Which is why the Republicans absolutely CANNOT put Trump on the ticket. I don't like him, I don't like Hillary, I don't like most of the candidates running but I sure as hell prefer to see the better ones face off (unlike putting Romney up against Obama, that was a done deal before it started).

I'm not even for charging to the industry... I'm for charging the individual entities that are responsible.

An industry charge might look at two power companies and decide, because they both have $5 billion revenue per year and both use coal plants, both should pay $100 million in additional taxes.

An entity charge would look at those, and recognize that the second one is focused on clean energy and produces only 5% of the emissions that the first one does, and adjust the tax bill so that the first pays 20 times as much additional tax as the second.

An interpretation of your idea is to simply have people pay for the services they need when they need them. This is how the court would work; few people would fund it until they had to do so in order to secure the court's services. But such an approach would almost certainly work unfairly against the "little man".

For example, say roads were all toll-based. If both a rich man and a poor man drive 12,000 miles per year on those roads, they would likely be charged the same under such a system. Ok, sounds fair... but now let's turn to military. What does each get charged for their protection? Do they also get charged the same in this case? Probably, but then the rich man has more to protect considering the military is helping secure his $100 million, mansion, ownership in stocks, and so on. By contrast the military is only protecting $100 and a shack for the poor man. Clearly they should be charged differently for military protection, as well as numerous other services that provide more for a rich man than a poor man... which is pretty much why we have a progressive tax system.

Even if you don't agree with that assessment, the tax system is built only to approximate the "fair share" that each person pays into it. It doesn't try to perfectly represent what each person owes the government for the services that have been provided to them. As inefficient as the income tax system feels during the winter/early-spring months, it would be MUCH more inefficient to have everyone calculate and then pay individually for their share of each and every single item in the federal budget.

We don't know what she did. All that we know is that which she has allowed us to know.

But the whole ordeal stinks of negligence on her part, something that someone in her position as candidate for Presidency would place a high value on covering up. And considering that she has been less than forthcoming in this situation, appearances lead us to suspect that she may indeed be covering up something.

Does that prove anything, either way? No. So unless proof is found and released, it's up to the voters to decide. (But who am I kidding; most voters had already decided their 2016 vote years or decades ago.)

I implied nothing of the sort. The fact that you inferred it is on you.

All I said is that she is a politician, and she will do as politicians do.

You can never truly know if something is secure. You can only know that it is insecure, once it is proven as such.

It's funny... that is the exact version number of my project where I work, which is a new system under development for about 5 years now. It's been that number the entire time.

FTFY

I'd love to combine that with the mute toggle. Everything starts silent, and you can unmute any domains you want to hear. That builds your whitelist.

Slashdot isn't an authoritative source either, but you don't seem to mind commenting on its article submissions. I don't really see your point except that you have some particular beef with CGP Grey.

Regardless, the point remains, most "authoritative sources" agree that plurality voting does not necessarily reflect the will of the voters.

I swear I fixed that and it even showed in the preview. Damn it Slashdot, give me a freaking edit option.

It should have been:

Which was my point.

Then either you knew some oinformation beforehand, or you didn't watch them. They explained exactly the problem with our voting system, the "wrong tool" we are using for the job.

And kudos to subby for pointing out the way to do it in Chrome... didn't realize it was there.

Will of the voters, you say? Elections in the US do not provide us with that information. People don't want to throw away their vote, so most vote against the worst instead of for the best.

I suggest watching some of this series: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...