Looking at the same site, you can see the U.S.A. ranking #1 in motor vehicle accidents. So you see, your map does not correlate directly into health systems.
It is highly likely in one form or another that Iraq was involved. there is much more to it than flying the planes: weapons, money, whatever, and even moral support all count as "involvement".
"if you heard the Bush supporters calling up, they voted for him because of religion, no other reason."
wrong wrong wrong wrong. I am a huge Bush supporter, and I am also agnostic.
There are plenty of other reasons. My main reason: I believe Bush will do more to protect this country than Kerry (who looks like a Basset hound, btw).
As a side note, I am not happy about some of his religious policies, but hey it was a two horse race.
"Primarly, they established the electoral college as a measure to blunt popular opinion"
No, they set it up because they did not think everyone would be able to travel to Washington to vote.
"There is no reason to hand disproportionate power to sparsely-populated states for the purpose of electing the President."
None? How about the fact our Country is huge and that which is important to California is not important to Wisconsin. You cannot give preference to densley populated areas.
"It couldn't be more fair: one person is one vote. " This is only fair if you live in a large city. I bet farmers in northern Maine thing this is a crappy idea.
"It's interesting that you bring up the spectre of states' rights, since the Bush Administration has such a poor record in this area."
Actually, my second reason is most important. My point was that a very few small populous areas would be courted my the candidates. Candidates for/from large cities would be elected and the votes from those not in the city are not heard.
As far as equal voting power per state, the electoral college helps that a lot more than a popular vote. Consider the population of NYC versus that of Maine.
Yes, my third point was an attach on Democrats. I believe states should have more control over themselves and that is not a Democrat policy. Whether Bush's policies or Kerry's policies will make the Fed government bigger, well I think Kerry will win that one.
The only reason I made the first point was to agree with the parent poster. Never did I say it was a current valid reason.
"some universal architecture should be considered."
But why? I do not see the purpose such architecture could serve. Each state is given a certain number of votes based on population, why not let each state choose how to hand out those votes? I do not see why a universal architecture is required.
"Better to keep the system, for now at least, and award electoral votes based on the method used by Maine"
I agree with you 100%; however, keep in mind it is up to the individual STATES to choose how their electoral votes are assigned. If we wish a change, lobby your state, not the fed government.
Wake up and die right. You obviosly do not understand the electoral college. There were primary reasons for setting it up that way. You have one, which was that you could not expect the votes to travel all of the U.S. and not be tampered, lost, etc. The second reason is that if we used a majority vote system, the candidates would only have to win California. How is that fair to those people in RI. Obviously, they (RI-ers) have diffirent concerns/issues than those in Cali. The third and most important and often forgotton reason is that the US is a Collection of States. A govenor is more important than the U.S. president to those in a state. Democrats tend to gloss this over because they want a bigger stronger Fed government; however, viewing the US as a united set of states in america, then you can see that we need equal voting power per state.
Let me start by saying I am a new father (3 months). We use an audio monitor for the times we are out of earshot, and a video monitor. The latter is only used to check to see if he's sleeping. My son sleeps so lightly, us walking in to check on him wakes him up. (PLEASE reserve comments about making noise while the baby sleeps so he gets used to it. He's a light sleeper, deal with it.)
We do not use the video monitor to watch him all night, as others have said, that will drive you nuts. Usually, an audio monitor does just fine.
I was watching a tv program the other night about reforming the welfare system in NYC. I guess the current system takes care of people with no questions asked. Proposed reforms would change that.
Anyway, on to my point, they interview this lady who basically "lived" in the system (hotel, food, etc) and she said "I can't believe this, now I have to get a job! damn!"
"Your commute might get a little longer if you moved farther out, but wouldn't paying thousands less in mortgage and property taxes be worth it?"
Did that already.
"ost cities with public schools, fire departments, etc, have residency requirements for their teachers, firemen, etc."
moved too far away for that.
"Quit locking yourself into bad solutions and then bitching about them."
go f- yourself. Nobody was bitching. I was merely pointing out to the original poster that having a single income was not always possible. I am VERY happy in my situation, thank you.
Yeah, what's wrong are the house prices. Sure, I could move to Northern Canada and be a moose farmer, but let's be pragmatic. You want a modest house that is commutable to your job, you pay for it.
You sir have not the slightest bit of knowledge in this area; therefore, you should not contradict me.
"1-80% of crashes are not due to drivers"
WRONG. You HAVE NO idea what you are talking about. There has been much work in this area that state 80% of crashes are due to drivers. See work by Engler et al.
"3-Somehow people just trying to make things work have mannaged to build greatly superior drivers without knowing the internals of the systems there building those drivers for"
The APIs are well documented. It's not like writing Windows drivers is a voodoo science. One again, get a clue before you spout off FUD.
"4-There is a fundamental flaw in the windows arcetecture that allows drivers to more easily crash it compared to linux"
Nope. Both allow drivers to run in priviledged mode. Period. They BOTH have the same fundamental flaw.
"5-Building drivers for windows requires more skill then building them for Linux, and the end result of this is that windows drivers are more crashy"
I write drivers for both. This is also a flawed statement. Depending on the driver, either can be easier or harder. For example, file system drivers, in my opinion are easier on Linux. Transport drivers are easier on Windows due to the TDI. Writing drivers on ANY OS requires skill, and this is the problem. Companies allow any old smack to write drivers.
Not to disrespect your sister, but this is not accurate. Perhaps this is the case for someone with a severe form or something, but this is not the average case.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, over there! On crutches! 100 points!"
You only get 30 points if the crutches don't break. Otherwise, it is the standard five points.
It's like the lady and dog, more points if the dog lives.
If you let 4 kids in, then you have to let them all in. If they are undocumented, they don't pay taxes, and we could be letter terrorist in.
I say, send them back. If they are that smart, they can find a may back LEGALLY. Pay taxes like the rest of us.
Looking at the same site, you can see the U.S.A. ranking #1 in motor vehicle accidents. So you see, your map does not correlate directly into health systems.
It is highly likely in one form or another that Iraq was involved. there is much more to it than flying the planes: weapons, money, whatever, and even moral support all count as "involvement".
Note the word "Beta" in the corner of that page.
"if you heard the Bush supporters calling up, they voted for him because of religion, no other reason."
wrong wrong wrong wrong. I am a huge Bush supporter, and I am also agnostic.
There are plenty of other reasons. My main reason: I believe Bush will do more to protect this country than Kerry (who looks like a Basset hound, btw).
As a side note, I am not happy about some of his religious policies, but hey it was a two horse race.
"Primarly, they established the electoral college as a measure to blunt popular opinion"
No, they set it up because they did not think everyone would be able to travel to Washington to vote.
"There is no reason to hand disproportionate power to sparsely-populated states for the purpose of electing the President."
None? How about the fact our Country is huge and that which is important to California is not important to Wisconsin. You cannot give preference to densley populated areas.
"It couldn't be more fair: one person is one vote. "
This is only fair if you live in a large city. I bet farmers in northern Maine thing this is a crappy idea.
"It's interesting that you bring up the spectre of states' rights, since the Bush Administration has such a poor record in this area."
And previous Democratic adminstrations do not?
Actually, my second reason is most important. My point was that a very few small populous areas would be courted my the candidates. Candidates for/from large cities would be elected and the votes from those not in the city are not heard.
As far as equal voting power per state, the electoral college helps that a lot more than a popular vote. Consider the population of NYC versus that of Maine.
Yes, my third point was an attach on Democrats. I believe states should have more control over themselves and that is not a Democrat policy. Whether Bush's policies or Kerry's policies will make the Fed government bigger, well I think Kerry will win that one.
The only reason I made the first point was to agree with the parent poster. Never did I say it was a current valid reason.
"some universal architecture should be considered."
But why? I do not see the purpose such architecture could serve. Each state is given a certain number of votes based on population, why not let each state choose how to hand out those votes? I do not see why a universal architecture is required.
"Better to keep the system, for now at least, and award electoral votes based on the method used by Maine"
I agree with you 100%; however, keep in mind it is up to the individual STATES to choose how their electoral votes are assigned. If we wish a change, lobby your state, not the fed government.
Wake up and die right. You obviosly do not understand the electoral college. There were primary reasons for setting it up that way. You have one, which was that you could not expect the votes to travel all of the U.S. and not be tampered, lost, etc. The second reason is that if we used a majority vote system, the candidates would only have to win California. How is that fair to those people in RI. Obviously, they (RI-ers) have diffirent concerns/issues than those in Cali. The third and most important and often forgotton reason is that the US is a Collection of States. A govenor is more important than the U.S. president to those in a state. Democrats tend to gloss this over because they want a bigger stronger Fed government; however, viewing the US as a united set of states in america, then you can see that we need equal voting power per state.
Let me start by saying I am a new father (3 months). We use an audio monitor for the times we are out of earshot, and a video monitor. The latter is only used to check to see if he's sleeping. My son sleeps so lightly, us walking in to check on him wakes him up. (PLEASE reserve comments about making noise while the baby sleeps so he gets used to it. He's a light sleeper, deal with it.)
We do not use the video monitor to watch him all night, as others have said, that will drive you nuts. Usually, an audio monitor does just fine.
btw, congrats.
I was watching a tv program the other night about reforming the welfare system in NYC. I guess the current system takes care of people with no questions asked. Proposed reforms would change that.
Anyway, on to my point, they interview this lady who basically "lived" in the system (hotel, food, etc) and she said "I can't believe this, now I have to get a job! damn!"
The horror. she has to get a job.
rocks are hard and water is wet.
More at 11.
"if you make one don't whine about the results of that choice. "
Hey asshat, nobody whined. I was merely pointing out that a single income was not possible. Wake the f up.
To do what I do, (which I love doing) I am locked into a very select few cities. Moving to Djibouti is not an 0ption.
"Your commute might get a little longer if you moved farther out, but wouldn't paying thousands less in mortgage and property taxes be worth it?"
Did that already.
"ost cities with public schools, fire departments, etc, have residency requirements for their teachers, firemen, etc."
moved too far away for that.
"Quit locking yourself into bad solutions and then bitching about them."
go f- yourself. Nobody was bitching. I was merely pointing out to the original poster that having a single income was not always possible. I am VERY happy in my situation, thank you.
"I would wholeheartedly suggest you sell your home and move to a lower cost of living area."
My commute is long enough, thanks for the crappy advice.
" Before you do that, get a copy of quicken (or GNUCash or MS Money or even a spreadsheet) and track where your expenses go"
Any other great ideas?
The problem is the cost of living.
Yeah, what's wrong are the house prices. Sure, I could move to Northern Canada and be a moose farmer, but let's be pragmatic. You want a modest house that is commutable to your job, you pay for it.
Maybe both parents work to put food on the table and pay the mortgage? You ever think of that? We were not all born with silver spoons.
"First of all, let me say: Agreed, HTML is programming, just as C++ is - the computer is interpreting coded instructions to process data."
Woah horsy! NO, NO NO. In HTML, a browser does the interpreting to display text boxes. For C++, it is compiled to MACHINE code and run natively in hw.
See the difference?
Where is Crackton?
lower right corner.
You sir have not the slightest bit of knowledge in this area; therefore, you should not contradict me.
"1-80% of crashes are not due to drivers"
WRONG. You HAVE NO idea what you are talking about. There has been much work in this area that state 80% of crashes are due to drivers. See work by Engler et al.
"3-Somehow people just trying to make things work have mannaged to build greatly superior drivers without knowing the internals of the systems there building those drivers for"
The APIs are well documented. It's not like writing Windows drivers is a voodoo science. One again, get a clue before you spout off FUD.
"4-There is a fundamental flaw in the windows arcetecture that allows drivers to more easily crash it compared to linux"
Nope. Both allow drivers to run in priviledged mode. Period. They BOTH have the same fundamental flaw.
"5-Building drivers for windows requires more skill then building them for Linux, and the end result of this is that windows drivers are more crashy"
I write drivers for both. This is also a flawed statement. Depending on the driver, either can be easier or harder. For example, file system drivers, in my opinion are easier on Linux. Transport drivers are easier on Windows due to the TDI. Writing drivers on ANY OS requires skill, and this is the problem. Companies allow any old smack to write drivers.
"Secure != Stable. You're talking about stability, he's talking about security. "
When drivers run in kernel context, it becomes the same thing. Drivers can now run in priviledged mode.
Not to disrespect your sister, but this is not accurate. Perhaps this is the case for someone with a severe form or something, but this is not the average case.