"That is also why none of those states will participate in this sort of lunacy being promoted by Iowa.... the dominant party of those states don't want to give up a single "safe" electoral vote to the other party."
California has had the bill pass both houses twice and be vetoed by the Governor twice. I think both houses are Democrat controlled and the Governor is Republican. It would seem as though both groups are acting against their own self interest.
I guess I do not understand you. The state doesn't "want" anything, individual voters do. The current electoral college system removes some of the ability of the collection of individual voters in the country to directly elect the president - there are some good reasons for doing this, but there are also many reasons for getting rid of it.
How does this "disenfranchise" anyone? Arguably it acts to re-enfranchise every citizen who is not in a "swing" state. Currently Republican voters in California are effectively disenfranchised - those 55 EC votes are pretty much locked in for the Dems. Similarly for Democrats in Texas.
If this type of law is passed, I doubt very much that anyone will complain. The number of times in the past that the popular choice was unelected is pretty darn small and it would only be in those cases where this would make any difference in the outcome.
"If I were a voter in Iowa, I simply wouldn't vote because I now realize that the entire election, at least for my state, is being decided by California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc."
But that is true of any reasonably fair voting system - your individual vote doesn't count for much. If I take a million people and put 999,990 in one room, and the last 10 in a different room, and have them vote on something - it seems pretty clear that the voting of the 10 people probably will not count for much one way or another.
Under the current system, Iowa gets 7 votes (for 3 million voters) compared to California's 55 (for 36.7 million voters), but unless your state is a swing state, your vote essentially counts for nothing because it has no effect on the way those votes get appointed. If done by national majority, each vote counts for one out of the 300 million total (of course these are population number rather than voter numbers, but you get the point I think).
What I think is neat about this proposal is that it could effectively game the system and bring about a national majority system without every state signing on - it is a bit of legislative/legal "hacking". Under the current system, the only states with any "special" feature are the "swing" states so presumably they would be less interested in this type of legislation, so might never pass it. However if enough states do pass it to reach the 270 count, it doesn't matter, since those states with this type of legislation would use their electoral votes to vote for the majority, and thus the majority candidate would win, regardless of how the other states electoral votes are cast (presumably a large fraction of those votes would also go to the majority winner anyway).
This seems to be the same as the National Popular Vote Bill: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
They have info there about how it is going in various states, but it seems a bit out of date - the Iowa page does not have the most recent info from the article for example. Maryland was the first state to fully enact such legislation back in May of 2007. It looks like a number of other states (CA for example) have passed the bill through one or both houses.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact (which seems very comprehensive and easier to see the state-by-state-status than the NPV site) there have been four states the have fully enacted the law: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey; their 50 electoral votes total amount to almost 19% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.
"Of course, until anyone else actually does this, all they're doing is disenfranchising their own voters. Way to go."
Read the article (or even the summary) again. The law would only go into effect when enough other states pass similar legislation so that they already control a majority of the EC.
This seems to be the same as the National Popular Vote Bill: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
It looks like "22 Houses" have already passed the bill, but I do not know which if states have fully enacted it (Maryland seems to have done so). California has had it pass both houses but I think it was vetoed by the Governor when it was run through the houses the first time back in 2006.
"Wouldn't it need to be 2 others as in 'minority report'?"
I have heard that for a ship's chronometer the recommendation is to carry either one or three.
With one clock, you just use the time it displays and hope it is accurate. With two clocks, if they disagree the only thing you know is that you don't know what time it is and you don't even have a chance of knowing the correct time. With three clocks you can be fairly confident that only one at a time will be off.
Someone recently mentioned that Minnesota has provisions of this nature in their state constitution. Looks like it is Section 17:
Sec. 17. Laws to embrace only one subject. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
"Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light."
--Egon Spengler on crossing proton streams
"Depreciation is probably more than killing his savings right now."
I think he also got significant money from state incentives, some of which might not be available in the future since those incentives are designed to increase demand, and going forward that seems likely to not be as necessary. As the prices fall due, the incentives are likely to decrease.
I tried again today and the "upgrade" went through just fine. The old DRM songs were deleted (there was an option to save them to the desktop) and the new ones took their place with the same play count and in the same play lists.
"Believe everything you read in press releases, do you?"
No, but if we're all just going to pull stuff out of our ass, what's the point?
If someone wants to cite a consistent pattern of iTunes announcements that were later changed, I would be interested in seeing it. It has been my memory that pretty much everything that Apple has announced for the iTunes store has taken place - in the time frame predicted.
I do not think it is that easy - there is some encryption going on otherwise the "hackers" would have a much easier time "breaking" the DRM and the DRM-free tracks are also at double the bitrate of the DRM-encumbered tracks, so a new download is needed. Finally, there are the international issues to work out - iTunes has different agreements worldwide with different labels.
The press release at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html [apple.com] claims "... in April, based on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points--69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29--with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29."
This would seem to indicate that the average price should fall.
This article says you can do so for a fee http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1711 but when I tried for my two purchased albums, it did not work crapping out with some "product has changed" error message. It reportedly worked back when they first introduced DRM-free tracks, so maybe it is a temporary problem as things get retooled.
"prices as low as 69c" means 10% at that price, the majority of selling tracks at $2.50
The press release at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html claims "... in April, based on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points--69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29--with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29."
This would seem to indicate that the average price should fall, and that there will be no $2.50 tracks.
I would be very surprised if the cable operator doesn't supply a box with video outputs that your TV can handle, either component, s-video, or even an RF-cable connection that you would get on the TV screen by tuning to channel 3 or something like that. Their website at http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/FiOSTV/Equipment_Overview/Equipment_Overview.htm indicates that they have a standard definition receiver that would do it all for you as one of their options - probably all of their options will also output SD signals that your TV can handle - looking at the images of the back of their equipment seems to show an RF output for everything.
If your TV is so old it doesn't have an RF cable input $5 at Radioshack can give you an adapter to plug the cable connection to the screws for the antenna terminal.
"Older analog televisions will no longer work without a converter box after February 17."
They will work fine for Cable TV, and as monitors for video games, DVD's, VCR's etc. The only thing that happens on 2009-02-17 is that the local broadcasters will stop providing an analogue signal for these sets to pick up via antenna.
I've never actually used OS X, but if it allows you, out of the box, to log in as an admin user (rather than simply escalating privileges on a per-process basis) then Ubuntu sounds better in that regard.
The admin user group gets write privileges for the/Applications folder and also has sudo abilities, but does not have any abilities beyond that, so it is not equivalent to being looked in as root - it is much closer to the model of escalating privileges on a per-process basis. But with that said, it is slightly more secure, and slightly less convenient, to use a non-admin account for day-to-day activities.
You are leaving out payroll taxes, which in the US are 15.3% of almost everyone's pay.
Good point, but Canada does also have have the Canada Pension plan and employment insurance and maybe some provincial programs too? - and in any case we were talking about the highest tax rates, where most of these payroll taxes no longer apply - doesn't social security only apply to the first X number of dollars? I think the Canadian equivalents do too.
Of course while it is in principle to at least figure out where one pays the most in taxes, it is much more of a challenge to decide which one provides better value for that outlay. I would argue that currently Canada seems to be doing a better job of this (balanced budgets, medical coverage, war fiascoes, etc.) but depending on one's outlook it is quite possible to feel the other way.
This says nothing about sales taxes, of which there is a federal 5% GST in Canada, plus about 8% in most provinces (excepting Alberta) for a total of about 13% - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_Canada.
As you stand farther back, the effect is decreased - Cringely mentioned this back in 2007/08 - http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070831_002850.html hook up the webcam to the big screen TV and sit back at the couch and it might be fairly well done. A small camera behind a projection screen might work even better.
Naw - get him interested in one of the trades - that's where the real money is. Start an apprenticeship right out of high school and by the time his buddies have graduated with their law degrees and a pile of debt he could own his own plumbing business and be bringing it serious coin.
And as far as telling someone about some rule infraction, well, everyone loves a snitch. Sorry, ratting on people isn't going to get you any friends, anywhere.
Sure, you have to "pick your battles", but one of the ways society functions is by social pressures - people need to know (hopefully learned when they are young and impressionable) what are considered acceptable behaviours and that only works when significant numbers of the members of society work towards that end. Thus we glare a people who are rude, and we let people know when they are steping outside acceptable boundaries.
Should I turn in my neighbour for spitting on the sidewalk? Having their dog shit on your lawn? Target practice in their back yard? Growing pot in their garden? Brewing meth in their garage? Kicking their dog? Assaulting their spouse? Assaulting their kids? Poisoning the Halloween candy? At some point I hope the "stain" for being a snitch will be outweighed by the seriousness of teh infraction you observe.
Slashdot Mirror
California has had the bill pass both houses twice and be vetoed by the Governor twice. I think both houses are Democrat controlled and the Governor is Republican. It would seem as though both groups are acting against their own self interest.
How does this "disenfranchise" anyone? Arguably it acts to re-enfranchise every citizen who is not in a "swing" state. Currently Republican voters in California are effectively disenfranchised - those 55 EC votes are pretty much locked in for the Dems. Similarly for Democrats in Texas. If this type of law is passed, I doubt very much that anyone will complain. The number of times in the past that the popular choice was unelected is pretty darn small and it would only be in those cases where this would make any difference in the outcome.
But that is true of any reasonably fair voting system - your individual vote doesn't count for much. If I take a million people and put 999,990 in one room, and the last 10 in a different room, and have them vote on something - it seems pretty clear that the voting of the 10 people probably will not count for much one way or another.
Under the current system, Iowa gets 7 votes (for 3 million voters) compared to California's 55 (for 36.7 million voters), but unless your state is a swing state, your vote essentially counts for nothing because it has no effect on the way those votes get appointed. If done by national majority, each vote counts for one out of the 300 million total (of course these are population number rather than voter numbers, but you get the point I think).
What I think is neat about this proposal is that it could effectively game the system and bring about a national majority system without every state signing on - it is a bit of legislative/legal "hacking". Under the current system, the only states with any "special" feature are the "swing" states so presumably they would be less interested in this type of legislation, so might never pass it. However if enough states do pass it to reach the 270 count, it doesn't matter, since those states with this type of legislation would use their electoral votes to vote for the majority, and thus the majority candidate would win, regardless of how the other states electoral votes are cast (presumably a large fraction of those votes would also go to the majority winner anyway).
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact (which seems very comprehensive and easier to see the state-by-state-status than the NPV site) there have been four states the have fully enacted the law: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey; their 50 electoral votes total amount to almost 19% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.
Read the article (or even the summary) again. The law would only go into effect when enough other states pass similar legislation so that they already control a majority of the EC.
This seems to be the same as the National Popular Vote Bill: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php It looks like "22 Houses" have already passed the bill, but I do not know which if states have fully enacted it (Maryland seems to have done so). California has had it pass both houses but I think it was vetoed by the Governor when it was run through the houses the first time back in 2006.
That's great, I'll have to check out their offerings and see if they work with some of the apps like iRecorder http://touchmic.com/
I have heard that for a ship's chronometer the recommendation is to carry either one or three.
With one clock, you just use the time it displays and hope it is accurate. With two clocks, if they disagree the only thing you know is that you don't know what time it is and you don't even have a chance of knowing the correct time. With three clocks you can be fairly confident that only one at a time will be off.
Sec. 17. Laws to embrace only one subject. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/mncon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_pack#Crossing_the_Streams
"Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light." --Egon Spengler on crossing proton streams
I think he also got significant money from state incentives, some of which might not be available in the future since those incentives are designed to increase demand, and going forward that seems likely to not be as necessary. As the prices fall due, the incentives are likely to decrease.
I tried again today and the "upgrade" went through just fine. The old DRM songs were deleted (there was an option to save them to the desktop) and the new ones took their place with the same play count and in the same play lists.
No, but if we're all just going to pull stuff out of our ass, what's the point?
If someone wants to cite a consistent pattern of iTunes announcements that were later changed, I would be interested in seeing it. It has been my memory that pretty much everything that Apple has announced for the iTunes store has taken place - in the time frame predicted.
I do not think it is that easy - there is some encryption going on otherwise the "hackers" would have a much easier time "breaking" the DRM and the DRM-free tracks are also at double the bitrate of the DRM-encumbered tracks, so a new download is needed. Finally, there are the international issues to work out - iTunes has different agreements worldwide with different labels.
There seem to be some pics here: http://www.bookmarktheweb.blogspot.com/
The press release at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html [apple.com] claims "... in April, based on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points--69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29--with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29." This would seem to indicate that the average price should fall.
This article says you can do so for a fee http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1711 but when I tried for my two purchased albums, it did not work crapping out with some "product has changed" error message. It reportedly worked back when they first introduced DRM-free tracks, so maybe it is a temporary problem as things get retooled.
The press release at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html claims "... in April, based on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points--69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29--with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29."
This would seem to indicate that the average price should fall, and that there will be no $2.50 tracks.
If your TV is so old it doesn't have an RF cable input $5 at Radioshack can give you an adapter to plug the cable connection to the screws for the antenna terminal.
They will work fine for Cable TV, and as monitors for video games, DVD's, VCR's etc. The only thing that happens on 2009-02-17 is that the local broadcasters will stop providing an analogue signal for these sets to pick up via antenna.
The admin user group gets write privileges for the /Applications folder and also has sudo abilities, but does not have any abilities beyond that, so it is not equivalent to being looked in as root - it is much closer to the model of escalating privileges on a per-process basis. But with that said, it is slightly more secure, and slightly less convenient, to use a non-admin account for day-to-day activities.
Good point, but Canada does also have have the Canada Pension plan and employment insurance and maybe some provincial programs too? - and in any case we were talking about the highest tax rates, where most of these payroll taxes no longer apply - doesn't social security only apply to the first X number of dollars? I think the Canadian equivalents do too.
Of course while it is in principle to at least figure out where one pays the most in taxes, it is much more of a challenge to decide which one provides better value for that outlay. I would argue that currently Canada seems to be doing a better job of this (balanced budgets, medical coverage, war fiascoes, etc.) but depending on one's outlook it is quite possible to feel the other way.
According to http://www.aurorainternational.net/Maximum_Personal_Marginal_Income_Tax_Rates.htm the top federal rate is 29% plus the provincial rate giving a range of 39% (Alberta) to 53% in Quebec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket indicates the top federal rate in the USA is 35% with up to about 5% for some state income taxes as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax, so it looks like they are within spitting distance of each other only in the case of Alberta - all the others are a bit higher in Canada.
This says nothing about sales taxes, of which there is a federal 5% GST in Canada, plus about 8% in most provinces (excepting Alberta) for a total of about 13% - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_Canada.
In comparison, it looks like most places in the US have lower sales taxes that Canada, but some are pretty close - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States
As you stand farther back, the effect is decreased - Cringely mentioned this back in 2007/08 - http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070831_002850.html hook up the webcam to the big screen TV and sit back at the couch and it might be fairly well done. A small camera behind a projection screen might work even better.
Naw - get him interested in one of the trades - that's where the real money is. Start an apprenticeship right out of high school and by the time his buddies have graduated with their law degrees and a pile of debt he could own his own plumbing business and be bringing it serious coin.
Sure, you have to "pick your battles", but one of the ways society functions is by social pressures - people need to know (hopefully learned when they are young and impressionable) what are considered acceptable behaviours and that only works when significant numbers of the members of society work towards that end. Thus we glare a people who are rude, and we let people know when they are steping outside acceptable boundaries.
Should I turn in my neighbour for spitting on the sidewalk? Having their dog shit on your lawn? Target practice in their back yard? Growing pot in their garden? Brewing meth in their garage? Kicking their dog? Assaulting their spouse? Assaulting their kids? Poisoning the Halloween candy? At some point I hope the "stain" for being a snitch will be outweighed by the seriousness of teh infraction you observe.