No, I did the math, and it would have to be changed every 5-6 years. 50,000 hours is approximately 2083 days. 2083 days is about 5.7 years. So running one 24/7, and yes, some people seriously do that, I'd have to buy one every 6 years.
I realize how stupid this comment is, but just felt like pointing it out since the story did say, "but you never have to change them.".
For one, how do they know if you're using your seat belt or not? Or maybe they were joking.
Second, in some state(s) it's illegal not to wear your seat belt, and they can pull you over for that without any other reason. Extreme: Annual checks of black box device to ensure you are wearing your seat belt.
It's good that some politicians are against it. Plus, if something like that happened, it could backfire. It's called, "Oh, you make commercial skipping illegal? Well, I may not need to get up everytime during commercials, so the times I do see them, I'll make note, boycott the product, and encourage everyone else to do the same."
First of all, I wonder if it would in a sense be illegal to get up and go to the bathroom during commercials.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim format is nice. 26 minutes for the program, which has like one break in the middle for a few minutes of commercials. At the end of the show, a four minute period of non-stop commercials. They seem to care more about the viewers than the sponsors in my opinion.
If all networks could agree to show four minutes of commercials at the:26 and:56 minute mark, that'd solve some problems, but not all.
In my opinion, the next big thing to hit t.v. will be Internet television. Something as simple as plugging in a website with specific port number, and being able to watch t.v. on one's computer, then relaying it to the t.v. set.
About the article, fast-forwarding through commercials is not the point. The point is they are losing revenue. If they want to make up the loss revenue, perhaps we should be charged more for cable access, which in turn, may spark the Internet t.v. revolution. And how much money do they need? How much greed is involved? And can something be done like with the music business? If you can buy music online for 50 cents instead of paying $20 for the whole album, something like this needs to be done concerning television.
You mean voting someone in as a representative? Someone can do a lot of damage in two, four, or six years, during their given term. And even then, voters don't do the proper research when voting for them a second time.
Some say spending over a half trillion per year on "defense" purposes would qualify. Some say spending hundreds of dollar on comfy chairs would qualify. This subject is very opinionated.
2. The dreaded April 15th, income tax day.
Making criminals out of those who may not be able to afford to pay, or simply mess up. And allowing the evil geniuses to reap the benefits either through loopholes or ways of not reporting it.
Note: Some say a consumption tax (sales tax) would hurt the poor. Consider a consumption tax with rebates to offset the poverty level. No one can 'really' avoid paying a sales tax, unless the business is crooked.
3. In this so called democracy, it's really a republic, where we represent people who are suppose to be our voice. But nothing prevents them from really following that through.
A more democratic system would be nice, where citizens could speak their mind. e-Governments, no salary elected officials for representation when needed, and instant direct voting.
I'm a bit unsure of the election laws, but Washington State has three major political parties. Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. I think to get major political party status, you have to get something like 1-5% in even year general elections or something.
Here are some ideas...
1a. Let each political party organization choose the candidate they want to run for each race. Let their organization do an internal vote. They decide how to vote, whether Condorcet, IRV, plurality, etc. Whichever candidate wins, gets to be put on the general election ballot. Taxpayers wouldn't pay for it. 1b. As to which parties get put onto the general election ballot, perhaps require like 1000 signature petitions.
2. Require 1000 signatures per candidate to be listed on the ballot. List their political party next to their name. Then in each race, do an IRV.
Previously, and declared illegal: September primary, we could vote for any specific candidate we wishes, regardless of party, and the top plurality winner from each party went on. Problem: Democrat running unopposed? Then Democrats could vote for the worst Republican listed in that race.
Last primary, and everyone hated it: People had to choose a party and vote only under that. No more crossing party lines in each race. Top plurality winner from each party went on. Problem: People wanted to vote on the candidate, not the party.
Future system we'll use: People can cross party lines, and the top two plurality winners REGARDLESS of party go onto the general election. Problem: May or may not hurt third party candidates, and issues come up cause some races may see Democrat vs. Democrat. It violates a party's wish to be represented.
The difference between a supermarket loyalty card and a National ID card is this.
You can lie about the info on the supermarket loyalty card, by putting a fake phone number, address, whatever, no big deal, and I don't think the supermarket will mind. I think the main purpose of those membership cards is so they know how much stuff someone buys, when, etc., etc., giving them the demographic info so they can better stock stuff and whatnot.
Right now we have State ID Cards (whether simply identification or drivers' licenses). Even if we did go to National ID Cards, they may not be any different. Let me say this. Under NO circumstances implant those RFID microchips. Cause there's too much fear over the issue of GPS tracking and such. By the way, I think we should just leave it up to the state level. Let us have an United States of American with each state creating their own laws and such, under our federal documents that have worked for us for so long.
It's when people vote out of fear instead of voting their heart, the true problems occur. This happens when someone votes for the lesser of the two evils.
From what I remember form my schooling, the executives (governors, presidents, mayors) carry out/enforce the laws. The legislature makes the laws. As for the judicial branch, I forget exactly what their job is, but we all know what it is.
Election of judges: In my opinion, perhaps we shouldn't use the plurality method to elect judges. Perhaps STV, Single Transferrable Voting, should be used, or something that allows a better proportional representation to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Arson and murder: Here's my comment. There is an intent to kill if you knowingly set a building on fire that contains people in it. There is no intent to kill if it's like abandoned or whatever. Setting a school on fire at night, no intent to kill. Setting a school on fire during the day, intent to kill. Perhaps the arson laws need modified a bit.
I realize this isn't the same as electoral fusion, but look at what Paul Richmond did. He unofficially dropped out of the attorney general race in Washington State, then endorsed Deborah Senn. He did this cause Sidran lost the primary.
It can happen. Consider the below. The top plurality winner of each party went onto the general election. Let's say we used those results as if we had the Louisiana top two primary. Two Democrats would go on. Ignore the fact the below results are skewed due to forced partisan voting. Ironically Senn lost in the general election (negative ads I think hurt her).
You're right. Without third party candidates, nothing will keep the top two in line.
IRV (also RCV) or Condorcet, or nearly anything else, is better than our current plurality system. IRV would simply be nothing more than having multiple primaries at once, elimanting the weakest candidate each time. - Here's how the election will be happening in the following years in Washington State. We'll have a primary, in which anyone can vote for any specific candidate they wish. The top two plurality candidates will end up going onto the general election. So it's very likely that two Democrats will be listed on the ballot.
If SP2 was that thing I tried on my computer many months ago, even if beta, here's my opinion. Worst thing I ever done. Aside from taking like 10 minutes to boot, I'm still having computer problems after removing it.
Chances are this may not be read since I'm replying quite late. But are they forcing the RFID labels, or will it be optional? Cause if it's forcing, it's nothing more than Big Goverment, Big Brother, controlling our lives for "our own good", which is a bad thing.
First of all, I like the idea of http://fairtax.org/, but here's a very simplified idea that follows the same logic.
Whether we keep or get rid of income taxes, it doesn't matter for this idea...
Fix it so 30% of the total federal tax revenue is redistributed. If this means raising taxes, so bet it. If this means cutting wasteful spending, so be it. But with spending over a half trillion per year on "defense", I'm sure we could cut a big part of that, although some would disagree.
Semi-free college education at the least. Do something like this...
In exchange for a free college education, the person would pledge 5% of their income for 20 years to help pay for this. So not only would someone be contributing to the regular tax system by having a better job, but they'd be putting 5% of their income into this system. 5% of $0 is $0, so if you don't earn a dime in a given year, no big deal. And it's over after 20 years, hopefully by age 42 or so.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the IRS and get rid of property taxes, and simply go on a consumption/sales tax system, provided that the rebates are kept.
The 30% thing I mentioned earlier, let's play around with it. If current federal income taxes results in $2000 billion, 30% of that would be $600 billion. We could cut a large chunk out of the DoD, and modify some tax brackets too. - Now we got $600 billion among nearly 300 million citizens. That's $2000 per person, but we don't want people having babies just to get the money. Solution: Limiting it to just adults would result in about $2666 per person, if there are 225 million adults. Or maybe just limiting it to anyone who is age 5 and up, which is kind of like anyone who is school age. - If a college tuition is $4k per year, this could very well help. This could help seniors too. And those who are homeless on the street who get $0 now, this would surely help.
This is getting way off topic, but I'm going to say this even if it's moderated down.
Socialism may not work. Communism may not work. And capitalism has it's own problems too.
What about a hybrid of the ideas. Take 30% of all tax revenue, and redistribute it among all legal citizens.
Example: If total tax revenue is $2 trillion among 300 million citizens, 30% of that is $600 billion. That's $2,000 per person per year. A family of six would logically get $12k.
Laziness is a problem. It's in my honest opinion that most people aren't laziness. It's in my opinion most people want to work and contribute to society.
Patent issues, tax issues, etc., are going to keep piling up until society can't ignore it anymore. How long this takes, I don't know. Hopefully something is done within the next 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant this. I voted for Bennett. If Bennett weren't on the ballot, I would have chose Gregoire. MY order of preference was Bennett>Gregoire.
No, I did the math, and it would have to be changed every 5-6 years. 50,000 hours is approximately 2083 days. 2083 days is about 5.7 years. So running one 24/7, and yes, some people seriously do that, I'd have to buy one every 6 years.
I realize how stupid this comment is, but just felt like pointing it out since the story did say, "but you never have to change them.".
For one, how do they know if you're using your seat belt or not? Or maybe they were joking.
Second, in some state(s) it's illegal not to wear your seat belt, and they can pull you over for that without any other reason. Extreme: Annual checks of black box device to ensure you are wearing your seat belt.
It's good that some politicians are against it. Plus, if something like that happened, it could backfire. It's called, "Oh, you make commercial skipping illegal? Well, I may not need to get up everytime during commercials, so the times I do see them, I'll make note, boycott the product, and encourage everyone else to do the same."
First of all, I wonder if it would in a sense be illegal to get up and go to the bathroom during commercials.
:26 and :56 minute mark, that'd solve some problems, but not all.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim format is nice. 26 minutes for the program, which has like one break in the middle for a few minutes of commercials. At the end of the show, a four minute period of non-stop commercials. They seem to care more about the viewers than the sponsors in my opinion.
If all networks could agree to show four minutes of commercials at the
In my opinion, the next big thing to hit t.v. will be Internet television. Something as simple as plugging in a website with specific port number, and being able to watch t.v. on one's computer, then relaying it to the t.v. set.
About the article, fast-forwarding through commercials is not the point. The point is they are losing revenue. If they want to make up the loss revenue, perhaps we should be charged more for cable access, which in turn, may spark the Internet t.v. revolution. And how much money do they need? How much greed is involved? And can something be done like with the music business? If you can buy music online for 50 cents instead of paying $20 for the whole album, something like this needs to be done concerning television.
What is the OLD thing exactly? I tried Googling, but can't find any simple explanation.
You mean voting someone in as a representative? Someone can do a lot of damage in two, four, or six years, during their given term. And even then, voters don't do the proper research when voting for them a second time.
1. Wasteful government spending.
Some say spending over a half trillion per year on "defense" purposes would qualify. Some say spending hundreds of dollar on comfy chairs would qualify. This subject is very opinionated.
2. The dreaded April 15th, income tax day.
Making criminals out of those who may not be able to afford to pay, or simply mess up. And allowing the evil geniuses to reap the benefits either through loopholes or ways of not reporting it.
Note: Some say a consumption tax (sales tax) would hurt the poor. Consider a consumption tax with rebates to offset the poverty level. No one can 'really' avoid paying a sales tax, unless the business is crooked.
3. In this so called democracy, it's really a republic, where we represent people who are suppose to be our voice. But nothing prevents them from really following that through.
A more democratic system would be nice, where citizens could speak their mind. e-Governments, no salary elected officials for representation when needed, and instant direct voting.
Washington State had nine candidates on the ballot. http://vote.wa.gov/general/federal_results.aspx?d= HJLHBFowVTHD2ELRVw8DpQ%3D%3D
I'm a bit unsure of the election laws, but Washington State has three major political parties. Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. I think to get major political party status, you have to get something like 1-5% in even year general elections or something.
Here are some ideas...
1a. Let each political party organization choose the candidate they want to run for each race. Let their organization do an internal vote. They decide how to vote, whether Condorcet, IRV, plurality, etc. Whichever candidate wins, gets to be put on the general election ballot. Taxpayers wouldn't pay for it.
1b. As to which parties get put onto the general election ballot, perhaps require like 1000 signature petitions.
2. Require 1000 signatures per candidate to be listed on the ballot. List their political party next to their name. Then in each race, do an IRV.
Here's how I think it has worked.
Previously, and declared illegal: September primary, we could vote for any specific candidate we wishes, regardless of party, and the top plurality winner from each party went on. Problem: Democrat running unopposed? Then Democrats could vote for the worst Republican listed in that race.
Last primary, and everyone hated it: People had to choose a party and vote only under that. No more crossing party lines in each race. Top plurality winner from each party went on. Problem: People wanted to vote on the candidate, not the party.
Future system we'll use: People can cross party lines, and the top two plurality winners REGARDLESS of party go onto the general election. Problem: May or may not hurt third party candidates, and issues come up cause some races may see Democrat vs. Democrat. It violates a party's wish to be represented.
The difference between a supermarket loyalty card and a National ID card is this.
You can lie about the info on the supermarket loyalty card, by putting a fake phone number, address, whatever, no big deal, and I don't think the supermarket will mind. I think the main purpose of those membership cards is so they know how much stuff someone buys, when, etc., etc., giving them the demographic info so they can better stock stuff and whatnot.
Right now we have State ID Cards (whether simply identification or drivers' licenses). Even if we did go to National ID Cards, they may not be any different. Let me say this. Under NO circumstances implant those RFID microchips. Cause there's too much fear over the issue of GPS tracking and such. By the way, I think we should just leave it up to the state level. Let us have an United States of American with each state creating their own laws and such, under our federal documents that have worked for us for so long.
1. You're removing the right to privacy, and who says they won't track you for other purposes?
2. What happens if someone removes it?
3. See number 1.
4. See number 3.
Solution: Simply increase the gas tax, or raise the price of tabs.
It's when people vote out of fear instead of voting their heart, the true problems occur. This happens when someone votes for the lesser of the two evils.
From what I remember form my schooling, the executives (governors, presidents, mayors) carry out/enforce the laws. The legislature makes the laws. As for the judicial branch, I forget exactly what their job is, but we all know what it is.
Election of judges: In my opinion, perhaps we shouldn't use the plurality method to elect judges. Perhaps STV, Single Transferrable Voting, should be used, or something that allows a better proportional representation to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Arson and murder: Here's my comment. There is an intent to kill if you knowingly set a building on fire that contains people in it. There is no intent to kill if it's like abandoned or whatever. Setting a school on fire at night, no intent to kill. Setting a school on fire during the day, intent to kill. Perhaps the arson laws need modified a bit.
I realize this isn't the same as electoral fusion, but look at what Paul Richmond did. He unofficially dropped out of the attorney general race in Washington State, then endorsed Deborah Senn. He did this cause Sidran lost the primary.
http://richmond4ag.com/
It can happen. Consider the below. The top plurality winner of each party went onto the general election. Let's say we used those results as if we had the Louisiana top two primary. Two Democrats would go on. Ignore the fact the below results are skewed due to forced partisan voting. Ironically Senn lost in the general election (negative ads I think hurt her).
e ygeneral
http://www.king5.com/election/results.html?attorn
Deborah Senn (D) 332,705 50.7%
Mark Sidran (D) 323,189 49.3%
Rob McKenna (R) 305,258 78%
You're right. Without third party candidates, nothing will keep the top two in line.
IRV (also RCV) or Condorcet, or nearly anything else, is better than our current plurality system. IRV would simply be nothing more than having multiple primaries at once, elimanting the weakest candidate each time.
-
Here's how the election will be happening in the following years in Washington State. We'll have a primary, in which anyone can vote for any specific candidate they wish. The top two plurality candidates will end up going onto the general election. So it's very likely that two Democrats will be listed on the ballot.
I am a Washingtonian, and I voted. Let me voice my opinion of the problems.
Yes, it's a problem when you accidently count votes twice. The 93% voting turnout should have been the first red flag of the human error.
The race wouldn't be so close if they simply allowed IRV or Rank Choice Voting. I voted for Ruth Bennett, and would have chose Chris second.
And I find it very funny that we might have to wait until Christmas to finally find out the final results.
You shouldn't tag humans like cattle. It's wrong on so many levels. It's pretty simple, the government shouldn't be doing any kind of this stuff.
The geek way is to build a robot, yes. The simple way, use the baking soda and sugar method. Make their tummies explode.
If SP2 was that thing I tried on my computer many months ago, even if beta, here's my opinion. Worst thing I ever done. Aside from taking like 10 minutes to boot, I'm still having computer problems after removing it.
Chances are this may not be read since I'm replying quite late. But are they forcing the RFID labels, or will it be optional? Cause if it's forcing, it's nothing more than Big Goverment, Big Brother, controlling our lives for "our own good", which is a bad thing.
First of all, I like the idea of http://fairtax.org/, but here's a very simplified idea that follows the same logic.
Whether we keep or get rid of income taxes, it doesn't matter for this idea...
Fix it so 30% of the total federal tax revenue is redistributed. If this means raising taxes, so bet it. If this means cutting wasteful spending, so be it. But with spending over a half trillion per year on "defense", I'm sure we could cut a big part of that, although some would disagree.
Semi-free college education at the least. Do something like this...
In exchange for a free college education, the person would pledge 5% of their income for 20 years to help pay for this. So not only would someone be contributing to the regular tax system by having a better job, but they'd be putting 5% of their income into this system. 5% of $0 is $0, so if you don't earn a dime in a given year, no big deal. And it's over after 20 years, hopefully by age 42 or so.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the IRS and get rid of property taxes, and simply go on a consumption/sales tax system, provided that the rebates are kept.
The 30% thing I mentioned earlier, let's play around with it. If current federal income taxes results in $2000 billion, 30% of that would be $600 billion. We could cut a large chunk out of the DoD, and modify some tax brackets too.
-
Now we got $600 billion among nearly 300 million citizens. That's $2000 per person, but we don't want people having babies just to get the money. Solution: Limiting it to just adults would result in about $2666 per person, if there are 225 million adults. Or maybe just limiting it to anyone who is age 5 and up, which is kind of like anyone who is school age.
-
If a college tuition is $4k per year, this could very well help. This could help seniors too. And those who are homeless on the street who get $0 now, this would surely help.
This is getting way off topic, but I'm going to say this even if it's moderated down.
Socialism may not work. Communism may not work. And capitalism has it's own problems too.
What about a hybrid of the ideas. Take 30% of all tax revenue, and redistribute it among all legal citizens.
Example: If total tax revenue is $2 trillion among 300 million citizens, 30% of that is $600 billion. That's $2,000 per person per year. A family of six would logically get $12k.
Laziness is a problem. It's in my honest opinion that most people aren't laziness. It's in my opinion most people want to work and contribute to society.
Patent issues, tax issues, etc., are going to keep piling up until society can't ignore it anymore. How long this takes, I don't know. Hopefully something is done within the next 20 years.