You are, however, right that if no one received enough electoral votes to win, it does get kicked to the house of representatives. That could happen this year if all the cards fall wrong!
Thats exactly what I'm saying. I don't see it as possible for a third party canidate to win enough electoral votes.
Actually no, its physically impossible to win as a third party canidate, untill that party has a large amount of people in the House or Representatives.
Simple math, lets say a very good 3rd party candiate appears. And he wins more states than the other 2 parties, there is virtually no chance that the other 2 parties won't atleast get enough states so that noone clearly has 50% of the electrate votes.
Legally the election then goes to the House.
Guess who wins in the House, whichever party has the largest presence in the House.
Personally I think this may have been intended by our framers. A party needs to become established in the lower branches of government first.
Yes brillant idea. Lets reconstruct. The US has such a high standard of living for 2 reasons, high Gross National Product (meaning a lot of stuff is made per person, efficiency is high) and people feel secure (we don't have to worry much about invading armies and such).
Ok now lets cover the points.
- More than double the payroll tax, from 15.3% to 32% of wages. This will cause massive inflation as people will need to be paid more to continue making the same living. Thus money will be worth less, so the increase tax revenue won't mean as much.
- Raise income taxes by two thirds.
Diddo.
- Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 45% Slightly agree, personally I think we could save bundles just be monitoriing where the money goes, I know my step mother gets almost a thousand dollars a month in unneeded medication just because she wants it, doctors don't say no, and medicare doesn't look into it. The same can be said with welfare and all the other descrecinary spending, it could be used wiser.
- Eliminate all "discretionary" spending (including such constitutionally mandated government functions as the military and the judiciary)
Diddo.
Note how I said our high standard of living hinges on our feeling of security. Seriously reducing the military would have 3 effects, reducing the actual and perceived security of this country. And reducing opportunities for young adults who want to go into the military. And reducing the vast amounts of research and technology that comes out of the military.
Yes I agree that the money we are spending on things such as Iraq is an economic blackhole. Though theoretically a stable middleeast could be an economic boon to the world, or not.
All previous statements are opinions, predicing economic trends is like predicting any complex system, not really possible. This is why I really shake my head when people jump up and down insisting they know that X economic policy will have Y effect, when they have absolutly no economic background, even when serious economist often get it wrong.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Well purly on its collectors value, he made a wise investment. Oh protection value, that is debatable.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 2, Informative
but the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA Remember debate class? Name calling is not allowed in Flight Club.
Anyways, two points I felt to make that a lot of people forget is that this ban only bans large gun clips, and certain models of guns. There are many guns with exactly the same features that are legal.
Second point is that its only been illigal to make new guns, not illigal to own or even sell an existing gun. Though these gun prices have gone way up and are generally bought by collectors, and people very serious about their guns:)
ReiserFS version 4 is a database at heart. Its basic structure is just a table of FileName | Binary but it also contains a modular system where it can be expanded for many uses. There is a lot of talk of including meta data in ReiserFS for such a system. http://www.namesys.com/whitepaper.html
Actually I was seriously considering voting for the Libertarian canidate as that is my general leaning. (Even though the what quadrant are you in quiz said I'm a social totalarian, I swear the thing is screwed up)
But I figured being in Florida my vote counts a bit more than normal:) Shrugs I am confused. Hell while my idiology is so far from his I seriously considered voting for Nader, just because he atleast is honest enough to try and live up to his idiology.
Thats why I'm voting for Bush. Don't like the guy much, personally slighly more fearful of the Democrat party than I am of the Republian party. But mainly I pretty much have an idea of what Bush is going to do, good and bad. I have no idea just how bad Kerry might be, and seriously doubt his abilities to make serious decisions.
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
Not nessearly, because all players (presidential canidates) understood these rules during their campaining. They campained on that idea, that total votes didn't matter. Its a contest, and the rules are set they understood this. Now arguing changing the rules in the future maybe (though peronally I like the system) but arguing that Bush win is less of a win just because he didn't win the plurality is stupid. Cause those were the rules.
Now I know you didn't argue this, but many people seemed hell bend on arguing this, and I just needed to vent ok!:)
Wal-marts gift-cards cards work like debit cards, with magnetic strips you swipe at the credit card machine. It then subtracts the balance from the amount stored in "account", you can readd money into this card at any point and use it over and over again. Several walmarts have associated gas stations where you can use this card at the pump and get a discount also.
Re:One Dirty Bomb - you siad it..
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for that pointless responce. I guess my thought was more on the lines of is it really a good idea to teach these people how to create advanced power production needs, when they are daily just trying to feed themselves. Give a man a fish he will feed himself for a day. Teach a man how to build a fusion reactor, and he will scratch his head.
Re:One Dirty Bomb - you siad it..
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
HAHAH, HAHAHA, HAAHAHHA. On damn thats funny. HAHA. Oh man sorry. HAHA. Wow, that was a good one.
Re:One Dirty Bomb - you siad it..
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The original point was that WE don't need more energy. The reply states that maybe WE don't need more energy, but third world areas who do not have a reliable connection to a first world grid do.
Generally this is actually caused by the person creating static electricity by getting back into and out of their car while pumping. I'm sure if they were holding a cell phone at the time (good reason for reaching into your car) the cell phone would be burnt.
Conservatives? Hu? In the US its the liberals who are afraid of nuclear power.
Re:How about supergun or space elevator?
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 1
True, and despite what people say, throwing it into the sun requires a little bit more the a gentle nudge. Ignoring getting out of earth gravity for the first part. We are orbiting the sun, and to get to the sun we would need to remove all of our orbital velocity (a lot sorry don't have exact numbers) read someting about it taking 6 times as much energy to get to sun as to escape solar system completly. Now you can do gravity assist tricks like some of our probes, which passed by earth several times and risk collision:)
There really would be no cleaning up such a fallout, that would be like cleaning up chynobel (spelling?) One good thing though is if its high enough in the atmosphere it should spread out wide enough so that no one place gets much more than natural radiation (a little radiation won't kill ya:) Now if it explodes within 5 miles from the ground, I'd say yea we'd be poisoned. I guess we could do it over sea. Slightly less damaging believe it or not.
Yes, but we still do thousands of man hours of prep work on each shuttle from landing to launch. We have no clue on how to build a reusable space ship that needs very very little mantaince like what you propose would need.
Well Valenti did serve in WWII, which strangly enough, civilians were considered appropriate targets. It wasn't untill vietnam that even the basic notion of civilians as innocents in war came to be. Do you really think the cold war would have ever existed without this concept.
Even if we have a much better Free codec, that codec is worthless if every single DVD/movie released *must* be encoded in Microsoft's codecs because the standard mandates it and the hardware for playing those discs all supports Microsoft's codecs, but only one or two support the Free codec.
Actually if you read the article, Microsoft's codecs will be standard for the players, but there will actually be several standards. The DVDs themselves can be in one of several different formats. But obviously all players must accept all formats. Obviously you could have a linux player that accepted most formats, but that really wouldn't be acceptable. Anyways, not arguing just correcting you on a small detail.
Anyways, wireless networks in which you have to sign up for such as this one will be. Generally redirect all traffic through an access port. In such you will have to login to the system in order to gain access. Your login will be tied to any activity that you engage in. Of course one can hack the system theoretically, but it would be on the level of difficulty of hacking any other wireless system in which you are not given access too. Therefor I don't see the dangers in this as opposed to any other hotspot.
Slashdot Mirror
You are, however, right that if no one received enough electoral votes to win, it does get kicked to the house of representatives. That could happen this year if all the cards fall wrong!
Thats exactly what I'm saying. I don't see it as possible for a third party canidate to win enough electoral votes.
Actually no, its physically impossible to win as a third party canidate, untill that party has a large amount of people in the House or Representatives.
Simple math, lets say a very good 3rd party candiate appears. And he wins more states than the other 2 parties, there is virtually no chance that the other 2 parties won't atleast get enough states so that noone clearly has 50% of the electrate votes.
Legally the election then goes to the House.
Guess who wins in the House, whichever party has the largest presence in the House.
Personally I think this may have been intended by our framers. A party needs to become established in the lower branches of government first.
Yes brillant idea. Lets reconstruct. The US has such a high standard of living for 2 reasons, high Gross National Product (meaning a lot of stuff is made per person, efficiency is high) and people feel secure (we don't have to worry much about invading armies and such).
Ok now lets cover the points.
- More than double the payroll tax, from 15.3% to 32% of wages.
This will cause massive inflation as people will need to be paid more to continue making the same living.
Thus money will be worth less, so the increase tax revenue won't mean as much.
- Raise income taxes by two thirds.
Diddo.
- Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 45%
Slightly agree, personally I think we could save bundles just be monitoriing where the money goes, I know my step mother gets almost a thousand dollars a month in unneeded medication just because she wants it, doctors don't say no, and medicare doesn't look into it. The same can be said with welfare and all the other descrecinary spending, it could be used wiser.
- Eliminate all "discretionary" spending (including such constitutionally mandated government functions as the military and the judiciary)
Diddo.
Note how I said our high standard of living hinges on our feeling of security. Seriously reducing the military would have 3 effects, reducing the actual and perceived security of this country. And reducing opportunities for young adults who want to go into the military. And reducing the vast amounts of research and technology that comes out of the military.
Yes I agree that the money we are spending on things such as Iraq is an economic blackhole. Though theoretically a stable middleeast could be an economic boon to the world, or not.
All previous statements are opinions, predicing economic trends is like predicting any complex system, not really possible. This is why I really shake my head when people jump up and down insisting they know that X economic policy will have Y effect, when they have absolutly no economic background, even when serious economist often get it wrong.
Well purly on its collectors value, he made a wise investment. Oh protection value, that is debatable.
but the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA
:)
Remember debate class? Name calling is not allowed in Flight Club.
Anyways, two points I felt to make that a lot of people forget is that this ban only bans large gun clips, and certain models of guns. There are many guns with exactly the same features that are legal.
Second point is that its only been illigal to make new guns, not illigal to own or even sell an existing gun. Though these gun prices have gone way up and are generally bought by collectors, and people very serious about their guns
Wow, I asked for references, I didn't ask for bashing. Anyways I'm more of a libertarian.
Btw, can you really use a document that is currently being argued to be a forgery in your fact column?
Since I'll assume your response, if any, will be "Yeah he did!" I'll go ahead and ask you for some sources for that. And cynicism is not a source.
Please provide sources for your contention that Bush lied about his record.
ReiserFS version 4 is a database at heart. Its basic structure is just a table of FileName | Binary but it also contains a modular system where it can be expanded for many uses. There is a lot of talk of including meta data in ReiserFS for such a system.
http://www.namesys.com/whitepaper.html
Actually I was seriously considering voting for the Libertarian canidate as that is my general leaning.
:)
(Even though the what quadrant are you in quiz said I'm a social totalarian, I swear the thing is screwed up)
But I figured being in Florida my vote counts a bit more than normal
Shrugs I am confused.
Hell while my idiology is so far from his I seriously considered voting for Nader, just because he atleast is honest enough to try and live up to his idiology.
Thats why I'm voting for Bush. Don't like the guy much, personally slighly more fearful of the Democrat party than I am of the Republian party. But mainly I pretty much have an idea of what Bush is going to do, good and bad. I have no idea just how bad Kerry might be, and seriously doubt his abilities to make serious decisions.
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
:)
Not nessearly, because all players (presidential canidates) understood these rules during their campaining. They campained on that idea, that total votes didn't matter. Its a contest, and the rules are set they understood this. Now arguing changing the rules in the future maybe (though peronally I like the system) but arguing that Bush win is less of a win just because he didn't win the plurality is stupid. Cause those were the rules.
Now I know you didn't argue this, but many people seemed hell bend on arguing this, and I just needed to vent ok!
He has stated several times that he doesn't care if he makes Kerry lose. He sees Kerry as equal to Bush, so it doesn't matter to him.
Wal-marts gift-cards cards work like debit cards, with magnetic strips you swipe at the credit card machine. It then subtracts the balance from the amount stored in "account", you can readd money into this card at any point and use it over and over again. Several walmarts have associated gas stations where you can use this card at the pump and get a discount also.
Sorry for that pointless responce. I guess my thought was more on the lines of is it really a good idea to teach these people how to create advanced power production needs, when they are daily just trying to feed themselves.
Give a man a fish he will feed himself for a day. Teach a man how to build a fusion reactor, and he will scratch his head.
HAHAH, HAHAHA, HAAHAHHA. On damn thats funny. HAHA.
Oh man sorry. HAHA.
Wow, that was a good one.
The original point was that WE don't need more energy. The reply states that maybe WE don't need more energy, but third world areas who do not have a reliable connection to a first world grid do.
Generally this is actually caused by the person creating static electricity by getting back into and out of their car while pumping. I'm sure if they were holding a cell phone at the time (good reason for reaching into your car) the cell phone would be burnt.
Conservatives? Hu? In the US its the liberals who are afraid of nuclear power.
True, and despite what people say, throwing it into the sun requires a little bit more the a gentle nudge. Ignoring getting out of earth gravity for the first part. We are orbiting the sun, and to get to the sun we would need to remove all of our orbital velocity (a lot sorry don't have exact numbers) read someting about it taking 6 times as much energy to get to sun as to escape solar system completly. :)
Now you can do gravity assist tricks like some of our probes, which passed by earth several times and risk collision
There really would be no cleaning up such a fallout, that would be like cleaning up chynobel (spelling?) :)
One good thing though is if its high enough in the atmosphere it should spread out wide enough so that no one place gets much more than natural radiation (a little radiation won't kill ya
Now if it explodes within 5 miles from the ground, I'd say yea we'd be poisoned. I guess we could do it over sea. Slightly less damaging believe it or not.
Yes, but we still do thousands of man hours of prep work on each shuttle from landing to launch. We have no clue on how to build a reusable space ship that needs very very little mantaince like what you propose would need.
Well Valenti did serve in WWII, which strangly enough, civilians were considered appropriate targets. It wasn't untill vietnam that even the basic notion of civilians as innocents in war came to be. Do you really think the cold war would have ever existed without this concept.
Its because you are god, those damn athiest.
Even if we have a much better Free codec, that codec is worthless if every single DVD/movie released *must* be encoded in Microsoft's codecs because the standard mandates it and the hardware for playing those discs all supports Microsoft's codecs, but only one or two support the Free codec.
Actually if you read the article, Microsoft's codecs will be standard for the players, but there will actually be several standards. The DVDs themselves can be in one of several different formats. But obviously all players must accept all formats. Obviously you could have a linux player that accepted most formats, but that really wouldn't be acceptable. Anyways, not arguing just correcting you on a small detail.
Troll? hadly.
Anyways, wireless networks in which you have to sign up for such as this one will be. Generally redirect all traffic through an access port. In such you will have to login to the system in order to gain access. Your login will be tied to any activity that you engage in. Of course one can hack the system theoretically, but it would be on the level of difficulty of hacking any other wireless system in which you are not given access too. Therefor I don't see the dangers in this as opposed to any other hotspot.