I can see where the confusion comes from that there are only two candidates, a Republican and a Democrat, as the media generally gives much more spotlight to those two. However, there are usually quite a few more candidates than the usual two jackasses that will sell you down the river.
Nah, I don't agree, really. A larger number of registered republicans stay home than registered democrats. My own personal guess is these are the higher salaried execs who "Can't get away from work" to go vote. I think representation by the closest we can get to 100% of the population is what the founding fathers wanted. I don't think, though, that an uneducated vote is a good one. Somehow the two would have to go hand in hand.
That's a good point, and a great idea. I would venture a guess that internet voting (domestically) would be illegal, even if every city had a mayor as idiotic as Houston.
The idea of having polling stations open 24 hours comes to mind too. Since most of the poll workers are volunteers, that might not be an easy task.
I think the largest problem with voter turnout is one of education, really... especially at the local level. There has got to be an easy answer in education folks on candidates, without the CNN/MSNC/FOX spin/favoritism on them.
Yeah, it certainly is. Here's a solution. You can get a pre-pay master card debit card from just about any check cashing place. I got angry with a bank where I tried to cash a check one time because they required a second form of ID. They used to accept Soc Sec cards, but decided they were too forgeable. What they really wanted was a credit card, and I don't use them. I argued that a credit card could be faked too, and to prove my point, I went and got one under the name "Ronald Reagan." I use it for all of my web purchases now:)
Certainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean the company will add employees. If efficiency keeps up with demand, then the same number of employees can turn out the PC's in higher volume.
I did a robotics contract once for a company in Austin. I was told that it was to be for new hardware, and the company was expanding. It turned out, all they wanted to do was lay folks off (including me when I was done). About a year later, the company was making money hand over fist, and the headcount was still about the same as the post-lay-off period. There was no reason for management to hire anybody else.... besides, it would have cut into their new/higher bonuses.
The sad thing is, I kind of agree with that. If I had a company that manufactured hardware, I would be all over saving money by keeping a small workforce... as long as the current headcount was happy and not overworked.
All the stupid people managed to get rich and while all the smart people stay poor.
Interesting... I would say you have your arguement backwards. Seems smart people figure out how to make the $$. Of course, there's the unethical people (Enron execs) who made it dishonestly, but I would hardly call them stupid.
Stupidity seems to lie in the folks who did nothing for their money.. those that inherit old money. And even then, it's more simply those that inherited, and didn't bother to educate themselves (Forbes, for instance).
Seriously, I'm not sure imnproving efficiency will help the unemployment rate, at least not in the short term. Generally, improved efficiency means fewer jobs. Of course, the idea is that the company makes more money, and there is more wealth to spread around.
Corporations, though, don't spend in the short term on warm bodies. They are cautious about economy fluctuations. They do love to take advantage of cost cutting benefits though. It just seems to the pencil pushers that cutting costs starts with eliminating workforce.
I couldn't agree more. I only saw one example that made some group in some foreign country appear smart.... a national database for healthcare. Of course, that would only work, and only be similar to secure in a country where healthcare is nationalized. Our cut throat medical and insurance companies would make a mockery of that.
I'm a little tired of hearing how "smart" video phones are. I want a phone to talk to people. I think I'm more than intelligent enough to use such an item, but generally the quality sucks, and you don't get much time with it. If you want video, get a camera.
That's about as smart as the PDA cell phones.. the big bulky ones with the graffiti stylus. Again, I want a phone to be a phone, a PDA to be a PDA, and a camera to be a camera. I like my lightweight cell phone, and it has a little java calendar on it anyway.
Otherwise, I'd be in the market for a phone/camera/blender/source code markup editor/color printer/magnifying glass/coffee warmer/cigarette lighter. And I'd want it all for under $100.
long range rfid
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How many folks that are paranoid about rfid tags currently own and use a cell phone? Or have a discount card from their grocery store?
The longest range I know of on RFID (I write code for a company that implements wireless solutions, mostly in warehouses) is almost 20 ft. And that's at very high frequencies (14MHz, with active tags (they're quite a bit more expensive) and using lots of power (up to 60w). Texas Instruments makes a decent one, but so do the likes of Brady, Symbol, etc... This is nothing new...
Besides, they're just tags. Removable. If you think someone is going to be watching your purchased items, throw the tag away. Fairly simple really.
But if you have no cell phone, wear aluminum hats, etc... you could always make your own furniture...
Um... because courts don't make laws, they interpret them? If Congress decides to make a law, then great, they're doing their job, as long as it's a law that... say.... 50MM people want.
milions of lost jobs in an important industry
Important? I want what you're drinking! Is it important to rip off retired people on a fixed income by selling them an "Amazing new invention" or a timeshare they don't need and won't use?
All this list is doing is allowing the people that know they don't want to buy anything over the phone to quit getting calls from people trying to convince them otherwise. Get it? The people that want to buy things over the phone simply do not add their name to the list.
There. Problem solved. And time and $$ saved for those telemarketing companies.
You're suggesting I spend more money (caller ID is not part of basic phone service, nor is it found on cheap phones) just to get rid of them, when I can add my number for free to a database instead?
Thank you for the information. I just fired off an e-mail to Ron Paul (I'm sure he'll never see it, but maybe someone in his office will). Who are these 8 representing? The DMA $$ I'm sure.
Well, comparing Apple to MS requires adding IBM to MS. Apple had the closed architecture, IBM opened theirs to grab market share by having many companies making the hardware, lowering prices. At one time both companies tried switching (Apple to open, IBM to closed) and both failed quickly.
In the meantime, Gates simply sat back, tugged on coattails (the original MS-DOS was free.... like a drug dealer, then once folks were hooked in, a price appeared), and made money off of everyone. Fairly smart business, actually.
The sad thing is the business model he follows to date. He has lost quite a few fans due to business practice alone. And they continue to walk away as he moves forward with awful licensing issues.... not to mention OS security flaws.
But that's economics 101. That way we get to choose wether the product is important enough to us to spend the extra money on. The way it works now is we pay the extra taxes that the corporations aren't paying. Effectively, we're paying those corporations the extra price without even getting the benefit of their product.
The state governments, having tax revenue of their own, shouldn't be counting on federal monies anyway. It's all a matter of mismanagement at the state-all-the-way-down-to-municipalities issue. Yes, Bush was short sighted in his tax cut and deficit spending. Why, however, when my state taxes me, and my county taxes me, and my local ISD taxes me, and... should I blame my states deficit on Bush? That's ludicrous. My state has mismanaged funds for at least the last decade, spent the surplus it carried, and is now realizing the err of it's ways. But that's not Bush's fault in the least.... it's my state's contgress' fault.
While the federal budget may affect state budgets, it never should have... and never should. That's similar to a 21 year old counting on an allowance from their parents to pay the rent on their own apartment.
Slashdot Mirror
- George Bush - Republican Party
- Al Gore - Democrat Party
- Ralph Nader - Green Party
- Pat Buchanan - Independant
- Harry Browne - Libertarian Party
I can see where the confusion comes from that there are only two candidates, a Republican and a Democrat, as the media generally gives much more spotlight to those two. However, there are usually quite a few more candidates than the usual two jackasses that will sell you down the river.Some of them have audio as well. Besides, any amount of free education is good, as far as I'm concerned.
Nah, I don't agree, really. A larger number of registered republicans stay home than registered democrats. My own personal guess is these are the higher salaried execs who "Can't get away from work" to go vote. I think representation by the closest we can get to 100% of the population is what the founding fathers wanted. I don't think, though, that an uneducated vote is a good one. Somehow the two would have to go hand in hand.
That's a good point, and a great idea. I would venture a guess that internet voting (domestically) would be illegal, even if every city had a mayor as idiotic as Houston.
The idea of having polling stations open 24 hours comes to mind too. Since most of the poll workers are volunteers, that might not be an easy task.
I think the largest problem with voter turnout is one of education, really... especially at the local level. There has got to be an easy answer in education folks on candidates, without the CNN/MSNC/FOX spin/favoritism on them.
Um.... France gave us VietNam. We just tried to pick up where they left off.
I agree about the voter turnout, and that's something this country really needs. The United States now ranks 139th out of 167 of the world's democracies in voter turnout which is just plain sad. The majority of folks don't actually vote (but love to complain about our law/policy makers). I'm sure some (most?) candidates count on that low turnout.
I don't agree on the first pass comment though. I think a bad show on the first pass will eliminate a chance of it ever happening again.
Verisign's price can be as high as $1,395 for a single web page.
VeriSign CEO Stratton Sclavos voted in as next President, earning 100% of the absentee votes. More at 11....
I wouldn't give the FBI any power at all until they figure out what happened to their 317 laptops and their 450 firearms.
Yeah, it certainly is. Here's a solution. You can get a pre-pay master card debit card from just about any check cashing place. I got angry with a bank where I tried to cash a check one time because they required a second form of ID. They used to accept Soc Sec cards, but decided they were too forgeable. What they really wanted was a credit card, and I don't use them. I argued that a credit card could be faked too, and to prove my point, I went and got one under the name "Ronald Reagan." I use it for all of my web purchases now :)
Pretty slick! I think I'll finally get one of those cards now.
Certainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean the company will add employees. If efficiency keeps up with demand, then the same number of employees can turn out the PC's in higher volume.
I did a robotics contract once for a company in Austin. I was told that it was to be for new hardware, and the company was expanding. It turned out, all they wanted to do was lay folks off (including me when I was done). About a year later, the company was making money hand over fist, and the headcount was still about the same as the post-lay-off period. There was no reason for management to hire anybody else.... besides, it would have cut into their new/higher bonuses.
The sad thing is, I kind of agree with that. If I had a company that manufactured hardware, I would be all over saving money by keeping a small workforce... as long as the current headcount was happy and not overworked.
All the stupid people managed to get rich and while all the smart people stay poor.
Interesting... I would say you have your arguement backwards. Seems smart people figure out how to make the $$. Of course, there's the unethical people (Enron execs) who made it dishonestly, but I would hardly call them stupid.
Stupidity seems to lie in the folks who did nothing for their money.. those that inherit old money. And even then, it's more simply those that inherited, and didn't bother to educate themselves (Forbes, for instance).
Seriously, I'm not sure imnproving efficiency will help the unemployment rate, at least not in the short term. Generally, improved efficiency means fewer jobs. Of course, the idea is that the company makes more money, and there is more wealth to spread around.
Corporations, though, don't spend in the short term on warm bodies. They are cautious about economy fluctuations. They do love to take advantage of cost cutting benefits though. It just seems to the pencil pushers that cutting costs starts with eliminating workforce.
I couldn't agree more. I only saw one example that made some group in some foreign country appear smart.... a national database for healthcare. Of course, that would only work, and only be similar to secure in a country where healthcare is nationalized. Our cut throat medical and insurance companies would make a mockery of that.
I'm a little tired of hearing how "smart" video phones are. I want a phone to talk to people. I think I'm more than intelligent enough to use such an item, but generally the quality sucks, and you don't get much time with it. If you want video, get a camera.
That's about as smart as the PDA cell phones.. the big bulky ones with the graffiti stylus. Again, I want a phone to be a phone, a PDA to be a PDA, and a camera to be a camera. I like my lightweight cell phone, and it has a little java calendar on it anyway.
Otherwise, I'd be in the market for a phone/camera/blender/source code markup editor/color printer/magnifying glass/coffee warmer/cigarette lighter. And I'd want it all for under $100.
How many folks that are paranoid about rfid tags currently own and use a cell phone? Or have a discount card from their grocery store?
The longest range I know of on RFID (I write code for a company that implements wireless solutions, mostly in warehouses) is almost 20 ft. And that's at very high frequencies (14MHz, with active tags (they're quite a bit more expensive) and using lots of power (up to 60w). Texas Instruments makes a decent one, but so do the likes of Brady, Symbol, etc... This is nothing new...
Besides, they're just tags. Removable. If you think someone is going to be watching your purchased items, throw the tag away. Fairly simple really.
But if you have no cell phone, wear aluminum hats, etc... you could always make your own furniture...
Why not then let the court decide the case?
Um... because courts don't make laws, they interpret them? If Congress decides to make a law, then great, they're doing their job, as long as it's a law that... say.... 50MM people want.
milions of lost jobs in an important industry
Important? I want what you're drinking! Is it important to rip off retired people on a fixed income by selling them an "Amazing new invention" or a timeshare they don't need and won't use?
All this list is doing is allowing the people that know they don't want to buy anything over the phone to quit getting calls from people trying to convince them otherwise. Get it? The people that want to buy things over the phone simply do not add their name to the list.
There. Problem solved. And time and $$ saved for those telemarketing companies.
You're suggesting I spend more money (caller ID is not part of basic phone service, nor is it found on cheap phones) just to get rid of them, when I can add my number for free to a database instead?
Thank you for the information. I just fired off an e-mail to Ron Paul (I'm sure he'll never see it, but maybe someone in his office will). Who are these 8 representing? The DMA $$ I'm sure.
This site just says it was the first portable pc.
I guess becuase it doesn't have that skunky scent you're used to? :) <ducking>
So Canada had beer before Germany?
Your American beer would be fine, if you just left it in the horse a bit longer.
You, sir, have never had Shiner Bock!
Well, comparing Apple to MS requires adding IBM to MS. Apple had the closed architecture, IBM opened theirs to grab market share by having many companies making the hardware, lowering prices. At one time both companies tried switching (Apple to open, IBM to closed) and both failed quickly.
In the meantime, Gates simply sat back, tugged on coattails (the original MS-DOS was free.... like a drug dealer, then once folks were hooked in, a price appeared), and made money off of everyone. Fairly smart business, actually.
The sad thing is the business model he follows to date. He has lost quite a few fans due to business practice alone. And they continue to walk away as he moves forward with awful licensing issues.... not to mention OS security flaws.
But that's economics 101. That way we get to choose wether the product is important enough to us to spend the extra money on. The way it works now is we pay the extra taxes that the corporations aren't paying. Effectively, we're paying those corporations the extra price without even getting the benefit of their product.
The state governments, having tax revenue of their own, shouldn't be counting on federal monies anyway. It's all a matter of mismanagement at the state-all-the-way-down-to-municipalities issue. Yes, Bush was short sighted in his tax cut and deficit spending. Why, however, when my state taxes me, and my county taxes me, and my local ISD taxes me, and... should I blame my states deficit on Bush? That's ludicrous. My state has mismanaged funds for at least the last decade, spent the surplus it carried, and is now realizing the err of it's ways. But that's not Bush's fault in the least.... it's my state's contgress' fault.
While the federal budget may affect state budgets, it never should have... and never should. That's similar to a 21 year old counting on an allowance from their parents to pay the rent on their own apartment.