The electors are chosen by the winning party. Do you honestly think that, for instance, the 55 registered, highly active republicans hand picked by the republican party are going to magically change their votes in any significant way?
There have been 156 faithless electors in the history of the Electoral College and 63 of them are from 1872 when the candidate in question was dead by the time there were to cast their votes. So that leaves us with 93, 23 in 1836 all from Virginia but that didn't change the result of the election as subsequently decided by the Senate, 32 in 1832 (30 from PA) also not changing the outcome.
In short, don't put much faith in faithless electors. On average, one pops up every other election and even in the very, very limited cases where there have been large numbers, they still haven't changed the outcome and for godssake abstaining from voting for a dead candidate is hardly being "faithless."
I haven't tried this under Linux, but I did some speed tests using a Treo300 on Sprint and it quickly hit 150Kbps sustained. Frankly, for the coverage area and the price (damn near free), 150Kbps ain't to shabby. Sprint are complete assholes about just saying "yes, you may use that phone as a modem and you will not incur additional charges" (I spent an hour twisting that out of them while they tried to sell me a modem card and a per-KB metered plan), even though there is no way they can tell the difference between your "unlimited wireless web" and anything you might do using the phone with a laptop. Knowing it pisses them off just makes it all the more enjoyable.
However, I am a bit annoyed that the Treo300 requires third-party software to function as an external modem (ergo, I suspect it will be difficult under Linux). But, I can say that when they say "150Kbps," they mean every last bit of it on a sustained basis.
That's true, since Shell is a petrol company, I'm sure they are extracting it from the refining of gasoline.
However, it still does solve the tailpipe emissions problem and if widely adopted would solve the fossil-fuel dependency problem since while you can get hydrogen from petroleum, you don't have to.
You're contracting directly, treat this like it will never be anything but a contract job and you will be scaring up business again on short notice. Of course, you want the salaried position, but they're asking you to shield them from risk and they need to pony up for that. That means you need to charge at least as much as your total salary+benefits+payroll tax would be -- which is about 45% above your base salary just. If this was a $75k job ($36/hr), you need to charge the equivalent of $108,750 or ($52/hr).
If you really want that salaried position and you really think you're going to get it, you can stop here. If you have _any_ doubt whatsoever that this is going to transition, you need to act like a real contractor and frankly that means take the figure you just came to and add at least 50%. Doubling it would not be out of order, but this is where you need to feel them out. If you're gunning for a $75k job and they balk at paying you $75/hour on contract, you don't want to work for them--they'd pay yet another half again as much if they got you as an employee of a contractor and they know it. Let them know by demanding to be paid accordingly.
By law, if you have a 1099 relationship, you have to be a bona fide contractor--and that means among other things setting your own schedules and having other clients. If they are your sole source of income, demand you come in from 9-5 and otherwise treat you like an employee, you CANNOT be considered a 1099 contractor and they know it. If they want to play that game, they have to play by the rules and so do you. Act and charge accordingly. If they don't take you seriously, they never would have anyway.
...an overreliance on thermometers and an underreliance on the original point.
Americans do understand "cold" and not just those, like myself, who have experienced some seriously fscking cold winters overseas. Christ, amazing people so determined to prove that being American means not understanding "hot" versus "cold." Fsck off already./Blah./End of thread.
Barrow, AK is considerably colder than Svalbard, which is the absolute coldest place in Norway.
As for Siberia? Minnesota and North Dakota can get down to -50C, which is 20C colder than most of Siberia, but routinely experiences cold of below -30C, which is about average for Siberia and a damned sight colder than anywhere in Scandanavia.
Pardon, but you've OBVIOUSLY never been to North Dakota, Minnesota or Alaska.
There isn't a solitary square inch of Scandanavia (or Siberia, for that matter) that has weather any more severe than can be found somewhere in the United States, thankyouverymuch.
Re:The Lone Coder is Dead. Long live the Consultan
on
Is The Lone Coder Dead?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A VERY small company I worked for had a product they sold for about $500. Companies would routinely buy it and then ask for several months worth of customization. On average, that little $500 item would generally net about $35-50k. So, you're right, they could just give the thing away and it wouldn't make an ounce of difference, except that they might have more customers.
I hear they're having financial trouble these days. Wouldn't it be ironic if that worked.
I think what you're missing here is how far down the list that is... Iceland is at #8, with 88% (either way you slice it), but it is safe to say it really matters little who they elect, because there isn't a great gulf of difference of opinion on much of anything. It's a stable, homogeneous country with essentially zero conflict, but they don't stop voting because of it. Using your logic, the people of Iceland probably shouldn't be voting at all because there is very little to win or lose.
I don't think it is simple Pavlovian behavior, but, I think you are discounting that the sense of order that things like voting produces is a sufficient reward. Much like a great deal of adult behavior, say, vacuuming and toilet scrubbing--no one gives you a cookie for that either, and you certainly wouldn't die if you didn't, but most people do it anyway.
Yeah... been there, done that... but that only saves so much.
The real expense is in things like moving, housing and insurance and worst of all lost savings.
I moved from Los Angeles to DC. To get stabilized, it took $20,000 in cash reserves--and that's after blowing through $30,000 or so in reserves looking for work in Los Angeles--and I'm SINGLE! God help people doing this with families. Oy vey. I could bake my own bread for the rest of my life and not make up for that hit (although, I DO and more or less operate as you described anyway).
Insurance is a strange thing. To a certain degree it is a luxury--when you're out of cash, if you're young and basically healthy, it's a couple hundred bucks a month that is basically gambling money. I mean, my COBRA kicked in when I was laid off, but it was $400/month to continue coverage. My freaking mortgage was only $550! So, eh, I'm young and healthy and have no idea where the money is going to come from so I'll shop around. Literally three days after the COBRA deadline--cardiac care to the tune of $25,000. Ouch. I really wonder how many people have been put in that situation and as importantly, how many hospitals have taken a hit for it (and, ergo, taxpayers who make up the difference) since many of the recently unemployed will not be eligible for any kind of state assistance (read: no kids). My insurance cost is now about $2,500 per year. That's three months rent. When you're not working, that's a big hit, so people risk it. But, we all end up taking the hit when they do need medical care and it just gets written off because otherwise simple problems are left until they warrant a trip to ER and even worse, people can end up severely screwed up or dead as a result. No joke. Look up cellulitis. I've had it and seen numerous permanently disabling and fatal cases due to exactly the financial circumstances I've described (once upon a time, my family company performed Medicaid support once upon a time. Oh, the irony is painful).
But, all of that pales in comparison to the cost of liquidated savings. Think about it... to a 30yo with $50k in reserves at 6% until retirement, they just lost $384,304, which on average is a decade of their salary gone--and it will probably take them a decade to regain it. That's, obviously, a huge loss.
Average unemployment used to be about 3-6 months. In this last downturn, it jumped to 12-18 months. We simply cannot allow this economy to create the circumstances for such disasterously extended periods of unemployment for so many people. There is a breaking point at which regaining the lost ground becomes nearly impossible and I think we tempted it this time.
Rather than worrying about boys kissing and other such productive arguments, perhaps we should get our elected representatives to worry a tad more on economic policy for awhile...
I tend to think that participation in a country like the United States should in ANY case be better than that in CHAD. But, no, it's not. We are just slightly better than Burkina Faso, though. Hooray.
96% was the percentage of registered voters. 61% was the percentage of eligibles.
I was comparing oranges to oranges. The figures I listed were the percents of registered voters, so the US figure was also in terms of registered voters.
Seriously, we're flanked by Chand and Burkina Faso in terms of participation... what a badge of honor.
If you don't give a damm, you would only be making selections at random....and that's the difference. Even though a 20yo male can expect to live only another 22 years and 84% of the women are illiterate and the average person earns 37 cents an hour, they still give a damn...
South Africa: 89% Iceland: 85% Brazil: 79% Italy: 81% Germany: 79% Sweden: 80% Norway: 75%...bear in mind, the United States in 1964 had 96% turnout.
The U.S. is particularly bad when you take into account registration versus eligibility. Most other comparable countries differ by just a couple percent between the two metrics, whereas the United States generally differs by 20-30%. So, while the U.K. may have 60% turnout--that actually represents roughly 60% of eligibles, whereas in the United States a 60% turnout is really only 40% of eligibles. In 2000, for instance, we had 63% turnout, but it was only 46% of eligibles, which oddly enough is almost exactly the same as experienced in Burkina Faso, which is not exactly something to cheer over.
Go to www.idea.int for more info on this. Participation in the U.S. is in fact quite painfully pathetic, like it or not.
More like if more people _in_general_ voted. Voter turnout in the US is woefully pathetic. It rarely even comes close to what would otherwise be considered a necessary quorum.
No amount of change in the behavior of the existing electorate will really heal much so long as turnout remains so pitifully low.
Oh no, sarcasm is good... it's just disturbing that the particular line of sarcasm used is so often stated in total seriousness that it passes under the radar...
Fox viewers are also of above-average intellect and critical judgment.
Seriously, is there an indepenent study out there that has asserted this? I mean, what's the basis for comparison? That could be a true statement, but the unsaid portion could be "...compared to regular viewers of Spongebob Squarepants on Nickelodeon."...well... even then...
Hey, do what you think you have to do. My point was that in the manner you described, you could very well be blasting the head off the cop who followed the guy in, so just be prepared to answer for when you ice someone who was no threat at all because you were shooting into shadows. Hopefully, it won't be a member of your own family.
Fear of death drives people to do stupid things... like wandering into other people's houses... and blasting their heads off for doing so....the only point I was making was that the immediate, unquestioning use of lethal force is totally irreponsible--any policeman will tell you that. There are just far too many scenarios where that sort of psychotic trigger-finger is far more dangerous than all but the rarest breed of criminals. For godssake, that sort of knee-jerk cowboy attitude could land that guy in jail for blowing away a cop who followed a criminal onto his property. Oh, bra-fscking-vo, y'all.
I'm going to assume he's a threat until he proves otherwise.
That's the problem with lethal force. Killing someone rather effectively removes their ability to "prove otherwise."
There are many scenarios where someone may have invaded your space, but in which blasting their heads off is a pretty psychotic means of dealing with the situation.
Imagine you have a house in the woods and you have a basement and have left the door unlocked. Someone for whatever reason has gotten trapped in a blizzard and is seeking shelter. They will die if they don't find it, so, finding an open basement, they step inside to avoid certain death--at which point, you blast their heads off because "I'm going to do my best to hit him before he know's he's been busted."
Within your rights? Maybe, it's not like the poor schmuck can counter your story when you explain the dead body to the police. A fscking sociopathic disregard for human life? Definitely. I just hope you can keep your stories straight for both the judge and your god.
Great. So we can just run roughshod into anarchy because it's the ideal analog of libertarian fantasy.
Unfortunately, those living in that fantasy still cost the rest of us money, so either move into the middle of the desert and live of the land, or accept that, yes, society does give you something in return and you expect it to do so every time you pay your local taxes that cover the removal of your sewage. From that point we can extrapolate to all the other things you no doubt expect society to provide for you that you would probably riot over if removed.
Slashdot Mirror
The same applies to ANY network connection, but, thanks for playing.
The electors are chosen by the winning party. Do you honestly think that, for instance, the 55 registered, highly active republicans hand picked by the republican party are going to magically change their votes in any significant way?
There have been 156 faithless electors in the history of the Electoral College and 63 of them are from 1872 when the candidate in question was dead by the time there were to cast their votes. So that leaves us with 93, 23 in 1836 all from Virginia but that didn't change the result of the election as subsequently decided by the Senate, 32 in 1832 (30 from PA) also not changing the outcome.
In short, don't put much faith in faithless electors. On average, one pops up every other election and even in the very, very limited cases where there have been large numbers, they still haven't changed the outcome and for godssake abstaining from voting for a dead candidate is hardly being "faithless."
I haven't tried this under Linux, but I did some speed tests using a Treo300 on Sprint and it quickly hit 150Kbps sustained. Frankly, for the coverage area and the price (damn near free), 150Kbps ain't to shabby. Sprint are complete assholes about just saying "yes, you may use that phone as a modem and you will not incur additional charges" (I spent an hour twisting that out of them while they tried to sell me a modem card and a per-KB metered plan), even though there is no way they can tell the difference between your "unlimited wireless web" and anything you might do using the phone with a laptop. Knowing it pisses them off just makes it all the more enjoyable.
However, I am a bit annoyed that the Treo300 requires third-party software to function as an external modem (ergo, I suspect it will be difficult under Linux). But, I can say that when they say "150Kbps," they mean every last bit of it on a sustained basis.
That's true, since Shell is a petrol company, I'm sure they are extracting it from the refining of gasoline.
However, it still does solve the tailpipe emissions problem and if widely adopted would solve the fossil-fuel dependency problem since while you can get hydrogen from petroleum, you don't have to.
The Shell station by my house already sells hydrogen at the pumps.
e at ure_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000717936
http://www.csnews.com/csnews/reports_analysis/f
Where do I order one of these again?
You're contracting directly, treat this like it will never be anything but a contract job and you will be scaring up business again on short notice. Of course, you want the salaried position, but they're asking you to shield them from risk and they need to pony up for that. That means you need to charge at least as much as your total salary+benefits+payroll tax would be -- which is about 45% above your base salary just. If this was a $75k job ($36/hr), you need to charge the equivalent of $108,750 or ($52/hr).
If you really want that salaried position and you really think you're going to get it, you can stop here. If you have _any_ doubt whatsoever that this is going to transition, you need to act like a real contractor and frankly that means take the figure you just came to and add at least 50%. Doubling it would not be out of order, but this is where you need to feel them out. If you're gunning for a $75k job and they balk at paying you $75/hour on contract, you don't want to work for them--they'd pay yet another half again as much if they got you as an employee of a contractor and they know it. Let them know by demanding to be paid accordingly.
By law, if you have a 1099 relationship, you have to be a bona fide contractor--and that means among other things setting your own schedules and having other clients. If they are your sole source of income, demand you come in from 9-5 and otherwise treat you like an employee, you CANNOT be considered a 1099 contractor and they know it. If they want to play that game, they have to play by the rules and so do you. Act and charge accordingly. If they don't take you seriously, they never would have anyway.
...an overreliance on thermometers and an underreliance on the original point.
/Blah. /End of thread.
Americans do understand "cold" and not just those, like myself, who have experienced some seriously fscking cold winters overseas. Christ, amazing people so determined to prove that being American means not understanding "hot" versus "cold." Fsck off already.
Barrow, AK is considerably colder than Svalbard, which is the absolute coldest place in Norway.
As for Siberia? Minnesota and North Dakota can get down to -50C, which is 20C colder than most of Siberia, but routinely experiences cold of below -30C, which is about average for Siberia and a damned sight colder than anywhere in Scandanavia.
Pardon, but you've OBVIOUSLY never been to North Dakota, Minnesota or Alaska.
There isn't a solitary square inch of Scandanavia (or Siberia, for that matter) that has weather any more severe than can be found somewhere in the United States, thankyouverymuch.
A VERY small company I worked for had a product they sold for about $500. Companies would routinely buy it and then ask for several months worth of customization. On average, that little $500 item would generally net about $35-50k. So, you're right, they could just give the thing away and it wouldn't make an ounce of difference, except that they might have more customers.
I hear they're having financial trouble these days. Wouldn't it be ironic if that worked.
I think what you're missing here is how far down the list that is... Iceland is at #8, with 88% (either way you slice it), but it is safe to say it really matters little who they elect, because there isn't a great gulf of difference of opinion on much of anything. It's a stable, homogeneous country with essentially zero conflict, but they don't stop voting because of it. Using your logic, the people of Iceland probably shouldn't be voting at all because there is very little to win or lose.
I don't think it is simple Pavlovian behavior, but, I think you are discounting that the sense of order that things like voting produces is a sufficient reward. Much like a great deal of adult behavior, say, vacuuming and toilet scrubbing--no one gives you a cookie for that either, and you certainly wouldn't die if you didn't, but most people do it anyway.
Yeah... been there, done that... but that only saves so much.
The real expense is in things like moving, housing and insurance and worst of all lost savings.
I moved from Los Angeles to DC. To get stabilized, it took $20,000 in cash reserves--and that's after blowing through $30,000 or so in reserves looking for work in Los Angeles--and I'm SINGLE! God help people doing this with families. Oy vey. I could bake my own bread for the rest of my life and not make up for that hit (although, I DO and more or less operate as you described anyway).
Insurance is a strange thing. To a certain degree it is a luxury--when you're out of cash, if you're young and basically healthy, it's a couple hundred bucks a month that is basically gambling money. I mean, my COBRA kicked in when I was laid off, but it was $400/month to continue coverage. My freaking mortgage was only $550! So, eh, I'm young and healthy and have no idea where the money is going to come from so I'll shop around. Literally three days after the COBRA deadline--cardiac care to the tune of $25,000. Ouch. I really wonder how many people have been put in that situation and as importantly, how many hospitals have taken a hit for it (and, ergo, taxpayers who make up the difference) since many of the recently unemployed will not be eligible for any kind of state assistance (read: no kids). My insurance cost is now about $2,500 per year. That's three months rent. When you're not working, that's a big hit, so people risk it. But, we all end up taking the hit when they do need medical care and it just gets written off because otherwise simple problems are left until they warrant a trip to ER and even worse, people can end up severely screwed up or dead as a result. No joke. Look up cellulitis. I've had it and seen numerous permanently disabling and fatal cases due to exactly the financial circumstances I've described (once upon a time, my family company performed Medicaid support once upon a time. Oh, the irony is painful).
But, all of that pales in comparison to the cost of liquidated savings. Think about it... to a 30yo with $50k in reserves at 6% until retirement, they just lost $384,304, which on average is a decade of their salary gone--and it will probably take them a decade to regain it. That's, obviously, a huge loss.
Average unemployment used to be about 3-6 months. In this last downturn, it jumped to 12-18 months.
We simply cannot allow this economy to create the circumstances for such disasterously extended periods of unemployment for so many people. There is a breaking point at which regaining the lost ground becomes nearly impossible and I think we tempted it this time.
Rather than worrying about boys kissing and other such productive arguments, perhaps we should get our elected representatives to worry a tad more on economic policy for awhile...
I tend to think that participation in a country like the United States should in ANY case be better than that in CHAD. But, no, it's not. We are just slightly better than Burkina Faso, though. Hooray.
THAT WAS MY POINT.
96% was the percentage of registered voters.
61% was the percentage of eligibles.
I was comparing oranges to oranges. The figures I listed were the percents of registered voters, so the US figure was also in terms of registered voters.
Seriously, we're flanked by Chand and Burkina Faso in terms of participation... what a badge of honor.
If you don't give a damm, you would only be making selections at random. ...and that's the difference. Even though a 20yo male can expect to live only another 22 years and 84% of the women are illiterate and the average person earns 37 cents an hour, they still give a damn...
http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop1.c fm
US Voter turnout on average during the 1990s fell between that of Chad and Botswana.
GO AMERICA!
Pfffft... We are so pathetic.
South Africa: 89% ...bear in mind, the United States in 1964 had 96% turnout.
Iceland: 85%
Brazil: 79%
Italy: 81%
Germany: 79%
Sweden: 80%
Norway: 75%
The U.S. is particularly bad when you take into account registration versus eligibility. Most other comparable countries differ by just a couple percent between the two metrics, whereas the United States generally differs by 20-30%. So, while the U.K. may have 60% turnout--that actually represents roughly 60% of eligibles, whereas in the United States a 60% turnout is really only 40% of eligibles. In 2000, for instance, we had 63% turnout, but it was only 46% of eligibles, which oddly enough is almost exactly the same as experienced in Burkina Faso, which is not exactly something to cheer over.
Go to www.idea.int for more info on this. Participation in the U.S. is in fact quite painfully pathetic, like it or not.
More like if more people _in_general_ voted. Voter turnout in the US is woefully pathetic. It rarely even comes close to what would otherwise be considered a necessary quorum.
No amount of change in the behavior of the existing electorate will really heal much so long as turnout remains so pitifully low.
Oh no, sarcasm is good... it's just disturbing that the particular line of sarcasm used is so often stated in total seriousness that it passes under the radar...
:P
Yikes...
Fox viewers are also of above-average intellect and critical judgment.
...well... even then...
Seriously, is there an indepenent study out there that has asserted this? I mean, what's the basis for comparison? That could be a true statement, but the unsaid portion could be "...compared to regular viewers of Spongebob Squarepants on Nickelodeon."
No offense, but you've got to be fucking kidding me.
Yep. I have.
Hey, do what you think you have to do. My point was that in the manner you described, you could very well be blasting the head off the cop who followed the guy in, so just be prepared to answer for when you ice someone who was no threat at all because you were shooting into shadows. Hopefully, it won't be a member of your own family.
Fear of death drives people to do stupid things... like wandering into other people's houses... and blasting their heads off for doing so. ...the only point I was making was that the immediate, unquestioning use of lethal force is totally irreponsible--any policeman will tell you that. There are just far too many scenarios where that sort of psychotic trigger-finger is far more dangerous than all but the rarest breed of criminals. For godssake, that sort of knee-jerk cowboy attitude could land that guy in jail for blowing away a cop who followed a criminal onto his property. Oh, bra-fscking-vo, y'all.
I'm going to assume he's a threat until he proves otherwise.
That's the problem with lethal force. Killing someone rather effectively removes their ability to "prove otherwise."
There are many scenarios where someone may have invaded your space, but in which blasting their heads off is a pretty psychotic means of dealing with the situation.
Imagine you have a house in the woods and you have a basement and have left the door unlocked. Someone for whatever reason has gotten trapped in a blizzard and is seeking shelter. They will die if they don't find it, so, finding an open basement, they step inside to avoid certain death--at which point, you blast their heads off because "I'm going to do my best to hit him before he know's he's been busted."
Within your rights? Maybe, it's not like the poor schmuck can counter your story when you explain the dead body to the police. A fscking sociopathic disregard for human life? Definitely. I just hope you can keep your stories straight for both the judge and your god.
Great. So we can just run roughshod into anarchy because it's the ideal analog of libertarian fantasy.
Unfortunately, those living in that fantasy still cost the rest of us money, so either move into the middle of the desert and live of the land, or accept that, yes, society does give you something in return and you expect it to do so every time you pay your local taxes that cover the removal of your sewage. From that point we can extrapolate to all the other things you no doubt expect society to provide for you that you would probably riot over if removed.