If you're going to do that, why not install solar power generators in the same places, which reduce need for dirty power generation?
That would do nothing about the pollution already in the air. I have no idea how long particulates stick around though, maybe it would clear up quickly. The Chinese are going big on solar as well though.
This isn't some technological marvel.. It's a desperate attempt at putting a Band-Aid on a huge emissions problem that they really cannot afford to fix the right way....
Attach a scrubber to every car, truck, semi, train and plane, attach one to every home, and building heating system as well as every industrial plant and refinery?
It's a difference of degree. All those things emit some particulates (with the possible exception of "building heating system", I'm not sure what you're referring to there) just not nearly in the quantities of a dirty coal plant. The difference is obvious if you look at recent photos of cities such as London or LA compared to Beijing or Shanghai. Also compare English cities of today with 30 or 40 years ago when they burned a lot of coal.
Maybe they can smelt aluminum. That's a process that requires a lot of electricity, and some country (Iceland?) currently takes a lot of business doing that due to cheap renewable power. Geothermal if I'm remembering right and it's Iceland.
One could imagine the North Koreans disguising a bus full of senior citizens as a military vehicle and then publishing the horrific attack on civilians. Just one possible fly in the honey.
A) Don't lightly accuse someone of trolling. That can derail a conversation that could otherwise be thoughtful and interesting. Assume the best. B) Consider not taking things so personally.
No, that is NOT what I am suggesting.
I was talking about "(3) One candidate is net positive and the other is net negative" and it sounds like I correctly understood what you're proposing for that scenario: punish the winner of the election because the loser had a negative total.
Did one of the major parties really nominate a turd, or did the other candidate "succeed" with an extremely negative campaign?... Therefore it seems the race was tainted and I think one solution is to penalize the suspicious winner with a half-term in office.
Besides the (maybe impossible) problem of determining why one candidate went negative, I think you will run into a problem with the 1st amendment if you try to implement something like this. Political speech is the most highly protected category of speech, and there is no exception for "negative" campaigning. As much as we might detest it, it is, in the end, strongly protected speech that is more or less immune from government sanction.
Maybe there should be a penalty for the loser, too, but I'm uncomfortable with that because it might be a hatchet job.
I would think losing the election would be penalty enough.
You're suggesting if the loser goes negative, the winner is punished? I hope not because that makes no sense. If a terrible racist sexist fascist authoritarian stupid ugly mean candidate runs against someone popular, intelligent, competent, and charismatic, it's likely the first would go very very negative and the latter have a large positive vote. Why would you restrict the winner's term for running against a bad candidate? That would set up some very bad incentives.
I don't think the token solves enough problems to be worthwhile. I doubt a large number of ballots get lost between the booth and the box. And the problem with in person voter fraud (tiny as it is) isn't from people sneaking a ballot and voting on it without going through the desk personnel, it's people fooling the poll workers in some way. If they would be willing to hand out a ballot now, they'd be willing to hand out a token too.
one might simply require that any question on the ballot be answerable by 95% of a random voter sample beforehand
With that threshold the questions would have to be along the lines of "what day comes after Tuesday?" Even something as easy as "who is the President of the United States?" or "what state is north of California?" or "which Constitutional amendment protects freedom of speech?" might not be answered correctly by 95% of Americans.
Now, if you want to talk about averages, medians, and Gaussian distributions, that's normally all well and good for the population size of the electorate.
So the party says "Hey candidate, you're not following the platform. "
The issue is that Bob Politician would say he's in favor of jelly beans because the electorate wants that, but then vote to ban jelly beans after the election. Because, as shanen said, there is no accountability to the voters. "But he'll be voted out next time" you say? How? The voters again express their desire for jelly beans, and Bob says "yep I'm totally in favor of jelly beans!" and gets re-elected. How does your system prevent this?
The problem with that is, there will be extensive private polling of the electorate, and politicians will claim to support whatever it is the majority is in favor of - gun control and free speech in your example.
Slashdot Mirror
That is exactly why we shouldn't use credit numbers at all and no one should no it. you should just insert into a reader, or use NFC
That is tricky to do for online purchases.
If you're going to do that, why not install solar power generators in the same places, which reduce need for dirty power generation?
That would do nothing about the pollution already in the air. I have no idea how long particulates stick around though, maybe it would clear up quickly. The Chinese are going big on solar as well though.
Flame units only.
This isn't some technological marvel.. It's a desperate attempt at putting a Band-Aid on a huge emissions problem that they really cannot afford to fix the right way....
Could be both.
You are forgetting about the, albeit small amounts of, sulfur, mercury, and particulates with moderate amounts of nitrogen oxides.
Or you're forgetting he said "very little" not "nothing".
Attach a scrubber to every car, truck, semi, train and plane, attach one to every home, and building heating system as well as every industrial plant and refinery?
It's a difference of degree. All those things emit some particulates (with the possible exception of "building heating system", I'm not sure what you're referring to there) just not nearly in the quantities of a dirty coal plant. The difference is obvious if you look at recent photos of cities such as London or LA compared to Beijing or Shanghai. Also compare English cities of today with 30 or 40 years ago when they burned a lot of coal.
"Offensive security product"? Is that like "spending cuts in the tax code"?
What's less bad between a smartphone (or Android tablet) and a Windows 10 tablet or laptop?
I think his suggestion is to not use a smartphone or tablet. Seems like throwing out the baby to me, but to each his own.
I don't think the accessibility features are all that new, are they?
"Die" meaning "turn off" not "become a brick".
Maybe they can smelt aluminum. That's a process that requires a lot of electricity, and some country (Iceland?) currently takes a lot of business doing that due to cheap renewable power. Geothermal if I'm remembering right and it's Iceland.
I think you're looking at it incorrectly to see negative campaigning as a free speech issue.
Well I'm certainly not alone.
An Ohio law against false campaign ads struck down on free speech grounds:
https://scholar.google.com/sch...
A position paper on the topic:
https://object.cato.org/pubs/p...
An explanation of the free speech issues surrounding negative campaigning:
https://www.factcheck.org/2004...
Yeah I definitely don't have the solutions to all these problems, and they're tough ones.
Allowing for negative votes could capture more of the reality of what is going on.
I do like that idea and I think it has potential, I just don't think trying to institute legal penalties for political speech is going to fly.
Too often they lose precisely because they took a principled stand on one or more issues.
When the electorate prefers someone who gives them appealing lies over someone who tells the difficult truth, what is to be done?
One could imagine the North Koreans disguising a bus full of senior citizens as a military vehicle and then publishing the horrific attack on civilians. Just one possible fly in the honey.
By "went negative" I mean ended up with a negative vote tally, not ran a negative campaign. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Some initial thoughts:
A) Don't lightly accuse someone of trolling. That can derail a conversation that could otherwise be thoughtful and interesting. Assume the best.
B) Consider not taking things so personally.
No, that is NOT what I am suggesting.
I was talking about "(3) One candidate is net positive and the other is net negative" and it sounds like I correctly understood what you're proposing for that scenario: punish the winner of the election because the loser had a negative total.
Did one of the major parties really nominate a turd, or did the other candidate "succeed" with an extremely negative campaign? ... Therefore it seems the race was tainted and I think one solution is to penalize the suspicious winner with a half-term in office.
Besides the (maybe impossible) problem of determining why one candidate went negative, I think you will run into a problem with the 1st amendment if you try to implement something like this. Political speech is the most highly protected category of speech, and there is no exception for "negative" campaigning. As much as we might detest it, it is, in the end, strongly protected speech that is more or less immune from government sanction.
Maybe there should be a penalty for the loser, too, but I'm uncomfortable with that because it might be a hatchet job.
I would think losing the election would be penalty enough.
But he's voting in a manner opposite the will of the people who elected him.
You're suggesting if the loser goes negative, the winner is punished? I hope not because that makes no sense. If a terrible racist sexist fascist authoritarian stupid ugly mean candidate runs against someone popular, intelligent, competent, and charismatic, it's likely the first would go very very negative and the latter have a large positive vote. Why would you restrict the winner's term for running against a bad candidate? That would set up some very bad incentives.
I don't think the token solves enough problems to be worthwhile. I doubt a large number of ballots get lost between the booth and the box. And the problem with in person voter fraud (tiny as it is) isn't from people sneaking a ballot and voting on it without going through the desk personnel, it's people fooling the poll workers in some way. If they would be willing to hand out a ballot now, they'd be willing to hand out a token too.
one might simply require that any question on the ballot be answerable by 95% of a random voter sample beforehand
With that threshold the questions would have to be along the lines of "what day comes after Tuesday?" Even something as easy as "who is the President of the United States?" or "what state is north of California?" or "which Constitutional amendment protects freedom of speech?" might not be answered correctly by 95% of Americans.
Bob is a member of the Anti-Jelly Bean Party. He is winning elections and voting the way the party wants. What incentive would they have to stop him?
Now, if you want to talk about averages, medians, and Gaussian distributions, that's normally all well and good for the population size of the electorate.
Good one.
There has not ever been a candidate I felt I could approve of in the last 3 decades.
Perhaps if we had approval voting there would be different candidates.
So the party says "Hey candidate, you're not following the platform. "
The issue is that Bob Politician would say he's in favor of jelly beans because the electorate wants that, but then vote to ban jelly beans after the election. Because, as shanen said, there is no accountability to the voters. "But he'll be voted out next time" you say? How? The voters again express their desire for jelly beans, and Bob says "yep I'm totally in favor of jelly beans!" and gets re-elected. How does your system prevent this?
The problem with that is, there will be extensive private polling of the electorate, and politicians will claim to support whatever it is the majority is in favor of - gun control and free speech in your example.