I do not want an OS with a codename based on a horrible episode of "Star Trek: Voyager" or a crappy "Sci-Fi" Series, both by Brannon Braga. Nor any version of Windows that keeps the tiles as default.
If the Federal Government gets out of hand, the states are supposed to react and put them in check. That is what is meant by "Checks and Balances". The states are to check the power of the Federal Government and object to over reaching laws and those that are unconstitutional or illegal by various means, including invalidating those actions or laws within the state, suing the federal government in court, or calling a Convention of States, which is currently underway.
Ethanol is a great idea, but it doesn't contain the energy density that gasoline has, therefore, it requires much more to produce the same power. Most vehicles get about 1/2 to 2/3 of their fuel economy when running E-85 as opposed to E10 or E0. E0 is the most efficient use of the fuel we have, as it contains all the energy it needs and the vehicles can be better tuned to operate on a consistent product, whereas Ethanol is very inconsistent with energy it produces.
One of the Gas Station owners in my area, has Ethanol Free fuel at every other station he owns along a stretch of highway. It is 89 Octane, and really helps older vehicles and boats.
With a larger pool of representatives, representing smaller communities, mainly because the two party structure would break down (they created it themselves anyway), and people who disagree on some issue, may agree on others, and work together to foster that issue, while they fight against each other for the other. The larger representation would also reflect your feelings more closely, and there would be so many representatives that the could not be bought. The larger number of available seats would also get the elite out of politics, because any Joe Schmo could run for office as they would only have to sway about 15,000 people, not 500,000 people (or more).
Then again, anything is better that a parlimentry system, where the right group of crazies can take control and run the country (1800s France, 1930s Germany and Italy, and Britain in "V for Vendetta", just to name a few examples.)
This just shows how we need to return to the original apportionment of representatives, as laid out in the constitution, and never modified within. There must be one representative for every 30,000 people. If we did this, the government would not be so "Black and White" it would be shades of grey, and better represent the will of the people, not the will of the corporations.
This is why we need to go back to the apportionment as laid out in the constitution, 1 Representative for every 30,000 people. It would increase the number of representatives to almost 10,000, but each representative would represent a smaller number of people, and each would represent roughly the same number of people. Also, with 10,000 people, it would be much harder to buy votes. Also, the electoral college would balloon to be a much more representative sample, and we could even go so far that each seat was an individual vote, inside of winner-take-all for the whole state. This would also take politics away from Black and White to shades of grey, allowing for better, more inclusive, and less reactionary laws to be enacted, that are actually within the purview of Congress.
Under no circumstances should we be sacrificing viable foodstuffs to create a very inefficient fuel. Using surplus or left-overs should be fine, but we really need to knock this off.
It would be a great idea, much like antenna TV. This free Internet (don't call it WiFi), could be limited speed, limited use, and censored (like TV). Then if you want higher speeds, and uncensored you can purchase a service (either wired or wireless) similar to Cable/Satellite TV. There could even be Ads on it to pay for the service, either local ISPs or government can provide the service, or purpose built companies, like TV/Radio stations, and there could even be competition, to allow for the broadcasters to charge more for ad space.
Most Hotels, Hospitals, College Dorms, and some Apartment Complexes, all use speciality equipment to distribute TV programming on channels they choose. Usually, they have a tuner box (for Cable or Sat), then send the output to a distribution panel which changes the frequency the channel is on.
An alternative idea is to replace all TVs with TVs with Cable Card slots, which remove the need for a cable box.
As local channels, and really most below 29/30 will be left analog, then boxes could be attached to TV in areas that really need the other channels, or simply remove the ability to have the expanded basic channels in city facilities.
The final idea is to revoke Comcast's license, until they provide you with alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not want an OS with a codename based on a horrible episode of "Star Trek: Voyager" or a crappy "Sci-Fi" Series, both by Brannon Braga. Nor any version of Windows that keeps the tiles as default.
If the Federal Government gets out of hand, the states are supposed to react and put them in check. That is what is meant by "Checks and Balances". The states are to check the power of the Federal Government and object to over reaching laws and those that are unconstitutional or illegal by various means, including invalidating those actions or laws within the state, suing the federal government in court, or calling a Convention of States, which is currently underway.
Ethanol is a great idea, but it doesn't contain the energy density that gasoline has, therefore, it requires much more to produce the same power. Most vehicles get about 1/2 to 2/3 of their fuel economy when running E-85 as opposed to E10 or E0. E0 is the most efficient use of the fuel we have, as it contains all the energy it needs and the vehicles can be better tuned to operate on a consistent product, whereas Ethanol is very inconsistent with energy it produces.
One of the Gas Station owners in my area, has Ethanol Free fuel at every other station he owns along a stretch of highway. It is 89 Octane, and really helps older vehicles and boats.
Exactly. XKCD has a great chart comparing radiation levels and what they are equivalent to. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Radiation_Dose_Chart_by_Xkcd.png
I'm sorry, but North Korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", whereas South Korea is the "Republic of Korea". There is a huge difference.
With a larger pool of representatives, representing smaller communities, mainly because the two party structure would break down (they created it themselves anyway), and people who disagree on some issue, may agree on others, and work together to foster that issue, while they fight against each other for the other. The larger representation would also reflect your feelings more closely, and there would be so many representatives that the could not be bought. The larger number of available seats would also get the elite out of politics, because any Joe Schmo could run for office as they would only have to sway about 15,000 people, not 500,000 people (or more). Then again, anything is better that a parlimentry system, where the right group of crazies can take control and run the country (1800s France, 1930s Germany and Italy, and Britain in "V for Vendetta", just to name a few examples.)
This just shows how we need to return to the original apportionment of representatives, as laid out in the constitution, and never modified within. There must be one representative for every 30,000 people. If we did this, the government would not be so "Black and White" it would be shades of grey, and better represent the will of the people, not the will of the corporations.
This is why we need to go back to the apportionment as laid out in the constitution, 1 Representative for every 30,000 people. It would increase the number of representatives to almost 10,000, but each representative would represent a smaller number of people, and each would represent roughly the same number of people. Also, with 10,000 people, it would be much harder to buy votes. Also, the electoral college would balloon to be a much more representative sample, and we could even go so far that each seat was an individual vote, inside of winner-take-all for the whole state. This would also take politics away from Black and White to shades of grey, allowing for better, more inclusive, and less reactionary laws to be enacted, that are actually within the purview of Congress.
Under no circumstances should we be sacrificing viable foodstuffs to create a very inefficient fuel. Using surplus or left-overs should be fine, but we really need to knock this off.
By Censorship, I meant .xxx domains, and certain ports. Yes, it would be easy to get around, but wouldn't be any different that television/radio.
It would be a great idea, much like antenna TV. This free Internet (don't call it WiFi), could be limited speed, limited use, and censored (like TV). Then if you want higher speeds, and uncensored you can purchase a service (either wired or wireless) similar to Cable/Satellite TV. There could even be Ads on it to pay for the service, either local ISPs or government can provide the service, or purpose built companies, like TV/Radio stations, and there could even be competition, to allow for the broadcasters to charge more for ad space.
Most Hotels, Hospitals, College Dorms, and some Apartment Complexes, all use speciality equipment to distribute TV programming on channels they choose. Usually, they have a tuner box (for Cable or Sat), then send the output to a distribution panel which changes the frequency the channel is on.
An alternative idea is to replace all TVs with TVs with Cable Card slots, which remove the need for a cable box.
As local channels, and really most below 29/30 will be left analog, then boxes could be attached to TV in areas that really need the other channels, or simply remove the ability to have the expanded basic channels in city facilities.
The final idea is to revoke Comcast's license, until they provide you with alternatives.