She only lost money because she had to hire other people. She had figured she would be fine if it was just her and her employees making the cupcakes. There's 8,500 people she's marketed to and with even a small fraction of returning customers she'll make her money back rather quickly. If around 5% returned just once or even a half of a percent returned several times, she'll still come out ahead in the end. It looks like her cheap marketing tactic just turned into an expensive one, but it'll still give her good numbers in the end. I would be ecstatic if that happened to me, but complaining about it gets you even more business.
It had nothing to do with minorities and who voted which way. The number of people who have had their ability to vote taken away is greater than the difference between the presidential nominees of the past two elections. Which means that the outcome of elections are directly affected by this.
Statistically, one could make laws that would imprison whatever type of demographic one wanted to with certain accuracy. Whether it's race, financial status, religion, culture, whatever. I'm not implying that it has happened, rather that it could happen.
This is a process of selection or deselection. This changes it from being elected by the people to being elected by the people you allow or want to vote. So it's exactly the same and that's why it's a flaw in the system.
And of those 7 million incarcerated some still get to vote and some are simply in jail and haven't been convicted of felonies. Of course, that wasn't really my point, neither was the electoral college.
Don't be a dick.
Besides the simple moral objections to making someone a half citizen, we can just do the math and see why this is a bad idea.
Around 7 million in prison, Kerry lost by 3 million and Gore from even less. Which doesn't include those who got out of prison but can't vote. Simply make laws that target certain demographics and you've got yourself an election. Whether or not this has been done, it's an obvious flaw in the system.
I'm a pretty hard core capitalist, but health care seems simple to me. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are pretty hard when you're dead. Food, you could live off a dollar a month if you really wanted to. Water, there's a fountain right over there. Shelter, there's a bridge down the street. Clothing, check a couple dumpsters, go to a good will. Not the conditions anyone wants to live under, but at the end of the day, it's still life.
In theory, a government run health care system should be cheaper as a whole, because it cuts out all the middle men. It could focus on prevention instead of correction. It could focus on it's purpose of healing instead of all the added accounting, paperwork, etc. The problem to solve is how to create and implement a national health care system that works.
Off the top of my head, there's a mountain of problems to overcome.
The american mindset is ingrained with the idea of capitalism. It can't be so cut and dry as the other more socialist countries. It has to be socialism while promoting capitalism. While we could model from other countries systems', it would have to be americanized.
It has to battle against the very industry and supporting industries before it even gets started. It would basically be destroying the very foundation in which health care is based and starting over. When has that ever happened?
We have no Thomas Douglas persuade us or some great war to bring us together. It's a nice idea in the back of people's minds, but nothing solid to drive it.
We have no great men to lead the fight, only half men, those who talk without action or those who lead with no ideals other than their own end.
It would have to be simple. You shouldn't need a health care accountant just to weed through the hundred 10,000 page volumes that are updated every year, just to figure out what's what.
The government is stupid. In theory, it could be cheaper, but it won't be.
Corruption and the human factor. Probably the most obvious and easily accepted. No one's fixed this anywhere else yet. Lots of money to be made supporting the system from the private sector. Who gets what contracts for what equipment, devices, medicine, etc. Who decides who gets it?
Slashdot Mirror
She only lost money because she had to hire other people. She had figured she would be fine if it was just her and her employees making the cupcakes. There's 8,500 people she's marketed to and with even a small fraction of returning customers she'll make her money back rather quickly. If around 5% returned just once or even a half of a percent returned several times, she'll still come out ahead in the end. It looks like her cheap marketing tactic just turned into an expensive one, but it'll still give her good numbers in the end. I would be ecstatic if that happened to me, but complaining about it gets you even more business.
If you've purchased borderlands on steam, you should have a code for it.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
20? How does that work?
It had nothing to do with minorities and who voted which way. The number of people who have had their ability to vote taken away is greater than the difference between the presidential nominees of the past two elections. Which means that the outcome of elections are directly affected by this. Statistically, one could make laws that would imprison whatever type of demographic one wanted to with certain accuracy. Whether it's race, financial status, religion, culture, whatever. I'm not implying that it has happened, rather that it could happen. This is a process of selection or deselection. This changes it from being elected by the people to being elected by the people you allow or want to vote. So it's exactly the same and that's why it's a flaw in the system.
And of those 7 million incarcerated some still get to vote and some are simply in jail and haven't been convicted of felonies. Of course, that wasn't really my point, neither was the electoral college. Don't be a dick.
Besides the simple moral objections to making someone a half citizen, we can just do the math and see why this is a bad idea. Around 7 million in prison, Kerry lost by 3 million and Gore from even less. Which doesn't include those who got out of prison but can't vote. Simply make laws that target certain demographics and you've got yourself an election. Whether or not this has been done, it's an obvious flaw in the system.
It just looks like spy kids with a bigger budget to me.
I'm a pretty hard core capitalist, but health care seems simple to me. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are pretty hard when you're dead. Food, you could live off a dollar a month if you really wanted to. Water, there's a fountain right over there. Shelter, there's a bridge down the street. Clothing, check a couple dumpsters, go to a good will. Not the conditions anyone wants to live under, but at the end of the day, it's still life.
In theory, a government run health care system should be cheaper as a whole, because it cuts out all the middle men. It could focus on prevention instead of correction. It could focus on it's purpose of healing instead of all the added accounting, paperwork, etc. The problem to solve is how to create and implement a national health care system that works.
Off the top of my head, there's a mountain of problems to overcome.
The american mindset is ingrained with the idea of capitalism. It can't be so cut and dry as the other more socialist countries. It has to be socialism while promoting capitalism. While we could model from other countries systems', it would have to be americanized.
It has to battle against the very industry and supporting industries before it even gets started. It would basically be destroying the very foundation in which health care is based and starting over. When has that ever happened?
We have no Thomas Douglas persuade us or some great war to bring us together. It's a nice idea in the back of people's minds, but nothing solid to drive it.
We have no great men to lead the fight, only half men, those who talk without action or those who lead with no ideals other than their own end.
It would have to be simple. You shouldn't need a health care accountant just to weed through the hundred 10,000 page volumes that are updated every year, just to figure out what's what.
The government is stupid. In theory, it could be cheaper, but it won't be.
Corruption and the human factor. Probably the most obvious and easily accepted. No one's fixed this anywhere else yet. Lots of money to be made supporting the system from the private sector. Who gets what contracts for what equipment, devices, medicine, etc. Who decides who gets it?
"Well, in that case, comparing Firefox with IE6 is like comparing the intelligence of a 30 year old to that of a 13 year old."
Photoshop - 18 year old
Gimp - 11 year old
MS Office - 25 year old
OpenOffice (as open source) - 5 year old