It takes money and effort to deorbit satellites. That is why there was plan to destroy the satellites. It actually was a very responsible and necessary corporate exit strategy. The issue for buyers is can they also have a serious and credible amount of resources need to operate and deorbit these satellites.
I just received an email from Commander Taco that the strain of those fifty comments being posted may bring down slashdot for the rest of year...abandon ship...abandon ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aba
Actually my boss's boss does schedule meetings and my boss still doesn't use it, believe it or not. His boss ends up coming by right after each meeting started and says, "are you coming?" or some such and my boss runs off to the meeting unprepared or sends me (shudder).
Exchange/Outlook is a little difficult for some people to get adjusted to. They fight the system; my boss is like that.
It adds calendar functions that are really useful, but only if the users all obey the calendars. We find here that sometimes it is useless to schedule things because people don't pay attention to the calendar. For instance, my boss never knows when he is supposed to be in a meeting cause he refuses to use Outlook and leave it open on his desktop.
Outlook has this nasty habit of crashing and making you delete your.ost file manually. This is a pain in the ass and drives me nuts.
Some things are more difficult to do in outlook; getting at internet headers; contact information does not match well (I find I have to type in the last name of the person _exactly_ and not add the first name most of the time).
If the end-user wants to customize the display of Outlook, it takes forever.
From a failure point of view, we have had several mail server problems (I'm not sysadmin, so I don't know the details) that have ending up leaving us emailless for as much as a day.
BTW, the web interface will not let you look at email messages that are sent as attachments, AFAIK.
I would say the cost of switching is probably not worth it unless Calendars are a big thing that you _must_ have.
I was not saying that the full spectrum is represented during an accelerator measurement, but it can be adequately simulated. Many years of measurements have been pretty successfully validated.
Depending upon the particles you are talking about, you can certainly get GeV energies...try going to GANIL, GSI, NSCL...true they are not GeV/amu, but you get 200 MeV/amu...which is pretty good.
In terms of the high Z shielding, I would assume that you are talking about proton shielding? Typically High Z materials are used to shield out electrons. Heavy Ions cut through material like butter because they are so high energy (the same reason we see GCRs on Earth).
Proton recoils from high-Z materials do not have much range, so many of them stop in the metallization layers above the device or quickly in the device, not providing enough electron hole pairs to accomplish much.
You are right that it is not an EXACT science, but it is pretty close. Typically a measurement for a device would consist of the following:
- Cross section versus energy measurements at a proton accelerator(s). It might be Crocker Nuclear Laboratory or Indiana University Cycltron Facility or Paul Scherrer Institute.
- Proton total dose measurements at the same proton accelerators.
- Cross section versus LET measurements at a heavy ion facility. It might be Brookhaven National Labs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Texas A&M, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, GANIL or GSI.
With these measurement results, it is not difficult to make a pretty good assessment of the space environment response.
This does depend on a couple key issues though:
1) You have people making the measurements that know what they are doing. I can't tell you how important this is.
2) The utilization of the device is pretty close to the space application.
3) You don't cheap out. For instance, many people like to use Alpha sources to make a quick and dirty measurement...this is essentially useless in many instances. The range of the particles is short, there is an LET distribution...just plain bad. Also, people like to use Cobalt 60 gammas to make their total dose measurements; there are a number of devices where this will just not work: optocouplers, LEDs, solar cells etc that experience displacement damage effects and other devices where the reasons are not so clear...but the impact is quite clear. You must make measurements with the best simulation possible: if you are flying at LEO, then make proton measurement, if you are flying at MEO, then electron measurments (for total dose) may make more sense. While electrons and gammas are similar in many respects, there have been instances where deviations between electron and gamma response have been observed.
Many people think 500 to 2000 an hour is expensive for the accelerator time, but they don't realize how expensive it would be if that critical component fails in space at a cost of $100s of millions of dollars.
I guess the bottom line issue I had with your post are as follows:
- Most radiation effects testing should NOT be done with isotopes and I like to think is not...the true numbers are anyone's guess because no one knows what measurements everyone in the area is making.
- The second point is that it is not true that putting a space experiment up is cheaper or better. In terms of cost, a design and launch is very expensive; you would be lucky to get a trivial space experiment up on a satellite for under $100K.
Also, they do NOT necessarily provide a good measurement. The sample size is very small (typically 1 or 2). The space environment conditions are very poorly known on a short time scale, so to be useful the mission must be for a long time (5 to 10 years, in which time the technology becomes out dated). You can make the conditions better known by putting dosimeters and particle detectors on board, but that raises the cost significantly. Finally, you will only know the results for one type of environment (in the case of STRV, a GTO/HEO type orbit). These results will not provide much use in terms of a LEO type orbit (the first or second most common type of orbit).
The best use of a space experiment like this (and this is what STRV is somewhat about) is to make dosimetry and particle detector measurements (the (S)REM instrument is on board, I don't remember about the CREDO particle detector) in space in real-time with observations of device performance, and ALSO make ground measurements. This allows us to improve the modelling of these effects from ground measurements. This is not cheap, but it does advance the state of the art somewhat if done correctly.
MPTB tried to do this, but really the results have been less than spectacular so far. The data is not as freely available as it was supposed to be and many of the researches are not looking at the data correctly. The data from the ELDRS experiment is a good example of that. The experiment was essentially a failure because it failed to prove ELDRS either way.
If you are interested in continuing this discussion, you can email me at tempacc99@hotmail.com
Corporations are controlled by people in two ways:
1) We work for them...therefore, you can decide that you will not work for a corporation that is abusing its power or you can work to change that.
2) We finance them...most big corporations are publicly funded. If you disagree with a corporate viewpoint, perhaps you should stop funding them.
To say that corporations are the ROOT OF ALL EVIL in America denies the fact that all corporations are made up of people and the bigger the corporation the more people. To say corporations are against people is insane, they are people.
This is the reason I have a very hard time understanding the Nader party line. The most effective action is at the grassroots level, not the federal level.
Actually, the pride and sound engineering you are talking about are not the main cause of Pioneer 10's extended lifetime.
The main cause is that we did not know what the space environment was like, so we built that spacecraft like a tank. It could have been a much more sophisticated spacecraft if we had known more, but instead it was built like a tank.
The other main factor was Pioneer's source of power: four radioisotope thermoelectric generators.
Your right, there is no evidence yet. But the theory is not that the cell phone will deposit charge, it is that cell phones may potentially cause localized heating that would have an adverse affects on cells (i.e. cancer). At this point, no one knows the truth and you are right that some people are blowing it out of proportion. In fact, this article is a big waste of space, but there is a small potential that cell phones can cause problems.
My bigger concern is all the freaking nuts who use their cell phone all the time. They are very dangerous, especially behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I suggest we worry about that before we worry about the potential for cancer if someone uses their cell phone for 10 hours a day.
I'm confused as to how my comment was overrated. It was a direct answer to the parent as far as I was concerned. I personally thought the parent was overrated.
The other question that concerns me is the validity of the actual numbers. From what I was led to understand from an IEEE spectrum article a couple months back is that the SAR numbers are very dependent on head shape, location of the phone in relation to the head, etc.
From that article, it sounded like SAR numbers for any phone were typically just a WAG.
I asked them to not talk about consensus building, because it is necessary for all presidents who get elected no matter who elected, but I do not want a president that will be ruled by what the poll says the people want. I want a president who thinks what he is doing is the Right Thing (tm).
As I understand it, Ralph Nader was denied entry using someone else's ticket.
Furthermore, the rules of the debate specified that all audience members were to be completely quiet. If he was to follow the rules (I don't believe he had any intention to.), what would have attending the debate done for Ralph?
What is the most important issue that you would concentrate your presidency on? What is your stance on that issue? Why is it right? And how would you affect real change in regards to that issue?
P.S. Please don't answer vaguely...I want one issue. And DO NOT talk about building consensus. If the issue is that important, you BETTER have a position that you think is RIGHT and good REASON for it.
Don't you think that there might be people who think it is important to keep Gore out of office? That they too might want to vote 3rd party. Why not vote for what you think is right and encourage others to do the same? Do you want to vote against particular candidates for the rest of your life?
you mean "with all the taxes you save from the rest of the LP platform, you can buy a package of services on the open market about half as good as what was available when
everyone was pooled together. We've heard of economies of scale, but want no part in them".
The implicit assumption behind your argument is that there is no loss in the transfer of your money (through tax collection) to the government, and then no loss during the transfer from the governmnet back to you. That cannot be true and in fact is the reason why even with "economies of scale" the government cannot compete with you purchasing something directly for yourself.
Furthermore, this system incorporates loss in the fact that these "economies of scale" provide identical "packages of service" to those who receive them. Yet some individuals have different needs that others, so some loss is guaranteed.
From my point of view, it is difficult to imagine the government ever doing anything as efficient as an individual. There is a large amount of beuracracy (sp?) involved in government that makes almost everything inefficient and unfair.
Why not leave private those things that we individuals can do best?
BTW, my political bias is towards libertarian positions, if you had not figured it out, but I don't understand how anyone anywhere can believe the government is more efficient and effective than an individual.
Perhaps some other people are voting to counteract your vote and they would otherwise cast 3rd party votes. If you stop first, they will stop too. But you never give them the chance.
The fact that you are 19 is the greatest reason to vote 3rd party. You have probably 60 or 70 years of your life yet to live. If you ever want to see candidates that you can whole-heartedly vote for, you have to start empowering them now.
Otherwise you will end up voting the lesser of two evils for life. What a scary thought.
"I'm not buying into this whole 'voting for them gives them more power' thing"
What don't you understand about this concept?
To become a politician you must receive the most votes. All politicians need votes to get elected and they will pay attention to any large group of votes (i.e. labor unions, minority groups, the elderly) and they will try and win their vote. Is this not obvious from the treatment of Social Security (seniors are very likely to vote and social security is their biggest issue in general) in this election.
So how would you react as a politcian trying to win an election if you saw that in the past election (or better yet, in the past 2 or 3 elections) that a lot of votes went to a 3rd party? You would investigate why the votes went there and try to win them yourself, right? You might mention the third party candidates name in a speech and talk about how you agree with their position on X because it might win over some of those votes.
In my mind, it is a straight forward conclusion that voting for a third party candidate will have two effects: either it will increase the stature of that third party candidate, or it will help push the main party candidates towards the positions on issues you care about.
Now, lets look at what not voting for a third party candidate will do. The winner of the election and the loser will not see any opposition that applies to both of them and the next election will likely become even more partisan. Finally, the third party candidates because they received fewer votes become discouraged, those viewpoints are weakened and evetually they start to disappear .
Vote third part in this election (I suggest Brown, but any 3rd party vote is better than a vote for Gore or Bush).
Now that was a pretty good rant. And you managed to point out a real big problem with this country and with most countries, but where is your solution.
It is fine to rant and rave about a problem, but a solution is better.
Do I have a complete solution? No, but I have some good starting points:
1) Everyone should educate themselves about the issues at hand; From social security to homosexual marriage, everyone should make a decision for themselves where they stand and what positions they would support.
2) Everyone should educate themselves about the candidates that are running. Learn about every one of them. Read CNN, watch the debates, watch CSPAN, etc...but always look at any "analysis" (whether it agrees with your point of view or adamantally(sp?) disagrees) with suspect eyes. When the press says something, attempt to find the truth.
3) If you feel you cannot support any candidate, then run for the position yourself. If you feel like no candidate ever will support your platform and you don't want to run, support the option to vote "None of the Above" in your locale. This allows the public to express their general displeasure with the candidates in question, but still allows them to perform their duty (voting) to the best of their abilities.
4) If someone says something about a position you support that you think is wrong or inaccurate or you just don't understand, please start a frank and civil discussion with them. Be polite, be even-handed, but attempt to find the truth with this person...not necessarily a truth of opinions, but a truth of atleast facts and a basis of understanding of the opposing point of view. Hopefully, both people will learn something; plus you can learn how difficult it is to build a consensus to get something done.
5) Finally, remember that the point of our legislators is not to pass as many laws as they can because it looks good, it is to pass only those laws that make the most sense and that are needed. If you hear of a useless law that is being passed, write your representative and remind them of what their job is.
(political bias: economically conservative, socially liberal, voting for Harry Browne even though his experience for the job is poor)
Random addition: I wouldn't mind seeing a Cheney - Browne ticket. Cheney is well spoken, experienced and not that far removed philosophically from Browne and Cheney is a much better choice than Bush.
You could vote for Harry Browne (Libertarian)
or Nader (Green Party), Hagelin (Natural Law), Philips (Constitutional (religous))...potentially there are other smaller candidates in your locale.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...
It takes money and effort to deorbit satellites. That is why there was plan to destroy the satellites. It actually was a very responsible and necessary corporate exit strategy. The issue for buyers is can they also have a serious and credible amount of resources need to operate and deorbit these satellites.
decision
I just received an email from Commander Taco that the strain of those fifty comments being posted may bring down slashdot for the rest of year...abandon ship...abandon ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aba
Actually my boss's boss does schedule meetings and my boss still doesn't use it, believe it or not. His boss ends up coming by right after each meeting started and says, "are you coming?" or some such and my boss runs off to the meeting unprepared or sends me (shudder).
I agree with the above.
.ost file manually. This is a pain in the ass and drives me nuts.
Speaking to the user experience a little:
Exchange/Outlook is a little difficult for some people to get adjusted to. They fight the system; my boss is like that.
It adds calendar functions that are really useful, but only if the users all obey the calendars. We find here that sometimes it is useless to schedule things because people don't pay attention to the calendar. For instance, my boss never knows when he is supposed to be in a meeting cause he refuses to use Outlook and leave it open on his desktop.
Outlook has this nasty habit of crashing and making you delete your
Some things are more difficult to do in outlook; getting at internet headers; contact information does not match well (I find I have to type in the last name of the person _exactly_ and not add the first name most of the time).
If the end-user wants to customize the display of Outlook, it takes forever.
From a failure point of view, we have had several mail server problems (I'm not sysadmin, so I don't know the details) that have ending up leaving us emailless for as much as a day.
BTW, the web interface will not let you look at email messages that are sent as attachments, AFAIK.
I would say the cost of switching is probably not worth it unless Calendars are a big thing that you _must_ have.
I was not saying that the full spectrum is represented during an accelerator measurement, but it can be adequately simulated. Many years of measurements have been pretty successfully validated.
Depending upon the particles you are talking about, you can certainly get GeV energies...try going to GANIL, GSI, NSCL...true they are not GeV/amu, but you get 200 MeV/amu...which is pretty good.
In terms of the high Z shielding, I would assume that you are talking about proton shielding? Typically High Z materials are used to shield out electrons. Heavy Ions cut through material like butter because they are so high energy (the same reason we see GCRs on Earth).
Proton recoils from high-Z materials do not have much range, so many of them stop in the metallization layers above the device or quickly in the device, not providing enough electron hole pairs to accomplish much.
You are right that it is not an EXACT science, but it is pretty close. Typically a measurement for a device would consist of the following:
- Cross section versus energy measurements at a proton accelerator(s). It might be Crocker Nuclear Laboratory or Indiana University Cycltron Facility or Paul Scherrer Institute.
- Proton total dose measurements at the same proton accelerators.
- Cross section versus LET measurements at a heavy ion facility. It might be Brookhaven National Labs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Texas A&M, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, GANIL or GSI.
With these measurement results, it is not difficult to make a pretty good assessment of the space environment response.
This does depend on a couple key issues though:
1) You have people making the measurements that know what they are doing. I can't tell you how important this is.
2) The utilization of the device is pretty close to the space application.
3) You don't cheap out. For instance, many people like to use Alpha sources to make a quick and dirty measurement...this is essentially useless in many instances. The range of the particles is short, there is an LET distribution...just plain bad. Also, people like to use Cobalt 60 gammas to make their total dose measurements; there are a number of devices where this will just not work: optocouplers, LEDs, solar cells etc that experience displacement damage effects and other devices where the reasons are not so clear...but the impact is quite clear. You must make measurements with the best simulation possible: if you are flying at LEO, then make proton measurement, if you are flying at MEO, then electron measurments (for total dose) may make more sense. While electrons and gammas are similar in many respects, there have been instances where deviations between electron and gamma response have been observed.
Many people think 500 to 2000 an hour is expensive for the accelerator time, but they don't realize how expensive it would be if that critical component fails in space at a cost of $100s of millions of dollars.
I guess the bottom line issue I had with your post are as follows:
- Most radiation effects testing should NOT be done with isotopes and I like to think is not...the true numbers are anyone's guess because no one knows what measurements everyone in the area is making.
- The second point is that it is not true that putting a space experiment up is cheaper or better. In terms of cost, a design and launch is very expensive; you would be lucky to get a trivial space experiment up on a satellite for under $100K.
Also, they do NOT necessarily provide a good measurement. The sample size is very small (typically 1 or 2). The space environment conditions are very poorly known on a short time scale, so to be useful the mission must be for a long time (5 to 10 years, in which time the technology becomes out dated). You can make the conditions better known by putting dosimeters and particle detectors on board, but that raises the cost significantly. Finally, you will only know the results for one type of environment (in the case of STRV, a GTO/HEO type orbit). These results will not provide much use in terms of a LEO type orbit (the first or second most common type of orbit).
The best use of a space experiment like this (and this is what STRV is somewhat about) is to make dosimetry and particle detector measurements (the (S)REM instrument is on board, I don't remember about the CREDO particle detector) in space in real-time with observations of device performance, and ALSO make ground measurements. This allows us to improve the modelling of these effects from ground measurements. This is not cheap, but it does advance the state of the art somewhat if done correctly.
MPTB tried to do this, but really the results have been less than spectacular so far. The data is not as freely available as it was supposed to be and many of the researches are not looking at the data correctly. The data from the ELDRS experiment is a good example of that. The experiment was essentially a failure because it failed to prove ELDRS either way.
If you are interested in continuing this discussion, you can email me at tempacc99@hotmail.com
Perhaps you have some control in this process?
Corporations are controlled by people in two ways:
1) We work for them...therefore, you can decide that you will not work for a corporation that is abusing its power or you can work to change that.
2) We finance them...most big corporations are publicly funded. If you disagree with a corporate viewpoint, perhaps you should stop funding them.
To say that corporations are the ROOT OF ALL EVIL in America denies the fact that all corporations are made up of people and the bigger the corporation the more people. To say corporations are against people is insane, they are people.
This is the reason I have a very hard time understanding the Nader party line. The most effective action is at the grassroots level, not the federal level.
...flamesuit on...engage.
Get all the figures you could possibly want from the IRS here.
Actually, the pride and sound engineering you are talking about are not the main cause of Pioneer 10's extended lifetime.
The main cause is that we did not know what the space environment was like, so we built that spacecraft like a tank. It could have been a much more sophisticated spacecraft if we had known more, but instead it was built like a tank.
The other main factor was Pioneer's source of power: four radioisotope thermoelectric generators.
Your right, there is no evidence yet. But the theory is not that the cell phone will deposit charge, it is that cell phones may potentially cause localized heating that would have an adverse affects on cells (i.e. cancer). At this point, no one knows the truth and you are right that some people are blowing it out of proportion. In fact, this article is a big waste of space, but there is a small potential that cell phones can cause problems.
My bigger concern is all the freaking nuts who use their cell phone all the time. They are very dangerous, especially behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I suggest we worry about that before we worry about the potential for cancer if someone uses their cell phone for 10 hours a day.
So dammit, I'm in violent agreement.
I never said idealism...I merely want someone who is swayed by facts and truth and their opinion, not by the media, money, nor polls.
I'm confused as to how my comment was overrated. It was a direct answer to the parent as far as I was concerned. I personally thought the parent was overrated.
The number was 15%, it was repeated several times before the first debate.
The other question that concerns me is the validity of the actual numbers. From what I was led to understand from an IEEE spectrum article a couple months back is that the SAR numbers are very dependent on head shape, location of the phone in relation to the head, etc.
From that article, it sounded like SAR numbers for any phone were typically just a WAG.
I asked them to not talk about consensus building, because it is necessary for all presidents who get elected no matter who elected, but I do not want a president that will be ruled by what the poll says the people want. I want a president who thinks what he is doing is the Right Thing (tm).
As I understand it, Ralph Nader was denied entry using someone else's ticket.
Furthermore, the rules of the debate specified that all audience members were to be completely quiet. If he was to follow the rules (I don't believe he had any intention to.), what would have attending the debate done for Ralph?
For each candidate:
What is the most important issue that you would concentrate your presidency on? What is your stance on that issue? Why is it right? And how would you affect real change in regards to that issue?
P.S. Please don't answer vaguely...I want one issue. And DO NOT talk about building consensus. If the issue is that important, you BETTER have a position that you think is RIGHT and good REASON for it.
Don't you think that there might be people who think it is important to keep Gore out of office? That they too might want to vote 3rd party. Why not vote for what you think is right and encourage others to do the same? Do you want to vote against particular candidates for the rest of your life?
you mean "with all the taxes you save from the rest of the LP platform, you can buy a package of services on the open market about half as good as what was available when everyone was pooled together. We've heard of economies of scale, but want no part in them".
The implicit assumption behind your argument is that there is no loss in the transfer of your money (through tax collection) to the government, and then no loss during the transfer from the governmnet back to you. That cannot be true and in fact is the reason why even with "economies of scale" the government cannot compete with you purchasing something directly for yourself.
Furthermore, this system incorporates loss in the fact that these "economies of scale" provide identical "packages of service" to those who receive them. Yet some individuals have different needs that others, so some loss is guaranteed.
From my point of view, it is difficult to imagine the government ever doing anything as efficient as an individual. There is a large amount of beuracracy (sp?) involved in government that makes almost everything inefficient and unfair.
Why not leave private those things that we individuals can do best?
BTW, my political bias is towards libertarian positions, if you had not figured it out, but I don't understand how anyone anywhere can believe the government is more efficient and effective than an individual.
Please read the parent comment.
Perhaps some other people are voting to counteract your vote and they would otherwise cast 3rd party votes. If you stop first, they will stop too. But you never give them the chance.
The fact that you are 19 is the greatest reason to vote 3rd party. You have probably 60 or 70 years of your life yet to live. If you ever want to see candidates that you can whole-heartedly vote for, you have to start empowering them now. Otherwise you will end up voting the lesser of two evils for life. What a scary thought.
"I'm not buying into this whole 'voting for them gives them more power' thing"
What don't you understand about this concept?
To become a politician you must receive the most votes. All politicians need votes to get elected and they will pay attention to any large group of votes (i.e. labor unions, minority groups, the elderly) and they will try and win their vote. Is this not obvious from the treatment of Social Security (seniors are very likely to vote and social security is their biggest issue in general) in this election.
So how would you react as a politcian trying to win an election if you saw that in the past election (or better yet, in the past 2 or 3 elections) that a lot of votes went to a 3rd party? You would investigate why the votes went there and try to win them yourself, right? You might mention the third party candidates name in a speech and talk about how you agree with their position on X because it might win over some of those votes.
In my mind, it is a straight forward conclusion that voting for a third party candidate will have two effects: either it will increase the stature of that third party candidate, or it will help push the main party candidates towards the positions on issues you care about.
Now, lets look at what not voting for a third party candidate will do. The winner of the election and the loser will not see any opposition that applies to both of them and the next election will likely become even more partisan. Finally, the third party candidates because they received fewer votes become discouraged, those viewpoints are weakened and evetually they start to disappear .
Vote third part in this election (I suggest Brown, but any 3rd party vote is better than a vote for Gore or Bush).
Now that was a pretty good rant. And you managed to point out a real big problem with this country and with most countries, but where is your solution.
It is fine to rant and rave about a problem, but a solution is better.
Do I have a complete solution? No, but I have some good starting points:
1) Everyone should educate themselves about the issues at hand; From social security to homosexual marriage, everyone should make a decision for themselves where they stand and what positions they would support.
2) Everyone should educate themselves about the candidates that are running. Learn about every one of them. Read CNN, watch the debates, watch CSPAN, etc...but always look at any "analysis" (whether it agrees with your point of view or adamantally(sp?) disagrees) with suspect eyes. When the press says something, attempt to find the truth.
3) If you feel you cannot support any candidate, then run for the position yourself. If you feel like no candidate ever will support your platform and you don't want to run, support the option to vote "None of the Above" in your locale. This allows the public to express their general displeasure with the candidates in question, but still allows them to perform their duty (voting) to the best of their abilities.
4) If someone says something about a position you support that you think is wrong or inaccurate or you just don't understand, please start a frank and civil discussion with them. Be polite, be even-handed, but attempt to find the truth with this person...not necessarily a truth of opinions, but a truth of atleast facts and a basis of understanding of the opposing point of view. Hopefully, both people will learn something; plus you can learn how difficult it is to build a consensus to get something done.
5) Finally, remember that the point of our legislators is not to pass as many laws as they can because it looks good, it is to pass only those laws that make the most sense and that are needed. If you hear of a useless law that is being passed, write your representative and remind them of what their job is.
(political bias: economically conservative, socially liberal, voting for Harry Browne even though his experience for the job is poor)
Random addition: I wouldn't mind seeing a Cheney - Browne ticket. Cheney is well spoken, experienced and not that far removed philosophically from Browne and Cheney is a much better choice than Bush.
You could vote for Harry Browne (Libertarian) or Nader (Green Party), Hagelin (Natural Law), Philips (Constitutional (religous))...potentially there are other smaller candidates in your locale.