But certainly not because of the provided evidence... which I took the time to read and that basically ends up to: "nine states won't allow to cast votes to badly or un-identified persons". I happen to think that's a good thing.
The problem with political discourse in the US is that people always have to be on a team and can't think objectively like you just did. The result is that we have the most ridiculous arguments. In this case, we have some small amount of voter fraud... dead people voting, vote buying, etc. An obvious solution is to do a better job with voter identity. Of course, any time you make voting requirements more stringent, you disenfranchise people. And as it happens, the people who have the most trouble with voting requirements are the poor.
Now, reasonable people who don't associate with a team could sit down and talk about where to draw the line such that you have a suitable balance between voter fraud and disenfranchisement. Add partisan politics, and it just becomes a "you hate the poor", "you have a vested interest in voter fraud" argument.
In PA, I think it is a pretty reasonable law - you must show photo ID to vote. If you do not have an ID you can still cast a provisional ballot which will get counted when you bring proof of ID. If you cannot afford a government ID, you can sign an affidavit stating that you are too poor to afford one at any motor vehicle center and they will give you an ID for free. Now, this still has a greater effect on the poor than on the rich - but it's not a terrible balance IMHO. If anything, the failure has been to spend money getting the word out.
I used to get an apartment within walking distance of wherever I worked, but marriage and kids have changed that strategy:)
Now we split the difference as much as is possible while also staying in the school district that we prefer. And of course, buying a house and having kids in the local school system has made us less mobile should one of our job situations change.
I've also looked into hybrids, but they simply don't make sense for me or the environment. When a car is more likely to rot than wear out, you aren't spending enough money on gas to recoup your investment. I could justify an all-electric conversion kit with a short range, so maybe I'll look into that more.
I recently decided to try out Android before someone takes away my geek card:)
It's fun from a dicking around perspective, but I can definitely see how the average user would see it as inferior. It has taken me untold hours of screwing around to figure out how to get the same battery life as my old iPhones had, despite having a larger battery. In the end, I settled on an application that fixes the screen dimming on my phone and another that limits how often apps can use the data connection when the phone's screen is off, and another that sets the data networks on and off depending on where I physically am located.
Now on the one hand, I'm massively impressed because none of that would be possible on a stock iPhone. On the other hand, I never felt the need to look for those kinds of applications on an iPhone. Oh, and the jailbreaking thing is easier than the rooting thing - or at least it was for me. And yes you need root for the really fun stuff (and to keep the geek card). Backup needs some serious help on Android. I have done the standard thing and replaced the rescue utility with the fancy CWM-based recovery utility, but really that kind of thing should be included.
Sprint pushes it because they're dying, but they still cap you do it's not unlimited.
I guess you could call it a cap, but the last time I looked into it it seemed more like a type of QOS to me. It's just that if you are a super-heavy user you are one of the first to get rate-limited.
Unlimited is clearly bad, and consumers are wrong for wanting it.
Well, it is convenient. I recently switched to prepay... T-Mobile has a crazy 5GB 3.5G/Free Texts/100 minutes talk plan for $30/month and another 1500 talk or text with only a few megs of data for $30/month. That covers my wife's use case and my use case and saves us about 30-40 bucks per month over our old family plan. But for most people, that savings isn't enough to have to start counting minutes again. Even I would consider one of those $50/month unlimited talk/text/data prepay plans if I spoke on the mobile phone more - I'd only need to exceed my cap by 200 minutes (10 cents/minute) on a regular basis to make it worthwhile.
It would probably be workable if you also applied it to native products. To make exports competitive, you could give them back a credit for any exports (let the other countries enact similar taxes for their imports).
Of course, this is just another way of implementing something like Kyoto, but without all that pesky international co-operation:)
I forgot to mention in my post that my wife's commute is only about 10 miles round trip... we actually put under 5000 miles per year on her car. We'll be totally sick of it before it actually wears out... at the current rate we're looking at over 12 more years until the 100,000 mile mark. We'll get a new car when we retire the mortgage:)
You can't really control what provokes people, so yeah from the perspective of the US it doesn't seem like a big deal - but the fact of the matter is that Russia finds anti-missile missiles in the former Warsaw Pact countries quite provocative.
The calculation for the US is, what are the chances that Iran will someday lob a nuke? What are the chances that Russia will start WW3? As assertive as Putin can be, I find it very hard to believe that he would act so recklessly. Iran is more of a wildcard... even if you think the current regime would never lob a missile, how stable is the country?
First thing that comes to mind: 60 senators managed to have a popular and very very powerful Julius Caesar assassinated.
According to one source, that is how many senators joined in on the stabbing once it began - there is no indication that more than a handful were actually involved in the planning. Also, the story goes that Caesar had people warning him about going into the Senate, so I'm not sure this was the best-kept secret.
But I understand your point - but it would only apply to a very different kind of conspiracy. A fake Bin Laden death would require Bin Laden and perhaps other members of his inner circle to play along, unless he was really just captured - in which case there would still be witnesses to his surviving and he'd presumably be living somewhere with other people coming into contact with him - even if it was just a prison.
And at the end of the day, what does it matter if he's alive or not? He's clearly no threat anymore.
So... shooting down airplanes != "offensive capability?" Really dude? Really?
Correct, provided that those airplanes are in your airspace.
If we are talking about some kind of long-range missile that can be used to fly a significant distance into another country and take down an airplane, then yeah, that could be considered offensive.
But we're a bit off topic, right? We were talking about an anti-ballistic missile system.
but what do u expect to happen when u provoke someone?!
I agree it is a dangerous game. That said, if you calculate the risk of Iran lobbing a missile as greater than the risk of Russia starting WW3, then the provocation might be worth the consequences. The real test would be if the US give up the missile shield when China finally gives up on North Korea and revolution finally occurs in Iran.
Right, because America has an exclusive right to the concept of "pre-emptive strike."
First of all - let's get this out of the way - Bush was probably not smart enough to be President. At least, that's my opinion. If he really wanted to attack Iraq, he picked probably the worst justification possible. Here was a country that was flagrantly violating a cease-fire that they signed with the US, and reason he picks is "pre-emptive strike"? Oy.
That said, don't you see how a Russian threat against NATO is even dumber?
Slashdot Mirror
That wouldn't help his team.
But certainly not because of the provided evidence... which I took the time to read and that basically ends up to: "nine states won't allow to cast votes to badly or un-identified persons". I happen to think that's a good thing.
The problem with political discourse in the US is that people always have to be on a team and can't think objectively like you just did. The result is that we have the most ridiculous arguments. In this case, we have some small amount of voter fraud... dead people voting, vote buying, etc. An obvious solution is to do a better job with voter identity. Of course, any time you make voting requirements more stringent, you disenfranchise people. And as it happens, the people who have the most trouble with voting requirements are the poor.
Now, reasonable people who don't associate with a team could sit down and talk about where to draw the line such that you have a suitable balance between voter fraud and disenfranchisement. Add partisan politics, and it just becomes a "you hate the poor", "you have a vested interest in voter fraud" argument.
In PA, I think it is a pretty reasonable law - you must show photo ID to vote. If you do not have an ID you can still cast a provisional ballot which will get counted when you bring proof of ID. If you cannot afford a government ID, you can sign an affidavit stating that you are too poor to afford one at any motor vehicle center and they will give you an ID for free. Now, this still has a greater effect on the poor than on the rich - but it's not a terrible balance IMHO. If anything, the failure has been to spend money getting the word out.
I used to get an apartment within walking distance of wherever I worked, but marriage and kids have changed that strategy :)
Now we split the difference as much as is possible while also staying in the school district that we prefer. And of course, buying a house and having kids in the local school system has made us less mobile should one of our job situations change.
I've also looked into hybrids, but they simply don't make sense for me or the environment. When a car is more likely to rot than wear out, you aren't spending enough money on gas to recoup your investment. I could justify an all-electric conversion kit with a short range, so maybe I'll look into that more.
I recently decided to try out Android before someone takes away my geek card :)
It's fun from a dicking around perspective, but I can definitely see how the average user would see it as inferior. It has taken me untold hours of screwing around to figure out how to get the same battery life as my old iPhones had, despite having a larger battery. In the end, I settled on an application that fixes the screen dimming on my phone and another that limits how often apps can use the data connection when the phone's screen is off, and another that sets the data networks on and off depending on where I physically am located.
Now on the one hand, I'm massively impressed because none of that would be possible on a stock iPhone. On the other hand, I never felt the need to look for those kinds of applications on an iPhone. Oh, and the jailbreaking thing is easier than the rooting thing - or at least it was for me. And yes you need root for the really fun stuff (and to keep the geek card). Backup needs some serious help on Android. I have done the standard thing and replaced the rescue utility with the fancy CWM-based recovery utility, but really that kind of thing should be included.
Sprint pushes it because they're dying, but they still cap you do it's not unlimited.
I guess you could call it a cap, but the last time I looked into it it seemed more like a type of QOS to me. It's just that if you are a super-heavy user you are one of the first to get rate-limited.
Unlimited is clearly bad, and consumers are wrong for wanting it.
Well, it is convenient. I recently switched to prepay... T-Mobile has a crazy 5GB 3.5G/Free Texts/100 minutes talk plan for $30/month and another 1500 talk or text with only a few megs of data for $30/month. That covers my wife's use case and my use case and saves us about 30-40 bucks per month over our old family plan. But for most people, that savings isn't enough to have to start counting minutes again. Even I would consider one of those $50/month unlimited talk/text/data prepay plans if I spoke on the mobile phone more - I'd only need to exceed my cap by 200 minutes (10 cents/minute) on a regular basis to make it worthwhile.
Words change. Go to a Renaissance fair if you don't believe me.
It would probably be workable if you also applied it to native products. To make exports competitive, you could give them back a credit for any exports (let the other countries enact similar taxes for their imports).
Of course, this is just another way of implementing something like Kyoto, but without all that pesky international co-operation :)
The temperature has risen a degree or two, and the seas have not.
Here ya' go.
Now is an inch going to inundate Houston? No. But it's entirely possible for the effect to lag the cause.
If the current trend of an inch each hundred years keeps up, I'm pretty confident in humanity's ability to cope :)
I forgot to mention in my post that my wife's commute is only about 10 miles round trip... we actually put under 5000 miles per year on her car. We'll be totally sick of it before it actually wears out... at the current rate we're looking at over 12 more years until the 100,000 mile mark. We'll get a new car when we retire the mortgage :)
LOL - did that for a few years and it was AWESOME!
A 100 MPC is nowhere acceptable for a commute ride, much less a cross town trip
You poor bastard, my commute is 20 miles round trip :)
LOL, OK then.
Provoke with defense?
You can't really control what provokes people, so yeah from the perspective of the US it doesn't seem like a big deal - but the fact of the matter is that Russia finds anti-missile missiles in the former Warsaw Pact countries quite provocative.
The calculation for the US is, what are the chances that Iran will someday lob a nuke? What are the chances that Russia will start WW3? As assertive as Putin can be, I find it very hard to believe that he would act so recklessly. Iran is more of a wildcard... even if you think the current regime would never lob a missile, how stable is the country?
Yeah, those nuclear warheads weren't offensive weapons at all were they?
It's worth noting that the US did not fire on the Soviets, and the Russians have not fired on Poland.
First thing that comes to mind: 60 senators managed to have a popular and very very powerful Julius Caesar assassinated.
According to one source, that is how many senators joined in on the stabbing once it began - there is no indication that more than a handful were actually involved in the planning. Also, the story goes that Caesar had people warning him about going into the Senate, so I'm not sure this was the best-kept secret.
But I understand your point - but it would only apply to a very different kind of conspiracy. A fake Bin Laden death would require Bin Laden and perhaps other members of his inner circle to play along, unless he was really just captured - in which case there would still be witnesses to his surviving and he'd presumably be living somewhere with other people coming into contact with him - even if it was just a prison.
And at the end of the day, what does it matter if he's alive or not? He's clearly no threat anymore.
What Kool-Aid are you drinking?
I don't really care so long as it is red.
But you still haven't explained to me how a government, powerful or otherwise, could keep secret something that would involve so many people.
Israel?
It's called seeing it from their perspective. Just because you characterize it as "anti-US propaganda" doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Fair enough. But read the rest of X.25's comments before you accuse me of being the one who is one-sided.
were you just provoked, or attacked?
That's an easy one - provoked. I guess you could also say I was attacked because it is clear that in this context it is not a physical attack.
When I say "government", I think that would apply to any shadow government as well.
So they are USA sovereign territory ?
No, they aren't. Why? What does any of that have to do with Russia attacking a NATO country?
Like US will let some1 go check if they are really defensive or offensive
Actually, that's exactly what they offered Russia.
btw please paint me a better picture of the USA
I don't really feel like that would be a productive conversation.
So... shooting down airplanes != "offensive capability?" Really dude? Really?
Correct, provided that those airplanes are in your airspace.
If we are talking about some kind of long-range missile that can be used to fly a significant distance into another country and take down an airplane, then yeah, that could be considered offensive.
But we're a bit off topic, right? We were talking about an anti-ballistic missile system.
IMO, all saber rattling and war is equally stupid, regardless of who originates it.
I respectfully disagree - starting a fight that is winnable is not "stupid", though it may be a number of other negative pronouns.
Bombing/attacking a NATO country is probably "stupid", possibly "suicidal" unless you really like to live underground and you just need a good excuse.
but what do u expect to happen when u provoke someone?!
I agree it is a dangerous game. That said, if you calculate the risk of Iran lobbing a missile as greater than the risk of Russia starting WW3, then the provocation might be worth the consequences. The real test would be if the US give up the missile shield when China finally gives up on North Korea and revolution finally occurs in Iran.
by enabling a successful first-strike strategy, missile defence IS a provocation
Right - it is provocation. Which is why I said: "Seriously - you can't see the difference between provoking someone and actually attacking them?"
Right, because America has an exclusive right to the concept of "pre-emptive strike."
First of all - let's get this out of the way - Bush was probably not smart enough to be President. At least, that's my opinion. If he really wanted to attack Iraq, he picked probably the worst justification possible. Here was a country that was flagrantly violating a cease-fire that they signed with the US, and reason he picks is "pre-emptive strike"? Oy.
That said, don't you see how a Russian threat against NATO is even dumber?