Even if he does nothing else, Obama will raise taxes on the rich.
What's your definition of "rich"?
If it's the top 20%, the "rich" already paid 86.3% of federal income taxes in 2005.
If it's the top 10%, they paid 72.5% of federal income taxes in 2005.
Even if you include all federal taxes, the top 20% paid 68.7% of all taxes in 2005, and the top 10% paid 54.7%.
No, we don't. The original iPhone was $400, and $20/month for unlimited data (which was actually less than unlimited data plans for other PDAs). The new iPhone is $200, and $30/month for data.
It doesn't take a PhD in math to figure out that AT&T is subsidizing the new iPhone to a greater degree than the earlier one, and expecting to make up the difference in service fees. The net cost is a bit higher than before, but it has nothing to do with 3G.
AT&T has had these kind of problems for years with their 3G service, it only took a successful platform to bring their shortcomings into the public light.
I suspect that it's a combination of both: the network problems are just aggravating the iPhone's marginal 3G performance.
After I had the iPhone for a few days (and had departed on a trip to a client with marginal 3G coverage inside their building), I "turned off" 3G in the phone settings, forcing it to fall back to EDGE and stay there. It has worked great in that mode, and I've since left it that way.
You lose the ability to use the network and talk on the phone at the same time, but I rarely do that. If I want to use the Safari browser for anything significant, I take the 3-4 seconds required to turn on 3G for the duration, and turn it off when I'm done.
It appears to significantly extend battery life as well.
Modding me troll doesn't make my argument less true, it just proves you have no counter-argument.
You were modded "troll" because there is no "clueless" moderation.
Sweeping generalizations aside, you apparently forgot that Republicans are responsible for ending slavery in the US. With LBJ's help, they also overcame the opposition of the Democratic leadership in the House and a Democrat filibuster in the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As an independent, I see the hypocrisy in both major US political parties. Neither are immune to authoritarian behavior -- the only difference is what subset of beliefs they want to impose on everyone else.
See my post earlier. According to Clear customer support, only people currently going through the application process were listed on the stolen laptop. And another poster reports that a separate news interview claimed that only publicly available info (name, address) was included.
Um, get past the identity theft victims...now the thief has the ability to fake credentials for 33K people who get to go through much reduced security at airports.
No, the security is the same -- at least for now. You just get through it faster.
The mandate is to reduce the level of scrutiny eventually, but Clear verifies the identity through biometric means (iris and/or fingerprints).
Could a terrorist organization exploit this information to be able to get someone on a plane who wouldn't have been able to before?
Currently, no. All Clear does is get you to the front of the security line. There's no difference in the level of scrutiny.
However, the mandate for the program is to eventually reduce the level of scrutiny for "registered travelers". But, a stolen identify won't help because the system uses biometric scanners (fingerprint and/or iris) to confirm that the card holder is the person that actually enrolled.
Unless someone figures out how to fool the biometric sensors, the security isn't compromised.
I'm replying close to the top, so that this will show up as early as possible.
This is from Clear customer support: consider the source and apply the appropriate amount of salt.
The only personal information that was compromised was for people who were in the midst of the application process. If you are already enrolled and have received your card, your personal info was not in the laptop that was stolen.
At this point, Clear is not planning to notify existing members that their personal info was not stolen. However, I strongly suggested that they rethink that policy, and notify all members of the extent of the breach. The news story quoted in this article doesn't make the distinction between pending applications and enrolled members.
I was just thinking earlier today of signing up for that. I do a lot of travel and thought the cost might be worth it to cut down on wait time.
I did sign up for it. It has saved me quite a bit of time. But now, I obviously regret it.
I just sent a nasty message to the "Chief Privacy Officer", but I'll be surprised if I get a response. I'm not sure I'll be satisfied with any response other than "I just got fired."
They already have millions of leased acres ready for drilling, why don't they just utilize those resources instead of gaining leases on more land that they wont be able to drill for another 5-15 years?
No, they have exploration leases on millions of acres. There's no guarantee those acres have any oil. On the other hand, there are places already known to have proven reserves of oil and natural gas that are off-limits to drilling.
Oh that's right, Exxon-Mobile just turned an $11 BILLION dollar profit in the last quarter.
On $117 BILLION of revenue. That's a profit margin of a bit more than 9%, which is in line with other capital-intensive industries.
The off shore drilling package from the GOP is nothing more than pandering to the uninformed masses while ensuring campaign financing from companies of the most profitable industry in the history of the United States.
And the resistance to off-shore drilling by the Democrats is nothing more than pandering to the environmental lobby.
Congress doesn't really have the authority to override the Constitution except through Constitutional amendment, so I think the law itself is unconstitutional.
Agreed, but there's still a problem: only Congress can impeach the President. How does Congress impeach the President for something that Congress ultimately approved? Congress would effectively be admitting that they screwed up, as well -- and should also be removed from office.
Oh, I don't think Bush should be impeached for lying. I think he should be impeached for violating the law and the Constitution with warrantless wiretapping.
I agree with you, but since Congress has passed a bill explicitly authorizing it (albeit after the fact), it's unlikely that particular charge will stick.
Go further back; how many in Carter and how many in Reagan administrations?
Since you brought up the Reagan administration, I remembered something from long ago:
A political columnist during the Clinton administration openly asked: what is the standard by which I should judge political malfeasance? How do I avoid introducing bias due to my (self-proclaimed) liberal political views?
His solution: the "Ed Meese test". Edwin Meese Attorney General from 1985 to 1988, during the Reagan administration. He was widely reviled by the opposition, perhaps even more so than the more contemporary John Ashcroft.
The journalist said that when considering the follies of various figures in the Clinton administration, he asked himself: "What would I do if Ed Meese did was accused of doing the same thing?" He absolutely detested Ed Meese, and if he would be angry with Ed about it, he should be angry with anyone else -- regardless of their political leanings.
I think the reciprocal evaluation works, as well: one should consider how they would react if someone they ADMIRE did something bad. And what about good deeds, as well?
Never mind that almost everyone else in Congress and even the previous administration believed the same "lie" and actively repeated it.
And the very subject of that lie went to great lengths to reinforce it, because he thought it was his ace-in-the-hole to discourage the REST of his enemies.
In retrospect, some of the information was found to be incorrect, and other correct information was discarded. But, if making an incorrect decision based on faulty data is an impeachable offense, we would have to clean out most of the executive AND legislative branches.
Okay, first, there was a huge concerted attack by the right wing against Clinton for the most minor of offenses. It wasn't 'dismissed,' the man was IMPEACHED. Why hasn't Bush been impeached? We will move on when there is at least the same level of justice for Bush.
Impeachment was a complete waste of time for Clinton, because for every "Clinton hater", there was a "Clinton lover". Both were just as committed to their support or opposition, regardless of the facts.
Impeachment would be a waste of time again. It's nothing more than a political act, and the one time that it was warranted (for Nixon), Republicans in the Senate put Nixon on notice that they wouldn't support him and he resigned.
Second, your cynicism is disgusting. You can't excuse one wrong act by pointing that others have done lesser evils. Wrong is wrong and it is never right to pressure people into shutting up about it.
Did I excuse a wrong act? Maybe you can quote the part where I did. I simply pointed out that this has been going on for a long time, and won't stop because the current generation is indignant about it.
What amuses me is people that just finished partying their way through college and started paying attention to the rest of the world -- then think that the Bush administration invented this crap. Maybe they need to crack open the history books they didn't bother to read in school, or maybe do a bit of research on the 'Net.
Finally, no, sorry, no past administration has ever been this blatant in apply purity tests to career hires rather than political appointees. And unless people like you get their way and this is all swept under the rug, then future administrations will have even less of a chance of doing it.
No, past administrations haven't been this blatant. Actually, no past administration has been so stupid to leave the evidence around -- you can chalk that up to the digital age. Past deals were mostly made in back rooms with a handshake. Future administrations will certainly learn from this -- but I doubt it will be the lesson that you want. They'll just be more careful to conceal it.
It really sounds as if you'd love it if everyone would just shut up and let ourselves get fucked over by the powerful. Not gonna happen, sorry.
Ah, the rage of the immature. You want to blame everyone else because your life is messed up, or at least not going the way you want. I'll refer you back to the advice of the original poster: Get over it. The opportunity for you is limitless, if you take responsibility for yourself. "The powerful" only have power over you if you give it to them.
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
For eight years, most that dared to criticize Bill Clinton (the person, his policies, or his actions) were summarily dismissed as "Clinton haters". It shouldn't be a surprise that after the roles are reversed, anyone doing the same to Bush is diagnosed with "Bush Derangement Syndrome". It's the nature of partisan politics -- get used to it.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
You are projecting someone else onto the grandparent. He correctly pointed out that Bush will be gone soon. "Get over it" isn't a defense of anyone or anything -- it's simply a suggestion to move on.
But, don't delude yourself into thinking that any prior or future administration didn't or won't do the same thing. They will just be less blatant about it, or at least not stupid enough to not leave evidence of it lying around.
I still can't believe I don't currently own an iPhone 3G.
This issue was widely reported the day of the launch in various forums.
The solution is very simple: call AT&T and ask them to remove the discount from your account. Buy the iPhone from the Apple Store, then call AT&T to reinstate the discount.
There were multiple reports of people doing this -- some of whom were actually standing in line waiting to buy an iPhone and resolved the problem before they got to the front of the line.
Or, you can do like I did and avoid the lines altogether:
Wait for an AT&T store to sell out of iPhones (I went late on Friday, July 11)
Walk in and go right to a sales rep, and order an iPhone from the warehouse.
Wait for it to be shipped to the store, with your name on it.
AT&T calls you when it arrives.
Walk in, activate it, and be done in about 15 minutes.
I got mine on Friday, July 18 -- a week after ordering it.
I defy anyone to point me to an occasion anywhere where a utility has decreased prices to consumers once they got the increase they wanted from the PSC. Hell, I defy anyone to show where any of this renewable powerplant technology has had the effect of lowering the cost to end consumers.
In Texas, consumers choose their electricity generator. A portion of the bill is paid to the incumbent that provides transmission and delivery. The Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) runs a website that summarizes all of the offers:
Cutting to the chase: there's a webpage that shows all the generators offering service for your ZIP code. Enter a ZIP code in one of the big metro areas, and you'll see lots of choices that can be sorted by various factors:
Average Price/kilowatt hour
Rate Type (fixed, variable)
Renewable energy content
Term (in months)
You can also filter on any or all of these factors.
I just committed to another year, choosing a plan that was 100% renewable energy content. The generation company offers otherwise equivalent plans with renewable and non-renewable content, and the 100% renewable content is exactly 0.2 cents/kWh more than non-renewable.
The renewable energy is indeed more expensive, but only a bit more than 1%. But in Texas, the problem is transmission: we are on our own grid (separate from western and eastern US grid), with limited interconnection to the others. So, renewable energy must come from within the state, and there's a limited amount of it.
BTW, The Texas PUC no longer sets electric rates, except for the "Provider of Last Resort": the electricity generator that is automatically chosen for a customer if their current generator is unable to provide service.
So, how many times have you backed a third-party candidate? Has the result changed yet?
In 1992, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote: not enough to win the election, but well within the margin of victory for either candidate. He finished second in two states.
It was a wake-up call for both parties. Deficit spending (one of Perot's pet issues) was reigned in. The Republicans crafted a "Contract for America" for the 1994 mid-term elections, some of which looked like it was copied almost verbatim from Perot's campaign platform. Subsequently, the Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress.
Historically, third parties in the US have succeeded by threatening the hegemony of the two major political parties and instead affect the behavior of BOTH parties. A notable exception: when the Republicans displaced the Whigs, ironically over the issue of slavery.
One of the characteristic sights on New York City streets is big tanks of liquid nitrogen standing on the sidewalk, steaming away, with lines running from them down a manhole. Why? Because, iirc, many of the telephone company switching systems already run supercooled and when a repair needs to be done they need supplementary chilling.
Those nitrogen tanks are used by Verizon to pressurize underground telephone cables and keep moisture out:
WTH is a "nuclear reactor scramble"? Wikipedia sheds no light, and not even Google was my friend. In fact, your/. post is the only Google hit for that exact phrase.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if he does nothing else, Obama will raise taxes on the rich.
What's your definition of "rich"?
If it's the top 20%, the "rich" already paid 86.3% of federal income taxes in 2005.
If it's the top 10%, they paid 72.5% of federal income taxes in 2005.
Even if you include all federal taxes, the top 20% paid 68.7% of all taxes in 2005, and the top 10% paid 54.7%.
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
What do you consider a sufficient tax rate for the "rich"? They are already paying most of federal taxes.
You guys pay extra for 3G?????
No, we don't. The original iPhone was $400, and $20/month for unlimited data (which was actually less than unlimited data plans for other PDAs). The new iPhone is $200, and $30/month for data.
It doesn't take a PhD in math to figure out that AT&T is subsidizing the new iPhone to a greater degree than the earlier one, and expecting to make up the difference in service fees. The net cost is a bit higher than before, but it has nothing to do with 3G.
AT&T has had these kind of problems for years with their 3G service, it only took a successful platform to bring their shortcomings into the public light.
I suspect that it's a combination of both: the network problems are just aggravating the iPhone's marginal 3G performance.
After I had the iPhone for a few days (and had departed on a trip to a client with marginal 3G coverage inside their building), I "turned off" 3G in the phone settings, forcing it to fall back to EDGE and stay there. It has worked great in that mode, and I've since left it that way.
You lose the ability to use the network and talk on the phone at the same time, but I rarely do that. If I want to use the Safari browser for anything significant, I take the 3-4 seconds required to turn on 3G for the duration, and turn it off when I'm done.
It appears to significantly extend battery life as well.
Many shops have a clause that any work you do is the IP of the company. Thus any patents would be filed under the company's name.
A patent is granted to the inventor. But, in the case you describe, the patent is typically assigned to the employer.
The assignee effectively owns the patent.
Modding me troll doesn't make my argument less true, it just proves you have no counter-argument.
You were modded "troll" because there is no "clueless" moderation.
Sweeping generalizations aside, you apparently forgot that Republicans are responsible for ending slavery in the US. With LBJ's help, they also overcame the opposition of the Democratic leadership in the House and a Democrat filibuster in the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As an independent, I see the hypocrisy in both major US political parties. Neither are immune to authoritarian behavior -- the only difference is what subset of beliefs they want to impose on everyone else.
Now I am having second thoughts.
See my post earlier. According to Clear customer support, only people currently going through the application process were listed on the stolen laptop. And another poster reports that a separate news interview claimed that only publicly available info (name, address) was included.
Um, get past the identity theft victims...now the thief has the ability to fake credentials for 33K people who get to go through much reduced security at airports.
No, the security is the same -- at least for now. You just get through it faster.
The mandate is to reduce the level of scrutiny eventually, but Clear verifies the identity through biometric means (iris and/or fingerprints).
Could a terrorist organization exploit this information to be able to get someone on a plane who wouldn't have been able to before?
Currently, no. All Clear does is get you to the front of the security line. There's no difference in the level of scrutiny.
However, the mandate for the program is to eventually reduce the level of scrutiny for "registered travelers". But, a stolen identify won't help because the system uses biometric scanners (fingerprint and/or iris) to confirm that the card holder is the person that actually enrolled.
Unless someone figures out how to fool the biometric sensors, the security isn't compromised.
This is from Clear customer support: consider the source and apply the appropriate amount of salt.
The only personal information that was compromised was for people who were in the midst of the application process. If you are already enrolled and have received your card, your personal info was not in the laptop that was stolen.
At this point, Clear is not planning to notify existing members that their personal info was not stolen. However, I strongly suggested that they rethink that policy, and notify all members of the extent of the breach. The news story quoted in this article doesn't make the distinction between pending applications and enrolled members.
I was just thinking earlier today of signing up for that. I do a lot of travel and thought the cost might be worth it to cut down on wait time.
I did sign up for it. It has saved me quite a bit of time. But now, I obviously regret it.
I just sent a nasty message to the "Chief Privacy Officer", but I'll be surprised if I get a response. I'm not sure I'll be satisfied with any response other than "I just got fired."
They already have millions of leased acres ready for drilling, why don't they just utilize those resources instead of gaining leases on more land that they wont be able to drill for another 5-15 years?
No, they have exploration leases on millions of acres. There's no guarantee those acres have any oil. On the other hand, there are places already known to have proven reserves of oil and natural gas that are off-limits to drilling.
Oh that's right, Exxon-Mobile just turned an $11 BILLION dollar profit in the last quarter.
On $117 BILLION of revenue. That's a profit margin of a bit more than 9%, which is in line with other capital-intensive industries.
The off shore drilling package from the GOP is nothing more than pandering to the uninformed masses while ensuring campaign financing from companies of the most profitable industry in the history of the United States.
And the resistance to off-shore drilling by the Democrats is nothing more than pandering to the environmental lobby.
Sprint has a $60/month unlimited plan, with no dependency on a voice plan. I'm using it now.
Congress doesn't really have the authority to override the Constitution except through Constitutional amendment, so I think the law itself is unconstitutional.
Agreed, but there's still a problem: only Congress can impeach the President. How does Congress impeach the President for something that Congress ultimately approved? Congress would effectively be admitting that they screwed up, as well -- and should also be removed from office.
Oh, I don't think Bush should be impeached for lying. I think he should be impeached for violating the law and the Constitution with warrantless wiretapping.
I agree with you, but since Congress has passed a bill explicitly authorizing it (albeit after the fact), it's unlikely that particular charge will stick.
Go further back; how many in Carter and how many in Reagan administrations?
Since you brought up the Reagan administration, I remembered something from long ago:
A political columnist during the Clinton administration openly asked: what is the standard by which I should judge political malfeasance? How do I avoid introducing bias due to my (self-proclaimed) liberal political views?
His solution: the "Ed Meese test". Edwin Meese Attorney General from 1985 to 1988, during the Reagan administration. He was widely reviled by the opposition, perhaps even more so than the more contemporary John Ashcroft.
The journalist said that when considering the follies of various figures in the Clinton administration, he asked himself: "What would I do if Ed Meese did was accused of doing the same thing?" He absolutely detested Ed Meese, and if he would be angry with Ed about it, he should be angry with anyone else -- regardless of their political leanings.
I think the reciprocal evaluation works, as well: one should consider how they would react if someone they ADMIRE did something bad. And what about good deeds, as well?
Never mind that almost everyone else in Congress and even the previous administration believed the same "lie" and actively repeated it.
And the very subject of that lie went to great lengths to reinforce it, because he thought it was his ace-in-the-hole to discourage the REST of his enemies.
In retrospect, some of the information was found to be incorrect, and other correct information was discarded. But, if making an incorrect decision based on faulty data is an impeachable offense, we would have to clean out most of the executive AND legislative branches.
What a load of condescending horse shit. What makes you think I blame everyone else or that my life is messed up?
Whenever someone rants about "being fucked over by the powerful", I interpret that as: "My life sucks, and it's not my fault".
My life is probably better than yours. It is that way because I have taken responsibility for myself.
I doubt that. My house doesn't even have a basement.
Okay, first, there was a huge concerted attack by the right wing against Clinton for the most minor of offenses. It wasn't 'dismissed,' the man was IMPEACHED. Why hasn't Bush been impeached? We will move on when there is at least the same level of justice for Bush.
Impeachment was a complete waste of time for Clinton, because for every "Clinton hater", there was a "Clinton lover". Both were just as committed to their support or opposition, regardless of the facts.
Impeachment would be a waste of time again. It's nothing more than a political act, and the one time that it was warranted (for Nixon), Republicans in the Senate put Nixon on notice that they wouldn't support him and he resigned.
Second, your cynicism is disgusting. You can't excuse one wrong act by pointing that others have done lesser evils. Wrong is wrong and it is never right to pressure people into shutting up about it.
Did I excuse a wrong act? Maybe you can quote the part where I did. I simply pointed out that this has been going on for a long time, and won't stop because the current generation is indignant about it.
What amuses me is people that just finished partying their way through college and started paying attention to the rest of the world -- then think that the Bush administration invented this crap. Maybe they need to crack open the history books they didn't bother to read in school, or maybe do a bit of research on the 'Net.
Finally, no, sorry, no past administration has ever been this blatant in apply purity tests to career hires rather than political appointees. And unless people like you get their way and this is all swept under the rug, then future administrations will have even less of a chance of doing it.
No, past administrations haven't been this blatant. Actually, no past administration has been so stupid to leave the evidence around -- you can chalk that up to the digital age. Past deals were mostly made in back rooms with a handshake. Future administrations will certainly learn from this -- but I doubt it will be the lesson that you want. They'll just be more careful to conceal it.
It really sounds as if you'd love it if everyone would just shut up and let ourselves get fucked over by the powerful. Not gonna happen, sorry.
Ah, the rage of the immature. You want to blame everyone else because your life is messed up, or at least not going the way you want. I'll refer you back to the advice of the original poster: Get over it. The opportunity for you is limitless, if you take responsibility for yourself. "The powerful" only have power over you if you give it to them.
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
For eight years, most that dared to criticize Bill Clinton (the person, his policies, or his actions) were summarily dismissed as "Clinton haters". It shouldn't be a surprise that after the roles are reversed, anyone doing the same to Bush is diagnosed with "Bush Derangement Syndrome". It's the nature of partisan politics -- get used to it.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
You are projecting someone else onto the grandparent. He correctly pointed out that Bush will be gone soon. "Get over it" isn't a defense of anyone or anything -- it's simply a suggestion to move on.
But, don't delude yourself into thinking that any prior or future administration didn't or won't do the same thing. They will just be less blatant about it, or at least not stupid enough to not leave evidence of it lying around.
It probably requires Frigate level 5 to fly. Or would this count as a Tech 2 ship?
It's a carrier at least, maybe a mothership. :-)
I still can't believe I don't currently own an iPhone 3G.
This issue was widely reported the day of the launch in various forums.
The solution is very simple: call AT&T and ask them to remove the discount from your account. Buy the iPhone from the Apple Store, then call AT&T to reinstate the discount.
There were multiple reports of people doing this -- some of whom were actually standing in line waiting to buy an iPhone and resolved the problem before they got to the front of the line.
Or, you can do like I did and avoid the lines altogether:
I got mine on Friday, July 18 -- a week after ordering it.
I defy anyone to point me to an occasion anywhere where a utility has decreased prices to consumers once they got the increase they wanted from the PSC. Hell, I defy anyone to show where any of this renewable powerplant technology has had the effect of lowering the cost to end consumers.
In Texas, consumers choose their electricity generator. A portion of the bill is paid to the incumbent that provides transmission and delivery. The Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) runs a website that summarizes all of the offers:
http://www.powertochoose.org/
Cutting to the chase: there's a webpage that shows all the generators offering service for your ZIP code. Enter a ZIP code in one of the big metro areas, and you'll see lots of choices that can be sorted by various factors:
You can also filter on any or all of these factors. I just committed to another year, choosing a plan that was 100% renewable energy content. The generation company offers otherwise equivalent plans with renewable and non-renewable content, and the 100% renewable content is exactly 0.2 cents/kWh more than non-renewable.
The renewable energy is indeed more expensive, but only a bit more than 1%. But in Texas, the problem is transmission: we are on our own grid (separate from western and eastern US grid), with limited interconnection to the others. So, renewable energy must come from within the state, and there's a limited amount of it.
BTW, The Texas PUC no longer sets electric rates, except for the "Provider of Last Resort": the electricity generator that is automatically chosen for a customer if their current generator is unable to provide service.
So, how many times have you backed a third-party candidate? Has the result changed yet?
In 1992, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote: not enough to win the election, but well within the margin of victory for either candidate. He finished second in two states.
It was a wake-up call for both parties. Deficit spending (one of Perot's pet issues) was reigned in. The Republicans crafted a "Contract for America" for the 1994 mid-term elections, some of which looked like it was copied almost verbatim from Perot's campaign platform. Subsequently, the Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress.
Historically, third parties in the US have succeeded by threatening the hegemony of the two major political parties and instead affect the behavior of BOTH parties. A notable exception: when the Republicans displaced the Whigs, ironically over the issue of slavery.
One of the characteristic sights on New York City streets is big tanks of liquid nitrogen standing on the sidewalk, steaming away, with lines running from them down a manhole. Why? Because, iirc, many of the telephone company switching systems already run supercooled and when a repair needs to be done they need supplementary chilling.
Those nitrogen tanks are used by Verizon to pressurize underground telephone cables and keep moisture out:
http://gothamist.com/2008/01/31/nitrogen_tanks.php
WTH is a "nuclear reactor scramble"? Wikipedia sheds no light, and not even Google was my friend. In fact, your /. post is the only Google hit for that exact phrase.
Try scram instead.