Depending on the day of the week, the US is -currently- either the #1 or the #2 producer of convention oil in the world. It's actually why oil prices have been crashing - we don't give a fuck about OPEC, and we're producing it as fast as we can frack it out of the ground. We produce, domestically, about half of the petroleum that we consume, and import half of the rest from Canada & Mexico and the rest from nations that arguably don't like us but love our dollars.
There is a CO2 sequestration, "Air Mining" operation that just opened up in San Antonio (which has pretty shitty air quality due to a variety of factors, not limited to the large number of very large quarries that are littered in and around the city). It will be interesting to see how that project goes and if it is long-term successful.
...Is this any different from the quite common practice of buying links on multiple networks, so that you have faster connections to those networks? That thing that people have been doing for decades?
The point should be, that open source CAN be superior in these respects. It's probably pretty likely that no one but the original code author of this bug actually considered what the code was doing, and just said "Hey, looks good, accept pull request." and then no one else looked at it.
... and in a system with a good code review system, this probably would have never happened to begin with, because once you require more than a couple of people look at it, weird mistakes like that usually get caught. at least, if they are thinking about it. Pretty much all the major code errors i've seen in peer review systems get through when people just start blindly accepting code, or only comb it for style related issues. Serious flaws like what caused Heartbleed are pretty difficult to get through multiple people that are thinking.
If you want population-proportional representation in the HoR, get their dumb asses to unlock the 435 limit and set it per-X-residents with no fixed number of representatives (only the ability to change "X" in that calculation when every state has a minimum population value for X). Currently, 1 representative per 700k residents is just about right (300M / 700k = 428-ish). Alaska has just above 700k residents, and North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have a bit less, but could have 1 representative each anyway.
Agree in principle, but your representative counts are way, way off. The 435 limit was set in 1911 for the 63rd Congress, and followed that up in 1929 with the "Permanent Apportionment Act", because they couldn't get their shit together and fulfill one of their obligations (which was to properly re-apportion, including ADDING OR SUBTRACTING seats based on the census results). Kinda like today - you had members of Congress playing the anti-immigrant card as hard as they could, and in the process, really broke things for us a hundred years later.
Anyway, the US population after the 1910 census was a bit over 92 million (92,228,496) giving a population to representative of ~212k. If we were to maintain even a remotely similar representation, we would be looking at a HoR with ~1456 members, with the least populous state (Wyoming) having 2 representatives - which is, interestingly enough, directly in line with Madison's original Bill of Rights proposal for Article the First, which explicitly set the minimum number of reps per state at 2 after crossing the 30k per rep line, and setting 30k per rep as the hard line for the number of representatives in the HoR (which would have today's HoR be 10,300 and change)
Hell - I'd be okay with setting the reps per population to, on average, be roughly equivalent to smallest state population divided by 2, until such time as that's back up to, say, 350k, after which it becomes divisible by +1. That would mean that, should Wyoming's population reach 700k, we would, instead of dividing their population by 2 to get the population per rep (and the total number of reps from there). This would allow for the HoR to increase in membership still relatively infrequently, but unlikely to stay static for a century as it has, largely due to incompetence.
Yes, that is its political effect, and it is extremely anti-democratic. But the reason it exists is simply that independent states varied in size at the time of the Constitutional convention. There was no intention at that Convention to give rural people a political check over those living in cities.
Except YOU ARE WRONG.
That was almost precisely the intention of the proponents of the New Jersey Plan prior to its combination, in modified form, with the Virginia Plan, also modified, to form the Great Compromise. The entire point of the Senate was to provide a check against large population state representation, and force the rest of the Congress to actually listen to the needs of the smaller states.
You, and everyone else bitching about the makeup of the US Congress and specifically the senate, need to go back and retake middle school civics.
The Senate, at the country's inception, WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE POPULARLY ELECTED.
You have a bicameral legislature - the House of Representatives, who's members are popularly elected by the residents of the states, and the Senate - who's membership was, until the horrific fuck up that is the 17th Amendment was passed shortly after the turn of the 20th century, selected by the legislatures of the states to represent their interests in crafting national law - and SPECIFICALLY to prevent large states, like California, New York, Florida, and Texas today; New York and Pennsylvania in 1789, from running roughshod over the interests and needs of the smaller states. So yes, the Senate makeup IS DELIBERATELY set up to fuck over the large population states, because they are able to fuck over the small states in the House of Representatives.
Welcome to basic civics.
If you want to fix the Senate, repeal the 17th.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
