You wouldn't need to dismantle the 2 party system if the primaries were open. A two party system with robust primaries would be far better than a multi party system.
The Constitution does not even say there have to be primaries at all (especially since it doesn't even mention parties in the first place). Since the parties create primaries in the first place, the parties get to decide whether they want open or closed primaries.
The claim is often made is that primaries give the people more power to select candidates than the old system of smoke-filled rooms in Conventions. However, the process is so under the thumb of the party establishments that this is illusory.
Certainly open primaries tend to "water down" the parties and make their candidates more appealing in the general election, since from the start they have to make voters think the candidates are not strongly against any of the voters' opinions and preferences. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is arguable. My belief is that it strengthens the uber "uniparty" establishment, so that neither of the selected two candidates ever inspire any real enthusiasm. The inspirational contenders almost always get weeded out in the primaries.
So, with passage of a simple law, the government can be given power to search and seize the assets of corporations anytime without a warrant?
Corporations are legal constructs created by the government in the first place (in the US they are constructs of the individual states - e.g., "Delaware Corporation" - however, such legislation as the Securities Act of 1933 add a degree of federal regulation). Significantly, the "corporate shield" is a government creation. It can as well be taken away legislatively as created legislatively. If you want to curb the excesses of corporations, just take away the ability of the officers to hide behind the corporate shield.
There is certainly no reference to, or protection of, the concept of "corporate personhood" in the Constitution. As such, if the government grants the bounty of corporate structures to enrich people who are mostly already very wealthy to begin with, the government can certainly impose regulation of corporations, and power over their doings; certainly over their gross excesses.
I've been there, so I know the feeling. It's frustrating to be treated like children incapable of deciding what level of security YOU need, including none. But jeeze, in 2015 you must be running unbelievably shitty old hardware to even notice any slowdown any more with the best ciphers.
Where you have a problem is on the following two points:
I may indeed have a problem, but it is not a misundersanding of the Electoral College. The Electoral College tends to amplify decisions. A razor-sharp decision in the popular vote tends to result in a much larger electoral decision because of the avalanche effect of choosing electors in each individual state. I.e., whoever wins state X, whether it be by 51-49% or by 90-10%, wins all the electors of state X.
It is true that the populations of the smaller states are somewhat over-represented in the College. The Congressmen are apportioned by population, and the Senators are apportioned exactly 2 to each state, no matter what the population. The sum is the number of electors. Thus it is 435 + 100 for the 50 states - plus 3 for DC. The population apportioning still heavily predominates. If the number of electors was just 100 - plus 2 - then the thinly populated states would gain real power, and the death grip of the sugar daddy party on the cities would not give it such a huge advantage.
Regardless, the weakness of the system is that there is no guarantee that any of the electors will follow their pledges and elect the candidate of the winning party. If a dark horse from either of the two parties somehow manages to win his party's electors in a majority, the electors are still perfectly free to flaunt the wishes of the voters and throw their votes to the opposing candidate if that suits their love of establishment better.
It is true that the avalanche effect of the Electors tends to lock lesser parties out of any representation at all in the Electoral vote, but it is not impossible to defeat. Theodore Roosevelt won 27% popular and 88 Electoral votes in 1912 running on the Bull Moose Progressive ticket. We get another guy with that kind of stature going it alone, and the Rs and Ds divide closely, and it's Katy bar the door.
That has to be the stupidest statement I have read in a week. Who cares what the "industry format" is for "graphic design"? That has nothing to do with a web coding school. And GIMP opens PSD files just fine. Did you even TRY this before posting?
Do yourself a favor and cool off. Are you sure GIMP will open and properly deal with all PSD files made by all Photoshops, no matter what options and features? And are you sure that GIMP will create PSD files with all desired options and features, and that all Photoshops will open them and properly deal with them? I am sure as hell not sure, and it would take me a long time to make sure, and I would never really be 100% done making sure as both Photoshop and GIMP continue to evolve.
I don't want to make it sound hopeless, but you should be sensitive to real issues.
Here in Florida you can be arrested for DUI while mowing your yard on a tractor mower. And it has happened.
By what authority do these pigs claim authority over operations confined to one's own PRIVATE PROPERTY which are not violating zoning regulations, disturbing the peace, etc? Long established norms only require licensure to operate on public roads.
I'm not saying persecution has never happened, but anyone with competent legal resources could take these nazis to school.
Don't bikes cause something like 1/10.000 of the damage to a road that a car does?
Considerably less than that, particularly in the USA where the average "car" is an exceptionally heavy behemoth. The amount of wear caused is basically proportional to about the fourth power of the axle weight. On all roads which have any appreciably large truck traffic at all, practically all of the wear is caused by truck traffic.
The numbers of homicides is way down the list at 16,121, including 11,208 by firearms.
The total annual number of deaths by all causes is 2,596,993. This includes 11,208 homicides by firearms, which is 0.43% - less than one percent - of the total. For the average rational person, if he possesses nominal intellectual capacity, that is not even on the radar. Yes, for those unlucky or stupid enough to live in downtown detroit, especially engaged in gang activities, they have a little more worry. But the fact is, they are all 100% certainly going to die, and much more likely of disease - even those.
All the Obamabots who regularly rant on sites like Slashdot about big corporations, copyright laws, patent trolls, etc are the very people who enthusiastically put Obama in office where he is shoving through the massive TPP treaty that nobody will ever be able to undo.
Suck on it, fools. You will live the rest of your life under this heap of garbage that will overrule even your national and state laws and no political action of yours in the future will be able to roll it back. You present yourselves as freedom lovers while supporting totalitarian corporatism and most of you are gearing up to double-down in 2016 with Hillary even though the facts have been right in front of you for years: Obama got more funding from Wall St investment bankers than any candidate in history and both Hillary and Jeb are getting piles of cash from the very same people.
You sold your freedom. Good luck ever getting any of it back. Of course, your politicians will legalize pot so you can get (and stay) too stoned to notice what they are doing to you (and your kids, and grandkids...)
I believe if you really think about it, you will find that the election and re-election of Mr. Obama says a lot more about the unbelievably abysmal quality of the opposition, than it says about how dumb the voters are.
Do you realize that the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about political parties, conventions, or primary elections? As far as the Constitution is concerned there needn't be any political parties at all. But it does impose the Electoral College, and (surprise), those electors are not Constitutionally bound to honor the popular votes of their states. So while Constitutionally you could have a Presidential ballot with 50 or 100 unaffiliated contenders listed on it, there is no provision for a runoff if, say, none of them polls over 10% or so.
I don't know how you can destroy the lock the two Parties have on the process, and even more crucially, I have no idea how you can prevent them from conniving with each other. George Washington believed there should be no parties, but it would take a Constitutional Amendment to ban them, and as well as a chilling effect on free association, it wouldn't work anyway. It would just drive the affiliations underground. As a practical matter, most countries have more than two Parties in meaningful contention, many times a great many more than two, which tends to lead to coalition governments. What is not clear is how, practically, you can effect a change in power away from only two parties.
That's too easy a dismissal of trying, and too convenient an excuse for losing. Money is a facilitator, but it is not the only one, and fixating on it only takes your concentration off the REAL requirements. To be elected you need exposure, recognition, and the ability to sell, convince, and persuade. If you can't be bothered getting yourself exposed and recognized, and have no knack to sell, convince, and persuade, you join a long list of LOSERS complaining about "the system".
Yes, if you have a vast power structure behind you, you can be a cipher and still win. But a real doer does not take from that, that he has to either round up his own vast power structure or take his bat and ball and go home. A real doer finds a way to get around, or to attack and defeat, that evil power structure arrayed against him and oppressing the people.
Do you really think the Bolsheviks and the Nazis and a long list of others who really did change things had big bags of money? It's not only the evil actors who need charisma and cleverness.
The noun form of "elite" refers to one or more. It has no plural form, any more than "sick" does. It just makes you sound ignorant when you say "elites". Do you say "helping the sicks"?
It was only by decades of perverting the law of the land, through treasonous bribery and outright corruption, that this country was able to get into such a state.
I would have put it "It was only through centuries of unconfronted, unchecked treason that this country ended up completely disregarding and dishonoring its governing constitution".
Every single official who takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then does nothing in the face of that Constitution being torn up, is committing treason. That is the President and his cabinet, 9 monkeys in black robes in the Supreme Court, plus 535 Congressman, just to start. Every one of them. Many of them are prime conspirators (like the President), but every goddam one of them who is not screaming his bloody head off about it every day from morning to night is an accomplice. And that is 100% of them.
A bit of confusion over nit-picking terms is not surprising, given the FAA itself sounds confused. From http://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/, "FAA's rules for getting a pilot's license (certificate) " and "There are several different types of pilot's licenses...".
One might be forgiven for assuming that the certificate is evidence of licensure.
The data longevity of 3-bits per cell NAND is quite poor. MLC's 2-bits per cell still has me uneasy. Storing 1 of 8 voltage levels in an environment that leaks electrons over time is not for me. I'll wait for XPoint before upgrading my MLC SSD.
For pete's sake, MLC stands for multi-level cell, not four-state (two bit) cell. TLC is just a kind of MLC; it's not an either-or. TLC is eight-state (three bit). I realize we're kind of stuck with dumbed-down nomenclature, where MLC is used specifically for four-state MLC. Funny how I find wrong usage annoying.
At least I'm not a polite worthless waste of protoplasm. You'll note I'm not ragging on all the people who can't afford to shit out 100 grand on a car, because you know what? They count just as much as the conspicuous consumers with the silver spoons.
95% of hydrogen is produced by steam reforming of fossil fuels, predominantly natural gas. CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2, with a second stage CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2. As you point out, you end up with vast amounts of CO2. To be fair, this stream of CO2 is conveniently concentrated for possible sequestration by pumping it into an underground reservoir; however it is more generally just released into the atmosphere.
In addition, the process involves steam at 1000 C, which requires massive energy input. Most often, this energy is obtained from burning fossil fuel.
The onus is on Vodaphone to PROVE the full cycle they are proposing is less polluting than alternatives such as diesel generation. I strongly suspect rather the opposite. And I sure as hell KNOW it is not less polluting than photovoltaic.
Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution does not even say there have to be primaries at all (especially since it doesn't even mention parties in the first place). Since the parties create primaries in the first place, the parties get to decide whether they want open or closed primaries.
The claim is often made is that primaries give the people more power to select candidates than the old system of smoke-filled rooms in Conventions. However, the process is so under the thumb of the party establishments that this is illusory.
Certainly open primaries tend to "water down" the parties and make their candidates more appealing in the general election, since from the start they have to make voters think the candidates are not strongly against any of the voters' opinions and preferences. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is arguable. My belief is that it strengthens the uber "uniparty" establishment, so that neither of the selected two candidates ever inspire any real enthusiasm. The inspirational contenders almost always get weeded out in the primaries.
Corporations are legal constructs created by the government in the first place (in the US they are constructs of the individual states - e.g., "Delaware Corporation" - however, such legislation as the Securities Act of 1933 add a degree of federal regulation). Significantly, the "corporate shield" is a government creation. It can as well be taken away legislatively as created legislatively. If you want to curb the excesses of corporations, just take away the ability of the officers to hide behind the corporate shield.
There is certainly no reference to, or protection of, the concept of "corporate personhood" in the Constitution. As such, if the government grants the bounty of corporate structures to enrich people who are mostly already very wealthy to begin with, the government can certainly impose regulation of corporations, and power over their doings; certainly over their gross excesses.
I've been there, so I know the feeling. It's frustrating to be treated like children incapable of deciding what level of security YOU need, including none. But jeeze, in 2015 you must be running unbelievably shitty old hardware to even notice any slowdown any more with the best ciphers.
I may indeed have a problem, but it is not a misundersanding of the Electoral College. The Electoral College tends to amplify decisions. A razor-sharp decision in the popular vote tends to result in a much larger electoral decision because of the avalanche effect of choosing electors in each individual state. I.e., whoever wins state X, whether it be by 51-49% or by 90-10%, wins all the electors of state X.
It is true that the populations of the smaller states are somewhat over-represented in the College. The Congressmen are apportioned by population, and the Senators are apportioned exactly 2 to each state, no matter what the population. The sum is the number of electors. Thus it is 435 + 100 for the 50 states - plus 3 for DC. The population apportioning still heavily predominates. If the number of electors was just 100 - plus 2 - then the thinly populated states would gain real power, and the death grip of the sugar daddy party on the cities would not give it such a huge advantage.
Regardless, the weakness of the system is that there is no guarantee that any of the electors will follow their pledges and elect the candidate of the winning party. If a dark horse from either of the two parties somehow manages to win his party's electors in a majority, the electors are still perfectly free to flaunt the wishes of the voters and throw their votes to the opposing candidate if that suits their love of establishment better.
It is true that the avalanche effect of the Electors tends to lock lesser parties out of any representation at all in the Electoral vote, but it is not impossible to defeat. Theodore Roosevelt won 27% popular and 88 Electoral votes in 1912 running on the Bull Moose Progressive ticket. We get another guy with that kind of stature going it alone, and the Rs and Ds divide closely, and it's Katy bar the door.
Do yourself a favor and cool off. Are you sure GIMP will open and properly deal with all PSD files made by all Photoshops, no matter what options and features? And are you sure that GIMP will create PSD files with all desired options and features, and that all Photoshops will open them and properly deal with them? I am sure as hell not sure, and it would take me a long time to make sure, and I would never really be 100% done making sure as both Photoshop and GIMP continue to evolve.
I don't want to make it sound hopeless, but you should be sensitive to real issues.
Well. Are you keeping your system a secret or something? Do you want payment? Otherwise, where's the link to an exposition?
Absurd overreach. An ID card need not have any appreciable cost. Poll taxes and the like have already been ruled out. Try again.
Correct. We have a winner.
By what authority do these pigs claim authority over operations confined to one's own PRIVATE PROPERTY which are not violating zoning regulations, disturbing the peace, etc? Long established norms only require licensure to operate on public roads.
I'm not saying persecution has never happened, but anyone with competent legal resources could take these nazis to school.
Considerably less than that, particularly in the USA where the average "car" is an exceptionally heavy behemoth. The amount of wear caused is basically proportional to about the fourth power of the axle weight. On all roads which have any appreciably large truck traffic at all, practically all of the wear is caused by truck traffic.
Sense of perspective. PLEASE GET ONE. From the CDC, backed by these data, deaths per year in the USA:
* heart disease, 611,105
* cancer, 584,881
* chronic respiratory disease, 149,205
* accidents, 130,557
* stroke, 128,978
* alzheimer's disease, 84,767
* diabetes, 75,578
* influenza and pneumonia, 56,979
* kidney disease, 47,112
* suicide, 41,149
The suicide figure includes 21,176 by firearms.
The numbers of homicides is way down the list at 16,121, including 11,208 by firearms.
The total annual number of deaths by all causes is 2,596,993. This includes 11,208 homicides by firearms, which is 0.43% - less than one percent - of the total. For the average rational person, if he possesses nominal intellectual capacity, that is not even on the radar. Yes, for those unlucky or stupid enough to live in downtown detroit, especially engaged in gang activities, they have a little more worry. But the fact is, they are all 100% certainly going to die, and much more likely of disease - even those.
Fucking retard.
I believe if you really think about it, you will find that the election and re-election of Mr. Obama says a lot more about the unbelievably abysmal quality of the opposition, than it says about how dumb the voters are.
Do you realize that the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about political parties, conventions, or primary elections? As far as the Constitution is concerned there needn't be any political parties at all. But it does impose the Electoral College, and (surprise), those electors are not Constitutionally bound to honor the popular votes of their states. So while Constitutionally you could have a Presidential ballot with 50 or 100 unaffiliated contenders listed on it, there is no provision for a runoff if, say, none of them polls over 10% or so.
I don't know how you can destroy the lock the two Parties have on the process, and even more crucially, I have no idea how you can prevent them from conniving with each other. George Washington believed there should be no parties, but it would take a Constitutional Amendment to ban them, and as well as a chilling effect on free association, it wouldn't work anyway. It would just drive the affiliations underground. As a practical matter, most countries have more than two Parties in meaningful contention, many times a great many more than two, which tends to lead to coalition governments. What is not clear is how, practically, you can effect a change in power away from only two parties.
That's too easy a dismissal of trying, and too convenient an excuse for losing. Money is a facilitator, but it is not the only one, and fixating on it only takes your concentration off the REAL requirements. To be elected you need exposure, recognition, and the ability to sell, convince, and persuade. If you can't be bothered getting yourself exposed and recognized, and have no knack to sell, convince, and persuade, you join a long list of LOSERS complaining about "the system".
Yes, if you have a vast power structure behind you, you can be a cipher and still win. But a real doer does not take from that, that he has to either round up his own vast power structure or take his bat and ball and go home. A real doer finds a way to get around, or to attack and defeat, that evil power structure arrayed against him and oppressing the people.
Do you really think the Bolsheviks and the Nazis and a long list of others who really did change things had big bags of money? It's not only the evil actors who need charisma and cleverness.
The noun form of "elite" refers to one or more. It has no plural form, any more than "sick" does. It just makes you sound ignorant when you say "elites". Do you say "helping the sicks"?
BWAHAHAHA!!! You don't think your puppets have been owned by corporations for many years already?
I would have put it "It was only through centuries of unconfronted, unchecked treason that this country ended up completely disregarding and dishonoring its governing constitution".
Every single official who takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then does nothing in the face of that Constitution being torn up, is committing treason. That is the President and his cabinet, 9 monkeys in black robes in the Supreme Court, plus 535 Congressman, just to start. Every one of them. Many of them are prime conspirators (like the President), but every goddam one of them who is not screaming his bloody head off about it every day from morning to night is an accomplice. And that is 100% of them.
Methinks you confuse "victimizing a small proportion of drug users" vs "doing anything whatsoever to lessen drug use".
A bit of confusion over nit-picking terms is not surprising, given the FAA itself sounds confused. From http://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/, "FAA's rules for getting a pilot's license (certificate) " and "There are several different types of pilot's licenses...".
One might be forgiven for assuming that the certificate is evidence of licensure.
For pete's sake, MLC stands for multi-level cell, not four-state (two bit) cell. TLC is just a kind of MLC; it's not an either-or. TLC is eight-state (three bit). I realize we're kind of stuck with dumbed-down nomenclature, where MLC is used specifically for four-state MLC. Funny how I find wrong usage annoying.
Fair enough - fucking coward.
At least I'm not a polite worthless waste of protoplasm. You'll note I'm not ragging on all the people who can't afford to shit out 100 grand on a car, because you know what? They count just as much as the conspicuous consumers with the silver spoons.
"I'm an advantaged rich prick". Sorry. There's no gentle way to say it. Keep modding away, panty waists. I can keep this up.
95% of hydrogen is produced by steam reforming of fossil fuels, predominantly natural gas. CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2, with a second stage CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2. As you point out, you end up with vast amounts of CO2. To be fair, this stream of CO2 is conveniently concentrated for possible sequestration by pumping it into an underground reservoir; however it is more generally just released into the atmosphere.
In addition, the process involves steam at 1000 C, which requires massive energy input. Most often, this energy is obtained from burning fossil fuel.
The onus is on Vodaphone to PROVE the full cycle they are proposing is less polluting than alternatives such as diesel generation. I strongly suspect rather the opposite. And I sure as hell KNOW it is not less polluting than photovoltaic.
"I'm an advantaged rich prick". Sorry. There's no gentle way to say it.