Anyone who thinks the electoral college is going to be done away with needs a big phat reality check. This is something that will require a Constitutional amendment to change, which requires 2/3 approval of the House and Senate. Such a measure may clear the House, but the Senate, where the small states have as much say as the big states, will likely reject is since it would weaken their power. At least 25 states would end up being losers under this change, more than enough to block passage in the Senate.
Even if, by some miracle, it passes the Senate, it still has to be approved by 38 state legislatures, and usually amendments sunset in 7-10 years. Chances are that it would languish and die.
The Electoral College was designed the same as the Congress, to protect the smaller states from the larger states. I am loathe to upset this balance.
Do yourself a BIG favor and get some books on LDAP. If you don't, it's like trying to translate Klingon into Arabic using a poodle as your interpreter. I once tried setting up an LDAP server for a shared address book before I had any clue what I was doing, and I learned to regret that exercise in frustration.
I've had plenty of fun using LDS Mingle, LDS LinkUp, and LDS Singles. It's a lot less awkward than asking out that cute girl in your ward. Mingle and Singles are both directed at dating, though LinkUp is a lot less formal, kinda like "Friendster for Mormons".
If you aren't LDS... then start looking for some of those specialized dating sites. There are sites for Jews, Catholics, aethists, right-wingers, left-wingers, apoliticals... pretty much any classification you can pigeonhole yourself into. I think their strength is a certain level of filtering out some of the worst of the Internet.
And one last note... yes, the better sites cost money. Don't be cheap: ladies will so not be impressed by that.
If you don't like how the electors are assigned, I would recommend going to your state legislature. They are responsible for how those votes are assigned. I personally like the Maine system whereby all but two of the votes are assigned to the winners of each of the Congressional districts with the overall winner of the state picking up the last two.
The electoral college does exactly what it was meant to do: it keeps larger states from steamrolling smaller states. That was the same idea behind the US Senate. I've found a lot of those protections built-in to the Constitution, and I would be loathe to get rid of them.
So now I'm an "asshole" because I remember that those tax dollars used to be in my wallet. Nice. Real nice. I'll just otherwise ignore that little dig.
I can understand why you oppose vouchers on those grounds, but, by your logic, I would have just as valid a reason to oppose government money funding abortion. I consider that an endorsement of the practice as well as funding it.
My view is that government schools unofficially support secular humanism as the "official religion", and I wouldn't want my kids in that environment. (As a fun note, did you know that teachers are twice as likely to send their kids to private school as you or I? Don't take my word for it: read it for yourself.) So now, instead of being able to use the education that I've paid for because of my religious beliefs, I now have to pay a second time for private schooling or home schooling. That doesn't sound very fair to me at all.
From what I gather, you seem to think that people who want religious schooling for their kids should be financially punished for it through the taxation system, and that impedes on the ideals of religious freedom much more than a few people choosing relgious schools with vouchers as far as I am concerned.
I don't see how allowing a parent to make a choice as to how their kid is educated their their own money (which is, essentially what tax dollars are) constitutes an endorsement of religion. The parents are as free to choose an aethist setting as they are a Catholic setting. The argument just doesn't hold water, methinks.
The ACLU has a left-wing agenda, and it shines on through with inconsistencies such as this. (And before you say anything, know that I work with the ACLU on the Nevada Campaign to Defeat the PATRIOT Act. So there.)
We already demonstrated that printers can be retrofitted cheaply and work somewhat reliably. We haven't had to do a recount yet, so no idea if the process is reliable or not. On that note, however, we don't have Diebold machines either; while I don't know if Sequoia Pacific is any better, I already know that Diebold is pretty much the standard for bad systems.
The local PBS affiliate, KLVX, has been excluding 3rd-party candidates from all of their televised debates. They made up some rule that you have to pull at least 5% in the last election for that same office. In other words... you have to run for the same office over and over before they'll let you in.
In 2002, I was out with a group of people from my party picketing the station. We challenged the candidates to refuse to go on unless they had our candidate on as well. They, naturally, politely declined. We then showed up to protest a 2nd non-televised debate, one that had a lot of newspaper reporters around. They let him in after 10 minutes. He ended up being the only candidate that answered questions instead of talking about how tough he is. (We created the David Roger Drinking Game based on this debate.)
If the DS is going to suck juice like the WiFi card in my Clie, I would hope they'll include a feature to turn it off when not in use, a really good battery, or both. Sooner or later, we need to figure out how to effectively manage power consumption on all of these portable devices.
So where's the invitation to Peroutka, then? I didn't see him name mentioned in that press release, and he's on more ballots than Nader or Cobb. Last I checked, Nader wouldn't be able to muster enough electoral votes to be elected, so inviting him is going on the basis of name recognition.
Hatch is Mormon. Utah is mostly Mormon. You do the math. It's about as polarized as votes along racial lines, to be honest. Of course, I'm Mormon and I think the guy is a putz, but I don't live in Utah either (nor would I ever). Maybe some of you Utah geeks need to get off your duffs and do something about Hatch. Maybe even run against him.
I've never posted anonymous, even when it means getting modded down. Ever since I got Excellent karma, it's stayed there. I wonder if that's a function of meta-mods keeping the mods in check.
I used to work at that place during the dot com explosion, and they had some pretty neat Java-based video stuff that ran very nicely even on modems. They even ended up making the broadcast software Java-based so that they didn't need to install software anywhere. Of course, the downturn took it's toll and I think it's run out of some person's house now or something.
That was my first thought. It seems that companies these days are really eager to make up some new certification that's really a technology that's been around for years.
I prefer my information presented with an obvious and admitted slant. It's much easier to take in the grains of salt that way. What really peeves me is when a news source tries to pawn itself off as being impartial or balanced when it really isn't. I can totally deal with bias if you'll just be upfront with it.
If you send them a written letter, that carries a lot of weight. Get your friends to do it too. I've heard that each written letter is counted as representing from 10 to 20 other people that didn't bother to write.
With Bush and the Republican Party? I'm banking on the first scenario to be most likely. He's already looking at re-activating the draft in March of 2005, and has pushed hard for the PATRIOT Act to stay right where it is (prosecuting Americans and not terrorists no less). Peroutka might be seen as more extreme, though I see his extremism being right of libertarian and not right of authoritarian so he gets MY vote. (Not to mention I've met him face-to-face and he's a REALLY nice and genuine guy. I don't know that I'd be able to say the same after meeting either Bush or Kerry.)
We are in agreement. I'm not arguing that's the way it should be (though that seems to be what people are thinking, from what I can see), but it is the way it is.
Funny, I still don't see it. I'm looking at Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." I only see a 2/3 majority being required for expelling someone from the Senate.
If you can cite me somewhere in the Constitution where is states otherwise, please do. Even if such a rule exists outside the Constitution, it could be struck down in the Supreme Court if it takes a narrow definition.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
When you click that "OK" button when it says "Buy for the next 24 hours", that's the agreement. You don't have to sign some piece of paper to be bound by terms of sale.
You still miss the point that you have violated the purchasing/rental agreement when you do that. It doesn't really matter if there was physical delivery of a product.
Part of the agreement when you buy a PPV movie is that you have a limited window in which to watch it. You didn't buy the right to watch it whenever you want, do why do you demand it anyway? If you don't want to watch it right then, don't buy it right then. This is akin to renting a movie from Blockbuster, returning it 3 weeks late and then demanding no late fees because you didn't watch it until the night before.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who thinks the electoral college is going to be done away with needs a big phat reality check. This is something that will require a Constitutional amendment to change, which requires 2/3 approval of the House and Senate. Such a measure may clear the House, but the Senate, where the small states have as much say as the big states, will likely reject is since it would weaken their power. At least 25 states would end up being losers under this change, more than enough to block passage in the Senate.
Even if, by some miracle, it passes the Senate, it still has to be approved by 38 state legislatures, and usually amendments sunset in 7-10 years. Chances are that it would languish and die.
The Electoral College was designed the same as the Congress, to protect the smaller states from the larger states. I am loathe to upset this balance.
Do yourself a BIG favor and get some books on LDAP. If you don't, it's like trying to translate Klingon into Arabic using a poodle as your interpreter. I once tried setting up an LDAP server for a shared address book before I had any clue what I was doing, and I learned to regret that exercise in frustration.
Yes, there are more than a few of us on here. :P
I've had plenty of fun using LDS Mingle, LDS LinkUp, and LDS Singles. It's a lot less awkward than asking out that cute girl in your ward. Mingle and Singles are both directed at dating, though LinkUp is a lot less formal, kinda like "Friendster for Mormons".
If you aren't LDS... then start looking for some of those specialized dating sites. There are sites for Jews, Catholics, aethists, right-wingers, left-wingers, apoliticals... pretty much any classification you can pigeonhole yourself into. I think their strength is a certain level of filtering out some of the worst of the Internet.
And one last note... yes, the better sites cost money. Don't be cheap: ladies will so not be impressed by that.
If you don't like how the electors are assigned, I would recommend going to your state legislature. They are responsible for how those votes are assigned. I personally like the Maine system whereby all but two of the votes are assigned to the winners of each of the Congressional districts with the overall winner of the state picking up the last two.
The electoral college does exactly what it was meant to do: it keeps larger states from steamrolling smaller states. That was the same idea behind the US Senate. I've found a lot of those protections built-in to the Constitution, and I would be loathe to get rid of them.
So now I'm an "asshole" because I remember that those tax dollars used to be in my wallet. Nice. Real nice. I'll just otherwise ignore that little dig.
I can understand why you oppose vouchers on those grounds, but, by your logic, I would have just as valid a reason to oppose government money funding abortion. I consider that an endorsement of the practice as well as funding it.
My view is that government schools unofficially support secular humanism as the "official religion", and I wouldn't want my kids in that environment. (As a fun note, did you know that teachers are twice as likely to send their kids to private school as you or I? Don't take my word for it: read it for yourself.) So now, instead of being able to use the education that I've paid for because of my religious beliefs, I now have to pay a second time for private schooling or home schooling. That doesn't sound very fair to me at all.
From what I gather, you seem to think that people who want religious schooling for their kids should be financially punished for it through the taxation system, and that impedes on the ideals of religious freedom much more than a few people choosing relgious schools with vouchers as far as I am concerned.
I don't see how allowing a parent to make a choice as to how their kid is educated their their own money (which is, essentially what tax dollars are) constitutes an endorsement of religion. The parents are as free to choose an aethist setting as they are a Catholic setting. The argument just doesn't hold water, methinks.
The ACLU has a left-wing agenda, and it shines on through with inconsistencies such as this. (And before you say anything, know that I work with the ACLU on the Nevada Campaign to Defeat the PATRIOT Act. So there.)
We already demonstrated that printers can be retrofitted cheaply and work somewhat reliably. We haven't had to do a recount yet, so no idea if the process is reliable or not. On that note, however, we don't have Diebold machines either; while I don't know if Sequoia Pacific is any better, I already know that Diebold is pretty much the standard for bad systems.
The local PBS affiliate, KLVX, has been excluding 3rd-party candidates from all of their televised debates. They made up some rule that you have to pull at least 5% in the last election for that same office. In other words... you have to run for the same office over and over before they'll let you in.
In 2002, I was out with a group of people from my party picketing the station. We challenged the candidates to refuse to go on unless they had our candidate on as well. They, naturally, politely declined. We then showed up to protest a 2nd non-televised debate, one that had a lot of newspaper reporters around. They let him in after 10 minutes. He ended up being the only candidate that answered questions instead of talking about how tough he is. (We created the David Roger Drinking Game based on this debate.)
No matter where you go, the monopoly is enforced.
Well... Hatch is a musician. He sells CDs. You do the math. ;)
If the DS is going to suck juice like the WiFi card in my Clie, I would hope they'll include a feature to turn it off when not in use, a really good battery, or both. Sooner or later, we need to figure out how to effectively manage power consumption on all of these portable devices.
So where's the invitation to Peroutka, then? I didn't see him name mentioned in that press release, and he's on more ballots than Nader or Cobb. Last I checked, Nader wouldn't be able to muster enough electoral votes to be elected, so inviting him is going on the basis of name recognition.
Hatch is Mormon. Utah is mostly Mormon. You do the math. It's about as polarized as votes along racial lines, to be honest. Of course, I'm Mormon and I think the guy is a putz, but I don't live in Utah either (nor would I ever). Maybe some of you Utah geeks need to get off your duffs and do something about Hatch. Maybe even run against him.
I've never posted anonymous, even when it means getting modded down. Ever since I got Excellent karma, it's stayed there. I wonder if that's a function of meta-mods keeping the mods in check.
I was sitting in Atlanta-Hartsfield for an extra 70 minutes thanks to that bastard.
I used to work at that place during the dot com explosion, and they had some pretty neat Java-based video stuff that ran very nicely even on modems. They even ended up making the broadcast software Java-based so that they didn't need to install software anywhere. Of course, the downturn took it's toll and I think it's run out of some person's house now or something.
That was my first thought. It seems that companies these days are really eager to make up some new certification that's really a technology that's been around for years.
I prefer my information presented with an obvious and admitted slant. It's much easier to take in the grains of salt that way. What really peeves me is when a news source tries to pawn itself off as being impartial or balanced when it really isn't. I can totally deal with bias if you'll just be upfront with it.
If you send them a written letter, that carries a lot of weight. Get your friends to do it too. I've heard that each written letter is counted as representing from 10 to 20 other people that didn't bother to write.
With Bush and the Republican Party? I'm banking on the first scenario to be most likely. He's already looking at re-activating the draft in March of 2005, and has pushed hard for the PATRIOT Act to stay right where it is (prosecuting Americans and not terrorists no less). Peroutka might be seen as more extreme, though I see his extremism being right of libertarian and not right of authoritarian so he gets MY vote. (Not to mention I've met him face-to-face and he's a REALLY nice and genuine guy. I don't know that I'd be able to say the same after meeting either Bush or Kerry.)
We are in agreement. I'm not arguing that's the way it should be (though that seems to be what people are thinking, from what I can see), but it is the way it is.
Funny, I still don't see it. I'm looking at Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." I only see a 2/3 majority being required for expelling someone from the Senate.
If you can cite me somewhere in the Constitution where is states otherwise, please do. Even if such a rule exists outside the Constitution, it could be struck down in the Supreme Court if it takes a narrow definition.
I suppose that depends on what guns the guys can have, now doesn't it? Anywho, I seem to recall a few instances where a technologically inferior force still prevailed.
When you click that "OK" button when it says "Buy for the next 24 hours", that's the agreement. You don't have to sign some piece of paper to be bound by terms of sale.
You still miss the point that you have violated the purchasing/rental agreement when you do that. It doesn't really matter if there was physical delivery of a product.
Part of the agreement when you buy a PPV movie is that you have a limited window in which to watch it. You didn't buy the right to watch it whenever you want, do why do you demand it anyway? If you don't want to watch it right then, don't buy it right then. This is akin to renting a movie from Blockbuster, returning it 3 weeks late and then demanding no late fees because you didn't watch it until the night before.