"The option of an internal body scan will more quickly exonerate the innocent and ensure a minimum of delay for legitimate travellers," Mr O'Connor said.
news.com.au is the Australian counterpart of The Onion, I hope. Right?
Getting the mission done with as few deaths as possible is the morally right thing for a commander to do.
If there is a choice to be made between manipulating senators, and getting your people killed, I'd choose manipulating congressmen any time.
Among other things, you're presenting us with a false dilemma, are you not? That your only two choices are manipulation of your leaders or extra deaths among your people?
That would be called jury tampering were the defense to do it.
And it would be called a "mistrial" if the jurors went and did their own research on the case, rather than confining their judgement to what they hear in court. I can't see why a judge would allow attorneys to investigate jurors outside of the courtroom process.
Well I finally did read TFP referred to by the abstract in TFA mentioned in TFS. And it sure looks like they just de-soldered the ICs and popped them into a dead-bug socked on their "Ming the Merciless" custom controller board.
I guess what concerns me the most about SSDs is data recovery. Is that any harder on SSDs than regular disks? Or is data recovery a moot point since there are no moving parts?
That's the other side of the data security coin, isn't it? Getting it back after some "unfortunate incident". Wei and Grupp seem to suggest that it's easier, at least how I read it. And it sounds like they're just hacking around the control logic: "we have designed a procedure to bypass the flash translation layer (FTL) on SSDs and directly access the raw NAND flash chips". Whether or not they mean "ICs" when they say "chips", I dunno. Kinda makes a big difference if you've got to saw, pry or etch off the package vs. do a little desoldering.
Does it want your money?
Does it want your mind?
Does it want to govern your life?
It's a cult.
Of course/. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill;-)
That may be a little bit overly broad, since just about any organization with dues and a code of ethics would fit your definition. So, yes, I'd agree that/.ers will be able to list hundreds, if not thousands of things.
The anarchists cookbook also has many things in it that are too dangerous to do, or wouldn't work at all. Some of them have a significant probability of hurting you.
Well, that was the allure of having the book in junior high, wasn't it? And if you did that stuff and survived, you were really the shit. Bonus points for scarring.
I recently borrowed a friend's camera, and used that and my own camera on a trip (I was experimenting with her better camera). I got home, and realised the clocks were different on the cameras. I needed consistent times so the photographs showed up in time order when I put them in the same directory, so I did
for i in IMG_0*; do exiv2 -a '-1:12' $i; done
which fixed the timestamps (removed 1h12m from the timestamp). exiv2 -T set the file modification time to the EXIF time.
That is a good idea with the timestamps to fix that clock offset problem.
Now, I'm honestly not trying to piss on anyone's parade, but all the fixes to make photographs more practically searchable require you to have taken (past tense) a certain degree of care in getting the metadata in the photos (or the files, or the filenames, or directory names) into some sort of organized (and accurate) scheme upon creating/downloading them.
My point is this really only works in a going-forward kind of sense. It's the huge backlog that the original poster of this story seemed to be alluding to. And not just the backlog of a geek's files -- which would probably be better organized than most (which still isn't saying much) -- but also those of family members whose actions are totally out of one's control. And don't get me started on scanned versions of old prints/slides . ..
You can always photograph a clock if you don't have time to sort out the EXIF data when you download the photos.
Now that's a really good idea. Even better if that clock displays date, too. And it's something that I might actually remember to do -- well, from now on. I remember as a kid that I was a little smarter than I am now -- at least I thought so then -- and I would always take some sort of "establishing shot" before each session: the big sign at the entrance to the national park, the program from a wedding, etc. I hadn't done that or even thought about it inapproximately forever.
And as a BTW. I'd mentioned in earlier post that I've had cameras that lost all their time info on total battery discharge. I'm pleased to note that my latest has a backup. That's the good news. It also has a "daylight savings" checkbox in the clock settings. And it was checked -- just now. So I should apply your time offset adjustment to all the photos in my collection taken since last DST switch with that camera. As to last year's photos, I don't know if I had unchecked that box or not. I guess the hour difference isn't that big of a deal compared to my other organizational problems, though.
Yeah... but surely if you don't spend the money you're losing it right? So it makes sense not to keep large sums of longer periods of time otherwise its value decreases.
Actually, it's the other way around with deflation. If you don't spend the money, it becomes more valuable in terms of what it can buy. So you'd want to keep as few goods on hand as possible, and delay buying anything you could. And you certainly wouldn't want to take out a loan to buy anything . . .
Search for pictures with bob in the name at the year of the marriage... DONE!!!
If only . . . Unfortunately, I really haven't put even that much metadata in the file names, like Bob's name, so it'd be a matter of going through all the photos from that year. Assuming also I had the date set right on the digital camera. I've screwed that up for at least a while just about every time I let the thing's batteries completely die -- clock resets. Just about all my pics are named something like DSC0056.jpg and have a date code earlier than the camera was made.
So my lack of planning ahead really screws me over in terms of simple searching.
Good idea in theory, but in practice -- at least for me -- most files aren't going to have enough data in the filename and tags (if any) to search for pictures from Uncle Bob's second wedding. Unless, of course, you've sorted all your pics and tagged/named all the pics from that event.
Some kind of picture/video/audio searching that would be effective seems a long way away, at least if you're looking for the aforementioned wedding as opposed to all pictures with blue flowers.
You have to pay for internet service to a smart phone, some people (such as myself) see that as a waste of money, when I have internet at home, and the smart phones/plans don't allow tethering without a jailbreak (ie, put you at risk for losing internet or your whole phone)
I think in most cases one could find an unlocked smart phone with wifi. Then you don't have to buy a data plan and can use your internet enabled stuff at home, the office, Starbucks, etc. (If you wanted a smartphone to sort-of replace a laptop or netbook and a phone.) Up front cost would probably be higher. I did that for a while, then broke down and got a data plan. I'm not totally sure the data plan is that useful, but it's not $30 a month extra for me, more like $19, which I guess is some kind of sweet spot in my personal accounting.
There is no middle ground (from my perspective). You either go “dumb phone” or all out.
Does a dumb phone have a camera? Or could it have a camera? And the basics of PIM functionality -- address book, calendar, appointments, etc? If so, then my last phone would qualify as a dumb phone and I was quite happy. So if this is what you mean, then I'd agree completely.
If a dumb phone were dumber than that, I guess I'd call what I had a "middle ground". I can't help it. I thought a camera in a phone was stupid at first, but it's been both fun and handy and capturing quick pictures that I'd never have snapped before. Got some cute photo-album snapshots that way. And some crazy signs and other stuff to amuse myself in the boring periods between leap-year-days.
I can give "100x Frank IOU Note" or some service. Then you can use that to get another service from someone else, or from me. Eventually though, that IOU note *must* be used to purchase something from the originator. Only I, the originator, can take Frank IOU notes out from circulation.
That's not necessarily true. If you have enough people believing in the value of the currency, then it has value. Which is not really any different from anything that's traded. It never needs to get back to you. You could even declare it to be valueless, and someone might still trade for it. Consider works of art. Someone might even consider your IOU as such. But today, artists (at least self-described artists) exchange Artist Trading Cards in a renaissance of the old tradition of trading works of art -- especially portable ones -- for other commodities. These modern ATCs are supposedly not to be sold, but I'm sure some must be. And their price would depend on how much you valued it.
That's how ALL world currencies work. USD is ultimately only "meaningful" in the US. The Euro, in the European Union. The Canadian Dollar is only worth anything in Canada. These are the IOU notes that people tend to accept.
Money supply is regulated by central banks, so money amount in the economy matches the economic value. Taxes are used to remove currency. Government spending is used to inject the said currency back into circulation. That's the crux of how the currency works.
That's only one way a government can affect the money supply. For just one example, a government could "print" more money and spend that. And forces other than the government can affect it, too. I think you're under the assumption that currency only has value because a government issues it and somehow backs it up. And also that only a government can issue currency. There are plenty of examples of non-government-issued currencies that were/are traded for goods and services. And plenty of examples of currencies issued by governments being used outside the jurisdiction of the issuing government. Maybe you meant some different by "only worth anything [where issued]", so sorry if I misunderstood you.
Who decides how BTC works? Who regulates the amount in circulation - oh wait, it was already capped at 21 million. That means if the currency becomes useful for anything, it will suffer from MASSIVE deflation as its value spikes to $10+k to 1 BTC and the original users will get very rich, if they dump it on the way up. If entire world only used BTC, the value would have to be millions of dollars per 1 BTC. ha!!
Sorry, but that is not how currency is suppose to work. Whoever was selling stuff for BTC basically is banking on this deflation which is already massive. Giant pyramid scheme.
OK, the idea of a currency with only a fixed amount of possible money circulating does sound a little crazy. And it could lead to deflation -- this does happen when money supplies contract. I'd agree with that. But the Bitcoin -- again, like anything traded -- is also only as valuable as its demand vs supply. If no one wants it, it's value will decrease.
To reach "parity with the dollar" means nothing. A Yen may be worth $0.01, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING about the strength of the Yen.
True, but if you knew historical values of the Yen or Bitcoin vs. the Dollar (or any other currency) you might know something about it . ..
And then there's this point from TFS: "BitCoin was launched in early 2009, so in only two years this open source currency has gone from having no value at all to one with not only an open market of competing exchanges, but the ability to buy real goods and services . .." Actually, that's about 1/2 TFS, so it is short enough to read in its entirety. As is TFA . ..
Rupert Murdoch is one of the sleaziest bastards on earth, and he's an opinionated sumbitch as well.
I'm not sure if that means Murdoch is himself opinionated. He uses public his influence on public opinion to further his goals, not necessarily because he believes that swaying opinion itself is good. A Linux zealot or a religious missionary wants to convert others to his way of thinking because his belief is that that conversion itself is for the greater good. (I'm sure someone can find a counter-example, but I believe my generalization is sufficiently true here.) But for Murdoch, it's a means to a different end.
The video game controversy is not this, though. Murdoch, or Fox News or Fox Networks doesn't stand to directly gain anything by generating an outcry over a video game. This "story" is just some "red meat" for the viewers. It gets them stirred up over something new and scary, like the new pool table in town. Not because you hate pool (but love billiards). No, it's to get the town to form a "boys band" to keep the kids out of trouble. And not because you oppose the kids getting in trouble, either. No, it's so you can sell them a bunch of instruments and uniforms, etc. and make a quick buck. I bet you could flesh that idea out and make a pretty good story . ..
In this case Fox is getting people stirred up over a video game to make them more susceptible to what they're really trying to sell. Stuff like "smaller government," particularly in areas where the government regulates its own business -- like relaxing FCC ownership rules. Did Murdoch become a US Citizen because of our proud history? Our culture? The beauty of our landscape? No, it was to eliminate the "citizenship" problem with owning media in this country.
ALL of his media and publications reflect those facts. Fox is no more conservative than I am a rocket scientist. Fox is a tool, designed for the purpose of shaping public opinion.
Can't argue with that. They take a "conservative" approach (however one might define that) when it fits their agenda to accomplish what they want. As you suggest, it's a tool. Like my screwdriver. I use it to drive screws, not because I believe in the greatness of the screwdriver as a tool, but because it suits the purpose.
Bullshit. That is simply your own hallucination and interpretation which, as I stated above, supports what you choose to believe. When I do see a few minutes of the "news", whatever the station/channel/outlet, I am always amazed that people like yourself choose to *not* see the blatant attempt at brainwashing that these so-called "news shows" exhibit.
No, FoxNews is the worst. Does this mean no others are not guilty? Does this make the statement that Fox is the worst an hallucination?
FWIW - I stopped watching all of them 7+ years ago
I'd suggest that you can't have it both ways: not watching them and having an opinion on the current state of programming.
Also, does Glenn Beck kidnap and eat children? I don't know, I'm just asking questions. I know they'll try to silence me on this with moderation. That's OK. I'm posting this for you, not for me. I don't care what they do to me. This is not about me: this is about your right to know.
It could be worse. They could be voting for both spending increases and tax increases.
Taxes never balance the budget in a situation like you've apparently got, because when an "acceptable deficit level" is found, all that increasing taxes does is mask the cost of the spending and make it appear that even even more increases are possible...
How exactly would the people demonstrating a willingness to pay for what they want their government to provide be "worse"? Wouldn't that be the definition of "fiscal responsibility"?
Slashdot Mirror
"The option of an internal body scan will more quickly exonerate the innocent and ensure a minimum of delay for legitimate travellers," Mr O'Connor said.
news.com.au is the Australian counterpart of The Onion, I hope. Right?
Getting the mission done with as few deaths as possible is the morally right thing for a commander to do.
If there is a choice to be made between manipulating senators, and getting your people killed, I'd choose manipulating congressmen any time.
Among other things, you're presenting us with a false dilemma, are you not? That your only two choices are manipulation of your leaders or extra deaths among your people?
That would be called jury tampering were the defense to do it.
And it would be called a "mistrial" if the jurors went and did their own research on the case, rather than confining their judgement to what they hear in court. I can't see why a judge would allow attorneys to investigate jurors outside of the courtroom process.
I'm going to set up a Facebook page with a status permanently set to "I can spot a guilty person a mile away!"
That will get me out of jury duty for now... until Facebook is made irrelevant or goes under.
All you need is a college degree better than an Associate to get struck from the pool in most cases.
If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably smart enough to be a juror.
If he's smart enough to be a juror, he's probably gonna get struck.
This is not a virus.
Thanks for reminding me of one of my favorite movies . . .
Clouseau: Does your dog bite?
Hotel Clerk: No.
Clouseau: [bowing down to pet the dog] Nice doggie.
[Dog barks and bites Clouseau in the hand]
Clouseau: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
Hotel Clerk: That is not my dog.
I don't get it on Chrome or Firefox. Methinks they need a faster broadband connection . . .
Well I finally did read TFP referred to by the abstract in TFA mentioned in TFS. And it sure looks like they just de-soldered the ICs and popped them into a dead-bug socked on their "Ming the Merciless" custom controller board.
I guess what concerns me the most about SSDs is data recovery. Is that any harder on SSDs than regular disks? Or is data recovery a moot point since there are no moving parts?
That's the other side of the data security coin, isn't it? Getting it back after some "unfortunate incident". Wei and Grupp seem to suggest that it's easier, at least how I read it. And it sounds like they're just hacking around the control logic: "we have designed a procedure to bypass the flash translation layer (FTL) on SSDs and directly access the raw NAND flash chips". Whether or not they mean "ICs" when they say "chips", I dunno. Kinda makes a big difference if you've got to saw, pry or etch off the package vs. do a little desoldering.
Does it want your money? Does it want your mind? Does it want to govern your life? It's a cult. Of course /. 'ers will list about a hundred other things that fit that bill ;-)
That may be a little bit overly broad, since just about any organization with dues and a code of ethics would fit your definition. So, yes, I'd agree that /.ers will be able to list hundreds, if not thousands of things.
The anarchists cookbook also has many things in it that are too dangerous to do, or wouldn't work at all. Some of them have a significant probability of hurting you.
Well, that was the allure of having the book in junior high, wasn't it? And if you did that stuff and survived, you were really the shit. Bonus points for scarring.
I recently borrowed a friend's camera, and used that and my own camera on a trip (I was experimenting with her better camera). I got home, and realised the clocks were different on the cameras. I needed consistent times so the photographs showed up in time order when I put them in the same directory, so I did for i in IMG_0*; do exiv2 -a '-1:12' $i; done which fixed the timestamps (removed 1h12m from the timestamp). exiv2 -T set the file modification time to the EXIF time.
That is a good idea with the timestamps to fix that clock offset problem.
Now, I'm honestly not trying to piss on anyone's parade, but all the fixes to make photographs more practically searchable require you to have taken (past tense) a certain degree of care in getting the metadata in the photos (or the files, or the filenames, or directory names) into some sort of organized (and accurate) scheme upon creating/downloading them.
My point is this really only works in a going-forward kind of sense. It's the huge backlog that the original poster of this story seemed to be alluding to. And not just the backlog of a geek's files -- which would probably be better organized than most (which still isn't saying much) -- but also those of family members whose actions are totally out of one's control. And don't get me started on scanned versions of old prints/slides . . .
You can always photograph a clock if you don't have time to sort out the EXIF data when you download the photos.
Now that's a really good idea. Even better if that clock displays date, too. And it's something that I might actually remember to do -- well, from now on. I remember as a kid that I was a little smarter than I am now -- at least I thought so then -- and I would always take some sort of "establishing shot" before each session: the big sign at the entrance to the national park, the program from a wedding, etc. I hadn't done that or even thought about it inapproximately forever.
And as a BTW. I'd mentioned in earlier post that I've had cameras that lost all their time info on total battery discharge. I'm pleased to note that my latest has a backup. That's the good news. It also has a "daylight savings" checkbox in the clock settings. And it was checked -- just now. So I should apply your time offset adjustment to all the photos in my collection taken since last DST switch with that camera. As to last year's photos, I don't know if I had unchecked that box or not. I guess the hour difference isn't that big of a deal compared to my other organizational problems, though.
Yeah... but surely if you don't spend the money you're losing it right? So it makes sense not to keep large sums of longer periods of time otherwise its value decreases.
Actually, it's the other way around with deflation. If you don't spend the money, it becomes more valuable in terms of what it can buy. So you'd want to keep as few goods on hand as possible, and delay buying anything you could. And you certainly wouldn't want to take out a loan to buy anything . . .
Search for pictures with bob in the name at the year of the marriage... DONE!!!
If only . . . Unfortunately, I really haven't put even that much metadata in the file names, like Bob's name, so it'd be a matter of going through all the photos from that year. Assuming also I had the date set right on the digital camera. I've screwed that up for at least a while just about every time I let the thing's batteries completely die -- clock resets. Just about all my pics are named something like DSC0056.jpg and have a date code earlier than the camera was made.
So my lack of planning ahead really screws me over in terms of simple searching.
Search, don't sort.
Good idea in theory, but in practice -- at least for me -- most files aren't going to have enough data in the filename and tags (if any) to search for pictures from Uncle Bob's second wedding. Unless, of course, you've sorted all your pics and tagged/named all the pics from that event.
Some kind of picture/video/audio searching that would be effective seems a long way away, at least if you're looking for the aforementioned wedding as opposed to all pictures with blue flowers.
You have to pay for internet service to a smart phone, some people (such as myself) see that as a waste of money, when I have internet at home, and the smart phones/plans don't allow tethering without a jailbreak (ie, put you at risk for losing internet or your whole phone)
I think in most cases one could find an unlocked smart phone with wifi. Then you don't have to buy a data plan and can use your internet enabled stuff at home, the office, Starbucks, etc. (If you wanted a smartphone to sort-of replace a laptop or netbook and a phone.) Up front cost would probably be higher. I did that for a while, then broke down and got a data plan. I'm not totally sure the data plan is that useful, but it's not $30 a month extra for me, more like $19, which I guess is some kind of sweet spot in my personal accounting.
Exactly.
There is no middle ground (from my perspective). You either go “dumb phone” or all out.
Does a dumb phone have a camera? Or could it have a camera? And the basics of PIM functionality -- address book, calendar, appointments, etc? If so, then my last phone would qualify as a dumb phone and I was quite happy. So if this is what you mean, then I'd agree completely.
If a dumb phone were dumber than that, I guess I'd call what I had a "middle ground". I can't help it. I thought a camera in a phone was stupid at first, but it's been both fun and handy and capturing quick pictures that I'd never have snapped before. Got some cute photo-album snapshots that way. And some crazy signs and other stuff to amuse myself in the boring periods between leap-year-days.
deflation
What's wrong with things getting cheaper?
Nothing. It's the selling them tomorrow for even cheaper that gets you.
I can give "100x Frank IOU Note" or some service. Then you can use that to get another service from someone else, or from me. Eventually though, that IOU note *must* be used to purchase something from the originator. Only I, the originator, can take Frank IOU notes out from circulation.
That's not necessarily true. If you have enough people believing in the value of the currency, then it has value. Which is not really any different from anything that's traded. It never needs to get back to you. You could even declare it to be valueless, and someone might still trade for it. Consider works of art. Someone might even consider your IOU as such. But today, artists (at least self-described artists) exchange Artist Trading Cards in a renaissance of the old tradition of trading works of art -- especially portable ones -- for other commodities. These modern ATCs are supposedly not to be sold, but I'm sure some must be. And their price would depend on how much you valued it.
That's how ALL world currencies work. USD is ultimately only "meaningful" in the US. The Euro, in the European Union. The Canadian Dollar is only worth anything in Canada. These are the IOU notes that people tend to accept.
Money supply is regulated by central banks, so money amount in the economy matches the economic value. Taxes are used to remove currency. Government spending is used to inject the said currency back into circulation. That's the crux of how the currency works.
That's only one way a government can affect the money supply. For just one example, a government could "print" more money and spend that. And forces other than the government can affect it, too. I think you're under the assumption that currency only has value because a government issues it and somehow backs it up. And also that only a government can issue currency. There are plenty of examples of non-government-issued currencies that were/are traded for goods and services. And plenty of examples of currencies issued by governments being used outside the jurisdiction of the issuing government. Maybe you meant some different by "only worth anything [where issued]", so sorry if I misunderstood you.
Who decides how BTC works? Who regulates the amount in circulation - oh wait, it was already capped at 21 million. That means if the currency becomes useful for anything, it will suffer from MASSIVE deflation as its value spikes to $10+k to 1 BTC and the original users will get very rich, if they dump it on the way up. If entire world only used BTC, the value would have to be millions of dollars per 1 BTC. ha!!
Sorry, but that is not how currency is suppose to work. Whoever was selling stuff for BTC basically is banking on this deflation which is already massive. Giant pyramid scheme.
OK, the idea of a currency with only a fixed amount of possible money circulating does sound a little crazy. And it could lead to deflation -- this does happen when money supplies contract. I'd agree with that. But the Bitcoin -- again, like anything traded -- is also only as valuable as its demand vs supply. If no one wants it, it's value will decrease.
To reach "parity with the dollar" means nothing. A Yen may be worth $0.01, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING about the strength of the Yen.
True, but if you knew historical values of the Yen or Bitcoin vs. the Dollar (or any other currency) you might know something about it . . .
And then there's this point from TFS: "BitCoin was launched in early 2009, so in only two years this open source currency has gone from having no value at all to one with not only an open market of competing exchanges, but the ability to buy real goods and services . . ." Actually, that's about 1/2 TFS, so it is short enough to read in its entirety. As is TFA . . .
Rupert Murdoch is one of the sleaziest bastards on earth, and he's an opinionated sumbitch as well.
I'm not sure if that means Murdoch is himself opinionated. He uses public his influence on public opinion to further his goals, not necessarily because he believes that swaying opinion itself is good. A Linux zealot or a religious missionary wants to convert others to his way of thinking because his belief is that that conversion itself is for the greater good. (I'm sure someone can find a counter-example, but I believe my generalization is sufficiently true here.) But for Murdoch, it's a means to a different end.
The video game controversy is not this, though. Murdoch, or Fox News or Fox Networks doesn't stand to directly gain anything by generating an outcry over a video game. This "story" is just some "red meat" for the viewers. It gets them stirred up over something new and scary, like the new pool table in town. Not because you hate pool (but love billiards). No, it's to get the town to form a "boys band" to keep the kids out of trouble. And not because you oppose the kids getting in trouble, either. No, it's so you can sell them a bunch of instruments and uniforms, etc. and make a quick buck. I bet you could flesh that idea out and make a pretty good story . . .
In this case Fox is getting people stirred up over a video game to make them more susceptible to what they're really trying to sell. Stuff like "smaller government," particularly in areas where the government regulates its own business -- like relaxing FCC ownership rules. Did Murdoch become a US Citizen because of our proud history? Our culture? The beauty of our landscape? No, it was to eliminate the "citizenship" problem with owning media in this country.
ALL of his media and publications reflect those facts. Fox is no more conservative than I am a rocket scientist. Fox is a tool, designed for the purpose of shaping public opinion.
Can't argue with that. They take a "conservative" approach (however one might define that) when it fits their agenda to accomplish what they want. As you suggest, it's a tool. Like my screwdriver. I use it to drive screws, not because I believe in the greatness of the screwdriver as a tool, but because it suits the purpose.
Bullshit. That is simply your own hallucination and interpretation which, as I stated above, supports what you choose to believe. When I do see a few minutes of the "news", whatever the station/channel/outlet, I am always amazed that people like yourself choose to *not* see the blatant attempt at brainwashing that these so-called "news shows" exhibit.
No, FoxNews is the worst. Does this mean no others are not guilty? Does this make the statement that Fox is the worst an hallucination?
FWIW - I stopped watching all of them 7+ years ago
I'd suggest that you can't have it both ways: not watching them and having an opinion on the current state of programming.
Also, does Glenn Beck kidnap and eat children? I don't know, I'm just asking questions. I know they'll try to silence me on this with moderation. That's OK. I'm posting this for you, not for me. I don't care what they do to me. This is not about me: this is about your right to know.
Hey, 0 out of 0 would still be 100%
ERROR 02 DIV BY ZERO
Does the tax increase apply to everybody, or just the people that voted for the increased spending?
Do you oppose democracy?
It could be worse. They could be voting for both spending increases and tax increases.
Taxes never balance the budget in a situation like you've apparently got, because when an "acceptable deficit level" is found, all that increasing taxes does is mask the cost of the spending and make it appear that even even more increases are possible...
How exactly would the people demonstrating a willingness to pay for what they want their government to provide be "worse"? Wouldn't that be the definition of "fiscal responsibility"?