Meet Bob, gross annual income $0, net -$50,000 (medical bills). He took a product promoted by the producer of some of his favorite videos promising to add an extra 3 inches. Now he's suffering from an embolism and renal failure and is unable to work due to his condition. Meet company Long Member LLC., gross annual income $250M, net $180M makers of the product Bob took.
Care to guess what'd happen should Bob decide to get frisky in between dialysis visits and try to lawyer up.
So a competitor is going to spend {x} on the testing of competitors, {y} on a marketing campaign to convince the masses that their cheap commodity good actually has aloe and others don't, and {z} on defending libel suits brought against them by the competitors they just slandered? You sir have a peculiar sense of reality.
To hell with regulations. The last thing we need is some government bureaucracy telling us luminescent green goo in a bottle with a picture of a leafy plant on it can't be sold as aloe. It captures the spirit of what Americans think aloe is and that should be good enough. This all comes down to personal responsibility, not more nanny state regulations. I say we let the markets sort this out. Next thing you know they'll be conducting raids on wasabi factories. Where does it end?
Fortunately you're in the minority. I would much rather have everyone's minds scrubbed by Fox and Breitbart. It makes it so much easier for me to find fodder by which to feed my superiority complex.
Thanks for the history lesson, and even now each branch has their own mechanical birds. That however says nothing about the Air Force and its relationship to the Constitution. Perhaps we should likewise eliminate 12 of the 16 agencies in the National Intelligence Community since they likewise do not have a parent branch of the military of which is enshrined in the Constitution. Lets chop off the FCC, FDA, USDA, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of Education, and all the others not given charter or permit in the Constitution. We obviously don't need them since they're not in the constitution.
Let's be the anemic, impotent isolationists we once were as was prescribed in the Constitution. I fathom that shall go very nicely for us.
That nonsense double-talk. The elector is naught but a messenger. If a state has five electoral votes then each party can be said to have five electors. For the sake of this example lets say that there are two parties. This would imply that there are 10 electors and that they each set off on their horse at a certain time for the state capitol. A mob comprised of voters from the majority set off after the 5 electors from the other party and take a sword to their legs before reaching the capitol and casting their vote.
The vote does not count. Lets say the state is given 5 electoral votes. A B and C vote for #1, D and E vote for #2, since A B and C represent the majority position, 5 votes are cast for #1 stripping D and E of their vote and given to the opposition. The votes of A B and C count for 1.33 each and D and E for 0 each. That's disenfranchisement.
Lets assume state AState had 5 electoral votes and state BState had 2. Now lets say that AState had 3 people vote for #1 and 2 vote for #2, and that BState had 2 votes for #2 and 0 votes for #1. In the current system #1 would still win since 5 electoral votes is greater than 2 in spite there being only 3 people whom voted for #1 and 4 whom voted for for #2.
I believe if you were to read constitution you'd find that we're not adhering to it presently. However, why should we be chained to a document that no longer serves present concerns? Perhaps we should eliminate the Air Force while we're at it since it wasn't one of the military branches enshrined in the articles of constitution. Airplanes didn't exist then, and so they surely must not be appropriate now.
The electoral college has two problems as I see it. While I do not care for my vote counting for less than a person in another state. I cannot abide for the fact that if in my state I have the minority position, my vote is taken away from me and given to the majority. If my vote should count for less then so be it, but how dare it be stolen and counted against my wishes.
How lovely, but then we decided that the citizens get to vote rather than the electors and made everything you just quoted no longer applicable. The electoral college does two things.
It assigns a weight to the vote of a state's citizen
It strips that voter of their vote if they represent the minority position in that state
One could debate whether landmass or population is more important, but how can anyone debate voter disenfranchisement?
Why should the majority be held captive by the majority of the minority? Said another way, why should my vote count for say 1/8 that of a vote from a neighboring state? Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, why should my dissenting vote be taken away from me and awarded to the majority position of my state? Even if my vote counts for less than a vote from say South Dakota I should still be counted. With the electoral college I am not.
I believe that would be because billions of dollars aren't at stake.
This is a region of the US where politicians are made from the same poorly educated, short-sighted few that live in these desolate parts. A place where dollars are rarely spoken of in terms of millions and billions will motivate anyone to execute their grandma and sell their daughters as concubines to Lucifer. Government oversight is unheard of and born of the same libertarian tradition that insists citizens be free of oversight and intrusion.
Of course they do. You just need to pay extra to get Sirius' traffic advisory subscription. In car navigation/infotainment sucks first and foremost because there are a couple well entrenched companies providing all the hardware and especially the services. These companies do not have the same kinds of pressure to innovate and compete as in the mobile space. Google and Apple are trying to change that, but as anyone paying attention can see Android Auto and Apple Carplay have been at it for several years now and still have not seen meaningful adoption. The old guard isn't going away any time soon. Usually these companies supply many other parts for cars and I wouldn't be surprised if they use that as leverage. "If you drop our navigation, just wait to see what we do to the cost of your other 1000+ parts we supply to you".
It's an option for the same reason you don't carry around a single function phone as well as a separate gadget for GPS, a camera, MP3 player, a day planner, and a laptop for when you need to do something a bit more involved.
The more important question that should be being asked is "How much did they make from the practice of cramming?" If the answer is "less than what they were fined"--which it almost certainly is--then they have no motivation to alter their practices. This fine is nothing but whitewash to mollify some grumpy petitioners.
The most prevalent form of card theft/abuse is pinless POS transactions. This just makes the far less common scenario, random Joe Thief unable to type a CC with security code into an online shop at checkout more difficult.
Citation? start here. While not being particularly effective at modifying driver behavior (see aforementioned link), they are also not impartial. While they may capture a vehicle and it's operator (maybe) in the middle of a crossing, they do not provide the context. They do not make the observation that the city rigged the yellow lights to be impractically short, they do not even make the observation that the light was in fact red prior to the driver entering the intersection.
This is in contrast to a police body cam which records the video and audio of a police encounter from start to conclusion providing full and usually easy to understand context.
Red-light cameras are a tool for revenue generation with a growing body of evidence of their abuse. Police body cams however are supposed to be an impartial witness.
I find it harder to accept the opposite side, that the citizen having decides they can't misbehave and/or complain. The first assumption being that they citizens even know that cop is wearing a cam. It's not at all obvious to someone unfamiliar which such devices that that's what it is. Two it doesn't reasonably allow for the >50% drop in reports since only half the cops are wearing them at any given time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, the product was manufactured in Texas with the aloe sourced from a company based in Florida. Natch.
Meet Bob, gross annual income $0, net -$50,000 (medical bills). He took a product promoted by the producer of some of his favorite videos promising to add an extra 3 inches. Now he's suffering from an embolism and renal failure and is unable to work due to his condition. Meet company Long Member LLC., gross annual income $250M, net $180M makers of the product Bob took.
Care to guess what'd happen should Bob decide to get frisky in between dialysis visits and try to lawyer up.
So a competitor is going to spend {x} on the testing of competitors, {y} on a marketing campaign to convince the masses that their cheap commodity good actually has aloe and others don't, and {z} on defending libel suits brought against them by the competitors they just slandered? You sir have a peculiar sense of reality.
To hell with regulations. The last thing we need is some government bureaucracy telling us luminescent green goo in a bottle with a picture of a leafy plant on it can't be sold as aloe. It captures the spirit of what Americans think aloe is and that should be good enough. This all comes down to personal responsibility, not more nanny state regulations. I say we let the markets sort this out. Next thing you know they'll be conducting raids on wasabi factories. Where does it end?
Fortunately you're in the minority. I would much rather have everyone's minds scrubbed by Fox and Breitbart. It makes it so much easier for me to find fodder by which to feed my superiority complex.
Thanks for the history lesson, and even now each branch has their own mechanical birds. That however says nothing about the Air Force and its relationship to the Constitution. Perhaps we should likewise eliminate 12 of the 16 agencies in the National Intelligence Community since they likewise do not have a parent branch of the military of which is enshrined in the Constitution. Lets chop off the FCC, FDA, USDA, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of Education, and all the others not given charter or permit in the Constitution. We obviously don't need them since they're not in the constitution.
Let's be the anemic, impotent isolationists we once were as was prescribed in the Constitution. I fathom that shall go very nicely for us.
That nonsense double-talk. The elector is naught but a messenger. If a state has five electoral votes then each party can be said to have five electors. For the sake of this example lets say that there are two parties. This would imply that there are 10 electors and that they each set off on their horse at a certain time for the state capitol. A mob comprised of voters from the majority set off after the 5 electors from the other party and take a sword to their legs before reaching the capitol and casting their vote.
The vote does not count. Lets say the state is given 5 electoral votes. A B and C vote for #1, D and E vote for #2, since A B and C represent the majority position, 5 votes are cast for #1 stripping D and E of their vote and given to the opposition. The votes of A B and C count for 1.33 each and D and E for 0 each. That's disenfranchisement.
Lets assume state AState had 5 electoral votes and state BState had 2. Now lets say that AState had 3 people vote for #1 and 2 vote for #2, and that BState had 2 votes for #2 and 0 votes for #1. In the current system #1 would still win since 5 electoral votes is greater than 2 in spite there being only 3 people whom voted for #1 and 4 whom voted for for #2.
I believe if you were to read constitution you'd find that we're not adhering to it presently. However, why should we be chained to a document that no longer serves present concerns? Perhaps we should eliminate the Air Force while we're at it since it wasn't one of the military branches enshrined in the articles of constitution. Airplanes didn't exist then, and so they surely must not be appropriate now.
I did not elect my elector.
The electoral college has two problems as I see it. While I do not care for my vote counting for less than a person in another state. I cannot abide for the fact that if in my state I have the minority position, my vote is taken away from me and given to the majority. If my vote should count for less then so be it, but how dare it be stolen and counted against my wishes.
Justify your statement for I cannot understand its implications.
You can argue historical purpose in a historical context, but we live in the present.
How lovely, but then we decided that the citizens get to vote rather than the electors and made everything you just quoted no longer applicable. The electoral college does two things.
One could debate whether landmass or population is more important, but how can anyone debate voter disenfranchisement?
Why should the majority be held captive by the majority of the minority? Said another way, why should my vote count for say 1/8 that of a vote from a neighboring state? Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, why should my dissenting vote be taken away from me and awarded to the majority position of my state? Even if my vote counts for less than a vote from say South Dakota I should still be counted. With the electoral college I am not.
I believe that would be because billions of dollars aren't at stake.
This is a region of the US where politicians are made from the same poorly educated, short-sighted few that live in these desolate parts. A place where dollars are rarely spoken of in terms of millions and billions will motivate anyone to execute their grandma and sell their daughters as concubines to Lucifer. Government oversight is unheard of and born of the same libertarian tradition that insists citizens be free of oversight and intrusion.
I guess my sarcasm was too well buried. Normally I just let Google notify me via push notification on my cell phone before I enter backups.
Of course they do. You just need to pay extra to get Sirius' traffic advisory subscription. In car navigation/infotainment sucks first and foremost because there are a couple well entrenched companies providing all the hardware and especially the services. These companies do not have the same kinds of pressure to innovate and compete as in the mobile space. Google and Apple are trying to change that, but as anyone paying attention can see Android Auto and Apple Carplay have been at it for several years now and still have not seen meaningful adoption. The old guard isn't going away any time soon. Usually these companies supply many other parts for cars and I wouldn't be surprised if they use that as leverage. "If you drop our navigation, just wait to see what we do to the cost of your other 1000+ parts we supply to you".
It's an option for the same reason you don't carry around a single function phone as well as a separate gadget for GPS, a camera, MP3 player, a day planner, and a laptop for when you need to do something a bit more involved.
The more important question that should be being asked is "How much did they make from the practice of cramming?" If the answer is "less than what they were fined"--which it almost certainly is--then they have no motivation to alter their practices. This fine is nothing but whitewash to mollify some grumpy petitioners.
The most prevalent form of card theft/abuse is pinless POS transactions. This just makes the far less common scenario, random Joe Thief unable to type a CC with security code into an online shop at checkout more difficult.
Unless pinless debit transactions are not possible, this is completely worthless security theatre.
Citation? start here. While not being particularly effective at modifying driver behavior (see aforementioned link), they are also not impartial. While they may capture a vehicle and it's operator (maybe) in the middle of a crossing, they do not provide the context. They do not make the observation that the city rigged the yellow lights to be impractically short, they do not even make the observation that the light was in fact red prior to the driver entering the intersection.
This is in contrast to a police body cam which records the video and audio of a police encounter from start to conclusion providing full and usually easy to understand context.
Red-light cameras are a tool for revenue generation with a growing body of evidence of their abuse. Police body cams however are supposed to be an impartial witness.
I find it harder to accept the opposite side, that the citizen having decides they can't misbehave and/or complain. The first assumption being that they citizens even know that cop is wearing a cam. It's not at all obvious to someone unfamiliar which such devices that that's what it is. Two it doesn't reasonably allow for the >50% drop in reports since only half the cops are wearing them at any given time.