Requiring a strict majority plus run-off would also permit this, to some degree. I suspect that Nader might have gotten more votes, for instance, in the first round -- and then Bush and Gore would have better readings of their "true" levels of support, instead of "Well, I'm going to vote for somebody who can win rather than toss my vote away."
Then I can probably set you up, videotape the offer, and get WAY more than $1M worth of advertising from the incident -- figure interviews, major investigation, and a reputation as a clean, straight-and-narrow chap.
Once upon a time, it actually got most of its money from tariffs and fees, if memory serves. 'course, that wouldn't sit well with anybody but isolationists, today -- for starters, the government did significantly less than now (its role REALLY expanded this century), and we'd probably need to re-enact huge tariffs to pay for that. Which would piss off the WTO and all our major trading partners. Which wouldn't exactly be good for anybody's economy...
...so not only do you want to restrict association and free speech, but you also want to compel speech by forcing the broadcasters to provide what would probably be very-low-rating events. (Low-rating, 'cause much of the audience probably made up their mind by their party affiliation, I suspect... you don't often see Texas swing left or Massachusetts swing right, eh?) Hrm.
...except that spending money on behalf of a political candidate is considered free speech. Contributions to a specific candidate are limited to avoid the appearance of impropriety; restrictions that do not pass that test fail Buckley v. Valeo. After all, both free speech and free association rights apply.
Frankly, if somebody wants to start a Monster Raving Loony party or contribute to it, they're fine -- even if they boys in Washington wouldn't allocate a taxpayer dime to it (which would lock in existing parties, under your proposed system -- either that, or attract fringe parties seeking to game the system).
Hard money's already like that -- the limits for contributing to a specific candidate's campaign for fairly low. If you wanted to ban soft money, 'tho, you'd probably also need to target issue ads by aligned groups. And *that* would irritate the Democrats considerably, since the GOP seems to have a hard money advantage IIRC, and has somewhat fewer advocacy groups that advertise on its behalf.
The article states that MSFT and employees sent 'round $6.1 million. Microsoft has 47,600 employees according to quote.yahoo.com. That's about $128 per employee, which is... piddling. Are you unwilling to cough up even THAT little?
Except that predatory pricing is a crime, under US anti-trust law. When it's done between countries, it's called dumping and is a violation of trade treaties.
Oh, and companies and wealth often don't last that long at the top. Last I checked, most of the richest people today did NOT inherit their wealth.
...which is why we've heard absolutely nothing about the collapse of Enron, the possible illegalities committed by Microsoft, the likely concealment of failure of battery components that go into our guided munitions, and other related elements. Right.
Maybe because he was British, although having been born in a colony?
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive?
on
HIstory of RTS Games
·
· Score: 1
I loved the CC games -- the first two, anyway. Never had the others. I loved them for the pressure, for the lack of peons running around, for the detailed maps.
I also *hated* them. I hated them for the vehicles-on-crack -- having tanks take perfectly nonsensical detours to get stuck in perfectly innocent buildings, for instance; I understand that this persisted throughout the series. I hated them for having pretty huge AI cheats, at least in the second, where the AI ignores logistics. I hated them for making me repeat pointless battles (defending St. Lo in the first -- the German campaign wouldn't end until you retreated from it, if memory serves, even if the AI wasn't good enough to force you to retreat; attacking Grosbeek Heights or staging the Polish Massacre over and over, in the second).
Eventually, I got Combat Mission, and haven't looked back.
*shrug*
Re:NATO Commander was one of the early ones.
on
HIstory of RTS Games
·
· Score: 1
Feh. Smart Bolo players work together, and do a bit more than wander around like it's merely a tank shoot-'em-up -- it isn't.
You didn't have to zoom in -- and if you didn't, the battle actually *did* take place concurrently with the rest of the game.
It rocked. Pretty stable, few bugs (I only encountered one, if memory serves, and it was a WEIRD one involving ghost squads), and a lot of features ahead of its time, like formations; fatigue; supply; morale; taking prisoners; and victory locations.
Plus, there as a map editor, loads of options, and a pretty good manual. And, unlike more modern RTSes, clicking speed and micromanagement were completely unimportant... Not bad for 360K.
AAWS was a step down, IMHO, as the battle system encouraged arcade-like prowess, and as the harder AI levels relied on pretty hefty bonuses (e.g. JPJ getting bonuses in every aspect of the game, including basics like cannon range...).
Advertisers seem to think that patriotism sells. Or they did for a while, anyway, especially the auto manufacturers. There's probably also a peer-pressure / societal-pressure factor, since some folks may be concerned about not seeming patriotic if they don't hoist up the flag.
Some may have been unduly alarmed, since it hadn't recently occurred to them that a) foreign policy matters, b) that people can be taught to hate due to religion, c) that airlines cared a lot more about throughput than security, since the insurance companies didn't care that much, either.
Re:Sure, it was started by the DoD, but...
on
Collateral Damage
·
· Score: 1
Who's more intelligent? The chap who uses a JDAM to knock out a target from a safe distance, or the untrained "soldier" who leans on his AK-47 and believes his (either completely utterly out-of-touch-with-reality, or one HELL of a liar) Supreme Leader about how Allah will strike down the infidels and guarantee victory?
There's no point in using wasteful WWI tactics anymore.
Re:No, the Somali opinion was negative
on
Collateral Damage
·
· Score: 1
They cheered because, for them, it was a successful action. 'sides, neither their nor our viewpoints determine the facts. They can cheer all they want, but it does not change the fact that a) Aidid openly attacked the UN troops, after merely robbing the food shipments (which the UN could tolerate more) and b) they were, apparently, up against incompetent military planners.
Nah. Mogadishu was a wonderful display of bad planning -- an operation that required excellent intelligence, timing, and support... and ran into friction. You'd think that trying to capture a whole mess of leaders of Aidid's militia, in the middle of a city dominated by hostiles with AK-47s and RPGs, that you'd either have a far more subtle plan (thank just sending out the Blackhawks -- the Somalis knew the minute the Blackhawks took off), or bring along a HELL Of a lot more firepower (AFVs for protection, artillery strikes as need be, massed firepower to maintain control of streets and cover windows, et al). One might suspect that the planners figured that Rangers were just [i]so good[/i] that they didn't [i]need[/i] caution, or a more robust plan.
Notably, until recently, we considered the Taliban as an illegitimate government, which is why we didn't even offer to recognize them diplomatically until *after* 9/11, during which we basically treated them as rulers and gave them a chance to back down. However, until then, we didn't have any excuse to go in and remove them. There are an awful lot of people who would not have appreciated our removing a government simply due to its illegitmacy or repression of the people...
They already take it pretty damn lightly. Go around and ask people what a PAC is, or what's the relevance of Buckley v. Valeo (OK, so that's mostly for campaign finance reform chaps. But still.) the FEC, or R-7486, the "Immigration and National Security Act" (I made that up. The designation isn't even one of the correct H.R.xxxx or S.xxxx forms. It wouldn'ts surprise me one bit if people still provided opinions on it.). Or how much research they did on the candidates. Or so forth. Some will even vote a straight party ticket 'coz their parents did, or their union does, or because their coworkers do, or because it's what the fellers in the van or bus who offered a lift to the polling place suggested.
It's a little late for it to remain a special event.
It would be amusing, were internet voting (or, for that matter, any computerized system like a touch screen) to ever be implemented, to have the system also provide information on the candidates. For instance, a full listing of all the financial information that the FEC requires, plus their voting record or other history as is relevant and of public record.
("Vote for ---? This candidate has been funded by... and his party has been funded by... Please confirm.";) )
Plus, allow the candidates to specify a short statement, and maybe the same for news services. *shrug*
That's funny. For the last century, a huge number of crucial inventions, like computers, came from military or corporate profit-oriented research. I doubt that there was an NSF in the 1800's, either.
And didn't many inventors go around trying to make money off their inventions, coming up with interesting principles in the process? I suspect that profit motives and military motives have had huge influences on prosperity...
Slashdot Mirror
Next thing, you'll be asking that the companies actively *help* their own competitors...
Requiring a strict majority plus run-off would also permit this, to some degree. I suspect that Nader might have gotten more votes, for instance, in the first round -- and then Bush and Gore would have better readings of their "true" levels of support, instead of "Well, I'm going to vote for somebody who can win rather than toss my vote away."
Then I can probably set you up, videotape the offer, and get WAY more than $1M worth of advertising from the incident -- figure interviews, major investigation, and a reputation as a clean, straight-and-narrow chap.
Once upon a time, it actually got most of its money from tariffs and fees, if memory serves. 'course, that wouldn't sit well with anybody but isolationists, today -- for starters, the government did significantly less than now (its role REALLY expanded this century), and we'd probably need to re-enact huge tariffs to pay for that. Which would piss off the WTO and all our major trading partners. Which wouldn't exactly be good for anybody's economy...
...so not only do you want to restrict association and free speech, but you also want to compel speech by forcing the broadcasters to provide what would probably be very-low-rating events. (Low-rating, 'cause much of the audience probably made up their mind by their party affiliation, I suspect... you don't often see Texas swing left or Massachusetts swing right, eh?) Hrm.
...except that spending money on behalf of a political candidate is considered free speech. Contributions to a specific candidate are limited to avoid the appearance of impropriety; restrictions that do not pass that test fail Buckley v. Valeo. After all, both free speech and free association rights apply.
Frankly, if somebody wants to start a Monster Raving Loony party or contribute to it, they're fine -- even if they boys in Washington wouldn't allocate a taxpayer dime to it (which would lock in existing parties, under your proposed system -- either that, or attract fringe parties seeking to game the system).
*shrug*
Hard money's already like that -- the limits for contributing to a specific candidate's campaign for fairly low. If you wanted to ban soft money, 'tho, you'd probably also need to target issue ads by aligned groups. And *that* would irritate the Democrats considerably, since the GOP seems to have a hard money advantage IIRC, and has somewhat fewer advocacy groups that advertise on its behalf.
Time for a little math, folks.
The article states that MSFT and employees sent 'round $6.1 million. Microsoft has 47,600 employees according to quote.yahoo.com. That's about $128 per employee, which is... piddling. Are you unwilling to cough up even THAT little?
Did you even check the $1 box on your tax return?
Except that predatory pricing is a crime, under US anti-trust law. When it's done between countries, it's called dumping and is a violation of trade treaties.
Oh, and companies and wealth often don't last that long at the top. Last I checked, most of the richest people today did NOT inherit their wealth.
*whack*
Next.
...which is why we've heard absolutely nothing about the collapse of Enron, the possible illegalities committed by Microsoft, the likely concealment of failure of battery components that go into our guided munitions, and other related elements. Right.
What planet are you from, exactly?
You do realize, of course, that companies can't contribute politically except through a PAC, and PACs have fairly strict limits on them?
The only time you can give unlimited amounts to political groups is basically if you're an individual giving money to a party, instead of a candidate.
*cough*
Maybe because he was British, although having been born in a colony?
I loved the CC games -- the first two, anyway. Never had the others. I loved them for the pressure, for the lack of peons running around, for the detailed maps.
I also *hated* them. I hated them for the vehicles-on-crack -- having tanks take perfectly nonsensical detours to get stuck in perfectly innocent buildings, for instance; I understand that this persisted throughout the series. I hated them for having pretty huge AI cheats, at least in the second, where the AI ignores logistics. I hated them for making me repeat pointless battles (defending St. Lo in the first -- the German campaign wouldn't end until you retreated from it, if memory serves, even if the AI wasn't good enough to force you to retreat; attacking Grosbeek Heights or staging the Polish Massacre over and over, in the second).
Eventually, I got Combat Mission, and haven't looked back.
*shrug*
Feh. Smart Bolo players work together, and do a bit more than wander around like it's merely a tank shoot-'em-up -- it isn't.
You didn't have to zoom in -- and if you didn't, the battle actually *did* take place concurrently with the rest of the game.
It rocked. Pretty stable, few bugs (I only encountered one, if memory serves, and it was a WEIRD one involving ghost squads), and a lot of features ahead of its time, like formations; fatigue; supply; morale; taking prisoners; and victory locations.
Plus, there as a map editor, loads of options, and a pretty good manual. And, unlike more modern RTSes, clicking speed and micromanagement were completely unimportant... Not bad for 360K.
AAWS was a step down, IMHO, as the battle system encouraged arcade-like prowess, and as the harder AI levels relied on pretty hefty bonuses (e.g. JPJ getting bonuses in every aspect of the game, including basics like cannon range...).
*shrug*
Advertisers seem to think that patriotism sells. Or they did for a while, anyway, especially the auto manufacturers. There's probably also a peer-pressure / societal-pressure factor, since some folks may be concerned about not seeming patriotic if they don't hoist up the flag.
Some may have been unduly alarmed, since it hadn't recently occurred to them that a) foreign policy matters, b) that people can be taught to hate due to religion, c) that airlines cared a lot more about throughput than security, since the insurance companies didn't care that much, either.
Who's more intelligent? The chap who uses a JDAM to knock out a target from a safe distance, or the untrained "soldier" who leans on his AK-47 and believes his (either completely utterly out-of-touch-with-reality, or one HELL of a liar) Supreme Leader about how Allah will strike down the infidels and guarantee victory?
There's no point in using wasteful WWI tactics anymore.
They cheered because, for them, it was a successful action. 'sides, neither their nor our viewpoints determine the facts. They can cheer all they want, but it does not change the fact that a) Aidid openly attacked the UN troops, after merely robbing the food shipments (which the UN could tolerate more) and b) they were, apparently, up against incompetent military planners.
Nah. Mogadishu was a wonderful display of bad planning -- an operation that required excellent intelligence, timing, and support... and ran into friction. You'd think that trying to capture a whole mess of leaders of Aidid's militia, in the middle of a city dominated by hostiles with AK-47s and RPGs, that you'd either have a far more subtle plan (thank just sending out the Blackhawks -- the Somalis knew the minute the Blackhawks took off), or bring along a HELL Of a lot more firepower (AFVs for protection, artillery strikes as need be, massed firepower to maintain control of streets and cover windows, et al). One might suspect that the planners figured that Rangers were just [i]so good[/i] that they didn't [i]need[/i] caution, or a more robust plan.
Notably, until recently, we considered the Taliban as an illegitimate government, which is why we didn't even offer to recognize them diplomatically until *after* 9/11, during which we basically treated them as rulers and gave them a chance to back down. However, until then, we didn't have any excuse to go in and remove them. There are an awful lot of people who would not have appreciated our removing a government simply due to its illegitmacy or repression of the people...
That's about as rational an argument as claiming that clearly, you're a moron for failure to use apostrophes correctly.
They already take it pretty damn lightly. Go around and ask people what a PAC is, or what's the relevance of Buckley v. Valeo (OK, so that's mostly for campaign finance reform chaps. But still.) the FEC, or R-7486, the "Immigration and National Security Act" (I made that up. The designation isn't even one of the correct H.R.xxxx or S.xxxx forms. It wouldn'ts surprise me one bit if people still provided opinions on it.). Or how much research they did on the candidates. Or so forth. Some will even vote a straight party ticket 'coz their parents did, or their union does, or because their coworkers do, or because it's what the fellers in the van or bus who offered a lift to the polling place suggested.
It's a little late for it to remain a special event.
It would be amusing, were internet voting (or, for that matter, any computerized system like a touch screen) to ever be implemented, to have the system also provide information on the candidates. For instance, a full listing of all the financial information that the FEC requires, plus their voting record or other history as is relevant and of public record.
;) )
("Vote for ---? This candidate has been funded by... and his party has been funded by... Please confirm."
Plus, allow the candidates to specify a short statement, and maybe the same for news services. *shrug*
Considering that for this to work, it would have to be Hank the Undead Angry Drunken Dwarf, I'd say -- yes.
That's funny. For the last century, a huge number of crucial inventions, like computers, came from military or corporate profit-oriented research. I doubt that there was an NSF in the 1800's, either.
And didn't many inventors go around trying to make money off their inventions, coming up with interesting principles in the process? I suspect that profit motives and military motives have had huge influences on prosperity...