While I agree with your point that businesses are fucked up beyond belief (to use my own words), I'd like to point out "they can be voted out of office."
Now, take a look at incumbency rates. Last I checked, they were around 98%. Now, I'm quite certain 98% of our politicians are not doing an adequate job. In fact, I think 98% is far too low a percentage of politicians that need to get the fuck out of office.
I've, at this point, given up pretty much any hope of there ever being any change in government for the better. Businesses, too, for that matter. At this point, I can only hope that when Big Brother establishes rule, I die on the battlefield against him rather than live in some Orwellian distopia....Maybe I'm being a tad melodramatic, but still, I'm not too pleased with the way we're headed.
I will admit I'm not a tech-savvy person (by slashdot standards. Compared to normal people, simply knowing the difference between Windows, OS X, and Linux makes me a super-genius). Even so, for me, the idea of having Internet access to super-important structures online is a bad idea. Sure, it might be convenient for certain overweight employees to work from home (possibly using a dipping bird to hit the "y" key frequently), but obviously it makes it a bit too easy for extremist/mercenary/bored hackers to gain access.
Wouldn't it make sense to ONLY have access to these all important function on a seperate server with access only possible in person on site?
I play PC games, too, but yeah, I doubt that developers will give up a market as large as the XP user base for one that is much smaller without being paid-off by Microsoft.
And even if that DID happen... Well, I own a Wii, a DS, and a PS2. I'm set for a good, long time.
Well, it has 512MB RAM. Not too much, not too little. It really depends on how much I have running at a given moment (ABC, Firefox, Word, etc. all adds up. I tend to work on a lot of little projects at once)
And why do they expect us to take an unneeded change?
I have two computers at my desk. A 7-year-old Pentium III desktop and this laptop, an IBM T-43p. The desktop is extremely slow, but serves perfectly fine for music, photo, and document storage. The laptop I'm using has a smaller HD, but works great for playing newer games and any application too powerful for the aging desktop.
In essence, I'm set. Why should I spend so much money to experiment on an OS that: A) is so far unproven B) Will not run properly on my desktop C) does not support all my devices D) See, cost.
As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I use what I have, and it works just fine. So, where's my incentive to change?
Don't look at me. I knew Bush was a bad idea from the moment I laid eyes on him. I knew all his pals were just as bad. I knew his plans for Iraq were bad as soon as I heard them. I knew they tried to confuse Saddam and Osama. I just knew it. And I told people I knew, but they didn't believe me.
Of course, the problem was, even if they did, the alternatives weren't great either. Better, but that's a very relative term. I want a better government, too, but I don't even know how. I'm a 20 year old engineering major. What can I do? Protest? Protests have flooded Washington to the point it was a sea of people. Nothing change. It doesn't help that "protest leaders" also tend to be rather... radical. Petitions? Like the White House or congress cares. So, what do you do? The people who have the power to change the system like the system for what it is. The people who want change don't get that power to begin with.
I think Douglas Adams summarized the situation best: "People are a problem."
It sounds like the only way to solve America's growing problem of corporations taking over is... a good old fashioned rumble.
Microsoft v. Wal*Mart! GE v. Disney! Halliburton v. Exxon-Mobile!
This sunday, sunday, SUNDAY, watch white collar workers get red in the face and a bad case of the Mondays! Marketers place ads all OVEr each other's faces! Accountants will be adding up plenty of lumps!
And for the finale, Steve Ballmer v. Eisner! Hold on to your seats, because somebody is gonna get CEOwned!
Wasn't there a time when people said trains, or any fast moving vehicle, would be obviously impossible because all the air would be blown away and you'd suffocate?
Yeah. I'm with the parent post on this one. Reality and what people think rarely have anything to do with each other.
I find this to be highly illogical and foolish. How can you say that with a planet nearby called URANUS? The joke is as old as the name. Clearly, you are either clueless to astronomy, or a troll.
Personally, Pluto shouldn't be so down. It has confirmed land. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus (or as it will later be known, Urectum), (and possibly Neptune) do not. "Hey Jupiter, I bet you can't wait to have someone land on you and plant a flag... oh, wait, that's right. YOU CAN'T!" "Hey, Saturn, look what I can do. Notice all this SOLID I can do, hmm? Why don't you give it a try sometime!"
I was referring to the way the RIAA was controlling the cops. The RIAA should have no control over law enforcement. It's one thing to be aware of a crime and report it, it's another to get on a radio dispatch and tell them to get there now (not what happened in TFA, but my point still stands).
But overall, yes, this is a justified action, IMHO. Bootleg sellers are quite clearly profiting from another's work, and that's most definitely past where the line is drawn.
IANAL, but in my opinion, piracy and selling fake copies for a profit are two entirely different crimes and should be treated as such. So, normally, I'm the first to jump on the back of the "let's lynch some record-execs" bandwagon, but I can't really say I'm too bothered by these people's arrests. I think it's one thing to download/burn a copy of a CD, and quite another to charge others for it.
The morality and legality of filesharing is a blurry line, but I'm fairly certain most of us can agree which side this belongs on. (Though I'm not too sure of how I feel about their usage of law enforcement. I mean, if they could just find these copiers themselves and tell the cops, rather than a sort of raid... ah, I don't know.)
1. My original comment was a joke, and a way of expressing that I see no value whatsoever in most forms of modern music and movies. Obviously the fact that people DO pirate this stuff suggests others do not agree. 2. The reason the RIAA/MPAA make the news here is because of their behavior. They sue many, many, many people. Joe Shmoe who owns a record shop in Detroit does not. "Nobody sues no one" is not a news story. 3. You accuse slashdot of picking only stories that make the RIAA look bad, without the stories detailing the harm piracy causes to the little guy. Well, care to cite a few sources?/. is not a news organization. It's a site that links to other stories on other pages. Do you KNOW of any articles concerning this topic? Have you submitted them? 4. Should the market collapse due to piracy (And I have my doubts to this), big and small, well, that's capitalism for you. Goods were not provided at a cost people were willing to spend, especially ones that are easily replaceable, and the market was not willing to adapt, so it dies. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
And you think money grows on trees. CD-Rs and DVD-Rs cost money! Besides, that means I'd have to FIND the CD I want with the song I want, put it in, wait for it to load, THEN play it. Who has that kind of time anymore?
I thought the RIAA and MPAA's current strategy was working quite well: Produce shit so awful, no one would even want it for free. Lord knows I don't pirate movies or music. It'd be a waste of hard drive space.
In my professional opinion (I.E. 20 minutes in front of Wikipedia on the subject), if you're an Australian, and the MAFIAA demands to see you in court, send them a "gift basket" of some of your local flora and fauna, wink wink, nudge nudge. Maybe a couple of scorpions, a rabid koala bear, and a few dozen blue mountain spiders.
If they try to get you for this, what are they going to do, come after you? To the land where those animals CAME from? I don't think so.
Forgive me. I didn't mean to suggest that you thought it was a vegetarian. I'm just a ranter, and when I get going, I don't know where I'm going or where I was.
Personally, I've read theories saying it might not have been that fast, but I would think it would be faster than a lot of large, 4 legged creatures. (If only by thinking of modern reptiles. Some are indeed fast, but some of the fastest I've seen ran on 2 legs.) Or, as you hinted at, it could chase it to the water, and gulp it down as it drowned/got stuck.
This, and all the other evidence for evolution, does sadly suggest Jesus did NOT get to ride dinosaurs.
But I also like the Dilbert theory: Dinosaurs aren't extinct, just hiding behind furniture.
If I'm not mistaken, the Brontosaurus ate a lot of grasses and leaves. And... that's pretty much ALL they did. Eat all day. (And swallow rocks to help with digestion) Meanwhile, the T-Rex doesn't seem to be built very well for that sort of eating. The Brontosaurus has a long neck for reaching the ground, as well as a relatively small snout and mouth, for grabbing smaller plants.
The T-Rex, however, has a mouth far larger, proportionally, and would likely have difficulty grabbing small plants (and why would its mouth BE so huge for shrubs and grasses?). Its body DOES seem built for, however, chasing down other large creatures. I'm not a paleontologist, but how can these people look at the mighty T-Rex, Alosaurus, etc. and think "they ate plants?" The only explanation would be that they somehow came AFTER this so called "falling out of the garden." But, wait, would this mean a prior creature EVOLVED?
The problem with this scenario is that an arrogant asshole parent isn't that likely to realize he's an arrogant asshole parent, and the more a child looks up to said parent, being arrogant, the parent is likely to approve of this.
The solution? Let's ban stupid people from reproducing. To make it fair, I'll decide on a case by case basis. Those caught attempting reproduction without approval will be arrested and forcibly sterilized....Okay, so maybe it's more effective to just help people be better parents, but, you know, just putting the option out there.
It's nice to see a little logic on your part. I would hope it doesn't take anyone with a 1st grade education to realize that at no point in history was the T-Rex EVER a vegetarian, despite claims that there were "no carnivores." Look at the fucking teeth on those things. Sharp and point are NOT good for plants (besides, what plant would be large enough to sustain it? With the way it walked, I'd have trouble believing it would enjoy bending over to eat grass when getting up off its stomach after a fall would be most difficult (long, long legs and tail, a heavy head, and useless arms?).
It's sad not just because a lot of people CAN'T be bothered to analyze the facts themselves, but that these people continue to call creationism a science. It's not at all. Science is making observations, creating a theory, and then testing and trying to disprove that theory in order to better explain the universe. In essence, science is "How does the universe most likely work" according to the best available data we have. Creationism is picking "How the universe works" and then finding evidence that supports that conclusion. Creationism, in fact, is like the OPPOSITE of science. Science = Theory -> Evidence -> Conclusion Creationism = Conclusion -> Evidence -> Theory
I think I can reword that a little, with an extended quote. "It's better to have no rewards but deserve them than to have rewards and not deserve them." But it goes without saying than better than both is to have your rewards AND have earned them. So, it's important to be true to yourself, but we are shaped by our environment, and we are the "environment" to everyone else. So, yes, you do need to at least try to be a good role model to others around you to some degree.
Of course, if I may go on a tangent rant, I often hear about people complaining of "bad role models" on TV, and they talk about characters like Cartman on South Park. Now Cartman IS a bad role model. But you're not SUPPOSED to like him. You're supposed to be annoyed at him and enjoy his friends prove him wrong. Whatever happened to learning by example of fools? If your child is looking up to an arrogant asshole, he may have other problems that need addressing first.
Perhaps we should make this contract accessible to them more easily. Like putting them in the cellar of an old planning office. With no light. And lock it up in an old bathroom with a sign that reads "beware the leopard."
So, in the end, wouldn't that mean we'd need a series of presidential assassinations to send the message that corruption won't be tolerated? Sort of like, when autocrat X gets whacked and autocrat Y takes his place and also ends up sleeping wit' da fishes, autocrat Z start to think "maybe this isn't such a good idea?"
In theory it makes sense, but I also think the problem is, no matter what stance a president takes, extreme left, extreme right, or middle, there's some kook who'd be willing to cap him, too. The only viable solution, then, for a public figure is to increase security (which of course reduces the chance of a supposedly "justified" assassin. This of course still neglects the idea of assassinating someone for "the common good.").
So, maybe I'm just a pessimist, but it seems to me that we're in a hopeless situation. Leaders have no balance to their power if they play their cards right. Armed revolution wouldn't help. Assassinations would just be hitting the "refresh" icon on "Dictator Explorer" (with, sadly, no BSOE to wipe them away). Protests and petitions are all together ignored. (Seriously, we've had major anti-war protests galore. They've quite literally flooded D.C. But what good has it done?)
About the only thing I can think would work would be to upset the election system, so corrupt politicians weren't essentially guaranteed a free ride. But since we can't count on the people we elect to change the election process, we'd need to essentially boycott the system entirely. NO ONE votes. If we can't get reasonable candidates, we won't vote for any candidates. This could disrupt the entire system. But let's face it, that's not going to happen. We don't have the man-power to do that. We'd need to essentially convince an entire nation to do so. Sure, about 60% of the country already doesn't, but that last 40% has too many extremists and kooks and... well, corrupt people who will vote for themselves.
So, my advice?...Ummm, if you have a choice, don't be born. But if you're reading this, it's likely a little late for that.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with your point that businesses are fucked up beyond belief (to use my own words), I'd like to point out "they can be voted out of office."
...Maybe I'm being a tad melodramatic, but still, I'm not too pleased with the way we're headed.
Now, take a look at incumbency rates. Last I checked, they were around 98%. Now, I'm quite certain 98% of our politicians are not doing an adequate job. In fact, I think 98% is far too low a percentage of politicians that need to get the fuck out of office.
I've, at this point, given up pretty much any hope of there ever being any change in government for the better. Businesses, too, for that matter. At this point, I can only hope that when Big Brother establishes rule, I die on the battlefield against him rather than live in some Orwellian distopia.
I will admit I'm not a tech-savvy person (by slashdot standards. Compared to normal people, simply knowing the difference between Windows, OS X, and Linux makes me a super-genius). Even so, for me, the idea of having Internet access to super-important structures online is a bad idea. Sure, it might be convenient for certain overweight employees to work from home (possibly using a dipping bird to hit the "y" key frequently), but obviously it makes it a bit too easy for extremist/mercenary/bored hackers to gain access.
Wouldn't it make sense to ONLY have access to these all important function on a seperate server with access only possible in person on site?
I play PC games, too, but yeah, I doubt that developers will give up a market as large as the XP user base for one that is much smaller without being paid-off by Microsoft.
And even if that DID happen... Well, I own a Wii, a DS, and a PS2. I'm set for a good, long time.
Well, it has 512MB RAM. Not too much, not too little. It really depends on how much I have running at a given moment (ABC, Firefox, Word, etc. all adds up. I tend to work on a lot of little projects at once)
And why do they expect us to take an unneeded change?
I have two computers at my desk. A 7-year-old Pentium III desktop and this laptop, an IBM T-43p. The desktop is extremely slow, but serves perfectly fine for music, photo, and document storage. The laptop I'm using has a smaller HD, but works great for playing newer games and any application too powerful for the aging desktop.
In essence, I'm set. Why should I spend so much money to experiment on an OS that:
A) is so far unproven
B) Will not run properly on my desktop
C) does not support all my devices
D) See, cost.
As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I use what I have, and it works just fine. So, where's my incentive to change?
Don't look at me. I knew Bush was a bad idea from the moment I laid eyes on him. I knew all his pals were just as bad. I knew his plans for Iraq were bad as soon as I heard them. I knew they tried to confuse Saddam and Osama. I just knew it. And I told people I knew, but they didn't believe me.
Of course, the problem was, even if they did, the alternatives weren't great either. Better, but that's a very relative term. I want a better government, too, but I don't even know how. I'm a 20 year old engineering major. What can I do? Protest? Protests have flooded Washington to the point it was a sea of people. Nothing change. It doesn't help that "protest leaders" also tend to be rather... radical. Petitions? Like the White House or congress cares. So, what do you do? The people who have the power to change the system like the system for what it is. The people who want change don't get that power to begin with.
I think Douglas Adams summarized the situation best: "People are a problem."
It sounds like the only way to solve America's growing problem of corporations taking over is... a good old fashioned rumble.
Microsoft v. Wal*Mart!
GE v. Disney!
Halliburton v. Exxon-Mobile!
This sunday, sunday, SUNDAY, watch white collar workers get red in the face and a bad case of the Mondays! Marketers place ads all OVEr each other's faces! Accountants will be adding up plenty of lumps!
And for the finale, Steve Ballmer v. Eisner! Hold on to your seats, because somebody is gonna get CEOwned!
These days? Ummm... Minimum wage is about $7... minus taxes, of course. So, yeah. Something like $5-6 profit. Why do you ask?
Wasn't there a time when people said trains, or any fast moving vehicle, would be obviously impossible because all the air would be blown away and you'd suffocate?
Yeah. I'm with the parent post on this one. Reality and what people think rarely have anything to do with each other.
"Hey, it's not your size that matters, it's how you orbit, baby."
I find this to be highly illogical and foolish. How can you say that with a planet nearby called URANUS? The joke is as old as the name. Clearly, you are either clueless to astronomy, or a troll.
Personally, Pluto shouldn't be so down. It has confirmed land. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus (or as it will later be known, Urectum), (and possibly Neptune) do not. "Hey Jupiter, I bet you can't wait to have someone land on you and plant a flag... oh, wait, that's right. YOU CAN'T!" "Hey, Saturn, look what I can do. Notice all this SOLID I can do, hmm? Why don't you give it a try sometime!"
I was referring to the way the RIAA was controlling the cops. The RIAA should have no control over law enforcement. It's one thing to be aware of a crime and report it, it's another to get on a radio dispatch and tell them to get there now (not what happened in TFA, but my point still stands).
But overall, yes, this is a justified action, IMHO. Bootleg sellers are quite clearly profiting from another's work, and that's most definitely past where the line is drawn.
IANAL, but in my opinion, piracy and selling fake copies for a profit are two entirely different crimes and should be treated as such. So, normally, I'm the first to jump on the back of the "let's lynch some record-execs" bandwagon, but I can't really say I'm too bothered by these people's arrests. I think it's one thing to download/burn a copy of a CD, and quite another to charge others for it.
The morality and legality of filesharing is a blurry line, but I'm fairly certain most of us can agree which side this belongs on. (Though I'm not too sure of how I feel about their usage of law enforcement. I mean, if they could just find these copiers themselves and tell the cops, rather than a sort of raid... ah, I don't know.)
1. My original comment was a joke, and a way of expressing that I see no value whatsoever in most forms of modern music and movies. Obviously the fact that people DO pirate this stuff suggests others do not agree. /. is not a news organization. It's a site that links to other stories on other pages. Do you KNOW of any articles concerning this topic? Have you submitted them?
2. The reason the RIAA/MPAA make the news here is because of their behavior. They sue many, many, many people. Joe Shmoe who owns a record shop in Detroit does not. "Nobody sues no one" is not a news story.
3. You accuse slashdot of picking only stories that make the RIAA look bad, without the stories detailing the harm piracy causes to the little guy. Well, care to cite a few sources?
4. Should the market collapse due to piracy (And I have my doubts to this), big and small, well, that's capitalism for you. Goods were not provided at a cost people were willing to spend, especially ones that are easily replaceable, and the market was not willing to adapt, so it dies. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
And you think money grows on trees. CD-Rs and DVD-Rs cost money! Besides, that means I'd have to FIND the CD I want with the song I want, put it in, wait for it to load, THEN play it. Who has that kind of time anymore?
I thought the RIAA and MPAA's current strategy was working quite well: Produce shit so awful, no one would even want it for free. Lord knows I don't pirate movies or music. It'd be a waste of hard drive space.
In my professional opinion (I.E. 20 minutes in front of Wikipedia on the subject), if you're an Australian, and the MAFIAA demands to see you in court, send them a "gift basket" of some of your local flora and fauna, wink wink, nudge nudge. Maybe a couple of scorpions, a rabid koala bear, and a few dozen blue mountain spiders.
If they try to get you for this, what are they going to do, come after you? To the land where those animals CAME from? I don't think so.
Forgive me. I didn't mean to suggest that you thought it was a vegetarian. I'm just a ranter, and when I get going, I don't know where I'm going or where I was.
Personally, I've read theories saying it might not have been that fast, but I would think it would be faster than a lot of large, 4 legged creatures. (If only by thinking of modern reptiles. Some are indeed fast, but some of the fastest I've seen ran on 2 legs.) Or, as you hinted at, it could chase it to the water, and gulp it down as it drowned/got stuck.
This, and all the other evidence for evolution, does sadly suggest Jesus did NOT get to ride dinosaurs.
But I also like the Dilbert theory: Dinosaurs aren't extinct, just hiding behind furniture.
If I'm not mistaken, the Brontosaurus ate a lot of grasses and leaves. And... that's pretty much ALL they did. Eat all day. (And swallow rocks to help with digestion) Meanwhile, the T-Rex doesn't seem to be built very well for that sort of eating. The Brontosaurus has a long neck for reaching the ground, as well as a relatively small snout and mouth, for grabbing smaller plants.
The T-Rex, however, has a mouth far larger, proportionally, and would likely have difficulty grabbing small plants (and why would its mouth BE so huge for shrubs and grasses?). Its body DOES seem built for, however, chasing down other large creatures. I'm not a paleontologist, but how can these people look at the mighty T-Rex, Alosaurus, etc. and think "they ate plants?" The only explanation would be that they somehow came AFTER this so called "falling out of the garden." But, wait, would this mean a prior creature EVOLVED?
The problem with this scenario is that an arrogant asshole parent isn't that likely to realize he's an arrogant asshole parent, and the more a child looks up to said parent, being arrogant, the parent is likely to approve of this.
...Okay, so maybe it's more effective to just help people be better parents, but, you know, just putting the option out there.
The solution? Let's ban stupid people from reproducing. To make it fair, I'll decide on a case by case basis. Those caught attempting reproduction without approval will be arrested and forcibly sterilized.
I'm not a theologian, (thank God, ironically) but I'm pretty sure that was a slang term and easy way of saying that Moses was ugly.
"Verily, didst thou see unto the face of thine wench?"
"Indeed I hath, and if I mayest, she surely hath seen the Glory of God."
The ancient equivalent of "Did you see that girl?" "Oh yeah, she's butt-ugly."
On a side note, the devil is rumored to also be pretty damn ugly. Where did you think the expression "ugly as sin" came from?
It's nice to see a little logic on your part. I would hope it doesn't take anyone with a 1st grade education to realize that at no point in history was the T-Rex EVER a vegetarian, despite claims that there were "no carnivores." Look at the fucking teeth on those things. Sharp and point are NOT good for plants (besides, what plant would be large enough to sustain it? With the way it walked, I'd have trouble believing it would enjoy bending over to eat grass when getting up off its stomach after a fall would be most difficult (long, long legs and tail, a heavy head, and useless arms?).
It's sad not just because a lot of people CAN'T be bothered to analyze the facts themselves, but that these people continue to call creationism a science. It's not at all. Science is making observations, creating a theory, and then testing and trying to disprove that theory in order to better explain the universe. In essence, science is "How does the universe most likely work" according to the best available data we have. Creationism is picking "How the universe works" and then finding evidence that supports that conclusion. Creationism, in fact, is like the OPPOSITE of science.
Science = Theory -> Evidence -> Conclusion
Creationism = Conclusion -> Evidence -> Theory
I think I can reword that a little, with an extended quote. "It's better to have no rewards but deserve them than to have rewards and not deserve them." But it goes without saying than better than both is to have your rewards AND have earned them. So, it's important to be true to yourself, but we are shaped by our environment, and we are the "environment" to everyone else. So, yes, you do need to at least try to be a good role model to others around you to some degree.
Of course, if I may go on a tangent rant, I often hear about people complaining of "bad role models" on TV, and they talk about characters like Cartman on South Park. Now Cartman IS a bad role model. But you're not SUPPOSED to like him. You're supposed to be annoyed at him and enjoy his friends prove him wrong. Whatever happened to learning by example of fools? If your child is looking up to an arrogant asshole, he may have other problems that need addressing first.
Perhaps we should make this contract accessible to them more easily. Like putting them in the cellar of an old planning office. With no light. And lock it up in an old bathroom with a sign that reads "beware the leopard."
So, in the end, wouldn't that mean we'd need a series of presidential assassinations to send the message that corruption won't be tolerated? Sort of like, when autocrat X gets whacked and autocrat Y takes his place and also ends up sleeping wit' da fishes, autocrat Z start to think "maybe this isn't such a good idea?"
...Ummm, if you have a choice, don't be born. But if you're reading this, it's likely a little late for that.
In theory it makes sense, but I also think the problem is, no matter what stance a president takes, extreme left, extreme right, or middle, there's some kook who'd be willing to cap him, too. The only viable solution, then, for a public figure is to increase security (which of course reduces the chance of a supposedly "justified" assassin. This of course still neglects the idea of assassinating someone for "the common good.").
So, maybe I'm just a pessimist, but it seems to me that we're in a hopeless situation. Leaders have no balance to their power if they play their cards right. Armed revolution wouldn't help. Assassinations would just be hitting the "refresh" icon on "Dictator Explorer" (with, sadly, no BSOE to wipe them away). Protests and petitions are all together ignored. (Seriously, we've had major anti-war protests galore. They've quite literally flooded D.C. But what good has it done?)
About the only thing I can think would work would be to upset the election system, so corrupt politicians weren't essentially guaranteed a free ride. But since we can't count on the people we elect to change the election process, we'd need to essentially boycott the system entirely. NO ONE votes. If we can't get reasonable candidates, we won't vote for any candidates. This could disrupt the entire system. But let's face it, that's not going to happen. We don't have the man-power to do that. We'd need to essentially convince an entire nation to do so. Sure, about 60% of the country already doesn't, but that last 40% has too many extremists and kooks and... well, corrupt people who will vote for themselves.
So, my advice?