So, is this what the blue states want for the rest of us? I'm glad I ended up in a red state then.
Re:The next quote from the book of Mozilla
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"We meet again at last. When I left you I was a crappy browser. Now, I shall become the Firefox." Darth Netscape said.
Long Live the Browser . . .
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You can put lipstick on it and call it Gertrude, but in the end, a pig is still a pig.
That is, what I like about Firefox/Thunderbird is that they aren't "Netscape" per se. AOL is looking at Netscape's shortcomings and assuming that a simple substitution of the browser code with Firefox will gain support? Maybe for the unwashed masses who don't really care (and are probably using IE because it's there). If you told me it was "Netscape; powered by Firefox," that would not intice me to use Netscape.
I think what is not said is that MS probably plans the same thing for IE, albeit in some surrepticious manner. Maybe a rewrite to avoid any obvious license violation. But, I bet we'll notice that IE will start behaving a lot more like Firefox.
But, I wonder if Firefox will start having integration issues with Winders machines? It's been known to happen. MS sends out a critical security update, and Firefox will start having problems. Things break, din't they?
The brief discusses the requirement of the broadcast flag in digital television; something Congress implicitly allows. Congress gave the FCC authority over all interstate radio and wire communication, and gave them sufficient latitude to use its authority. Accept that your computer is bound by FCC regulations which are given tacit support by Congress who has tacit support of the majority (50.1 percent at least) of voting Americans.
The bottom of my laptop has an FCC number. It also has numbers allowing operation in countries I'll probably never visit. Your computer is already regulated.
When briefs are filed in court, they typically focus on one legal issue. This issue appears to involve broadcast flags on Digital TV. Courts are supposed to address only substantive issues the parties are in conflict over.
I see. Sort of an Apples Oranges issue? Although, selecting electors is a legislative issue rather than Constitutional, so it's possible to return to the earlier system w/o a Constitutional change. Sorry, I'm in law school now so sometimes my humor meter gets caught up in my legalese meter.
But, if you want to go that far, then only rich, white landowners can vote. Talk about a paradigm shift.
Let the individual states run the elections if they want, but have the Federal governement set the rules.
We do, however because we still place a considerable amount of authority in the States, our Congress delegated that authority. Each state has it's own propery laws, commerce laws, and civil injury laws; while the Federal Gov't has its own set.
Don't bet that just because you don't hear of fraud in Canada that every vote counts. It's just become popular to point to the cracks in our process in Central-North America.
Sorry, but a Constitutional Amendment (13 I think, but maybe 14 or 15) fixed that problem. Besides, we don't have slaves any more . . . unless you're talking computers.
The Primary system belongs to the Party. If it's broke, fix it w/n your party. If the Democrats got a lame candidate, it is because of strategic changes made by the DNC that was meant to weed out potential threats to their establishment. They didn't want Dean and the system helped get rid of him really quick.
What if Primary votes aren't reported until the end of all Primaries? This would encourage a shorter primary campaign cycle and help give each candidate a real shot instead of sand bagging some in the beginning.
No, it is not important. For decades the US has managed to vote quite nicely without making voting more convenient. Increasing the convenience has trended to increase fraud. The Government does need time to validate the voter's existance, especially when I've heard a report that more people voted in a county than live there.
Here's how to defraud the "Election Day Registration" (ERD) You are the controlling party who is losing the election. You have previously completed a few thousand ERD forms and ballots. Have one high population/pro-your party precinct show up late. Sneak in the ballots and registrations.
Make sure you rifle through the approval process in that precinct of those registrations. Because you know it's the "marked" precinct, you know what to expect while your opposition does not.
"[U]se indelible ink . . . . can't be rubbed off for at least 24 hours."
You show me ink that can't be rubbed off, and I'll show you how to rub it off. Use in foreign elections does not demonstrate this technique as proof against fraud. Although, I do think it's better than nothing. Put it on their cheek or forehead. Harder to hid/rub off.
You put it on my thumb, I'll have very little time removing the ink.
"Easier to vote + fewer instances of fraud = better democracy."
Well, one thing we know is that certain voting mechanisms have a higher degree of fraud and flaws. We know roughly what the variation is. As a somewhat fictional example, say punchcard has a ten percent error rate. First, go for the system with the lowest error rate and fraud. Second, when the margin between the candidates is within the margin of error, spin a runoff.
So, you have A and B who are running for Dog Catcher. The ballot system has a five percent margin of error. A has 48% and B has 52%. 52 - 48 = 4 therefore w/n margin of error: the election is cast out. The following week you have a manditory runoff. Continue each week until you have a winner, or one conceeds.
The entire state should use the same voting equipment and the exact same standards. Certain parties have ways of defeating elections because of the equipment they select at the county level.
On the Ballot Initiative Cards, I have a follow-on recommendation. On the BACK of the card, space will be provided to each side of the issue to state their reason for the initiative. Most initiatives have a committee that serves as ring leader. Typically, opposition will be more scattered, but they tend to unify on key reasons why an initiative is bad. The top half will be headed "For the Initiative" and the bottom half will read "Against the Initiative."
There isn't enough room, but does provide space for a few written sound bites.
I have a strong distrust of electronic balloting in general, and recommend something that most Americans can handle: Bingo Ballots.
1. A Bingo Ballot (BB) is a stack of cards, perhaps 4"x 6".
2. Each (BB) card contains only one race. (I suppose they could be called Race Cards.)
a. All candidates listed in alphabetical order
b. A candidate slot for "none of the above" will always be provided at the bottom.
c. candidate slots will be evenly spaced on the card (i.e., if there are three candidates, then each occupies a fourth of the card. Don't forget the "None" candidate slot).
d. a row resembling a row of equal signs will divide each partition (======)
e. Each card will have a registration number (e.g. 12345-6-8). The middle digit is the "card" number, and the last digit is the "of cards" number. This will show the voter that there are eight cards to complete.
f. Font will be Courier 18pt minimum.
g. cards will be glued together as a notepad is, but such that they can be easily removed for counting.
h. For aiming purposes, a one centimeter box will be provided to the left of the candidate's name. As you will see below, this is not really important.
Voting:
a. The voter will be given an ink blotter resembling that used in Bingo, such to provide a one centimeter dot.
b. Voter will vote on each card, to be inspected at the end. Any race not voted for the voter will be required to mark "None."
c. Voter much manage to make a substancial mark (with a blotter that should be easy), that does not cross the line dividing candidates.
d. If the gap in the row (===) contains the substancial mark, then that vote is discarded.
e. If there's a big mark and a little mark, then the big mark counts.
f. If the voter screwed up, then they draw a fat 'X' on the ballot and is handed a replacement card. The original and replacement are stapled together.
Ballot Initiatives will have half the card to explain the initiative, and the bottom half will have three candidate slots: Yes, No, Don't Care.
Yeah, because Mississippi (IQ 85 according to its sources "map") has an average intelligence just above retarded (83 IQ, IIRC). As a fellow of mine said, having lived in Boston, "Bostonians are among the dumbest people I have ever known."
That map seems to try to say that Yankee's are vastly superior to Southerners.
What's funny about that, IMO, is an interview with Sen. Kerry. He was asked, "what do you think about the fact that Bush has a higher IQ than you?"
Kerry replied, "who got my records?" Not a denial, but a surprise that that fact got out. Of course, that does not validate the assertion that Bush *did* have a higher IQ, but does suggest it is possible.
However, I think the underlying issue here is a belief by some that they are superior to others, and they latch on to whatever trait they think more strongly supports that. Intelligence is a very popular trait to use. From experience I can tell you some of the most intelligent people I have known and worked with were absolute idiots who lacked common sense.
" Terry McAulliff will almost have to be fired as head of the DNC."
Except, the head of the DNC is supposed to be appointed by the head of the party. The head of the party is supposed to be the guy who got nominated for president. That means that Al should have replaced Terry back in 2000. Terry is Clinton's boy. Remeber, Kerry winning is bad for Hillary '08.
I'm sure that those ballots not being sent out was just a precaution to ensure that those who were voting absentee aren't going to vote Nader.
Seriously, though, I'd like to see a break out of voting irregularities by county nation wide. That is, count the number of bona fide complaints such as missing ballots, dropped voters, etc. and post the results by county. Why by county? Because, in a majority of states the counties run the election. To what purpose? Well, once you have such irregularities mapped, then you can see which party (Dems. or Reps.) is more prone to these problems.
"Isn't it possible that someone wanted to send letters them letters asking them to vote for Bush?"
Having worked with a campaign or two, I can tell you that demographics lists like this are commonplace and are not themselves dispositive of an intent to do anything other than know the terrain.
I'm sure if you visited a Democrat office, you'd find a list of 3,772 rich, white, Republicans. Would those who accuse the Republicans of intending a challenge make the same statement in this case with the same evidence?
Sorry, but I'm in law school now, but have not yet taken IP law. But, just because somebody sends a C/D does not mean you have to comply immediately. You have to know if you are liable first. I hate to say it, but spend a little time (mabye $$) to find out if you risk infringement.
If I am not mistaken, however, you can't trademark a common word. For example, Microsoft can trademark "Windows" because it's already in the vernacular. Instead, they're "MS Windows." If I am correct, and IANAL, then you can tell them where to place their C/D.
Are you in the US? Then, they will have to being suit here. If they do, then (assuming I am right about the non-tradmarkability of a common English word) the response to their complaint is that their action is not colorable under the law. That is, while you may be using the same word as their trademark, because they have a silly trademark they can't bring action.
There are many current vernacular words that were once trademarks. If a company does not prevent their trademark from entering into common usage, e.g. "xerox" to mean photocopy or "google" to mean web search, then the validity of their trademark is lost and they shouldn't be able to enforce their trademark. Happens all the time.
For the past sixty years the United States have been tilting heavily in one direction, and now that they are snapping the other way, people assume that we'll end up with a one party system?
What do you call the Democrat control of both houses of Congress for as long as they did--almost 30 years? How close were we to a one-party system then? And you complain only because for the past decade the Republicans have been on the rise.
Even if the Republicans do gain control of all three Branches, they won't have it perpetually. Just as the power swing has now gone Left to Right, it will swing Right to Left. But, what you haven't noticed is that Leftward swings have moved this country further than the Rightward.
"Maybe that's because the Democrats aren't trying to usurp the very democratic underpinnings that this nation was built upon."
Except that trial lawyers are using extra-democratic means to compel various industries to change behavior. I sat in on a lecture to that effect at my law school last week. I can't retell the entire discussion now, but it was rather alarming. Considering which side the trial lawyers support, you may want to reconsider who's trying to erode what.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
"I personally do not own weapons, don't want to. But I feel a little better knowing that there are those paranoid bastards out in the woods packing fully automatic weapons waiting for the government to get 'really evil'. [sic]"
I know I speak for my fellow paranoid bastards when I say sleep tight; we'll keep watch. Although, some of us have decided that it's okay to move in from the woods.
What people may not realize is the ban led to an increase in large caliber concealable handguns. I for one own a pocket cannon that if I press my hands together "as if to pray" nobody could see. When there's not enough capacity, go for stopping power and accuracy. (Not that I want to engage in a caliber=stopping power debate at present.)
What the USPTO needs is a mechanism wherein average Americans can file a "not so fast" to submitted patents.
Once the patent has made it through the clever hands of the USPTO, it enters into a 90 or 180 day probationary period. During this time, the patent information is available to the public, and the public can provide input as to whether or not prior art exists. If, after that period, nobody files a valid counter to the patent, it takes effect.
We already have watchdogs who catch this stuff once it becomes public. So, this would open a window before the patent is official. Competitor companies would also keep an eye on their opponents.
The downside? If I patent the Great American Widget, a major corp could try to throw paper at the USPTO to confuse them.
I only recently started tinkering with the Wikipedia, and in a few places found errors. Naturally, I fixed those. I contend that the experiment was of too brief a duration, or the errors introduced were obscure.
The success of the Wikipedia is that it is possible to correct errors when they are identified by whomever found the error. This is a great strength over closed encyclopedia.
"We don't have a single nuclear reactor in the state and yet, somehow, we're supposed to accept the waste from the entire country?"
Well, Las Vegas is accepting so many billions of dollars from idiots who think they can disprove that "the house always wins." Why not compensate the rest of the nation by also accepting some of our radioactive crap?:-)
Okay, so now that they've put lasers on mice, have they developed an aquatic laser for sharks? More importantly, have the mice been trained to target specific world leaders unless the governments of the world give us 1,000,000 chees wheels? If so, which world leaders?
Okay, so science has finally proven that (or perhaps more accurately "how") Man is inherently corrupt. I guess all those centuries of religious rhetoric weren't entirely wrong. Or, more specifically, for those who believe that Man can be made good with the right environment, etc. how do we respond?
Slashdot Mirror
So, is this what the blue states want for the rest of us? I'm glad I ended up in a red state then.
"We meet again at last. When I left you I was a crappy browser. Now, I shall become the Firefox." Darth Netscape said.
You can put lipstick on it and call it Gertrude, but in the end, a pig is still a pig.
That is, what I like about Firefox/Thunderbird is that they aren't "Netscape" per se. AOL is looking at Netscape's shortcomings and assuming that a simple substitution of the browser code with Firefox will gain support? Maybe for the unwashed masses who don't really care (and are probably using IE because it's there). If you told me it was "Netscape; powered by Firefox," that would not intice me to use Netscape.
I think what is not said is that MS probably plans the same thing for IE, albeit in some surrepticious manner. Maybe a rewrite to avoid any obvious license violation. But, I bet we'll notice that IE will start behaving a lot more like Firefox.
But, I wonder if Firefox will start having integration issues with Winders machines? It's been known to happen. MS sends out a critical security update, and Firefox will start having problems. Things break, din't they?
The brief discusses the requirement of the broadcast flag in digital television; something Congress implicitly allows. Congress gave the FCC authority over all interstate radio and wire communication, and gave them sufficient latitude to use its authority. Accept that your computer is bound by FCC regulations which are given tacit support by Congress who has tacit support of the majority (50.1 percent at least) of voting Americans.
The bottom of my laptop has an FCC number. It also has numbers allowing operation in countries I'll probably never visit. Your computer is already regulated.
When briefs are filed in court, they typically focus on one legal issue. This issue appears to involve broadcast flags on Digital TV. Courts are supposed to address only substantive issues the parties are in conflict over.
I see. Sort of an Apples Oranges issue? Although, selecting electors is a legislative issue rather than Constitutional, so it's possible to return to the earlier system w/o a Constitutional change. Sorry, I'm in law school now so sometimes my humor meter gets caught up in my legalese meter.
But, if you want to go that far, then only rich, white landowners can vote. Talk about a paradigm shift.
Let the individual states run the elections if they want, but have the Federal governement set the rules.
We do, however because we still place a considerable amount of authority in the States, our Congress delegated that authority. Each state has it's own propery laws, commerce laws, and civil injury laws; while the Federal Gov't has its own set.
Don't bet that just because you don't hear of fraud in Canada that every vote counts. It's just become popular to point to the cracks in our process in Central-North America.
"So then, slaves would count as 3/5 a person?"
Sorry, but a Constitutional Amendment (13 I think, but maybe 14 or 15) fixed that problem. Besides, we don't have slaves any more . . . unless you're talking computers.
The Primary system belongs to the Party. If it's broke, fix it w/n your party. If the Democrats got a lame candidate, it is because of strategic changes made by the DNC that was meant to weed out potential threats to their establishment. They didn't want Dean and the system helped get rid of him really quick.
What if Primary votes aren't reported until the end of all Primaries? This would encourage a shorter primary campaign cycle and help give each candidate a real shot instead of sand bagging some in the beginning.
"Same day registration is important."
No, it is not important. For decades the US has managed to vote quite nicely without making voting more convenient. Increasing the convenience has trended to increase fraud. The Government does need time to validate the voter's existance, especially when I've heard a report that more people voted in a county than live there.
Here's how to defraud the "Election Day Registration" (ERD) You are the controlling party who is losing the election. You have previously completed a few thousand ERD forms and ballots. Have one high population/pro-your party precinct show up late. Sneak in the ballots and registrations.
Make sure you rifle through the approval process in that precinct of those registrations. Because you know it's the "marked" precinct, you know what to expect while your opposition does not.
"[U]se indelible ink . . . . can't be rubbed off for at least 24 hours."
You show me ink that can't be rubbed off, and I'll show you how to rub it off. Use in foreign elections does not demonstrate this technique as proof against fraud. Although, I do think it's better than nothing. Put it on their cheek or forehead. Harder to hid/rub off.
You put it on my thumb, I'll have very little time removing the ink.
"Easier to vote + fewer instances of fraud = better democracy."
Well, one thing we know is that certain voting mechanisms have a higher degree of fraud and flaws. We know roughly what the variation is. As a somewhat fictional example, say punchcard has a ten percent error rate. First, go for the system with the lowest error rate and fraud. Second, when the margin between the candidates is within the margin of error, spin a runoff.
So, you have A and B who are running for Dog Catcher. The ballot system has a five percent margin of error. A has 48% and B has 52%. 52 - 48 = 4 therefore w/n margin of error: the election is cast out. The following week you have a manditory runoff. Continue each week until you have a winner, or one conceeds.
The entire state should use the same voting equipment and the exact same standards. Certain parties have ways of defeating elections because of the equipment they select at the county level.
On the Ballot Initiative Cards, I have a follow-on recommendation. On the BACK of the card, space will be provided to each side of the issue to state their reason for the initiative. Most initiatives have a committee that serves as ring leader. Typically, opposition will be more scattered, but they tend to unify on key reasons why an initiative is bad. The top half will be headed "For the Initiative" and the bottom half will read "Against the Initiative."
There isn't enough room, but does provide space for a few written sound bites.
I have a strong distrust of electronic balloting in general, and recommend something that most Americans can handle: Bingo Ballots.
1. A Bingo Ballot (BB) is a stack of cards, perhaps 4"x 6".
2. Each (BB) card contains only one race. (I suppose they could be called Race Cards.)
a. All candidates listed in alphabetical order
b. A candidate slot for "none of the above" will always be provided at the bottom.
c. candidate slots will be evenly spaced on the card (i.e., if there are three candidates, then each occupies a fourth of the card. Don't forget the "None" candidate slot).
d. a row resembling a row of equal signs will divide each partition (======)
e. Each card will have a registration number (e.g. 12345-6-8). The middle digit is the "card" number, and the last digit is the "of cards" number. This will show the voter that there are eight cards to complete.
f. Font will be Courier 18pt minimum.
g. cards will be glued together as a notepad is, but such that they can be easily removed for counting.
h. For aiming purposes, a one centimeter box will be provided to the left of the candidate's name. As you will see below, this is not really important.
Voting:
a. The voter will be given an ink blotter resembling that used in Bingo, such to provide a one centimeter dot.
b. Voter will vote on each card, to be inspected at the end. Any race not voted for the voter will be required to mark "None."
c. Voter much manage to make a substancial mark (with a blotter that should be easy), that does not cross the line dividing candidates.
d. If the gap in the row (===) contains the substancial mark, then that vote is discarded.
e. If there's a big mark and a little mark, then the big mark counts.
f. If the voter screwed up, then they draw a fat 'X' on the ballot and is handed a replacement card. The original and replacement are stapled together.
Ballot Initiatives will have half the card to explain the initiative, and the bottom half will have three candidate slots: Yes, No, Don't Care.
Yeah, because Mississippi (IQ 85 according to its sources "map") has an average intelligence just above retarded (83 IQ, IIRC). As a fellow of mine said, having lived in Boston, "Bostonians are among the dumbest people I have ever known."
That map seems to try to say that Yankee's are vastly superior to Southerners.
What's funny about that, IMO, is an interview with Sen. Kerry. He was asked, "what do you think about the fact that Bush has a higher IQ than you?"
Kerry replied, "who got my records?" Not a denial, but a surprise that that fact got out. Of course, that does not validate the assertion that Bush *did* have a higher IQ, but does suggest it is possible.
However, I think the underlying issue here is a belief by some that they are superior to others, and they latch on to whatever trait they think more strongly supports that. Intelligence is a very popular trait to use. From experience I can tell you some of the most intelligent people I have known and worked with were absolute idiots who lacked common sense.
" Terry McAulliff will almost have to be fired as head of the DNC."
Except, the head of the DNC is supposed to be appointed by the head of the party. The head of the party is supposed to be the guy who got nominated for president. That means that Al should have replaced Terry back in 2000. Terry is Clinton's boy. Remeber, Kerry winning is bad for Hillary '08.
I'm sure that those ballots not being sent out was just a precaution to ensure that those who were voting absentee aren't going to vote Nader.
Seriously, though, I'd like to see a break out of voting irregularities by county nation wide. That is, count the number of bona fide complaints such as missing ballots, dropped voters, etc. and post the results by county. Why by county? Because, in a majority of states the counties run the election. To what purpose? Well, once you have such irregularities mapped, then you can see which party (Dems. or Reps.) is more prone to these problems.
"Isn't it possible that someone wanted to send letters them letters asking them to vote for Bush?"
Having worked with a campaign or two, I can tell you that demographics lists like this are commonplace and are not themselves dispositive of an intent to do anything other than know the terrain.
I'm sure if you visited a Democrat office, you'd find a list of 3,772 rich, white, Republicans. Would those who accuse the Republicans of intending a challenge make the same statement in this case with the same evidence?
You know, if strict product liability were applied to Microsoft, they'd be paying big time.
I let a typo slip through. When I said "can trademark 'Windows,' I meant "can't trademark."
Sorry, but I'm in law school now, but have not yet taken IP law. But, just because somebody sends a C/D does not mean you have to comply immediately. You have to know if you are liable first. I hate to say it, but spend a little time (mabye $$) to find out if you risk infringement.
If I am not mistaken, however, you can't trademark a common word. For example, Microsoft can trademark "Windows" because it's already in the vernacular. Instead, they're "MS Windows." If I am correct, and IANAL, then you can tell them where to place their C/D.
Are you in the US? Then, they will have to being suit here. If they do, then (assuming I am right about the non-tradmarkability of a common English word) the response to their complaint is that their action is not colorable under the law. That is, while you may be using the same word as their trademark, because they have a silly trademark they can't bring action.
There are many current vernacular words that were once trademarks. If a company does not prevent their trademark from entering into common usage, e.g. "xerox" to mean photocopy or "google" to mean web search, then the validity of their trademark is lost and they shouldn't be able to enforce their trademark. Happens all the time.
For the past sixty years the United States have been tilting heavily in one direction, and now that they are snapping the other way, people assume that we'll end up with a one party system?
What do you call the Democrat control of both houses of Congress for as long as they did--almost 30 years? How close were we to a one-party system then? And you complain only because for the past decade the Republicans have been on the rise.
Even if the Republicans do gain control of all three Branches, they won't have it perpetually. Just as the power swing has now gone Left to Right, it will swing Right to Left. But, what you haven't noticed is that Leftward swings have moved this country further than the Rightward.
"Maybe that's because the Democrats aren't trying to usurp the very democratic underpinnings that this nation was built upon."
Except that trial lawyers are using extra-democratic means to compel various industries to change behavior. I sat in on a lecture to that effect at my law school last week. I can't retell the entire discussion now, but it was rather alarming. Considering which side the trial lawyers support, you may want to reconsider who's trying to erode what.
"I personally do not own weapons, don't want to. But I feel a little better knowing that there are those paranoid bastards out in the woods packing fully automatic weapons waiting for the government to get 'really evil'. [sic]"
I know I speak for my fellow paranoid bastards when I say sleep tight; we'll keep watch. Although, some of us have decided that it's okay to move in from the woods.
What people may not realize is the ban led to an increase in large caliber concealable handguns. I for one own a pocket cannon that if I press my hands together "as if to pray" nobody could see. When there's not enough capacity, go for stopping power and accuracy. (Not that I want to engage in a caliber=stopping power debate at present.)
What the USPTO needs is a mechanism wherein average Americans can file a "not so fast" to submitted patents.
Once the patent has made it through the clever hands of the USPTO, it enters into a 90 or 180 day probationary period. During this time, the patent information is available to the public, and the public can provide input as to whether or not prior art exists. If, after that period, nobody files a valid counter to the patent, it takes effect.
We already have watchdogs who catch this stuff once it becomes public. So, this would open a window before the patent is official. Competitor companies would also keep an eye on their opponents.
The downside? If I patent the Great American Widget, a major corp could try to throw paper at the USPTO to confuse them.
I only recently started tinkering with the Wikipedia, and in a few places found errors. Naturally, I fixed those. I contend that the experiment was of too brief a duration, or the errors introduced were obscure.
The success of the Wikipedia is that it is possible to correct errors when they are identified by whomever found the error. This is a great strength over closed encyclopedia.
"We don't have a single nuclear reactor in the state and yet, somehow, we're supposed to accept the waste from the entire country?"
:-)
Well, Las Vegas is accepting so many billions of dollars from idiots who think they can disprove that "the house always wins." Why not compensate the rest of the nation by also accepting some of our radioactive crap?
Okay, so now that they've put lasers on mice, have they developed an aquatic laser for sharks? More importantly, have the mice been trained to target specific world leaders unless the governments of the world give us 1,000,000 chees wheels? If so, which world leaders?
Okay, so science has finally proven that (or perhaps more accurately "how") Man is inherently corrupt. I guess all those centuries of religious rhetoric weren't entirely wrong. Or, more specifically, for those who believe that Man can be made good with the right environment, etc. how do we respond?