A few things; one, as I thought I said, this was 1999 / 2000. Two, it was at a grocery store, one of the largest in Upstate NY (they've since moved into PA and parts of VT I think).
The system you installed can do transactions in under 5 seconds; there's still a lot out there that can't, and won't be upgraded soon. Hell, I know of a gas station were it takes 30 seconds from swipe to auth. So very good that the system you installed can do that; there are still a signifcate number out there that can't (last time I was at Wegmans they still had their old systems, 2 years ago).
What's to stop that now? The disproportionate representation in the senate? The fact that VT had a larger importance in choosing a president, courtesy of the electoral college? Nothing, really.
Yes, that's exactly one way. Another is that the smaller states get a larger voice, because if NY and CA want to do that to VT, NH and NM and others will also take note. The electoral college is an equalizer. There is NO possible way the smaller states could block something like that with a direct vote. With the electoral college, they can back a president that promises to veto that. The Senate is another piece as well; they can make sure its blocked there as well. Checks and balances.
No, what he was saying was that the votes from CA resident and from the VT resident would count exactly the same: 1/TotalVoteCount.
I believe the time of needing the electoral college is past.
No, what he's saying is that CA should be able to bully VT, because more people live there. Just the same as Iraq thought they could bully Kuiwait. Might doesn't make right, and that's what you're advocating.
Please, do everyone a favor, and read the Federalist Papers and the founders other works.
Technology has changed; human nature however has not. So what you know things faster than before? Big fucking deal. Who watches c-span anyway? People without jobs (who don't care) and old people (do we really want THEM running everything?).
Human nature has everything to do with elections; go READ the founders writings. As the other poster suggested, start with the Federalist papers.
So, what if a state decides to do it? I find it more comfortable thinking that a national majority of several million would be required to make such a change, instead of a local majority of a few thousand.
So what if a state does decide that? Move to another state that doesn't. Our Constitution allows for that; no one can stop you from moving to another state.
It may be easier to vote out my governer, but it is also easier to vote in a bastard in his place. I, for one, want a government that is restrained by the inertia of having to persuade a nation. I don't want a state government that can implement horrific policies at the drop of a hat.
If he really is a bastard, I'm sure the people in your state would vote him out next tiem around. If not, you can move. But where do you move if our Pres and Congress decide everyone should be a Christain? China? No thanks, I'd rather just move to another state.
I would think something is wrong with an education that so indoctrinated a person to believe "X is good" that they would shout down any contrary opinion with a statement like that, instead of providing a coherent argument supporting their view.
I don't need to 'provide a coherent argument supporting my view.' That has already been done, by the Founders. To argue this matter, its wise to have read their views and WHY they decided as they did. As an American, I would hope one of THE most important things we learn about during our eduction is their writings and the rational. Hence my comment, the OP needs to educate himself.
Why is it necessary to REDEBATE this all over again? Why not read what's been done before and start from there? Its not like humans have changed signficantly at all in the past 200 years, nor have the benefits and drawbacks of various forms of government.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had to "contribute to the economy" to have rights which others MUST respect. I thought all men were created equal.
So how much money DO you have to make before you're allowed free speech? The right not to be a slave? The right against unreasonable seach and seizure?
Sorry, what you want is asinine. What you really want is an oligarchy (ruled by the wealthy).
What I'm saying makes the US sucessful is that EVERYONE gets an EQUAL say regardless of the fact that they may be in a minority.
This is EXACTLY why the Federal goverment is supposed to be very weak, and mostly let the states govern themselves.
If you want your state not to be pushed around by other states, you need to support the electoral college AND a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
States really shouldn't much much say in how the other is run; thats the whole idea behind the Constitution! The problem is that some of the checks and balances have been removed, and the Feds have been making huge power grabs.
I agree, large states shouldn't be told what to do by smaller ones, but neither should smaller states be told what to do by larger ones.
So if NY and CA decide that VT residents should pay 50% more in federal income tax than NYers or CAers, that would be ok with you? Whoever has the biggest guns wins? Is that what you're advocating?
Do those voters over 50%+1 just not matter? Why shouldn't their voices be heard?
You're a dolt; you're compaining that your vote in CA doesn't matter, but its A-OK to make sure the person's vote in VT doesn't matter? What kind of fucked up backward logic is that? The current system makes sure BOTH voices are heard. Your system favors YOU, well no wonder you favor it.
What the Framers envisioned 220 years ago is not necessarily applicable today.
Why isn't it? Have people changed in some substantial way? Or are there people that will attempt to gain power and force thier will on others even today?
TV and the internet don't matter solve at all the problems with direct democracy. How does the TV or internet stop the mob from tramping all over the rights of the minority? How does it stop people acting in fear and voting in the next dicatator?
The reason the Senate is supposed to be apointed by state governments, and the reason for the electoral college is simple: its working WITH human greed and power. The state WANTS to keep its power and will put someone in to block the Feds from taking it. That's how its supposed to work. If you think your vote doesn't matter today, just wait until instead of being one of 600,000 (or whatever your local population is) you are now one of 300,000,000. Imagine how much control over your government you'd think you have if instead of having an elected state government, your local government was now appointed by the president. Its much more disconnected, and much more difficult for YOU to keep control over. Once you're at that level of disconnect, its not long until our CiC says 'no, i'm not leaving.'
Surely it is more reasonable to deal out political power by the number of people who vote, instead of by artificial divisions of state? Why should living in a heavily populated state with a disproportionately small electoral college count mean that your voice matter less?
No, its not reasonable at all. The States are supposed to have the majority of the power, not the feds. See, its a lot easy to vote out your state governer than the Pres.
To answer your second question, why should I not have the right to do something because a majority of you on a whim decide to outlaw it? Don't think of things like murder (which no one has the righ to do), think of things like not being a Christian.
There's NOTHING wrong with the electoral college. There IS something wrong with your education, since you clearly don't understand why its a good thing to have in place.
That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is.
No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.
Please, go READ the words of the founders, they'll tell you exactly why mob rule is a bad idea. We are a Republic and NOT a Democracy for a very good reason.
It depends how you think about it. How many times do you end up 'just paying'? It adds up rather quickly. There's another cost as well; you're letting someone rip you off, and basically saying its ok. Is a law against theft really a law if its not enforced? So the price of 'just paying' is less money for you, and a cost to society as customer service and trust is destroyed in the name of a dollar. After all, what does it say to your children if you're showing them its ok to be ripped off? Perhaps they will make their living ripping others off..
And why? My grocery store has on set of 4 "15 items or less" self-checkout. It also has one next to it that is self-checkout with no stated limits. So, are the people with full carts in the limitless self-checkout wrong?
I might be wrong, but most places that have Express lines DON'T have the self-checkout lines. The express lines are still manned by a normal cashier. (This is how it is where I live, anyway). So I my grip is related (because having a cart full in a self checkout line is as bad as writing a check in a standard checkout line, marked Experss (which always limit the number of items).
On another note, I don't know why "cash only" is stated. I haven't worked retail in a while, but aren't credit cards as fast as cash, except at places like CompUSA (I pick them because they are a popular one that takes impressions of the card, and other annoying and delaying steps)? Not debit, or transactions with cash back, but to just swipe while the checker is scanning, sign when he is done, and go. No change, no sorting bills. But yet the express lanes still mostly have "cash only" signs.
Usually these are bigger stores; they have cash only express and standard express. The fact is that cash is THE fastest way, although with stores keeping faster connections to the Visa network, things are getting close. But when I worked as a cashier at a fairly large store (enough to justify 24 checkouts total) the cards WOULD slow up the cash only line if someone tried to use them. I could count the money and give change faster than the Visa could process.
If a rental company did that, go to court. Ask the judge to ask the company why they waited so long to collect damages, and PROVE that it was you which damanged the car (after all, THEY should also have a copy of the receipt). If they can't produce those documents, I'd think the judge would rule in your favor. You may even be able to counter sue for wasting your time.
I'm not sure about Canada, but as long as you continue to pay your basic phone bill, they are NOT allowed to shut off service, even if you owe them money for more advanced services (such as DSL).
It may be sneaky, but unless it's unconscionable, it's probably legally binding.
I had a credit card company pull this crap on me. They changed the terms right after I got approved. The result being a few hundred dollars in their favor. I canceled the card, but never paid that few hundred dollars (which was excessive intrerest charges, nearing 39%).
I got calls from collections agencies; at first I explained what happened, and even they believed the bank was unreasonable. Later, I had one threatened to send 'the banks army of lawyers after them.' I said 'Feel free, if you think thats a good way to spend their money. But a single laywer would cost them $200 / hr, so they're already at a 0 gain proposition.' That was followed by 'youll never get a mortgage' (which I did, just a few months later.)
There's nothing we can do." then I would have been upset, but understanding.
Why would you possibly be understanding? It was THEIR mistake, and not one you should have to pay for. Its attitudes like this that have lead to the horrid customers service of pretty much EVERY large company in existance today.
Sigh. A camera with OCR software isn't that big an idea. The notion that it wasn't possible is a little naiive - as is the idea that this is the first time it's happened.
This is the first time it's been AVAILABLE to you and me for cheap.
Well something must have changed, otherwise the police would have been doing it for some time, which to my knowledge, they have not.
Here in the US, people have the freedom (in general) to move in public and to speak. There are stalking laws, and all that, but in general anyone could have done that at any time. The truth is that nobody actually cares when you go to the grocers - except the grocer. And they track you with discount cards. If there was reliable, cheap facial imaging software, they'd use that.
The fact that it'd be so much easier (and not done by just one person) changes things quite a bit. The grocery store might not be such a big deal, but maybe going to an Islamic bookstore or something like that would be. (And the grocery store doesn't track me with a discount card; I don't use those, or even shop in a store where they have such a program).
Really, the whole notion that this is new and frightening is a little silly. In them olden days, you went to the same grocer all the time, got served by the same person, maybe kept a tab and paid it off monthly, and everyone thought it was handy that the grocer knew what you needed. Yeah, they weren't owned by a big company, but the big company isn't any more frightening for not having a face.
The difference is that you could then pick up and leave town, and start over again somewhere. With this technology and the internet, can you really leave your old life behind anymore? Try reading 1984 for some reasons why this might be a bad idea (and not possible without some technology behind the process).
Sorry, but you're wrong. It will be illegal for the average citizen to track government officals like this. National security and all. Read Orwell to see what a survelance society is like.
Up until now though, it wasn't possible to track you throughout the city with a device on your car. I'm sure you'd be quite annoyed if someone was following you around all day. This is no different. People may see I go to the grocery store, but I don't feel like anyone has the right to record that and make it known to everyone.
Yes, I know exactly what the discussion is about. What I'm saying is that the same kind of asshole that does that in a self-checkout line ALSO writes checks in the express line.
Yes, many places still take checks, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. Of course I live in a state in the US where the big news story one night was how the govener was taking part in a cow milking contest...
Slashdot Mirror
A few things; one, as I thought I said, this was 1999 / 2000. Two, it was at a grocery store, one of the largest in Upstate NY (they've since moved into PA and parts of VT I think).
The system you installed can do transactions in under 5 seconds; there's still a lot out there that can't, and won't be upgraded soon. Hell, I know of a gas station were it takes 30 seconds from swipe to auth. So very good that the system you installed can do that; there are still a signifcate number out there that can't (last time I was at Wegmans they still had their old systems, 2 years ago).
What's to stop that now? The disproportionate representation in the senate? The fact that VT had a larger importance in choosing a president, courtesy of the electoral college? Nothing, really.
Yes, that's exactly one way. Another is that the smaller states get a larger voice, because if NY and CA want to do that to VT, NH and NM and others will also take note. The electoral college is an equalizer. There is NO possible way the smaller states could block something like that with a direct vote. With the electoral college, they can back a president that promises to veto that. The Senate is another piece as well; they can make sure its blocked there as well. Checks and balances.
No, what he was saying was that the votes from CA resident and from the VT resident would count exactly the same: 1/TotalVoteCount.
I believe the time of needing the electoral college is past.
No, what he's saying is that CA should be able to bully VT, because more people live there. Just the same as Iraq thought they could bully Kuiwait. Might doesn't make right, and that's what you're advocating.
Please, do everyone a favor, and read the Federalist Papers and the founders other works.
Technology has changed; human nature however has not. So what you know things faster than before? Big fucking deal. Who watches c-span anyway? People without jobs (who don't care) and old people (do we really want THEM running everything?).
Human nature has everything to do with elections; go READ the founders writings. As the other poster suggested, start with the Federalist papers.
So, what if a state decides to do it? I find it more comfortable thinking that a national majority of several million would be required to make such a change, instead of a local majority of a few thousand.
So what if a state does decide that? Move to another state that doesn't. Our Constitution allows for that; no one can stop you from moving to another state.
It may be easier to vote out my governer, but it is also easier to vote in a bastard in his place. I, for one, want a government that is restrained by the inertia of having to persuade a nation. I don't want a state government that can implement horrific policies at the drop of a hat.
If he really is a bastard, I'm sure the people in your state would vote him out next tiem around. If not, you can move. But where do you move if our Pres and Congress decide everyone should be a Christain? China? No thanks, I'd rather just move to another state.
I would think something is wrong with an education that so indoctrinated a person to believe "X is good" that they would shout down any contrary opinion with a statement like that, instead of providing a coherent argument supporting their view.
I don't need to 'provide a coherent argument supporting my view.' That has already been done, by the Founders. To argue this matter, its wise to have read their views and WHY they decided as they did. As an American, I would hope one of THE most important things we learn about during our eduction is their writings and the rational. Hence my comment, the OP needs to educate himself.
Why is it necessary to REDEBATE this all over again? Why not read what's been done before and start from there? Its not like humans have changed signficantly at all in the past 200 years, nor have the benefits and drawbacks of various forms of government.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had to "contribute to the economy" to have rights which others MUST respect. I thought all men were created equal.
So how much money DO you have to make before you're allowed free speech? The right not to be a slave? The right against unreasonable seach and seizure?
Sorry, what you want is asinine. What you really want is an oligarchy (ruled by the wealthy).
What I'm saying makes the US sucessful is that EVERYONE gets an EQUAL say regardless of the fact that they may be in a minority.
This is EXACTLY why the Federal goverment is supposed to be very weak, and mostly let the states govern themselves.
If you want your state not to be pushed around by other states, you need to support the electoral college AND a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
States really shouldn't much much say in how the other is run; thats the whole idea behind the Constitution! The problem is that some of the checks and balances have been removed, and the Feds have been making huge power grabs.
I agree, large states shouldn't be told what to do by smaller ones, but neither should smaller states be told what to do by larger ones.
So if NY and CA decide that VT residents should pay 50% more in federal income tax than NYers or CAers, that would be ok with you? Whoever has the biggest guns wins? Is that what you're advocating?
Do those voters over 50%+1 just not matter? Why shouldn't their voices be heard?
You're a dolt; you're compaining that your vote in CA doesn't matter, but its A-OK to make sure the person's vote in VT doesn't matter? What kind of fucked up backward logic is that? The current system makes sure BOTH voices are heard. Your system favors YOU, well no wonder you favor it.
What the Framers envisioned 220 years ago is not necessarily applicable today.
Why isn't it? Have people changed in some substantial way? Or are there people that will attempt to gain power and force thier will on others even today?
TV and the internet don't matter solve at all the problems with direct democracy. How does the TV or internet stop the mob from tramping all over the rights of the minority? How does it stop people acting in fear and voting in the next dicatator?
The reason the Senate is supposed to be apointed by state governments, and the reason for the electoral college is simple: its working WITH human greed and power. The state WANTS to keep its power and will put someone in to block the Feds from taking it. That's how its supposed to work. If you think your vote doesn't matter today, just wait until instead of being one of 600,000 (or whatever your local population is) you are now one of 300,000,000. Imagine how much control over your government you'd think you have if instead of having an elected state government, your local government was now appointed by the president. Its much more disconnected, and much more difficult for YOU to keep control over. Once you're at that level of disconnect, its not long until our CiC says 'no, i'm not leaving.'
To claify my last comment, Democracy failed. Study the end of ancient Greek civilization (as our Founders did).
Surely it is more reasonable to deal out political power by the number of people who vote, instead of by artificial divisions of state? Why should living in a heavily populated state with a disproportionately small electoral college count mean that your voice matter less?
No, its not reasonable at all. The States are supposed to have the majority of the power, not the feds. See, its a lot easy to vote out your state governer than the Pres.
To answer your second question, why should I not have the right to do something because a majority of you on a whim decide to outlaw it? Don't think of things like murder (which no one has the righ to do), think of things like not being a Christian.
There's NOTHING wrong with the electoral college. There IS something wrong with your education, since you clearly don't understand why its a good thing to have in place.
That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is.
No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.
Please, go READ the words of the founders, they'll tell you exactly why mob rule is a bad idea. We are a Republic and NOT a Democracy for a very good reason.
Interesting theory, but there's a reason we're a republic and NOT a democracy. Perhaps this prof. should read up on exactly WHY the electorate exists.
It depends how you think about it. How many times do you end up 'just paying'? It adds up rather quickly. There's another cost as well; you're letting someone rip you off, and basically saying its ok. Is a law against theft really a law if its not enforced? So the price of 'just paying' is less money for you, and a cost to society as customer service and trust is destroyed in the name of a dollar. After all, what does it say to your children if you're showing them its ok to be ripped off? Perhaps they will make their living ripping others off..
And why? My grocery store has on set of 4 "15 items or less" self-checkout. It also has one next to it that is self-checkout with no stated limits. So, are the people with full carts in the limitless self-checkout wrong?
I might be wrong, but most places that have Express lines DON'T have the self-checkout lines. The express lines are still manned by a normal cashier. (This is how it is where I live, anyway). So I my grip is related (because having a cart full in a self checkout line is as bad as writing a check in a standard checkout line, marked Experss (which always limit the number of items).
On another note, I don't know why "cash only" is stated. I haven't worked retail in a while, but aren't credit cards as fast as cash, except at places like CompUSA (I pick them because they are a popular one that takes impressions of the card, and other annoying and delaying steps)? Not debit, or transactions with cash back, but to just swipe while the checker is scanning, sign when he is done, and go. No change, no sorting bills. But yet the express lanes still mostly have "cash only" signs.
Usually these are bigger stores; they have cash only express and standard express. The fact is that cash is THE fastest way, although with stores keeping faster connections to the Visa network, things are getting close. But when I worked as a cashier at a fairly large store (enough to justify 24 checkouts total) the cards WOULD slow up the cash only line if someone tried to use them. I could count the money and give change faster than the Visa could process.
If a rental company did that, go to court. Ask the judge to ask the company why they waited so long to collect damages, and PROVE that it was you which damanged the car (after all, THEY should also have a copy of the receipt). If they can't produce those documents, I'd think the judge would rule in your favor. You may even be able to counter sue for wasting your time.
I'm not sure about Canada, but as long as you continue to pay your basic phone bill, they are NOT allowed to shut off service, even if you owe them money for more advanced services (such as DSL).
It may be sneaky, but unless it's unconscionable, it's probably legally binding.
I had a credit card company pull this crap on me. They changed the terms right after I got approved. The result being a few hundred dollars in their favor. I canceled the card, but never paid that few hundred dollars (which was excessive intrerest charges, nearing 39%).
I got calls from collections agencies; at first I explained what happened, and even they believed the bank was unreasonable. Later, I had one threatened to send 'the banks army of lawyers after them.' I said 'Feel free, if you think thats a good way to spend their money. But a single laywer would cost them $200 / hr, so they're already at a 0 gain proposition.' That was followed by 'youll never get a mortgage' (which I did, just a few months later.)
There's nothing we can do." then I would have been upset, but understanding.
Why would you possibly be understanding? It was THEIR mistake, and not one you should have to pay for. Its attitudes like this that have lead to the horrid customers service of pretty much EVERY large company in existance today.
Sigh. A camera with OCR software isn't that big an idea. The notion that it wasn't possible is a little naiive - as is the idea that this is the first time it's happened.
This is the first time it's been AVAILABLE to you and me for cheap.
Well something must have changed, otherwise the police would have been doing it for some time, which to my knowledge, they have not.
Here in the US, people have the freedom (in general) to move in public and to speak. There are stalking laws, and all that, but in general anyone could have done that at any time. The truth is that nobody actually cares when you go to the grocers - except the grocer. And they track you with discount cards. If there was reliable, cheap facial imaging software, they'd use that.
The fact that it'd be so much easier (and not done by just one person) changes things quite a bit. The grocery store might not be such a big deal, but maybe going to an Islamic bookstore or something like that would be. (And the grocery store doesn't track me with a discount card; I don't use those, or even shop in a store where they have such a program).
Really, the whole notion that this is new and frightening is a little silly. In them olden days, you went to the same grocer all the time, got served by the same person, maybe kept a tab and paid it off monthly, and everyone thought it was handy that the grocer knew what you needed. Yeah, they weren't owned by a big company, but the big company isn't any more frightening for not having a face.
The difference is that you could then pick up and leave town, and start over again somewhere. With this technology and the internet, can you really leave your old life behind anymore? Try reading 1984 for some reasons why this might be a bad idea (and not possible without some technology behind the process).
Sorry, but you're wrong. It will be illegal for the average citizen to track government officals like this. National security and all. Read Orwell to see what a survelance society is like.
Up until now though, it wasn't possible to track you throughout the city with a device on your car. I'm sure you'd be quite annoyed if someone was following you around all day. This is no different. People may see I go to the grocery store, but I don't feel like anyone has the right to record that and make it known to everyone.
I guess you missed that part in the summary, never mind reading the article..
Yes, I know exactly what the discussion is about. What I'm saying is that the same kind of asshole that does that in a self-checkout line ALSO writes checks in the express line.
Yes, many places still take checks, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. Of course I live in a state in the US where the big news story one night was how the govener was taking part in a cow milking contest...