Lobbyist: Hey, you! Want to win a real lottery? All you have to do is sign here/vote/walk through that door... Representative (best case): Hmm... Representative (worst case): Ker-ching!
While I like the idea of sortition, I think it would only stop repeated bribery of one representative.
People vote for what they want, not necessarily what they need.
In more words: it depends on the quantity and makeup of those who actually vote. Personally, I wouldn't like the idea of a country run by voters that have nothing better to do than sit around all day 'liking' potential legislation. GOML, etc.
How does define impact anyway? Lives prematurely ended? Enrichment of lives in one way or another? Lives saved? Political power or material gain? I need not go on. There can be no consensus here because we could not settle on what is meant by 'impact', so there seems to be little point in arguing over who has made impact on whatever.
There is another way. Legalize it and tax it instead of fighting it. I can buy legal stuff that kills me at a slow pace at McD so why not something that makes me mellow or something that kills me faster.
"Yes, Prime Minister: The Smoke Screen (#1.3)" (1986) Sir Humphrey Appleby: [discussing how to stop the PM's anti-smoking legislation] I think the crucial argument is that we are living in a free country and we *must* be free to make our own decisions. After all, government shouldn't be a nursemaid, we don't want the nanny state. Sir Frank Gordon: Oh, that's very good. Sir Ian Whitworth: Excellent. Sir Humphrey Appleby: The only problem is that that is also the argument for legalising the sale of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, arsenic and gelignite. Sir Frank Gordon: Well maybe that's a good idea if we can put a big enough tax on them. Sir Ian Whitworth: Politically difficult. Sir Frank Gordon: Pity.
FWIW I'm for the legalisation of some of those things, but that quote always reminds me of the difficulty in choosing where to draw the line.
You say Apple is "brainwashing" everyone about OS X? Tell me, when did you last see it advertised on TV? How about in print? On the web?
Apple started out in the hardware business then, after a brief and fruitless foray into software, they started selling music and video. Only recently have they made a serious and successful attempt at selling software, and they mainly sell other people's wares.
For myself, I could do without a constant stream of articles listing things he may or mat not have designed personally. If Apple release something new and interesting then by all means post it, but I think everyone here knows what an iPod is.
I.E. No-one who could actually present a bill before parliament.
This has come up before and it'll come up again, but it's not gonna happen. If this was anything more than an unnamed bureaucrat saying "this would be handy" then it might pique my interest but otherwise it's no different from an MI5 spook saying that tracking everyone's browsing would be useful to the security services.
By that I mean yes, it would be useful, but even if it was technically possible parliament wouldn't consent to such nakedly draconian measures. They may seem a bunch of fatuous blowhards but they're not total idiots and they do have some moral standards.
Top Gear was usually nearer ten episodes per series/season, and it first started in the late seventies, which is probably the source of some confusion here.
It wasn't just what Clarkson said, it's also what was shown: a Tesla being pushed into a garage, ostensibly running out of power mid-test. I was very disappointed with Aunty when I learned this was staged*. Between that, the overly farcical "accidents" and a dearth of tests on normal cars I could ever buy I just stopped watching.
*I'm not a complete idiot; I know batteries run out, but was an accurate portrayal of the car's range really too much to ask?
That seems simple enough, but how would it translate to an individual seller at, say, a car boot sale? (I'm sorry, but I don't know what they're called in the US. A trunk sale or bring and buy perhaps?)
Isn't the law relevant to offering credit quite restrictive? Don't you need a license, or something? Perhaps it's only when interest is charged that such rules apply.
I sense a true Scotsman approaching, but I think it's safe to say that many people couldn't fix a bug even if they wanted to. For them the distinction between open- and closed-source as you've laid it out is moot.
Get off your high horse and actually read the post you're replying to. There are no soundbites in transcripts.
Maybe the parent, like many people, can read faster than others speak.
Have you never found yourself being subjected to a powerpoint where the presenter is just reading the slides word for word? Annoying, wasn't it? Why do you think that was?
With me, at least, it's because I'm sat there waiting for the speaker to catch up and all the while thinking my time is being wasted. Now, you might say that presentations give one the opportunity to ask questions, but that isn't the case with a video.
This reminds me of a scifi (short) story I read too many years ago - I forget the title or author - I think pi was also being calculated to the Nth and some some magic number was reached and the universe started to unravel. The stars started blinking off, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Lobbyist: Hey, you! Want to win a real lottery? All you have to do is sign here/vote/walk through that door...
Representative (best case): Hmm...
Representative (worst case): Ker-ching!
While I like the idea of sortition, I think it would only stop repeated bribery of one representative.
People vote for what they want, not necessarily what they need.
In more words: it depends on the quantity and makeup of those who actually vote. Personally, I wouldn't like the idea of a country run by voters that have nothing better to do than sit around all day 'liking' potential legislation. GOML, etc.
You see? This is why punctuation is important!
Somehow, Jobs' Bill sounds frightful. :P
[definition needed]
How does define impact anyway?
Lives prematurely ended?
Enrichment of lives in one way or another?
Lives saved?
Political power or material gain?
I need not go on. There can be no consensus here because we could not settle on what is meant by 'impact', so there seems to be little point in arguing over who has made impact on whatever.
There is another way. Legalize it and tax it instead of fighting it. I can buy legal stuff that kills me at a slow pace at McD so why not something that makes me mellow or something that kills me faster.
"Yes, Prime Minister: The Smoke Screen (#1.3)" (1986)
Sir Humphrey Appleby: [discussing how to stop the PM's anti-smoking legislation] I think the crucial argument is that we are living in a free country and we *must* be free to make our own decisions. After all, government shouldn't be a nursemaid, we don't want the nanny state.
Sir Frank Gordon: Oh, that's very good.
Sir Ian Whitworth: Excellent.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The only problem is that that is also the argument for legalising the sale of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, arsenic and gelignite.
Sir Frank Gordon: Well maybe that's a good idea if we can put a big enough tax on them.
Sir Ian Whitworth: Politically difficult.
Sir Frank Gordon: Pity.
FWIW I'm for the legalisation of some of those things, but that quote always reminds me of the difficulty in choosing where to draw the line.
Fair point, but I'm just pleased they didn't use fathoms. What are they, four and seven eights hogsheads?
Please?
You say Apple is "brainwashing" everyone about OS X? Tell me, when did you last see it advertised on TV? How about in print? On the web?
Apple started out in the hardware business then, after a brief and fruitless foray into software, they started selling music and video. Only recently have they made a serious and successful attempt at selling software, and they mainly sell other people's wares.
For myself, I could do without a constant stream of articles listing things he may or mat not have designed personally. If Apple release something new and interesting then by all means post it, but I think everyone here knows what an iPod is.
I.E. No-one who could actually present a bill before parliament.
This has come up before and it'll come up again, but it's not gonna happen. If this was anything more than an unnamed bureaucrat saying "this would be handy" then it might pique my interest but otherwise it's no different from an MI5 spook saying that tracking everyone's browsing would be useful to the security services.
By that I mean yes, it would be useful, but even if it was technically possible parliament wouldn't consent to such nakedly draconian measures. They may seem a bunch of fatuous blowhards but they're not total idiots and they do have some moral standards.
Buckets might also be impractical, how about a particle fountain? The meteors could frolic about in that.
Those detainees have to go somewhere
How about a courtroom?
Top Gear was usually nearer ten episodes per series/season, and it first started in the late seventies, which is probably the source of some confusion here.
Smart people drive whichever car they like, and don't care what anyone else thinks of it.
That would explain the Fiat Multipla.
It wasn't just what Clarkson said, it's also what was shown: a Tesla being pushed into a garage, ostensibly running out of power mid-test. I was very disappointed with Aunty when I learned this was staged*. Between that, the overly farcical "accidents" and a dearth of tests on normal cars I could ever buy I just stopped watching.
*I'm not a complete idiot; I know batteries run out, but was an accurate portrayal of the car's range really too much to ask?
That seems simple enough, but how would it translate to an individual seller at, say, a car boot sale? (I'm sorry, but I don't know what they're called in the US. A trunk sale or bring and buy perhaps?)
Isn't the law relevant to offering credit quite restrictive? Don't you need a license, or something?
Perhaps it's only when interest is charged that such rules apply.
I sense a true Scotsman approaching, but I think it's safe to say that many people couldn't fix a bug even if they wanted to. For them the distinction between open- and closed-source as you've laid it out is moot.
Sad, but true.
Get off your high horse and actually read the post you're replying to. There are no soundbites in transcripts.
Maybe the parent, like many people, can read faster than others speak.
Have you never found yourself being subjected to a powerpoint where the presenter is just reading the slides word for word? Annoying, wasn't it? Why do you think that was?
With me, at least, it's because I'm sat there waiting for the speaker to catch up and all the while thinking my time is being wasted. Now, you might say that presentations give one the opportunity to ask questions, but that isn't the case with a video.
I'm not usually bloodthirsty but I'd rather they put his head on a pike for all to see. Similar spectacle, but without the expense of keeping him fed.
But what will we do when all the politicians are dead?
There will be much rejoicing.
What do people think powers the sun? Unicorn farts?
No, Pegasus' farts. The wings are mainly for show; it's actually a horse-shaped dirigible.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Heinlein wrote it.
Mike directed the falling rocks.
This reminds me of a scifi (short) story I read too many years ago - I forget the title or author - I think pi was also being calculated to the Nth and some some magic number was reached and the universe started to unravel. The stars started blinking off, etc.
Do you mean Clarke's "The Nine Billion Names of God?"
You may have been being facetious, but I've decided that I won't buy an electric car until I can make it sound like the Jetsons'.