Why not address my chart of the top tax rate history I posted above?
The post to which I responded contained no chart. Don't attack me because I answered one message of your's instead of another. (And for the record, the tax chart is not "above"- it's below)
How silly it sounds to complain "Why are you responding to this post? Don't respond here, respond to this other one I didn't even write yet!"
My whole point is that 30 years of Right movement pale in comparison to the previous 300 years going Left. Relative to the whole history of the country, today's Right is actually quite Left. The Left has won the war- now there's just a few skirmishes going on.
The most important setting to change is the one about accepting ballots only if the inspectors are unanimous, versus when any 2 of them agree. The looser requirement of non-unanimous votes is what makes Gore win reliably. (That was a side effect of more Gore supporters coming from poor towns with degrading voting machines that couldn't punch all the time. Throw those ballots out, and he loses)
However, if you had a table of all different ways to count (in a spreadsheet, not an awkward web applet), then you'd see that the race was so close that out of 24 possible counting standards, Gore won 12 of them. So pointing to the NYT recount is useless for either side of the argument.
I think it is now becoming conventional wisdom among the American Left that America politics as a whole has moved rightwards (more conservative) in the last 30 years.
It might be conventional wisdom, but it's wrong. Or more accurately, it's staring at a molehill on a mountain. If you look back over the past 150 years or so, the Left has won victory after victory that will never be undone. (Of course, 150 years ago, the Republicans were a lefty party). But by 1970, most all traditionally Left goals were accomplished, and they didn't have much further to go.
Just think of the major lefty issues:
state sovreignty
slavery female suffrage income tax civil rights abortion
Nobody talks much about those issues anymore, because the Left has decisively won (except for the most recent of them, obviously- but it's highly improbable that abortion will ever be banned again)
If rightists seem over-represented in the public eye, it's only because the country as a whole is so far left that there's just a lot more vacancies open on it's right.
I could argue that slavery was the prime reason for the Civil War. But I don't even need to, because you made the ludicrous claim that "slavery wasn't even remotely related". To disprove that particular little lie, I only need to show one place where it was related, even remotely. And as you just admitted, I've done so 4 times already.
that must mean it's a main reason for the war?
That's a different claim than you made before. Previously, you said slavery wasn't "even remotely related". Now you've fallen back to a much timider position. It would take more space than Slashdot allows to comprehensively refute it.
The main problem however, according to everything I've seen was that the Federal (Nationalist) government was taking upon itself the -ability-
That was the propaganda position invented by the rich Southern slaveowning politicians to rally the common non-slaveholding men to die for their cause. It's hard to lead troops into battle with a cry of "Slavery!", when "Freedom" has such a better ring to it.
Compare against Operation Desert Storm: The US was only cared about Kuwait and Iraq for the oil, but they needed to emphasize some other goal to fire up the troops, so it became a battle against an evil dictator.
Further, according to original sources--and by "original sources", I'm referring to letters written in Lincoln's own hand--, he didn't care one way or the other about slavery; his only goal was to salvage the Union.
That's untrue. Lincoln was quite opposed to slavery, even if he didn't think it was important enough to risk dissolving the USA over. But whether you believe me about Lincoln's position on slavery or not is irrelevant. His main goal was to protect the USA, and a divided nation would've become subservient clients of the two European Empires.
Lincoln's personal view on slavery didn't matter- the President can't write or repeal laws. The majority of the USA (because of the North's higher population) wanted to end slavery eventually. Some day, they would have succeeded.
How much more authoritative would you like to get?
One-eighth of the whole population were slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.
And yes, if you prefer it in his own handwriting, that's available.
In conclusion: You could look at the cause of any war that ever happened, and claim "No, the war wasn't actually caused by XYZ. The real cause was that one side wanted XYZ, and the other did not". Can you tell how stupid that sounds?
and also by allowing third parties to win an electoral vote with only 11% of a state
"Hurray! We've got an electoral vote. So now, what good does it do us? Oh well. I'll just nail it up on the wall behind the cash-register, as a memento"
Of other changes to the voting system that have been proposed, such as approval voting, Borda counts, etc. which would you favor to improve the viability of third parties?
You're asking a question he addressed at length on his own web page.
Let's see... Sun was founded in 1982 and Oracle was founded in 1977. Perhaps one of Sun's Oracle-killing patents is on the time machine?
So what? Oracle never built up the kind of patent-pumping "research" assemblyline that Sun used to have. Sun is going downhill, and has a weakening marketshare- but they still own a lot of patents on common software techniques.
Meanwhile, you clearly have never seen a software patent in your life if you think patents allow you to "own" a company.
Actually I've read more than 100 entire software patents. (Yes, it was very painful. Thanks for your concern) So I know that no patent actually contains text "Transfer 51% of all voting stock to Bill Gates". But they do cover "inventions" so fundamental that nobody can even run a C++ compiler without infringing them.
That means that IF existing software patents were fully enforced today, Microsoft could go to Oracle and forbid them from selling any more product. Then it's a simple buy-out of the bankrupt company. The ability to shut down an entire business by fiat means you can "own" it for a nominal fee.
But, as I said, the patent-holders will never abuse it to that extent, because it'd bring down the government on them. What's more realistic is that Microsoft will ask 100 of it's best database guys to file patents on whatever random idea they come up with, without stopping to check if it's a good idea, or even if it really works. Then if Oracle ever independently comes up with one of those ideas and puts in the major investment to turn it into a useful product, Microsoft can grab the victory out from under them.
In the world of software development, patents are a way for speculators to lay claim against the hard work of actual productive engineers.
but Yahoo certainly does not "own" Google. Sheesh
Because the keyword-search thing was not so fundamental to Google's business that denying it would've shut them down.
So you as a farmer become fully dependant on a company for your survival.
The important thing is that patents expire after about 20 years max. As long as Congress can restrain itself from boosting that, GMO crops will become free for all agriculturalists in a moderate timeframe. It would probably take 20+ years for a new superplant reach dominant popularity anyhow.
(That assumes that nobody finds a way to make the DMCA apply to plants, and I wouldn't be surprised if they try)
Yes they're interesting, but also inaccurate. That's not the right way to display visual information. They use 4 colors to indicate 4 percentage ranges- but the ranges are different sizes. White covers 30 whole points- so did Gore score 0% in Idaho, or 29%? Big difference. Worse, black covers 50 whole points. Gore won Massachusett must stronger than Bush won Texas, but they both got their home state in the same shade of black.
A better map would use a flat 20% increment for each color.
Nonetheless, that map does demonstrate the important secret of Republican victories: dirt votes GOP. Bush got huge support in terms of land area, but most of that is rows of marginaly inhabited states.
As a practical matter, not even worth discussion as a Constitutional ammendment to this effect will never happen. There is no way that the small states for whom the EC gives more voting power would vote for this, hence this ammendment will never be ratified.
I agree it's highly unlikely, but if a few more Presidents get elected while someone else wins the popular vote, dissatisfaction could build up pressure for a change.
Point 1: Of course, any single state could decide on its own to split it's Electoral votes in the future. They'll tend not to do so, because it would weaken them relative to other states. But if the change was in the form of a national Amendment, instead of just state laws, then it will all happen at the same identical time, and relative power levels are equivalent.
Point 2: Small states would lose power in some ways, but gain it in others. Utah is small, but strongly Republican, so it never attracts candidates offering locally-valuable pork in exchange for votes.
Point 3: It's actually possible to convince states to vote for something against their own interest, if you can get them to believe it's for the greater good, or promotes justice or morality. Just look at the 18th Amendment- the majority of states (and people) didn't want it, but they were shamed into voting for it by a strident minority that (seemed) to have logic on it's side.
Conceivably, an argument that non-proportional voting is simply unfair and undemocratic could reach wide agreement.
It is an excellent recipe for civil war, however as candidates will simply pander to the small, densly populated urban centers - failing to address the concerns of much of rural America
A common specious argument. Makes as much sense as "is an excellent recipe for racial war, however as candidates will simply pander to the white center- failing to address the concerns of much of black America".
There's just no good reason why any group should have more powerful votes than another. Race and wealth certainly don't boost your vote- why should rural residents automatically have more power than the equal number of city dwellers? (And to make it even more confused: Why should urban voters from Dallas or NYC get a stronger vote than in Trenton NJ, just because their state contains a lot of vacant land far away from where they live?)
Consider further: Some dark-skinned African-Americans are actually descendants of slave-traders who sold their neighbors to Europeans 200 years ago. Do they deserve any reparation?
(It's true. Many of the slaves leaving Africa were the losers in wars between different African tribes, which the winner sold off for a profit.)
Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "us versus them" war. Since Iraq had WMD and the USA did not, people naturally assume the war was about WMD. But what if Iraq didn't have WMD? Would teachers then indoctrinate their students that the civil war was about democratizing the Middle East?
Well, how 'bout the bit about the War between the States not being even remotely related to slavery?
You need to study a little more history. Or a little less- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Progressive steps
The totally uneducated assumed the Civil War was about slavery.
Some people, upon learning some detailed facts of the conflict, decide "Aha! I'm so smart, I've caught conventional wisdom in a lie! It wasn't about slavery at all, but preserving the union". That particularly happens if they listen to pro-Confederate revisionist propaganda ("General Lee was anti-slavery! He just wanted to protect Virgina's freedom")
The truely wise understand that aside from slavery, there was no dispute important enough to make the South want to cecede. Slavery is a refutation of the whole principles of liberty and democracy on which the USA was founded, and the question of slavery nearly deadlocked the acceptance of the Constitution.
Just look at how often the Confederate states mentioned slavery in their articles of secession and then tell me again that it wasn't "even remotely related". Better yet, go back in time and explain it to Jefferson Davis.
A frequent thread in third parties in the US is a complete focus on one or a few "key" issues, and a total lack of focus or regard to issues not on the agenda.
That might be a popular interpretation, but it's completely wrong. The USA's largest 3rd party, the Libertarians, has a platform that states "shut down government" (or nearly so). Almost any issue you can name, they want to change it. The Libertarians don't need to list their position on every issue, though, because all their positions are simple consequences of their central platform.
The pragmatic, major parties on the other hand, may take a stance on some minor/regional issue not because of any driving principle, but just to attract some little bunch of voters.
In my opinion, a Green presidential run is premature and an inefficient use of Green resources.
Then please leave this webpage immediately.
This whole discussion, and all the publicity associated with it, is solely due to his presidential run. Most USA citizens wouldn't even know a "Green" party exists, except for Nader's high-profile run last year. Often the best way to convince people you're serious is to face impossible challenges bravely.
(Whether his comment about "only vote Cobb in solid Kerry states" has any resembelance to courage is a separate issue. Nader was braver than Cobb in that regard)
Were every state government to do a parliamentary-esque division of their electors to each party by % of popular vote, the electoral college system could remain in place, and you'd ahve viable third party candidates.
No. I think that it would be a positive step if all states allocated electoral votes in proportion to their popular vote, but that won't help 3rd parties.
At the national level, it's still winner-take-all, and the man with the most votes wins totally. Potential 3rd party voters will still be afraid of voting Nader and giving Bush the victory.
In fact, it would be in some ways even worse than today: as it is now, you can safely vote Nader in Kerry's home state of Massachusett, knowing that there is no way it might let Bush win that state. Whether Kerry wins by 30% or 60% makes no difference. But if Massachusett decided to split it's electoral votes, then you've helped Bush nationally if Nader gets even one electoral vote from that state.
No, the only real benefit to splitting state's votes is that it will enable candidates to focus attention on ALL voters, not just those in delicately-balanced swing states. Bush doesn't care what voters in CA or NY think of him today- it might be nice if he had a direct incentive (besides fundraising) to keep them in mind.
The electoral college is largely the cause of a two party state in America. It's basically a first past the post winner
False. You mischaracterize the scope of the Electoral College. Even if it were abolished, the USA would still be "first past the post"- it would just be based on popular vote.
Conversely, it would be possible to switch to proportional voting while keeping the EC intact.
It is "first past the post" that causes the bipartisan split, and that's a completely separate question from EC.
and 3rd parties or independants are getting 30, 40, 50+ percent of the vote,
Uh, that's totally impossible. Long before they could crack 40%, they'd have ceased to be "independant" and displaced one the #2 group. Not even the Republicans get 50+ percent today.
Kerry won't change anything Bush has done, and you're a fool to think he will
True, because he doesn't have a time machine. But he WILL stop the country from repeating those same mistakes again.
Oracle is just as entrenched--if not more so--than Microsoft on most of them.
Irrelevant. I'm talking about patents.
At those levels patents don't matter
If all software patents were actually enforcable, then Sun would own Oracle, and Microsoft would own Sun. It's just that they don't want to fully enforce the patents they have, because such blatant anti-innovation will encourage legislatures to fix the laws.
Oracle doesn't even have 1% of IBM's patent count. Sun is a weaker company overall than Oracle, but it has a stronger patent position.
(If Microsoft, IBM, or Sun started enforcing all their software patents, they could eliminate every other professional computer programmer. Patent-wise, Oracle is small potatoes compared to them)
Furthermore, and this is the clever part, he asks the programmer to send him not just one executable which he'll copy onto the hardware, but one separate copy of the program (including source code) for each hardware product he hopes to sell.
Maybe I didn't make it clear WHY that's clever. Because the vendor got multiple (say 999) copies of the program, he is able to distribute those 999 copies to customers, without needing to agree to the GPL. He is not bound by the GPL, because he's not doing anything that would be forbidden by normal copyright law.
If you have the binary, only then do you get the right to distribute it, request the source
Wrong. Necessary, but not sufficient.
If you have the binary, AND the binary includes an offer for the source code, then you can request the source code. The binary doesn't have to include an offer, if at one point it included the source code itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Your vote counts the same whether it's counted first or last.
True, but meaningless. A more important fun fact is that the more evenly divided an election is, the more each vote counts.
Massachusett votes count little, because Gore lead by 35%. Florida votes counted a lot, because Bush lead by 0.02%.
Why not address my chart of the top tax rate history I posted above?
The post to which I responded contained no chart. Don't attack me because I answered one message of your's instead of another. (And for the record, the tax chart is not "above"- it's below)
How silly it sounds to complain "Why are you responding to this post? Don't respond here, respond to this other one I didn't even write yet!"
My whole point is that 30 years of Right movement pale in comparison to the previous 300 years going Left. Relative to the whole history of the country, today's Right is actually quite Left. The Left has won the war- now there's just a few skirmishes going on.
What settings did you use?
The most important setting to change is the one about accepting ballots only if the inspectors are unanimous, versus when any 2 of them agree. The looser requirement of non-unanimous votes is what makes Gore win reliably. (That was a side effect of more Gore supporters coming from poor towns with degrading voting machines that couldn't punch all the time. Throw those ballots out, and he loses)
However, if you had a table of all different ways to count (in a spreadsheet, not an awkward web applet), then you'd see that the race was so close that out of 24 possible counting standards, Gore won 12 of them. So pointing to the NYT recount is useless for either side of the argument.
It might be conventional wisdom, but it's wrong. Or more accurately, it's staring at a molehill on a mountain. If you look back over the past 150 years or so, the Left has won victory after victory that will never be undone. (Of course, 150 years ago, the Republicans were a lefty party). But by 1970, most all traditionally Left goals were accomplished, and they didn't have much further to go.
Just think of the major lefty issues:
slavery
female suffrage
income tax
civil rights
abortion
Nobody talks much about those issues anymore, because the Left has decisively won (except for the most recent of them, obviously- but it's highly improbable that abortion will ever be banned again)
If rightists seem over-represented in the public eye, it's only because the country as a whole is so far left that there's just a lot more vacancies open on it's right.
that must mean it's a main reason for the war?
That's a different claim than you made before. Previously, you said slavery wasn't "even remotely related". Now you've fallen back to a much timider position. It would take more space than Slashdot allows to comprehensively refute it.
The main problem however, according to everything I've seen was that the Federal (Nationalist) government was taking upon itself the -ability-
That was the propaganda position invented by the rich Southern slaveowning politicians to rally the common non-slaveholding men to die for their cause. It's hard to lead troops into battle with a cry of "Slavery!", when "Freedom" has such a better ring to it.
Compare against Operation Desert Storm: The US was only cared about Kuwait and Iraq for the oil, but they needed to emphasize some other goal to fire up the troops, so it became a battle against an evil dictator.
Further, according to original sources--and by "original sources", I'm referring to letters written in Lincoln's own hand--, he didn't care one way or the other about slavery; his only goal was to salvage the Union.
That's untrue. Lincoln was quite opposed to slavery, even if he didn't think it was important enough to risk dissolving the USA over. But whether you believe me about Lincoln's position on slavery or not is irrelevant. His main goal was to protect the USA, and a divided nation would've become subservient clients of the two European Empires.
Lincoln's personal view on slavery didn't matter- the President can't write or repeal laws. The majority of the USA (because of the North's higher population) wanted to end slavery eventually. Some day, they would have succeeded.
How much more authoritative would you like to get?
Let's go directly to the man who started the war, Abraham Lincoln himself:
And yes, if you prefer it in his own handwriting, that's available.
In conclusion:
You could look at the cause of any war that ever happened, and claim "No, the war wasn't actually caused by XYZ. The real cause was that one side wanted XYZ, and the other did not". Can you tell how stupid that sounds?
and also by allowing third parties to win an electoral vote with only 11% of a state
"Hurray! We've got an electoral vote. So now, what good does it do us? Oh well. I'll just nail it up on the wall behind the cash-register, as a memento"
Of other changes to the voting system that have been proposed, such as approval voting, Borda counts, etc. which would you favor to improve the viability of third parties?
You're asking a question he addressed at length on his own web page.
Let's see... Sun was founded in 1982 and Oracle was founded in 1977. Perhaps one of Sun's Oracle-killing patents is on the time machine?
So what? Oracle never built up the kind of patent-pumping "research" assemblyline that Sun used to have. Sun is going downhill, and has a weakening marketshare- but they still own a lot of patents on common software techniques.
Meanwhile, you clearly have never seen a software patent in your life if you think patents allow you to "own" a company.
Actually I've read more than 100 entire software patents. (Yes, it was very painful. Thanks for your concern) So I know that no patent actually contains text "Transfer 51% of all voting stock to Bill Gates". But they do cover "inventions" so fundamental that nobody can even run a C++ compiler without infringing them.
That means that IF existing software patents were fully enforced today, Microsoft could go to Oracle and forbid them from selling any more product. Then it's a simple buy-out of the bankrupt company. The ability to shut down an entire business by fiat means you can "own" it for a nominal fee.
But, as I said, the patent-holders will never abuse it to that extent, because it'd bring down the government on them. What's more realistic is that Microsoft will ask 100 of it's best database guys to file patents on whatever random idea they come up with, without stopping to check if it's a good idea, or even if it really works. Then if Oracle ever independently comes up with one of those ideas and puts in the major investment to turn it into a useful product, Microsoft can grab the victory out from under them.
In the world of software development, patents are a way for speculators to lay claim against the hard work of actual productive engineers.
but Yahoo certainly does not "own" Google. Sheesh
Because the keyword-search thing was not so fundamental to Google's business that denying it would've shut them down.
So you as a farmer become fully dependant on a company for your survival.
The important thing is that patents expire after about 20 years max. As long as Congress can restrain itself from boosting that, GMO crops will become free for all agriculturalists in a moderate timeframe. It would probably take 20+ years for a new superplant reach dominant popularity anyhow.
(That assumes that nobody finds a way to make the DMCA apply to plants, and I wouldn't be surprised if they try)
Some interesting maps:
Yes they're interesting, but also inaccurate. That's not the right way to display visual information. They use 4 colors to indicate 4 percentage ranges- but the ranges are different sizes. White covers 30 whole points- so did Gore score 0% in Idaho, or 29%? Big difference. Worse, black covers 50 whole points. Gore won Massachusett must stronger than Bush won Texas, but they both got their home state in the same shade of black.
A better map would use a flat 20% increment for each color.
Nonetheless, that map does demonstrate the important secret of Republican victories: dirt votes GOP. Bush got huge support in terms of land area, but most of that is rows of marginaly inhabited states.
As a practical matter, not even worth discussion as a Constitutional ammendment to this effect will never happen. There is no way that the small states for whom the EC gives more voting power would vote for this, hence this ammendment will never be ratified.
I agree it's highly unlikely, but if a few more Presidents get elected while someone else wins the popular vote, dissatisfaction could build up pressure for a change.
Point 1: Of course, any single state could decide on its own to split it's Electoral votes in the future. They'll tend not to do so, because it would weaken them relative to other states. But if the change was in the form of a national Amendment, instead of just state laws, then it will all happen at the same identical time, and relative power levels are equivalent.
Point 2: Small states would lose power in some ways, but gain it in others. Utah is small, but strongly Republican, so it never attracts candidates offering locally-valuable pork in exchange for votes.
Point 3: It's actually possible to convince states to vote for something against their own interest, if you can get them to believe it's for the greater good, or promotes justice or morality. Just look at the 18th Amendment- the majority of states (and people) didn't want it, but they were shamed into voting for it by a strident minority that (seemed) to have logic on it's side.
Conceivably, an argument that non-proportional voting is simply unfair and undemocratic could reach wide agreement.
It is an excellent recipe for civil war, however as candidates will simply pander to the small, densly populated urban centers - failing to address the concerns of much of rural America
A common specious argument. Makes as much sense as "is an excellent recipe for racial war, however as candidates will simply pander to the white center- failing to address the concerns of much of black America".
There's just no good reason why any group should have more powerful votes than another. Race and wealth certainly don't boost your vote- why should rural residents automatically have more power than the equal number of city dwellers? (And to make it even more confused: Why should urban voters from Dallas or NYC get a stronger vote than in Trenton NJ, just because their state contains a lot of vacant land far away from where they live?)
Consider this:
Consider further: Some dark-skinned African-Americans are actually descendants of slave-traders who sold their neighbors to Europeans 200 years ago. Do they deserve any reparation?
(It's true. Many of the slaves leaving Africa were the losers in wars between different African tribes, which the winner sold off for a profit.)
Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "us versus them" war. Since Iraq had WMD and the USA did not, people naturally assume the war was about WMD. But what if Iraq didn't have WMD? Would teachers then indoctrinate their students that the civil war was about democratizing the Middle East?
You need to study a little more history. Or a little less- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Progressive steps
Just look at how often the Confederate states mentioned slavery in their articles of secession and then tell me again that it wasn't "even remotely related". Better yet, go back in time and explain it to Jefferson Davis.
A frequent thread in third parties in the US is a complete focus on one or a few "key" issues, and a total lack of focus or regard to issues not on the agenda.
That might be a popular interpretation, but it's completely wrong. The USA's largest 3rd party, the Libertarians, has a platform that states "shut down government" (or nearly so). Almost any issue you can name, they want to change it. The Libertarians don't need to list their position on every issue, though, because all their positions are simple consequences of their central platform.
The pragmatic, major parties on the other hand, may take a stance on some minor/regional issue not because of any driving principle, but just to attract some little bunch of voters.
Whta kind of political party would have a "policy" on same sex marriage,
The Republican kind. You know, like the one that dominates the USA government...
In my opinion, a Green presidential run is premature and an inefficient use of Green resources.
Then please leave this webpage immediately.
This whole discussion, and all the publicity associated with it, is solely due to his presidential run. Most USA citizens wouldn't even know a "Green" party exists, except for Nader's high-profile run last year. Often the best way to convince people you're serious is to face impossible challenges bravely.
(Whether his comment about "only vote Cobb in solid Kerry states" has any resembelance to courage is a separate issue. Nader was braver than Cobb in that regard)
Were every state government to do a parliamentary-esque division of their electors to each party by % of popular vote, the electoral college system could remain in place, and you'd ahve viable third party candidates.
No. I think that it would be a positive step if all states allocated electoral votes in proportion to their popular vote, but that won't help 3rd parties.
At the national level, it's still winner-take-all, and the man with the most votes wins totally. Potential 3rd party voters will still be afraid of voting Nader and giving Bush the victory.
In fact, it would be in some ways even worse than today: as it is now, you can safely vote Nader in Kerry's home state of Massachusett, knowing that there is no way it might let Bush win that state. Whether Kerry wins by 30% or 60% makes no difference. But if Massachusett decided to split it's electoral votes, then you've helped Bush nationally if Nader gets even one electoral vote from that state.
No, the only real benefit to splitting state's votes is that it will enable candidates to focus attention on ALL voters, not just those in delicately-balanced swing states. Bush doesn't care what voters in CA or NY think of him today- it might be nice if he had a direct incentive (besides fundraising) to keep them in mind.
The electoral college is largely the cause of a two party state in America. It's basically a first past the post winner
False. You mischaracterize the scope of the Electoral College. Even if it were abolished, the USA would still be "first past the post"- it would just be based on popular vote.
Conversely, it would be possible to switch to proportional voting while keeping the EC intact.
It is "first past the post" that causes the bipartisan split, and that's a completely separate question from EC.
I vote for the man I think is best fit to be president, just as the founding fathers intended.
They intended that the runner-up in the presidential elections becomes vice-president.
Since we clearly no longer use the electoral system they did, why do you want to vote like they did?
You act your vote actually has a chance of determining something.
If you lived in Florida 4 years ago, your vote had a 1/498th chance of switching the President of the USA.
and 3rd parties or independants are getting 30, 40, 50+ percent of the vote,
Uh, that's totally impossible. Long before they could crack 40%, they'd have ceased to be "independant" and displaced one the #2 group. Not even the Republicans get 50+ percent today.
Kerry won't change anything Bush has done, and you're a fool to think he will
True, because he doesn't have a time machine. But he WILL stop the country from repeating those same mistakes again.
Oracle is just as entrenched--if not more so--than Microsoft on most of them.
Irrelevant. I'm talking about patents.
At those levels patents don't matter
If all software patents were actually enforcable, then Sun would own Oracle, and Microsoft would own Sun. It's just that they don't want to fully enforce the patents they have, because such blatant anti-innovation will encourage legislatures to fix the laws.
Oracle doesn't even have 1% of IBM's patent count. Sun is a weaker company overall than Oracle, but it has a stronger patent position.
why Larry Ellison, one of the most ruthless businessmen the world has ever seen, is against software patents?
Because he IS the little guy, next to a far more ruthless businessman.
(If Microsoft, IBM, or Sun started enforcing all their software patents, they could eliminate every other professional computer programmer. Patent-wise, Oracle is small potatoes compared to them)
Furthermore, and this is the clever part, he asks the programmer to send him not just one executable which he'll copy onto the hardware, but one separate copy of the program (including source code) for each hardware product he hopes to sell.
Maybe I didn't make it clear WHY that's clever. Because the vendor got multiple (say 999) copies of the program, he is able to distribute those 999 copies to customers, without needing to agree to the GPL. He is not bound by the GPL, because he's not doing anything that would be forbidden by normal copyright law.
If you have the binary, only then do you get the right to distribute it, request the source
Wrong. Necessary, but not sufficient.
If you have the binary, AND the binary includes an offer for the source code, then you can request the source code. The binary doesn't have to include an offer, if at one point it included the source code itself.