eVoting CAN and WILL happen. Massively. We just have to work out the details.
Simple. Remove secret voting. Then you can vote from anywhere, anytime. Vote from your cellphone on the way to work. Offer Starbucks your vote for a free coffee, vote in front of them, and take your coffee. Simple, actual, democracy is being held up by a stupid pre-occupation with secret voting. Because once it becomes so easy to vote, we will need representatives less and less.
Enough to sway the outcome? I find that very hard to believe.
We just had a Senator seat decided by 225 votes. Could 20 poll counters have swayed the outcome? Yes. Could 255 people of the 5 million in Minnesota have decided to double-vote? Yes.
Simply deciding that votes can't be cheated by small numbers of people is asinine.
Fortunately, people with better business sense than you passed laws to prevent this
No, it's people with bad businesses sense and an overriding desire to stick their noses in. People with good business sense would have left this crap alone, and watched as businesses that engaged in such activities failed - precisely because it's bad business. Then moved into the new vacuum of the market.
The laws ARE deficient. Nobody should have to endure racist and sexist jokes and commentary at work.
No, they shouldn't. And in this specific case, because their employer is the gov't itself, they should have an internal complaint procedure. It should not involve the courts, and for example if they were working at a grocery store instead of a police department then their only guaranteed resolution would be to quit. At will employment. All these laws to "protect" employees taint the marketplace. If I want to hire somebody to haul live electrical cable around while I smoke cigarettes and blow smoke in their face and an albino midget yells racially crass jokes at them, then that's the job and if they want it we can come to an agreement on pay rates.
I'm assuming you're implying that the populace at large in Detriot would engage in violence and other crimes because of my speech. Granted, some would.
This does not hamper freedom of speech one single iota. It just shows that some reprobates engage in violence against others.
You list a number of things that some municipalities disallow. In the US, most municipalities do not disallow what you list. None of those things are controlled by the federal gov't, or generally even the state level.
I can just see you in central square standing on a soapbox shouting out threats to the president, describing sex acts with children, and screaming racial insults at passers-by, then foaming at the mouth with outrage as the police lead you away. "Get your hands off me! I'm an American! I have freedom of speech!"
Eliminate the threats, and the police would do nothing, and if they did the speaker would win the civil case against them becoming the most recent of the idle rich. The non-gov't might react, but if they exceeded speech themselves then that would be a crime.
Citing consequences for lying, lack of civility or endangering others has no impact on freedom of speech. Claiming that others, non gov't, will penalize you for speech - as others in this topic have done - has no impact on freedom of speech.
These men are being incarcerated by their gov't for their speech. Speech engaged in on their (web)property. Without even the thin veneer we give to "Hate speech" laws in the US whereby the speech must be engaged in during another crime to be prosecutable.
These men, and all other citizenry of the same gov't, have no freedom of speech.
Oh please, you don't think some percentage of the easily available abortions in this country are not at their basis, sex selection? Soon enough it will be to get rid of the fag baby, the brown haired baby and the girl with small tits. This stuff doesn't need a fertility clinic.
Once society determined that aborting fetuses was a choice, all the arguments about "designer babies" were -over-. Done. Complete.
Why, pray tell, would I want to expend my resources raising children not genetically related to me? I have selfish genes, and if they're not going to spread, then I'm gonna party all night long with my resources and give-a-fuck what happens to others genes.
* How do you get them to always wear the GPS shoes when leaving?
It depends on how far they regress, but many alzheimer's patients will dress themselves when having an "episode". Perhaps believing they are going to work, school, or shopping, etc. Each patient is different though, and some might just wander off in their house slippers that they're wearing at the home. Obviously, this solution won't work for them. It will for some.
Read the article you quote. Which says that Apple will require people to rebuy in order to REDOWNLOAD, and only if you're downloading from a phone. It does not require a re-purchase just for the new phone.
This requirement, btw, is because otherwise people will be able to purchase on one account, pass that account around and every person would be able to download to their phone.
I know this is going to sound like a self-serving political statement from a hardcore Democrat -- but well done, President Obama. You picked a scientist to run an agency.
Oh please. The EPA has been suggesting white roofs, etc, since at least 2007. Possibly earlier.
False. AP generates its own content, primarily through contracted-by-story reporters and photographers. Perhaps at one time they relied on local papers to send up content, but now those papers are not generating any such content to send.
The "traditional newspaper" is printout of an AP wire feed, with a "Local" section that is written by four year olds trying to be a part of the politics, not report on them.
I know that the path to a "somewhat more balanced media" rides right though my local newspaper collapsing and falling into oblivion. Of course, I'm speaking of the San Francisco Chronicle, and they are collapsing.
Slashdot Mirror
Dalek's are -not- robots, they're containers/shells over the organic components of a non human race.
the problem arises with different US states having differing tax benefits that vary depending on the whims of state government
Federalism. Not just a good idea, but constitutional law!
eVoting CAN and WILL happen. Massively. We just have to work out the details.
Simple. Remove secret voting. Then you can vote from anywhere, anytime. Vote from your cellphone on the way to work. Offer Starbucks your vote for a free coffee, vote in front of them, and take your coffee. Simple, actual, democracy is being held up by a stupid pre-occupation with secret voting. Because once it becomes so easy to vote, we will need representatives less and less.
Enough to sway the outcome? I find that very hard to believe.
We just had a Senator seat decided by 225 votes. Could 20 poll counters have swayed the outcome? Yes. Could 255 people of the 5 million in Minnesota have decided to double-vote? Yes.
Simply deciding that votes can't be cheated by small numbers of people is asinine.
Fortunately, people with better business sense than you passed laws to prevent this
No, it's people with bad businesses sense and an overriding desire to stick their noses in. People with good business sense would have left this crap alone, and watched as businesses that engaged in such activities failed - precisely because it's bad business. Then moved into the new vacuum of the market.
The issue is that some people are failing to keep things professional
Some jobs simply arn't professional.
The laws ARE deficient. Nobody should have to endure racist and sexist jokes and commentary at work.
No, they shouldn't. And in this specific case, because their employer is the gov't itself, they should have an internal complaint procedure. It should not involve the courts, and for example if they were working at a grocery store instead of a police department then their only guaranteed resolution would be to quit. At will employment. All these laws to "protect" employees taint the marketplace. If I want to hire somebody to haul live electrical cable around while I smoke cigarettes and blow smoke in their face and an albino midget yells racially crass jokes at them, then that's the job and if they want it we can come to an agreement on pay rates.
I'm assuming you're implying that the populace at large in Detriot would engage in violence and other crimes because of my speech. Granted, some would.
This does not hamper freedom of speech one single iota. It just shows that some reprobates engage in violence against others.
You list a number of things that some municipalities disallow. In the US, most municipalities do not disallow what you list. None of those things are controlled by the federal gov't, or generally even the state level.
Federalism, not just a good idea, but the law.
I can just see you in central square standing on a soapbox shouting out threats to the president, describing sex acts with children, and screaming racial insults at passers-by, then foaming at the mouth with outrage as the police lead you away. "Get your hands off me! I'm an American! I have freedom of speech!"
Eliminate the threats, and the police would do nothing, and if they did the speaker would win the civil case against them becoming the most recent of the idle rich. The non-gov't might react, but if they exceeded speech themselves then that would be a crime.
These things have actually happened.
Citing consequences for lying, lack of civility or endangering others has no impact on freedom of speech. Claiming that others, non gov't, will penalize you for speech - as others in this topic have done - has no impact on freedom of speech.
These men are being incarcerated by their gov't for their speech. Speech engaged in on their (web)property. Without even the thin veneer we give to "Hate speech" laws in the US whereby the speech must be engaged in during another crime to be prosecutable.
These men, and all other citizenry of the same gov't, have no freedom of speech.
If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.
It's like the admittedly limited example of how people with sickle-cell anemia are immune to malaria
Sickle-cell is -still- a bad thing that should be eliminated. We're not dumb animals. We can eliminate malaria without disadvantaging our population.
And how is that any different from brood parasitism?
Oh please, you don't think some percentage of the easily available abortions in this country are not at their basis, sex selection? Soon enough it will be to get rid of the fag baby, the brown haired baby and the girl with small tits. This stuff doesn't need a fertility clinic.
Once society determined that aborting fetuses was a choice, all the arguments about "designer babies" were -over-. Done. Complete.
Why, pray tell, would I want to expend my resources raising children not genetically related to me? I have selfish genes, and if they're not going to spread, then I'm gonna party all night long with my resources and give-a-fuck what happens to others genes.
* How do you get them to always wear the GPS shoes when leaving?
It depends on how far they regress, but many alzheimer's patients will dress themselves when having an "episode". Perhaps believing they are going to work, school, or shopping, etc. Each patient is different though, and some might just wander off in their house slippers that they're wearing at the home. Obviously, this solution won't work for them. It will for some.
Read the article you quote. Which says that Apple will require people to rebuy in order to REDOWNLOAD, and only if you're downloading from a phone. It does not require a re-purchase just for the new phone.
This requirement, btw, is because otherwise people will be able to purchase on one account, pass that account around and every person would be able to download to their phone.
I know this is going to sound like a self-serving political statement from a hardcore Democrat -- but well done, President Obama. You picked a scientist to run an agency.
Oh please. The EPA has been suggesting white roofs, etc, since at least 2007. Possibly earlier.
Also look at California Title 24, Part 6 which have been in place since 2005. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/2006-09-11_ADOPTED_AMENDMENTS.PDF
Chu is repeating well known information.
It doesn't give religion any more rights than it already has, it just stops hate speech, which is illegal in most countries already.
If you're not able to engage in speech that the majority of other people do not like, then you do not have free speech.
They still taste good, and that's far more relevant than if they feel pain.
False. AP generates its own content, primarily through contracted-by-story reporters and photographers. Perhaps at one time they relied on local papers to send up content, but now those papers are not generating any such content to send.
The "traditional newspaper" is printout of an AP wire feed, with a "Local" section that is written by four year olds trying to be a part of the politics, not report on them.
Good riddance.
I know that the path to a "somewhat more balanced media" rides right though my local newspaper collapsing and falling into oblivion. Of course, I'm speaking of the San Francisco Chronicle, and they are collapsing.
Nobody here is unbiased. Get a lawyer.
However, note that posting over 10% of the content will rarely fall under Fair Use.