They kept child labor in the mines but made more money for the children's parents and for the union bosses.
Unions in the US started denouncing child labor as far back as 1832 and continued to push for banning of child labor until they got it banned nationally over a century later in 1938 (source).
The purpose of a union is that if pay and/or working conditions are intolerable, workers have something of value to bargain with. If 1 guy quits, the company is just a bit shorthanded until they can hire somebody else, while that employee starves. If 10,000 guys quit all at once, it's harder for the company to deal with. That threat is about the only leverage that, say, factory workers have.
Which also explains why most programmers don't see a need to unionize: 1. Working conditions are usually decent or at least not physically dangerous, and pay is typically solidly middle-class. 2. Programming jobs are usually plentiful enough that somebody can find a new job elsewhere if their current one isn't what they want it to be.
-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software
At least in Ohio, which everyone thinks is the only state that counts, that fear is probably unfounded. The reasons for this: 1. The vast majority of votes will be cast using optical scan machines that were put in place in 2005 (by a Democrat), leave a paper trail, and have been used for several elections already without anything untoward showing up. That means that in order for Romney to win (based on recent polling), he'd need to make 100% of the electronic-only votes go for Romney, which would look a wee bit suspicious. 2. Tagg Romney doesn't have much control.
- Small-scale and covert actions in the Middle East rather than massive invasions with hundreds of thousands killed. - The US remaining a viable trading partner. - A president that knows basic geography ("Syria is Iran's route to the sea")
I mean, I think a lot of it boils down to this: Mitt Romney isn't all that smart. He got to where he was by being born rich and being very good at lying. Obama, for all his many faults, is at least not a complete moron.
If it matters, in the only state that really counts (Ohio), they're mostly using the optical scan ballots, where you fill in the circle on paper and scan the paper. This means that if there is a serious question about it, it's quite possible to recount.
The German generals in fact recommended against attacking Russia in the winter, preferring to concentrate their efforts on the Brits. The trouble was that the corporal who was commanding them (Adolf Hitler) decided to ignore their advice.
They were still using carrier pigeons in WW II? Despite the invention of radio?
The trouble with radio is that everyone else hears it too. Carrier pigeons, assuming they get through, can carry a message from the front lines to the rear without it being intercepted as easily.
And yet the last cavalry charge occurred 80 years later!
Actually, the WWII cavalry charges were done because they sometimes worked: For example, an infamous Polish cavalry charge early on in the war was successful in halting the advance of an infantry force - the trouble was that then some tanks showed up and the cavalry had to retreat (this later got propagandized as Poles charging tanks with lances, but that never happened). Later on, an Italian cavalry unit was surrounded by Marshal Tito's forces in the Balkans, and managed to escape by charging them with sabres drawn. And yes, the Germans used cavalry too, mostly on the Eastern Front.
In short, the generals aren't as stupid as you think.
You really really don't want that. I mean, can you think of how many lawsuits might result from... Hey, look, that blond chick has really hot legs... interjected thoughts... I really need to go take a leak right now... that happen in normal human thought patterns.
That's why I'm of the view that we need to introduce "duck-typing" (if it walks like a duck, etc) to regulatory systems:
Instead of saying "If you are a bank, you must protect depositors by doing XYZ", say "If you have any kind of customer deposit account, you must protect depositors by doing XYZ". It's about regulation based on behavior rather than regulation based on classification, preventing the old "We're not a bank, we're a money transfer system / mortgage brokerage /..."
If Visa, Mastercard, Amex etc are treating everyone fairly, it seems like PayPal would now be due for a major smackdown courtesy of the big-name credit card networks. I'm talking about a $10^9 order of magnitude smackdown. If I recall correctly, proper compliance means certifying a bunch of stuff under penalty of perjury, which means that PayPal is not only organizationally breaking the rules but may have individuals breaking the rules as well.
Of course, equally likely, these companies will be too worried about hurting their relationship with a big payment processor to actually do anything about it.
... with representatives of the candidates, and frequently anyone else who wants to, watching them do it. At least, that's typically how it's done: a counter counting, campaigns watching for votes they want to challenge, and election judges looking over the challenged votes to decide who the voter intended to vote for.
beyond the realms of possibility to create a secure system that allows everybody to submit their vote from their home (using some kind of token)
That's not possible: If you can vote from your home, you can also vote from, say, your workplace, with your boss standing over you helpfully telling you that if you don't vote for Smith (rather than Jones) you'll be fired. And if you think that wouldn't happen, consider that several CEOs have sent out mailings to their workers telling them that if Romney doesn't win, there will be layoffs.
Actually, it's even older than that: There's apparently a Sumerian tablet from 1900 BCE with a fart joke. Aristophanes also was well known for writing fart jokes.
Oh, by all means, when I'm called upon to do my civic duty, I aim to do it as well as I can. That means an informed vote, an impartial look at the facts while sitting on the jury, exercising my rights of protest and due process and the like when appropriate, etc.
The only caveat I'd have to your need for voters to be informed: A lot of commentators who think that way define "informed" as "agrees with me". For instance, I've encountered people who think that unless you believe everything Glen Beck says, you don't qualify as "informed".
Now, assuming we bust all 5 companies and take everything they have, is there any way to go after the owners personally for the frauds they've committed? Or is this going to be yet another instance of the all-too-common business plan: 1. Set up a scam company. 2. Scam people. 3. Government busts the company, forces it into bankruptcy. 4. Personally, you avoided punishment because it's limited liability. 5. Profit! 6. Repeat as many times as you like.
In my opinion, most people who hate jury trials have never sat on a jury. I have. And I was proud to do so, because it was one of the two very specific duties I have as a citizen (the other being voting). And I was confident in our verdict (guilty of felonious assault, defendant had attacked the victim with a knife).
This is something I can't often say for religious leaders of any other faiths.
Among every single major religious umbrella, you can find people who are the wisest and nicest folks you've ever heard of, and also people who are the dumbest and meanest folks you've ever heard of.
And that includes atheists: There are plenty of hardworking and moral atheists out there. There are also dogmatic atheists (mostly communists) who ordered that anyone who professed a religion be executed.
That explains the thought process of different political groups.
People who disagree with me think more with feeling and emotion, less with logic. People who agree with me think more with logic and reason, and less with empathy.
Slashdot Mirror
They kept child labor in the mines but made more money for the children's parents and for the union bosses.
Unions in the US started denouncing child labor as far back as 1832 and continued to push for banning of child labor until they got it banned nationally over a century later in 1938 (source).
The purpose of a union is that if pay and/or working conditions are intolerable, workers have something of value to bargain with. If 1 guy quits, the company is just a bit shorthanded until they can hire somebody else, while that employee starves. If 10,000 guys quit all at once, it's harder for the company to deal with. That threat is about the only leverage that, say, factory workers have.
Which also explains why most programmers don't see a need to unionize: 1. Working conditions are usually decent or at least not physically dangerous, and pay is typically solidly middle-class. 2. Programming jobs are usually plentiful enough that somebody can find a new job elsewhere if their current one isn't what they want it to be.
Most labor unions are led by whoever wins a majority vote in the union elections.
They might be communists, they might not be. But whoever it is has to keep the support of at least half the union membership.
When there's another guy with root access who can change your password / eliminate your keys?
-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software
At least in Ohio, which everyone thinks is the only state that counts, that fear is probably unfounded. The reasons for this:
1. The vast majority of votes will be cast using optical scan machines that were put in place in 2005 (by a Democrat), leave a paper trail, and have been used for several elections already without anything untoward showing up. That means that in order for Romney to win (based on recent polling), he'd need to make 100% of the electronic-only votes go for Romney, which would look a wee bit suspicious.
2. Tagg Romney doesn't have much control.
- Small-scale and covert actions in the Middle East rather than massive invasions with hundreds of thousands killed.
- The US remaining a viable trading partner.
- A president that knows basic geography ("Syria is Iran's route to the sea")
I mean, I think a lot of it boils down to this: Mitt Romney isn't all that smart. He got to where he was by being born rich and being very good at lying. Obama, for all his many faults, is at least not a complete moron.
like this. Yeah, humans basically figured out this problem in the Stone Age.
News Flash! Ohio is called for Pat Buchanen!
If it matters, in the only state that really counts (Ohio), they're mostly using the optical scan ballots, where you fill in the circle on paper and scan the paper. This means that if there is a serious question about it, it's quite possible to recount.
The German generals in fact recommended against attacking Russia in the winter, preferring to concentrate their efforts on the Brits. The trouble was that the corporal who was commanding them (Adolf Hitler) decided to ignore their advice.
So do I: I call it "reading Youtube comments".
They were still using carrier pigeons in WW II? Despite the invention of radio?
The trouble with radio is that everyone else hears it too. Carrier pigeons, assuming they get through, can carry a message from the front lines to the rear without it being intercepted as easily.
And yet the last cavalry charge occurred 80 years later!
Actually, the WWII cavalry charges were done because they sometimes worked: For example, an infamous Polish cavalry charge early on in the war was successful in halting the advance of an infantry force - the trouble was that then some tanks showed up and the cavalry had to retreat (this later got propagandized as Poles charging tanks with lances, but that never happened). Later on, an Italian cavalry unit was surrounded by Marshal Tito's forces in the Balkans, and managed to escape by charging them with sabres drawn. And yes, the Germans used cavalry too, mostly on the Eastern Front.
In short, the generals aren't as stupid as you think.
Actually, it's a bit longer, and translates to:
Don't look like Neanderthals
Living in a cave
Stay clean and ready with
Burma Shave
You really really don't want that. I mean, can you think of how many lawsuits might result from ... Hey, look, that blond chick has really hot legs ... interjected thoughts ... I really need to go take a leak right now ... that happen in normal human thought patterns.
The point is: The risks are higher, the payoff is less, and like any other law the incentive not to violate it is the risk of being punished.
That's why I'm of the view that we need to introduce "duck-typing" (if it walks like a duck, etc) to regulatory systems:
Instead of saying "If you are a bank, you must protect depositors by doing XYZ", say "If you have any kind of customer deposit account, you must protect depositors by doing XYZ". It's about regulation based on behavior rather than regulation based on classification, preventing the old "We're not a bank, we're a money transfer system / mortgage brokerage / ..."
If Visa, Mastercard, Amex etc are treating everyone fairly, it seems like PayPal would now be due for a major smackdown courtesy of the big-name credit card networks. I'm talking about a $10^9 order of magnitude smackdown. If I recall correctly, proper compliance means certifying a bunch of stuff under penalty of perjury, which means that PayPal is not only organizationally breaking the rules but may have individuals breaking the rules as well.
Of course, equally likely, these companies will be too worried about hurting their relationship with a big payment processor to actually do anything about it.
corruptible humans counting bits of paper
... with representatives of the candidates, and frequently anyone else who wants to, watching them do it. At least, that's typically how it's done: a counter counting, campaigns watching for votes they want to challenge, and election judges looking over the challenged votes to decide who the voter intended to vote for.
beyond the realms of possibility to create a secure system that allows everybody to submit their vote from their home (using some kind of token)
That's not possible: If you can vote from your home, you can also vote from, say, your workplace, with your boss standing over you helpfully telling you that if you don't vote for Smith (rather than Jones) you'll be fired. And if you think that wouldn't happen, consider that several CEOs have sent out mailings to their workers telling them that if Romney doesn't win, there will be layoffs.
Actually, it's even older than that: There's apparently a Sumerian tablet from 1900 BCE with a fart joke. Aristophanes also was well known for writing fart jokes.
A vote for Obama continues to be a vote for plutocracy.
Yeah, we should cut out the middle-man, and elect an actual plutocrat instead!
Oh, by all means, when I'm called upon to do my civic duty, I aim to do it as well as I can. That means an informed vote, an impartial look at the facts while sitting on the jury, exercising my rights of protest and due process and the like when appropriate, etc.
The only caveat I'd have to your need for voters to be informed: A lot of commentators who think that way define "informed" as "agrees with me". For instance, I've encountered people who think that unless you believe everything Glen Beck says, you don't qualify as "informed".
Now, assuming we bust all 5 companies and take everything they have, is there any way to go after the owners personally for the frauds they've committed? Or is this going to be yet another instance of the all-too-common business plan:
1. Set up a scam company.
2. Scam people.
3. Government busts the company, forces it into bankruptcy.
4. Personally, you avoided punishment because it's limited liability.
5. Profit!
6. Repeat as many times as you like.
In my opinion, most people who hate jury trials have never sat on a jury. I have. And I was proud to do so, because it was one of the two very specific duties I have as a citizen (the other being voting). And I was confident in our verdict (guilty of felonious assault, defendant had attacked the victim with a knife).
Beat me to it (check the sig).
This is something I can't often say for religious leaders of any other faiths.
Among every single major religious umbrella, you can find people who are the wisest and nicest folks you've ever heard of, and also people who are the dumbest and meanest folks you've ever heard of.
And that includes atheists: There are plenty of hardworking and moral atheists out there. There are also dogmatic atheists (mostly communists) who ordered that anyone who professed a religion be executed.
Let's change this to be a bit more accurate:
That explains the thought process of different political groups.
People who disagree with me think more with feeling and emotion, less with logic.
People who agree with me think more with logic and reason, and less with empathy.