Mobile sites should be the same site just with less/no flash and tighter layout. Beyond that, the site should be identical.
What is annoying about mobile sites is that frequently they're totally different and since they're second string productions they tend to be missing stuff.
Compare keys or whatever this thing is generating and look for a pattern. if they keys are weakened there should be patterns and that will be all the proof you need.
The senators are not supposed to be that for you. Your congressman is supposed to do that.
The senate originally was there for the states themselves.
Voters didn't have any say in who the senator of a state became. It was decided by the STATES.
In this way, senators were creatures of their home state. They had to keep the government in their home state happy or the government officials in that state would replace the senator.
That is the point of the senators. They go to the government to represent the states.
The house of representatives goes to represent the people.
Sadly, senators are now elected by the people as well which means they're basically an extension of the house though not really because they don't really have much local contact with anyone.
Its a joke.
If all the senators were appointed by the states again they'd be a very different body.
that was a good long time ago. And really... with the exception of the slavery issue... so what?
What if a state does want to leave the union? If the rest of the country is treating a given part like crap then why shouldn't you be allowed to say goodbye?
If you're utterly unwilling to consider anything but a giant government public works project... then this makes more sense then the stupid high speed rail:
The point of the senate is not is not to balance large population states with small population states but rather to give states themselves representation.
Regardless... if I split the state into six pieces the people in California would have a more equal voice in national government.
I don't much care if the senators want to keep their even 100 seats. Its an utterly meaningless benchmark.
the primary slow down for the plane is in the airport.
What is easier and more cost effective... stream lining airport security and check in or building a bullet train?
Exactly. From a time stand point, building a bullet train makes no sense.
Further, the cost of the train is not cost effective. The train is more expensive on a per passenger basis then the plane.
Further there is infrastructure. The rail has to be maintained.
Further there are limited destinations. Planes can go anywhere there is an airport. Trains only go where the track connects.
Further, the environmental and nimby issues in california are such that the track will not get built in an efficient route. This means it will not take a straight line approach. This means it will be both slower and more expensive then you realize.
Further, the train will not go at the speeds you've suggested for various reasons. It will go slower in populated areas mostly for nimby reasons. Also, the quality of the track doesn't appear to be high enough to support bullet train speeds so a speed of 80 mph looks like it will be more common.
Over all... its a very stupid project. Its wasted huge sums of money on something we didn't need and done it in a way that will yield nothing of value to voters.
We will not have a japanese style bullet train going from Los Angeles to San Francisco. We will have a monument to government waste. Read into the issue yourself and you'll be forced to agree.
The point of the senate is not to give less populous states an equal footing in congress. The point is rather to give the states themselves an equal footing with the voters.
This is a concept lost on most people today.
The senate is to the states what the house of representatives are to the voters.
That was until the direct election of senators was allowed... then the senate lost most of its purpose and has increasingly become a circus act.
The senate represents states and the house represents the people. Further, if we go by initial intentions, there should be no direct election of senators. Senators are supposed to be elected by the states themselves. That is, the political authority of the state is supposed to elect the senators not the voters. That is how the Senate was structured initially and it was seen as a way to keep the federal government subordinate to state governments by making the federal government a creature of the state governments. By allowing direct election of senators you've removed the ability of the states to exert control over the federal government and have shifted the balance of power towards the federal. Note... the people didn't get more powerful when that happened. The states merely got weaker.
I do know my civics, thank you.
It doesn't matter though.
Lets take an extreme example... lets say 100 people individually are classified as states and each of them has a vote in the senate. And then one additional person is a senator for state for 100 million people .
With the result that the hundred people that represent no more then 100 people have 100 times the power of the 100 million.
Its not reasonable for there to be such vast disparities in population between the states.
And its easily fixed. Split the big states up. Obviously let it be voluntary. Let their residents vote on if they want to split and if they do how.
The link between population and state size doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to not be painful.
Note, this will break up the California congressional voting block in the house. In the house of representatives, California has a lot of votes. Split the state up and you'll have more distinct voting blocks that won't move as monolithicly.
Its in the interests of the people of California and the nation at large that this happen. It only serves the interest of those that pervert the system to keep it the way it is now.
They're not the governor and more importantly, just because you have a collection of representatives doesn't mean your locality gets a responsive or effective government. A giant one size fits all approach tends to serve NO ONE well.
No, I want the state split into smaller states which would maintain their existing limited independence from the federal government.
The feds really have the same problem. They didn't used to have this much power over people or states. It was a much more limited government. And as a result, the territory was manageable because the government was focused on a short list of core responsibilities. Today, its too complicated and the federal government frequently interferes with local government matters.
This leads to the federal government making policies that make sense in one place but don't make sense somewhere else. This is not because they couldn't make different policies for each place but because they have neither the time nor inclination to care to do it. This introduces inefficiencies, unhappiness, and unfairness as some areas get what they want while others do not... for no apparent reason besides that's what the law or some faceless bureaucrat says.
Look. We need state governments and we need a federal government. But for our democracy to survive the government must be responsive to the people and accountable for their actions.
As the government gets larger it accomplishes neither.
By taking on too much territory, the government can't focus on particulars and instead has to make one size fits all rules. These serve no one well.
And by taking on so much territory they acquire a large number of diverse voters with contradictory wishes. And that means that the government can effectively give no one what they want simply by vacillation between one faction and the next. Which often means they don't even try. They just do what the politicians want to do and then dither when that makes people unhappy.
Ultimately, if you value democracy, you are against mass centralization. It renders your vote meaningless.
The only reason it is this big is because it was established at a time when the population was MUCH lower. Were you to do the same thing in the east coast but in reverse, you might get all of new england as ONE state.
Now do you understand? California is much too big.
The government is almost indifferent to voter opinion because they can always play one part of the state off the other part. Which means they never have to do anything anyone wants. They just mommy/daddy the whole thing and then lie when that doesn't work.
Look. It needs to split because its unweldy, inherently corrupt, and incapable of serving the local needs of its residents.
Everything revolves around Sacramento which is the least consequential portion of the state BESIDES for the politics. Its our version of Washington DC. What does DC do? Tell people what to do. Does it produce anything? Nope. Does it create anything? Nope. It just collects the taxes and decides what to do with it all.
Genius ideas like our "bullet" train which as everyone knows is a giant fiasco... which we knew it would be from the start... because a bullet train in California makes about as much sense as a beach resort on the moon.
But it sounds good to the twits in Sacramento so whatever.
Look, you don't like his plan to split the state... Fine. It doesn't really matter what the plan is so long as its reasonable. We just need a more local government in california. A government that actually lives where we live and cares about us because they're ACTUALLY our neighbors. Sacramento doesn't care about San Diego. It doesn't care about the Imperial Valley. It only cares about Los Angeles because that is where most of the votes come from. But it only cares about it in so far as those votes are concerned. Etc.
Too big. Split it. Even in half isn't enough. It needs to be broken into something like three to six pieces.
In most cases I would agree. However there are some large tables of data that are at least that old that are referred to currently. And they have not been replicated since.
Further, the tables are themselves not raw data but modified data with the raw data and methodology no longer available.
Many things are based on this data... and when the data is gone it cannot be audited which makes it impossible to verify the finding of the data which is later simply referenced... but the data upon which it is based... *poof*
This practice also gives a free reign to fraudsters because if you don't catch them quickly they can claim the data was just in their other pair of trousers.
And if you think Amazon isn't going to automate... well, too late... they already are...
You can see their robots running their warehouses. And of course their website is itself a giant automated point of sale system. Ever seen an amazon salesman? Exactly. They don't exist. Automated.
Europe neither can nor will avoid the automation.
Presist with these silly outmoded labor disputes like its two generations ago... and you'll be replaced.
One way or another.
The only way to keep your job is to ACTUALLY be useful to the company. If you're not ACTUALLY useful... as in useful in "reality" then cya.
One of the most striking examples of this was the animators for the Walt Disney company.
They hired a teamster negotiator one year. Big scary goon of a guy. Sent him into negotiate with the Disney lawyer. Guy was intentionally intimidating, rude, and implied violence. He also asked for things that were not reasonable. It was something like a 50 percent increase in labor costs for the disney company.
Disney agreed to all his demands.
Win for the animators right?
Wrong. Disney immediately started working on moving their operations to South Korea. They contacted animation houses, bought companies that had the resources they needed, send managers over there to see there was a smooth transition. It took about two years for Disney to finish making plans for the move.
That's when the US animators contract ended. They sent the same teamster negotiator in to bargain again. He did the same thing all over again. He wanted another 50 percent on top of the last 50 percent.
Disney terminated their contract.
Contrary to what the animators think... it wasn't the second time they sent the guy in... it was the first.
The instant they did that... they were fired. It just took Disney 2 years to be able to replace them.
So... you strike at Amazon during Christmas?
Really? That's just a massive f' you to the company and its a big enough deal that the CEO is going to hear about it. Which means you just told the CEO to go f' himself.
If you know anything about Bezos... he doesn't take well to that sort of statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Mobile sites should be the same site just with less/no flash and tighter layout. Beyond that, the site should be identical.
What is annoying about mobile sites is that frequently they're totally different and since they're second string productions they tend to be missing stuff.
They do realize they won't get away with it right?
Best case everyone upgrades their security until they're pretty sure the NSA is not able to read it.
Worst case... big backlashes against the US and NSA...
Compare keys or whatever this thing is generating and look for a pattern. if they keys are weakened there should be patterns and that will be all the proof you need.
Short of that... no one trusts anyone anymore.
It was absolutely over slavery. The issue was that slaves counted as 3/5ths of a regular voter and the owner could vote for those slaves.
That created a political imbalance that ultimately lead to the conflict.
Had slavery not existed there would have been dispute.
No, you're not getting the point.
The senators are not supposed to be that for you. Your congressman is supposed to do that.
The senate originally was there for the states themselves.
Voters didn't have any say in who the senator of a state became. It was decided by the STATES.
In this way, senators were creatures of their home state. They had to keep the government in their home state happy or the government officials in that state would replace the senator.
That is the point of the senators. They go to the government to represent the states.
The house of representatives goes to represent the people.
Sadly, senators are now elected by the people as well which means they're basically an extension of the house though not really because they don't really have much local contact with anyone.
Its a joke.
If all the senators were appointed by the states again they'd be a very different body.
that was a good long time ago. And really... with the exception of the slavery issue... so what?
What if a state does want to leave the union? If the rest of the country is treating a given part like crap then why shouldn't you be allowed to say goodbye?
The US was stable prior to the massive expansion of the federal government.
If you're utterly unwilling to consider anything but a giant government public works project... then this makes more sense then the stupid high speed rail:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/08/12/hyperloop-the-high-cost-and-long-journey-of-californias-rail-project/
Cheaper, faster, innovative, and worthy of california's ambitions and self image.
The high speed rail crap is last century garbage to distract twits that think THAT is how you get out recessions.
Doesn't work. Never did.
But if you are going to build something... please try to make it less useless and pathetic.
The point of the senate is not is not to balance large population states with small population states but rather to give states themselves representation.
Regardless... if I split the state into six pieces the people in California would have a more equal voice in national government.
I don't much care if the senators want to keep their even 100 seats. Its an utterly meaningless benchmark.
The water rights are granted on a city by city basis so they shouldn't be disrupted.
The LA DWP for example funded much o the Hoover dam project and as a result the city has claims on the water from the dam.
Splitting the state won't disrupt the flow of water. It will disrupt the flow of tax money though.
the primary slow down for the plane is in the airport.
What is easier and more cost effective... stream lining airport security and check in or building a bullet train?
Exactly. From a time stand point, building a bullet train makes no sense.
Further, the cost of the train is not cost effective. The train is more expensive on a per passenger basis then the plane.
Further there is infrastructure. The rail has to be maintained.
Further there are limited destinations. Planes can go anywhere there is an airport. Trains only go where the track connects.
Further, the environmental and nimby issues in california are such that the track will not get built in an efficient route. This means it will not take a straight line approach. This means it will be both slower and more expensive then you realize.
Further, the train will not go at the speeds you've suggested for various reasons. It will go slower in populated areas mostly for nimby reasons. Also, the quality of the track doesn't appear to be high enough to support bullet train speeds so a speed of 80 mph looks like it will be more common.
Over all... its a very stupid project. Its wasted huge sums of money on something we didn't need and done it in a way that will yield nothing of value to voters.
We will not have a japanese style bullet train going from Los Angeles to San Francisco. We will have a monument to government waste. Read into the issue yourself and you'll be forced to agree.
The point of the senate is not to give less populous states an equal footing in congress. The point is rather to give the states themselves an equal footing with the voters.
This is a concept lost on most people today.
The senate is to the states what the house of representatives are to the voters.
That was until the direct election of senators was allowed... then the senate lost most of its purpose and has increasingly become a circus act.
I do understand.
The senate represents states and the house represents the people. Further, if we go by initial intentions, there should be no direct election of senators. Senators are supposed to be elected by the states themselves. That is, the political authority of the state is supposed to elect the senators not the voters. That is how the Senate was structured initially and it was seen as a way to keep the federal government subordinate to state governments by making the federal government a creature of the state governments. By allowing direct election of senators you've removed the ability of the states to exert control over the federal government and have shifted the balance of power towards the federal. Note... the people didn't get more powerful when that happened. The states merely got weaker.
I do know my civics, thank you.
It doesn't matter though.
Lets take an extreme example... lets say 100 people individually are classified as states and each of them has a vote in the senate. And then one additional person is a senator for state for 100 million people .
With the result that the hundred people that represent no more then 100 people have 100 times the power of the 100 million.
Its not reasonable for there to be such vast disparities in population between the states.
And its easily fixed. Split the big states up. Obviously let it be voluntary. Let their residents vote on if they want to split and if they do how.
The link between population and state size doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to not be painful.
Note, this will break up the California congressional voting block in the house. In the house of representatives, California has a lot of votes. Split the state up and you'll have more distinct voting blocks that won't move as monolithicly.
Its in the interests of the people of California and the nation at large that this happen. It only serves the interest of those that pervert the system to keep it the way it is now.
Because the imperial city is hungry for more.
The only problem with the federal government is that the senators don't want to increase their number. Well too f'ing bad.
Rhode Island gets two senators and california gets 2? Dumb.
Split the state into a reasonable pieces and stop torturing us with this bloated state.
They're not the governor and more importantly, just because you have a collection of representatives doesn't mean your locality gets a responsive or effective government. A giant one size fits all approach tends to serve NO ONE well.
No, I want the state split into smaller states which would maintain their existing limited independence from the federal government.
The feds really have the same problem. They didn't used to have this much power over people or states. It was a much more limited government. And as a result, the territory was manageable because the government was focused on a short list of core responsibilities. Today, its too complicated and the federal government frequently interferes with local government matters.
This leads to the federal government making policies that make sense in one place but don't make sense somewhere else. This is not because they couldn't make different policies for each place but because they have neither the time nor inclination to care to do it. This introduces inefficiencies, unhappiness, and unfairness as some areas get what they want while others do not... for no apparent reason besides that's what the law or some faceless bureaucrat says.
Look. We need state governments and we need a federal government. But for our democracy to survive the government must be responsive to the people and accountable for their actions.
As the government gets larger it accomplishes neither.
By taking on too much territory, the government can't focus on particulars and instead has to make one size fits all rules. These serve no one well.
And by taking on so much territory they acquire a large number of diverse voters with contradictory wishes. And that means that the government can effectively give no one what they want simply by vacillation between one faction and the next. Which often means they don't even try. They just do what the politicians want to do and then dither when that makes people unhappy.
Ultimately, if you value democracy, you are against mass centralization. It renders your vote meaningless.
The only reason it is this big is because it was established at a time when the population was MUCH lower. Were you to do the same thing in the east coast but in reverse, you might get all of new england as ONE state.
Now do you understand? California is much too big.
The government is almost indifferent to voter opinion because they can always play one part of the state off the other part. Which means they never have to do anything anyone wants. They just mommy/daddy the whole thing and then lie when that doesn't work.
Look. It needs to split because its unweldy, inherently corrupt, and incapable of serving the local needs of its residents.
Everything revolves around Sacramento which is the least consequential portion of the state BESIDES for the politics. Its our version of Washington DC. What does DC do? Tell people what to do. Does it produce anything? Nope. Does it create anything? Nope. It just collects the taxes and decides what to do with it all.
Genius ideas like our "bullet" train which as everyone knows is a giant fiasco... which we knew it would be from the start... because a bullet train in California makes about as much sense as a beach resort on the moon.
But it sounds good to the twits in Sacramento so whatever.
Look, you don't like his plan to split the state... Fine. It doesn't really matter what the plan is so long as its reasonable. We just need a more local government in california. A government that actually lives where we live and cares about us because they're ACTUALLY our neighbors. Sacramento doesn't care about San Diego. It doesn't care about the Imperial Valley. It only cares about Los Angeles because that is where most of the votes come from. But it only cares about it in so far as those votes are concerned. Etc.
Too big. Split it. Even in half isn't enough. It needs to be broken into something like three to six pieces.
In most cases I would agree. However there are some large tables of data that are at least that old that are referred to currently. And they have not been replicated since.
Further, the tables are themselves not raw data but modified data with the raw data and methodology no longer available.
Many things are based on this data... and when the data is gone it cannot be audited which makes it impossible to verify the finding of the data which is later simply referenced... but the data upon which it is based... *poof*
This practice also gives a free reign to fraudsters because if you don't catch them quickly they can claim the data was just in their other pair of trousers.
It supposed to be a free currency.
Some people have a terror of freedom. Stross is apparently amongst them.
Which is why they don't use automation in Germany... Oh wait... they use lots.
Its part of the modern economy. If you think you can avoid, join an Amish farm and spend the rest of your days milking cows by hand or whatever.
The information revolution will do to the industrial revolution what the industrial revolution did to the agricultural revolution.
Do you know that at one point over 70 percent of the labor force was involved in the production of food?
What happened to all those farm jobs and why didn't we all starve when they went away?
Did people stop eating?
No. The industrial revolution made farming radically more efficient requiring a much smaller labor force to produce a much larger amount of food.
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoLfKSKX244
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zfbdq5_MXE
And if you think Amazon isn't going to automate... well, too late... they already are...
You can see their robots running their warehouses. And of course their website is itself a giant automated point of sale system. Ever seen an amazon salesman? Exactly. They don't exist. Automated.
Europe neither can nor will avoid the automation.
Presist with these silly outmoded labor disputes like its two generations ago... and you'll be replaced.
One way or another.
The only way to keep your job is to ACTUALLY be useful to the company. If you're not ACTUALLY useful... as in useful in "reality" then cya.
The days when companies relied on their employees as a significant portion of their customer base are long gone.
Such people make up less then 1 percent of their customer base if not less then 1 percent OF 1 percent.
In other words... irrelevant.
worker strikes encourage that sort of behavior.
One of the most striking examples of this was the animators for the Walt Disney company.
They hired a teamster negotiator one year. Big scary goon of a guy. Sent him into negotiate with the Disney lawyer. Guy was intentionally intimidating, rude, and implied violence. He also asked for things that were not reasonable. It was something like a 50 percent increase in labor costs for the disney company.
Disney agreed to all his demands.
Win for the animators right?
Wrong. Disney immediately started working on moving their operations to South Korea. They contacted animation houses, bought companies that had the resources they needed, send managers over there to see there was a smooth transition. It took about two years for Disney to finish making plans for the move.
That's when the US animators contract ended. They sent the same teamster negotiator in to bargain again. He did the same thing all over again. He wanted another 50 percent on top of the last 50 percent.
Disney terminated their contract.
Contrary to what the animators think... it wasn't the second time they sent the guy in... it was the first.
The instant they did that... they were fired. It just took Disney 2 years to be able to replace them.
So... you strike at Amazon during Christmas?
Really? That's just a massive f' you to the company and its a big enough deal that the CEO is going to hear about it. Which means you just told the CEO to go f' himself.
If you know anything about Bezos... he doesn't take well to that sort of statement.
There will be consequences.
they're already doing it pretty heavily... this sort of thing... striking in the middle of a christmas season... it inspires drastic steps.