The problem lies in that the Universe cannot have both MECOs and black holes - it can only have one or the other
So the universe is a hell of a big place. Why can't a MECO on one part of the universe survive with a black hole, in an insanely far part of the universe, reside?
If this is a sticker then it operates based on touch. What happens if Apple A which has a sticker has the sticker touching Apple B. If Apple B is rotten, wouldn't it set off Apple A? It's working on a gas emission.
The good news is, SCO has the burdeon of proof. They have to prove, other then "he said she said" that actual code that would have helped SCO win was destroyed.
Rights are not exclusive to "inalienable human right"...hence we have a separate term that is "inalienable human right". A person can have rights that are not inherent.
We welcome our UK refugee-brothers to come to our free land of the United States. Wait, no, no we don't. Stay in your tea drinking, crumpet eating, draconian state. Have your own Boston Tea part I say!!!!
When you ignore this part, yea my statment is incorrect, but you shouldn't ignore part of my statement: "None of the countries, not even Israel, in the Middle east can start WWIII without the use of nuclear bombs. Thankfully, very few countries have thsi capability"
I do not think Russia will help Lebanon in a military fashion (they might medically), and thus the US will not get involved in a military fashion. Those that have the power to wage world war do not want world war and know what that means. It is what kept the cold war from spiraling to WW3. Luckily, the extremists who are willing to wage this war do not have the ability to do so.
Until you can 100% prove that some country, other then Israel (which is not confirmed but many experts assume they do), can launch an intercontinental ballistic nuclear strike there is no reason to be an alarmist. None of the countries, not even Israel, in the Middle east can start WWIII without the use of nuclear bombs. Thankfully, very few countries have thsi capability. On a conventional warfare (non-nuclear) it requires sizeable infrastructure in a military - and very few militaries have this infrastructure.
BTW, I am not counting India/Pakistan in middle east group.
required to at least pay Federal income tax (in the US)...
That's the issue with the online betting places. Most of them are out of the country so they do not have to pay business tax, the people who win do not report themselvs (and neither will the casino) so they do not have to pay winnings tax (though they will probably report losses).
LOL. Well I did see Bladrunner, just so long ago that I do not remember. I think I was pre-teenager when it came out. I only saw it on TV when UPN-57 would do the movie on Sunday's. (gotta love UPN back in the day, before I had cable tv).
Well, duh. Staying current on ever-shifting rules is virtually impossible
Not that duh actually. Copyright laws are not new, and neither is laws against copying games, movies, and more. For many many years now (since VHS) there have been the FBI warning at the start of the movie warning against copying or playing in non-private use. For years people have heard about intellectual property laws.
It's not that people dont know about it, it's people don't care about it. As long as people think they will not get caugh (and chances are a person won't) then they will continue to break the law.
The electronics industry is seemingly insane with their obsession to beat down their consumers
No, they are defending their IP which is there right. How many times do people on/. bitch saying "Oh this person had a submarine patent for 20 years and is only now sueing because he can make millions", but here we go the electronics industry is actively sueing NOW, not waiting 20 years. They have a right to do so. Not to mention the people they are sueing are no customers of theres they are stealing their property. They are not sueing some kid who bought a CD and made a legitimate backup, they are sueing the kid who decided to upload his entire cd/movie/music collection to anyone with a torrent downloader.
We did have a blast the first day with the phones, and even found a couple of trick ways to get our own customized dial tones to the phones without paying for downloads. But, aha, Verizon was on to those tricks
I hate verizon for their drming of the V710 bluetooth, for their ringtone policies, etc....and you know what I have to say to anyone else who hates them - change carriers. There are plenty out there. Breaking any contractual agreements (I would imagine verizon has an anti-hacking agreement) is wrong. If you sign an agreement (and you did when you bought the phone) then own up to it. If there was a EULA, then either agree to it or return the product for a refund (which you have 30 days to do so).
Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty
They are honest. All their terms are in their EULA, contract, etc. If you didn't read it then that is on you, not them. As for respect, when you give them respect - you know by not breaking their TOS - then they will give you respect by not sueing you into the ground.
It doesn't take much of a staff to run a small, break-even online casino.
It takes quite a sizeable staff and investment to run a large online gambling operation.
Why would it take over a thousand employees, globally, to run an online casino? What makes you think 25 people can't run it? 5 IT, 10 telephone support, 1 CEO and 9 support. Tens of millions in marketing? You do realize these online guys don't market their brands on TV time but online ad-space which is SIGNIFICANTLY cheap - as in dirt cheap.
No your information seems skewed and I would like you to show me three different online casino companies that require 1000+ employees and tens of millions in marketing money, public traded (requirement), heavily audited, fully repported, billions in turnover, etc. What you are mentioning sounds more like an actual casino, rather then an online casino. And lets not forget, 1) Nothing says a casino must be a publically held trading company, 2) A casino, especially online casino, in a foreign country may have way different standards (if any) to uphold with that gov'ts rule. In other words, Zimbabwe may not care about casino's. Zimbabwe may not even know that one of it's citizens is running a casino, where the server is located in Brazil, and the phone lines are routed through multiple 800 numbers (assuming there is a customer service number to call).
The "protection" bit is a straw man argument.. yes, gambling can be bad, yes, it would be nice if someone protected you, but the government is after money, plain and simple
You need to explain this one. You can't just call my argument straw-man and not prove why. SOMEONE in the gov't may have an alterior motive by wanting more money to the gov't from casino's, but those other options (protection) that I mentioned is a very valid case. Gambling addiction is a very real and serious issue in this country. Gambling addicts have destroyed the lives of themselves and their families - plain and simple.
So I didn't see the name of the state agency. Was he looking to work for the state police? FBI? CIA? Some other organization that requires security clearance. Many gov't jobs, including those that give you access to sensitive information, require very very intense background checks. They will delve into every aspect of your life. For example, in the FBI, they want to know EVERY SINGLE PLACE you have lived since you were 18, including all roomates if you were there for 2 months or more. As a person who moved around since the age of 18 (Lived in college, then moved out to live with some people for winter break, then moved back to college for spring semester, then moved to friends for summer, then to college, etc..) I have had many roomates. Some of them I don't even remember their names, let alone a way to contact them. But the FBI will delve deep, including calling each and every person and saying "so what do you know about...."
Face it, some jobs require this - and I am glad they do....when someone who is working for the gov't has access to my information, or gov't money, etc then I want him/her to be extra scrutinzed...
Put it this way - many of you will scream foul now, but if tomorrow you read some moron embezzeled money from the gov't, or sold your personal information you will get pissed...and if you find out the state angency that hired him would have known this guy to be less then reputable, by digging DEEPER into his life, then you will want revenge for the "incompetant state employees who failed to check this guys facebook."
They already do this. It's still income, even if it isn't from your employment
And we are talking international betting, and with a little bit of care you can place your bets overseas, have the money channeled to a foreign account (where you wouldn't be taxed) and viola...you don't pay taxes on your earnings. But you could be the "honest" citizen and declare if you had a loss that particular year.
They already do this. It's called "sales tax".
Thank you from the peanut gallery. I guess you were not reading. We are talking about international betting sites. So how is the United States going to tax some online casino hosted out of Zimbabwe? As the guy running the casino from his home in a non-extradition/treaty country laughs at you and says "W3 r p0wning y0ur m0n3y"
This is not the government's concern
yea actually it is - and it's my concern, and should be yours. When you lose your money:
Your kids may be taken away when the gov't realizes you spent all their lunch money on the next bet
You are about to go bankrupt, so what happens:
Credit card companies lose out on the money you owe them - so that raises the rates/fees for people who actually pay their bills
The gov't has to help you out if you get on welfare and other public services - this costs taxpayers money
You could potentially resort to crime to pay your bills/spending habits
And if the gov't couldn't convince a judge to take your kids, now your kids live in a subpar life because you can't control your spending habit.
So yea I don't know where you got your information from, but I think you are one of those with knee jerk reactionists who like to say "down with gov't" when really you don't know what you are talking about.
Oh and if you don't believe people in debt due to gambling, turn to crime, bankruptcy, child neglect, or public welfare services then you really need to get on google.
Lottery proceeds go to help senior citizens. OTB? Online gambling is not desired because it makes it way to easy for people who are gambaholics (or to become such). Travelling to a casino is at least a chore (unless you live close to one).
And why not tax....both on the side of people who win and when the house wins. That is a lot of revenue. Online casinos usually fund one small group of people (it doesn't take much to own/manage an online casino).
The gov't wants a few things
Tax the players who win
Tax the casino
Ensure that it is not so easy for people to spend their lifes earnings (and money they dont have, such as credit card money) on gambling and blowing their lives away.
remember, it is not the easiest thing in the world to legalize gambling in a state. Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.
Maybe someone from his staff told him this story to make it more accessible for him?
Actually, what happend, the story was e-mailed to him, but since he didn't receive the Internet until a day after he gave the speech, he was improving.;)
agree that there is a problem here, but your solution is just clueless. How do you suggest that representitives determine the opinions of his constituents? Do you suggest Americans "vote" on every issue like we vote on our representitives? If not, then are you suggesting the Representitive rely on polling? What if there are two polls that show different results? What if the poll is within the margin of error?
How do the reps determine our opinions? In the same manner they get elected. We vote for it. Kinda simple here; I am sure you've heard of "keep it simple stupid". Guess my solution is not that clueless. You suggested the polling, which could work if done properly and neutrally, unfortunately neutrality is an issue.
And what are you going to do when it's a vote to raise the debt ceiling or override a veto or ratify a treaty? If you think it's bad to have 535 people vote on something that they don't understand, why would you want 300 million?
There are certain issues, i.e. national security, where the people should not get a vote. As for the rest, it is up to the representative to inform the people. In fact, why isn't our representatives informing us of the issues EXCEPT during voting period or if it is a hot topic? Apathy is my answer.
And if you think we have low turnout now, just wait to see how low it gets when we have to vote a dozen times every single day.
I don't care if the turnout is low. Frankly, I don't care about the opinions of those who refuse to express it. Everyone is allowed to complain, even if they didn't vote, but if they didn't vote and the decision went against their desires then boohoo. If you want your opinion counted, then make it well known. Rock the vote baby!:D
The idea is to elect someone that agrees with you on MOST things. Or at least the most important things.
The idea is to elect someone who agrees with the majority of your peers. Currently the people I elect do not make a great showing of that, let alone agree with MOST things that I believe. I do change my vote as needed, but that doesn't always make a difference. I am sure the next guy in office will vote in some manner that well doesn't sit well with his constiuancy, and the people will vote for him again and again and again, no matter how many times he bends them over.
Our system is not perfect by any means, probably one of the best in use right now (how sad). We need improvements. I gave my ideas, what are yours? Saying "your solution is just clueless" without coming up with your own solution does not help. Just makes you a nay-sayer.
I think you still miss the point. Yes we elect a representative to vote for us, but that does not mean that he is obligated to vote the exact way a majority of his constituents would like on a given topic.
If the majority of constituents do not feel that after his term is up, he voted the way they would have liked, they THEN have the ability to replace him with someone else.
I agree he is not obligated, at least there is no law I am aware of that obligates him, but unfortunately we tend to vote for the same trash over and over (i.e. President Bush).
Ideally, in a representative democracy (or any democracy), our reps should vote the way the majority of their constiuancy wants...then again, ideally I should win the lottery tomorrow.
You don't seem to understand the concept of representetive democracy. We don't do it because you can only fit ~400 people in the voting room, we do it because no person could reasonably expect to be on top of every issue that needs voting on and have time for a real career. So we vote for a proxy who hopefully votes the way we would most of the time.
Well lets breakdown your argument, because there are a few here:
You don't seem to understand the concept of representetive democracy.......So we vote for a proxy "
OK, first of all, in a representative democracy we do not vote for a proxy. A proxy would mean we have a direct 1 to 1 voting relationship. Meaning, if you live in a state of 1 million people, then Joe Representative gets 1 million votes. If you don't believe me then check here/a>. Second sentence (on the second line) states we do not vote for a proxy.
we do it because no person could reasonably expect to be on top of every issue
Becuase our representative could reasonably expect to be on top of every issue? There are many smart people out there, but I don't think there is one person, let alone 435 (house members) + 100 (senate members), + 9 (Supreme Court Justics(, + 1 (President), + all the state/local representatives who would be well informed about every issue. We do it because it is not reasonable, as of the time we created this law, to have every person go to Capital hill and vote. It was logistics as much as anything else. Maybe, once more people are able to get themselves situated with computers, and things are more secure we can see direct voting. Another thing we can't really trust the people to vote on is national security. There are some things the people can't be trusted to vote on, and can't possibly conceive of all the subtle nuances. Our representatives make tough decisions (i.e. sending people off to war).
So we vote for a proxy who hopefully votes the way we would most of the time
We vote for a representative who would vote the way the majority of people in his/her constituancy would want to vote. Not everyone has to vote (though they should), but he should base his decision on the majority decision. It would be his job to inform us, to help those who are less informed. Would I like my representative to vote my way all the time - hell yea....will he - hell no...I would be happy, however, if my representative voted in the direction the majority of my peers felt.
And how is this plan different from direct democracy? Why have representatives at all?
Because that plan *IS* representative democracy. Direct democracy is each of us going to the polls and voting on every issue. Which in this day and age me and you would be voting about 10 times a day. What I said is representative. Our congressman listens to our opinions, he goes with the majority of our opinions and then votes in that fashion. He represents us. Currently, once our congressman (or any other lawmaker) gets voted into office, he represents someone - sometimes its us, sometimes its special interests, and most often his own interests.
Those who fail the test lose their voting rights...
Unfortunately, this is not the solution either. The way it SHOULD work in our society. An issue is brought up, each congressman is given X amount of time. The congressman asks his constituants their opinion and their majority rules. The congressman then uses the majority of his constituants decision to vote. He doesn't have to debate with his other congressman, he has to debate with us.
Alas our society is not like that. We vote for a guy, and this guy can do w/e he wants for a term.
By-the-by - this isn't anything surprising....congressman vote on topics they have no clue about each and every day. From Computers, to medicine, to infrastructure. Some of these guys might have specific knowledge on a few of these issues, but for the most part they don't....they rely on their staff to do the research. This guy should have been reading a speech written by his staff memebers.
Well, the law doesn't call it theft, it calls it copyright infringement. "Theft" is a loaded word used by the RIAA's publicity material to brainwash people like you into thinking it's something that it's not. Seems that they've been successful.
This got modded informative how? This guys argument, which ignored my entire post except one particular line, spiraled in a heartbeat by just auto-insulting me. It got modded insightful because he accused the RIAA of being able to brainwash me.
Copyright infringement is theft and it has been this way prior to the RIAA sueing people. I do not like the RIAA, their tactics or the much of the trash they spew - but I will not deny them their right to sue the pants off anyone who steals (yes it is stealing) music/movies from the people they represent.
If you don't like it, then work within the legal system to change the laws. No matter how much money the **AA has, if you get enough people to protest things will change and they will change fast. Imagine the Million Man March....organize a million or so people to camp in front of the white house and capital building and you will see laws change real real fast.
Until then, the only realy thing I need to say to an AC is STFU.
Slashdot Mirror
Except wasn't it movie first, then tv series?
Yea initially this started as a joke in my head and formed into this. Thats what happens when I type while still half asleep. My joke was:
Can't we all just get along?
The problem lies in that the Universe cannot have both MECOs and black holes - it can only have one or the other
So the universe is a hell of a big place. Why can't a MECO on one part of the universe survive with a black hole, in an insanely far part of the universe, reside?
If this is a sticker then it operates based on touch. What happens if Apple A which has a sticker has the sticker touching Apple B. If Apple B is rotten, wouldn't it set off Apple A? It's working on a gas emission.
The good news is, SCO has the burdeon of proof. They have to prove, other then "he said she said" that actual code that would have helped SCO win was destroyed.
Rights are not exclusive to "inalienable human right"...hence we have a separate term that is "inalienable human right". A person can have rights that are not inherent.
We welcome our UK refugee-brothers to come to our free land of the United States. Wait, no, no we don't. Stay in your tea drinking, crumpet eating, draconian state. Have your own Boston Tea part I say!!!!
"You have not been convicted of murder, but we are going to place you in jail for the next 50 years, w/o option for parole."
When you ignore this part, yea my statment is incorrect, but you shouldn't ignore part of my statement: "None of the countries, not even Israel, in the Middle east can start WWIII without the use of nuclear bombs. Thankfully, very few countries have thsi capability"
I do not think Russia will help Lebanon in a military fashion (they might medically), and thus the US will not get involved in a military fashion. Those that have the power to wage world war do not want world war and know what that means. It is what kept the cold war from spiraling to WW3. Luckily, the extremists who are willing to wage this war do not have the ability to do so.
Until you can 100% prove that some country, other then Israel (which is not confirmed but many experts assume they do), can launch an intercontinental ballistic nuclear strike there is no reason to be an alarmist. None of the countries, not even Israel, in the Middle east can start WWIII without the use of nuclear bombs. Thankfully, very few countries have thsi capability. On a conventional warfare (non-nuclear) it requires sizeable infrastructure in a military - and very few militaries have this infrastructure.
BTW, I am not counting India/Pakistan in middle east group.
required to at least pay Federal income tax (in the US)...
That's the issue with the online betting places. Most of them are out of the country so they do not have to pay business tax, the people who win do not report themselvs (and neither will the casino) so they do not have to pay winnings tax (though they will probably report losses).
LOL. Well I did see Bladrunner, just so long ago that I do not remember. I think I was pre-teenager when it came out. I only saw it on TV when UPN-57 would do the movie on Sunday's. (gotta love UPN back in the day, before I had cable tv).
This has applications in military intelligence, face-recognition, anti-terrorism, and hunting down replicants
I don't know what replicants is, other then this Replicant (but who would want that).
This has HUGE applications in finding that perfect pr0n pic.
Well, duh. Staying current on ever-shifting rules is virtually impossible
/. bitch saying "Oh this person had a submarine patent for 20 years and is only now sueing because he can make millions", but here we go the electronics industry is actively sueing NOW, not waiting 20 years. They have a right to do so. Not to mention the people they are sueing are no customers of theres they are stealing their property. They are not sueing some kid who bought a CD and made a legitimate backup, they are sueing the kid who decided to upload his entire cd/movie/music collection to anyone with a torrent downloader.
Not that duh actually. Copyright laws are not new, and neither is laws against copying games, movies, and more. For many many years now (since VHS) there have been the FBI warning at the start of the movie warning against copying or playing in non-private use. For years people have heard about intellectual property laws.
It's not that people dont know about it, it's people don't care about it. As long as people think they will not get caugh (and chances are a person won't) then they will continue to break the law.
The electronics industry is seemingly insane with their obsession to beat down their consumers
No, they are defending their IP which is there right. How many times do people on
We did have a blast the first day with the phones, and even found a couple of trick ways to get our own customized dial tones to the phones without paying for downloads. But, aha, Verizon was on to those tricks
I hate verizon for their drming of the V710 bluetooth, for their ringtone policies, etc....and you know what I have to say to anyone else who hates them - change carriers. There are plenty out there. Breaking any contractual agreements (I would imagine verizon has an anti-hacking agreement) is wrong. If you sign an agreement (and you did when you bought the phone) then own up to it. If there was a EULA, then either agree to it or return the product for a refund (which you have 30 days to do so).
Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty
They are honest. All their terms are in their EULA, contract, etc. If you didn't read it then that is on you, not them. As for respect, when you give them respect - you know by not breaking their TOS - then they will give you respect by not sueing you into the ground.
But go on, live behind the shelter of anonymity.
It doesn't take much of a staff to run a small, break-even online casino. It takes quite a sizeable staff and investment to run a large online gambling operation.
Why would it take over a thousand employees, globally, to run an online casino? What makes you think 25 people can't run it? 5 IT, 10 telephone support, 1 CEO and 9 support. Tens of millions in marketing? You do realize these online guys don't market their brands on TV time but online ad-space which is SIGNIFICANTLY cheap - as in dirt cheap.
No your information seems skewed and I would like you to show me three different online casino companies that require 1000+ employees and tens of millions in marketing money, public traded (requirement), heavily audited, fully repported, billions in turnover, etc. What you are mentioning sounds more like an actual casino, rather then an online casino. And lets not forget, 1) Nothing says a casino must be a publically held trading company, 2) A casino, especially online casino, in a foreign country may have way different standards (if any) to uphold with that gov'ts rule. In other words, Zimbabwe may not care about casino's. Zimbabwe may not even know that one of it's citizens is running a casino, where the server is located in Brazil, and the phone lines are routed through multiple 800 numbers (assuming there is a customer service number to call).
The "protection" bit is a straw man argument.. yes, gambling can be bad, yes, it would be nice if someone protected you, but the government is after money, plain and simple
You need to explain this one. You can't just call my argument straw-man and not prove why. SOMEONE in the gov't may have an alterior motive by wanting more money to the gov't from casino's, but those other options (protection) that I mentioned is a very valid case. Gambling addiction is a very real and serious issue in this country. Gambling addicts have destroyed the lives of themselves and their families - plain and simple.
So I didn't see the name of the state agency. Was he looking to work for the state police? FBI? CIA? Some other organization that requires security clearance. Many gov't jobs, including those that give you access to sensitive information, require very very intense background checks. They will delve into every aspect of your life. For example, in the FBI, they want to know EVERY SINGLE PLACE you have lived since you were 18, including all roomates if you were there for 2 months or more. As a person who moved around since the age of 18 (Lived in college, then moved out to live with some people for winter break, then moved back to college for spring semester, then moved to friends for summer, then to college, etc..) I have had many roomates. Some of them I don't even remember their names, let alone a way to contact them. But the FBI will delve deep, including calling each and every person and saying "so what do you know about...."
Face it, some jobs require this - and I am glad they do....when someone who is working for the gov't has access to my information, or gov't money, etc then I want him/her to be extra scrutinzed...
Put it this way - many of you will scream foul now, but if tomorrow you read some moron embezzeled money from the gov't, or sold your personal information you will get pissed...and if you find out the state angency that hired him would have known this guy to be less then reputable, by digging DEEPER into his life, then you will want revenge for the "incompetant state employees who failed to check this guys facebook."
They already do this. It's still income, even if it isn't from your employment
And we are talking international betting, and with a little bit of care you can place your bets overseas, have the money channeled to a foreign account (where you wouldn't be taxed) and viola...you don't pay taxes on your earnings. But you could be the "honest" citizen and declare if you had a loss that particular year.
They already do this. It's called "sales tax".
Thank you from the peanut gallery. I guess you were not reading. We are talking about international betting sites. So how is the United States going to tax some online casino hosted out of Zimbabwe? As the guy running the casino from his home in a non-extradition/treaty country laughs at you and says "W3 r p0wning y0ur m0n3y"
This is not the government's concern
yea actually it is - and it's my concern, and should be yours. When you lose your money:
Your kids may be taken away when the gov't realizes you spent all their lunch money on the next bet
You are about to go bankrupt, so what happens:
Credit card companies lose out on the money you owe them - so that raises the rates/fees for people who actually pay their bills
The gov't has to help you out if you get on welfare and other public services - this costs taxpayers money
You could potentially resort to crime to pay your bills/spending habits
And if the gov't couldn't convince a judge to take your kids, now your kids live in a subpar life because you can't control your spending habit. So yea I don't know where you got your information from, but I think you are one of those with knee jerk reactionists who like to say "down with gov't" when really you don't know what you are talking about.
Oh and if you don't believe people in debt due to gambling, turn to crime, bankruptcy, child neglect, or public welfare services then you really need to get on google.
Lottery proceeds go to help senior citizens. OTB? Online gambling is not desired because it makes it way to easy for people who are gambaholics (or to become such). Travelling to a casino is at least a chore (unless you live close to one).
And why not tax....both on the side of people who win and when the house wins. That is a lot of revenue. Online casinos usually fund one small group of people (it doesn't take much to own/manage an online casino).
The gov't wants a few things
Tax the players who win
Tax the casino
Ensure that it is not so easy for people to spend their lifes earnings (and money they dont have, such as credit card money) on gambling and blowing their lives away.
remember, it is not the easiest thing in the world to legalize gambling in a state. Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.
Maybe someone from his staff told him this story to make it more accessible for him?
;)
Actually, what happend, the story was e-mailed to him, but since he didn't receive the Internet until a day after he gave the speech, he was improving.
agree that there is a problem here, but your solution is just clueless. How do you suggest that representitives determine the opinions of his constituents? Do you suggest Americans "vote" on every issue like we vote on our representitives? If not, then are you suggesting the Representitive rely on polling? What if there are two polls that show different results? What if the poll is within the margin of error?
:D
How do the reps determine our opinions? In the same manner they get elected. We vote for it. Kinda simple here; I am sure you've heard of "keep it simple stupid". Guess my solution is not that clueless. You suggested the polling, which could work if done properly and neutrally, unfortunately neutrality is an issue.
And what are you going to do when it's a vote to raise the debt ceiling or override a veto or ratify a treaty? If you think it's bad to have 535 people vote on something that they don't understand, why would you want 300 million?
There are certain issues, i.e. national security, where the people should not get a vote. As for the rest, it is up to the representative to inform the people. In fact, why isn't our representatives informing us of the issues EXCEPT during voting period or if it is a hot topic? Apathy is my answer.
And if you think we have low turnout now, just wait to see how low it gets when we have to vote a dozen times every single day.
I don't care if the turnout is low. Frankly, I don't care about the opinions of those who refuse to express it. Everyone is allowed to complain, even if they didn't vote, but if they didn't vote and the decision went against their desires then boohoo. If you want your opinion counted, then make it well known. Rock the vote baby!
The idea is to elect someone that agrees with you on MOST things. Or at least the most important things.
The idea is to elect someone who agrees with the majority of your peers. Currently the people I elect do not make a great showing of that, let alone agree with MOST things that I believe. I do change my vote as needed, but that doesn't always make a difference. I am sure the next guy in office will vote in some manner that well doesn't sit well with his constiuancy, and the people will vote for him again and again and again, no matter how many times he bends them over.
Our system is not perfect by any means, probably one of the best in use right now (how sad). We need improvements. I gave my ideas, what are yours? Saying "your solution is just clueless" without coming up with your own solution does not help. Just makes you a nay-sayer.
I think you still miss the point. Yes we elect a representative to vote for us, but that does not mean that he is obligated to vote the exact way a majority of his constituents would like on a given topic. If the majority of constituents do not feel that after his term is up, he voted the way they would have liked, they THEN have the ability to replace him with someone else.
I agree he is not obligated, at least there is no law I am aware of that obligates him, but unfortunately we tend to vote for the same trash over and over (i.e. President Bush).
Ideally, in a representative democracy (or any democracy), our reps should vote the way the majority of their constiuancy wants...then again, ideally I should win the lottery tomorrow.
You don't seem to understand the concept of representetive democracy. We don't do it because you can only fit ~400 people in the voting room, we do it because no person could reasonably expect to be on top of every issue that needs voting on and have time for a real career. So we vote for a proxy who hopefully votes the way we would most of the time.
Well lets breakdown your argument, because there are a few here:
You don't seem to understand the concept of representetive democracy.......So we vote for a proxy "
OK, first of all, in a representative democracy we do not vote for a proxy. A proxy would mean we have a direct 1 to 1 voting relationship. Meaning, if you live in a state of 1 million people, then Joe Representative gets 1 million votes. If you don't believe me then check here/a>. Second sentence (on the second line) states we do not vote for a proxy.
we do it because no person could reasonably expect to be on top of every issue
Becuase our representative could reasonably expect to be on top of every issue? There are many smart people out there, but I don't think there is one person, let alone 435 (house members) + 100 (senate members), + 9 (Supreme Court Justics(, + 1 (President), + all the state/local representatives who would be well informed about every issue. We do it because it is not reasonable, as of the time we created this law, to have every person go to Capital hill and vote. It was logistics as much as anything else. Maybe, once more people are able to get themselves situated with computers, and things are more secure we can see direct voting. Another thing we can't really trust the people to vote on is national security. There are some things the people can't be trusted to vote on, and can't possibly conceive of all the subtle nuances. Our representatives make tough decisions (i.e. sending people off to war).
So we vote for a proxy who hopefully votes the way we would most of the time
We vote for a representative who would vote the way the majority of people in his/her constituancy would want to vote. Not everyone has to vote (though they should), but he should base his decision on the majority decision. It would be his job to inform us, to help those who are less informed. Would I like my representative to vote my way all the time - hell yea....will he - hell no...I would be happy, however, if my representative voted in the direction the majority of my peers felt.
And how is this plan different from direct democracy? Why have representatives at all?
Because that plan *IS* representative democracy. Direct democracy is each of us going to the polls and voting on every issue. Which in this day and age me and you would be voting about 10 times a day. What I said is representative. Our congressman listens to our opinions, he goes with the majority of our opinions and then votes in that fashion. He represents us. Currently, once our congressman (or any other lawmaker) gets voted into office, he represents someone - sometimes its us, sometimes its special interests, and most often his own interests.
Those who fail the test lose their voting rights...
Unfortunately, this is not the solution either. The way it SHOULD work in our society. An issue is brought up, each congressman is given X amount of time. The congressman asks his constituants their opinion and their majority rules. The congressman then uses the majority of his constituants decision to vote. He doesn't have to debate with his other congressman, he has to debate with us.
Alas our society is not like that. We vote for a guy, and this guy can do w/e he wants for a term.
By-the-by - this isn't anything surprising....congressman vote on topics they have no clue about each and every day. From Computers, to medicine, to infrastructure. Some of these guys might have specific knowledge on a few of these issues, but for the most part they don't....they rely on their staff to do the research. This guy should have been reading a speech written by his staff memebers.
Well, the law doesn't call it theft, it calls it copyright infringement. "Theft" is a loaded word used by the RIAA's publicity material to brainwash people like you into thinking it's something that it's not. Seems that they've been successful.
This got modded informative how? This guys argument, which ignored my entire post except one particular line, spiraled in a heartbeat by just auto-insulting me. It got modded insightful because he accused the RIAA of being able to brainwash me.
Copyright infringement is theft and it has been this way prior to the RIAA sueing people. I do not like the RIAA, their tactics or the much of the trash they spew - but I will not deny them their right to sue the pants off anyone who steals (yes it is stealing) music/movies from the people they represent.
If you don't like it, then work within the legal system to change the laws. No matter how much money the **AA has, if you get enough people to protest things will change and they will change fast. Imagine the Million Man March....organize a million or so people to camp in front of the white house and capital building and you will see laws change real real fast.
Until then, the only realy thing I need to say to an AC is STFU.