Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
There is input, output and logic. Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc. The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output. The output is the climate prediction.
The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.
Of course, there are many that will challenge the data (input) as well (weather stations located inside an active volcano, etc).
gl hf
It appears as though it is not so much the logic as the magnitude of one of the input variables of the model looks to be incorrect. In this case, the incorrect input is the size of the Earth's energy loss. I believe the new data will allow for a correction on this input magnitude.
I'm assuming that variables are part of the logic. The input in this case would be our current climate, amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, etc.. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere varies greatly depending on the current starting climate. For example, if the model assumes current average global equatorial temp is 0 Kelvin, then adding 20% more CO2 to the atmosphere won't make much difference. However, if the average global equatorial temp is assumed to be 38C, a slight increase in CO2 can make a huge difference as it traps more heat, causing more water to evaporate, which traps much more heat than CO2 and the cycle continues.
The input is your starting point. The problem in this case is the variable of how much heat the earth keeps when atmospheric CO2 is increased. We have found, using real world data, that the earth doesn't keep as much heat as we thought it would. This variable needs to be corrected. I assume that the CO2 "variable" is calculated, which would be more logic. Sure, once that variable is corrected, the calculations will change that that result will be a variable somewhere else, but it's still part of the algorithms that make up the model.
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
Oh My GOD! This is a nerd site. Get your definitions correct!
There is input, output and logic. Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc. The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output. The output is the climate prediction.
The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.
Of course, there are many that will challenge the data (input) as well (weather stations located inside an active volcano, etc).
Very good skewering of all of those electricity-hating, pro-Chinese hippies I've never seen or heard of. If they are real, and are somehow reading that (maybe pedal-powered computers?) they must feel pretty stupid.
He was probably talking about those Apple products hippies like so much.
Why can't I make prostitution illegal on my plot of land? Ultimately, shouldn't I be able to decide? And I'm sure anti-abortionists would feel that banning it in some states, and not in others, is akin to having slavery in the state next door: morally unjustifiable. We clearly recognize that there are basic human rights -- and some less obvious -- that deserve upholding both here and abroad.
Actually, you may make prostitution legal if you want... in Nevada. Laws against prostitution are state laws. If you want to make it "illegal" on your land, say, in a state where it is legal, than you may. It's your land. If you don't want someone paying for sex on your land, then kindly ask them to leave. If you want to be a pimp, and do it legally, you may petition your local state legislature to make prostitution legal or move to a state where it already is (Nevada is the only one).
You mentioned slavery. Slavery is a fine example of how this is supposed to work. There was no federal law against slavery and no Constitutional given power for the federal government to make one. The solution? Amend the Constitution, which is exactly what happened. So, if you want abortion to be legal in all 50 states, then the Constitution should be amended to allow it. Otherwise, it should be up for each state to decide.
We don't consider murder in Somalia acceptable just because there's no functioning government to decide that it's wrong -- we're unlikely to be okay with morality issues varying much at all across state (or county) boundaries. We're uncomfortable with them varying across national boundaries as it is.
Exactly. I'm not comfortable with, say, child prostitution in Somalia, but frankly, there is nothing I can do about it. If Kentucky wanted to make child prostitution legal, it would also make me extremely uncomfortable. For that matter, I believe it would make so many people uncomfortable with it that we would either amend the Constitution to stop it or stop doing business with any company based in KY or that continues to do business in KY. One way or the other, it would stop.
The Civil Rights Act is another example. I believe it was Ron Paul who got in trouble for saying it is no longer necessary. If a burger joint said "whites only", would you eat there? I certainly wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. That all cracker burger joint would go out of business and a burger joint with no such limitations would replace it. And even if the market didn't fix the problem, and then the states didn't fix the problem, then it would be up to the feds to step in and make it so that it couldn't happen anywhere, ever again (again, Constitutional amendment).
We need to find solutions that don't require removing people from their current geographical area.
You have a point, but it comes down to choice. Let's say Obama's health care plan funds abortions. If I don't want my tax dollars used to fund abortions, because my religion is against it, what choice do I have? I have none. I have to pay for something I vehemently oppose or I can go to jail. Not really a choice. If done at a state level, you would be free to move. Sure, you might stay in the state you're in and bitch and moan about it, but at least you have a choice. But if you make all states the same by laws at a federal level, you strip me of that choice along with anyone else who happens to disagree with at least 50.00001% of the population. Remember, what works for NY City may not work for Climax Michigan. Why should they have the same laws?
The TP wants less government power over big business. They couldn't care less if you have to be forced by the government to carry any pregnancy to term.
Strange. Everyone I know that has attended a TEA Party rally doesn't give a rat's ass about big business. They want the federal government out of THEIR lives. Also, abortion is not a TEA Party position. Letting the states decide whether or not to allow abortion, however, is. I've met just as many TEA Partiers that want the legality of marijuana to be state issue as I've met that abortion to be a state issue. And sure, there are those at the really that are just there because they are further right than Republicans, but these people are idiots who don't know what they are supporting. Unfortunately, these are the people that you see on TV. See, reporters want you to think that the TEA Party is full of a bunch of gun-totin' red-necks. They even showed a picture of a man carrying a gun at a "racist charged" TEA Party. What they didn't show was the man's head, where you could see clearly see that black. HERE is a video of reporters calling the TEA Party an angry, racist group with "white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist." Remember, the man they were talking about was black.
States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?
Well, whatever you want. Your state could legalize marijuana. Your state could legalize gay marriage. Your state could ban abortion. Really, it's whatever your state wanted to do.
However, you are correct that their are limits. Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states. Coining money, for example is a federal job. States may not coin their own money. Also, states may not violate Constitutional rights. For example, an Oklahoma policeman may not search your house without a warrant. Utah may not decide that Mormon is the state religion. New York City may not prevent the NYPost from publishing a politically damaging story about the Mayor.
As for being forced to move for economic reasons, maybe there is a reason why a different state has a better economy than yours. Maybe it's good roads. Maybe it's lower taxes. Maybe that other state found the perfect balance between roads and taxes. Whatever it is, if a state sucks at governing itself, then the people will move to a state that does a better job of it until that state gets its act together. As for you, I agree; Oklahoma sux! But there is a reason why you could find a job there and not a state of your liking. You have to decide which one you like better. Do you want a job or do you want to live with like minded people that are all unemployed but also think that Oklahoma sucks.
The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).
As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).
Slavery is banned by the Constitution so the feds could get involved.
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities.
The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk. All other roads should be purely state funded. That would cut our federal highway budget by a substantial amount. Of course, states would have to raise taxes to pay for the building and maintenance of state highways, so it would end up being a wash to the taxpayer. The difference is that my tax dollars would not be going to build a bridge in Minnesota and Michiganders would not be paying for the road that takes me to work. I would actually have more control over which roads are placed where and if my state doesn't think roads are worth maintaining, than we can use the tax dollars saved to repair our cars. It's OUR CHOICE!
There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government.
Actually, it is the state government. The state should have taxed the mine enough money to clean up the site. After the site was cleaned up, any left over money should have gone back to the company that owns the mine. This tax refund would encourage the company to be good stewards to begin with. If the state didn't tax that mine to begin with... well that's the state's problem. I'll bet they'll tax it next time! Either way, if I never used coal from a mine in West Virginia, my tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for the cleanup of a WV coal mine. If I did use that coal, the price would have been inflated to pay the taxes used for the cleanup. Remember, companies don't pay taxes; customers do.
The Federal government does have a very needed purpose in the lives of the people and anyone that doesn't think so is completely ignorant.
I don't live in Boston. Billions of federal tax dollars went for the "Big Dig" there. How is the "Big Dig" a "very needed purpose" in my life? I've never seen it. I'll never drive through it. Why did I help pay for it? Why can't Boston, or the state of Massachusetts pay for that? They are the ones benefiting from it. The state government can do a better job of filling those "very needed purposes" to the people of that state than the federal government can.
I'm not saying everything they do is great, but there are some things that the market simply wouldn't care to do even if they had the opportuninty to do so.
Not the market. State and local government. If the product crosses state lines, then the feds get involved.
Safe food? Government. Safe housing? Government. Safe infrastructure? Government. Clean air and Water? Government. State government can only do so much and a lot of what it can do is pretty ineffectual when you consider the broader implications of interstate commerce.
You said the magic words, "interstate commerce". If food crosses state lines, it falls under federal regulation. But if I want to sell my world famous tomato sauce at a local farmer's market, the feds should stay out of it. You could say the same for air and water to a lesser extent as both tend to cross state lines. Although, if a city gets its water from a lake, I don't see how the feds could get involved. If a state pollutes a river that flows into another state, that other state should sue the state or company that produces the pollution in federal courts. If pollution from a power plant pollutes another state, the polluted state should sue. However, they would need to prove t
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Well put! The programs that are Constitutional should not be slashed. The programs that are not Constitutional need to be eliminated.
Government has a purpose. Our government's purpose is spelled out plainly in the Constitution. Anything beyond that violates the Constitution per the 10th Amendment. However, I do believe that the government should not be limited to what's currently in the Constitution, but if it needs to do more, there is an amendment process that will allow for whatever expanded powers the federal government needs.
The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.
No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.
The TEA Party wants LESS government power, not more. Think of them as "Fiscal Libertarians".
So, if they are corrupt, as you say, wouldn't that means they want MORE government power? I think you got it backwards.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.
It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."
Actually it just proves that we should trust neither slashdot nor truth-out.org for headlines. If you read TFA it essentially says that a case is made that the architecture made it *possible* for fraud to have occurred; and TFA is apparently trying to slant that as proof that it *did* occur. It is less clear whether or not those pursuing the case are trying to make the same point; or if their point is only to prove that the architecture allowed the possibility of fraud.
TFA is guilty of not having any idea how computers work. They claim the vote totals were manipulated by a "man in the middle" machine that received votes from the precincts, changed them, and then forwarded them on be counted. The site assumes that electronic data is the same as paper data, meaning that once you send it, you no longer have a copy of it. The article never makes any attempt to show that the data forwarded by the supposed "man in the middle" computer was somehow different than the data it received and even implies that such verification would be impossible. All TFA does is say that the servers that collected the data changed it, as if it were fact, for no other reason than a result they didn't expect, even though it matched polling data prior to the election.
Here is just a single example of the crap from the article (emphasis mine):
The filing also includes the revealing deposition of the late Michael Connell. Connell served as the IT guru for the Bush family and Karl Rove. Connell ran the private IT firm GovTech that created the controversial system that transferred Ohio's vote count late on election night 2004 to a partisan Republican server site in Chattanooga, Tennessee owned by SmarTech. That is when the vote shift happened, not predicted by the exit polls, that led to Bush's unexpected victory. Connell died a month and a half after giving this deposition in a suspicious small plane crash.
So the vote totals went from the precincts (article doesn't say how GovTech received the data or where from, so we have to assume), and sent it to a "partisan Republican server", (can a server be partisan?) out of state, which is where the vote totals changed. What happened to the totals after they hit SmarTech? Does SmarTech host a website that simply posts vote totals to the public? Article doesn't say. We are left to assume that somehow, SmarTech then forwarded the totals to the Ohio Secretary of State. So, according to TFA, the votes went like this: precincts --> GovTech --> SmarTech --> (We don't know, but somewhere official), instead of precincts --> Secretary of State servers. Why?
Seriously? No independent, or even partisan group has bother to look at the vote totals, reported precinct by precinct on every news network in America received directly from the precincts themselves, and realized that the numbers that reported then were different than the final count?
This article is pure BS. I think the point is to accuse Republicans of vote tampering to insulate the Democrats from any accusations in the next election. Or maybe they are just hoping that GWB was never really elected. Who knows. It's BS either way.
So long as each state is wholly responsible for their own election standards and processes, even for presidential elections, there will be no way to address problems centrally in an organized fashion.
You could also say: So long as each state is wholly responsible for their own election standards and processes, even for presidential elections, there will be no way to corrupt them centrally in an organized fashion.
Look up videos taken in Ohio of the 04 election and you'll see the poor neighborhoods would get one or two broke ass machines while the rich areas got MUCH more machines than required, those that tried to hand voters a slip that pointed out their right to ask for a provisional ballot, since they were making people wait several hours in line only to tell them "you're in the wrong place" and expect them to go do it all over again were first threatened and then arrested, the whole thing was a scam from the word go.
You do realize that elections, even federal ones, are handled locally, right? This means that if "poor neighborhoods" had faulty equipment, then it was the fault of the local officials who brought in faulty equipment. It's not like Karl Rove sat in his command center and dictated which precincts would get what equipment. These decisions are made locally, just as the "butterfly ballot" in Florida 2000 was designed by a Democrat.
Umm... The unemployment numbers have always been garbage. The length of time that unemployment could be collected has been increased, so the numbers went up.
The Republicans would drop it to a month, and the numbers would be down to a couple of percent, and they'd say "Look how we improved things! Low unemployment!" while people are jobless, starving in the streets.
The unemployment numbers are not based on how many people are drawing unemployment. They are based on how many people are actually looking for a job that don't currently have one. If they were based on what you think they are, wouldn't that make Democrats morons for extending benefits and artificially inflating the statistics?
You are correct that the numbers are skewed, and unemployment benefits are a likely cause, but not in the reason you would think. See, as long as people can live their lives without having a job, many won't. Another problem is that many will continue to receive unemployment benefits while working "under the table". While these people may be gainfully employed, they will gladly be counted as unemployed to leech off the government tit for as long as possible.
Another problem is that when people give up on finding a job, they are no longer counted as being "unemployed", even though they may not actually be employed. There is a reason for that, however. You don't want every house-wife/husband, parents on maternity leave, retirees, students, children, and those working "under the table" counted. On the other hand, you DO want to count all these/.'ers that are sitting in their mom's basement playing WOW all day who don't have jobs, and don't really care to get one. (I envy those bastards!)
Glad to set you straight, but I'm sorry that I've taken away one of your made up justifications for hating Republicans. I'm sure you will hate them no less, regardless of the facts you run across that disprove your bias. Besides, your facts are so much more convenient as they help justify the hatred you already feel and make you feel OK for hating someone. It would kinda make you an asshole if you were to find out that Republicans really don't want to see people starving in the streets and still hated them like you do, now wouldn't it.
That depends on how you recount. If you recount the entire state gore wins. If you only do the contested areas then bush wins.
If you change the rules and recount the whole state, then Gore may have won. However, as I remember it, James Baker, the representative for the Republicans in FL 2000 wanted a full state recount but the Gore people rejected it, opting to only recount the heavily Democratic areas trying to squeeze every vote out of the areas where he was likely to get more votes and leave the Republican areas as they were.
If what you say is true, and I have heard nothing to back that up, then it sounds like the Democrats screwed themselves. So Bush didn't steal the election. Democrats gave it to him.
Its past the time for the US and others to remove all of their troops from the middle east and other trouble spots and let them sort their own problems out and kill each other in peace.
Hey! That's is exactly what we did in Afghanistan. How did that work out?
... or Snow Leopard from the same machine you're using... and use CMD-OPT-SHIFT-DELETE
But I know you're just attempting to be an ass.
Actually, I thought I was quite successful at being an ass.
Truth be told, I love Macs. I really wish I could have one. Unfortunately, money is tight. When I'm looking at getting a new computer, my options are to build my own, top of the line machine with quality components for $500 (drives, case, video card, monitor, keyboards and mouse usually get reused, add about $300 to replace those), or I can buy a mid-range Mac with much lower specs that I can't upgrade for $799. This is Apple store price as of right now for a Mac Mini with a 2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, 4GB memory, a 500GB hard drive, and an AMD Radeon HD 6630M (no monitor, keyboard, or mouse). An iMac *STARTS* at $1199 and a Mac Pro *STARTS* at $2499, both with lower or similar specs to the Mac Mini.
Think I'll stick with building my own. I guess now I'm an ass that just proved that Apple products are over priced. How ya like them Apples?!
That desktop is on its way out, too. When smartphones with Mini-HDMI output proliferate then many people will have lost their last reason to have a real computer.
You're close.
Keyboard and mouse. That's my main reason for continuing to use a computer.
I predict universal docking stations for phones soon. Everywhere you go, you have your "computer" with you. When you get to the office or house, you simply drop your phone into the dock (or not if wireless) and you are doing your work/play on your 24" LCD with full keyboard and mouse.
> a year of Linux on the tv (boxee box, google tv, all the embedded TV experiences)
Could be TVs are running Linux underneath now, in which case, another embedded win. As for the other two, let's stick with hardware people actually buy. Google will drop their hardware experiment, and boxee will be gone within two years, I guarantee it.
Tivo runs Linux. As does the DVR that came from DishNetwork. I believe many of the others run Linux as well, but I only have one TV provider.
Oh, and GoogeTV is being embedded in many TV's and is an option on several DVR's provided by Cable/TV providers.
"In fact" I know at least one person whose mac book pro doesn't boot after the update to Lion (well it does, but on an endless "updating" loop)
That's an easy fix. It is so easy in fact, it shows the power of Apple computers.
Here are the steps you take: 1) Power the system off 2) Press and hold to power button to turn the machine on. Keep holding this down. If you release this button, the system will boot normally, so keep holding it down. 3) As soon as the Apple logo appears, press the command-control-shift-alt-C, F1, F12, and ESC keys at the same time and hold them down. 4) Right before you hear the Apple opening chord sound, place your Lion CD into the drive. It has to be within 1.5 seconds before the sound or it won't work.... Wait, what? You don't have the CD?
OK, do this: 1) Get your OS9 CD from your old B&W Mac....
So if you're just going to use closed source software anyways (Nvidia drivers) then what's the point of using Linux? Why not just get your money up and buy a UNIX workstation that doesn't suck.
Because nVidia didn't need permission to write the drivers and I don't have to install them. There are also open source drivers for most nVidia cards out there that I can use instead or I can just use the standard 2D drivers that work fine as long as you don't hope to do OpenGL. Then again, why would you have an nVidia card if you don't plan on doing 3D?
I would agree that this was just bad customer service training, but since this actually made it to court, AND WAS CHALLENGED BY VERIZON, this tells me that it is a matter of corporate policy. Verizon wanted so bad to NOT give her an itemized bill, they paid lawyers to go to court to try to defend their behavior and lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up. The best possible stewardship of a NON-RENEWABLE resource is to not consume it at all.
Says the guy using a computer that depends on the very same resources he's saying WE shouldn't consume.
Bravo!
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
There is input, output and logic.
Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc.
The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output.
The output is the climate prediction.
The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.
Of course, there are many that will challenge the data (input) as well (weather stations located inside an active volcano, etc).
gl hf
It appears as though it is not so much the logic as the magnitude of one of the input variables of the model looks to be incorrect. In this case, the incorrect input is the size of the Earth's energy loss. I believe the new data will allow for a correction on this input magnitude.
I'm assuming that variables are part of the logic. The input in this case would be our current climate, amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, etc.. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere varies greatly depending on the current starting climate. For example, if the model assumes current average global equatorial temp is 0 Kelvin, then adding 20% more CO2 to the atmosphere won't make much difference. However, if the average global equatorial temp is assumed to be 38C, a slight increase in CO2 can make a huge difference as it traps more heat, causing more water to evaporate, which traps much more heat than CO2 and the cycle continues.
The input is your starting point. The problem in this case is the variable of how much heat the earth keeps when atmospheric CO2 is increased. We have found, using real world data, that the earth doesn't keep as much heat as we thought it would. This variable needs to be corrected. I assume that the CO2 "variable" is calculated, which would be more logic. Sure, once that variable is corrected, the calculations will change that that result will be a variable somewhere else, but it's still part of the algorithms that make up the model.
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
Oh My GOD! This is a nerd site. Get your definitions correct!
There is input, output and logic.
Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc.
The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output.
The output is the climate prediction.
The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.
Of course, there are many that will challenge the data (input) as well (weather stations located inside an active volcano, etc).
Very good skewering of all of those electricity-hating, pro-Chinese hippies I've never seen or heard of. If they are real, and are somehow reading that (maybe pedal-powered computers?) they must feel pretty stupid.
He was probably talking about those Apple products hippies like so much.
Why can't I make prostitution illegal on my plot of land? Ultimately, shouldn't I be able to decide? And I'm sure anti-abortionists would feel that banning it in some states, and not in others, is akin to having slavery in the state next door: morally unjustifiable. We clearly recognize that there are basic human rights -- and some less obvious -- that deserve upholding both here and abroad.
Actually, you may make prostitution legal if you want... in Nevada. Laws against prostitution are state laws. If you want to make it "illegal" on your land, say, in a state where it is legal, than you may. It's your land. If you don't want someone paying for sex on your land, then kindly ask them to leave. If you want to be a pimp, and do it legally, you may petition your local state legislature to make prostitution legal or move to a state where it already is (Nevada is the only one).
You mentioned slavery. Slavery is a fine example of how this is supposed to work. There was no federal law against slavery and no Constitutional given power for the federal government to make one. The solution? Amend the Constitution, which is exactly what happened. So, if you want abortion to be legal in all 50 states, then the Constitution should be amended to allow it. Otherwise, it should be up for each state to decide.
We don't consider murder in Somalia acceptable just because there's no functioning government to decide that it's wrong -- we're unlikely to be okay with morality issues varying much at all across state (or county) boundaries. We're uncomfortable with them varying across national boundaries as it is.
Exactly. I'm not comfortable with, say, child prostitution in Somalia, but frankly, there is nothing I can do about it. If Kentucky wanted to make child prostitution legal, it would also make me extremely uncomfortable. For that matter, I believe it would make so many people uncomfortable with it that we would either amend the Constitution to stop it or stop doing business with any company based in KY or that continues to do business in KY. One way or the other, it would stop.
The Civil Rights Act is another example. I believe it was Ron Paul who got in trouble for saying it is no longer necessary. If a burger joint said "whites only", would you eat there? I certainly wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. That all cracker burger joint would go out of business and a burger joint with no such limitations would replace it. And even if the market didn't fix the problem, and then the states didn't fix the problem, then it would be up to the feds to step in and make it so that it couldn't happen anywhere, ever again (again, Constitutional amendment).
We need to find solutions that don't require removing people from their current geographical area.
You have a point, but it comes down to choice. Let's say Obama's health care plan funds abortions. If I don't want my tax dollars used to fund abortions, because my religion is against it, what choice do I have? I have none. I have to pay for something I vehemently oppose or I can go to jail. Not really a choice. If done at a state level, you would be free to move. Sure, you might stay in the state you're in and bitch and moan about it, but at least you have a choice. But if you make all states the same by laws at a federal level, you strip me of that choice along with anyone else who happens to disagree with at least 50.00001% of the population. Remember, what works for NY City may not work for Climax Michigan. Why should they have the same laws?
The TP wants less government power over big business. They couldn't care less if you have to be forced by the government to carry any pregnancy to term.
Strange. Everyone I know that has attended a TEA Party rally doesn't give a rat's ass about big business. They want the federal government out of THEIR lives. Also, abortion is not a TEA Party position. Letting the states decide whether or not to allow abortion, however, is. I've met just as many TEA Partiers that want the legality of marijuana to be state issue as I've met that abortion to be a state issue. And sure, there are those at the really that are just there because they are further right than Republicans, but these people are idiots who don't know what they are supporting. Unfortunately, these are the people that you see on TV. See, reporters want you to think that the TEA Party is full of a bunch of gun-totin' red-necks. They even showed a picture of a man carrying a gun at a "racist charged" TEA Party. What they didn't show was the man's head, where you could see clearly see that black. HERE is a video of reporters calling the TEA Party an angry, racist group with "white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist." Remember, the man they were talking about was black.
Don't let the media form your opinions for you.
States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?
Well, whatever you want. Your state could legalize marijuana. Your state could legalize gay marriage. Your state could ban abortion. Really, it's whatever your state wanted to do.
However, you are correct that their are limits. Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states. Coining money, for example is a federal job. States may not coin their own money. Also, states may not violate Constitutional rights. For example, an Oklahoma policeman may not search your house without a warrant. Utah may not decide that Mormon is the state religion. New York City may not prevent the NYPost from publishing a politically damaging story about the Mayor.
As for being forced to move for economic reasons, maybe there is a reason why a different state has a better economy than yours. Maybe it's good roads. Maybe it's lower taxes. Maybe that other state found the perfect balance between roads and taxes. Whatever it is, if a state sucks at governing itself, then the people will move to a state that does a better job of it until that state gets its act together. As for you, I agree; Oklahoma sux! But there is a reason why you could find a job there and not a state of your liking. You have to decide which one you like better. Do you want a job or do you want to live with like minded people that are all unemployed but also think that Oklahoma sucks.
48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state
There are 100 US Senators, not 50. Each state gets 2.
Correct, I meant 49/50. I guess I'll have to forgive that 57 states comment.
The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).
As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).
Slavery is banned by the Constitution so the feds could get involved.
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities.
The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk. All other roads should be purely state funded. That would cut our federal highway budget by a substantial amount. Of course, states would have to raise taxes to pay for the building and maintenance of state highways, so it would end up being a wash to the taxpayer. The difference is that my tax dollars would not be going to build a bridge in Minnesota and Michiganders would not be paying for the road that takes me to work. I would actually have more control over which roads are placed where and if my state doesn't think roads are worth maintaining, than we can use the tax dollars saved to repair our cars. It's OUR CHOICE!
There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government.
Actually, it is the state government. The state should have taxed the mine enough money to clean up the site. After the site was cleaned up, any left over money should have gone back to the company that owns the mine. This tax refund would encourage the company to be good stewards to begin with. If the state didn't tax that mine to begin with... well that's the state's problem. I'll bet they'll tax it next time! Either way, if I never used coal from a mine in West Virginia, my tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for the cleanup of a WV coal mine. If I did use that coal, the price would have been inflated to pay the taxes used for the cleanup. Remember, companies don't pay taxes; customers do.
The Federal government does have a very needed purpose in the lives of the people and anyone that doesn't think so is completely ignorant.
I don't live in Boston. Billions of federal tax dollars went for the "Big Dig" there. How is the "Big Dig" a "very needed purpose" in my life? I've never seen it. I'll never drive through it. Why did I help pay for it? Why can't Boston, or the state of Massachusetts pay for that? They are the ones benefiting from it. The state government can do a better job of filling those "very needed purposes" to the people of that state than the federal government can.
I'm not saying everything they do is great, but there are some things that the market simply wouldn't care to do even if they had the opportuninty to do so.
Not the market. State and local government. If the product crosses state lines, then the feds get involved.
Safe food? Government. Safe housing? Government. Safe infrastructure? Government. Clean air and Water? Government. State government can only do so much and a lot of what it can do is pretty ineffectual when you consider the broader implications of interstate commerce.
You said the magic words, "interstate commerce". If food crosses state lines, it falls under federal regulation. But if I want to sell my world famous tomato sauce at a local farmer's market, the feds should stay out of it. You could say the same for air and water to a lesser extent as both tend to cross state lines. Although, if a city gets its water from a lake, I don't see how the feds could get involved. If a state pollutes a river that flows into another state, that other state should sue the state or company that produces the pollution in federal courts. If pollution from a power plant pollutes another state, the polluted state should sue. However, they would need to prove t
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Well put! The programs that are Constitutional should not be slashed. The programs that are not Constitutional need to be eliminated.
Government has a purpose. Our government's purpose is spelled out plainly in the Constitution. Anything beyond that violates the Constitution per the 10th Amendment. However, I do believe that the government should not be limited to what's currently in the Constitution, but if it needs to do more, there is an amendment process that will allow for whatever expanded powers the federal government needs.
The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.
No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.
The TEA Party wants LESS government power, not more. Think of them as "Fiscal Libertarians".
So, if they are corrupt, as you say, wouldn't that means they want MORE government power? I think you got it backwards.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.
It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."
Actually it just proves that we should trust neither slashdot nor truth-out.org for headlines. If you read TFA it essentially says that a case is made that the architecture made it *possible* for fraud to have occurred; and TFA is apparently trying to slant that as proof that it *did* occur. It is less clear whether or not those pursuing the case are trying to make the same point; or if their point is only to prove that the architecture allowed the possibility of fraud.
TFA is guilty of not having any idea how computers work. They claim the vote totals were manipulated by a "man in the middle" machine that received votes from the precincts, changed them, and then forwarded them on be counted. The site assumes that electronic data is the same as paper data, meaning that once you send it, you no longer have a copy of it. The article never makes any attempt to show that the data forwarded by the supposed "man in the middle" computer was somehow different than the data it received and even implies that such verification would be impossible. All TFA does is say that the servers that collected the data changed it, as if it were fact, for no other reason than a result they didn't expect, even though it matched polling data prior to the election.
Here is just a single example of the crap from the article (emphasis mine):
The filing also includes the revealing deposition of the late Michael Connell. Connell served as the IT guru for the Bush family and Karl Rove. Connell ran the private IT firm GovTech that created the controversial system that transferred Ohio's vote count late on election night 2004 to a partisan Republican server site in Chattanooga, Tennessee owned by SmarTech. That is when the vote shift happened, not predicted by the exit polls, that led to Bush's unexpected victory. Connell died a month and a half after giving this deposition in a suspicious small plane crash.
So the vote totals went from the precincts (article doesn't say how GovTech received the data or where from, so we have to assume), and sent it to a "partisan Republican server", (can a server be partisan?) out of state, which is where the vote totals changed. What happened to the totals after they hit SmarTech? Does SmarTech host a website that simply posts vote totals to the public? Article doesn't say. We are left to assume that somehow, SmarTech then forwarded the totals to the Ohio Secretary of State. So, according to TFA, the votes went like this: precincts --> GovTech --> SmarTech --> (We don't know, but somewhere official), instead of precincts --> Secretary of State servers. Why?
Seriously? No independent, or even partisan group has bother to look at the vote totals, reported precinct by precinct on every news network in America received directly from the precincts themselves, and realized that the numbers that reported then were different than the final count?
This article is pure BS. I think the point is to accuse Republicans of vote tampering to insulate the Democrats from any accusations in the next election. Or maybe they are just hoping that GWB was never really elected. Who knows. It's BS either way.
So long as each state is wholly responsible for their own election standards and processes, even for presidential elections, there will be no way to address problems centrally in an organized fashion.
You could also say:
So long as each state is wholly responsible for their own election standards and processes, even for presidential elections, there will be no way to corrupt them centrally in an organized fashion.
Look up videos taken in Ohio of the 04 election and you'll see the poor neighborhoods would get one or two broke ass machines while the rich areas got MUCH more machines than required, those that tried to hand voters a slip that pointed out their right to ask for a provisional ballot, since they were making people wait several hours in line only to tell them "you're in the wrong place" and expect them to go do it all over again were first threatened and then arrested, the whole thing was a scam from the word go.
You do realize that elections, even federal ones, are handled locally, right? This means that if "poor neighborhoods" had faulty equipment, then it was the fault of the local officials who brought in faulty equipment. It's not like Karl Rove sat in his command center and dictated which precincts would get what equipment. These decisions are made locally, just as the "butterfly ballot" in Florida 2000 was designed by a Democrat.
Umm... The unemployment numbers have always been garbage. The length of time that unemployment could be collected has been increased, so the numbers went up.
The Republicans would drop it to a month, and the numbers would be down to a couple of percent, and they'd say "Look how we improved things! Low unemployment!" while people are jobless, starving in the streets.
The unemployment numbers are not based on how many people are drawing unemployment. They are based on how many people are actually looking for a job that don't currently have one. If they were based on what you think they are, wouldn't that make Democrats morons for extending benefits and artificially inflating the statistics?
You are correct that the numbers are skewed, and unemployment benefits are a likely cause, but not in the reason you would think. See, as long as people can live their lives without having a job, many won't. Another problem is that many will continue to receive unemployment benefits while working "under the table". While these people may be gainfully employed, they will gladly be counted as unemployed to leech off the government tit for as long as possible.
Another problem is that when people give up on finding a job, they are no longer counted as being "unemployed", even though they may not actually be employed. There is a reason for that, however. You don't want every house-wife/husband, parents on maternity leave, retirees, students, children, and those working "under the table" counted. On the other hand, you DO want to count all these /.'ers that are sitting in their mom's basement playing WOW all day who don't have jobs, and don't really care to get one. (I envy those bastards!)
Glad to set you straight, but I'm sorry that I've taken away one of your made up justifications for hating Republicans. I'm sure you will hate them no less, regardless of the facts you run across that disprove your bias. Besides, your facts are so much more convenient as they help justify the hatred you already feel and make you feel OK for hating someone. It would kinda make you an asshole if you were to find out that Republicans really don't want to see people starving in the streets and still hated them like you do, now wouldn't it.
That depends on how you recount. If you recount the entire state gore wins. If you only do the contested areas then bush wins.
If you change the rules and recount the whole state, then Gore may have won. However, as I remember it, James Baker, the representative for the Republicans in FL 2000 wanted a full state recount but the Gore people rejected it, opting to only recount the heavily Democratic areas trying to squeeze every vote out of the areas where he was likely to get more votes and leave the Republican areas as they were.
If what you say is true, and I have heard nothing to back that up, then it sounds like the Democrats screwed themselves. So Bush didn't steal the election. Democrats gave it to him.
Its past the time for the US and others to remove all of their troops from the middle east and other trouble spots and let them sort their own problems out and kill each other in peace.
Hey! That's is exactly what we did in Afghanistan. How did that work out?
... or Snow Leopard from the same machine you're using...
and use CMD-OPT-SHIFT-DELETE
But I know you're just attempting to be an ass.
Actually, I thought I was quite successful at being an ass.
Truth be told, I love Macs. I really wish I could have one. Unfortunately, money is tight. When I'm looking at getting a new computer, my options are to build my own, top of the line machine with quality components for $500 (drives, case, video card, monitor, keyboards and mouse usually get reused, add about $300 to replace those), or I can buy a mid-range Mac with much lower specs that I can't upgrade for $799. This is Apple store price as of right now for a Mac Mini with a 2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, 4GB memory, a 500GB hard drive, and an AMD Radeon HD 6630M (no monitor, keyboard, or mouse). An iMac *STARTS* at $1199 and a Mac Pro *STARTS* at $2499, both with lower or similar specs to the Mac Mini.
Think I'll stick with building my own. I guess now I'm an ass that just proved that Apple products are over priced. How ya like them Apples?!
That desktop is on its way out, too. When smartphones with Mini-HDMI output proliferate then many people will have lost their last reason to have a real computer.
You're close.
Keyboard and mouse. That's my main reason for continuing to use a computer.
I predict universal docking stations for phones soon. Everywhere you go, you have your "computer" with you. When you get to the office or house, you simply drop your phone into the dock (or not if wireless) and you are doing your work/play on your 24" LCD with full keyboard and mouse.
You'll take your PC with you, everywhere you go.
> a year of Linux on the tv (boxee box, google tv, all the embedded TV experiences)
Could be TVs are running Linux underneath now, in which case, another embedded win. As for the other two, let's stick with hardware people actually buy. Google will drop their hardware experiment, and boxee will be gone within two years, I guarantee it.
Tivo runs Linux. As does the DVR that came from DishNetwork. I believe many of the others run Linux as well, but I only have one TV provider.
Oh, and GoogeTV is being embedded in many TV's and is an option on several DVR's provided by Cable/TV providers.
"In fact" I know at least one person whose mac book pro doesn't boot after the update to Lion (well it does, but on an endless "updating" loop)
That's an easy fix. It is so easy in fact, it shows the power of Apple computers.
Here are the steps you take: ...
1) Power the system off
2) Press and hold to power button to turn the machine on. Keep holding this down. If you release this button, the system will boot normally, so keep holding it down.
3) As soon as the Apple logo appears, press the command-control-shift-alt-C, F1, F12, and ESC keys at the same time and hold them down.
4) Right before you hear the Apple opening chord sound, place your Lion CD into the drive. It has to be within 1.5 seconds before the sound or it won't work.
Wait, what? You don't have the CD?
OK, do this: ...
1) Get your OS9 CD from your old B&W Mac.
So if you're just going to use closed source software anyways (Nvidia drivers) then what's the point of using Linux? Why not just get your money up and buy a UNIX workstation that doesn't suck.
Because nVidia didn't need permission to write the drivers and I don't have to install them. There are also open source drivers for most nVidia cards out there that I can use instead or I can just use the standard 2D drivers that work fine as long as you don't hope to do OpenGL. Then again, why would you have an nVidia card if you don't plan on doing 3D?
I would agree that this was just bad customer service training, but since this actually made it to court, AND WAS CHALLENGED BY VERIZON, this tells me that it is a matter of corporate policy. Verizon wanted so bad to NOT give her an itemized bill, they paid lawyers to go to court to try to defend their behavior and lost.