Re:What a screwed system..
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
The election can't be run by the Federal government because it would be against the law. To change that law would require that Congress pass a special kind of law called a constitutional amendment, which must then be passed again by 38 of the state legislatures. As the states are probably not interested in giving up that power for nothing, such a change is unlikely to happen.
Yes, we know how parliamentary systems work. They existed already when the US government was given its current form. Those who fashioned our form of government felt that the parliamentary form put too much unchecked power in the hands of one entity, which they felt would lead too easily to oppression. Talk to a Briton who didn't like living under Margaret Thatcher and you'll see why.
It may be that we will someday, like you, adopt a preference voting system; there is no legal bar to doing so. The problem is that those who make the laws tend to be members of the two parties that benefit from our current "first past the post" system.
I don't know why you don't recall their visits; they certainly made them -- more than once. Gore certainly made an appearance in Louisville, and Bush showed up in Lexington.
In the beginning of the campaign we got enormous attention; it was only after it became clear that Bush was going to carry the state easily that they quit coming.
You'll have to find another poster child for your "small states get ignored" theory...
It was not the Electoral College as such that made your vote useless, it was your state's choice of "winner takes all" as the method by which it allocates its electoral votes.
Surely, historically speaking, the cost of keeping a parent was not much greater than keeping a child? In modern times, however, parents generally have separate dwellings, which is a large cost that has no historical equivalent. Modern medicine also intoduces a large cost which is not present in your historical data.
Historically speaking, did the support of the elderly typically consume 13% of the typical household's income?
My take is that we need to move from a transfer payment to an investment with a reasonable return to make Social Security viable. To say otherwise is to use the same arguments that those who say we shouldn't pay down the national debt use.
Setting aside any discussion of the merits of your idea, I'd like to point out that there is an important part of the executive branch that consists of little other than lawyers: the Justice Department.
Abraham Lincoln had that opportunity in his day - he was among the poorest of the poor growing up. Today he probably would not have the same chance...
Is that so? Kennedy and Bush are the only presidents in the last 50 years who came from even remotely wealthy families. This is the first election in a long time with silver spooners representing each of the major parties, and Gore's spoon was only silver-plate.
You elided the bit including federal law, which by your reasoning is therefore set equal to both the Constitution and treaties. Since the Constitution undeniably takes precedence over federal law, how can you assert that treaties, which are referred to in the same manner as federal law, take precedence over the Constitution?
You're saying that they want the firewall to transparent to their scan, when what they really said was that they want their scan to be transparent to the firewall.
My guess is that you're on a *nix box running Netscape, which doesn't always handle fonts correctly. Try putting your 100dpi fonts at the beginning of your font path when you're reading pages like this one and things should be a lot clearer.
I would like to see such a law, that when you bring out an immaterial product, it would be under "thou shalt not copy" laws for four (4) years, after which it would be placed into public domain.
It's not just a coincidence that this sounds like a patent.
You may have noticed a slight stinging sensation in the corner of your mouth. If you gently touch the affected area, you will find a curved, barbed piece of metal embedded there. Attached to it is a length of nylon fiber.
This is a sign to you that you have been trolled. Remove the hook (which is not mine), go forth, and be a fish no more.
Well, I never thought I was especially peculiar, but I guess I must have been. I very clearly remember reading about teen suicides and wondering why on earth anyone would want to kill himself when he was in the best part of his life. Maybe I was just too busy to be depressed -- I lettered in football (no, I never bullied anyone) and track, played second board on the chess team, and captained the math team, when I wasn't playing trombone badly in the concert band or hanging out with a dozen or so friends (half guys -- we were the "calculator wearing kids" -- and half girls) or at youth group or just plain reading. Or maybe I was just too conceited (hence my remark about self-esteem).
does anyone remember what followed the Roman Republic (before Christianity and the Dark ages)?
Half a millennium of Christianity and the Roman Empire (with the Christians being thrown to the lions for most of it). In the east, of course, there was after that another half a millennium of Christianity and the Roman Empire (with the Christians, in the form of the Eastern Orthodox Church, doing quite well).
Personally, if I were running something like Pinkerton's program, I'd have those two activities as the two strongest indicators of a sociopath.
The only problem with this is that an indicator should to correlate well with that which is supposed to indicate. Hunting and gridiron, as far as revealing sociopaths is concerned, fail this test miserably.
And you know what? All teenagers are unhappy at certain points, some more than others. You show me a teenager who is never unhappy, and I'll search his room for drugs while you lock him in the basement.
This simply isn't true. Most teenagers, maybe. But, assuming that by "unhappy" you mean something more than the common disappointments that small children and adults also experience, by no means all. Someone who's big enough to take care of himself and who has a decent level of self-esteem is adequately defended against most of the causes of "teen angst."
AOL is in control of what exists on its servers. It has the power to remove material at any time. If it wants to remove material it can, and if it refuses to do so after it has been informed that the material is illegal, it ought to expect some consequences.
Are you reading the same article as the rest of us? AOL has no control over the content of its servers when it doesn't know what that content is. You say yourself you "like the idea of retaining some privacy." You can't have that if AOL has to check to make sure that your data does not include copyrighted material. The way the article is worded, Hit Box sued AOL when it found out that copyrighted material was being transferred, not when AOL would not make a good faith effort to get that content off their servers.
Unless this article completely misrepresents the ruling, there is no common carrier protection in Germany.
Slashdot Mirror
The election can't be run by the Federal government because it would be against the law. To change that law would require that Congress pass a special kind of law called a constitutional amendment, which must then be passed again by 38 of the state legislatures. As the states are probably not interested in giving up that power for nothing, such a change is unlikely to happen.
Yes, we know how parliamentary systems work. They existed already when the US government was given its current form. Those who fashioned our form of government felt that the parliamentary form put too much unchecked power in the hands of one entity, which they felt would lead too easily to oppression. Talk to a Briton who didn't like living under Margaret Thatcher and you'll see why.
It may be that we will someday, like you, adopt a preference voting system; there is no legal bar to doing so. The problem is that those who make the laws tend to be members of the two parties that benefit from our current "first past the post" system.
I don't know why you don't recall their visits; they certainly made them -- more than once. Gore certainly made an appearance in Louisville, and Bush showed up in Lexington.
In the beginning of the campaign we got enormous attention; it was only after it became clear that Bush was going to carry the state easily that they quit coming.
You'll have to find another poster child for your "small states get ignored" theory...
It was not the Electoral College as such that made your vote useless, it was your state's choice of "winner takes all" as the method by which it allocates its electoral votes.
You mean the one Jesse Ventura rode into the Minnesota statehouse on?
If Ralph were to capture the Oval Office, he would be at least the third unmarried President...
Surely, historically speaking, the cost of keeping a parent was not much greater than keeping a child? In modern times, however, parents generally have separate dwellings, which is a large cost that has no historical equivalent. Modern medicine also intoduces a large cost which is not present in your historical data.
Historically speaking, did the support of the elderly typically consume 13% of the typical household's income?
My take is that we need to move from a transfer payment to an investment with a reasonable return to make Social Security viable. To say otherwise is to use the same arguments that those who say we shouldn't pay down the national debt use.
Well, there would be if the name were not actually Charlie Chaplin.
Setting aside any discussion of the merits of your idea, I'd like to point out that there is an important part of the executive branch that consists of little other than lawyers: the Justice Department.
Is that so? Kennedy and Bush are the only presidents in the last 50 years who came from even remotely wealthy families. This is the first election in a long time with silver spooners representing each of the major parties, and Gore's spoon was only silver-plate.
Well, it looks as though all the information is out there, either in tables (the roll call votes) or existing databases (the bills themselves).
;-)
Surely, it's just a SMOP.
trial when you refer, as the NYT writer(s) did, to Judge Kaplan as Judge Jackson...
You forgot the bit about filling in the white space with random garbage...
You elided the bit including federal law, which by your reasoning is therefore set equal to both the Constitution and treaties. Since the Constitution undeniably takes precedence over federal law, how can you assert that treaties, which are referred to in the same manner as federal law, take precedence over the Constitution?
A heroine, even (Freudian slip?).
I imagine there's heroin in the Oval Office most days, nowadays.
You're saying that they want the firewall to transparent to their scan, when what they really said was that they want their scan to be transparent to the firewall.
My guess is that you're on a *nix box running Netscape, which doesn't always handle fonts correctly. Try putting your 100dpi fonts at the beginning of your font path when you're reading pages like this one and things should be a lot clearer.
Rubbish. If you decide that you are not going to read westerns, is a library censoring a book by classifying it as a western?
I read at -1. I see every post. They are, therefore, not censored.
It's not just a coincidence that this sounds like a patent.
You may have noticed a slight stinging sensation in the corner of your mouth. If you gently touch the affected area, you will find a curved, barbed piece of metal embedded there. Attached to it is a length of nylon fiber.
This is a sign to you that you have been trolled. Remove the hook (which is not mine), go forth, and be a fish no more.
Well, I never thought I was especially peculiar, but I guess I must have been. I very clearly remember reading about teen suicides and wondering why on earth anyone would want to kill himself when he was in the best part of his life. Maybe I was just too busy to be depressed -- I lettered in football (no, I never bullied anyone) and track, played second board on the chess team, and captained the math team, when I wasn't playing trombone badly in the concert band or hanging out with a dozen or so friends (half guys -- we were the "calculator wearing kids" -- and half girls) or at youth group or just plain reading. Or maybe I was just too conceited (hence my remark about self-esteem).
Half a millennium of Christianity and the Roman Empire (with the Christians being thrown to the lions for most of it). In the east, of course, there was after that another half a millennium of Christianity and the Roman Empire (with the Christians, in the form of the Eastern Orthodox Church, doing quite well).
The only problem with this is that an indicator should to correlate well with that which is supposed to indicate. Hunting and gridiron, as far as revealing sociopaths is concerned, fail this test miserably.
This simply isn't true. Most teenagers, maybe. But, assuming that by "unhappy" you mean something more than the common disappointments that small children and adults also experience, by no means all. Someone who's big enough to take care of himself and who has a decent level of self-esteem is adequately defended against most of the causes of "teen angst."
Are you reading the same article as the rest of us? AOL has no control over the content of its servers when it doesn't know what that content is. You say yourself you "like the idea of retaining some privacy." You can't have that if AOL has to check to make sure that your data does not include copyrighted material. The way the article is worded, Hit Box sued AOL when it found out that copyrighted material was being transferred, not when AOL would not make a good faith effort to get that content off their servers.
Unless this article completely misrepresents the ruling, there is no common carrier protection in Germany.