Slot machines in Nevada are regulated and required to pay out a certain percentage over time. This means that the longer one type of slot at a casino doesn't pay out, the higher the odds are that they will soon. Once a casino got to the point where a payoff was probable, a bus would pull up full of compulsive gamblers, all wearing the same windbreakers.
Ah yes, the old story that efficient profit motivated businesses can't out compete the slow bloated, wasteful, government.
Seriously, who gives a shit about one guy's profit, when the entire economy gets a net gain when a service is provided at lower total cost for everyone?
The sad fact tis, that what is laughably called "broadband" in the United States is simply following the same pattern that electrification, and telephone service did. Wire up the cities, and ignore the rural area. It's not that it wasn't or isn't profitable to operate in the rural area, they simply didn't want to bother because of perceived, rather than actual cost and demand. History has repeatedly shown that the market does not in fact work in these cases.
As the saying goes, your failed business model, is not my problem.
Ha! The potholes, the bridge collapses, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Economist, and pretty much anyone that has ever seen a road in the United States, knows that that America's transit infrastructure, it's roads, it's mass transit, everything is shit. Yes, it was once the envy of the world, but that sixty years ago.
While it is true that roads are paid for with gas an vehicle taxes and fees, the amount of revenue being generated under the current regime is demonstrably insufficient, and has been for decades. After 30 years of repeated tax cuts, with increased demand for basic services, we do have a self-imposed revenue problem.
Come on now. Someone has to know. Unfortunately all the talk about super injunctions I find is from UK sites that are subject to it. Let's have it now.
What nutty group on the left is controlling the conversation? Seriously. Who?
Have not noticed how far to the kooky right the "center" of contemporary political discourse has come? Even a recent Pew Research poll (click: "politics and elections," then "support for compromise") showed that 70% of "solid liberals" (supposedly the leftmost group) wanted to compromise with those they disagreed with, while 79% of "staunch conservatives" (the rightmost group) wanted to "stick to their positions." You can see the political ratchet right there.
Isn't that a constant just about everywhere? Don't think I have ever heard of someone ordering a 1/2 liter of beer...
You've never been to continental Europe then. Beer comes in two sizes: 0.3 L and 0.5 L. Interestingly enough, in Germany the default size is 0.5 L and in The Netherlands it's 0.3.
True. but higher education attainment does predict success, again and again.
Making everyone take it is going to have about as much success as cargo cults did.
I believe this same statement has been given every time educational standards have increased, and yet economic history tells a completely different story.
Your Texan education has left you, and the definitions of a "direct democracy" and "representative democracy" behind yet again.
Heh...as a hint...don't be so bold as to tell people that they don't know how governments work or accuse them of failing fourth grade civics unless you're going to be correct there.
The company called "AT&T" is not, was not, and has only a tenuous relationship with the entity "Ma Bell
Well given that Southwestern Bell systematically bought up literally bought up half of the RBOCs and then the long distance provider that the RBOCs spit off from, you have a very novel definition for "tenuous."
Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them.
I hope that schools would teach an apple is, and what a fruit is and the important differences between them.
For talking big about the us constitution you certainly don't seem to have passed elementary social studies,
So if you want change... Real change with 3rd parties, you need to change the constitution
No you don't. The constitution makes no reference to how elections are to be carried out. Nor does it dictate how members of congress should be assigned within a state. If Texas wants to have its congressional delegation by proportional representation and party lists, it can. Nothing stops them beyond their own election laws.
It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.
It's a real shame that the Founders(tm) violated the constitution in 1790 when they asked what the ages and gender of what members of the household were. You don't need this for representation. It's based on population, not voters. Clearly, George Washington was a traitor to the constitution.
It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.
It's a real shame all the Founder(tm) were dead when the 4th census asked occupation. Oh wait, they weren't. Since when are anonymous metrics needed to determine the most effective allocation of resources "abusive"?
I bet you also didn't know that the Founders(tm) were a completely happy with compulsory purchase programs. George Washington himself, signed the Militia Act of 1792, which required "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" had to purchase gun (which was tax deductible).
It seems that most adult people, at least all but the most naive, understand that corporations' main motivating factor is to increase profits; many of those same people haven't put the government in the same realistic perspective.
I've heard your argument from many smart people. Oh if only the sheeple knew how they were being used by the big bad government! If only the sheeple could have the blinds ripped from their eyes to see the glory of my particular political beliefs!
Here's a shocking prospect for you: Your ideas aren't implemented, because people are ignorant of them. Your ideas aren't implemented, because the people have rejected them.
Well in a democracy, the government is the people. It's not some bogeyman. It's us. If you don't like what your representative does, then vote him out. That's how representative democracies work. In several states, direct democracy through an initiative process exists. Want to change a law? Get a few thousand signatures, and put it on the ballot, and then convince a majority of your fellow state residents, and it's the law. It happens all the time, especially in California.
You claim that the progressive income tax persists because of some sort of illuminatiesque power grab. Well, quite frankly the most common suggested alternatives: the "flat" tax, the VAT, and a national sales tax, all suffer from the same problem. They shift the tax burden even further towards the low end of the economic scale, where -- let's be honest here -- the vast majority of the people are. The simple reason that these alternatives aren't implemented is because they're unpopular because they effectively decrease the take home pay of the majority of voters, while decreasing it substantially for the hyper wealthy supporters of these alternate tax schemes.
You suggest that the only reason why marijuana is illegal is because the bogeyman likes to put people in jail. Well, how do explain that when put to a vote of the people, Californians voted to keep it illegal? The United States is a country with puritanical roots. Pleasure is bad. Work and suffering is good. Many people don't want marijuana legalized because they believe the legalization supporters "just want to get high."
You spout that tax cuts always stimulate the economy while government spending doesn't, and go so far to say, "it's pretty clear that lower taxes stimulate an economy." Actually, that's not clear at all. While cutting taxes can have stimulative effect when tax rates are high, the effect quickly diminishes. Think about it. If taxes were at 90% and they get cut to 50%, for every $100 you had, your after tax earnings increased 5 times. While a tax cut from 10% to 5% only increases your after tax earnings by 1.05 times. The stimulative effect of that extra $5 is negligible. It's called "decreasing returns" and it's a basic economic concept. So how is this applicable to today's economic situation? First, taxes are already low, so as we've seen seen any stimulative effect has long already occurred. Second, the economic consensus is that the economy is stagnant, not from a lack of money, but rather a lack of demand. This is obvious when you examine the SEC filings of publicly traded companies. They have cash, in many instances rather large cash reserves on hand. They could buy anything they want, but they're not. Why? They have excess capacity. The stimulus was to make the government the buyer of last resort, which again the consensus among economists is that the stimulus indeed worked to prevent a depression. Furthermore it's stimulative effects were weakened due to it being not only too small, but also undermined by states' "austerity" measures. (Disclaimer: I'm friends with one of the authors.)
You assert that somehow majority vote election systems are imposed on the
That "turn off your wireless network when you know you won't use it" comment sent me clear over to Google's side. The last thing I want is someone who believes that's the appropriate response to be poking through people's personals.
What makes you think that's not a Google recommendation? This is the same company who's CEO said that if you don't like what Google is doing, just change your name.
This is absurd. Google is unaccountable. The state of Connecticut is, and deals with private information all the time with no problems whatsoever. Google didn't turn it over because it was embarrassing to them and their increasingly trite "Don't Be Evil" slogan.
This is your logic: Police: "We're here to investigate the allegation that you stole stuff." Google: "Well, we might have, but probably not." Police: "Well what do you have?" Google: "We can't tell you. It's a secret." Police: "Um... well... We're just the government, and you're a big corporation, so I guess you win. Can you give it to the people you stole it from?" Google: "Oh no way! We stole too much stuff! While it is true, we could figure out where it all came from, because we have exact addresses in our databases. We just don't want to do it." Police: "Oh well, carry on."
Slashdot Mirror
Slot machines in Nevada are regulated and required to pay out a certain percentage over time. This means that the longer one type of slot at a casino doesn't pay out, the higher the odds are that they will soon. Once a casino got to the point where a payoff was probable, a bus would pull up full of compulsive gamblers, all wearing the same windbreakers.
I call bullshit. Why? Because that's not the way the universe works. The spins of a fair slot machine (and they are fair, are independent, identically distributed.
Ah yes, the old story that efficient profit motivated businesses can't out compete the slow bloated, wasteful, government.
Seriously, who gives a shit about one guy's profit, when the entire economy gets a net gain when a service is provided at lower total cost for everyone?
The sad fact tis, that what is laughably called "broadband" in the United States is simply following the same pattern that electrification, and telephone service did. Wire up the cities, and ignore the rural area. It's not that it wasn't or isn't profitable to operate in the rural area, they simply didn't want to bother because of perceived, rather than actual cost and demand. History has repeatedly shown that the market does not in fact work in these cases.
As the saying goes, your failed business model, is not my problem.
Ha! The potholes, the bridge collapses, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Economist, and pretty much anyone that has ever seen a road in the United States, knows that that America's transit infrastructure, it's roads, it's mass transit, everything is shit. Yes, it was once the envy of the world, but that sixty years ago.
While it is true that roads are paid for with gas an vehicle taxes and fees, the amount of revenue being generated under the current regime is demonstrably insufficient, and has been for decades. After 30 years of repeated tax cuts, with increased demand for basic services, we do have a self-imposed revenue problem.
Come on now. Someone has to know. Unfortunately all the talk about super injunctions I find is from UK sites that are subject to it. Let's have it now.
What nutty group on the left is controlling the conversation? Seriously. Who?
Have not noticed how far to the kooky right the "center" of contemporary political discourse has come? Even a recent Pew Research poll (click: "politics and elections," then "support for compromise") showed that 70% of "solid liberals" (supposedly the leftmost group) wanted to compromise with those they disagreed with, while 79% of "staunch conservatives" (the rightmost group) wanted to "stick to their positions." You can see the political ratchet right there.
It kinda pisses me off that every time I read or see something about SETI it's about looking for patterns. They should be looking for randomness.
You're not going to get very far by including every system that fails to reject the null hypothesis.
Isn't that a constant just about everywhere? Don't think I have ever heard of someone ordering a 1/2 liter of beer...
You've never been to continental Europe then. Beer comes in two sizes: 0.3 L and 0.5 L. Interestingly enough, in Germany the default size is 0.5 L and in The Netherlands it's 0.3.
True. but higher education attainment does predict success, again and again.
Making everyone take it is going to have about as much success as cargo cults did.
I believe this same statement has been given every time educational standards have increased, and yet economic history tells a completely different story.
Or simply let the deficit increasing bill (i.e. the Bush tax cuts) expire.
One defines a popular government.
The other defines a publicly controlled government- but one that ultimately the people have less say in things.
What's Australia?
Your Texan education has left you, and the definitions of a "direct democracy" and "representative democracy" behind yet again.
Heh...as a hint...don't be so bold as to tell people that they don't know how governments work or accuse them of failing fourth grade civics unless you're going to be correct there.
I am.
The company called "AT&T" is not, was not, and has only a tenuous relationship with the entity "Ma Bell
Well given that Southwestern Bell systematically bought up literally bought up half of the RBOCs and then the long distance provider that the RBOCs spit off from, you have a very novel definition for "tenuous."
Even as a libertarian, I see this, just as all democracies (as opposed to republics) devolve
I always thought libertarians had no idea about governments actually worked, but now I know for certain.
REPUBLICS ARE DEMOCRACIES!
You laugh, but Fiji run by a military junta. (As if you needed yet another reason to avoid drinking Fiji bottled water.)
I take it that you also think it's an innocent slip of the tounge when the Republicans say "the Democrat Party"? It's not, and neither is this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
Technically they're right.
No. They, and you are not correct at all.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544
Sharia is democracy.
Actually it's not. Sharia is a type of law. Not a type of government. Just like Halakha or Common.
Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them.
I hope that schools would teach an apple is, and what a fruit is and the important differences between them.
For talking big about the us constitution you certainly don't seem to have passed elementary social studies,
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544
Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic.
Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...
Heaven forbid people actually knowing the definitions of the words they speak, or perhaps pass fourth grade social studies!
Sigh. See attached. I'm so fucking tired of correcting this same basic error from all you self-assured fools.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1728628&cid=32997544
The "Tea Party" is nothing more than the traditional socially conservative and upward redistributionist Republican base.
So if you want change... Real change with 3rd parties, you need to change the constitution
No you don't. The constitution makes no reference to how elections are to be carried out. Nor does it dictate how members of congress should be assigned within a state. If Texas wants to have its congressional delegation by proportional representation and party lists, it can. Nothing stops them beyond their own election laws.
It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.
It's a real shame that the Founders(tm) violated the constitution in 1790 when they asked what the ages and gender of what members of the household were. You don't need this for representation. It's based on population, not voters. Clearly, George Washington was a traitor to the constitution.
It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.
I certainly hope that you also take a stern view on the Air Force. It's unconstitutional! I see an Army. I see a Navy. I don't see an Air Force.
It's a real shame all the Founder(tm) were dead when the 4th census asked occupation. Oh wait, they weren't. Since when are anonymous metrics needed to determine the most effective allocation of resources "abusive"?
I bet you also didn't know that the Founders(tm) were a completely happy with compulsory purchase programs. George Washington himself, signed the Militia Act of 1792, which required "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" had to purchase gun (which was tax deductible).
It seems that most adult people, at least all but the most naive, understand that corporations' main motivating factor is to increase profits; many of those same people haven't put the government in the same realistic perspective.
I've heard your argument from many smart people. Oh if only the sheeple knew how they were being used by the big bad government! If only the sheeple could have the blinds ripped from their eyes to see the glory of my particular political beliefs!
Here's a shocking prospect for you: Your ideas aren't implemented, because people are ignorant of them. Your ideas aren't implemented, because the people have rejected them.
Well in a democracy, the government is the people. It's not some bogeyman. It's us. If you don't like what your representative does, then vote him out. That's how representative democracies work. In several states, direct democracy through an initiative process exists. Want to change a law? Get a few thousand signatures, and put it on the ballot, and then convince a majority of your fellow state residents, and it's the law. It happens all the time, especially in California.
You claim that the progressive income tax persists because of some sort of illuminatiesque power grab. Well, quite frankly the most common suggested alternatives: the "flat" tax, the VAT, and a national sales tax, all suffer from the same problem. They shift the tax burden even further towards the low end of the economic scale, where -- let's be honest here -- the vast majority of the people are. The simple reason that these alternatives aren't implemented is because they're unpopular because they effectively decrease the take home pay of the majority of voters, while decreasing it substantially for the hyper wealthy supporters of these alternate tax schemes.
You suggest that the only reason why marijuana is illegal is because the bogeyman likes to put people in jail. Well, how do explain that when put to a vote of the people, Californians voted to keep it illegal? The United States is a country with puritanical roots. Pleasure is bad. Work and suffering is good. Many people don't want marijuana legalized because they believe the legalization supporters "just want to get high."
You spout that tax cuts always stimulate the economy while government spending doesn't, and go so far to say, "it's pretty clear that lower taxes stimulate an economy." Actually, that's not clear at all. While cutting taxes can have stimulative effect when tax rates are high, the effect quickly diminishes. Think about it. If taxes were at 90% and they get cut to 50%, for every $100 you had, your after tax earnings increased 5 times. While a tax cut from 10% to 5% only increases your after tax earnings by 1.05 times. The stimulative effect of that extra $5 is negligible. It's called "decreasing returns" and it's a basic economic concept. So how is this applicable to today's economic situation? First, taxes are already low, so as we've seen seen any stimulative effect has long already occurred. Second, the economic consensus is that the economy is stagnant, not from a lack of money, but rather a lack of demand. This is obvious when you examine the SEC filings of publicly traded companies. They have cash, in many instances rather large cash reserves on hand. They could buy anything they want, but they're not. Why? They have excess capacity. The stimulus was to make the government the buyer of last resort, which again the consensus among economists is that the stimulus indeed worked to prevent a depression. Furthermore it's stimulative effects were weakened due to it being not only too small, but also undermined by states' "austerity" measures. (Disclaimer: I'm friends with one of the authors.)
You assert that somehow majority vote election systems are imposed on the
That "turn off your wireless network when you know you won't use it" comment sent me clear over to Google's side. The last thing I want is someone who believes that's the appropriate response to be poking through people's personals.
What makes you think that's not a Google recommendation? This is the same company who's CEO said that if you don't like what Google is doing, just change your name.
This is absurd. Google is unaccountable. The state of Connecticut is, and deals with private information all the time with no problems whatsoever.
Google didn't turn it over because it was embarrassing to them and their increasingly trite "Don't Be Evil" slogan.
This is your logic:
Police: "We're here to investigate the allegation that you stole stuff."
Google: "Well, we might have, but probably not."
Police: "Well what do you have?"
Google: "We can't tell you. It's a secret."
Police: "Um... well... We're just the government, and you're a big corporation, so I guess you win. Can you give it to the people you stole it from?"
Google: "Oh no way! We stole too much stuff! While it is true, we could figure out where it all came from, because we have exact addresses in our databases. We just don't want to do it."
Police: "Oh well, carry on."