Where do you get this info? I've been trying to research tax burden by state, because I'm sick to death of having 50% of my paycheck gone before I even see it. Next (and hopefully last) place I move to, I want it to be as financially beneficial to my family as possible. AL never even came up on my radar. I focussed on states with no income tax, though.
If that were the case, the complaint wouldn't be "except that Macs are sadly lacking in the one field in which I work (video game development)" but "my employer's policy targets PC development only".
What is it that Macs really lack for developing video games? I can't think of anything. There may be other factors involved, but I don't think it's development tools.
Pbbbt! If that's it, then he's making a conscious choice to avoid the Mac for game programming. There are functional equivalents that exist on the Mac, like OpenGL.
Losing freedom due to the natural course of events is completely different than losing your freedom because another person exerted their will to thwart yours. Life is risk, and you have to accept that. But the other? No way. Just because your life is risky (as is mine!) does not give either of us the right to force the other to help bear that risk. If you want to do so voluntarily, you are perfectly free to do that.
The EC affects only one elected office: the presidency of the United States. Get off your butt and vote for US senators, US congressmen, governor, state legislators, attorney general, mayor, city council, county board, dogcatcher, etc.
Yes, I agree the situation is bad, but for completely different reasons - mostly a domination of the system by a mere two political parties, due to plurality voting.
it makes for a police force that feels set apart from ordinary citizens
Firearm prohibitions do the same. They create an "elite" citizenry (cops, politicians, wealthy) that has rights the rest of us do not - and that's a very, very dangerous attitude.
Health insurance companies often have screenings when you subscribe to them. I fully support that idea. If you're in a "high risk group" then you pay higher premiums. It makes no sense to lump everyone together into one pool. Perhaps my assumption of how insurance operates in this hypothetical is at odds with your assumption, but that's all. I believe those engaged in unhealthy behavior will (and should) bear the brunt of the consequences of their choices. If they don't, then the system is broken, and needs to be adjusted.
Solution: get rid of the public dole. Personal responsibility is key. If you can't make a go of your own life, that's what private charity is for. You shouldn't expect to be able to mooch off productive members of society indefinitely.
First, you're ignoring the difference between "no healthcare" and "no healthcare insurance". AFAIK, every ER in America is legally obliged to help you if you need emergency care. So there is "healthcare" available. As a responsible person, you should take ownership of yourself for non-emergency situations, however. If you eat yourself (or drink yourself, or dope yourself, or sloth yourself, etc) to death, that's a completely preventable situation, and I'm admittedly not very sympathetic to this "plight".
Second, you ignore the fact that many people without healthcare insurance are in that situation out of choice. When I was a healthy single 20-something, I didn't "need" health insurance. That was a choice I made for my own life, and that's fine. Yes, that's a risk. Life is risk. Deal with it. You may choose to "deal with it" differently than I, and that's your prerogative.
Third, insurance rates probably would go up. But the problem with insurance rates is largely the fact that for most people, insurance is an employer-provided benefit. When you have access to a resource you don't pay for, you abuse it. You want to get more out of it than you put in - that's human nature. The solution is to stop providing what is seen as a core need of people as a "benefit" and simply pay them the difference so they can get their own. ("Fringe benefits" should be the truly fringe things, like cheap memberships to the club the president co-owns, or discounts at partnered companies, etc. - the things you could easily do without and not suffer hardship because of it. It would still be completely valid for a company to negotiate a discounted rate with an insurance carrier as a benefit, of course.) When people's unhealthy habits hit them in the pocketbook, they'll adjust. And if they don't, they deserve what they get.
Their shit diet is going to cost society massive amounts in health care!
Which is a good argument against socialist healthcare programs. The right to choose what you eat equates with the responsibility of dealing with (mal)nutrition) and (bad) health issues. If you want someone else to pick up the tab, then expect them to impose strictures on your freedom - forfeit your responsibilities, forfeit your rights.
Oh, I understand. If you ask me, schools should be funded by tuition - even primary/secondary ed. Then I'd be able to afford to send my kids to schools that didn't subscribe to that sort of nonsense, or homeschool them without being extorted for something I'm not using. Handing education over (largely) to a state-sponsored monopoly is just asking for trouble.
why not just serve only HEATHY food in the first place!
That's the way it was for my school in the 80s. The cafeteria served one meal. If you didn't like it, you skipped lunch that day. Those were your only options. The concept of cafeteria as "mall food court" is completely foreign to me. Why are schools spending their money on that when they could be spending it on academics?
Politically speaking term limits are much more viable in the current climate.
Only because most pols as well as the electorate don't really thing about the apparatus of the system itself. Term limits are an easy concept to understand, and easy to implement, and simplicity often wins even when it is not the best solution. Sad, that.
Probably one of the big flaws in the Constitution is that there's no real way for the states to force a state to split or two states to merge, nor any incentive for them to do so to accurately represent their population.
Nor should there be. States are not merely administrative districts of the FedGov to be readjusted as needed, but sovereign states in their own right. At least, that was the original design and intent. It may benefit the people, because at the federal level they'd have more pull, and the smaller state governments (in theory) would be more responsive. But it would be a reduction of power for the legislature and governor. Since the state has to initiate it, I doubt it would happen.
Concerns like this should have been addressed when the state applied for admission to the Union. But, as was pointed out to me, short-term political/economic interests took precedence.
What really needs to be split, and is within the jurisdiction of the FedGov to do, is the 9th Circuit Court.
I don't care what anyone says, the Marathon Trilogy is still one of the best games I've ever played. The intriguing plot is one of the main reasons why. It also had great gameplay.
Well, you can optimize for hardware/software, or you can optimize for users. Users' tolerance for working in ways constrained by system limitations is diminishing - they expect the computer to work the way that is intuitive to them. We've got about a million times the power of computers 20 years ago. I think it's pretty obvious that the user argument is going to win here.
Remember the guy that wanted to secede from the union? Or the guy running this year that wants to go back to a gold/silver economy?
Neither is intrinsically a bad idea. If Oregonians don't like the direction the USA is taking, they should be free to leave. A commmodity-backed currency is much more stable than the fiat currency we have now, not subject to inflation and the whims of the bankers at the Federal Reserve.
Then they deserve the gov't they get as a result--when an extra couple bucks is worth more than your freedom, that's what happens. Too bad it's inflicted on the rest of us too.
Case-sensitive filesystems are stupid. If you tell someone "go bring up the 'college' document" do you think they hear any case-sensitivity? If they see "college", "College", or "COLLEGE", don't you think they'll assume they found the right one? How would he know you said "college" and not "COLLEGE" - they sound the same to me!
Case-preserving non-case-sensitive filesystems are absolutely the right way to go for any consumer-targeted OS. Only (some) geeks would say otherwise. If you're relying on case to differentiate files, may I suggest that you choose better names?!
I tend to agree, though I have a sneaking suspicion about the 17th. It's much more subtle, but just as dangerous, methinks. I tend to throw those two together, since they were ratified about the same time, and together did so much to expand the power of the FedGov. Of course, there are several other stinkers as well.
The 22nd should have included Term Limits for Congress
I don't agree with term limits on principle. It's as much a limitation on the electorate (who now cannot freely choose whom they want in office) as it is on the elected officials. It throws out the good with the bad, and that's bad. Instead, it would be much better to build more freedom in...by reforming the voting system so that third parties have a fair chance. Choice is good...it's insane to think two positions fully represent the voices of everyone in the country. If citizens felt free to vote honestly, rather than holding their nose and choosing "the lesser of two evils", this problem would go away. However, just as incumbents are unlikely to artificially limit themselves to X terms, the Duopoly (it's really one party with two heads, there's not a dime's worth of difference anymore) is unlikely to do anything that threatens its lock on political power. I've commented on this (and other ideas for reform) elsewhere on this story in fuller detail, if you're interested.
I still think Conressional, and Presidential, compensation should be handled by Referendum.
Hmmm, maybe not a bad idea. Or lock it to some multiple of national average income. Heck, that's not a bad idea for any gov't job - tie it to the incomes of those in the private sector!
The real problem, which this amendment did not correct, is that pay raises in the Congress right now are automatic unless they act to block it. Sure, the raise automatically passed this session doesn't take effect until the next session, but that's just a shady end run around the law.
One of the reasons people want to be in Congress is because it's the only way they'll ever earn a paycheck even remotely close to 6-figures. I would KILL to see them paid next to nothing.
Hey now, don't say that, I have aspirations of running for Congress.:) Given that they currently "live" in DC for 8 months a year, you almost need to maintain two households. That's not cheap, and it is a very demanding job. In many states I can't even consider running for state legislature, because my pay could be cut by over 50% - almost 80% where I live now. (And no, I don't have some big fat salary. I currently have three jobs to make it work.) Back in the day where the society was agricultural (and gov't was still quite limited in what it did), citizen-legislators could take care of business between January and March, and be home in time for planting and their real jobs. Today there aren't many jobs where you can disappear for 3-6 months - and be "on call" the rest of the year in addition. If you want decent people, you have to pay them a decent salary. In my state, everyone in the legislature is independently wealthy or a retiree. I don't think that's healthy!
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The main problem here, is that Commerce isn't defined in, nor by, the Constitution.
The main problem is that the Founders assumed that elected officials would have the common sense that God gave a goose. Anybody with half a brain could tell you that pot grown in CA, sold in CA, that never leaves CA, is not interstate commerce. I don't like drugs nor use them, but it's clearly unconstitutional that the FedGov is stomping on California's sovereignty in this case. Actually, I don't see any constitutional authority for the FedGov to regulate what individuals consume at all! With the 18th Amendment, at least Congress realized it would take an amendment to assume this authority to itself.
Of course, I should have thought of that. The desire for short-term advantages in economic or political power always outweigh the long-term good of creating healthy governance.
California should almost definitely be split into two states
I'm sometimes surprised that California was admitted to the union with the borders it has. The East Coast has like 15 states, but the West Coast has only 3? I'd've thought that people back then, when communication and travel were slower, would have understood the nature of localities. Georgia is a lot different than Maryland, so why should southern Cali be expected to be just like northern Cali? Those regions are likely to be different culturally, with different ideas of resource use and governance. It's no surprise to me that California today sometimes seems so schizophrenic.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you get this info? I've been trying to research tax burden by state, because I'm sick to death of having 50% of my paycheck gone before I even see it. Next (and hopefully last) place I move to, I want it to be as financially beneficial to my family as possible. AL never even came up on my radar. I focussed on states with no income tax, though.
If that were the case, the complaint wouldn't be "except that Macs are sadly lacking in the one field in which I work (video game development)" but "my employer's policy targets PC development only".
What is it that Macs really lack for developing video games? I can't think of anything. There may be other factors involved, but I don't think it's development tools.
Pbbbt! If that's it, then he's making a conscious choice to avoid the Mac for game programming. There are functional equivalents that exist on the Mac, like OpenGL.
What's lacking? Do you use special programming tools to program games that are only available for Windows? Honestly curious...
Losing freedom due to the natural course of events is completely different than losing your freedom because another person exerted their will to thwart yours. Life is risk, and you have to accept that. But the other? No way. Just because your life is risky (as is mine!) does not give either of us the right to force the other to help bear that risk. If you want to do so voluntarily, you are perfectly free to do that.
The EC affects only one elected office: the presidency of the United States. Get off your butt and vote for US senators, US congressmen, governor, state legislators, attorney general, mayor, city council, county board, dogcatcher, etc.
Yes, I agree the situation is bad, but for completely different reasons - mostly a domination of the system by a mere two political parties, due to plurality voting.
Firearm prohibitions do the same. They create an "elite" citizenry (cops, politicians, wealthy) that has rights the rest of us do not - and that's a very, very dangerous attitude.
Health insurance companies often have screenings when you subscribe to them. I fully support that idea. If you're in a "high risk group" then you pay higher premiums. It makes no sense to lump everyone together into one pool. Perhaps my assumption of how insurance operates in this hypothetical is at odds with your assumption, but that's all. I believe those engaged in unhealthy behavior will (and should) bear the brunt of the consequences of their choices. If they don't, then the system is broken, and needs to be adjusted.
Solution: get rid of the public dole. Personal responsibility is key. If you can't make a go of your own life, that's what private charity is for. You shouldn't expect to be able to mooch off productive members of society indefinitely.
First, you're ignoring the difference between "no healthcare" and "no healthcare insurance". AFAIK, every ER in America is legally obliged to help you if you need emergency care. So there is "healthcare" available. As a responsible person, you should take ownership of yourself for non-emergency situations, however. If you eat yourself (or drink yourself, or dope yourself, or sloth yourself, etc) to death, that's a completely preventable situation, and I'm admittedly not very sympathetic to this "plight".
Second, you ignore the fact that many people without healthcare insurance are in that situation out of choice. When I was a healthy single 20-something, I didn't "need" health insurance. That was a choice I made for my own life, and that's fine. Yes, that's a risk. Life is risk. Deal with it. You may choose to "deal with it" differently than I, and that's your prerogative.
Third, insurance rates probably would go up. But the problem with insurance rates is largely the fact that for most people, insurance is an employer-provided benefit. When you have access to a resource you don't pay for, you abuse it. You want to get more out of it than you put in - that's human nature. The solution is to stop providing what is seen as a core need of people as a "benefit" and simply pay them the difference so they can get their own. ("Fringe benefits" should be the truly fringe things, like cheap memberships to the club the president co-owns, or discounts at partnered companies, etc. - the things you could easily do without and not suffer hardship because of it. It would still be completely valid for a company to negotiate a discounted rate with an insurance carrier as a benefit, of course.) When people's unhealthy habits hit them in the pocketbook, they'll adjust. And if they don't, they deserve what they get.
Personal responsibility, that's the ticket.
Which is a good argument against socialist healthcare programs. The right to choose what you eat equates with the responsibility of dealing with (mal)nutrition) and (bad) health issues. If you want someone else to pick up the tab, then expect them to impose strictures on your freedom - forfeit your responsibilities, forfeit your rights.
Oh, I understand. If you ask me, schools should be funded by tuition - even primary/secondary ed. Then I'd be able to afford to send my kids to schools that didn't subscribe to that sort of nonsense, or homeschool them without being extorted for something I'm not using. Handing education over (largely) to a state-sponsored monopoly is just asking for trouble.
What about shelters for the general population? Where's the civil defense corps?
That's the way it was for my school in the 80s. The cafeteria served one meal. If you didn't like it, you skipped lunch that day. Those were your only options. The concept of cafeteria as "mall food court" is completely foreign to me. Why are schools spending their money on that when they could be spending it on academics?
Only because most pols as well as the electorate don't really thing about the apparatus of the system itself. Term limits are an easy concept to understand, and easy to implement, and simplicity often wins even when it is not the best solution. Sad, that.
Nor should there be. States are not merely administrative districts of the FedGov to be readjusted as needed, but sovereign states in their own right. At least, that was the original design and intent. It may benefit the people, because at the federal level they'd have more pull, and the smaller state governments (in theory) would be more responsive. But it would be a reduction of power for the legislature and governor. Since the state has to initiate it, I doubt it would happen.
Concerns like this should have been addressed when the state applied for admission to the Union. But, as was pointed out to me, short-term political/economic interests took precedence.
What really needs to be split, and is within the jurisdiction of the FedGov to do, is the 9th Circuit Court.
I don't care what anyone says, the Marathon Trilogy is still one of the best games I've ever played. The intriguing plot is one of the main reasons why. It also had great gameplay.
Well, you can optimize for hardware/software, or you can optimize for users. Users' tolerance for working in ways constrained by system limitations is diminishing - they expect the computer to work the way that is intuitive to them. We've got about a million times the power of computers 20 years ago. I think it's pretty obvious that the user argument is going to win here.
Neither is intrinsically a bad idea. If Oregonians don't like the direction the USA is taking, they should be free to leave. A commmodity-backed currency is much more stable than the fiat currency we have now, not subject to inflation and the whims of the bankers at the Federal Reserve.
Then they deserve the gov't they get as a result--when an extra couple bucks is worth more than your freedom, that's what happens. Too bad it's inflicted on the rest of us too.
Wow, someone else "gets it"!
Case-sensitive filesystems are stupid. If you tell someone "go bring up the 'college' document" do you think they hear any case-sensitivity? If they see "college", "College", or "COLLEGE", don't you think they'll assume they found the right one? How would he know you said "college" and not "COLLEGE" - they sound the same to me!
Case-preserving non-case-sensitive filesystems are absolutely the right way to go for any consumer-targeted OS. Only (some) geeks would say otherwise. If you're relying on case to differentiate files, may I suggest that you choose better names?!
I tend to agree, though I have a sneaking suspicion about the 17th. It's much more subtle, but just as dangerous, methinks. I tend to throw those two together, since they were ratified about the same time, and together did so much to expand the power of the FedGov. Of course, there are several other stinkers as well.
I don't agree with term limits on principle. It's as much a limitation on the electorate (who now cannot freely choose whom they want in office) as it is on the elected officials. It throws out the good with the bad, and that's bad. Instead, it would be much better to build more freedom in...by reforming the voting system so that third parties have a fair chance. Choice is good...it's insane to think two positions fully represent the voices of everyone in the country. If citizens felt free to vote honestly, rather than holding their nose and choosing "the lesser of two evils", this problem would go away. However, just as incumbents are unlikely to artificially limit themselves to X terms, the Duopoly (it's really one party with two heads, there's not a dime's worth of difference anymore) is unlikely to do anything that threatens its lock on political power. I've commented on this (and other ideas for reform) elsewhere on this story in fuller detail, if you're interested.
Hmmm, maybe not a bad idea. Or lock it to some multiple of national average income. Heck, that's not a bad idea for any gov't job - tie it to the incomes of those in the private sector!
The real problem, which this amendment did not correct, is that pay raises in the Congress right now are automatic unless they act to block it. Sure, the raise automatically passed this session doesn't take effect until the next session, but that's just a shady end run around the law.
Hey now, don't say that, I have aspirations of running for Congress. :) Given that they currently "live" in DC for 8 months a year, you almost need to maintain two households. That's not cheap, and it is a very demanding job. In many states I can't even consider running for state legislature, because my pay could be cut by over 50% - almost 80% where I live now. (And no, I don't have some big fat salary. I currently have three jobs to make it work.) Back in the day where the society was agricultural (and gov't was still quite limited in what it did), citizen-legislators could take care of business between January and March, and be home in time for planting and their real jobs. Today there aren't many jobs where you can disappear for 3-6 months - and be "on call" the rest of the year in addition. If you want decent people, you have to pay them a decent salary. In my state, everyone in the legislature is independently wealthy or a retiree. I don't think that's healthy!
The main problem is that the Founders assumed that elected officials would have the common sense that God gave a goose. Anybody with half a brain could tell you that pot grown in CA, sold in CA, that never leaves CA, is not interstate commerce. I don't like drugs nor use them, but it's clearly unconstitutional that the FedGov is stomping on California's sovereignty in this case. Actually, I don't see any constitutional authority for the FedGov to regulate what individuals consume at all! With the 18th Amendment, at least Congress realized it would take an amendment to assume this authority to itself.
Of course, I should have thought of that. The desire for short-term advantages in economic or political power always outweigh the long-term good of creating healthy governance.
I'm sometimes surprised that California was admitted to the union with the borders it has. The East Coast has like 15 states, but the West Coast has only 3? I'd've thought that people back then, when communication and travel were slower, would have understood the nature of localities. Georgia is a lot different than Maryland, so why should southern Cali be expected to be just like northern Cali? Those regions are likely to be different culturally, with different ideas of resource use and governance. It's no surprise to me that California today sometimes seems so schizophrenic.