But a (personal) meritocracy is also opposed by the right. They don't want people to have the same standard of healthcare, education, environment regardless of who their parents were. They want a meritocracy that keeps running through the generations. So if you parents were lazy slobs you need to work 10 times harder to even reach the same level a child of wealth parents will start at. Businesses should be subsidized according to how many of their friends own them everyone and every business should pay exactly the same, as long as they pay less then what their business is paying at the moment.
Doesn't that just make NYC more impressive? That it can not only handle so much traffic but handle it better then cities with a fraction of it's population.
That would just result in corporations being founded just to register trivial patents. If the patent is then rejected the corporation goes bankrupt and no fees are paid.
The electoral college certainly helps preserve the duopoly. When was the last time a third party won an electoral college vote? The system makes it seem that there ISN'T any opposition to the two big parties. And since there is no opposition people just keep voting for them. With a popular vote at least the voters could see that x% of the vote went to the brainslug party, making them consider voting for them in the next election (at least after they get the official party hat).
So a tyranny of the minority is better in some way? The current system seems designed to allow relatively small but passionate groups of people to win and control the country, while depriving third parties of any voice in the government.
Does this still work since the advent of television? A single speech can easily be seen across the country. So if it's good enough, it can swing voters everywhere.
There is also the problem that some stock options get taxed as capital gains only when the stock is actually sold. So the employee can just get a long term loan with the stocks as a collateral instead.
How well can you focus mirrors over such a Long distance? And could you use a reasonable % of their surface during the time they are exposed to the sun?
But the innocent one doesn't know the other one did it. He doesn't even know a crime was committed. He just knows that the police are claiming one of them did it based on DNA. Unless the guy read the mind of the victim, personally collected the DNA samples and ran the tests then all the evidence he can provide are the words "I didn't do it."
Why not just fit all woman with chastity belts. That way they will all be safe. Sure the innocent are being punished, but isn't it for the greater good?
But how many % of your cells will carry those mutations? And how likely is it that those mutations will be present both in the samples of DNA left at the crime scene and in the samples taken by the police?
That assumes that both twins know who did it. But if one is innocent that all he can say is: "I didn't do it". The prosecutor can then use that combined with the DNA evidence to convict the other twin. But the defense can put the defendant on the stand to say the exact same thing, hopefully making the jury find him not guilty (since there is basically a 50/50 chance of convicting the wrong guy).
Slashdot Mirror
Hasn't TPB changed ownership since then?
But a (personal) meritocracy is also opposed by the right. They don't want people to have the same standard of healthcare, education, environment regardless of who their parents were. They want a meritocracy that keeps running through the generations. So if you parents were lazy slobs you need to work 10 times harder to even reach the same level a child of wealth parents will start at.
Businesses should be subsidized according to how many of their friends own them everyone and every business should pay exactly the same, as long as they pay less then what their business is paying at the moment.
It's too scared to leave the basement after the center was thrown in jail for being allied with Russia.
So you support people roaming the streets screaming 'BURN THE JEWS!'?
Too much freedom for hate speech in Germany led to the Nazi party coming into power (and then abolishing nearly all freedom).
Doesn't that just make NYC more impressive? That it can not only handle so much traffic but handle it better then cities with a fraction of it's population.
Doesn't that just describe the location of SF on the stupidity meter, rather then the left-right axis?
Any fee that could deter a patent troll would also make it impossible for small inventors to ever file a patent.
That would just result in corporations being founded just to register trivial patents. If the patent is then rejected the corporation goes bankrupt and no fees are paid.
The electoral college certainly helps preserve the duopoly. When was the last time a third party won an electoral college vote? The system makes it seem that there ISN'T any opposition to the two big parties. And since there is no opposition people just keep voting for them.
With a popular vote at least the voters could see that x% of the vote went to the brainslug party, making them consider voting for them in the next election (at least after they get the official party hat).
No, it would give the small and calm groups a chance to do something. Why should government be reserved just for parties that have rabid supporters?
It makes it hard for my voter apathy party to get a place at the table.
So a tyranny of the minority is better in some way? The current system seems designed to allow relatively small but passionate groups of people to win and control the country, while depriving third parties of any voice in the government.
Does this still work since the advent of television? A single speech can easily be seen across the country. So if it's good enough, it can swing voters everywhere.
It becomes tax fraud when you can't afford the tax lawyer to defend you.
There is also the problem that some stock options get taxed as capital gains only when the stock is actually sold. So the employee can just get a long term loan with the stocks as a collateral instead.
How well can you focus mirrors over such a Long distance? And could you use a reasonable % of their surface during the time they are exposed to the sun?
But the innocent one doesn't know the other one did it. He doesn't even know a crime was committed. He just knows that the police are claiming one of them did it based on DNA. Unless the guy read the mind of the victim, personally collected the DNA samples and ran the tests then all the evidence he can provide are the words "I didn't do it."
That assumes that the innocent one knows the other is guilty.
Why not just fit all woman with chastity belts. That way they will all be safe. Sure the innocent are being punished, but isn't it for the greater good?
Do all T-cells in an individual have the same mutations? Or does it depend on which infections those specific cells have been exposed to.
But how many % of your cells will carry those mutations? And how likely is it that those mutations will be present both in the samples of DNA left at the crime scene and in the samples taken by the police?
What is the lie supposed to be?
That assumes that both twins know who did it. But if one is innocent that all he can say is: "I didn't do it". The prosecutor can then use that combined with the DNA evidence to convict the other twin. But the defense can put the defendant on the stand to say the exact same thing, hopefully making the jury find him not guilty (since there is basically a 50/50 chance of convicting the wrong guy).
So when a murder happens every person on the planet gets put into jail for a few seconds, since someone is obviously guilty?
Didn't you know that's how it works? They all run around controlling their twins body all the time.