"at least most western nations outside the US have more choices than tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum"
There is the perception that Europeans have so many more choices when voting, because they have more parties. So, when voting in national elections, they may have a choice between the Democratic Socialists, Socialist Democrats, Labor, Tories, Greens, ad nauseam. And in local elections, the same. So they have 5 different choices of party for 2, perhaps 3 offices.
Contrast this with the US. When I vote this fall, I will have a choice of Democrat or Republican for - President - Representative - Senator (2/3 of the time) - Governor (1/2 of the time) - State Representative - State Senator (1/3 of the time) - County Executive - County Council - Mayor - City Council - School Board (often non-partisan, so more than 2 choices) - Judges (in some jurisdictions) - And a whole bunch of other minor offices.
So I, and most residents of the US, have well over a dozen choices in our elected representatives. And in the US many voters split their ticket, voting for individuals of different parties during the same election cycle.
While the US 2-party system has its flaws, I would argue that, on the whole, the US system of elections and government is far more democratic than those systems with multiple parties, but few elected posts.
You remind me of the secretary's at a previous employer. When they discovered Powerpoint in about 2000, we would get emails with a Powerpoint attachment whose content included things like "The staff meeting has been postponed" or "The traffic on I83 is really bad", replete with colors, animations, and 20 different fonts. The problem was that about 1/2 of the staff worked remotely over dial-up, and attempting to open one of these missives would crash Outlook, Windows, and lock up the processor, requiring a reboot. And there was no escape -0 as soon as you opened Outlook it would attempt to download, and lock up before one was able to go offline and delete the bastard.
In summary, KNOCK IT OFF - no one likes those dumbass signatures; your regular correspondents are simply to polite to tell you.
Where there is a demand, someone will supply, and a market will spring up. Perhaps eBay should get out on moral grounds, but if these folks think it will make a dent in the trade, they are naive.
- All books Baen publishes (though not some earlier ones without electronic originals) - No DRM. At all. - Multiple formats - Permanent access. HD crash? Just download them again. - Reasonable pricing.
No shit. All of that is completely true, and totally irrelevant. The OP was asking how he could do his job better, not how to fix the election system.
"Hey, I'm hungry. Can you teach me how to fish? "Using a fishing rod is participating in the global economic system which is inherently unfair and you cannot possibly change it" "Thanks for the lecture, but I'm still hungry. Any ideas?" "Yes - starve in the comforting knowledge that your death is caused by events outside your control."
Again, you missed the point. HE is requesting help on doing HIS job well. One of the parts of his job is ensuring that individuals don't mess with the ballots. He is not responsible for the entire election system, just his part of it, and he is asking for help. Why is it so hard to help someone do their job well, even if the overall enterprise is suspect.
If an inexperienced soccer goalkeeper asks for tips for an upcoming game where the other players may (or may not) have been bribed to throw the game, are you going to tell him to just stand there and let the ball go by, because the overall game may be rigged?
If the man wants to do his job well and is humble enough to ask for help, people should either give him that help or just not say anything.
Fuck fairness to the Slashdot crowd - all the answers so far have been along the lines of - Diebold is evil - Bush is evil - You can't do anything, so don't try - the election is already rigged
I'm waiting for "You are a republican, so I'm not telling you. Nyaahhh nyaahhhh"
Only one has had a real suggestion - seals on physical access - and even that was surrounded by "but your fucked no matter what you do."
"In 2007, President Bush implemented a drastic budget change to devote 29% more of government funding towards education (from 42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007). No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion. [5]
Under criticisms: "Several years of weak tax revenues, particularly in sales tax and capital gains taxes, have forced most states to make deep cutbacks in many areas, including education.[citation needed] The extra funds provided to a school under NCLB's provisions may be more than offset by budget cuts at the state level, leaving them with both lower revenues and higher expenses." (I find this lame - the schools can't fund themselves, so they dip into teh Federal money for operating expenses, then claim that they didn't get enough federal funds?)
Also: "Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some of these extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by NCLB monies.
Various early supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[46] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association.[47]
" In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources... we are creating a fantasy."
Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act's main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.[48] President Bush's 2008 budget allots $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from last year. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes as is.[49]
Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises, and have responded to criticisms by claiming that President Bill Clinton never requested the full amount of funding authorized under the previous ESEA law.[50] Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing.
Federal funding is claimed to be particularly important because declining tax revenues at the state level have sometimes led governors and legislatures to make deep cuts in state education budgets." (again, note the last statement regarding falling tax revenues).
NCLB may not be fully funded, but it is by no means UNfunded. The real acid test is: how many states have refused the money? I think the answer is "Zero". They want the money - they just don't want the conditions that come with it.
"Um, Clinton? There you go. You don't have to go back a half century. Hell, I thought it was vogue to dig up the Clintons' dirty laundry now that it supports the golden boy, even though it's the same damned laundry the Dems spent 10 years discounting when they were in office."
The role of Republicans aside, just because the Democrats spent 10 years going "lalalala" with their fingers in their ears and simply denying things doesn't mean the Clintons have been cleared. They just became irrelevant since they were no longer in power. But now that she came back onto the political stage in a big way, the old files get opened again. Chinese political money, anyone? It's not like the Republicans set that up - they aren't that skilled.
Oh, I understood you just fine, like I understand what my 8 year old is saying when he has a tantrum about his sister.
But he's still having a tantrum. So are you.
Maybe everyone would take you more seriously if you didn't sound like you were in grade school. In case you hadn't noticed, almost all the respondents to your posts think you are an ass. Food for thought.
No, I mean the opposite - the **AA's would be precluded from that stunt.
In traffic court, an Officer of the Court (i.e. the cop)testifies and brings charges. I'm suggesting that it be done exactly the same way - an Officer of the Court can gather evidence/bring charges for copyright violation, NOT a private citizen. This has the effect of limiting prosecution - no police department is going to allocate the resources needed to stamp out copyright infringement REGARDLESS of how hard the **AA's yell and stamp their feet.
It's should be similar to speeding - the police COULD enforce the speed limit to a high level of compliance (rolling roadblocks, etc.), but they don't because the expenditure of resources isn't justified by the seriousness of the crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
"at least most western nations outside the US have more choices than tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum"
There is the perception that Europeans have so many more choices when voting, because they have more parties. So, when voting in national elections, they may have a choice between the Democratic Socialists, Socialist Democrats, Labor, Tories, Greens, ad nauseam. And in local elections, the same. So they have 5 different choices of party for 2, perhaps 3 offices.
Contrast this with the US. When I vote this fall, I will have a choice of Democrat or Republican for
- President
- Representative
- Senator (2/3 of the time)
- Governor (1/2 of the time)
- State Representative
- State Senator (1/3 of the time)
- County Executive
- County Council
- Mayor
- City Council
- School Board (often non-partisan, so more than 2 choices)
- Judges (in some jurisdictions)
- And a whole bunch of other minor offices.
So I, and most residents of the US, have well over a dozen choices in our elected representatives. And in the US many voters split their ticket, voting for individuals of different parties during the same election cycle.
While the US 2-party system has its flaws, I would argue that, on the whole, the US system of elections and government is far more democratic than those systems with multiple parties, but few elected posts.
You remind me of the secretary's at a previous employer. When they discovered Powerpoint in about 2000, we would get emails with a Powerpoint attachment whose content included things like "The staff meeting has been postponed" or "The traffic on I83 is really bad", replete with colors, animations, and 20 different fonts. The problem was that about 1/2 of the staff worked remotely over dial-up, and attempting to open one of these missives would crash Outlook, Windows, and lock up the processor, requiring a reboot. And there was no escape -0 as soon as you opened Outlook it would attempt to download, and lock up before one was able to go offline and delete the bastard.
In summary, KNOCK IT OFF - no one likes those dumbass signatures; your regular correspondents are simply to polite to tell you.
"The little old ladies don't like being mugged, "
Then they should get a gun...whoops, wrong sub-thread.
YEAH! I mean, look at how fast the US military conquered Iraq, confiscated all the guns, and left it in peace and harmo...
Oh, yeah...
Where there is a demand, someone will supply, and a market will spring up. Perhaps eBay should get out on moral grounds, but if these folks think it will make a dent in the trade, they are naive.
Baen offers a better way to do what you want - http://www.webscription.net/.
- All books Baen publishes (though not some earlier ones without electronic originals)
- No DRM. At all.
- Multiple formats
- Permanent access. HD crash? Just download them again.
- Reasonable pricing.
No shit. All of that is completely true, and totally irrelevant. The OP was asking how he could do his job better, not how to fix the election system.
"Hey, I'm hungry. Can you teach me how to fish?
"Using a fishing rod is participating in the global economic system which is inherently unfair and you cannot possibly change it"
"Thanks for the lecture, but I'm still hungry. Any ideas?"
"Yes - starve in the comforting knowledge that your death is caused by events outside your control."
Again, you missed the point. HE is requesting help on doing HIS job well. One of the parts of his job is ensuring that individuals don't mess with the ballots. He is not responsible for the entire election system, just his part of it, and he is asking for help. Why is it so hard to help someone do their job well, even if the overall enterprise is suspect.
If an inexperienced soccer goalkeeper asks for tips for an upcoming game where the other players may (or may not) have been bribed to throw the game, are you going to tell him to just stand there and let the ball go by, because the overall game may be rigged?
If the man wants to do his job well and is humble enough to ask for help, people should either give him that help or just not say anything.
Fuck fairness to the Slashdot crowd - all the answers so far have been along the lines of
- Diebold is evil
- Bush is evil
- You can't do anything, so don't try
- the election is already rigged
I'm waiting for "You are a republican, so I'm not telling you. Nyaahhh nyaahhhh"
Only one has had a real suggestion - seals on physical access - and even that was surrounded by "but your fucked no matter what you do."
You won't get an argument from me - I'd prefer to see the Feds OUT of educational funding altogether.
Per Wikipedia:
... we are creating a fantasy."
"In 2007, President Bush implemented a drastic budget change to devote 29% more of government funding towards education (from 42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007). No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion. [5]
Under criticisms:
"Several years of weak tax revenues, particularly in sales tax and capital gains taxes, have forced most states to make deep cutbacks in many areas, including education.[citation needed] The extra funds provided to a school under NCLB's provisions may be more than offset by budget cuts at the state level, leaving them with both lower revenues and higher expenses." (I find this lame - the schools can't fund themselves, so they dip into teh Federal money for operating expenses, then claim that they didn't get enough federal funds?)
Also:
"Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some of these extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by NCLB monies.
Various early supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[46] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association.[47]
" In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources
Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act's main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.[48] President Bush's 2008 budget allots $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from last year. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes as is.[49]
Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises, and have responded to criticisms by claiming that President Bill Clinton never requested the full amount of funding authorized under the previous ESEA law.[50] Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing.
Federal funding is claimed to be particularly important because declining tax revenues at the state level have sometimes led governors and legislatures to make deep cuts in state education budgets." (again, note the last statement regarding falling tax revenues).
NCLB may not be fully funded, but it is by no means UNfunded. The real acid test is: how many states have refused the money? I think the answer is "Zero". They want the money - they just don't want the conditions that come with it.
"Um, Clinton? There you go. You don't have to go back a half century. Hell, I thought it was vogue to dig up the Clintons' dirty laundry now that it supports the golden boy, even though it's the same damned laundry the Dems spent 10 years discounting when they were in office."
The role of Republicans aside, just because the Democrats spent 10 years going "lalalala" with their fingers in their ears and simply denying things doesn't mean the Clintons have been cleared. They just became irrelevant since they were no longer in power. But now that she came back onto the political stage in a big way, the old files get opened again. Chinese political money, anyone? It's not like the Republicans set that up - they aren't that skilled.
Oh, I understood you just fine, like I understand what my 8 year old is saying when he has a tantrum about his sister.
But he's still having a tantrum. So are you.
Maybe everyone would take you more seriously if you didn't sound like you were in grade school. In case you hadn't noticed, almost all the respondents to your posts think you are an ass. Food for thought.
Wow - did she turn you down for a date or something?
"Yeah, "fixed" as in "rigged", the way you Republicans love it."
Really? Ask historians about the 1960 Presidential elections in Illinois.
If Republicans are rigging the vote, they learned at the feet of the masters.
And...
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12172007.shtml
Janet Reno
[shudder]
You are aware that NCLB included the largest increase in federal funding for schools in history, right?
Yeah, because there weren't any schools failing before that law passed, and states don't have a choice whether to participate.
Perhaps it doesn't work. Fine. What would you have the government do?
I'll start: abolish the Dept. of Education and get the Feds out of the schools. Period.
Don't like that? What's your idea? Don't have one? Then STFU.
"you wouldn't be defending Republicans who are the telecom industry's bought-and-paid-for toadies. "
And Jay Rockefeller, D (WV), is pushing telecom immunity because he truly believes the Telco's were the innocent victims here?
Anybody know what fuckedcompany.com is doing these days?
"but most folks do seem to realize that "... on the INTERNET!" is not in and of itself a recipe for making tons of cash. "
But it IS the recipe for getting a bogus patent, which in turn leads to tons of cash - for lawyers, anyway.
You forgot "...and it's all the US's fault!"
No, I mean the opposite - the **AA's would be precluded from that stunt.
In traffic court, an Officer of the Court (i.e. the cop)testifies and brings charges. I'm suggesting that it be done exactly the same way - an Officer of the Court can gather evidence/bring charges for copyright violation, NOT a private citizen. This has the effect of limiting prosecution - no police department is going to allocate the resources needed to stamp out copyright infringement REGARDLESS of how hard the **AA's yell and stamp their feet.
It's should be similar to speeding - the police COULD enforce the speed limit to a high level of compliance (rolling roadblocks, etc.), but they don't because the expenditure of resources isn't justified by the seriousness of the crimes.
I dunno, I think the word "Head" in the summary title just about says it all.