Given that I blinked and came up with the correct answer of 81, I'd argue that technology doesn't make everything faster. It might for complex problems, but simple ones such as 3*27 should be doable in the head without needing to reach for any aids.
Different personality, I guess. Also, as Slashdot notes, the site is US centric as are most of the readers and the staff. A number of people are not the kind to take political questions seriously. We have a lot of rhetoric (or cynicism) when it comes to politics in the US.
I'm curious about something, as it might help me understand you a bit more. What country are you from?
Ok, I'm quoting the original points here for reference. By the way, I find it somewhat 'ironic' that the UK parliament is used as an example of a 'modern' democratic system when the US system was based upon the UK parliament.
1 get rid of a lot the states powers,
2 the parties need to get party discipline and throw out the "nutters".
3 have strict uk style election campaign limits
4 replace the vast expenditure on tv campaigning with uk model of party political broadcasts.
5 have more equal constituency sizes (which will stop small agricultural states leaching of the bigger ones)
6 force all organizations (Unions and Company) to run a political fund for any lobbying and have it confirmed by vote every 7 years with opt out allowed)
(1) would require an amendment to the US constitution. The powers of the Federal Government are spelled out and those not explicitly spelled out are supposed to be reserved to the states. A general way to think about the US is 50 different countries, each with their own president government and constitution, with a common limited government superior to them to make sure they get along. To take more power away from the states and give it to the Federal Government, you'd have to amend the constitution.
(2) Easily done, but seems to misinterpret US elections. The parties could get rid of the 'nutters' (although who are the nuts depends on who you are) but that doesn't prevent the nutters from getting elected. The US doesn't vote for parties, it explicitly votes for individuals. One party or another can back an individual, but it's not required and on election day you're voting for a person, not a party.
(3) Probably some issues with our 1st amendment and prevention of individuals from running campaign adds. The US has a very broad definition of Freedom of Speech that is basically unheard of anywhere else in the world.
(4) See (2), basically the same reason of voting for an individual instead of a party.
(5) We would have to change how elector's districts are divided up and this would require an amendment of Article 1 Section 2. The electors are apportioned among the states, but no state can receive less than one. In order to have 'more equal' distribution, you would have to have one person representing people in multiple states. Also, I'm not necessarily sure of the point behind it. The parent pokes at "small agricultural states" receiving a disproportionate share of Federal Dollars. Well, see here. The agricultural states are (usually) the ones getting less back in dollars than they pay in taxes. The smallest one is Wyoming and it gets 84 cents back out of every dollar it pays in taxes. It looks like we do not have this as a problem.
(6) May actually be possible, but I'd like to know why "every 7 years" was chosen instead of something more often or less often.
I'm still genuinely curious. Is your constitution based on voting for individuals, not political principles? Don't regard this as an attack, but I'd appreciate a short explanation:)
I answered this above without realizing you had asked this at the end of your post. I don't take it as an attack. The answer is yes and I realize the US is very much in the minority when it comes to this. Although, I wonder if you mean "political parties" instead of "political principles". The only time I know of when we don't vote for an individual, we are voting for a pair of individuals (President and Vice President). The President and Vice President are elected as a pair, one running for President and the other for Vice President. On no ballot I know of will you find Party X or Party Y except as a subheading under an individual who we are voting for. We also vote for a lot of things all the way down to Dog Catcher in some areas (no joke).
Sounds like you want the US to rewrite it's entire constitution from scratch. Among other things, it sounds like you want the US to go to a parliamentary setup voting for parties instead of the current situation where the people vote for individuals.
Please describe the structure of "a more modern system", how it "works in a more democratic way" and how it would be superior to the "current Balkanized system".
18 hours down is only 99.6% uptime averaged over the year assuming no other failures. A well maintained server can have 99.99%-99.999% uptime.
And here you just went and mixed two different time periods. Do you seriously believe a 99.99% or 99.999% uptime is measured over a single year? Lets look at when the previous time the Army rootserver went down. Was it anytime within the last two years? If no, then they have 99.99% uptime.
Thanks, that makes more sense now. Although, I'm still not sure how the altered phone records (from the way it reads, they were not destroyed) would have prevented a prosecution of insider trading. From those articles, the prosecution was able to prove what the changes were from the original paper phone log. Then they know what the original phone log was. Then they could prosecute for insider trading if they had the evidence.
Got a source for that claim? I'm trying to figure out how she would have faked phone records that were not in her possession. The phone company holds records, not the caller.
Martha Stewart went to jail because she had money in IMClone, and was called before the news was out by somebody telling her an FDA trial had a failed result. She sold immediately, and then we she realized she had fouled, faked her phone records about the call. Gotta play fair... they are watching.
Er, no. Martha Stewart went to jail for Obstruction of Justice. She was never convicted of anything else, including insider trading.
Read over the thread again, from the start. I was talking about his dad when you came in. I said:
Interesting you don't mention how that government(1) came to be in the first place.
(1) being the government that was replaced by the Shah's son.
So, we had in chronological order:
1) Government of Shah's father
2) UK & Russia remove Shah's father, impose new government.
3) US becomes involved
4) US returns Shahs to power
I was pointing out, before you came in, how no one ever talks about 1 & 2 in that list. You came in when I was bringing up 2.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
I thought it was obvious from the first two times I ignored that question that I was not going to. It is like prodding someone for what is "actually happening to the Earth's climate": either you're truly not paying attention, in which case here is not the place to start, or you're trolling.
Aside from what the other two responders said, lets just say I may not know which thing you're talking about or may not agree with your analysis. So just give a quick single paragraph. Otherwise you're the one coming across as a troll, mentioning some vague problem but not giving any elaboration or details on the issue. Kind of like Franz Kafka's "The Trial".
Yes, they have broken the treaty. One of the requirements is to not develop secret facilities. Iran was doing this for years before they were discovered and announced.
The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
No, a cartel comprises members which own the means of production.
No, a cartel comprises a group that seeks to control a resource. In this case, labor. Although it's easy to argue that labor is part of the means of production.
Your implication is absurd. You do not get to work somewhere just because "you want to". The employer has to want you to work there. And one of the things that the employer will care about in deciding whether to employ you is how you will get along with fellow employees. Now, if all your fellow employees have a particular union arrangement (e.g. Equity) and you don't want to play along with them, they won't play along with you. This will harm the company, so the company will ultimately expect that you join the union.
Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is paid the same amount. Yet for some strange reason, it still seems to work just fine.
No. It it is not even legal to employ only union workers. Of course, it is not legal to force people to work with you either, which is why Equity union members won't work alongside you.
But it is legal for employees to negotiate to require a new employee to join the union after some time... again, freedom of association.
Don't you contradict yourself here? First you say it is not legal only union workers, then you say it can be required to have the employees join the union. And seriously, you're saying that forcing the employees to join the union is a point in favor of freedom of association? You have an interesting definition of freedom.
Here is what I am for: Allowing people, voluntarily (which includes right of refusal) to group bargain for pay and benefits with an employer.
What I am not for: Union shops where people have to be part of a union to work. Workers able to set up a union and have the union automatically represent everyone at the employer. Unions restricting geographically where members can work. Unions boycotting an employer because they have non-union labor. Unions able to say all employees must be part of the union.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
I see we have a terminology problem. A 'local' is a specific part of a union. Lets say you have the pipe fitters union. The union is made up of several locals, each one controlling a geographic area and each local generally has it's own number. The union restricts it such that a member of one local can not work in an area controlled by another local.
You have switched between complaining about anti-cartel(?) law, union behaviour (which you are partly implying is only possible because of union law), and union law.
Well, why not? A union is a form of cartel, after all.
Well, if you won't deal with them, why should they deal with you?
And even if they want to work with you? The union has the ability to prohibit it's member from working for you, even if they want to. You really don't know much about unions in the US.
Do you want employers and employees to be forced to accept any particular worker? What exactly are you proposing?
You're missing the meaning entirely. We have these things called union shops in the US. If you want to work in them, you have to be a member of the union. This is regardless of what you may want. So if you want to work for an employer, you have to join the union.
Seriously?
Yes. Especially since you continue to evade the question.
The formation of a corporation is collective decision-making and bargaining by owners of the means of production. Major shareholders are the rich guys, and even minor shareholders have a certain degree of control of the means of production. These are the powers exerted over the worker which he counters with collective bargaining.
By exercising monopoly control over the access to the labor for entire regions? Something that if the owners did, would be ruled illegal. Want wiring done in an area? You have to use local labor. Want to use a specific person? All the labor will be forced to boycott you if he isn't a member of the local. Or for the individuals: Want to work at a union shop? You have to join the union. The employer wants to higher you? Too bad, the law says if a simple majority of the employees want to unionize, everyone is forced to be part of the union. Control of the production is irrelevant if it is not controlled by a monopoly. Control of the Labor has been consolidated under monolithic monopolistic unions in several areas.
It is pretty much only the US middle class which considers the US to be marked by "doing our best at what we do". If what you said were true, you would see precisely the opposite thing happening to what is actually happening to the US middle class.
What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
The workers experiencing the worst treatment may no longer be in the US and the UK, and certain Unions may be old enough that they have become inefficient, but the nature of business has not changed.
With union representation at such a low, it appears it has changed. In the US at least. I don't have the numbers for the UK. Maybe they are needed in other countries, but not in the US anymore.
The individual employer is rich and owns the means of production whereas the individual worker is poor and does not own the means of production, so even if you have one voice speaking together for all the workers, you still do not have a voice more powerful than the employers.
Really? That seems to be the exception in the US, not the rule. The owners of most of these companies you seem to disparage are the stockholders, like me for instance, who is not rich by any stretch of the imagination. The union members are not poor either, making a median income of $47,000 a year.
One thing I do recognise in the US is a peculiar desire to bring others down rather than try to achieve what they have: IOW, if a union job brings someone good pay and good pension, why don't you fight for those same privileges?
You mean by doing our best at what we do? Or like the unions do by limiting where people can work (where you have to be a member of the union local in order to work there), requiring all employees to be a member of the union or they can't work there (union shops), or giving preference by length of work rather than ability (seniority rules)?
What you talk about was true a century ago. Today, it's time has passed.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that I blinked and came up with the correct answer of 81, I'd argue that technology doesn't make everything faster. It might for complex problems, but simple ones such as 3*27 should be doable in the head without needing to reach for any aids.
First thing, ban calculators. They aren't necessary before needing to deal with sines and cosines.
I don't suppose you could provide me a link to that? That falls under 'hilarious' to me.
Different personality, I guess. Also, as Slashdot notes, the site is US centric as are most of the readers and the staff. A number of people are not the kind to take political questions seriously. We have a lot of rhetoric (or cynicism) when it comes to politics in the US.
I'm curious about something, as it might help me understand you a bit more. What country are you from?
1 get rid of a lot the states powers,
2 the parties need to get party discipline and throw out the "nutters".
3 have strict uk style election campaign limits
4 replace the vast expenditure on tv campaigning with uk model of party political broadcasts.
5 have more equal constituency sizes (which will stop small agricultural states leaching of the bigger ones)
6 force all organizations (Unions and Company) to run a political fund for any lobbying and have it confirmed by vote every 7 years with opt out allowed)
(1) would require an amendment to the US constitution. The powers of the Federal Government are spelled out and those not explicitly spelled out are supposed to be reserved to the states. A general way to think about the US is 50 different countries, each with their own president government and constitution, with a common limited government superior to them to make sure they get along. To take more power away from the states and give it to the Federal Government, you'd have to amend the constitution.
(2) Easily done, but seems to misinterpret US elections. The parties could get rid of the 'nutters' (although who are the nuts depends on who you are) but that doesn't prevent the nutters from getting elected. The US doesn't vote for parties, it explicitly votes for individuals. One party or another can back an individual, but it's not required and on election day you're voting for a person, not a party.
(3) Probably some issues with our 1st amendment and prevention of individuals from running campaign adds. The US has a very broad definition of Freedom of Speech that is basically unheard of anywhere else in the world.
(4) See (2), basically the same reason of voting for an individual instead of a party.
(5) We would have to change how elector's districts are divided up and this would require an amendment of Article 1 Section 2. The electors are apportioned among the states, but no state can receive less than one. In order to have 'more equal' distribution, you would have to have one person representing people in multiple states. Also, I'm not necessarily sure of the point behind it. The parent pokes at "small agricultural states" receiving a disproportionate share of Federal Dollars. Well, see here. The agricultural states are (usually) the ones getting less back in dollars than they pay in taxes. The smallest one is Wyoming and it gets 84 cents back out of every dollar it pays in taxes. It looks like we do not have this as a problem.
(6) May actually be possible, but I'd like to know why "every 7 years" was chosen instead of something more often or less often.
I'm still genuinely curious. Is your constitution based on voting for individuals, not political principles? Don't regard this as an attack, but I'd appreciate a short explanation :)
I answered this above without realizing you had asked this at the end of your post. I don't take it as an attack. The answer is yes and I realize the US is very much in the minority when it comes to this. Although, I wonder if you mean "political parties" instead of "political principles". The only time I know of when we don't vote for an individual, we are voting for a pair of individuals (President and Vice President). The President and Vice President are elected as a pair, one running for President and the other for Vice President. On no ballot I know of will you find Party X or Party Y except as a subheading under an individual who we are voting for. We also vote for a lot of things all the way down to Dog Catcher in some areas (no joke).
Sounds like you want the US to rewrite it's entire constitution from scratch. Among other things, it sounds like you want the US to go to a parliamentary setup voting for parties instead of the current situation where the people vote for individuals.
Please describe the structure of "a more modern system", how it "works in a more democratic way" and how it would be superior to the "current Balkanized system".
18 hours down is only 99.6% uptime averaged over the year assuming no other failures. A well maintained server can have 99.99%-99.999% uptime.
And here you just went and mixed two different time periods. Do you seriously believe a 99.99% or 99.999% uptime is measured over a single year? Lets look at when the previous time the Army rootserver went down. Was it anytime within the last two years? If no, then they have 99.99% uptime.
Thanks, that makes more sense now. Although, I'm still not sure how the altered phone records (from the way it reads, they were not destroyed) would have prevented a prosecution of insider trading. From those articles, the prosecution was able to prove what the changes were from the original paper phone log. Then they know what the original phone log was. Then they could prosecute for insider trading if they had the evidence.
Got a source for that claim? I'm trying to figure out how she would have faked phone records that were not in her possession. The phone company holds records, not the caller.
They're trying to mine the market's volatility for money.
You mean like Day Traders were doing 10 years ago? You don't need to be an HFT to make money from volatility.
Martha Stewart went to jail because she had money in IMClone, and was called before the news was out by somebody telling her an FDA trial had a failed result. She sold immediately, and then we she realized she had fouled, faked her phone records about the call. Gotta play fair... they are watching.
Er, no. Martha Stewart went to jail for Obstruction of Justice. She was never convicted of anything else, including insider trading.
I wonder if that's a potential possible conflict free source, as you say.
Yes, it would be conflict free. At that point it would be no different from you donating your wife's organs when she dies.
Can someone explain to me how giving animals antibiotics promotes growth of the animals?
Read over the thread again, from the start. I was talking about his dad when you came in. I said:
Interesting you don't mention how that government(1) came to be in the first place.
(1) being the government that was replaced by the Shah's son.
So, we had in chronological order:
1) Government of Shah's father
2) UK & Russia remove Shah's father, impose new government.
3) US becomes involved
4) US returns Shahs to power
I was pointing out, before you came in, how no one ever talks about 1 & 2 in that list. You came in when I was bringing up 2.
Interesting how that article mostly ignores the influence of the USA in the events, unlike this one.
referencing WW2. The Shah (his son) was installed in 1941. I'm not seeing where the US was there before 1942.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
I thought it was obvious from the first two times I ignored that question that I was not going to. It is like prodding someone for what is "actually happening to the Earth's climate": either you're truly not paying attention, in which case here is not the place to start, or you're trolling.
Aside from what the other two responders said, lets just say I may not know which thing you're talking about or may not agree with your analysis. So just give a quick single paragraph. Otherwise you're the one coming across as a troll, mentioning some vague problem but not giving any elaboration or details on the issue. Kind of like Franz Kafka's "The Trial".
The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
source
Then why do they follow the USSR treaties and act as if they do? Treaties such as START I
Yours, this one to be precise.
1941 - Brittan & USSR invade.
1942 - US sends in military force to operate and maintain the railroad.
Nothing about the US until after the Shah was removed.
No, a cartel comprises members which own the means of production.
No, a cartel comprises a group that seeks to control a resource. In this case, labor. Although it's easy to argue that labor is part of the means of production.
Your implication is absurd. You do not get to work somewhere just because "you want to". The employer has to want you to work there. And one of the things that the employer will care about in deciding whether to employ you is how you will get along with fellow employees. Now, if all your fellow employees have a particular union arrangement (e.g. Equity) and you don't want to play along with them, they won't play along with you. This will harm the company, so the company will ultimately expect that you join the union.
Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is paid the same amount. Yet for some strange reason, it still seems to work just fine.
No. It it is not even legal to employ only union workers. Of course, it is not legal to force people to work with you either, which is why Equity union members won't work alongside you.
But it is legal for employees to negotiate to require a new employee to join the union after some time... again, freedom of association.
Don't you contradict yourself here? First you say it is not legal only union workers, then you say it can be required to have the employees join the union. And seriously, you're saying that forcing the employees to join the union is a point in favor of freedom of association? You have an interesting definition of freedom.
Here is what I am for: Allowing people, voluntarily (which includes right of refusal) to group bargain for pay and benefits with an employer.
What I am not for: Union shops where people have to be part of a union to work. Workers able to set up a union and have the union automatically represent everyone at the employer. Unions restricting geographically where members can work. Unions boycotting an employer because they have non-union labor. Unions able to say all employees must be part of the union.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
You have switched between complaining about anti-cartel(?) law, union behaviour (which you are partly implying is only possible because of union law), and union law.
Well, why not? A union is a form of cartel, after all.
Well, if you won't deal with them, why should they deal with you?
And even if they want to work with you? The union has the ability to prohibit it's member from working for you, even if they want to. You really don't know much about unions in the US.
Do you want employers and employees to be forced to accept any particular worker? What exactly are you proposing?
You're missing the meaning entirely. We have these things called union shops in the US. If you want to work in them, you have to be a member of the union. This is regardless of what you may want. So if you want to work for an employer, you have to join the union.
Seriously?
Yes. Especially since you continue to evade the question.
The formation of a corporation is collective decision-making and bargaining by owners of the means of production. Major shareholders are the rich guys, and even minor shareholders have a certain degree of control of the means of production. These are the powers exerted over the worker which he counters with collective bargaining.
By exercising monopoly control over the access to the labor for entire regions? Something that if the owners did, would be ruled illegal. Want wiring done in an area? You have to use local labor. Want to use a specific person? All the labor will be forced to boycott you if he isn't a member of the local. Or for the individuals: Want to work at a union shop? You have to join the union. The employer wants to higher you? Too bad, the law says if a simple majority of the employees want to unionize, everyone is forced to be part of the union. Control of the production is irrelevant if it is not controlled by a monopoly. Control of the Labor has been consolidated under monolithic monopolistic unions in several areas.
It is pretty much only the US middle class which considers the US to be marked by "doing our best at what we do". If what you said were true, you would see precisely the opposite thing happening to what is actually happening to the US middle class.
What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
The workers experiencing the worst treatment may no longer be in the US and the UK, and certain Unions may be old enough that they have become inefficient, but the nature of business has not changed.
With union representation at such a low, it appears it has changed. In the US at least. I don't have the numbers for the UK. Maybe they are needed in other countries, but not in the US anymore.
Where's the evidence of abuse as opposed to a workplace accident?
The individual employer is rich and owns the means of production whereas the individual worker is poor and does not own the means of production, so even if you have one voice speaking together for all the workers, you still do not have a voice more powerful than the employers.
Really? That seems to be the exception in the US, not the rule. The owners of most of these companies you seem to disparage are the stockholders, like me for instance, who is not rich by any stretch of the imagination. The union members are not poor either, making a median income of $47,000 a year.
One thing I do recognise in the US is a peculiar desire to bring others down rather than try to achieve what they have: IOW, if a union job brings someone good pay and good pension, why don't you fight for those same privileges?
You mean by doing our best at what we do? Or like the unions do by limiting where people can work (where you have to be a member of the union local in order to work there), requiring all employees to be a member of the union or they can't work there (union shops), or giving preference by length of work rather than ability (seniority rules)?
What you talk about was true a century ago. Today, it's time has passed.