I think I see your point. (that choice 1 is the correct choice?, but most people opt in for choice 2 and 3.) and MOSTLY agree because although most people who take choice 2 and 3 do so for selfish reasons, its not as bad as it sounds I'll play the devils advocate here.
whats a safer investment: shares? property? monetary funds? maybe even gold? regardless of what you invest in, if the FUTURE GENERATION cannot support themselves, you aren't going to be supported either as everything you hold value in will plummet. HOWEVER a safer investment would be if you invest in the future generation (IE, spend that $30k a year, ). not only does this alleviate the burden of individuals predicting their future, but it also stimulates the economy NOW (while the US needs it) and sets up the security and confidence of the future generation in the Government.
obviously in the real world things aren't that simple and a middle ground approach is best.
half of all money spent on military in the world is spent by Americans. you could half your military budget and still spend more than the entire EU. where as the expenses paid by social security is comparable to most other westernized countries.
social security and healthcare actually help to stimulate the economy, as well as improving quality / quantity of life of your citizens, again increasing growth especially in the lower class which are hit hardest by economic problems.
military spending COULD be used to increase your economy, but you'd have to revert to the now illegal act of stealing other peoples land and working it to produce a profit.
Yup, USA is involved but shows no sign of wanting to take over. Why would it ? They're aligned with US's purpose.
Mexico and South America weren't always aligned with US's purpose.
it appears that the difference could have more to do with the types of government and how each enforce control. (America through finance, china through oppression) but when US policy defines that countries laws, how different is it really? weather the control is gained from show of force or through paying off dictators, its still influencing and operating in someone else back yard for your own purpose at the expense of the citizens.
yes, now you just have to times it energy production by 7 and then you could run the entire country on renewable energy.
but considering half of the renewable energy is made with "bio-mass", the additional farming burden & environmental impact its better to just use coal.
China and Russia are dealing with their boarders, much like the USA's military involvement in Mexico and South America.
If china went half way around the world and took over a country like Egypt, then i guess you could consider it the same as what America did attacking Iraq.
nuclear power would be the only contender here. but even that has brought many advances to human understanding etc that i personally am very glad we've learned how to access some of the power of an atom.
if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government..
you're right, governments really should be involved in educating the public on the tools available for people to make their own personal and private moral decisions, not mandating law and enforcing a idealist point of view.
there was discussion of utilizing free software supported by the government as parental filters, then there was talk about an opt in system, now there is talk about a mandatory filter (2 levels. 1 "kid safe" and the other "legally safe" - which includes "extreme violence" like war crimes caught on tape etc being banned.). and if you talk about how this is the government turning into a nanny state, you get labeled a pedophile for "allowing the perverts access to evil content". both our political parties in our 2 party system want to implement a filter to some level, so Australians doesn't really get much say... the government also made it clear that "its not up to the people to make moral decisions, the government will make them for you" with this carbon tax its introducing.
shit is happening fast in this country, but i expect America to start revolting before we see anything dramatic here in Australia.
I'd seriously doubt that a government funded project for voting polls would have such _easy_ to compromise security features.
Vote results rarely turn out exactly as predicted; only if the differences are really large it will be seen as a sign of fraud.
you will find that statistical anomalies will be verified, things like 1 machine (or 1 vote counter) has an unusual candidate count compared to counts done by adjacent machines.
Also how exactly would a single machine be able to falsify votes on any meaningful scale undetected? there would be huge statistical anomalies then there is also the challenge of accessing the machines, (as difficult as accessing a balled box really).
there are ways of doing this right to be more secure than paper voting, as well as cheaper in the long term (paper voting requires people counting...)
making a vulnerable voting machine and changing a number in Microsoft Access,
just as likely to be that simple as having a region report a wrong count in your favor.
you don't think the software that takes the vote isn't auditing the data? you don't think this audited data isn't checked against the central repository for votes? you don't think they'd have specialists checking the data for anomalies or unexpected results?
to get away with it completely unscathed, the political party would have to have control over all the regional media (to give people the impression they are winning), access to the machine that takes the votes, access to the server who counts the votes, tackle the paper trail that's designed to prevent exactly this kind of abuse etc. etc. etc.
90% of the work to successfully manipulate the polls is done without touching the votes, paper vs electronic is pretty much inconsequential as far as vote security is concerned.
you will know anonymous has gotten into your electronic voting system when Guy Fawks or Chuck Norris gets elected.
Paper ballots are just as easy to tamper with... the is i just the old case of http://xkcd.com/538/
off-topic? how is Rommel fighting the British in north Africa off topic to TSA scanners causing cancer?!
my point is that regardless of how respected a leader is it doesn't define their success. Your leaders (and the British) know this and they are chasing success, not respect.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I see your point. (that choice 1 is the correct choice?, but most people opt in for choice 2 and 3.) and MOSTLY agree because although most people who take choice 2 and 3 do so for selfish reasons, its not as bad as it sounds I'll play the devils advocate here.
whats a safer investment: shares? property? monetary funds? maybe even gold? regardless of what you invest in, if the FUTURE GENERATION cannot support themselves, you aren't going to be supported either as everything you hold value in will plummet. HOWEVER a safer investment would be if you invest in the future generation (IE, spend that $30k a year, ). not only does this alleviate the burden of individuals predicting their future, but it also stimulates the economy NOW (while the US needs it) and sets up the security and confidence of the future generation in the Government.
obviously in the real world things aren't that simple and a middle ground approach is best.
considering the average citizen only makes approx 2 million in their working life, half of that to retire on should be more than enough.
yeah, isn't that essentially communism?
entertaining though.
half of all money spent on military in the world is spent by Americans. you could half your military budget and still spend more than the entire EU. where as the expenses paid by social security is comparable to most other westernized countries.
social security and healthcare actually help to stimulate the economy, as well as improving quality / quantity of life of your citizens, again increasing growth especially in the lower class which are hit hardest by economic problems.
military spending COULD be used to increase your economy, but you'd have to revert to the now illegal act of stealing other peoples land and working it to produce a profit.
I don't think you understand how economics works.
Yup, USA is involved but shows no sign of wanting to take over. Why would it ? They're aligned with US's purpose.
Mexico and South America weren't always aligned with US's purpose.
it appears that the difference could have more to do with the types of government and how each enforce control. (America through finance, china through oppression) but when US policy defines that countries laws, how different is it really? weather the control is gained from show of force or through paying off dictators, its still influencing and operating in someone else back yard for your own purpose at the expense of the citizens.
yes, now you just have to times it energy production by 7 and then you could run the entire country on renewable energy. but considering half of the renewable energy is made with "bio-mass", the additional farming burden & environmental impact its better to just use coal.
actually, as long as that energy is replaced (ie, more farts are produced) then yes, by definition it makes it renewable energy.
China and Russia are dealing with their boarders, much like the USA's military involvement in Mexico and South America.
If china went half way around the world and took over a country like Egypt, then i guess you could consider it the same as what America did attacking Iraq.
face it, America are the jerks of the world.
nuclear power would be the only contender here. but even that has brought many advances to human understanding etc that i personally am very glad we've learned how to access some of the power of an atom.
until the future is illuminated, we won't know.
no, but i can hammer a six-inch spike through my penis with a board if that helps.
that last line almost sounded like an argument for using nuclear weapons.
if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government..
they tend not to shut the warehouse down to do it though, the warehouse can still operate.
you're right, governments really should be involved in educating the public on the tools available for people to make their own personal and private moral decisions, not mandating law and enforcing a idealist point of view.
there was discussion of utilizing free software supported by the government as parental filters, then there was talk about an opt in system, now there is talk about a mandatory filter (2 levels. 1 "kid safe" and the other "legally safe" - which includes "extreme violence" like war crimes caught on tape etc being banned.). and if you talk about how this is the government turning into a nanny state, you get labeled a pedophile for "allowing the perverts access to evil content". both our political parties in our 2 party system want to implement a filter to some level, so Australians doesn't really get much say... the government also made it clear that "its not up to the people to make moral decisions, the government will make them for you" with this carbon tax its introducing.
shit is happening fast in this country, but i expect America to start revolting before we see anything dramatic here in Australia.
how it is as it stands.. yes. how it will be after it takes a bit of a slide down the slippery slope, not so much.
Vote results rarely turn out exactly as predicted; only if the differences are really large it will be seen as a sign of fraud.
you will find that statistical anomalies will be verified, things like 1 machine (or 1 vote counter) has an unusual candidate count compared to counts done by adjacent machines. Also how exactly would a single machine be able to falsify votes on any meaningful scale undetected? there would be huge statistical anomalies then there is also the challenge of accessing the machines, (as difficult as accessing a balled box really). there are ways of doing this right to be more secure than paper voting, as well as cheaper in the long term (paper voting requires people counting...)
making a vulnerable voting machine and changing a number in Microsoft Access,
just as likely to be that simple as having a region report a wrong count in your favor.
you don't think the software that takes the vote isn't auditing the data? you don't think this audited data isn't checked against the central repository for votes? you don't think they'd have specialists checking the data for anomalies or unexpected results?
to get away with it completely unscathed, the political party would have to have control over all the regional media (to give people the impression they are winning), access to the machine that takes the votes, access to the server who counts the votes, tackle the paper trail that's designed to prevent exactly this kind of abuse etc. etc. etc.
90% of the work to successfully manipulate the polls is done without touching the votes, paper vs electronic is pretty much inconsequential as far as vote security is concerned.
you will know anonymous has gotten into your electronic voting system when Guy Fawks or Chuck Norris gets elected. Paper ballots are just as easy to tamper with... the is i just the old case of http://xkcd.com/538/
although i agree with "someone != everyone". I really like the implications of your statement.
That almost sounds like Russians policy.
I've never heard of terrorists using children or other innocents to get past security though?
drug mules, yes... terrorists not so much.
unless you can back up that claim?
off-topic? how is Rommel fighting the British in north Africa off topic to TSA scanners causing cancer?!
my point is that regardless of how respected a leader is it doesn't define their success. Your leaders (and the British) know this and they are chasing success, not respect.