Just for the sake of pedantic accuracy, the process is as follows:
EITHER: 2/3 of both houses of Congress approve an amendment; OR: A Constitutional Convention is called which then proposes amendments.
After one of those two things has occurred, 3/4 of the states must ratify the proposed amendment.
I say this mainly to combat the myth that a constitutional convention could unilaterally change the constitution without subsequent approval by the states. It couldn't. The convention is an end-run around Congress, not around the states.
I wouldn't be surprised if the White House has Dodd himself write a response. When the "End the TSA" petition got a response, it was written by the head of the TSA. Why not?
The last time I saw a response to one of these petitions, it was one for the elimination of the TSA. The response was written by the head of the TSA.
Not to say you shouldn't push the button anyway. If the Obama administration is going to ask for our input and then blatantly disregard it, we may as well have them on record as doing so.
I hate to break it to the corporatist crowd, but the ISPs built those networks with our money, from government subsidies. They received those subsidies to enhance our national infrastructure. If monopolists have the same property rights as everyone else, the free market dies. And if monopolists control infrastructure without oversight to ensure equal access, democracy dies.
Mod parent up! He's exactly right. Any voting system where you select exactly one of N candidates is doomed to devolve into a two-candidate two-party system, on whatever scale the system is applied. It literally can not be any other way. We need to switch to Schulze voting, or at least IRV, to eliminate the clone-dependence hell we're in now.
What's more, this is something we can do. Several cities in the US have already adopted IRV on a local level. This can be done from the ground up, instead of trying to do it from the top down. Expecting Washington to reform election law is a long wait for a train don't come.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRVhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clone_independence
Weird Al Yankovic stated that he was happy for either avenue his customers used to buy music, but his take per track on iTunes was about two cents a track and his take on CDs was about 26 cents- which is pretty major if you want to support the artist.
Of course, if you're buying tracks off the CDs they don't make any more, it's the difference between some profit and none.
The problem is high costs
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The fundamental problem with the American healthcare system is its high cost. That's why so many people don't have coverage, and that's why attempting universal coverage right now is going to cost so much more than it should. Universal access is a noble goal, but far better to lower costs first. This report does an excellent job of breaking down exactly where we spend more money than the rest of the world. My platform is based around lowering costs in four areas: administrative costs, prescription drugs, malpractice insurance, and practitioner conflict of interest. Based on that report, my proposals would lower the average American's health care costs by over $1000 per year, without requiring any new federal spending or expansion of government power.
If I can figure all this out in my spare time, you know Congress has to know it too. Which means either A) I'm horribly wrong, or B) both parties define the problem differently than I do. Which raises the question, exactly what do they see as the problem?
Hell, run for office, if you don't see any candidates you like. Bring up issues like IRV, copyright reform, whatever you believe in that doesn't get addressed.
I'm running an intensely rational campaign, so I very much hope you're wrong about that last part. If you want to see this sort of campaign succeed, get in touch with me, and we'll see what we can do.
I would mod you up if I could. There are simple things the government could do to significant reduce the cost of health care in the US, including prescription drug patent reform, malpractice tort reform, and forbidding doctors from being compensated on a per-procedure or per-patient basis, which is a clear conflict of interest. Those factors alone account for half of the cost difference between US health care and other comparable countries, and fixing them wouldn't cost the taxpayer one dime.
But of course, nobody's talking about that, because our representatives aren't actually interested in fixing problems. That's why I'm running.
That all depends on his personal victory conditions. Maybe for him, "win" is "get this information to the public regardless of personal cost". If that's the case, he's already won.
I won't debate your numbers, they look fine at a glance. However, supercapacitors are quite common, actually. You'll likely find a small one in any cellphone with a camera flashbulb. They're a relatively mature technology, as well, and not unreasonably expensive for what they do. On a larger scale, a single 48V 165F Maxwell costs on the order of $1-$2k, if memory serves. That's for a capacitor that has an ESR of around 5 milliohms, and which can deliver several thousand amps instantaneously, repeatedly, with no significant negative impact. Try doing that with batteries. My company uses these things on a regular basis, probably on the order of hundreds per year, integrating them into a number of projects on a variety of scales. I just finished designing a portable unit to charge and discharge 500V 130V capacitors, measuring their capacitance and ESR in the process.
Of course, I can imagine a different approach to the ice problem. Instead of melting all the ice over the entire road, they could melt paths in the ice instead, breaking it into smaller chunks which are easier to deal with and melt faster. Also, I'm wondering if there would be a significant difference between the amount of energy necessary to actually melt that layer of ice, and the amount of energy necessary to prevent it from forming in the first place. Neither of those would make orders of magnitude difference, probably. The fact that ice might not form or stick the same on a glass road as it does on asphalt might though...
Surprisingly? I've been wanting that feature since Windows '98, and wondering why something so obviously useful hadn't been implemented! Yay for it finally being done in Vista, but boo for it being left out for so long.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for the sake of pedantic accuracy, the process is as follows:
EITHER:
2/3 of both houses of Congress approve an amendment;
OR:
A Constitutional Convention is called which then proposes amendments.
After one of those two things has occurred, 3/4 of the states must ratify the proposed amendment.
I say this mainly to combat the myth that a constitutional convention could unilaterally change the constitution without subsequent approval by the states. It couldn't. The convention is an end-run around Congress, not around the states.
Many cities in the US use IRV now, and the Minnesota Supreme Court, at least, thinks it's perfectly constitutional.
I wouldn't be surprised if the White House has Dodd himself write a response. When the "End the TSA" petition got a response, it was written by the head of the TSA. Why not?
The last time I saw a response to one of these petitions, it was one for the elimination of the TSA. The response was written by the head of the TSA. Not to say you shouldn't push the button anyway. If the Obama administration is going to ask for our input and then blatantly disregard it, we may as well have them on record as doing so.
I hate to break it to the corporatist crowd, but the ISPs built those networks with our money, from government subsidies. They received those subsidies to enhance our national infrastructure. If monopolists have the same property rights as everyone else, the free market dies. And if monopolists control infrastructure without oversight to ensure equal access, democracy dies.
http://daggerxl.wordpress.com/
Mod parent up! He's exactly right. Any voting system where you select exactly one of N candidates is doomed to devolve into a two-candidate two-party system, on whatever scale the system is applied. It literally can not be any other way. We need to switch to Schulze voting, or at least IRV, to eliminate the clone-dependence hell we're in now. What's more, this is something we can do. Several cities in the US have already adopted IRV on a local level. This can be done from the ground up, instead of trying to do it from the top down. Expecting Washington to reform election law is a long wait for a train don't come. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clone_independence
Most victory comes, not from your own brilliance, but from instantly exploiting your enemies' stupid mistakes.
And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.
So how many curtains do you have on your bedroom windows?
You're talking to a slashdotter. Bedroom curtains aren't for privacy, they're out of concern for your neighbors.
Weird Al Yankovic stated that he was happy for either avenue his customers used to buy music, but his take per track on iTunes was about two cents a track and his take on CDs was about 26 cents- which is pretty major if you want to support the artist.
Of course, if you're buying tracks off the CDs they don't make any more, it's the difference between some profit and none.
Yet.
The fundamental problem with the American healthcare system is its high cost. That's why so many people don't have coverage, and that's why attempting universal coverage right now is going to cost so much more than it should. Universal access is a noble goal, but far better to lower costs first. This report does an excellent job of breaking down exactly where we spend more money than the rest of the world. My platform is based around lowering costs in four areas: administrative costs, prescription drugs, malpractice insurance, and practitioner conflict of interest. Based on that report, my proposals would lower the average American's health care costs by over $1000 per year, without requiring any new federal spending or expansion of government power.
If I can figure all this out in my spare time, you know Congress has to know it too. Which means either A) I'm horribly wrong, or B) both parties define the problem differently than I do. Which raises the question, exactly what do they see as the problem?
Baron Harkonen? Is that you?
Good paying jobs like being a rocket scientist?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Actually, he's doing a surprisingly good job keeping his promises. Whether we want him to or not, that's a different question.
http://www.osalt.com/wikidpad http://www.osalt.com/zim I can't vouch for their quality or usefulness, but there's a non-zero chance this post will help you, so...
Clearly you've never been to Singapore.
Hell, run for office, if you don't see any candidates you like. Bring up issues like IRV, copyright reform, whatever you believe in that doesn't get addressed.
Make noise.
I'm running an intensely rational campaign, so I very much hope you're wrong about that last part. If you want to see this sort of campaign succeed, get in touch with me, and we'll see what we can do.
Unknown slashdot poster: 1
Massively influential Chinese writer: 0
I would mod you up if I could. There are simple things the government could do to significant reduce the cost of health care in the US, including prescription drug patent reform, malpractice tort reform, and forbidding doctors from being compensated on a per-procedure or per-patient basis, which is a clear conflict of interest. Those factors alone account for half of the cost difference between US health care and other comparable countries, and fixing them wouldn't cost the taxpayer one dime.
But of course, nobody's talking about that, because our representatives aren't actually interested in fixing problems. That's why I'm running.
Well, I'm running for US Congress with their endorsement, so we'll just see about that next November. :-)
That all depends on his personal victory conditions. Maybe for him, "win" is "get this information to the public regardless of personal cost". If that's the case, he's already won.
I won't debate your numbers, they look fine at a glance. However, supercapacitors are quite common, actually. You'll likely find a small one in any cellphone with a camera flashbulb. They're a relatively mature technology, as well, and not unreasonably expensive for what they do. On a larger scale, a single 48V 165F Maxwell costs on the order of $1-$2k, if memory serves. That's for a capacitor that has an ESR of around 5 milliohms, and which can deliver several thousand amps instantaneously, repeatedly, with no significant negative impact. Try doing that with batteries. My company uses these things on a regular basis, probably on the order of hundreds per year, integrating them into a number of projects on a variety of scales. I just finished designing a portable unit to charge and discharge 500V 130V capacitors, measuring their capacitance and ESR in the process. Of course, I can imagine a different approach to the ice problem. Instead of melting all the ice over the entire road, they could melt paths in the ice instead, breaking it into smaller chunks which are easier to deal with and melt faster. Also, I'm wondering if there would be a significant difference between the amount of energy necessary to actually melt that layer of ice, and the amount of energy necessary to prevent it from forming in the first place. Neither of those would make orders of magnitude difference, probably. The fact that ice might not form or stick the same on a glass road as it does on asphalt might though...
Surprisingly? I've been wanting that feature since Windows '98, and wondering why something so obviously useful hadn't been implemented! Yay for it finally being done in Vista, but boo for it being left out for so long.