The waste in an ex-landfill doesn't affect the park above it, since they cover up the landfill with several feet of dirt before building the park. By the time they open the park up, what little harmful substance are still around do not affect you any more than the harmful substances that are already present at regular parks.
Sad, isn't it?
OH! 3 years! Well, that makes ALL the difference. Rest easy, guys... Apple gave us an extra year.
The social sciences, arts, humanities, etc have no need as they do not do massive equations.
Um... when was the last time the arts did ANY equations, let alone "massive" ones.
If you're a female... eewww.
If you're a male... double eewww.
But corporations are made of people and somewhere along the chain, someone knows that what is going on is wrong/bad/harmful/etc... Corporations like to PRETEND that they didn't know, but someone always knows.
While still technically accurate, the cliche is to have a dream "squashed", not "quashed".
Also, what are all the variables they are taking into account? If I have a screaming fast ISP, but the server I'm connecting to is hosted on some dog slow server, then the site is going to slow me down. It's not my ISP's fault, it's the site I'm visiting. Do they account for this and filter out the server's speed?
So... we're going to solve with a black hole, what could be solved with some good magnets... do you work for NASA?
...if not something more exotic.
I read that as "something more erotic." Man, my mind is in the gutter today.