You're not even going to try to help these US Citizens to vote?
They don't know where they were born, but they know they're American citizens? How do they know? How do they know they're eligible to vote again?
The bill to make an ID mandatory had funds to help people get IDs. I'm in favor of getting IDs for people who want them and helping people find out who they are and if they're eligible.
I don't think allowing routine vote fraud is a good solution to an occasional difficulty in determining someone's eligibility.
So much for the American experiment. It's been kicked to the ground and stomped on, all in the name of partisan advantage.
Getting rid of voter fraud is advantageous to the party that commits less vote fraud.
Disenfranchise people who aren't eligible? No. People who don't have picture ID for whatever reason.
Please explain how someone can be an eligible voter and doesn't have (or can't get) a picture ID? They are no-cost for people who can't or don't want to pay.
They'll find reports / studies to their advantage and promote them like crazy.
- You mean like Slashdot posting "(anthropogenic) global warming is real" stories and not posting the same number of "(anthropogenic) global warming might not be real" stories?
- Or do you mean like the news media reporting on global warming during the hottest part of the summer and then shutting up during the coldest part of the winter?
- Or do you mean like last year, when all those hurricanes "were caused by global warming". This year, on the other hand, the lack of hurricanes isn't cause to think that global warming might be less of a problem -- so let's not bring it up at all.
- "Big" Tobacco, but never "Big" Government
- We hear that anti-GW studies are "tied to Exxon". (What a shock! Exxon engages in self-defense. Shame on them.) But we never hear when pro-GW studies are tied to socialist groups.
Got an example where that works out? So everyone can get all the care they need or want on short notice? One where new drugs are developed at a rapid pace? No? Get back to us when you do.
Then what. If you have only owned your home for a few years, you'll be lucky to get ten or twenty grand out of it.
And every month, you'll also have the difference between the mortgage payment and the rent, if any.
Do you really think that people who can't pay their bills should be entitled to a big expensive house?
What about the guy who pays his bills, lives in a smaller house, buys insurance, and saves money so he can pay his bills in case some bad things happen? He's just a sucker right? If he knew how to game the system like most people, he'd buy big luxury items with credit, live it up, and just default on his debts if anything bad happens. Responsible people are such utter fools that way.
What if the illness debilitated you so you can't work any more? put them on the street?
Charity. Family charity, charity from friends, or something more organized. (Or the government version, which is the same except you pay into it against your will.)
If you do it on purpose, it's theft. Go ahead and rationalize it all you want.
I guess stealing from stores isn't theft because they've decided to invest in inventory, and if they take a loss on it because someone pockets it, well, all investments don't alway pay off.
It's pretty amazing. This is now an controversial statement (and Flamebait apparently):
"People should pay their debts when they can, even if it leads to some hardships."
So employers are supposed to assume the risk for you? Why should employers be forced to mitigate the affects of identity theft for you? Maybe they should buy you a pony too?
You could try explaining it to them and asking them to understand. If they don't, then that's yet another problem caused by identity theft.
The credit checks aren't the problem, the identity theft is. It's sad and unfortunate. The whole nationwide system of employment and credit reporting doesn't have to change to make things easier on you. It won't and you should stop expecting it to.
Being a victim does not and should not entitle you to anything. Stop hitting people over the head with it.
If I'm an employer, I'm supposed to hire someone who only has bad choices available to them?
- They could decide to steal from me. Bad choice, but maybe it seems better than some of the alternate ones. - They could skip work a lot. Bad choice, but maybe it beats the alternatives.
It seems like this is an argument in favor of employers doing credit checks.
Apparently, you think that if you run up a huge bill, you don't have to pay what you can.
It's sad when someone gets sick. It's sad when expenses are high. But people should pay their bills when they can. If it means you have to sell the house and rent a small apartment, then that's what it means.
Also, if you need charity, ask for it. Don't steal money from creditors instead.
Just throw away the used paper and print on new paper.
Paper is a crop. It grows on trees that are specially planted by paper companies on paper-company land. They're chosen to grow quickly and produce good paper pulp. Cotton is also used in most papers. Cotton is also a crop that's specially planted for this purpose. Paper is also extremely inexpensive.
This technology reminds me of waterless urinals. There are places locally that have them. They don't work well. I live within 5 miles of the 5th largest river in the world. Water is not scarce.
There's no reason to invent expensive, new technologies to be inferior substitutes to the use of cheap abundant resources. Why not fix a real problem instead?
One is based on interfering with a drinkers life "for his own good", and the other is based on interfering with a drunk drivers life "to protect others".
I understand. I just don't care what the motives are if the results are effectively the same. If online gambling is prohibited because [ insert BS about protecting others ] or because [ insert BS about protecting me from myself ], the result is the same.
Anyone can claim good motives. The real reason online gambling is prohibited is because governments make too much money on gambling to let it happen outside their ability to get part of the money.
The real reason for smoking prohibition is because some people don't like the smell or they've allowed the press to scare them about the smoke.
The real reason for unreasonably low drunk driving limits is that non-drinkers just don't like alcohol being consumed by people in public.
None of the real motives are good, so people pretend to have better ones. Often they even convince themselves.
The moment you endanger someone while drunk the situation changes.
But the laws aren't based on endangering people. They're about the amount of alcohol in your blood. Danger is not necessary. And it's increasingly not a factor because they are changing it so you're guilty of violating the law at an alcohol level that doesn't impair your driving. It's precisely the same.
The people who are legally drunk but not actually impaired (or only a little impaired) are not the ones that make the roads dangerous anyway. It's the people who were at 2x the legal limit before they lowered it. They cause the accidents.
If there are no shades of grey in your worldview, then I feel sorry for you.
You should feel sorry for everyone who has to live under the prohibition you help enable. When you start trying to make other people's choices for them, it's all down hill to prohibition from there.
And there ARE "shades of grey". I'm not arguing against drunk driving laws. Put the levels back where they were 5 years ago. Make "I wasn't a danger to anyone and I can prove it" a defense. Then I'm all for it. The laws should be based on protecting people from harm, not satisfying the prohibitionists at MADD.
Ditto anti-smoking laws. There's no need to protect people from smoke in bars and restuarants. They can protect themselves. Planes, sure. Bars, no -- just stay out or assume the risks of the smoke.
If I can make phony "collateral damage" claims on online gambling, then it's not prohibition either. Here's one: People addicted to gambling steal money to pay their gambling debts.
That's why we get prohibition. Because people like you want to make choices for other people and use flimsy nonsense to justify it. If you don't want prohibition, you have to be against ALL of it. You can't pick and choose.
I went to Amazon.com to find front-page ads for, you guessed it, Bluetooth adapters.... At which point, you immediately died from the terrible harm that this caused you?
Slashdot Mirror
You're not even going to try to help these US Citizens to vote?
They don't know where they were born, but they know they're American citizens? How do they know? How do they know they're eligible to vote again?
The bill to make an ID mandatory had funds to help people get IDs. I'm in favor of getting IDs for people who want them and helping people find out who they are and if they're eligible.
I don't think allowing routine vote fraud is a good solution to an occasional difficulty in determining someone's eligibility.
So much for the American experiment. It's been kicked to the ground and stomped on, all in the name of partisan advantage.
Getting rid of voter fraud is advantageous to the party that commits less vote fraud.
What if you don't know where you were born?
Then how do you know you're an eligible voter?
It's about letting eligible voters vote, and keeping ineligible and fraudulent voters from voting.
Disenfranchise people who aren't eligible? No. People who don't have picture ID for whatever reason.
Please explain how someone can be an eligible voter and doesn't have (or can't get) a picture ID? They are no-cost for people who can't or don't want to pay.
...if Apple can get the right combination in features, price, and usability, many consumers may be ready to eat it up
This is often true. If a product can be designed, priced, and produced so that it succeeds, then the product may be a success. Thanks Slashdot!
If you don't like what the car makers are doing either A) don't buy from them or
The people who do this stuff don't believe in freedom.
B) use the power of democracy to force them to change
And they don't believe in democracy either.
It's important to note where people like that go: The courtroom. It's the one place where individual choice and collective choice have no weight.
They'll find reports / studies to their advantage and promote them like crazy.
- You mean like Slashdot posting "(anthropogenic) global warming is real" stories and not posting the same number of "(anthropogenic) global warming might not be real" stories?
- Or do you mean like the news media reporting on global warming during the hottest part of the summer and then shutting up during the coldest part of the winter?
- Or do you mean like last year, when all those hurricanes "were caused by global warming". This year, on the other hand, the lack of hurricanes isn't cause to think that global warming might be less of a problem -- so let's not bring it up at all.
- "Big" Tobacco, but never "Big" Government
- We hear that anti-GW studies are "tied to Exxon". (What a shock! Exxon engages in self-defense. Shame on them.) But we never hear when pro-GW studies are tied to socialist groups.
- etc
Got an example where that works out? So everyone can get all the care they need or want on short notice? One where new drugs are developed at a rapid pace? No? Get back to us when you do.
Then what. If you have only owned your home for a few years, you'll be lucky to get ten or twenty grand out of it.
And every month, you'll also have the difference between the mortgage payment and the rent, if any.
Do you really think that people who can't pay their bills should be entitled to a big expensive house?
What about the guy who pays his bills, lives in a smaller house, buys insurance, and saves money so he can pay his bills in case some bad things happen? He's just a sucker right? If he knew how to game the system like most people, he'd buy big luxury items with credit, live it up, and just default on his debts if anything bad happens. Responsible people are such utter fools that way.
What if the illness debilitated you so you can't work any more? put them on the street?
Charity. Family charity, charity from friends, or something more organized. (Or the government version, which is the same except you pay into it against your will.)
If you do it on purpose, it's theft. Go ahead and rationalize it all you want.
I guess stealing from stores isn't theft because they've decided to invest in inventory, and if they take a loss on it because someone pockets it, well, all investments don't alway pay off.
It's pretty amazing. This is now an controversial statement (and Flamebait apparently):
"People should pay their debts when they can, even if it leads to some hardships."
So employers are supposed to assume the risk for you? Why should employers be forced to mitigate the affects of identity theft for you? Maybe they should buy you a pony too?
You could try explaining it to them and asking them to understand. If they don't, then that's yet another problem caused by identity theft.
The credit checks aren't the problem, the identity theft is. It's sad and unfortunate. The whole nationwide system of employment and credit reporting doesn't have to change to make things easier on you. It won't and you should stop expecting it to.
Being a victim does not and should not entitle you to anything. Stop hitting people over the head with it.
Sure, that's fine.
If I'm an employer, I'm supposed to hire someone who only has bad choices available to them?
- They could decide to steal from me. Bad choice, but maybe it seems better than some of the alternate ones.
- They could skip work a lot. Bad choice, but maybe it beats the alternatives.
It seems like this is an argument in favor of employers doing credit checks.
Fix patent laws and this problem goes away.
Because the drug never gets developed and the child dies.
Houses can be sold.
Apparently, you think that if you run up a huge bill, you don't have to pay what you can.
It's sad when someone gets sick. It's sad when expenses are high. But people should pay their bills when they can. If it means you have to sell the house and rent a small apartment, then that's what it means.
Also, if you need charity, ask for it. Don't steal money from creditors instead.
Just throw away the used paper and print on new paper.
Paper is a crop. It grows on trees that are specially planted by paper companies on paper-company land. They're chosen to grow quickly and produce good paper pulp. Cotton is also used in most papers. Cotton is also a crop that's specially planted for this purpose. Paper is also extremely inexpensive.
This technology reminds me of waterless urinals. There are places locally that have them. They don't work well. I live within 5 miles of the 5th largest river in the world. Water is not scarce.
There's no reason to invent expensive, new technologies to be inferior substitutes to the use of cheap abundant resources. Why not fix a real problem instead?
One is based on interfering with a drinkers life "for his own good", and the other is based on interfering with a drunk drivers life "to protect others".
I understand. I just don't care what the motives are if the results are effectively the same. If online gambling is prohibited because [ insert BS about protecting others ] or because [ insert BS about protecting me from myself ], the result is the same.
Anyone can claim good motives. The real reason online gambling is prohibited is because governments make too much money on gambling to let it happen outside their ability to get part of the money.
The real reason for smoking prohibition is because some people don't like the smell or they've allowed the press to scare them about the smoke.
The real reason for unreasonably low drunk driving limits is that non-drinkers just don't like alcohol being consumed by people in public.
None of the real motives are good, so people pretend to have better ones. Often they even convince themselves.
The moment you endanger someone while drunk the situation changes.
But the laws aren't based on endangering people. They're about the amount of alcohol in your blood. Danger is not necessary. And it's increasingly not a factor because they are changing it so you're guilty of violating the law at an alcohol level that doesn't impair your driving. It's precisely the same.
The people who are legally drunk but not actually impaired (or only a little impaired) are not the ones that make the roads dangerous anyway. It's the people who were at 2x the legal limit before they lowered it. They cause the accidents.
If there are no shades of grey in your worldview, then I feel sorry for you.
You should feel sorry for everyone who has to live under the prohibition you help enable. When you start trying to make other people's choices for them, it's all down hill to prohibition from there.
And there ARE "shades of grey". I'm not arguing against drunk driving laws. Put the levels back where they were 5 years ago. Make "I wasn't a danger to anyone and I can prove it" a defense. Then I'm all for it. The laws should be based on protecting people from harm, not satisfying the prohibitionists at MADD.
Ditto anti-smoking laws. There's no need to protect people from smoke in bars and restuarants. They can protect themselves. Planes, sure. Bars, no -- just stay out or assume the risks of the smoke.
I see. Stuff you agree with is not prohibition.
If I can make phony "collateral damage" claims on online gambling, then it's not prohibition either. Here's one: People addicted to gambling steal money to pay their gambling debts.
That's why we get prohibition. Because people like you want to make choices for other people and use flimsy nonsense to justify it. If you don't want prohibition, you have to be against ALL of it. You can't pick and choose.
Smoking bans are the new prohibition.
Second is alcohol prohibition -- lowering the drunk driving standards until you're gulty of drunk driving even though you're not even impaired.
Online gambling is 3rd.
Shut off the computer and learn to throw (or hit) a fastball
Science tempers fears on climate change
..."
"THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.
I went to Amazon.com to find front-page ads for, you guessed it, Bluetooth adapters. ... At which point, you immediately died from the terrible harm that this caused you?
Where have you been?
A self-esteem problem is a suitable excuse for any behavior these days.
Other all-purpose excuses:
- I was abused as a child
- I was alienated by US foreign policy
- I'm a minority
- Gambling addiction
I'm sure there are more.
Amazon has a similar game, except they pay you:
http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
Was she spending time with your daughter while giving you this lecture?
Maybe you should talk to her about that.
Ball lightning - the most painful kind of lightning.