You just agreed with me. The only reason Obama wouldn't promote it as a tax (if indeed you can find a citation quoting him actually saying "this is not a tax") is because saying "tax" to Republicans makes them say "no"; any other fact is totally irrelevant to them. Just because the president uses public rhetoric that gives Republicans cover to pass their own healthcare policy doesn't mean that rhetoric has any legally binding force. And when Republicans vote for a tax without calling it one, then do everything they can to stop it because it's not a tax, doesn't mean the Supreme Court has to pay any attention to the lies and craziness of those Republicans.
The Supreme Court has to decide whether the Congress has the power to collect money from all Americans if they don't purchase something mandated. The government has been doing this, specifically with health insurance, since the 1700s. That doesn't mean this Court will decide that way (they did after all decide both Bush v Gore and Citizens United without regard to law or disastrous effects on the country), but that is the basis for deciding.
The catalytic converter's computer values for the sulphur content in the gasoline are wrong. So when especially sulphurous gas is burned, the converter pumps sulphur dioxide into the cabin. It stinks like an antisocial gastric event. It's also somewhat toxic. Toyota pretended to diagnose the car for over 2 years until the lemon law no longer could force them to replace the car. Even though it turned out that Toyota had issued a notice to its dealers describing exactly the problem, the 2 dealers my wife used claimed they couldn't figure it out. Until the obligation period expired, when suddenly they figured it out.
That car should have been recalled. When I discovered their scam (too late) I should have driven it through the dealership front windows, "overcome by a toxic cloud from the dashboard", and let the lawyers sort it out.
No, I meant that the people withdrawing the money and the people making the machine both wanted the withdrawing people to get the correct amount of money. To avoid the extreme hassle of the backlash by either side if either too much or too little money came out. The right amount is in their mutual interest.
As Stalin said, democracy is controlled by who counts the votes. With voting machines, both the operators and the suppliers of the machine collude to count the votes the "right" way.
Except that Gore never said that. He took credit for his 1980s Senate leadership when he legislated and funded Internet development, without which it would not have become anything like the priceless public resource that has done so much since the 1990s.
Try again with an example that isn't just another lie Republicans have told so often that it "seems" like the truth.
You'd be surprised because you're a Republican. You were surprised when the Qaeda flew planes into buildings, exactly as the US intel orgs had specifically been warning Bush all a year. You were surprised when the New Orleans levees collapsed. You were surprised when the economy collapsed under ludicrous synthetic debt obligations.
Hell, you were suprised when McCain lost to Obama.
You Republicans are incapable of believing anything your propaganda machine tells you to fear. While you believe like a crusader any convenient lie they tell you.
The American Care Act has been in Thomas for years, like any other legislation. It's Republicans who control the House who are trying to stop publishing laws in Thomas or anywhere else.
You Republicans really are the most demented cult we've got.
It doesn't matter whether the seamen were infrastate or intrastate or extrastate. The question is whether the Congress has the power to require private citizens or corporations to buy something like health insurance. The answer is that it has exercised exactly that power, even under the express direction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
Your question of whether the Congress has jurisdiction to act at all in requiring private citizens or corporations to do anything is answered in many other ways. It is not an issue. Your conflating it with foreign traveling seamen does not make it an issue.
I wish Slashdot let you reply with that single message to all of the dozens of wrong answers denying its a tax, within the taxing powers of Congress. Instead the idiocy just multiplies all up and down the page.
The people paying for a fund that pays for old age pensions and healthcare is not a bribe. In fact most of the SS and Medicare money goes to people who are much less likely to vote. That's a terrible bribery scheme. It's clearly not bribery at all.
FDR passed all kinds of laws that Republicans like you tried to stop (and are trying again - you people never give up, because you always have budgets from your 1% masters). They have been challenged many times, and found Constitutional. The Courts upholding them after most of a century have been mostly appointed by Republicans, both presidents and Senates. Only a tiny percentage were appointed by FDR.
It's Republicans like you that keep the Supreme Court limited to 9 justices, because it's easier for you to corrupt it when it's far too small and overloaded with cases it must refuse. Despite the Republican lie you're peddling here, the Court never was and still is not limited to 9 justices. Its headcount up to Congress, which hasn't expanded it in going on a century, even as the country has multiplied its population, cranked up its count of states, and become far more litigious as people have far more power to damage each other.
But Republicans like you want Americans to starve and rot as we get old, subject to whatever predator can pay to carve them up, the way it was until SS and Medicare civilized the country. Lying about Courts and presidents is nothing to you, while you're savaging the people. But Americans still aren't the cannibals you're trying to trick us into becoming. Medicare and SS are the most effective and popular programmes among the people who create governments to protect our rights.
No, they are exactly the same. Saying you pay a $640 fine if you don't have health insurance is exactly the same as saying everyone pays $640 in extra taxes, except people with health insurance who get the $640 exempted. Except using different words, that have the same meaning in causing precisely the same effect.
Taxes are mandatory purchase of government services, that the government can waive when the same services are purchased from a private provider. Except when purchasing the government services with taxes the government need not provide the specific service to the specific person. This is the case in many, many taxes and services.
1. De-evolution could mean reversion to a previous state of the genome. Otherwise it's mutations contrary to fitness, which is astronomically improbable except in an extremely brief series of generations (nonfitness is a rapid terminator).
2. We just don't really know the importance of the info in the DNA that we currently don't recognize as important. We didn't think methylation of the DNA rails was important information until just a few years ago, and now it's the main repository of epigenetics.
3. Given the persistence of art, especially in setting romantic standards, I don't see humans reproducing more with substantially less musculature than what we see in pictures, sculptures and movies (and eventually in holograms/etc). And what you describe is just evolution. It's "devolution" only in the arbitrary sense that it's genetic change in a way that wouldn't be fit today, or that you don't like. It's just evolution. If the environment cycled between two states mutually exclusive of fitness to reproduce, over and over for millions of years, and a species mutated over time to remain fit, back and forth, which phase of the mutation cycle would be the "devolution"? It's all just evolution.
The only real devolution was a New Wave band from Ohio known for the song "Whip It".
There are whitelists, and every email app lets you sort incoming email into folders by criteria like sender. Sort only your favorite senders into the priority folder and read only that one until you have more time or interest.
BTW, 500+ nonspam messages means you're trying to communicate with too many people/orgs. You should simplify your connections, not just your email.
The insurance company is the part of your story that tells your doctor it's not paying anything for some test that's probably going to say you don't have xyz. Or because it's experimental. Or because you already had xyz when you got the insurance. Or because chewbacca - they're not paying. Then you die of xyz.
You also left out the part where you pay the insurance company $1.5M over the course of your career to pay for what should have cost $100K in $200:hour doctor bills, but instead paid out $800K in in $600:h doctor bills padded with lots of unnecessary tests and other waste.
The $8K list price is what the medical providers charge to make up for the insurers paying only $2K, and having the power to enforce it.
If you don't understand that, compare the private US insurer model to the European public insurer model. Or to the US Medicare public insurer model (but remember to adjust for the far sicker population that Medicare covers).
Polling places are so close to where people live that buses aren't necessary.
Except when Republicans make them so far from Democrats that they are indeed too hard to reach. Like how you Republicans stole Ohio in 2004. Which is precisely why your Fox masters feed you BS like you just regurgitated: because that is your crime, that you blame on the victims.
Both the Drug War and all our foreign wars since December 1941 have violated the Constitution. The Constitution prevents the Federal government from running a military budget for longer than 2 years, requires Congress declares war, and even discourages a standing army in favor of a National Guard. We have never actually abided the Constitutional prescription for war. And we have been perpetually at war since we started the country with one. After a while we even gave up the formalities.
But we've been doing it so long now that the country might be running out of steam. Certainly the perpetual Drug War is harder every day to keep funding and fighting. The foreign wars too, since we've also lost every war we've started, minus a few exceptions that prove the rule, since we stopped declaring them.
We should insist on war declarations and a permanent end to civil wars like the Drug War. We should insist that deficits be voted only in the same terms that we declare war: to deal with a specific cause, as a last resort, and with a declared exit strategy before committing. Until we run the country like that, we'll stay screwed. These days seem like the best time to make that point enough that we actually act on it.
Madison's Constitutional system has lived for over 2 centuries, usually prospering more than any other contemporary or predecessor.
There's no other government system today that is older than Madison's Constitutional system, with the arguable exceptions of Egypt and China.
The US government is both closer to Madison's specified system and further from it in different ways, but overall this system is very long lived and stable. Even the features for modifying the system are remarkably rarely used.
The Diebold voting machines that Bush/Cheney used to steal 2000 and 2004 elections were supplied by Diebold, which was primarily an ATM supplier.
Both kinds of machines operated to protect Diebold's best interests. In the ATM case those interests coincided with the people using the machine. In the voting machine, not so much.
But the best part of democratic voting is securing the consent of the governed. Not because the polled public makes the best decisions, but because they had their say in the decision and the majority ruled. The rest of the system that gives people a chance to persuade the majority makes that consent a consensus.
Of course, that's the theory. In practice, so much bad government and politics has alienated a large minority of eligible voters, who don't vote. The rest are highly polarized when voting, even if not very polarized in disagreement about actual policies.
The root of the problem with this system is the ease with which the powerful manipulate the voters through media that is bought and concocted to produce election results both specific in resulting policy, and general in overall ideology.
So yes, better communications among the people is the best solution to the real problems.
Our legislatures are designed to be re-publics: members of the public who represent the public at large. Representatives are supposed to be leaders who represent the people, but not necessarily their day to day whims. It's one reason why we don't have direct democracy, putting every vote to public ballot.
What would be good would be a poll before every vote, published before every vote. Then the rep voting however they best decided to represent the public's interest. Voting in the legislature against the result of the public poll would require explaining to the public how they were exercising leadership, and give undeniable facts to back their accountability in the next election. Political risks are all too rare, and the cowardice that avoids them in favor of "go along to get along" a strong root of why the public dislikes and distrusts politicians.
Nonbinding polls as a basis for comparison to the rep's track record would make for a very strong communication between the electorate and the elected. But I expect that if only one or a few reps do it, they'll be smothered in the herd mentality on the part of both the voters who reject their "disobeying the poll", and the other reps who don't poll so they can easily disobey their constituents and their best interests.
That's not a synthetic womb, it's an outsourced womb. The rest of the phases I itemized can all be automated. But the role of the womb seems to require a human for gestation.
No, not every aspect of their doctrine was fixated on eugenics and race. They killed millions of Catholics, homosexuals, communists, trade unionists and others, especially the extremely hybrid Gypsies, without regard to actual genetics. Hitler was not only not Aryan, but had Jewish ancestors - as did many if not most of the other Nazis pursuing genocide among other diabolical tyrannies.
Nazis cared about power. Race was a means to that end. Of course such means are part of the end, and Nazis did spend a lot of time on genocide and racist abuses and propaganda. But not because they actually cared about genetics as much as they cared about power.
Nationalism is properly defined simply as valuing one's nation extremely highly, typically devaluing any other nation to the extreme. A value that motivates competition with other nations that usually becomes violent, as there's no moral inhibition in harming "inferior" nations. The US is not at all alone in this, though its not usually as violent towards say France as it is towards say countries primarily inhabited by people who aren't White. You are correct in identifying some current US nationalism, but it goes even further: this week the Republican presidential candidate is embracing the rich idiot pushing the idea that the first Black president couldn't have been born in Hawaii, but must be a foreigner. Because that kind of racism is not just very popular in a large minority of Republicans, it's not rejected by the large majority of them. Obama must be Kenyan and inferior - nationalism in the service of racism. Not at all unique to the US.
Racism, nationalism and socialism are practiced more or less by many countries, and have been for centuries (and longer). They are not so simple as to be thrown around as if the Nazis define nationalism, racism, socialism, national socialism, or any other value system. The Nazis valued power above all, mainly the power to destroy as the power to control. They called themselves all kinds of things that they weren't, and all kinds of things they were that didn't really matter.
Most nationalist socialist governments have proven for generations they're not cataloging anyone for extermination. In fact they tend to be among the most accepting of diversity. And very specifically socialism is very different from fascism, even if they do have some configurations in common, like highly centralized government and economy . Nazis were the epitome of fascism, but called themselves socialists because socialism was popular and fascism wasn't.
The point is that if you're going to point out that genome sequencing is highly abusable by a government like the Nazis, just say "Nazis". Saying "nationalist socialists" just confuses the issue.
Email is actually an excellent form of communication. It's so flexible that every realtime and async messaging system could be usefully transacted over email (and often is), at least every message could use the email data formats (Subject/To/From/Cc/Bcc/Attachment/Body fields, MIME headers, X-whatever arbitrary tuples, etc). In fact every message sent with at least one human endpoint should be transcribable into RFC822/etc emails as a test of its utility and completeness. I had a friend in the 1990s who firmly believed TCP/IP should be restandardized with every packet required to be formatted as a separate email. That's too far (unless packets were bigger), but not wholly wrongheaded.
I hope email never goes away. I do hope that email gets much better message databases and presentation UIs, better integration with non-email messaging (in the same, integrated messaging systems). For example I'd like my every Slashdot post (and other Web transactions) to be indexed in my own storage in email format, and I'd like my emails to be able to HTTP POST/GET/PUT from my MUA. I hope that email finally gets better standardized structure of message bodies, especially for quoting by pointer with attribution, and more nonlinear structures of message sequences. Especially branching and quoting multiple previous generation messages, as well as from separate threads, in a single reply, which maintain coherence among threads.
But that's just better email, not post-email. More and better email would make the world a better place. I hope it does.
Of course we redistribute wealth to the richest. The biggest tax expense is the military, which the richest suck up like oxygen, no matter how bad for security or our economy (to say nothing of health, life or limb). The second biggest tax expense is on medical care (which overlaps a lot with the military), which is spent on doctors who are among the richest (at $172K general, $275K specialist, they make 7-11x the median income), and pharmacos which are among the richest both as workers and as stockholders. Oil corps get $4 BILLION in tax expenses a year, which is a lot even when they're reporting $10B annual profits before the handout. Then there's the $TRILLIONS in handouts to the banks, their executives, top employees and shareholders, which are both by definition and in practice the richest of the rich.The $BILLIONS in US foreign aid is mostly spent on American products; they're sold abroad by the richest, who arrange that cozy loop.
The top 10% pay 70% of Federal income taxes, but state taxes are mostly regressive (so tax the rich less), and the other substantial taxes like Social Security and sales taxes are purely regressive, so tax the rich less. While the rich have all their income above about $107K (most of their total) protected from the approximately 10% SS tax. The top 10% of wage collectors got over $2.46 TRILLION in 2010, out of only about $6.01T total wages, almost 41%. But the amount of equity trade income that the other $10T in the US GDP pays out a year is vastly more paid to that top 10%, who pay something like half the tax rate on their capital gains than people do on regular income.
Taking less tax money from the rich is giving free government services to them. Apart from all the direct subsidies, the rich get far more government services, including security, the courts that are where they transact so much business, and all the R&D private labs have abandoned to the public to pay for instead that they immediately harness into products and even less tangible sources of wealth.
When you said "I prefer to hope to be one of them" you said it all. That motivation is what keeps most Americans who bother to think about the racket hoping it will continue. Of course the vast majority will never be anything but the victims of the racket.
Slashdot Mirror
You just agreed with me. The only reason Obama wouldn't promote it as a tax (if indeed you can find a citation quoting him actually saying "this is not a tax") is because saying "tax" to Republicans makes them say "no"; any other fact is totally irrelevant to them. Just because the president uses public rhetoric that gives Republicans cover to pass their own healthcare policy doesn't mean that rhetoric has any legally binding force. And when Republicans vote for a tax without calling it one, then do everything they can to stop it because it's not a tax, doesn't mean the Supreme Court has to pay any attention to the lies and craziness of those Republicans.
The Supreme Court has to decide whether the Congress has the power to collect money from all Americans if they don't purchase something mandated. The government has been doing this, specifically with health insurance, since the 1700s. That doesn't mean this Court will decide that way (they did after all decide both Bush v Gore and Citizens United without regard to law or disastrous effects on the country), but that is the basis for deciding.
Where's your evidence of this Democratic bussing that you're complimenting as a fact?
The catalytic converter's computer values for the sulphur content in the gasoline are wrong. So when especially sulphurous gas is burned, the converter pumps sulphur dioxide into the cabin. It stinks like an antisocial gastric event. It's also somewhat toxic. Toyota pretended to diagnose the car for over 2 years until the lemon law no longer could force them to replace the car. Even though it turned out that Toyota had issued a notice to its dealers describing exactly the problem, the 2 dealers my wife used claimed they couldn't figure it out. Until the obligation period expired, when suddenly they figured it out.
That car should have been recalled. When I discovered their scam (too late) I should have driven it through the dealership front windows, "overcome by a toxic cloud from the dashboard", and let the lawyers sort it out.
No, I meant that the people withdrawing the money and the people making the machine both wanted the withdrawing people to get the correct amount of money. To avoid the extreme hassle of the backlash by either side if either too much or too little money came out. The right amount is in their mutual interest.
As Stalin said, democracy is controlled by who counts the votes. With voting machines, both the operators and the suppliers of the machine collude to count the votes the "right" way.
Except that Gore never said that. He took credit for his 1980s Senate leadership when he legislated and funded Internet development, without which it would not have become anything like the priceless public resource that has done so much since the 1990s.
Try again with an example that isn't just another lie Republicans have told so often that it "seems" like the truth.
You'd be surprised because you're a Republican. You were surprised when the Qaeda flew planes into buildings, exactly as the US intel orgs had specifically been warning Bush all a year. You were surprised when the New Orleans levees collapsed. You were surprised when the economy collapsed under ludicrous synthetic debt obligations.
Hell, you were suprised when McCain lost to Obama.
You Republicans are incapable of believing anything your propaganda machine tells you to fear. While you believe like a crusader any convenient lie they tell you.
The American Care Act has been in Thomas for years, like any other legislation. It's Republicans who control the House who are trying to stop publishing laws in Thomas or anywhere else.
You Republicans really are the most demented cult we've got.
It doesn't matter whether the seamen were infrastate or intrastate or extrastate. The question is whether the Congress has the power to require private citizens or corporations to buy something like health insurance. The answer is that it has exercised exactly that power, even under the express direction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.
Your question of whether the Congress has jurisdiction to act at all in requiring private citizens or corporations to do anything is answered in many other ways. It is not an issue. Your conflating it with foreign traveling seamen does not make it an issue.
Correct.
I wish Slashdot let you reply with that single message to all of the dozens of wrong answers denying its a tax, within the taxing powers of Congress. Instead the idiocy just multiplies all up and down the page.
Medicare is legal, as is SS.
The people paying for a fund that pays for old age pensions and healthcare is not a bribe. In fact most of the SS and Medicare money goes to people who are much less likely to vote. That's a terrible bribery scheme. It's clearly not bribery at all.
FDR passed all kinds of laws that Republicans like you tried to stop (and are trying again - you people never give up, because you always have budgets from your 1% masters). They have been challenged many times, and found Constitutional. The Courts upholding them after most of a century have been mostly appointed by Republicans, both presidents and Senates. Only a tiny percentage were appointed by FDR.
It's Republicans like you that keep the Supreme Court limited to 9 justices, because it's easier for you to corrupt it when it's far too small and overloaded with cases it must refuse. Despite the Republican lie you're peddling here, the Court never was and still is not limited to 9 justices. Its headcount up to Congress, which hasn't expanded it in going on a century, even as the country has multiplied its population, cranked up its count of states, and become far more litigious as people have far more power to damage each other.
But Republicans like you want Americans to starve and rot as we get old, subject to whatever predator can pay to carve them up, the way it was until SS and Medicare civilized the country. Lying about Courts and presidents is nothing to you, while you're savaging the people. But Americans still aren't the cannibals you're trying to trick us into becoming. Medicare and SS are the most effective and popular programmes among the people who create governments to protect our rights.
No, they are exactly the same. Saying you pay a $640 fine if you don't have health insurance is exactly the same as saying everyone pays $640 in extra taxes, except people with health insurance who get the $640 exempted. Except using different words, that have the same meaning in causing precisely the same effect.
Taxes are mandatory purchase of government services, that the government can waive when the same services are purchased from a private provider. Except when purchasing the government services with taxes the government need not provide the specific service to the specific person. This is the case in many, many taxes and services.
1. De-evolution could mean reversion to a previous state of the genome. Otherwise it's mutations contrary to fitness, which is astronomically improbable except in an extremely brief series of generations (nonfitness is a rapid terminator).
2. We just don't really know the importance of the info in the DNA that we currently don't recognize as important. We didn't think methylation of the DNA rails was important information until just a few years ago, and now it's the main repository of epigenetics.
3. Given the persistence of art, especially in setting romantic standards, I don't see humans reproducing more with substantially less musculature than what we see in pictures, sculptures and movies (and eventually in holograms/etc). And what you describe is just evolution. It's "devolution" only in the arbitrary sense that it's genetic change in a way that wouldn't be fit today, or that you don't like. It's just evolution. If the environment cycled between two states mutually exclusive of fitness to reproduce, over and over for millions of years, and a species mutated over time to remain fit, back and forth, which phase of the mutation cycle would be the "devolution"? It's all just evolution.
The only real devolution was a New Wave band from Ohio known for the song "Whip It".
There are whitelists, and every email app lets you sort incoming email into folders by criteria like sender. Sort only your favorite senders into the priority folder and read only that one until you have more time or interest.
BTW, 500+ nonspam messages means you're trying to communicate with too many people/orgs. You should simplify your connections, not just your email.
The insurance company is the part of your story that tells your doctor it's not paying anything for some test that's probably going to say you don't have xyz. Or because it's experimental. Or because you already had xyz when you got the insurance. Or because chewbacca - they're not paying. Then you die of xyz.
You also left out the part where you pay the insurance company $1.5M over the course of your career to pay for what should have cost $100K in $200:hour doctor bills, but instead paid out $800K in in $600:h doctor bills padded with lots of unnecessary tests and other waste.
The $8K list price is what the medical providers charge to make up for the insurers paying only $2K, and having the power to enforce it.
If you don't understand that, compare the private US insurer model to the European public insurer model. Or to the US Medicare public insurer model (but remember to adjust for the far sicker population that Medicare covers).
As long as you think there's no difference between terrorists and hippies, I'm not interested in anything else you say.
What if the shared DB "disk" is a RAMdisk, backed by SSD?
Is there a way to dedicate RAMdisk / SSD to just the virtualized RDBMS, and not share it with any other instances?
Polling places are so close to where people live that buses aren't necessary.
Except when Republicans make them so far from Democrats that they are indeed too hard to reach. Like how you Republicans stole Ohio in 2004. Which is precisely why your Fox masters feed you BS like you just regurgitated: because that is your crime, that you blame on the victims.
Both the Drug War and all our foreign wars since December 1941 have violated the Constitution. The Constitution prevents the Federal government from running a military budget for longer than 2 years, requires Congress declares war, and even discourages a standing army in favor of a National Guard. We have never actually abided the Constitutional prescription for war. And we have been perpetually at war since we started the country with one. After a while we even gave up the formalities.
But we've been doing it so long now that the country might be running out of steam. Certainly the perpetual Drug War is harder every day to keep funding and fighting. The foreign wars too, since we've also lost every war we've started, minus a few exceptions that prove the rule, since we stopped declaring them.
We should insist on war declarations and a permanent end to civil wars like the Drug War. We should insist that deficits be voted only in the same terms that we declare war: to deal with a specific cause, as a last resort, and with a declared exit strategy before committing. Until we run the country like that, we'll stay screwed. These days seem like the best time to make that point enough that we actually act on it.
Madison's Constitutional system has lived for over 2 centuries, usually prospering more than any other contemporary or predecessor.
There's no other government system today that is older than Madison's Constitutional system, with the arguable exceptions of Egypt and China.
The US government is both closer to Madison's specified system and further from it in different ways, but overall this system is very long lived and stable. Even the features for modifying the system are remarkably rarely used.
The Diebold voting machines that Bush/Cheney used to steal 2000 and 2004 elections were supplied by Diebold, which was primarily an ATM supplier.
Both kinds of machines operated to protect Diebold's best interests. In the ATM case those interests coincided with the people using the machine. In the voting machine, not so much.
But the best part of democratic voting is securing the consent of the governed. Not because the polled public makes the best decisions, but because they had their say in the decision and the majority ruled. The rest of the system that gives people a chance to persuade the majority makes that consent a consensus.
Of course, that's the theory. In practice, so much bad government and politics has alienated a large minority of eligible voters, who don't vote. The rest are highly polarized when voting, even if not very polarized in disagreement about actual policies.
The root of the problem with this system is the ease with which the powerful manipulate the voters through media that is bought and concocted to produce election results both specific in resulting policy, and general in overall ideology.
So yes, better communications among the people is the best solution to the real problems.
Our legislatures are designed to be re-publics: members of the public who represent the public at large. Representatives are supposed to be leaders who represent the people, but not necessarily their day to day whims. It's one reason why we don't have direct democracy, putting every vote to public ballot.
What would be good would be a poll before every vote, published before every vote. Then the rep voting however they best decided to represent the public's interest. Voting in the legislature against the result of the public poll would require explaining to the public how they were exercising leadership, and give undeniable facts to back their accountability in the next election. Political risks are all too rare, and the cowardice that avoids them in favor of "go along to get along" a strong root of why the public dislikes and distrusts politicians.
Nonbinding polls as a basis for comparison to the rep's track record would make for a very strong communication between the electorate and the elected. But I expect that if only one or a few reps do it, they'll be smothered in the herd mentality on the part of both the voters who reject their "disobeying the poll", and the other reps who don't poll so they can easily disobey their constituents and their best interests.
That's not a synthetic womb, it's an outsourced womb. The rest of the phases I itemized can all be automated. But the role of the womb seems to require a human for gestation.
No, not every aspect of their doctrine was fixated on eugenics and race. They killed millions of Catholics, homosexuals, communists, trade unionists and others, especially the extremely hybrid Gypsies, without regard to actual genetics. Hitler was not only not Aryan, but had Jewish ancestors - as did many if not most of the other Nazis pursuing genocide among other diabolical tyrannies.
Nazis cared about power. Race was a means to that end. Of course such means are part of the end, and Nazis did spend a lot of time on genocide and racist abuses and propaganda. But not because they actually cared about genetics as much as they cared about power.
Nationalism is properly defined simply as valuing one's nation extremely highly, typically devaluing any other nation to the extreme. A value that motivates competition with other nations that usually becomes violent, as there's no moral inhibition in harming "inferior" nations. The US is not at all alone in this, though its not usually as violent towards say France as it is towards say countries primarily inhabited by people who aren't White. You are correct in identifying some current US nationalism, but it goes even further: this week the Republican presidential candidate is embracing the rich idiot pushing the idea that the first Black president couldn't have been born in Hawaii, but must be a foreigner. Because that kind of racism is not just very popular in a large minority of Republicans, it's not rejected by the large majority of them. Obama must be Kenyan and inferior - nationalism in the service of racism. Not at all unique to the US.
Racism, nationalism and socialism are practiced more or less by many countries, and have been for centuries (and longer). They are not so simple as to be thrown around as if the Nazis define nationalism, racism, socialism, national socialism, or any other value system. The Nazis valued power above all, mainly the power to destroy as the power to control. They called themselves all kinds of things that they weren't, and all kinds of things they were that didn't really matter.
Most nationalist socialist governments have proven for generations they're not cataloging anyone for extermination. In fact they tend to be among the most accepting of diversity. And very specifically socialism is very different from fascism, even if they do have some configurations in common, like highly centralized government and economy . Nazis were the epitome of fascism, but called themselves socialists because socialism was popular and fascism wasn't.
The point is that if you're going to point out that genome sequencing is highly abusable by a government like the Nazis, just say "Nazis". Saying "nationalist socialists" just confuses the issue.
Email is actually an excellent form of communication. It's so flexible that every realtime and async messaging system could be usefully transacted over email (and often is), at least every message could use the email data formats (Subject/To/From/Cc/Bcc/Attachment/Body fields, MIME headers, X-whatever arbitrary tuples, etc). In fact every message sent with at least one human endpoint should be transcribable into RFC822/etc emails as a test of its utility and completeness. I had a friend in the 1990s who firmly believed TCP/IP should be restandardized with every packet required to be formatted as a separate email. That's too far (unless packets were bigger), but not wholly wrongheaded.
I hope email never goes away. I do hope that email gets much better message databases and presentation UIs, better integration with non-email messaging (in the same, integrated messaging systems). For example I'd like my every Slashdot post (and other Web transactions) to be indexed in my own storage in email format, and I'd like my emails to be able to HTTP POST/GET/PUT from my MUA. I hope that email finally gets better standardized structure of message bodies, especially for quoting by pointer with attribution, and more nonlinear structures of message sequences. Especially branching and quoting multiple previous generation messages, as well as from separate threads, in a single reply, which maintain coherence among threads.
But that's just better email, not post-email. More and better email would make the world a better place. I hope it does.
Of course we redistribute wealth to the richest. The biggest tax expense is the military, which the richest suck up like oxygen, no matter how bad for security or our economy (to say nothing of health, life or limb). The second biggest tax expense is on medical care (which overlaps a lot with the military), which is spent on doctors who are among the richest (at $172K general, $275K specialist, they make 7-11x the median income), and pharmacos which are among the richest both as workers and as stockholders. Oil corps get $4 BILLION in tax expenses a year, which is a lot even when they're reporting $10B annual profits before the handout. Then there's the $TRILLIONS in handouts to the banks, their executives, top employees and shareholders, which are both by definition and in practice the richest of the rich.The $BILLIONS in US foreign aid is mostly spent on American products; they're sold abroad by the richest, who arrange that cozy loop.
The top 10% pay 70% of Federal income taxes, but state taxes are mostly regressive (so tax the rich less), and the other substantial taxes like Social Security and sales taxes are purely regressive, so tax the rich less. While the rich have all their income above about $107K (most of their total) protected from the approximately 10% SS tax. The top 10% of wage collectors got over $2.46 TRILLION in 2010, out of only about $6.01T total wages, almost 41%. But the amount of equity trade income that the other $10T in the US GDP pays out a year is vastly more paid to that top 10%, who pay something like half the tax rate on their capital gains than people do on regular income.
Taking less tax money from the rich is giving free government services to them. Apart from all the direct subsidies, the rich get far more government services, including security, the courts that are where they transact so much business, and all the R&D private labs have abandoned to the public to pay for instead that they immediately harness into products and even less tangible sources of wealth.
When you said "I prefer to hope to be one of them" you said it all. That motivation is what keeps most Americans who bother to think about the racket hoping it will continue. Of course the vast majority will never be anything but the victims of the racket.