Seems like the Vic-20 or Commodore 64 would be in there somewhere. Certainly they were much better gadgets than something like a Panasonic Toughbook or two flavors of Apple laptops.
They were beaten out by the TRS-80. How many computers can lay claim to being the first "affordable" home computer?
It is, in fact, like this in many European countries - voting is obligatory
Please expand on this and provide links. I am curious to know more. I think I first heard about this when I read Heinlens - StarShip Troopers. I am interested in ones that have actually been implemented (and wish we could get one here in the USA).
the idea being that a political power can manipulate the result of elections by making people afraid to vote
Afraid to vote, think that the outcome of a vote won't make a difference. Same outcome, different means. Although it may not always be the power you think it is or can see.
I have absolutely no sympathy towards people who say "I don't vote". Apathy is not a valid political point of view.
Idea: Make it mandatory by law that every eligible voter must vote in every election unless they have good reason not to have been able to vote (say, in a coma). Punishable by fine and or imprisonment.
I've always wanted a "three strikes" law for legislators. If you vote in favor of three laws that are later overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, you should be tried for treason.
Problem with this comes when the Courts interpret State and Country constitutions in ways the writers never dreamed of. As I recal, a new england state just declared a state law unconstitutional that was writen by one of the original writers of the constitution. They even admited that they were interpretating it in a way that was not originally intended.
These community run ideas shouldnt scare any half-way decent broadband company as clearly they should have the upper hand in running costs, equipment, and so on.
Community run internet I don't have a problem with and I am willing to bet the OP doesn't either. It's municiple run internet that I have a problem with. There is a difference.
The difference being that a municipality has the money to subsidize the pipe and basically sell the bandwith to residents at a loss
This is the problem I have with gov offered internet. I have a hard time believing that the municipalities will not start using tax dollars to subsidize the service instead of making it stand on it's own. At that point it is costing more than they are willing to say, and are charging people who do not use the service to fund it.
but I'm seriously considering asking some of my neighbors to get together to lease a line from SBC and then set up a community router. It will save all of us money and I'll finally be able to get a decent connection without interference from the 8 other routers my laptop can connect to.
This, in my mind, is the way to go. I have no problems with community wireless (something done by a group of people but not a gov) as opposed to municiple wireless (something done by a gov). I have even thought of setting up something like this before. But I don't trust a municipality to set one up and keep it self funding. That includes not taxing competing services to raise their rates in relation to their own.
Perhaps only making those subsidies available in communities where current providers failed to meet certain service/price targets.
But who sets the service price targets? And if the price targets are bellow actual costs to the point where anybody, including the gov doing this would loose money? Aside from that, why don't they just set up an independant company that will run these networks? Make it part of the company charter that they must provide service to everyone. So long as the service running this receives no tax money are special breaks that the regular companies would not receive, I have no problem with this. But they must make sure that the company they set up receives no extra assitance.
Interesting that you bring up some points that still haven't been proven to my satisfaction.
but won't do much good if there is widespread drought. One certain consequence is that rising sea levels will be big trouble for a lot of coastal cities.
They have yet to prove to my satisfaction that there will be drought. And most of all, that the ocean levels will rise enough to cause flooding. The antarctic is neither warming nor cooling. Haven't looked at the arctic lately. Some glaciers are expanding. And the ones that are shrinking have been shrinking for a very long time.
Even if the planet itself can support more people think about the life you're living now and imagine even 25% more people crowded into "your" space.
Compare the population of Europe to that of the USA. Europe is about 5 times denser. On the other hand, Asimov had Cities that were all indoors and held 10 million on the small end. Or was that 100 million? and made Tokyo look spacious. 25% more people is not going to be a problem yet.
Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?
Oil is primarily used for plastic production and cars in the USA. Therefore, the end of oil will have nothing to do with Coal. Especially as hardly any oil is used in electricity generation. If we want to really cut CO2 emmisions in the USA, we should switch to nuclear as opposed to coal and start re-enrichment of the nuclear fuel like france does. (which gets 70+% of their power from nuclear.)
First, remember the senate has to ratify the treaty as well.
Second, Kyoto gets ratified in the US. Industry moves to "developing countries" like China that are not subject to the same restrictions.
Third, Scientists have yet to prove (to my satisfaction) that the warming will have an over all detrimental impact to the human species (as opposed to it's benefits). Remember, warmer winters = less heating fuel/energy needed = less polution. (along with some other things such as a longer growing season in many places).
(disclaimer: Yes, I know there is global warming, I'm just not sure it's all the humans' fault)
Another question to ask: "Is it necessarily a bad thing". We know the earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now. Just different conditions led up to it. Same outcome, different causes?
How many of the 'Independants' get their money from (or are members of) GreenPeace, the Audobon Society, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist organizations?
Next question, How much study has there been over whether or not the warming will actually cause harm? Not from an "All warming is bad standpoint" but from a "this are is getting warmer, lets figure out what will happen" point.
As for your link, it does not apply. That story is about retirement programs. Which Social Security is not. You can't compare the return on a pension/401k program to the return on Social Security because they are different programs
The link is relevant as the people in these programs do not pay anything into Social Security. FTS:
These teachers, firefighters and police officers don't pay a penny into the program, putting money instead into state-run pension programs. And if they spend their entire careers in these state jobs, they get nothing out of Social Security. Their retirement income is financed entirely by these state plans.
This is a replacement for SS for them. As for your anology "It would be like trying to compare the return on my car insurance to the return on my bank account." That is completely different. A better analogy would be "It would be like comparing the return on my Savings Bonds to my Mutual Fund". Except when you die your estate gets your savings bonds. Social Security is not an insurance program. It is a "pension". Just one that is managed by the goverment and invests solely in government bonds.
SS was originally designed so that on average you got out what you put in. Not, the less you put in the more you get out (proportionally) that it has become. The only reason it wasn't called a pension plan is due to the bad name that pension plans had aquired due to the crash.
Look here for some of the alternatives to SS that some states came up with (that were allowed under the original SS plan) before the nationalized plan came into effect.
When the federal government started saying that it would take care of us and protect us from all the evils in the world. When Social Security became a wealth redistribution scheme instead of a retirement plan. When people started using welfare as their sole source of income (assuming they don't have any other illegal ones) instead of being just something to get you by until you find a job. When the lawyers/politcians started saying, it's not your fault, it's the guy with a shit load of money's fault, instead of saying that's life.
For 1998 Deaths due to guns Totalled 30,708:
17,424 were gun suicides
12,102 were gun homicides
866 were unintentional or accidental shootings
316 were of undetermined intent
Lets look at it again shall we?
From Joing Together the number for 1993-1999 are under 40K in '93 and under 30K in '99. Most gun deaths are due to suicide (58%). Intentional shooting ranks as 39% (11,071 including 270 police shootings) of gun deaths in 2000.
Your numbers are a bit off. A lot more so than I thought when I first started looking for them. In '99 there were 42,116 people killed in highway crashes More than have died from guns. Where are the people clamoring for Automotive control?
As the amount of water lost to evaporation rises, will not that also mean more rain? Which would increase food production? Overall water can not decrease. It can only change form.
Stalk a woman and you get a restraining order against you. Violate the restraining order and you get GPS. You have to do something illegal twice in order to have this happen to you. Or be under house arrest in some cases (considered flight risk). If you steal an IPod, you don't get tagged currently. These are only for people who have already violated a law twice that currently requires a tracking device as is.
SUV and big all road vehicules with very low mpg everywhere (compare that with the average european car)I know people who use the 4WD on an SUV frequently. On Mud and Snow and off paved roads it generally helps to have it. And they do use this throughout the year. We frequently go camping places where sedans (toruing cars, like those european ones you talk about) can't go. We also cram them with 6 or 7 people plus gear when we do this. On regular days I drive a sedan. So how are we wasting energy? By going camping?
f they could take them off, they probably would; they'd throw them in moving cars or something to make it look convincingly like they still have it
We already use something like this. It's just not GPS enabled. It has a base reciever installed at the home and office that phone in and report when someones location or if they are out of range (if the phone line gets disconected, they report this too). The criminals only way of getting out of these tracking leg irons is to saw their own leg off. Which I highly doubt they will do. Nothing new in this except the GPS capability.
It's called low-jack and onstar. They already do this. The problem with making it mandatory is that people do not want the police to be able to find the car unless the victim so chooses. With low-jack and onstar, the victim has to give the permision for low-jack and onstar to tell the police where the car is. With it in by default, the police may not need anything in order to track you, and it may be made illegal to disable it in your own car (insert big brother concerns here). Additionally, making it mandatory would probably increase the cost by several hundred dollars (not a small amount, even on a 20K car). For now, it remains an accessory or luxury item.
Slashdot Mirror
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140255&cid =11747042
Costs $350 USA.
Seems like the Vic-20 or Commodore 64 would be in there somewhere. Certainly they were much better gadgets than something like a Panasonic Toughbook or two flavors of Apple laptops.
They were beaten out by the TRS-80. How many computers can lay claim to being the first "affordable" home computer?
It is, in fact, like this in many European countries - voting is obligatory
Please expand on this and provide links. I am curious to know more. I think I first heard about this when I read Heinlens - StarShip Troopers. I am interested in ones that have actually been implemented (and wish we could get one here in the USA).
the idea being that a political power can manipulate the result of elections by making people afraid to vote
Afraid to vote, think that the outcome of a vote won't make a difference. Same outcome, different means. Although it may not always be the power you think it is or can see.
I have absolutely no sympathy towards people who say "I don't vote". Apathy is not a valid political point of view.
Idea: Make it mandatory by law that every eligible voter must vote in every election unless they have good reason not to have been able to vote (say, in a coma). Punishable by fine and or imprisonment.
Discuss.
I've always wanted a "three strikes" law for legislators. If you vote in favor of three laws that are later overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, you should be tried for treason.
Problem with this comes when the Courts interpret State and Country constitutions in ways the writers never dreamed of. As I recal, a new england state just declared a state law unconstitutional that was writen by one of the original writers of the constitution. They even admited that they were interpretating it in a way that was not originally intended.
These community run ideas shouldnt scare any half-way decent broadband company as clearly they should have the upper hand in running costs, equipment, and so on.
Community run internet I don't have a problem with and I am willing to bet the OP doesn't either. It's municiple run internet that I have a problem with. There is a difference.
The difference being that a municipality has the money to subsidize the pipe and basically sell the bandwith to residents at a loss
This is the problem I have with gov offered internet. I have a hard time believing that the municipalities will not start using tax dollars to subsidize the service instead of making it stand on it's own. At that point it is costing more than they are willing to say, and are charging people who do not use the service to fund it.
but I'm seriously considering asking some of my neighbors to get together to lease a line from SBC and then set up a community router. It will save all of us money and I'll finally be able to get a decent connection without interference from the 8 other routers my laptop can connect to.
This, in my mind, is the way to go. I have no problems with community wireless (something done by a group of people but not a gov) as opposed to municiple wireless (something done by a gov). I have even thought of setting up something like this before. But I don't trust a municipality to set one up and keep it self funding. That includes not taxing competing services to raise their rates in relation to their own.
Perhaps only making those subsidies available in communities where current providers failed to meet certain service/price targets.
But who sets the service price targets? And if the price targets are bellow actual costs to the point where anybody, including the gov doing this would loose money? Aside from that, why don't they just set up an independant company that will run these networks? Make it part of the company charter that they must provide service to everyone. So long as the service running this receives no tax money are special breaks that the regular companies would not receive, I have no problem with this. But they must make sure that the company they set up receives no extra assitance.
Interesting that you bring up some points that still haven't been proven to my satisfaction.
but won't do much good if there is widespread drought. One certain consequence is that rising sea levels will be big trouble for a lot of coastal cities.
They have yet to prove to my satisfaction that there will be drought. And most of all, that the ocean levels will rise enough to cause flooding. The antarctic is neither warming nor cooling. Haven't looked at the arctic lately. Some glaciers are expanding. And the ones that are shrinking have been shrinking for a very long time.
Even if the planet itself can support more people think about the life you're living now and imagine even 25% more people crowded into "your" space.
Compare the population of Europe to that of the USA. Europe is about 5 times denser. On the other hand, Asimov had Cities that were all indoors and held 10 million on the small end. Or was that 100 million? and made Tokyo look spacious. 25% more people is not going to be a problem yet.
Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?
Oil is primarily used for plastic production and cars in the USA. Therefore, the end of oil will have nothing to do with Coal. Especially as hardly any oil is used in electricity generation. If we want to really cut CO2 emmisions in the USA, we should switch to nuclear as opposed to coal and start re-enrichment of the nuclear fuel like france does. (which gets 70+% of their power from nuclear.)
First, remember the senate has to ratify the treaty as well.
Second, Kyoto gets ratified in the US. Industry moves to "developing countries" like China that are not subject to the same restrictions.
Third, Scientists have yet to prove (to my satisfaction) that the warming will have an over all detrimental impact to the human species (as opposed to it's benefits). Remember, warmer winters = less heating fuel/energy needed = less polution. (along with some other things such as a longer growing season in many places).
(disclaimer: Yes, I know there is global warming, I'm just not sure it's all the humans' fault)
Another question to ask: "Is it necessarily a bad thing". We know the earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now. Just different conditions led up to it. Same outcome, different causes?
How many of the 'Independants' get their money from (or are members of) GreenPeace, the Audobon Society, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist organizations?
Next question, How much study has there been over whether or not the warming will actually cause harm? Not from an "All warming is bad standpoint" but from a "this are is getting warmer, lets figure out what will happen" point.
As for your link, it does not apply. That story is about retirement programs. Which Social Security is not. You can't compare the return on a pension/401k program to the return on Social Security because they are different programs
The link is relevant as the people in these programs do not pay anything into Social Security. FTS:
These teachers, firefighters and police officers don't pay a penny into the program, putting money instead into state-run pension programs. And if they spend their entire careers in these state jobs, they get nothing out of Social Security. Their retirement income is financed entirely by these state plans.
This is a replacement for SS for them. As for your anology "It would be like trying to compare the return on my car insurance to the return on my bank account." That is completely different. A better analogy would be "It would be like comparing the return on my Savings Bonds to my Mutual Fund". Except when you die your estate gets your savings bonds. Social Security is not an insurance program. It is a "pension". Just one that is managed by the goverment and invests solely in government bonds.
SS was originally designed so that on average you got out what you put in. Not, the less you put in the more you get out (proportionally) that it has become. The only reason it wasn't called a pension plan is due to the bad name that pension plans had aquired due to the crash.
Look here for some of the alternatives to SS that some states came up with (that were allowed under the original SS plan) before the nationalized plan came into effect.
Please look at the Crusoe Processor They consume under 2 watts and I believe they have broken the Ghz barrier.
Out of the ones you list, why is consumerism one of them? I do not understand how it leads to violence of any sort.
When the federal government started saying that it would take care of us and protect us from all the evils in the world. When Social Security became a wealth redistribution scheme instead of a retirement plan. When people started using welfare as their sole source of income (assuming they don't have any other illegal ones) instead of being just something to get you by until you find a job. When the lawyers/politcians started saying, it's not your fault, it's the guy with a shit load of money's fault, instead of saying that's life.
According to:http://www.plu.edu/~gunvlnce/facts3.html
For 1998 Deaths due to guns Totalled 30,708:
17,424 were gun suicides
12,102 were gun homicides
866 were unintentional or accidental shootings
316 were of undetermined intent
Lets look at it again shall we?
From Joing Together the number for 1993-1999 are under 40K in '93 and under 30K in '99. Most gun deaths are due to suicide (58%). Intentional shooting ranks as 39% (11,071 including 270 police shootings) of gun deaths in 2000.
Your numbers are a bit off. A lot more so than I thought when I first started looking for them. In '99 there were 42,116 people killed in highway crashes More than have died from guns. Where are the people clamoring for Automotive control?
As the amount of water lost to evaporation rises, will not that also mean more rain? Which would increase food production? Overall water can not decrease. It can only change form.
Stalk a woman and you get a restraining order against you. Violate the restraining order and you get GPS. You have to do something illegal twice in order to have this happen to you. Or be under house arrest in some cases (considered flight risk). If you steal an IPod, you don't get tagged currently. These are only for people who have already violated a law twice that currently requires a tracking device as is.
SUV and big all road vehicules with very low mpg everywhere (compare that with the average european car)I know people who use the 4WD on an SUV frequently. On Mud and Snow and off paved roads it generally helps to have it. And they do use this throughout the year. We frequently go camping places where sedans (toruing cars, like those european ones you talk about) can't go. We also cram them with 6 or 7 people plus gear when we do this. On regular days I drive a sedan. So how are we wasting energy? By going camping?
f they could take them off, they probably would; they'd throw them in moving cars or something to make it look convincingly like they still have it
We already use something like this. It's just not GPS enabled. It has a base reciever installed at the home and office that phone in and report when someones location or if they are out of range (if the phone line gets disconected, they report this too). The criminals only way of getting out of these tracking leg irons is to saw their own leg off. Which I highly doubt they will do. Nothing new in this except the GPS capability.
It's called low-jack and onstar. They already do this. The problem with making it mandatory is that people do not want the police to be able to find the car unless the victim so chooses. With low-jack and onstar, the victim has to give the permision for low-jack and onstar to tell the police where the car is. With it in by default, the police may not need anything in order to track you, and it may be made illegal to disable it in your own car (insert big brother concerns here). Additionally, making it mandatory would probably increase the cost by several hundred dollars (not a small amount, even on a 20K car). For now, it remains an accessory or luxury item.