Where did bank bailouts work that way? You know what happened here? Banks needed bailouts. So they needed money, from the state. The state did not have that money, so what did the state do? Lend it of course. Where? Well, banks.
What REALLY happened here is that the state stood as guarantor for banks' liabilities, usually paying more for interest and fees than they got from the banks that needed the bailout. In the end, I don't know of a single state or country that went away with a plus from the deal.
I saw the same "report" that you saw, and it was nothing but a rumor. Then Elon Musk responded saying it was false, but didn't release any actual numbers. So I guess you can believe whatever you want to believe. As for the "huge debt load", it's nothing compared to Ford, but somehow I don't see people raging on Ford all the time.
TSLA has over 11B in long and short term debt. FMC has 3.1B
Google has to make money out of android somehow and if they can't do it via the play store or some other method they'll simply start charging for the OS itself.
Google can still give one version with crap apps away for free and a license for a crap-free version. I'd gladly pay extra for more choice. The problem is that Google tried to force the shit version on everyone.
Phone manufacturers are not forced to use Android. Phone customers are not forced to buy a phone that uses the Android OS.
If customers don't like Android, the apps, or the phone company customisations they should buy something else
They can always announce some new Elvis limited edition collectible plates and find somebody to buy them for the low low price of $39.95 plus shipping and handling. If you get in early you can get double your order for the same price too! Just pay the additional shipping and handling..
You are mixing up long-term success (visionary) with short-term success (being a huge idiot sometimes). But you probably did that on purpose and are just trolling. Well, I like to feed sometimes;) I have karma to burn.
If you can't be a huge fucking idiot sometimes you will not accomplish anything in life. It's when we naively make our greatest mistakes, we grow the most as a human being. The point is, learning and not making the same mistake again.
Do you know anyone that can operate an automatic assembly-line from birth, like it's in their DNA, other than its own digestive tract? No? Indeed, didn't think so. Eating and shitting all over the place comes naturally, as we see often enough here in the comments. The rest we have to learn. Sometimes we can learn from others, but if we want to do something innovative, we have to learn the hard way. That means being huge idiots until you know how to do it right.
If you think you can do better than Musk, prove it to the world, or forever hold your peace.
Well said. It's so easy to never fail. Just never try anything and spend all your time criticizing others who do.
Back in February the HHS, which runs the office which runs this, released its budget request for the upcoming year. In it, they identified this as being duplicated in other governmental agencies and requested money to transfer the duties and money to different offices or agencies.
The office than in April decided to kill this database even before any of that request to kill it off was approved by Congress and divert the money they were spending on it to something else.
The article being linked to is yet another worthless opinion piece being passed off as actual journalism. The truth is no one really cares about this database and given four months for someone to come forward take it over no one has. The only reason it is being posted here is as a political hit piece.
Well you're a moron. This is a database that cost a lot to put together and basically little to maintain, serves a purpose, and Republicans are killing health care plans with no replacement. So you're a moron, basically, all wrong on every point you tried to make there, sorry.
I'm not sure if it "costs little to maintain". My first thought was it wouldn't be super costly from a tech perspective so why wouldn't some outside entity happily snatch it up and put ads on it?
But this is the likely reason (from TFA):
"The NGC has a screening process designed to keep weakly supported research out. It also offers summaries of research and an interactive, searchable interface.That gatekeeping role has sometimes made AHRQ a target. The agency was nearly eliminated shortly after its establishment, in the mid-90s, when it endorsed non-surgical interventions for back pain, a position that angered the North American Spine Society, a trade group representing spine surgeons. A subsequent campaign led to significant funding losses for AHRQ, and since then, the agency as a whole has been a perennial target for Republicans who have argued that its work is duplicated at other federal agencies."
So it's not just about hosting data. It requires a trained staff to research submissions and make judgements. Sure it could have a crowd-sourced model but I don't know if "Wikipedia" is appropriate as an authoritative source for medical guidelines.
Shes not that bad. Republicans abused their offices and drug her through the mud for years with the fake Bengazi bullshit and all of the conspiracy theories bullshit, just like the propagandists they are.
Bengazi wasn't fake. Real people died there. I'm not blaming Clinton or the Obama administration for that, even though mistakes were made. These are dangerous places where stuff happens.
But I do blame all of them for the cover-up where they blamed it on some poor schmuck for making a YouTube video and ruined his life. They knew it was a lie but they pushed it anyway. It was a shitty thing to do.
Hubbert's theory of the future seems to be based on the false notion that conditions remain static
No, the model only applies to static conditions, but it doesn't say that the conditions will be static.
I see. It's like predicting "England will go on to the world cup finals" when the score was 1:0. And then after they lost saying "the model only applies to static conditions, but it doesn't say that the conditions will be static"
The Irish parliament just passed a bill drafted by an organization dedicated to "Challenging injustice through innovative legal strategies." http://www.glanlaw.org/ . From TFA:
"Gerry Liston at Global Legal Action Network, who drafted the bill, said: “Governments will not meet their obligations under the Paris agreement on climate change if they continue to financially sustain the fossil fuel industry. Countries the world over must now urgently follow Ireland’s lead and divest from fossil fuels.”
It's pretty silly. They have to know this is nonsense and that owning 300M euros of stock doesn't "financially sustain the fossil fuel industry" in any way. Subsidies are a different story, but the article makes no mention of such.
Peak oil was never about immediately running out of oil. It was a theory that oil production would hit a maximum point and then decline from there. Also, Hubbert’s prediction never stated that supply would run out in 20 years. His theory was production quantity would steadily decline over a couple hundred years.
Hubbert's theory of the future seems to be based on the false notion that conditions remain static.
None of those updates made the original version wrong. Bottom line, forwarding to the company doesn't count as doing anything, and trying to claim the explanation as demonstrating a factual inaccuracy, and the moderations supporting that, is nothing but the kind of dishonest bullshit you right wingers are trying to use to try to pretend left media is even remotely as dishonest as the right.
Forwarding doesn't count. That wasn't their current policy. The original may have lacked them trying to claim forwarding does count, and if that's enough to say it was wrong, take a good hard look at the state of media bias and the right wing propaganda that is leading you people to attack this truth. It wasn't wrong.
Accuracy in reporting is more than just repeating something. Is it really accurate to report that "Slashdot user fafalone is a pedophile" followed hours or days later by a correction "The article has been updated to clarify the pedophile charge was made by somebody"? I doubt you would you just happily say "Of course their story was balls-on accurate, they have no obligation to confirm what they are reporting before reporting it".
As for "dishonest bullshit you right wingers blah blah", you don't know me or my politics. You're probably OK in person but you lose all perspective and manners at the keyboard. Social media is truly toxic.
The Verge article was dead on balls accurate in this case. They included the Democratic criticism (which turned out to be accurate per the followup), and the FCC response initially denying it, and then reported on not hearing additional followup. It then further elaborated on why this change would undermine the process. It could not possibly have been less biased. This is the problem with right wingers, what you call "fake news" on the left is such extreme nitpicking that's it's either not accurate to begin with (as here), or shortly corrected (something the right *never* does because they're intentionally lying and distorting facts). The level of bias between most of the left (non-zero but not extreme) and most of the right (overtly extreme) isn't even in the same universe, stop drawing false equivalencies.
If it was "dead on balls accurate' it wouldn't have needed corrections.
Update and correction July 11th, 12:30PM ET: The article has been updated to include the FCC’s response and to clarify that the informal complaints change was expressed by the congressmen; this article previously described the change as requiring consumers to pay a $225 fee, as stated in the letter.
Update July 11th, 5:45PM ET: This story has been updated to discuss the specific language at issue and include further response from the FCC.
I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.
I think it is crazy to think that in-person voter fraud is a problem we need to solve. What percent of non-citizens would be willing to risk a felony in order to cast 1 vote in an election? According to election officials pretty much everywhere, the answer is next to zero.
You think an illegal immigrant is going to risk going to jail by voting?
So, make it harder for millions of citizens to vote by requiring IDs that often cost money, in order to stop a TINY amount of in-person voter fraud.
I think it is crazy that people don't believe Republicans when the openly admit on camera that voter ID laws are going to help them win. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
It has nothing to do with stopping voter fraud, and everything to do with making a few percent of likely dem voters, not be able to vote. In tight races, closing a few voting stations making the lines longer, ID laws, keeping the day a Tuesday instead of a day off for most people, etc. All of this is designed to help Republicans win.
If you don't see that, you are willfully ignorant.
If you don't see that people need an official ID to function in society, you are willfully ignorant.
The gain you get financially is the fact that you do not need to buy the car. If I buy a car for 10.000 and I drive it for 1 yesr and only 10KM per year, The cost of the car is 1.000 Per year per KM. Now if I share the car with 9 other people who also just drive 10KM, the cost goes down to 100 p/KM
Obviously you would have an increase in maintenance and fuel. On top of that the company needs to make a profit. For that reason the company I am at sayd that it is interesting if you are below 10.000km per year. For many people this will not be a first car, but it might be interesting for a second or third car. http://www.cambio.be/cms/carsh...
The cost per mile numbers are inclusive of the cost of ownership.
Every vehicle has an expected useful lifespan. Lets say your hypothetical car is expected to last 100KM. If you alone use it and drive 10KM/year the car will last 10 years, If you share it with 9 others who also drive 10KM.year the car will last 1 year. Either way the cost/mile to own and operate the vehicle is the same and the cost per mile is the same. If anything, a shared vehicle would typically be newer and have higher depreciation expenses.
The own VS rent decision is nothing new. I rent trucks when I need them, no point in keeping one in my driveway to use 4 times a year. I'm just questioning their numbers which seem way off, like a $.25/mile shared vehicle cost in 2030.
While holding on to a paid-off car is sensible, I don't think your numbers are quite right. IHS states average is 79.3 month (~7 years), and this is data coming out of recession.
I guess I'm way outside the average.
- My 1999 Lexus has 290,000 miles - My 2000 Hyundai has 130,000 miles.
Both cars are fine. If either of them went I'd just get another used car. The Hyundai only cost me $2000 over 5 years ago.
Why does the cost of riding in a ride-share car go down over 25% between 2025 and 2030?
Why is the cost/mile to own so much higher than the cost/mile to hail? Don't the share companies need to make a profit?
Based on the IRS deduction the cost to operate a vehicle in 2018 is $.545/mile. This chart says by 2030 a rideshare company will be charging $.25/mile, so their expenses must be well below that
Or, you could use a credit card, which are actually regulated by some laws.
You should be able to cancel the subscription that refuses to go away just as easily via a credit card.
I don't know if that is true. With PayPal you have to set up a "prior authorization for recurring charges" agreement. You can cancel that any time and subsequent vendor charges will get rejected. With a credit card the charge will be accepted. You can dispute the charge but you have to work with the vendor as part of the dispute resolution process.
Where possible I use PayPal as the payment method for an automatic renewal service. Then I cancel the payment agreement on PayPal, which is very easy to do.
Yeah, but they're also people. People with hopes, dreams, lives, and the same love of life you and I have. People with human rights.
To draw arbitrary distinctions in an attempt to dehumanize is also disingenuous.
I would bet you can distinguish between an invited guest and a squatter in your home without delving into nonsense arguments. You have a right to decide who can enter and remain in your home and for how long.
"Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."
Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.
ID requirements are challenged no matter what the government does. Bringing ID vans to neighborhoods and making it free makes no difference. It will be challenged by testifying that there is at least one person who just can't possibly manage to do it no matter how easy it is. I bet they would manage to make it if you were giving away free cell phones. They would manage if you needed an ID to claim your free cell phone.
I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
So why did oil companies spend so much time and energy spread misinformation about climate change then?
https://www.scientificamerican...
That article doesn't present much of a case.
Where did bank bailouts work that way? You know what happened here? Banks needed bailouts. So they needed money, from the state. The state did not have that money, so what did the state do? Lend it of course. Where? Well, banks.
What REALLY happened here is that the state stood as guarantor for banks' liabilities, usually paying more for interest and fees than they got from the banks that needed the bailout. In the end, I don't know of a single state or country that went away with a plus from the deal.
You don't have a clue. Try reading this for a start:
https://money.cnn.com/2014/12/...
Or this if you want more depth
https://business.cch.com/banki...
It cheapens an expensive car
I saw the same "report" that you saw, and it was nothing but a rumor. Then Elon Musk responded saying it was false, but didn't release any actual numbers. So I guess you can believe whatever you want to believe. As for the "huge debt load", it's nothing compared to Ford, but somehow I don't see people raging on Ford all the time.
TSLA has over 11B in long and short term debt. FMC has 3.1B
You should compare TSLA and FMC finacials.
https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
Google can still give one version with crap apps away for free and a license for a crap-free version. I'd gladly pay extra for more choice. The problem is that Google tried to force the shit version on everyone.
Phone manufacturers are not forced to use Android.
Phone customers are not forced to buy a phone that uses the Android OS.
If customers don't like Android, the apps, or the phone company customisations they should buy something else
The people that want them can afford them and would buy them without the government subsidy.
They can always announce some new Elvis limited edition collectible plates and find somebody to buy them for the low low price of $39.95 plus shipping and handling. If you get in early you can get double your order for the same price too! Just pay the additional shipping and handling..
You are mixing up long-term success (visionary) with short-term success (being a huge idiot sometimes). But you probably did that on purpose and are just trolling. Well, I like to feed sometimes ;) I have karma to burn.
If you can't be a huge fucking idiot sometimes you will not accomplish anything in life. It's when we naively make our greatest mistakes, we grow the most as a human being. The point is, learning and not making the same mistake again.
Do you know anyone that can operate an automatic assembly-line from birth, like it's in their DNA, other than its own digestive tract? No? Indeed, didn't think so. Eating and shitting all over the place comes naturally, as we see often enough here in the comments. The rest we have to learn. Sometimes we can learn from others, but if we want to do something innovative, we have to learn the hard way. That means being huge idiots until you know how to do it right.
If you think you can do better than Musk, prove it to the world, or forever hold your peace.
Well said.
It's so easy to never fail. Just never try anything and spend all your time criticizing others who do.
This was announced officially back in April.
Back in February the HHS, which runs the office which runs this, released its budget request for the upcoming year. In it, they identified this as being duplicated in other governmental agencies and requested money to transfer the duties and money to different offices or agencies.
The office than in April decided to kill this database even before any of that request to kill it off was approved by Congress and divert the money they were spending on it to something else.
The article being linked to is yet another worthless opinion piece being passed off as actual journalism. The truth is no one really cares about this database and given four months for someone to come forward take it over no one has. The only reason it is being posted here is as a political hit piece.
Thanks for an informed and interesting comment
Well you're a moron. This is a database that cost a lot to put together and basically little to maintain, serves a purpose, and Republicans are killing health care plans with no replacement.
So you're a moron, basically, all wrong on every point you tried to make there, sorry.
I'm not sure if it "costs little to maintain". My first thought was it wouldn't be super costly from a tech perspective so why wouldn't some outside entity happily snatch it up and put ads on it?
But this is the likely reason (from TFA):
"The NGC has a screening process designed to keep weakly supported research out. It also offers summaries of research and an interactive, searchable interface.That gatekeeping role has sometimes made AHRQ a target. The agency was nearly eliminated shortly after its establishment, in the mid-90s, when it endorsed non-surgical interventions for back pain, a position that angered the North American Spine Society, a trade group representing spine surgeons. A subsequent campaign led to significant funding losses for AHRQ, and since then, the agency as a whole has been a perennial target for Republicans who have argued that its work is duplicated at other federal agencies."
So it's not just about hosting data. It requires a trained staff to research submissions and make judgements. Sure it could have a crowd-sourced model but I don't know if "Wikipedia" is appropriate as an authoritative source for medical guidelines.
Shes not that bad. Republicans abused their offices and drug her through the mud for years with the fake Bengazi bullshit and all of the conspiracy theories bullshit, just like the propagandists they are.
Bengazi wasn't fake. Real people died there. I'm not blaming Clinton or the Obama administration for that, even though mistakes were made. These are dangerous places where stuff happens.
But I do blame all of them for the cover-up where they blamed it on some poor schmuck for making a YouTube video and ruined his life. They knew it was a lie but they pushed it anyway. It was a shitty thing to do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/1...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
"Virtue signalling" accompanied by actually effective virtuous action is not a bad thing.
Because it may encourage more actually virtuous action.
We need a lot of change, fast, on this issue, and a lot of rapid effective action by governments worldwide.
So signal away. Good job Ireland for leading the way!
What are they doing that you believe will be effective, and in what way?
Hubbert's theory of the future seems to be based on the false notion that conditions remain static
No, the model only applies to static conditions, but it doesn't say that the conditions will be static.
I see. It's like predicting "England will go on to the world cup finals" when the score was 1:0.
And then after they lost saying "the model only applies to static conditions, but it doesn't say that the conditions will be static"
The Irish parliament just passed a bill drafted by an organization dedicated to "Challenging injustice through innovative legal strategies." http://www.glanlaw.org/ . From TFA:
"Gerry Liston at Global Legal Action Network, who drafted the bill, said: “Governments will not meet their obligations under the Paris agreement on climate change if they continue to financially sustain the fossil fuel industry. Countries the world over must now urgently follow Ireland’s lead and divest from fossil fuels.”
It's pretty silly. They have to know this is nonsense and that owning 300M euros of stock doesn't "financially sustain the fossil fuel industry" in any way.
Subsidies are a different story, but the article makes no mention of such.
Sell it cheap, buyers will eagerly snatch it up.
Peak oil was never about immediately running out of oil. It was a theory that oil production would hit a maximum point and then decline from there. Also, Hubbert’s prediction never stated that supply would run out in 20 years. His theory was production quantity would steadily decline over a couple hundred years.
Hubbert's theory of the future seems to be based on the false notion that conditions remain static.
None of those updates made the original version wrong. Bottom line, forwarding to the company doesn't count as doing anything, and trying to claim the explanation as demonstrating a factual inaccuracy, and the moderations supporting that, is nothing but the kind of dishonest bullshit you right wingers are trying to use to try to pretend left media is even remotely as dishonest as the right.
Forwarding doesn't count. That wasn't their current policy. The original may have lacked them trying to claim forwarding does count, and if that's enough to say it was wrong, take a good hard look at the state of media bias and the right wing propaganda that is leading you people to attack this truth. It wasn't wrong.
Accuracy in reporting is more than just repeating something. Is it really accurate to report that "Slashdot user fafalone is a pedophile" followed hours or days later by a correction "The article has been updated to clarify the pedophile charge was made by somebody"? I doubt you would you just happily say "Of course their story was balls-on accurate, they have no obligation to confirm what they are reporting before reporting it".
As for "dishonest bullshit you right wingers blah blah", you don't know me or my politics. You're probably OK in person but you lose all perspective and manners at the keyboard. Social media is truly toxic.
The Verge article was dead on balls accurate in this case. They included the Democratic criticism (which turned out to be accurate per the followup), and the FCC response initially denying it, and then reported on not hearing additional followup. It then further elaborated on why this change would undermine the process. It could not possibly have been less biased. This is the problem with right wingers, what you call "fake news" on the left is such extreme nitpicking that's it's either not accurate to begin with (as here), or shortly corrected (something the right *never* does because they're intentionally lying and distorting facts). The level of bias between most of the left (non-zero but not extreme) and most of the right (overtly extreme) isn't even in the same universe, stop drawing false equivalencies.
If it was "dead on balls accurate' it wouldn't have needed corrections.
Update and correction July 11th, 12:30PM ET:
The article has been updated to include the FCC’s response and to clarify that the informal complaints change was expressed by the congressmen; this article previously described the change as requiring consumers to pay a $225 fee, as stated in the letter.
Update July 11th, 5:45PM ET:
This story has been updated to discuss the specific language at issue and include further response from the FCC.
I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.
I think it is crazy to think that in-person voter fraud is a problem we need to solve. What percent of non-citizens would be willing to risk a felony in order to cast 1 vote in an election? According to election officials pretty much everywhere, the answer is next to zero.
You think an illegal immigrant is going to risk going to jail by voting?
So, make it harder for millions of citizens to vote by requiring IDs that often cost money, in order to stop a TINY amount of in-person voter fraud.
I think it is crazy that people don't believe Republicans when the openly admit on camera that voter ID laws are going to help them win. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
It has nothing to do with stopping voter fraud, and everything to do with making a few percent of likely dem voters, not be able to vote. In tight races, closing a few voting stations making the lines longer, ID laws, keeping the day a Tuesday instead of a day off for most people, etc. All of this is designed to help Republicans win.
If you don't see that, you are willfully ignorant.
If you don't see that people need an official ID to function in society, you are willfully ignorant.
The gain you get financially is the fact that you do not need to buy the car. If I buy a car for 10.000 and I drive it for 1 yesr and only 10KM per year, The cost of the car is 1.000 Per year per KM.
Now if I share the car with 9 other people who also just drive 10KM, the cost goes down to 100 p/KM
Obviously you would have an increase in maintenance and fuel. On top of that the company needs to make a profit. For that reason the company I am at sayd that it is interesting if you are below 10.000km per year. For many people this will not be a first car, but it might be interesting for a second or third car. http://www.cambio.be/cms/carsh...
The cost per mile numbers are inclusive of the cost of ownership.
Every vehicle has an expected useful lifespan. Lets say your hypothetical car is expected to last 100KM.
If you alone use it and drive 10KM/year the car will last 10 years, If you share it with 9 others who also drive 10KM.year the car will last 1 year.
Either way the cost/mile to own and operate the vehicle is the same and the cost per mile is the same.
If anything, a shared vehicle would typically be newer and have higher depreciation expenses.
The own VS rent decision is nothing new. I rent trucks when I need them, no point in keeping one in my driveway to use 4 times a year.
I'm just questioning their numbers which seem way off, like a $.25/mile shared vehicle cost in 2030.
While holding on to a paid-off car is sensible, I don't think your numbers are quite right. IHS states average is 79.3 month (~7 years), and this is data coming out of recession.
I guess I'm way outside the average.
- My 1999 Lexus has 290,000 miles
- My 2000 Hyundai has 130,000 miles.
Both cars are fine. If either of them went I'd just get another used car.
The Hyundai only cost me $2000 over 5 years ago.
Why does the cost of riding in a ride-share car go down over 25% between 2025 and 2030?
Why is the cost/mile to own so much higher than the cost/mile to hail? Don't the share companies need to make a profit?
Based on the IRS deduction the cost to operate a vehicle in 2018 is $.545/mile. This chart says by 2030 a rideshare company will be charging $.25/mile, so their expenses must be well below that
None of this makes sense to me.
Where possible I use PayPal
Or, you could use a credit card, which are actually regulated by some laws.
You should be able to cancel the subscription that refuses to go away just as easily via a credit card.
I don't know if that is true. With PayPal you have to set up a "prior authorization for recurring charges" agreement. You can cancel that any time and subsequent vendor charges will get rejected. With a credit card the charge will be accepted. You can dispute the charge but you have to work with the vendor as part of the dispute resolution process.
Where possible I use PayPal as the payment method for an automatic renewal service.
Then I cancel the payment agreement on PayPal, which is very easy to do.
Yeah, but they're also people. People with hopes, dreams, lives, and the same love of life you and I have. People with human rights.
To draw arbitrary distinctions in an attempt to dehumanize is also disingenuous.
I would bet you can distinguish between an invited guest and a squatter in your home without delving into nonsense arguments. You have a right to decide who can enter and remain in your home and for how long.
"Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."
Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.
ID requirements are challenged no matter what the government does. Bringing ID vans to neighborhoods and making it free makes no difference. It will be challenged by testifying that there is at least one person who just can't possibly manage to do it no matter how easy it is. I bet they would manage to make it if you were giving away free cell phones. They would manage if you needed an ID to claim your free cell phone.
I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.