Re:Communication by social networking has advantag
on
Kids Say Email is Dead
·
· Score: 1
I think this might be a reason why social networking (at least myspace, i don't know about facebook or others) sites are so popular. They (on a certain level) address both of these points. I can keep my email address the same, while changing the appearance/name on my myspace account. If someone wants to find me, they can search by my real name, but the page might look different when they find it, depending on when they come across it.
It's very doubtful that was flamebait. The Coward parent was simply pointing out some internal inconsistencies, as everyone is wont to do on Slashdot. Kudos to the parent poster, I say.
Points taken. I was more referring to the city/area as a whole, not just traffic. Anyplace where bridges are present has the potential for lots of problems, methinks.
About the first week I was in Portland, I saw a city truck that said "The city that works"...and I thought it was a catchy tagline. Slowly but surely, the city and the surrounding areas proved themselves to do just that. Work.
This isn't the whole story. On your credit report are several types of data. The "who has pulled a credit report" section is divided into two subsections. One is the credit places you've contracted to run your credit. When you apply for a credit card, 90 day financing at the furniture store, "save 10% on your first old navy credit line purchase", car loan, etc. The other is credit places which run your credit without your knowledge. The unsolicited junk mail credit cards, check loans (their own circle of hell themselves), and the like.
The former is considered a negative on your credit rating. The latter, neutral, since you didn't bring it on yourself.
I think that might actually fall under the "young boy network"...
Re:You still have service fees?
on
ATM Turns 40
·
· Score: 1
I picked up my mother once at the airport, and she had a bunch of luggage, so she wanted to rent a cart to carry it all. I stayed with the luggage, and she went to the machine to pay for the cart. Apparently, this machine had money accepter slots at both ends, but at one end--the end where the carts come out--the dispenser was "for donations only", and would take your money, but not loosen a cart in return. I can see tired travelers like my mom putting cash into a slot on a machine that would seem to be self explanatory without reading the (not-so) fine print.
Interesting idea, that laws/etc are a generation behind technology. I wonder if this applies outside/before the world of computers. Are there any laws/regulations which were done away with due to technology 100 years ago? 200?
wow. i guess i never thought of it in those terms. thanks for laying that out so clearly and in a way that makes clearwhy this--the shared pot of money--is not such a great system...
I think I explained it wrong. If you are privately funded and you raise $1000, all your publicly funded opponents get $1000 from the general fund, but you get nothing from the general fund.
now that, i can get along with. that seems pretty radical...how do they limit it? i mean, if i had enough money, couldn't i put up enough to bankrupt the general fund?
The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it.
i guess i believe that the funding should go to the election, not the candidates. under the current system, people support the candidates they believe should win. under a 100% public divided equally plan, those--private citizens, corporations, whomever--contributions pay for the campaigns equally. i guess the contest then becomes who can do the most with the least money...worst case scenario, cheating aside. best case scenario, the best candidate wins, since they all start with the same bankroll.
There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.
Of course. And I'm not taking this point lightly. But how do we enforce equal opportunity?
The trouble is, when you put this together with the rule about not spending any money outside the fund, what do you do when you want to use a web site that was developed before you became eligible for funding? That web site would be an "extra" expenditure. That's just one example of things that pop up when you actually put it into practice.
My gut reaction would be that it's ineligible. It sucks, when compared to the current private system, but it also means everyone starts the race at the same time.
I didn't know AZ had something like this. Sounds like they're on the right track, but I think the matching funds thing just sounds like lip service, since those who need the money the least get the most from the general fund.
I'm thinking more of a pot that everyone puts into, and everyone pulls from. No other money can be spent on campaigning, and any money that you want to spend on your campaign, you have to share with any and all opponents. Don't think it's fair? You get to take some of the money they put in as well, don't forget. It would seem that this method of divvying up the funds would make everyone's voice just as loud, so those who have more grounded things to say--or those who are more frugal with their funds--would do better. I'll come back to this in a second. For now, I'd like to address the points you brought up.
* Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign.
Also known as "Freedom of speech is awesome when everyone sounds like I do." A lot of liberals have problems with it when someone who doesn't agree start exercising their right to speak. I may despise them, but it's the people with the most extreme points of view who often need the 1st amendment protections the most. I'd like to think that the general public will be able to sort out the idiots, if all the voices are the same volume.
* The amounts were too small to mount effective campaigns, providing barely enough for one mailer and maybe one late-night TV commercial. This gives a huge advantage to candidates with more name recognition. Taxpayers wouldn't support any higher amounts.
Taxpayer support? The money should come from those who want to spend it. The campaign contributions should all go thru one agency/filter. They all put their money in a pot, and they all draw from it equally.
* If you want enough money to actually get your message out, you have to go the private route, with the matching system effectively raising funds for your opponent.
If everyone draws from the same pool, yes, i'm funding my opponent, just as he's funding me. May the better candidate get into office.
* It creates all sorts of bizarre conditions on when money can be spent. For example, how to account for resources that are used from pre-announcement through post-election, like a web site.
Don't know if you want to run yet? You don't get to dip into the pool yet, either.
* There is no time for violations to be sorted out in the courts before the election happens. Therefore, if someone breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, there is no remedy until after the election, and no way to determine if it would have affected the outcome. With the small amount of funds, violations that would otherwise be insignificant play a much bigger part.
This one you've got me on. Violations should render a candidate uneligible for election. Get caught cheating, and you lose. Of course then there's the reversal strategy, where you spend money on your opponent, so they're in trouble, etc...i dunno about this one.
I don't think anyone (besides the donors and the recipients, perhaps) would argue that it's not about buying influence. But while a single collective pot to fund campaigns would most likely result in fewer donations overall, I also think it has potential--with the right oversight/management, etc--to get a lot of individuals to donate. Granted, with the right oversight and management, our (US=us in this example) current processes wouldn't have as many problems either.
It's an interesting idea, I guess I'm not seeing any glaringly obvious negatives to this, from a citizen's perspective, which may answer the question of "why don't we do this already?"
Slashdot Mirror
I think this might be a reason why social networking (at least myspace, i don't know about facebook or others) sites are so popular. They (on a certain level) address both of these points. I can keep my email address the same, while changing the appearance/name on my myspace account. If someone wants to find me, they can search by my real name, but the page might look different when they find it, depending on when they come across it.
I've responded to a couple of the "hit me up on msn chat" spams...and blogged about them. good times. .
you mean like an imac?
i paroli esperanto, vi insensitive clod!
Mr. Potatahead! Mr. PotataHEAD! Getting around port blocks is not secret!
It's very doubtful that was flamebait. The Coward parent was simply pointing out some internal inconsistencies, as everyone is wont to do on Slashdot. Kudos to the parent poster, I say.
You much be new here.
No way. You know how big blue whales are? I don't think it's possible to quickly and/or effeciently shave all the hair off of one of those.
Points taken. I was more referring to the city/area as a whole, not just traffic. Anyplace where bridges are present has the potential for lots of problems, methinks.
About the first week I was in Portland, I saw a city truck that said "The city that works"...and I thought it was a catchy tagline. Slowly but surely, the city and the surrounding areas proved themselves to do just that. Work.
I'll second the kudos offered above.
This isn't the whole story. On your credit report are several types of data. The "who has pulled a credit report" section is divided into two subsections. One is the credit places you've contracted to run your credit. When you apply for a credit card, 90 day financing at the furniture store, "save 10% on your first old navy credit line purchase", car loan, etc. The other is credit places which run your credit without your knowledge. The unsolicited junk mail credit cards, check loans (their own circle of hell themselves), and the like.
The former is considered a negative on your credit rating. The latter, neutral, since you didn't bring it on yourself.
it's not the rape thats funny. it's samir's unfounded fear of it, and his delivery that's so funny.
Or are we just surprised that the iPhone has managed to steal a few seconds of airtime from the whole Paris Hilton thing?
/me=off to teh googles/...
OHNOES!! What's going on with paris?!!!one11
how do you know he's not a she?
Let's play a game. It's called chess.
Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
I'd like to be able to see a mountain like that when looking at the window.
Hey, you can! you just need one of these.
wanna send me that nano?
I think that might actually fall under the "young boy network"...
I picked up my mother once at the airport, and she had a bunch of luggage, so she wanted to rent a cart to carry it all. I stayed with the luggage, and she went to the machine to pay for the cart. Apparently, this machine had money accepter slots at both ends, but at one end--the end where the carts come out--the dispenser was "for donations only", and would take your money, but not loosen a cart in return. I can see tired travelers like my mom putting cash into a slot on a machine that would seem to be self explanatory without reading the (not-so) fine print.
Interesting idea, that laws/etc are a generation behind technology. I wonder if this applies outside/before the world of computers. Are there any laws/regulations which were done away with due to technology 100 years ago? 200?
wow. i guess i never thought of it in those terms. thanks for laying that out so clearly and in a way that makes clearwhy this--the shared pot of money--is not such a great system...
point taken, but the right isn't really known for being outspokenly open minded and bastions of free speech...
I think I explained it wrong. If you are privately funded and you raise $1000, all your publicly funded opponents get $1000 from the general fund, but you get nothing from the general fund.
now that, i can get along with. that seems pretty radical...how do they limit it? i mean, if i had enough money, couldn't i put up enough to bankrupt the general fund?
The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it.
i guess i believe that the funding should go to the election, not the candidates. under the current system, people support the candidates they believe should win. under a 100% public divided equally plan, those--private citizens, corporations, whomever--contributions pay for the campaigns equally. i guess the contest then becomes who can do the most with the least money...worst case scenario, cheating aside. best case scenario, the best candidate wins, since they all start with the same bankroll.
There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.
Of course. And I'm not taking this point lightly. But how do we enforce equal opportunity?
The trouble is, when you put this together with the rule about not spending any money outside the fund, what do you do when you want to use a web site that was developed before you became eligible for funding? That web site would be an "extra" expenditure. That's just one example of things that pop up when you actually put it into practice.
My gut reaction would be that it's ineligible. It sucks, when compared to the current private system, but it also means everyone starts the race at the same time.
because the idea is that you're funding the election costs, not the candidate.
I didn't know AZ had something like this. Sounds like they're on the right track, but I think the matching funds thing just sounds like lip service, since those who need the money the least get the most from the general fund. I'm thinking more of a pot that everyone puts into, and everyone pulls from. No other money can be spent on campaigning, and any money that you want to spend on your campaign, you have to share with any and all opponents. Don't think it's fair? You get to take some of the money they put in as well, don't forget. It would seem that this method of divvying up the funds would make everyone's voice just as loud, so those who have more grounded things to say--or those who are more frugal with their funds--would do better. I'll come back to this in a second. For now, I'd like to address the points you brought up.
* Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign.
Also known as "Freedom of speech is awesome when everyone sounds like I do." A lot of liberals have problems with it when someone who doesn't agree start exercising their right to speak. I may despise them, but it's the people with the most extreme points of view who often need the 1st amendment protections the most. I'd like to think that the general public will be able to sort out the idiots, if all the voices are the same volume.
* The amounts were too small to mount effective campaigns, providing barely enough for one mailer and maybe one late-night TV commercial. This gives a huge advantage to candidates with more name recognition. Taxpayers wouldn't support any higher amounts.
Taxpayer support? The money should come from those who want to spend it. The campaign contributions should all go thru one agency/filter. They all put their money in a pot, and they all draw from it equally.
* If you want enough money to actually get your message out, you have to go the private route, with the matching system effectively raising funds for your opponent.
If everyone draws from the same pool, yes, i'm funding my opponent, just as he's funding me. May the better candidate get into office.
* It creates all sorts of bizarre conditions on when money can be spent. For example, how to account for resources that are used from pre-announcement through post-election, like a web site.
Don't know if you want to run yet? You don't get to dip into the pool yet, either.
* There is no time for violations to be sorted out in the courts before the election happens. Therefore, if someone breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, there is no remedy until after the election, and no way to determine if it would have affected the outcome. With the small amount of funds, violations that would otherwise be insignificant play a much bigger part.
This one you've got me on. Violations should render a candidate uneligible for election. Get caught cheating, and you lose. Of course then there's the reversal strategy, where you spend money on your opponent, so they're in trouble, etc...i dunno about this one.
I don't think anyone (besides the donors and the recipients, perhaps) would argue that it's not about buying influence. But while a single collective pot to fund campaigns would most likely result in fewer donations overall, I also think it has potential--with the right oversight/management, etc--to get a lot of individuals to donate. Granted, with the right oversight and management, our (US=us in this example) current processes wouldn't have as many problems either.
It's an interesting idea, I guess I'm not seeing any glaringly obvious negatives to this, from a citizen's perspective, which may answer the question of "why don't we do this already?"