If I'm not mistaken, University of California-San Diego is a public school, meaning it belongs to the public, doesn't it? Doesn't that mean the public should hold the rights?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I feel I may be on one of the things I said above.
Maybe what I said was a bad idea, but how about this. Right now we have the electoral process done at the state level. Move it down to the county level. This prevents politicians paying attention to the most populated parts of the state.
As for how many electors each county gets, I guess one way is to calculate it like this. For every 500,000 potential voters in a given county, the county would be granted one electoral vote, with an actual person elected to cast the vote. It would round up to the nearest 500,000.
Any flaws with simply changing it from a state level to a county level?
Don't ditch your regular phone yet. If your cable company turns off your cable during the night to do upgrades (it happens a lot in some places), you are really out of luck if you have to call 911.
If given the choice between freedom and security, I would choose freedom.
This is wrong. Driver's licenses are for driving. Social security cards are for the social security system. We do not need to make either one into a national identification card. This type of thing would only prove those conspiracy theorists from the 80s and 90s correct concerning new world order type stuff.
I believe there are many better ideas for Presidential elections than our current method. (Not all of my ideas are original, meaning I may have borrowed them from other places.)
1. Each county gets one "electoral vote", but no persons are elected as electors. Each county votes for President via IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), and the majority winner is granted one electoral vote. This prevents rural counties from being ignored, and makes things real interesting. The plurality winner at the national level wins the Presidency.
2. Keep the current system, but determine the winner by this method. The candidate with the highest popular vote and electoral vote combined, using their percentages. So 40% of the popular and 50% of the electoral vote would lose to 42% of the popular vote and 49% of the electoral vote.
3. Same as number 1, but give each county a weighted vote by on every million registered voters. If a county has four million registered voters, that's a weighted vote of four. If a county has 10 registered voters, yes, ten, that's one vote.
I believe there are many better ideas for Presidential elections than our current method. (Not all of my ideas are original, meaning I may have borrowed them from other places.)
1. Each county gets one "electoral vote", but no persons are elected as electors. Each county votes for President via IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), and the majority winner is granted one electoral vote. This prevents rural counties from being ignored, and makes things real interesting. The plurality winner at the national level wins the Presidency.
2. Keep the current system, but determine the winner by this method. The candidate with the highest popular vote and electoral vote combined, using their percentages. So 40% of the popular and 50% of the electoral vote would lose to 42% of the popular vote and 49% of the electoral vote.
3. Same as number 1, but give each county a weighted vote by on every million registered voters. If a county has four million registered voters, that's a weighted vote of four. If a county has 10 registered voters, yes, ten, that's one vote.
Would proportional representation fix this problem? Don't have districts anymore. Simply have all state registered voters vote this way...
1. List all candidates on the ballot with party affiliation.
2. Have each voter pick the candidate of their choice.
3. Let's say 40% choose Democrats, 35% choose Republicans, 15% choose independents, and 10% choose Libertarians.
4. 40% of the total seats would go to Democrats. 35% to Republicans. And so on.
5. Lets say there are 11 seats in a given state. That's 4 seats to Democrats, 4 seats to Republicans, 2 seats to independents, and 1 seat to Libertarians.
6. The top 4 plurality winners for Democrats get 4 seats. The top 4 plurality winners for Republicans get 4 seats. The top 2 plurality winners for independents get 2 seats. And the top plurality winner for Libertarians get 1 seat.
Just watch the government step in and try banning such a thing.
I do think this kind of broadcast is a good idea, but perhaps a certain frequency could be used for public use. Like certain number(s) that no one currently uses, and limit it to that.
Personally, I think $3-5 per classic (NES/SNES) game would be fine. So if they were to put 10 classics on a cartridge, $30-50 would be fine. As for N64 games, that's probably a bit more difficult, and too new still.
I browsed http://www.lp.org/issues/ and the ideas seem like they would work. Yes, it does seem to go opposite the Green Party or other parties, but the way the ideas are set up, would work in my opinion.
Like their idea of ending welfare, but replacing it with a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity. It's my guess that people benefit more from private charities than the government. Whether it's food vouchers from churches, or simply a t.v. news station asking viewers to help out a family that may need more money for an expensive surgery for a rare illness.
I think their ideas have to all be done, or not at all, for it to work. If they were to do some of it, and not all of it, it would probably fail. But I'm not going to discuss this as I need to research more.
Hypothetically speaking, if I chose to vote for a Libertarian candidate (not going to, at least this time around), and if enough people did it, the top two parties are going to have to change their views if they want to compete still.
I consider myself a green liberal democrat. I won't be voting for republican candidates, as I don't side with their general views. However, I'll say this. I'll vote for Greens, Democrats, and Libertarians (yes, I know liberal doesn't mean Libertarian).
Why Libertarians? http://www.lpws.org/nlanddocs/docs/platform.htm states "We hold that the only moral use of force is in self-defense. Thus, the initiation of force is immoral -- whether committed by individuals or by governments." I believe if we had a Libertarian President, the $400-500 billion DoD budget would be heavily slashed, and perhaps even get a fairer tax system.
If they could just upgrade the graphics in Zelda I, II, and IV. And no other modifications, period. Perhaps even have a speech mode for when characters talk, but optional at start of the game.
The classics stay good through the years. I'm sure they'll keep creating more Zelda and Mario games. But if they could take the time to upgrade the classics with better graphics, keep everything else exactly the same (except for my speech idea). In other words, bring the graphics up to the SNES standard, 32 bit, like you said. As for Zelda V, I have no idea how big that is, but I guess they'll be able to fit it onto DS (if DS is 64 bits). I haven't done my research on DS yet.
Voting someone out of office is more difficult. It's almost easier to simply not elect them for another term. But I still believe in the initiative process.
If they could fit the first five Zelda games onto one catridge, that would be a start. Perhaps even upgrading the graphics of Zelda I and II, but leave the game the same.
This would be going way too far. If the Government is suppose to be of the People, let the People decide. Let them vote, state by state. Require a 60% supermajority for it to pass. If by some far off chance that 3 out of 5 people in a given state vote yes, include RFID chips in the licenses, fine, go away.
The USPTO's mission is to promote industrial and technological progress in the United States and strengthen the economy. In my opinion, too many patents halt progress.
Research the candidates on their issues. Then research to see if they stuck to their campaign promises. Don't go by endorsements, that's the lazy thing to do, unless you really trust the source.
For example, I'll try going through my state's voters' guide for all the candidates. I'll create a text file called "Vote". I'll list all the candidates, then write down YES, NO, MAYBE, MAYBE/YES, and MAYBE/NO. Then come when my absentee ballot arrives, I'll go through the list, and then try deciding. A few issues might throw me, and sway my vote to vote no on that candidate.
Imagine this. Accidentally installing adware onto your computer in a horrible way. Imagine a quick click of the mouse, and you can reverse the effects, instead of spending hours to remove it all. As for one second intervals for the last three minutes, I guess that could be compared to having 180 hard drives hooked up to your computer using a type of RAID, or something.
Is it possible to design a computer so you can backtrack in progress? A method where it records perhaps the last three minutes, and you could click on something, and rewind your computer just like a video? And the hard drive would be at that state? Perhaps with intervals of five seconds. This would go way beyond RAID. (Not sure if I explained this properly.)
People who steal music are responsible for the thefts. Kind of like blaming the gun for the murder of a person when even if he or she didn't have the gun, he had a knife anyways. In other words, taking away the medium/gun/method isn't going to stop a crime from happening.
Just in the U.S.A., I wonder how many actually do the following: Download the theatrical release (which hasn't made it onto PPV or DVD yet), without eventually paying for it another way. By this I mean, those who download the theatrical release, but never buy the DVD, or pay for the PPV. Faulty logic I know.
The conspiracy theory about how they have Osama bin Laden already captured has been out on the Net for months. It has been out long enough that if for some reason the U.S. Government were to announce his capture, it would severely hurt Bush's campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm not mistaken, University of California-San Diego is a public school, meaning it belongs to the public, doesn't it? Doesn't that mean the public should hold the rights?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I feel I may be on one of the things I said above.
Maybe what I said was a bad idea, but how about this. Right now we have the electoral process done at the state level. Move it down to the county level. This prevents politicians paying attention to the most populated parts of the state.
As for how many electors each county gets, I guess one way is to calculate it like this. For every 500,000 potential voters in a given county, the county would be granted one electoral vote, with an actual person elected to cast the vote. It would round up to the nearest 500,000.
Any flaws with simply changing it from a state level to a county level?
Don't ditch your regular phone yet. If your cable company turns off your cable during the night to do upgrades (it happens a lot in some places), you are really out of luck if you have to call 911.
If given the choice between freedom and security, I would choose freedom.
This is wrong. Driver's licenses are for driving. Social security cards are for the social security system. We do not need to make either one into a national identification card. This type of thing would only prove those conspiracy theorists from the 80s and 90s correct concerning new world order type stuff.
I believe there are many better ideas for Presidential elections than our current method. (Not all of my ideas are original, meaning I may have borrowed them from other places.)
1. Each county gets one "electoral vote", but no persons are elected as electors. Each county votes for President via IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), and the majority winner is granted one electoral vote. This prevents rural counties from being ignored, and makes things real interesting. The plurality winner at the national level wins the Presidency.
2. Keep the current system, but determine the winner by this method. The candidate with the highest popular vote and electoral vote combined, using their percentages. So 40% of the popular and 50% of the electoral vote would lose to 42% of the popular vote and 49% of the electoral vote.
3. Same as number 1, but give each county a weighted vote by on every million registered voters. If a county has four million registered voters, that's a weighted vote of four. If a county has 10 registered voters, yes, ten, that's one vote.
I believe there are many better ideas for Presidential elections than our current method. (Not all of my ideas are original, meaning I may have borrowed them from other places.) 1. Each county gets one "electoral vote", but no persons are elected as electors. Each county votes for President via IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), and the majority winner is granted one electoral vote. This prevents rural counties from being ignored, and makes things real interesting. The plurality winner at the national level wins the Presidency. 2. Keep the current system, but determine the winner by this method. The candidate with the highest popular vote and electoral vote combined, using their percentages. So 40% of the popular and 50% of the electoral vote would lose to 42% of the popular vote and 49% of the electoral vote. 3. Same as number 1, but give each county a weighted vote by on every million registered voters. If a county has four million registered voters, that's a weighted vote of four. If a county has 10 registered voters, yes, ten, that's one vote.
Backpack aside, make sure to backup your contents beforehand incase a serious accident somehow happens to it or is stolen.
As for the backpack, I have no suggestions myself, sorry. I just wanted to point out the importance of having your data in two places at once.
Would proportional representation fix this problem? Don't have districts anymore. Simply have all state registered voters vote this way... 1. List all candidates on the ballot with party affiliation. 2. Have each voter pick the candidate of their choice. 3. Let's say 40% choose Democrats, 35% choose Republicans, 15% choose independents, and 10% choose Libertarians. 4. 40% of the total seats would go to Democrats. 35% to Republicans. And so on. 5. Lets say there are 11 seats in a given state. That's 4 seats to Democrats, 4 seats to Republicans, 2 seats to independents, and 1 seat to Libertarians. 6. The top 4 plurality winners for Democrats get 4 seats. The top 4 plurality winners for Republicans get 4 seats. The top 2 plurality winners for independents get 2 seats. And the top plurality winner for Libertarians get 1 seat.
Just watch the government step in and try banning such a thing.
I do think this kind of broadcast is a good idea, but perhaps a certain frequency could be used for public use. Like certain number(s) that no one currently uses, and limit it to that.
This news wasn't mentioned much. Even doing a search on Google News barely return anything.
Personally, I think $3-5 per classic (NES/SNES) game would be fine. So if they were to put 10 classics on a cartridge, $30-50 would be fine. As for N64 games, that's probably a bit more difficult, and too new still.
I browsed http://www.lp.org/issues/ and the ideas seem like they would work. Yes, it does seem to go opposite the Green Party or other parties, but the way the ideas are set up, would work in my opinion.
Like their idea of ending welfare, but replacing it with a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity. It's my guess that people benefit more from private charities than the government. Whether it's food vouchers from churches, or simply a t.v. news station asking viewers to help out a family that may need more money for an expensive surgery for a rare illness.
I think their ideas have to all be done, or not at all, for it to work. If they were to do some of it, and not all of it, it would probably fail. But I'm not going to discuss this as I need to research more.
Hypothetically speaking, if I chose to vote for a Libertarian candidate (not going to, at least this time around), and if enough people did it, the top two parties are going to have to change their views if they want to compete still.
I consider myself a green liberal democrat. I won't be voting for republican candidates, as I don't side with their general views. However, I'll say this. I'll vote for Greens, Democrats, and Libertarians (yes, I know liberal doesn't mean Libertarian). Why Libertarians? http://www.lpws.org/nlanddocs/docs/platform.htm states "We hold that the only moral use of force is in self-defense. Thus, the initiation of force is immoral -- whether committed by individuals or by governments." I believe if we had a Libertarian President, the $400-500 billion DoD budget would be heavily slashed, and perhaps even get a fairer tax system.
If they could just upgrade the graphics in Zelda I, II, and IV. And no other modifications, period. Perhaps even have a speech mode for when characters talk, but optional at start of the game. The classics stay good through the years. I'm sure they'll keep creating more Zelda and Mario games. But if they could take the time to upgrade the classics with better graphics, keep everything else exactly the same (except for my speech idea). In other words, bring the graphics up to the SNES standard, 32 bit, like you said. As for Zelda V, I have no idea how big that is, but I guess they'll be able to fit it onto DS (if DS is 64 bits). I haven't done my research on DS yet.
Voting someone out of office is more difficult. It's almost easier to simply not elect them for another term. But I still believe in the initiative process.
If they could fit the first five Zelda games onto one catridge, that would be a start. Perhaps even upgrading the graphics of Zelda I and II, but leave the game the same.
This would be going way too far. If the Government is suppose to be of the People, let the People decide. Let them vote, state by state. Require a 60% supermajority for it to pass. If by some far off chance that 3 out of 5 people in a given state vote yes, include RFID chips in the licenses, fine, go away.
The USPTO's mission is to promote industrial and technological progress in the United States and strengthen the economy. In my opinion, too many patents halt progress.
Research the candidates on their issues. Then research to see if they stuck to their campaign promises. Don't go by endorsements, that's the lazy thing to do, unless you really trust the source. For example, I'll try going through my state's voters' guide for all the candidates. I'll create a text file called "Vote". I'll list all the candidates, then write down YES, NO, MAYBE, MAYBE/YES, and MAYBE/NO. Then come when my absentee ballot arrives, I'll go through the list, and then try deciding. A few issues might throw me, and sway my vote to vote no on that candidate.
Imagine this. Accidentally installing adware onto your computer in a horrible way. Imagine a quick click of the mouse, and you can reverse the effects, instead of spending hours to remove it all. As for one second intervals for the last three minutes, I guess that could be compared to having 180 hard drives hooked up to your computer using a type of RAID, or something.
Is it possible to design a computer so you can backtrack in progress? A method where it records perhaps the last three minutes, and you could click on something, and rewind your computer just like a video? And the hard drive would be at that state? Perhaps with intervals of five seconds. This would go way beyond RAID. (Not sure if I explained this properly.)
Passwords won't be obsolete until people can't pick up your fingerprints from let's say a coffee mug, and then make a mold.
People who steal music are responsible for the thefts. Kind of like blaming the gun for the murder of a person when even if he or she didn't have the gun, he had a knife anyways. In other words, taking away the medium/gun/method isn't going to stop a crime from happening.
Just in the U.S.A., I wonder how many actually do the following: Download the theatrical release (which hasn't made it onto PPV or DVD yet), without eventually paying for it another way. By this I mean, those who download the theatrical release, but never buy the DVD, or pay for the PPV. Faulty logic I know.
The conspiracy theory about how they have Osama bin Laden already captured has been out on the Net for months. It has been out long enough that if for some reason the U.S. Government were to announce his capture, it would severely hurt Bush's campaign.