I don't know why it gets any special advantages at all.
It should have to physically push a buzzer. And write out the daily double.
From what I hear, it does physically push a buzzer. Even so, the response time of a solenoid controlled by an electronic computer is much shorter than a button controlled by a human.
Nobody has to write out the "daily double". They do have to write their questions to Final Jeopardy. Is this supposed to be hard for a computer? I have a computer that "writes" all kind of stuff all the time.
It has to be able to parse the physical environment of Jeopardy, and interact with the physical environment of Jeopardy (At least while the show it running, it doesn't have to enter or leave under its own power.)
Until then, it's not really 'playing Jeopardy', is it?
Do they actually fit four podiums and a entire wall of video screens into that little box for the home version of Jeopardy? Kewl.
...and canceling all non-stand-up meetings for the foreseeable future.
I'd say just skip meetings that you can, but that can backfire.
A long time ago I skipped a "break" where the planned activity was a cake for someone's birthday. Turns out the
"meeting" was held to give all the employees a psychological test and the bosses were pissed I didn't go. Of course,
I probably would have been sick that day had I known what they were planning, and that would have been all the psychological testing they needed.
Their next cute trick was to ask me at a meeting what I thought of a proposed new logo for the company. I had been out of town for a few days, so I didn't know they had already decided they were going to use it, and they didn't bother telling me this first. I said I didn't like it. They weren't too happy with that, either. (It was a swirly thing that looked sort of like the pattern a flushing toilet makes, and the company went down the drain with it not too much later.)
Everyone who has been using the term "global warming" is out of date. Passe. Please keep up with the latest
developments.
It's is now "global climate change". That way it doesn't matter if the planet is getting warmer or colder. As long as
it is changing the "global climate change" proponents will be correct. Sort of like betting on both black and red on the roulette
table. You only lose if 0 (or 00) comes up.
Thank you for your attention. You may now return to the "yes it is/no it isn't/its fucking cold out/weather is not climate you moron" flame war.
Therefore, the computer (like the humans) must first determine what the response should be, and how confident it is that the response is correct, before buzzing in.
In all but the most obscure questions, this is a losing tactic.
For most of the answers, it is a race. He who is fastest at the buzzer wins. You can see this many times as two of the three are clicking their buzzer as fast as their little fingers can.
On middling-hard questions, you still see people racing to buzz in and then take the full amount of time to think of the answer.
Were the contestants truly coming up with an answer prior to buzzing in, you'd never see them buzz in and then go silent. Yes, there are times when nobody buzzes in, but those are the exception and not the rule.
And it is still possible for even normal humans to flat-out beat it to the punch on some questions.
If you mean beat humans to the buzzer, don't be silly. The machine will have much faster reflexes than any human. It could press its virtual button within microseconds of the allowed time. Even if it doesn't have a connection to the "ok to buzz in now" signal, it can press its virtual button at 10, 100 or even 1000 times a second, compared to the three or four times a second a human can press his.
It can then use the entire several seconds allowed for the human to vocalize the question to find the right question and display it.
And, if nothing else, since the system is run by computer, it could simply tap into the existing network and get the questions before they are read. It wouldn't even take $64,000...
Of course, we'll probably find out in a few years that it was really Ken Jennings hiding in the box. You never saw them both at the same time, did you?
Yep. If you're unemployed the correct attitude is to give *anything* a try. Anything at all.
The reasons are:
a) You can always quit
The point was that he WASN'T willing to give the jobs he was applying for a try. He was quite clear in saying that he would NOT be a telemarketer or take an under-minimum wage job. Why bother applying for either kind of job if you know from the start you won't take it if offered? I can think of two reasons. One, so you can tell the unemployment agency that you tried and thus keep getting benefits. Two, as practice at interviewing. I doubt the latter, since he said he was interviewing alot, and an interview for a telemarketer job wouldn't have much relevance to an interview for a software engineer position.
Ok, I suppose answering the question "do you have any ethical standards at all that would prevent you from trying to suck money out of retired people for overyhyped and overvalued trinkets" could prepare you for a question like "do you have any ethical standards at all that would prevent you from writing the code the way you are told to write it instead of using good engineering practices and testing methodologies?"
Gosh you must feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that in your area, you buck the trend: younger voting aged people voting and getting engaged in the political process!
Did you read what I wrote? I have no problem with young people getting involved in the political process, assuming they make the effort to be educated and not just fall for the latest fad or pretty face. (And I make that caveat about old people in the political process, too.) What I do have a problem with is "representation without taxation." That is, the ability to vote taxes onto other people without any possibility of that tax applying to the voter.
Truly, the people you should really be concerned about aren't young college students, who may very well grow up into income-earning, tax-paying, family-starting, local residents, but all the 65-70 year olds who vote against (certain) taxes knowing that as the state infrastructure and services crumble, they won't be around to suffer the consequences.
The possibility of the college students at a major four year university growing up into anything "local residents" (on the dole or tax paying) is slim. Most come from other places; most go other places when they graduate. If they didn't, the city here would be chock-a-block full past capacity with graduates and there'd be no room for incoming students.
And those old people you worry about, they have a considerable concern about those services that might crumble out from under them, because, unlike you, they don't have an income they can put in the bank for a rainy day. They're in the rainy days.
Since you assume the college aged population is selfish and manipulative,
I made no such assumption. I assume they are human. Is that a bad thing?
College students tend to join the taxpayers pretty soon. Normally by the following legislature.
A very large number of them join the "taxpayers" somewhere else.
Voting for a new city-wide tax on cell phones, for example, will have very little effect on almost a quarter of all undergraduates because almost a quarter of them are seniors and will be leaving town within a few months. (I'm certain that the actual number is much larger than a quarter since most college students with cell phones will have them registered at their parent's or other address and not the college, so the city won't be taxing them anyway.)
Another example is property tax. College students who vote for a property tax increase are protected from that increase by three things. 1) They rent, so the increase in taxes won't appear until the next rental agreement, and a quarter of them will be gone by then. 2) They live on campus and pay no embedded property tax anyway. 3) The increase will occur after 1/4 of them graduate. And 4) even if they are here for a couple more years, they know in advance that they will most likely NOT be here for long enough for the new tax to make much difference to them.
Our campus students just passed a huge fee on themselves for a new union and recreational facilities. I'd love to know how many of those who voted for it were seniors who wouldn't be paying it, compared to the rest who will be stuck with a 20 year fee structure paying off the new building.
Actually, it's the reason why we elect representatives and have a bicameral legislative system. The failure mode of direct democracy has been known for a long time. "A democracy can exist only as long as it takes for more than half the voters to recognize they can make the other less than half pay for everything" -- a paraphrase of DeToqueville.
An interesting bit of trivia: the Senate was not designed to have members elected by popular vote, because the senators were intended to represent the STATE and not the citizens of the state. This was intended to deal with things like unfunded mandates. The house could create things that the people thought they ought to have (like free education) and the senate would look out for the ability of the states to pay for it.
Now we've got nothing more than two chambers doing the same job. Both want earmarks so they get reelected.
I never said that
"the government" should determine how many kids someone could churn out.
If there is a "too many children" determination, who makes it? Government does, in China. Otherwise that determination is just your opinion and is about
as relevant as the price of tea in that specific country.
I'd say, with the number of unwed teenagers and other unanticipated births, that the current programs aren't having a really good compliance rate, either. Either judge the programs on the same criteria or stop judging any of them.
I love this one. Personally its the best. You know I did have a 2 offers. One of them was below minimum wage and the way they planned to get around it was it was a "contract". I turned that down. The other offer was for a telemarketing position in which I was paid on commission and there was no way to guarantee I would get paid minimum wage even. Plus I am not a sales person never worked in sales.
By admitting this, you are feeding the trolls who would claim that you truly aren't looking for work. Why would you apply to places you know you wouldn't work if they tried to hire you, except to keep your required number of contacts up?
On the other hand, why are you applying to places where you haven't done any research to know what kind of job you are applying for?
While people want the value of their property to go up, they don't want to pay the additional taxes associated with that increased value.
Of course. People get no benefit from their property value going up per se. They only benefit when they sell the property, at which time they are subject to capital gains taxes.
Why should you tax someone more on something that they've gotten no real benefit from? The "benefit" of living in a house hasn't increased just because the appraised value has gone up. The roads aren't better because of it. The sewer system is still just as old. Yes, they'll get more money from the house when they sell it, but why not tax them then?
There are times when I wonder if part of the 'blame' for the conditions that lead to Prop. 13 could be placed on real estate speculators, property tax assessments, and the tax structure.
Exactly right. Why should MY taxes go up just because someone next door sold their house for more than they paid for it, or because some city official drove around town and reappraised my house? That makes no sense to me. Why do you tax ME more when the other guy who doesn't live there anymore is the one who made the money?
Incorrect. ALL tax hikes in California require a 2/3 majority thanks to Prop 13, which effectively gives a veto to the taxophobic minority.
Your "taxophobic minority" is another person's "reasonable concern."
A large number of taxes that appear on the Oregon ballot are designed to divide and conquer. For example, "shall we raise taxes on beer?" The majority of people, not being beer drinkers, thinks this is just swell. "Shall we increase the cigarette tax?" Different majority, same result.
I've long had the opinion that anyone who proposes a tax (and I do mean "anyone") should be required to pay ten years of that tax (ok, maybe five) personally before it ever comes up for a vote, either as a ballot initiative or legislative vote. This would put a real quick stop to the attitude "it's ok to tax the other guy as long as I don't have to pay it, too.".
I'm even a full supporter of the idea that anyone who votes in favor of a tax has to be subject to that tax even if they don't participate in the actions being taxed. Maybe for two years.This would not only put further hurdles in the path of "let's tax the other guy" attitudes, it would put a real crimp in votes from college students who vote in favor of taxes to pay for things they like knowing they won't be around to pay the taxes when the bill comes due. It's really annoying to see all the campaigning for taxes that goes on on and around campus aimed at people everyone knows won't have to pay the tax if it passes.
Religion is responsible for people having too many kids,
The number of acceptable children is an opinion that is best left to the parents, and not the government or outside parties.
...and as far as abstinence programs go, why don't you have a good look at the statistics and tell me how they're working out in practice.
The statistics are very good for abstinence programs. They work 100% of the time they are used. You can't get better than 100%.
On the other hand, the pill and condoms and other birth control systems work just as poorly as you claim abstinence works, when they, too, are not used. They also do not reach 100% effectiveness even when used as they are intended to. (Nor do some of the acceptable systems do anything to prevent STDs.)
If you are going to denounce abstinence as a method because it doesn't work when people don't use it, then you have to be consistent and denounce condoms and the pill and IUDs and whatever for the same reason.
You bible-pushers are a pain.
Just where did you see me "push the bible"? I'd say that people who try to compare apples to oranges trying to prove that apples shouldn't exist are the pain. If you want to compare failure rates of abstinence when used against condoms when used, condoms lose. If you want to compare abstinence when it isn't used with condoms when they are, you are being dishonest, and are being a bigger pain than any "bible pushing" I've done.
To use your line of argument, if you haven't gotten it yet, I'd argue that teaching children about condoms in school is an abject failure at preventing births when those children fail to use them, so we should stop teaching them about condoms.
How about we settle on a compromise? We teach them about SEVERAL methods that all fail when they aren't used, including one method that is 100% effective and several that are >90% when used properly?
People having kids can be directly attributed to two causes, lack of education and religion.
I agree, lack of religion is a major cause. Lack of religion leads to lack of abstinence.
How do you get around the simple fact that abstinence works 100% every time it is used? Do you call for the abandonment of the pill and condoms because they fail to work when they are not used, and even fail to work a small percentage of the time when used properly?
The government is supposed to be a safety net. Doesn't matter if it's state or federal, the job has to be done by the government.
Really? Where does it say this in the Constitution? "Safety net"?
Why are NGOs incapable of being this safety net? Do you not realize the increase in available donations were the federal government not sucking so much out of your paycheck every week?
Really? Based on what law MUST they reimburse you? Are you confusing a nicety that they do with some sort of legal obligation?
I do not know the laws of California, but many government entities have legal rules that say they cannot force you to donate your time or money for government work. I sure that some of these are also contractual obligations that are part of a union contract.
Not long ago, I was running a class on a topic that a certain person wanted to come take. A few days before the class he got hired by a government department, and since knowing this information was now part of his job and they could not figure out how to comp him the time to come to the class, he could not attend. He could not legally volunteer his Saturday.
So, if California demands that certain workers be reachable by phone when away from landlines they provide, they have an obligation to provide that cell phone. You would not argue that a government employee who was required to carry a radio must buy his own radio, would you?
The only thing the rock band game controllers teach you is timing; I'm still undecided how useful that experience is in learning to play real music.
Well, we have some evidence the opposite direction. Apparently being a famous rock band doesn't translate into an ability to play the rock band game. One "Gene Simmons Family Jewels" episode had Kiss playing against Nick the newbie rock wannabe and his pals. Nick and pals creamed Gene and the pros.
Every game I've ever played or seen has nothing to do with doing the real task in real life. Being successful in games requires learning the tricks written into the game or the details of using the controller. For example, to win Dragon's Lair you didn't need knowledge of how to use a sword, you needed to learn the sequence of the floor tiles. To be successful at Adventure you didn't need to be the best bird-catcher in the building, you just had to know that the bird was scared of... I don't remember what it was, but something you tended to pick up on the way into the cave.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. I must have missed the memo, when did the working class get a raise to cover the efficiency gains?
Why should anyone get a pay raise based on the increase in efficiency of an automated system? Everyone who buys electricity benefits from lower costs in production and distribution of that power. There is no reason to have a raise in pay, too.
A progressive tax system is one where the tax cuts aren't going to predominantely richer people,
That is incorrect. A progressive tax system is one where higher income people pay higher rates. That's all. It has nothing to do with this nebulous "benefit they receive" nonsense. Under such a tax system, it is by definition the higher tax payers who get more benefits from tax cuts. Someone who does pay taxes will get much more benefit from a 1% cut than the non-payer will get from a 100% cut.
As for your last point, you can't save money if you don't have it to begin with.
If you don't have it to begin with, you aren't spending it on electricity and thus aren't getting any benefit from automation in the electric system. That's right. If you pay nothing for electricity, it is ridiculous to expect to pay less for it based on anything. It is just as ridiculous to expect a pay raise for the job you do have based on lowered costs of electric system accounting.
There's plenty of people out there that are barely squeaking by, and that means that even with cost cutting they don't have any extra to save.
Either they pay electric bills or they do not. If they do not, then they are irrelevant with respect to the savings from automating electric services. If they do pay electric bills, then they benefit from automation reducing the cost of those services.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I hear, it does physically push a buzzer. Even so, the response time of a solenoid controlled by an electronic computer is much shorter than a button controlled by a human.
Nobody has to write out the "daily double". They do have to write their questions to Final Jeopardy. Is this supposed to be hard for a computer? I have a computer that "writes" all kind of stuff all the time.
It has to be able to parse the physical environment of Jeopardy, and interact with the physical environment of Jeopardy (At least while the show it running, it doesn't have to enter or leave under its own power.) Until then, it's not really 'playing Jeopardy', is it?
Do they actually fit four podiums and a entire wall of video screens into that little box for the home version of Jeopardy? Kewl.
So I'll count you in the "weather is not climate you moron" flamer contingent then, shall I?
I'd say just skip meetings that you can, but that can backfire.
A long time ago I skipped a "break" where the planned activity was a cake for someone's birthday. Turns out the "meeting" was held to give all the employees a psychological test and the bosses were pissed I didn't go. Of course, I probably would have been sick that day had I known what they were planning, and that would have been all the psychological testing they needed.
Their next cute trick was to ask me at a meeting what I thought of a proposed new logo for the company. I had been out of town for a few days, so I didn't know they had already decided they were going to use it, and they didn't bother telling me this first. I said I didn't like it. They weren't too happy with that, either. (It was a swirly thing that looked sort of like the pattern a flushing toilet makes, and the company went down the drain with it not too much later.)
It's is now "global climate change". That way it doesn't matter if the planet is getting warmer or colder. As long as it is changing the "global climate change" proponents will be correct. Sort of like betting on both black and red on the roulette table. You only lose if 0 (or 00) comes up.
Thank you for your attention. You may now return to the "yes it is/no it isn't/its fucking cold out/weather is not climate you moron" flame war.
"Hey, I saw a really nice TV at Bill's place while I was there fighting a grease fire on his stove. Gotta match?"
What is "forks over the platinum mastercard at the diamond store, Alex?"
What is "puts her delicates into the dryer and sets it on high, Alex?"
What is "picks his nose, Alex?"
I dunno, what is the right question?
In all but the most obscure questions, this is a losing tactic.
For most of the answers, it is a race. He who is fastest at the buzzer wins. You can see this many times as two of the three are clicking their buzzer as fast as their little fingers can.
On middling-hard questions, you still see people racing to buzz in and then take the full amount of time to think of the answer.
Were the contestants truly coming up with an answer prior to buzzing in, you'd never see them buzz in and then go silent. Yes, there are times when nobody buzzes in, but those are the exception and not the rule.
If you mean beat humans to the buzzer, don't be silly. The machine will have much faster reflexes than any human. It could press its virtual button within microseconds of the allowed time. Even if it doesn't have a connection to the "ok to buzz in now" signal, it can press its virtual button at 10, 100 or even 1000 times a second, compared to the three or four times a second a human can press his.
It can then use the entire several seconds allowed for the human to vocalize the question to find the right question and display it.
And, if nothing else, since the system is run by computer, it could simply tap into the existing network and get the questions before they are read. It wouldn't even take $64,000...
Of course, we'll probably find out in a few years that it was really Ken Jennings hiding in the box. You never saw them both at the same time, did you?
The point was that he WASN'T willing to give the jobs he was applying for a try. He was quite clear in saying that he would NOT be a telemarketer or take an under-minimum wage job. Why bother applying for either kind of job if you know from the start you won't take it if offered? I can think of two reasons. One, so you can tell the unemployment agency that you tried and thus keep getting benefits. Two, as practice at interviewing. I doubt the latter, since he said he was interviewing alot, and an interview for a telemarketer job wouldn't have much relevance to an interview for a software engineer position.
Ok, I suppose answering the question "do you have any ethical standards at all that would prevent you from trying to suck money out of retired people for overyhyped and overvalued trinkets" could prepare you for a question like "do you have any ethical standards at all that would prevent you from writing the code the way you are told to write it instead of using good engineering practices and testing methodologies?"
Did you read what I wrote? I have no problem with young people getting involved in the political process, assuming they make the effort to be educated and not just fall for the latest fad or pretty face. (And I make that caveat about old people in the political process, too.) What I do have a problem with is "representation without taxation." That is, the ability to vote taxes onto other people without any possibility of that tax applying to the voter.
Truly, the people you should really be concerned about aren't young college students, who may very well grow up into income-earning, tax-paying, family-starting, local residents, but all the 65-70 year olds who vote against (certain) taxes knowing that as the state infrastructure and services crumble, they won't be around to suffer the consequences.
The possibility of the college students at a major four year university growing up into anything "local residents" (on the dole or tax paying) is slim. Most come from other places; most go other places when they graduate. If they didn't, the city here would be chock-a-block full past capacity with graduates and there'd be no room for incoming students.
And those old people you worry about, they have a considerable concern about those services that might crumble out from under them, because, unlike you, they don't have an income they can put in the bank for a rainy day. They're in the rainy days.
Since you assume the college aged population is selfish and manipulative,
I made no such assumption. I assume they are human. Is that a bad thing?
A very large number of them join the "taxpayers" somewhere else.
Voting for a new city-wide tax on cell phones, for example, will have very little effect on almost a quarter of all undergraduates because almost a quarter of them are seniors and will be leaving town within a few months. (I'm certain that the actual number is much larger than a quarter since most college students with cell phones will have them registered at their parent's or other address and not the college, so the city won't be taxing them anyway.)
Another example is property tax. College students who vote for a property tax increase are protected from that increase by three things. 1) They rent, so the increase in taxes won't appear until the next rental agreement, and a quarter of them will be gone by then. 2) They live on campus and pay no embedded property tax anyway. 3) The increase will occur after 1/4 of them graduate. And 4) even if they are here for a couple more years, they know in advance that they will most likely NOT be here for long enough for the new tax to make much difference to them.
Our campus students just passed a huge fee on themselves for a new union and recreational facilities. I'd love to know how many of those who voted for it were seniors who wouldn't be paying it, compared to the rest who will be stuck with a 20 year fee structure paying off the new building.
An interesting bit of trivia: the Senate was not designed to have members elected by popular vote, because the senators were intended to represent the STATE and not the citizens of the state. This was intended to deal with things like unfunded mandates. The house could create things that the people thought they ought to have (like free education) and the senate would look out for the ability of the states to pay for it.
Now we've got nothing more than two chambers doing the same job. Both want earmarks so they get reelected.
But the imagery used by liberal democrats is just fine, right?
Like the LBJ ad implying Goldwater would be using nukes to bomb cute little children?
I wonder how much responsibility LBJ would have accepted had a wacko attacked Goldwater based on the imagery LBJ used? Probably none.
By definition, you cannot predict what wackos are going to do, thus it is lunacy to pretend to say "if we don't do X they won't do Y".
Why would you? What is being searched?
If there is a "too many children" determination, who makes it? Government does, in China. Otherwise that determination is just your opinion and is about as relevant as the price of tea in that specific country.
I'd say, with the number of unwed teenagers and other unanticipated births, that the current programs aren't having a really good compliance rate, either. Either judge the programs on the same criteria or stop judging any of them.
By admitting this, you are feeding the trolls who would claim that you truly aren't looking for work. Why would you apply to places you know you wouldn't work if they tried to hire you, except to keep your required number of contacts up?
On the other hand, why are you applying to places where you haven't done any research to know what kind of job you are applying for?
Of course. People get no benefit from their property value going up per se. They only benefit when they sell the property, at which time they are subject to capital gains taxes.
Why should you tax someone more on something that they've gotten no real benefit from? The "benefit" of living in a house hasn't increased just because the appraised value has gone up. The roads aren't better because of it. The sewer system is still just as old. Yes, they'll get more money from the house when they sell it, but why not tax them then?
There are times when I wonder if part of the 'blame' for the conditions that lead to Prop. 13 could be placed on real estate speculators, property tax assessments, and the tax structure.
Exactly right. Why should MY taxes go up just because someone next door sold their house for more than they paid for it, or because some city official drove around town and reappraised my house? That makes no sense to me. Why do you tax ME more when the other guy who doesn't live there anymore is the one who made the money?
Your "taxophobic minority" is another person's "reasonable concern."
A large number of taxes that appear on the Oregon ballot are designed to divide and conquer. For example, "shall we raise taxes on beer?" The majority of people, not being beer drinkers, thinks this is just swell. "Shall we increase the cigarette tax?" Different majority, same result.
I've long had the opinion that anyone who proposes a tax (and I do mean "anyone") should be required to pay ten years of that tax (ok, maybe five) personally before it ever comes up for a vote, either as a ballot initiative or legislative vote. This would put a real quick stop to the attitude "it's ok to tax the other guy as long as I don't have to pay it, too.".
I'm even a full supporter of the idea that anyone who votes in favor of a tax has to be subject to that tax even if they don't participate in the actions being taxed. Maybe for two years.This would not only put further hurdles in the path of "let's tax the other guy" attitudes, it would put a real crimp in votes from college students who vote in favor of taxes to pay for things they like knowing they won't be around to pay the taxes when the bill comes due. It's really annoying to see all the campaigning for taxes that goes on on and around campus aimed at people everyone knows won't have to pay the tax if it passes.
The number of acceptable children is an opinion that is best left to the parents, and not the government or outside parties.
The statistics are very good for abstinence programs. They work 100% of the time they are used. You can't get better than 100%.
On the other hand, the pill and condoms and other birth control systems work just as poorly as you claim abstinence works, when they, too, are not used. They also do not reach 100% effectiveness even when used as they are intended to. (Nor do some of the acceptable systems do anything to prevent STDs.)
If you are going to denounce abstinence as a method because it doesn't work when people don't use it, then you have to be consistent and denounce condoms and the pill and IUDs and whatever for the same reason.
You bible-pushers are a pain.
Just where did you see me "push the bible"? I'd say that people who try to compare apples to oranges trying to prove that apples shouldn't exist are the pain. If you want to compare failure rates of abstinence when used against condoms when used, condoms lose. If you want to compare abstinence when it isn't used with condoms when they are, you are being dishonest, and are being a bigger pain than any "bible pushing" I've done.
To use your line of argument, if you haven't gotten it yet, I'd argue that teaching children about condoms in school is an abject failure at preventing births when those children fail to use them, so we should stop teaching them about condoms.
How about we settle on a compromise? We teach them about SEVERAL methods that all fail when they aren't used, including one method that is 100% effective and several that are >90% when used properly?
I agree, lack of religion is a major cause. Lack of religion leads to lack of abstinence.
How do you get around the simple fact that abstinence works 100% every time it is used? Do you call for the abandonment of the pill and condoms because they fail to work when they are not used, and even fail to work a small percentage of the time when used properly?
Really? Where does it say this in the Constitution? "Safety net"?
Why are NGOs incapable of being this safety net? Do you not realize the increase in available donations were the federal government not sucking so much out of your paycheck every week?
I do not know the laws of California, but many government entities have legal rules that say they cannot force you to donate your time or money for government work. I sure that some of these are also contractual obligations that are part of a union contract.
Not long ago, I was running a class on a topic that a certain person wanted to come take. A few days before the class he got hired by a government department, and since knowing this information was now part of his job and they could not figure out how to comp him the time to come to the class, he could not attend. He could not legally volunteer his Saturday.
So, if California demands that certain workers be reachable by phone when away from landlines they provide, they have an obligation to provide that cell phone. You would not argue that a government employee who was required to carry a radio must buy his own radio, would you?
Well, we have some evidence the opposite direction. Apparently being a famous rock band doesn't translate into an ability to play the rock band game. One "Gene Simmons Family Jewels" episode had Kiss playing against Nick the newbie rock wannabe and his pals. Nick and pals creamed Gene and the pros.
Every game I've ever played or seen has nothing to do with doing the real task in real life. Being successful in games requires learning the tricks written into the game or the details of using the controller. For example, to win Dragon's Lair you didn't need knowledge of how to use a sword, you needed to learn the sequence of the floor tiles. To be successful at Adventure you didn't need to be the best bird-catcher in the building, you just had to know that the bird was scared of ... I don't remember what it was, but something you tended to pick up on the way into the cave.
Why should anyone get a pay raise based on the increase in efficiency of an automated system? Everyone who buys electricity benefits from lower costs in production and distribution of that power. There is no reason to have a raise in pay, too.
A progressive tax system is one where the tax cuts aren't going to predominantely richer people,
That is incorrect. A progressive tax system is one where higher income people pay higher rates. That's all. It has nothing to do with this nebulous "benefit they receive" nonsense. Under such a tax system, it is by definition the higher tax payers who get more benefits from tax cuts. Someone who does pay taxes will get much more benefit from a 1% cut than the non-payer will get from a 100% cut.
As for your last point, you can't save money if you don't have it to begin with.
If you don't have it to begin with, you aren't spending it on electricity and thus aren't getting any benefit from automation in the electric system. That's right. If you pay nothing for electricity, it is ridiculous to expect to pay less for it based on anything. It is just as ridiculous to expect a pay raise for the job you do have based on lowered costs of electric system accounting.
There's plenty of people out there that are barely squeaking by, and that means that even with cost cutting they don't have any extra to save.
Either they pay electric bills or they do not. If they do not, then they are irrelevant with respect to the savings from automating electric services. If they do pay electric bills, then they benefit from automation reducing the cost of those services.