There already is legislation in some jurisdiction -- doesn't that put the rogue ISPs on the hook along with the spammers, if they have explicitly contracted to aid and abet their criminal activity? /.
This is duckspeak -- the slightest thought makes it clear that any attempt to prevent campaigning "out of season" would violate the First Amendment.
/.
...run my car through a pollution tester every year, and I get charged a fee proportional to how much crap I dump in the air. I'll then have an incentive to pollute less, so I'll want to buy cars that pollute less, and GM will want to sell cars that pollute less.
The people who would pay the largest fees will be poor people who cannot yet afford to buy a newer, cleaner car
You can't have it both ways. If you impose regulations requiring that all cars must emit less than X amount of pollution, then the costs of that level of pollution control will be added to all cars, which has exactly the same effect in terms of pricing the poor out of the car market.
Ultimately, the problem you raise is one of perverse incentives -- for a middle-class person, high pollution fees encourages the purchase of a cleaner new car; for a poor person, they significantly degrade the ability to afford the new car. I can see possible ways around the problem (earmarking the pollution fee money to pay for incentives to buy clean cars). /.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.
[Homer unmasks Kodos and Kang]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[crowd murmurs]
Audience(1): He's right, this is a two-party system.
Audience(2): Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
--Treehouse of Horror VII /.
to my knowledge there has never been a person to actually die in outer space. Am I wrong?
I'm afraid so -- the crew of Soyuz 11 were kil led when their craft decompressed after a valve came open after un-docking from the Salyut 1 station in 1971. /.
Essentially, the effect of the Electorial College is to concentrate voting power (e.g. a voter in Michigan this year has considerably more than 1/#ofvoters influence over this year's Presidential election; a voter in Massachusettes has none whatsoever because that state's electorial vote is as preordained as tomorrow's sunrise). /.
It's traditional to separate mutually exclusive statements by at least three full paragraphs (or more, if you suspect that someone might actually be paying attention). /.
You don't pay 12.5% of your income in Social Security Taxes if you are not self employed.
Sorry, that is not the case.
If you expect Mr. Spacely to keep paying your salary of $50,000 and your "employer share" of $3125, then you need to keep producing work worth at least:
a. $50,000
b. $53,125
c. 100 quatloos on the newcomers
(Answer: b)
If the whole Ponzi scheme is abolished, that $3125 will end up
a. nowhere
b. bidding up the price of labor
c. buried in Hemos' mattress
(Answer: b)
You will eventually collect Social Security so you will get something back.
Most people my age understand enough basic economics to realize that they are more likely to see a flying saucer than a Social Security check.
/.
If you only count the times that the VP has become president IN THIS CENTURY, it has happened a disturbing 3 times (turn of the last century (sorry, my recall of the names is rusty), Roosevelt-Truman, Kennedy-Johnson, Nixon-Ford)
Actually, that's four, and it should be five. The complete list for the 20th century is: McKinley-Roosevelt, Harding-Coolidge, Roosevelt-Truman, Kennedy-Johnson, and Nixon-Ford.
Also, if formal procedures for handling long-term Presidential incapacitation had been in place at the time, we probably would have added Wilson-Marshall. /.
the brain does not fully develop until after birth
Slipping in irrelevant weasel words is not a substitute for debate. The brain continues to "develop" in some way or other throughout life. My standard (cortical development as the threshold between early and late term abortion) stands. /.
However, I have another suggestion, to implement along with any other changes: instead of having a Presidental slot and a Vice-Presidetial slot, let us have only a Presidential slot, with the Vice President literally being the first runner up.
That was exactly the way it was done in the beginning. However, with the development of partisan politics, it became obvious that this system just wasn't working out.
First, the 1796 election gave us bitter political rivals as President and Vice President (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson).
Next, the 1800 election produced an electoral college tie when the Democratic-Republican electors all voted for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Everybody knew that they meant to make Jefferson President and Burr Vice-President -- it seems that they all thought that somebody else was voting for Jefferson and not for Burr. The election went into the House, where there was quite a bit of bickering; some of the Federalists, who controlled the House, would have been glad to screw over the opposition by voting for Burr. My understanding is that Alexander Hamilton (who considered Jefferson wrong but honorable and regarded Burr as a threat to the Republic) pulled strings to prevent this.
After all this, the Twelfth Amendment, setting up the current system of separate voting for President and Vice-President, was ratified in 1804. /.
I wrote in "Human". I was so hoping that the Census people would insist on some other answer, so I could sell the story to the Weekly World News ("Census Discovers Space Alien Living In U.S.!!") /.
if we're all out for ourselves, and dishonesty and sociopathy are the coin of the realm
Here lies the fundamental fallacy in your argument. It is precisely because I want to live in society as comfortably as possible that I avoid dishonest and sociopathic behavior -- if I established that sort of reputation for myself, I would soon find myself shut out.
Actually, it is Big Government that tends to make dishonesty and sociopathy into the coin of the realm, everywhere from the top (one need look no further than the current President of the United States for a classic example) to the bottom (people who see government welfare as an entitlement act rather worse than people supported by private charities that expect their recipients to make a legitimate effort to become self-sufficient).
/.
I do agree that people should know who is running, but it shouldn't be a requirement to vote.
Abolishing check-box ballots (all votes are write-in) might be an improvement: It requires you to at least know who you intend to vote for in each race, it eliminates the Republicrat ballot-access law advantage, and it discourages mindless party-line voting.
People who physically couldn't write would need assistance, but some people need that in any case. /.
The most truthful place is conception. That's when it has been endowed with a separate set of genetics. At that point, it is just as unique an individual as anyone else. Any other point is totally arbitrary.
Sorry, nope. The critical point is the development of that trait which separates humans from the beasts, namely the cerebral cortex.
(I suppose that a PETA-fringe type who believes that a rat is a pig is a boy would dispute this. Evidently, you do take that position -- rats, pigs, and boys are identical in that each "has been endowed with a separate set of genetics", that being the standard you've chosen. Good luck persuading anybody else....)
Thus, it is not in the least "arbitrary" to draw a line between early and late term abortions, taking a pro-choice position for the former and an anti-choice positon for the latter. /.
If your only objection to Browne's positions is that you wouldn't take them as far as he does, then it's still a good idea to vote for him. Realistically, he's not going to win (and even if he somehow did the system has too much inertia for him to do everything he would like) -- pumping up his vote totals has the effect of nudging the political landscape just a bit in his direction, not overturning it wholesale. /.
Re:Voting for Status with Liberals
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Sure, I've got one great example of what can happen when money and materialism don't matter, and when cooperation outweighs competition: Free Software
That's not a relevant example to political socialism -- a free software developer can decide to go work for Microsoft without the Free Software police dragging him away for re-education.
/.
as I've said before I hate all the candidates, but I hate GWB most of all, so I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate).
If the polls just before the election show a smoking crater in the ground where Gush's or Bore's campaign used to be, who would you vote for? /.
perhaps i'll throw a vote at the libertartians so they can get federal funds in the next election
They've already qualified for some election funds, but refuse to accept them. Presumably, they would also refuse to accept the extra funding for getting to 5% of the Presidential vote.
That said, voting for them to raise their support level to the point where it shows up on the political radar (and forces the larger parties to address the issues of government overreach and abuse) is a worthwhile decision if those are the issues you care about most. /.
Re:This should not even be a choice!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
But it is irresponsible of anyone to not recognize this election as a referendum on the TYPE of president we want -- someone with intelligence, or a Bush.
Given the choice between someone who thinks he is intelligent enough to run my life better than I can and a dimwit, I will choose the dimwit.
Since the actual choices are more extensive, I'm voting for the one fairly close to my views, namely Harry Browne. /.
Slashdot Mirror
There already is legislation in some jurisdiction -- doesn't that put the rogue ISPs on the hook along with the spammers, if they have explicitly contracted to aid and abet their criminal activity?
/.
This is duckspeak -- the slightest thought makes it clear that any attempt to prevent campaigning "out of season" would violate the First Amendment.
/.
Now, I understand how the War of the Worlds incident happened.
/.
The people who would pay the largest fees will be poor people who cannot yet afford to buy a newer, cleaner car
You can't have it both ways. If you impose regulations requiring that all cars must emit less than X amount of pollution, then the costs of that level of pollution control will be added to all cars, which has exactly the same effect in terms of pricing the poor out of the car market.
Ultimately, the problem you raise is one of perverse incentives -- for a middle-class person, high pollution fees encourages the purchase of a cleaner new car; for a poor person, they significantly degrade the ability to afford the new car. I can see possible ways around the problem (earmarking the pollution fee money to pay for incentives to buy clean cars).
/.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.
[Homer unmasks Kodos and Kang]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[crowd murmurs]
Audience(1): He's right, this is a two-party system.
Audience(2): Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
--Treehouse of Horror VII
/.
I'm afraid so -- the crew of Soyuz 11 were kil led when their craft decompressed after a valve came open after un-docking from the Salyut 1 station in 1971.
/.
I'd've put "REFUSED TO ANSWER" in big red capital letters.
/.
Essentially, the effect of the Electorial College is to concentrate voting power (e.g. a voter in Michigan this year has considerably more than 1/#ofvoters influence over this year's Presidential election; a voter in Massachusettes has none whatsoever because that state's electorial vote is as preordained as tomorrow's sunrise).
/.
I feel that they don't have a right to sodomy.
It's traditional to separate mutually exclusive statements by at least three full paragraphs (or more, if you suspect that someone might actually be paying attention).
/.
Sorry, that is not the case.
If you expect Mr. Spacely to keep paying your salary of $50,000 and your "employer share" of $3125, then you need to keep producing work worth at least:
(Answer: b)If the whole Ponzi scheme is abolished, that $3125 will end up
(Answer: b)You will eventually collect Social Security so you will get something back.
Most people my age understand enough basic economics to realize that they are more likely to see a flying saucer than a Social Security check.
/.
...there's always the Furby-O-Death.
/.
Actually, that's four, and it should be five. The complete list for the 20th century is: McKinley-Roosevelt, Harding-Coolidge, Roosevelt-Truman, Kennedy-Johnson, and Nixon-Ford.
Also, if formal procedures for handling long-term Presidential incapacitation had been in place at the time, we probably would have added Wilson-Marshall.
/.
What nonsense. Anyone who earns an honest living is necessarily doing something useful for his country.
Of course, what Kennedy was doing was engaging in the old scam of conflating the government with the country.
/.
Slipping in irrelevant weasel words is not a substitute for debate. The brain continues to "develop" in some way or other throughout life. My standard (cortical development as the threshold between early and late term abortion) stands.
/.
That was exactly the way it was done in the beginning. However, with the development of partisan politics, it became obvious that this system just wasn't working out.
First, the 1796 election gave us bitter political rivals as President and Vice President (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson).
Next, the 1800 election produced an electoral college tie when the Democratic-Republican electors all voted for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Everybody knew that they meant to make Jefferson President and Burr Vice-President -- it seems that they all thought that somebody else was voting for Jefferson and not for Burr. The election went into the House, where there was quite a bit of bickering; some of the Federalists, who controlled the House, would have been glad to screw over the opposition by voting for Burr. My understanding is that Alexander Hamilton (who considered Jefferson wrong but honorable and regarded Burr as a threat to the Republic) pulled strings to prevent this.
After all this, the Twelfth Amendment, setting up the current system of separate voting for President and Vice-President, was ratified in 1804.
/.
I wrote in "Human". I was so hoping that the Census people would insist on some other answer, so I could sell the story to the Weekly World News ("Census Discovers Space Alien Living In U.S.!!")
/.
So much for the Clinton-haters who say that he never did anything good for the country.
/.
Here lies the fundamental fallacy in your argument. It is precisely because I want to live in society as comfortably as possible that I avoid dishonest and sociopathic behavior -- if I established that sort of reputation for myself, I would soon find myself shut out.
Actually, it is Big Government that tends to make dishonesty and sociopathy into the coin of the realm, everywhere from the top (one need look no further than the current President of the United States for a classic example) to the bottom (people who see government welfare as an entitlement act rather worse than people supported by private charities that expect their recipients to make a legitimate effort to become self-sufficient).
/.
Abolishing check-box ballots (all votes are write-in) might be an improvement: It requires you to at least know who you intend to vote for in each race, it eliminates the Republicrat ballot-access law advantage, and it discourages mindless party-line voting.
People who physically couldn't write would need assistance, but some people need that in any case.
/.
Sorry, nope. The critical point is the development of that trait which separates humans from the beasts, namely the cerebral cortex.
(I suppose that a PETA-fringe type who believes that a rat is a pig is a boy would dispute this. Evidently, you do take that position -- rats, pigs, and boys are identical in that each "has been endowed with a separate set of genetics", that being the standard you've chosen. Good luck persuading anybody else....)
Thus, it is not in the least "arbitrary" to draw a line between early and late term abortions, taking a pro-choice position for the former and an anti-choice positon for the latter.
/.
If your only objection to Browne's positions is that you wouldn't take them as far as he does, then it's still a good idea to vote for him. Realistically, he's not going to win (and even if he somehow did the system has too much inertia for him to do everything he would like) -- pumping up his vote totals has the effect of nudging the political landscape just a bit in his direction, not overturning it wholesale.
/.
That's not a relevant example to political socialism -- a free software developer can decide to go work for Microsoft without the Free Software police dragging him away for re-education.
/.
If the polls just before the election show a smoking crater in the ground where Gush's or Bore's campaign used to be, who would you vote for?
/.
They've already qualified for some election funds, but refuse to accept them. Presumably, they would also refuse to accept the extra funding for getting to 5% of the Presidential vote.
That said, voting for them to raise their support level to the point where it shows up on the political radar (and forces the larger parties to address the issues of government overreach and abuse) is a worthwhile decision if those are the issues you care about most.
/.
Given the choice between someone who thinks he is intelligent enough to run my life better than I can and a dimwit, I will choose the dimwit.
Since the actual choices are more extensive, I'm voting for the one fairly close to my views, namely Harry Browne.
/.