They didn't limit to them. It was just impractical for most to do so, so they didn't.
Each state had its own laws regarding elections (and they still do, but they are mostly the same or similar now) and in fact some states (e.g. New York) didn't have anybody vote for the federal offices at all. Rather, the citizens voted for their state government (state senate, governor, etc) and their state government decided who they would send to Washington, which included their presidential electors. Back then, the federal government was about the best interests your individual state, and not e.g. Hollywood lobbyists.
I don't think the states prevented anybody from voting (except blacks in the southern states, and women in the rest - only slaves fit under the "lesser persons" definition) but it was up to them who could vote nonetheless. Most states did it the way we do it now, only they would typically only poll in the capital cities. Either you lived near there, traveled there (which in many cases took a day or even a few days,) or you could afford to hire a messenger to deliver your (handwritten) vote to there before the polls closed.
Communications being a lot slower then than it is now, most people didn't keep up with current events in Washington, or even care. Mainly just the wealthy did.
Today you end up with people who vote for absurd reasons, because like other people then, they didn't care much about current events either. E.g. "I'm voting for him because my friends are voting for him" type of thing. To me, the South Park guys nailed this one - if you don't keep up with current events or are apathetic about voting, don't vote. This pissed off the likes of Sean Penn, P. Diddy and several others who espouse the "vote no matter what" message, of course. I did exactly that last election, I only voted for one person - Jeff Flake, due to his anti-SOPA and anti-earmarks stance.
As for what to do about it...hmm...that is a very interesting question. I would say maybe require every voter to do the same thing immigrants have to when they migrate here legally every say 12 years or so. That is, pass civics, history, and American government exams. There are two problems with this though:
- First, different people interpret history differently, and what might be a "fact" to one person is "fiction" to another person, or at least stretching the truth. That basically forces people to accept one version of history, which treads on shady waters.
- Second, politicians love votes, and they would never like it if anything stopped anybody at all from voting, even if they're a total moron. Look at all of the problems we have with trying to get voter ID laws. (Really, what college student doesn't have an ID? I'm in college, and I haven't met another student without one. You have to have one to use the library, the computer lab, or even register for fucking classes. How the fuck does that discriminate against them? As for old people, just let them bring in their damn social security check.)
I would love to at least have a test to make sure that they actually know how the constitution is written, because that is something you either know or you don't - you can interpret it in different ways. But knowing the words themselves, e.g. what is the purpose of article 3, or what right does the second amendment prevent from being infringed - not so much. But that will probably discriminate against e.g. hispanics who can't read English, so it'll never fly.
Congratulations aren't in order yet, he has to wait until May. That is when he will officially no longer be an "Aspie" as they call it (I'm not sure I'd like to be referred to that either, it almost sounds like ass pie.)
Personally, this is why I support the idea of the voucher system. The public school system sucks, and evidently even the teachers are aware of it.
Who cares about cream skimming. If I had it my way, the asshole students would be expelled from public school anyways, all they do is make things worse for the other students.
Then they should have voted for politicians better at negotiating contracts, and got what they deserved. The taxpayers are only paying for what was promised by their elected representatives. If there's a problem, the taxpayers need to reexamine their choices for representation.
A lot of these taxpayers didn't vote in the people that put these pension plans in place. That was the generation before them.
Not only that, but a good number of the voters are dumber than the politicians. Look at people like Peggy Joseph who believed that Obama would fill up her tank and pay her mortgage. Any idiot can tell you that such a model is unsustainable, even in the most socialist/communist of countries, nobody could get away with such a thing (they believed they could when they did the violent revolutions, but it never worked out that way - even the Russians had rubles.)
Even in our democracy, she's definitely not alone. People will very often vote for whoever they think will give them money because they really don't get it that somebody else ultimately has to pay for it, and that somebody else may very well be them, even if they are destitute. Unfortunately, those people tend to be the slight majority these days, which is why most of the states in the union are broke. (I think Texas is the only state with a treasury surplus - could be wrong.)
That would get really ugly really fast for large projects.
Imagine if your company hires a brilliant programmer. He writes a massive chunk of the code and does a great job at it.
His name also happens to be Hans Reiser. One day he decides to strangle his wife and bury her under a tree. He goes to jail, gets a life sentence, and one day he drops the soap and gets rammed by a guy named Bubbah, and then beaten to death so that he can't tell anyone.
His sons inherit his piece of the code, and suppose they demand royalties from the project that your company can never afford to pay.
Now your company is fucked. They can't use any of that code, and have to start all over. If they can't afford to do so, all of the employees lose their job, and nobody wants to pick it up again because they don't want to have to deal with that mess.
Or lets even say that said employee didn't break any laws at all, but decided to become a drug addict and stopped showing up to work. Again, without breaking the law. He still gets his royalties anyways, right? You can't lay him off, after all.
In the US, if a service provider makes a material change to their promised services, you are allowed out of it with no strings until you make another payment. In the case of providers who take automatic payments, I've yet to see one without wording that says something like you have 30 days from the time of the change to terminate services. I do know for certain that all four of the major cellular carriers have such wording (Verizon gives you 60 days after you tell them that you have an issue with the change and they can't or won't address your concerns.)
Yeah that seems to fit me to the letter, except for the spatial analysis part. I did pretty well in geometric calculus (3d charts were no problem in calc 3, I got an A in that class, even took it as an honors credit.) Also my language skills are apparently tip top. Or rather, the psychologist who gave me a full functional evaluation told me I am 18th level grade English in spite of only taking a single year of it in college, and without ever taking any courses related to writing or anything like it. According to that website, that is to be expected with that condition.
I doubt you did it 5 years ago, but it is possible you did it with an early revision of playready. Not due to a weakness in the protocol, but due to a flaw in the implementation.
If playready was still breakable, you'd be able to watch netflix in mono.
Idiocracy could happen, but not necessarily due to biology. It's always possible to have a moron revolution that sticks. We nearly had an asshole revolution in the 40s. The dark ages we're basically idiocracy.
Oh also, go get Cisco packet tracer. In simulation mode, it does little visual demonstrations of how the packets traverse the network, and even shows you how the individually layered datagrams are broken apart and what they do. It also does everything you need to get a CCNA.
I tried to get into programming but just couldn't. I really don't like doing it.
However I LOVE networking. You might have her go to your local Cisco network academy, and go to one that is offered at a community college. Not all are created equal, but the one I go to the instructors are very caring about their students, and will go that extra mile to help a motivated individual learn better.
I have a condition that I suspect is autism spectrum, but there's no name for. I have many traits of Asperger's and many traits of OCD, but not the full traits of either. I have a problem where I work fast but I take tests really slow, and I prefer smaller rooms/spaces. The psychologist I saw said he doesn't believe its autism, but said he does believe that I do have some kind of condition that there is no name for (I get accommodations for longer test time from Pearson Vue for industry certs.)
I'm a kinetic learner myself, yet still the instructors at the Cisco network academy are awesome. If you happen to live in the Phoenix metro area, have her go to the MCC network academy. Many employers recruit from there because it is easily regarded as by far the best place to learn networking in the state. Several of the students from there even go on to become CCIE's, which is in HUGE demand and pays very well, and its very rare for anybody to go into that.
My friend from India (who moved to England and then to here) said he had to go through hell just to get a green card, something I think like three different exams covering American history, the Constitution, and Civics. He isn't a citizen, and he hasn't found any compelling reason to become one due to the costs and red tape involved.
He says all the time how crazy it is that all you have to do is be born here, and you're automatically a citizen. He is a pediatrician, by the way, and tells me that he gets illegal immigrants in his clinic all the time that take advantage of the state's free health care program (which is pretty damn good, by the way.) My state (Arizona) spends billions per year on illegal immigrants. People wonder why the state senate passed SB1070; that's why. I haven't yet met somebody who came here the legal way (without simply being born here) who is opposed to SB1070, in fact they've only spoken favorably about it. Several of the senate members who voted for the bill in fact are immigrants.
No country in the world allows illegal immigrants to run under the radar as much as we do. Mexico, who complains the loudest about our immigration policies, denies legal immigrants the right to protest or assemble, and if they have a job, and a citizen wants it, they have to fire the immigrant and take him even if he is less qualified.
Meanwhile, special interest groups that have nothing at all to do with our state, come and file lawsuits on behalf of people who aren't supposed to be here at all under law, as if we're the ones breaking the law. SB1070 only applies existing federal law to the state level. In fact, federal law ALREADY requires all immigrants to carry documentation with them at all times, yet we get called the "papers please" state for enforcing that law locally. Godwin's law at its finest.
Sure it will be around, but the question is whether or not it will actually pay you anything before you're already dead.
It doesn't matter how you slice it, this IS a Ponzi scheme. The people who started it won big (I recall reading that the first recipient of it paid $29 into it, and received something like $27,000 back) but the people at the bottom of the pyramid (us) are the losers. We'll pay a LOT more into it than we ever get back, that is guaranteed.
Also, have a look at the number of people going on disability lately, it is growing 50% faster than the population is increasing. Either our bones are breaking easier and/or our minds are going zanier, or we are simply heading where socialism inevitably ends: the house of cards falls apart once everybody figures out how to get quit working (or work half assed) and still make a living.
There is no clever social system that leads to a magical utopia. Every time it has been tried, disappointment is always the result. There never has been a lasting commune. Karl Marx was dead wrong (not to mention he was a rich boy who started a movement against the wealthy once daddy cut him off.) This isn't Star Trek.
The answer for retirement (and by the way, prior to the 1900's pretty much nobody retired, you just worked til you died) is building a nest egg.
I think even microsoft knows that getting traction with a brand new line of tablets with a new tablet-y UI on a new windows, in an already saturated market, is a difficult and risky thing
It is risky, but they really don't have a choice. When the market shifts, you either have to follow it or die trying.
How is the parent flamebait? Insofar as the price of ipad vs surface surface, you'd be getting a better deal in that the surface pro has access to a much larger software stack (for example you can use the full blown photoshop, mouse and all) in addition to superior hardware for $70 more.
Personally I won't be getting a surface pro (already have a nexus 7, an ipad, and a laptop) but I don't see how the parent is baiting anybody.
Also Microsoft's PlayReady DRM hasn't been broken to date.
Annoyed the crap out of me because I am forced to use windows media center with my crap cable provider who CCI flags every channel. I have instead resorted to usenet and now download my tv shows illegally, and plan to cancel cable soon. Sadly, my HDHomeRun is basically worthless.
Well, how about this one: Many left wingers don't like the stigma of being called a liberal, so they instead call themselves progressives. How can you not like progress, right?
Well, consider this: Eugenicists called themselves progressive. The prohibitionists called themselves progressive. Hitler once referred to his party as being progressive. You still like that label?
Or you can just do a total cop out and call yourself a moderate. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a true moderate. Maybe they can be moderate on a particular issue, but they'll be opinionated on something else. Take for example, I don't give a damn about either abortion or marriage. Moderate, right? but I am very much outspoken in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution. Left, right? I am very much against taxation, I am pro austerity, I am pro second amendment, I am anti-illegal immigration, and I am very much at odds with environmentalism. Right, right?
So what is it, am I moderate, am I left, or am I right? How about this: labels are for simpletons who can't think about more than two issues at once.
Personally I hate holding on to bitcoins, their value is subject to wild fluctuations. You never know if somebody's large wallet is about to get hacked and suddenly all of the money you had into them is gone in an instant.
Converting cash to and from bitcoins gets costly as well, so always keeping a low supply "just in case" isn't a good idea either.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't limit to them. It was just impractical for most to do so, so they didn't.
Each state had its own laws regarding elections (and they still do, but they are mostly the same or similar now) and in fact some states (e.g. New York) didn't have anybody vote for the federal offices at all. Rather, the citizens voted for their state government (state senate, governor, etc) and their state government decided who they would send to Washington, which included their presidential electors. Back then, the federal government was about the best interests your individual state, and not e.g. Hollywood lobbyists.
I don't think the states prevented anybody from voting (except blacks in the southern states, and women in the rest - only slaves fit under the "lesser persons" definition) but it was up to them who could vote nonetheless. Most states did it the way we do it now, only they would typically only poll in the capital cities. Either you lived near there, traveled there (which in many cases took a day or even a few days,) or you could afford to hire a messenger to deliver your (handwritten) vote to there before the polls closed.
Communications being a lot slower then than it is now, most people didn't keep up with current events in Washington, or even care. Mainly just the wealthy did.
Today you end up with people who vote for absurd reasons, because like other people then, they didn't care much about current events either. E.g. "I'm voting for him because my friends are voting for him" type of thing. To me, the South Park guys nailed this one - if you don't keep up with current events or are apathetic about voting, don't vote. This pissed off the likes of Sean Penn, P. Diddy and several others who espouse the "vote no matter what" message, of course. I did exactly that last election, I only voted for one person - Jeff Flake, due to his anti-SOPA and anti-earmarks stance.
As for what to do about it...hmm...that is a very interesting question. I would say maybe require every voter to do the same thing immigrants have to when they migrate here legally every say 12 years or so. That is, pass civics, history, and American government exams. There are two problems with this though:
- First, different people interpret history differently, and what might be a "fact" to one person is "fiction" to another person, or at least stretching the truth. That basically forces people to accept one version of history, which treads on shady waters.
- Second, politicians love votes, and they would never like it if anything stopped anybody at all from voting, even if they're a total moron. Look at all of the problems we have with trying to get voter ID laws. (Really, what college student doesn't have an ID? I'm in college, and I haven't met another student without one. You have to have one to use the library, the computer lab, or even register for fucking classes. How the fuck does that discriminate against them? As for old people, just let them bring in their damn social security check.)
I would love to at least have a test to make sure that they actually know how the constitution is written, because that is something you either know or you don't - you can interpret it in different ways. But knowing the words themselves, e.g. what is the purpose of article 3, or what right does the second amendment prevent from being infringed - not so much. But that will probably discriminate against e.g. hispanics who can't read English, so it'll never fly.
I think you mean "Disorder my ass burger."
Congratulations aren't in order yet, he has to wait until May. That is when he will officially no longer be an "Aspie" as they call it (I'm not sure I'd like to be referred to that either, it almost sounds like ass pie.)
Personally, this is why I support the idea of the voucher system. The public school system sucks, and evidently even the teachers are aware of it.
Who cares about cream skimming. If I had it my way, the asshole students would be expelled from public school anyways, all they do is make things worse for the other students.
Then they should have voted for politicians better at negotiating contracts, and got what they deserved. The taxpayers are only paying for what was promised by their elected representatives. If there's a problem, the taxpayers need to reexamine their choices for representation.
A lot of these taxpayers didn't vote in the people that put these pension plans in place. That was the generation before them.
Not only that, but a good number of the voters are dumber than the politicians. Look at people like Peggy Joseph who believed that Obama would fill up her tank and pay her mortgage. Any idiot can tell you that such a model is unsustainable, even in the most socialist/communist of countries, nobody could get away with such a thing (they believed they could when they did the violent revolutions, but it never worked out that way - even the Russians had rubles.)
Even in our democracy, she's definitely not alone. People will very often vote for whoever they think will give them money because they really don't get it that somebody else ultimately has to pay for it, and that somebody else may very well be them, even if they are destitute. Unfortunately, those people tend to be the slight majority these days, which is why most of the states in the union are broke. (I think Texas is the only state with a treasury surplus - could be wrong.)
That would get really ugly really fast for large projects.
Imagine if your company hires a brilliant programmer. He writes a massive chunk of the code and does a great job at it.
His name also happens to be Hans Reiser. One day he decides to strangle his wife and bury her under a tree. He goes to jail, gets a life sentence, and one day he drops the soap and gets rammed by a guy named Bubbah, and then beaten to death so that he can't tell anyone.
His sons inherit his piece of the code, and suppose they demand royalties from the project that your company can never afford to pay.
Now your company is fucked. They can't use any of that code, and have to start all over. If they can't afford to do so, all of the employees lose their job, and nobody wants to pick it up again because they don't want to have to deal with that mess.
Or lets even say that said employee didn't break any laws at all, but decided to become a drug addict and stopped showing up to work. Again, without breaking the law. He still gets his royalties anyways, right? You can't lay him off, after all.
Not only no, but hell no.
In the US, if a service provider makes a material change to their promised services, you are allowed out of it with no strings until you make another payment. In the case of providers who take automatic payments, I've yet to see one without wording that says something like you have 30 days from the time of the change to terminate services. I do know for certain that all four of the major cellular carriers have such wording (Verizon gives you 60 days after you tell them that you have an issue with the change and they can't or won't address your concerns.)
Hmm...if they saw DNA earlier by seeing a PCR fork, why would this be the first time they "see" DNA? It looks apparent in those other pictures.
Is there something different about this?
Yeah that seems to fit me to the letter, except for the spatial analysis part. I did pretty well in geometric calculus (3d charts were no problem in calc 3, I got an A in that class, even took it as an honors credit.) Also my language skills are apparently tip top. Or rather, the psychologist who gave me a full functional evaluation told me I am 18th level grade English in spite of only taking a single year of it in college, and without ever taking any courses related to writing or anything like it. According to that website, that is to be expected with that condition.
Thanks, that gives a lot of insight!
Any chance they could get visual confirmation of DNA replication? That would be neat to watch.
I doubt you did it 5 years ago, but it is possible you did it with an early revision of playready. Not due to a weakness in the protocol, but due to a flaw in the implementation.
If playready was still breakable, you'd be able to watch netflix in mono.
Damn iPad changed my were to we're.
Now see, in my defense I got my iPad for free as a gift. But many people worship these. What if that worship grows?
Idiocracy could happen, but not necessarily due to biology. It's always possible to have a moron revolution that sticks. We nearly had an asshole revolution in the 40s. The dark ages we're basically idiocracy.
Oh also, go get Cisco packet tracer. In simulation mode, it does little visual demonstrations of how the packets traverse the network, and even shows you how the individually layered datagrams are broken apart and what they do. It also does everything you need to get a CCNA.
I tried to get into programming but just couldn't. I really don't like doing it.
However I LOVE networking. You might have her go to your local Cisco network academy, and go to one that is offered at a community college. Not all are created equal, but the one I go to the instructors are very caring about their students, and will go that extra mile to help a motivated individual learn better.
I have a condition that I suspect is autism spectrum, but there's no name for. I have many traits of Asperger's and many traits of OCD, but not the full traits of either. I have a problem where I work fast but I take tests really slow, and I prefer smaller rooms/spaces. The psychologist I saw said he doesn't believe its autism, but said he does believe that I do have some kind of condition that there is no name for (I get accommodations for longer test time from Pearson Vue for industry certs.)
I'm a kinetic learner myself, yet still the instructors at the Cisco network academy are awesome. If you happen to live in the Phoenix metro area, have her go to the MCC network academy. Many employers recruit from there because it is easily regarded as by far the best place to learn networking in the state. Several of the students from there even go on to become CCIE's, which is in HUGE demand and pays very well, and its very rare for anybody to go into that.
A neat thing to do is stick a dollar in your teeth and have the stripper pull it out with her boobs.
I don't know about you, but I find that metal hurts my teeth, not to mention damages them.
Interesting. Who?
Not trolling, genuinely curious.
Or the repair shop knew that it wasn't going back to somebody who cared, and decided to be half ass and didn't touch it at all while saying they did.
This kind of thing is typical in computer repair shops.
My friend from India (who moved to England and then to here) said he had to go through hell just to get a green card, something I think like three different exams covering American history, the Constitution, and Civics. He isn't a citizen, and he hasn't found any compelling reason to become one due to the costs and red tape involved.
He says all the time how crazy it is that all you have to do is be born here, and you're automatically a citizen. He is a pediatrician, by the way, and tells me that he gets illegal immigrants in his clinic all the time that take advantage of the state's free health care program (which is pretty damn good, by the way.) My state (Arizona) spends billions per year on illegal immigrants. People wonder why the state senate passed SB1070; that's why. I haven't yet met somebody who came here the legal way (without simply being born here) who is opposed to SB1070, in fact they've only spoken favorably about it. Several of the senate members who voted for the bill in fact are immigrants.
No country in the world allows illegal immigrants to run under the radar as much as we do. Mexico, who complains the loudest about our immigration policies, denies legal immigrants the right to protest or assemble, and if they have a job, and a citizen wants it, they have to fire the immigrant and take him even if he is less qualified.
Meanwhile, special interest groups that have nothing at all to do with our state, come and file lawsuits on behalf of people who aren't supposed to be here at all under law, as if we're the ones breaking the law. SB1070 only applies existing federal law to the state level. In fact, federal law ALREADY requires all immigrants to carry documentation with them at all times, yet we get called the "papers please" state for enforcing that law locally. Godwin's law at its finest.
Sure it will be around, but the question is whether or not it will actually pay you anything before you're already dead.
It doesn't matter how you slice it, this IS a Ponzi scheme. The people who started it won big (I recall reading that the first recipient of it paid $29 into it, and received something like $27,000 back) but the people at the bottom of the pyramid (us) are the losers. We'll pay a LOT more into it than we ever get back, that is guaranteed.
Also, have a look at the number of people going on disability lately, it is growing 50% faster than the population is increasing. Either our bones are breaking easier and/or our minds are going zanier, or we are simply heading where socialism inevitably ends: the house of cards falls apart once everybody figures out how to get quit working (or work half assed) and still make a living.
There is no clever social system that leads to a magical utopia. Every time it has been tried, disappointment is always the result. There never has been a lasting commune. Karl Marx was dead wrong (not to mention he was a rich boy who started a movement against the wealthy once daddy cut him off.) This isn't Star Trek.
The answer for retirement (and by the way, prior to the 1900's pretty much nobody retired, you just worked til you died) is building a nest egg.
I think even microsoft knows that getting traction with a brand new line of tablets with a new tablet-y UI on a new windows, in an already saturated market, is a difficult and risky thing
It is risky, but they really don't have a choice. When the market shifts, you either have to follow it or die trying.
How is the parent flamebait? Insofar as the price of ipad vs surface surface, you'd be getting a better deal in that the surface pro has access to a much larger software stack (for example you can use the full blown photoshop, mouse and all) in addition to superior hardware for $70 more.
Personally I won't be getting a surface pro (already have a nexus 7, an ipad, and a laptop) but I don't see how the parent is baiting anybody.
Also Microsoft's PlayReady DRM hasn't been broken to date.
Annoyed the crap out of me because I am forced to use windows media center with my crap cable provider who CCI flags every channel. I have instead resorted to usenet and now download my tv shows illegally, and plan to cancel cable soon. Sadly, my HDHomeRun is basically worthless.
Well, how about this one: Many left wingers don't like the stigma of being called a liberal, so they instead call themselves progressives. How can you not like progress, right?
Well, consider this: Eugenicists called themselves progressive. The prohibitionists called themselves progressive. Hitler once referred to his party as being progressive. You still like that label?
Or you can just do a total cop out and call yourself a moderate. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a true moderate. Maybe they can be moderate on a particular issue, but they'll be opinionated on something else. Take for example, I don't give a damn about either abortion or marriage. Moderate, right? but I am very much outspoken in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution. Left, right? I am very much against taxation, I am pro austerity, I am pro second amendment, I am anti-illegal immigration, and I am very much at odds with environmentalism. Right, right?
So what is it, am I moderate, am I left, or am I right? How about this: labels are for simpletons who can't think about more than two issues at once.
Personally I hate holding on to bitcoins, their value is subject to wild fluctuations. You never know if somebody's large wallet is about to get hacked and suddenly all of the money you had into them is gone in an instant.
Converting cash to and from bitcoins gets costly as well, so always keeping a low supply "just in case" isn't a good idea either.