It's not about the storage, it's all about the index lookup speeds.

>The 2012 US election turnout was around 58%

What is the turnout in the primaries? People don't understand that voting in the final election is the least powerful vote they can cast. Power is in the primaries.

>Sorry, but modern browsers don't really address that.

Yes, they do, but so few servers use it yet that it's still a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

The issue isn't the median, it's the mean. 1% hold 90% of the wealth and wealth is the determining factor in the power of elections, even in a democracy. People do vote against their interest all the time. Monied lobbies spend millions and millions convincing them to do so. At that point failure to allocate resources is guaranteed. Trying to say deregulation and war is not related to technology is asinine when war and regulations have always been hosted by the people controlling the best technology.

Lets talk statistics.

When people get educated, they have less children.
When people have lots of other entertainment options they have less children.
When people make above median income they have less children.
When people are subjected to 'good' sexual education they have less children.

When people live in poverty they have more children.
When people are uneducated they have more children.
When peoples income limits their entertainment options, they have more chidren.
When people do not have good sexual education provided, they have more children.

It's almost like personal responsibility has not a goddamned thing to do with it.

Oh, and the 5 kids on welfare thing is pretty much a myth. Only a very small percentage of households are over 4 people on welfare (like 2%). As for quit blaming the system, If I followed you around, I'd bet I'd watch you blame the 'system' 10 times a day on shit that is out of your control.

> I am simply pointing out that because people are being told how to sign up is NOT the problem.

No, the problem is minimum wage is too low, that insurance is tided to the job you have, and that long term joblessness is an ever increasing problem in our country. Where I do blame many of the big corporations is the amount of effort they expend in fighting minimum wage increases.

A second word negates your first word.
Waterproofing.

Just add slight coating of durable paraffin wax.

>So we've doubled the amount of money we spend on food stamps and we have record numbers of Americans that rely on the government for their food.

Have you tried to reword that in the correct fashion?

We have record numbers of Americans that rely on the government for their food and have doubled the amount of money we spend on food stamps.

You also neglect that most of the people on food stamps ALSO HAVE A JOB.

You also neglect that the average household size on foodstamps is 2 and only a very small percentage of foodstamps households are over 4.

I'd go on debunking the rest of your 'talking points', but I'm not going to convince you of your ignorance on the matter, and you're not going to do any research to enlighten yourself on the matter.

It is unfortunate that people as clueless as you are vote, because I thought you wanted to reduce the cost of the program, not increase it.

Somekind of wage at all is a great idea. We should re-invent the company store. Ban all labor unions, Dispatch with the EPA and OSHA. Dismiss minimum wages. Fuck, while where at it lets bring back slavery, because you know their masters had to take care of their slaves too.

Or you could wake the fuck up and read American history from 1850 to current and learn why we have many of the labor and wage laws we do. You have a wonderfully deluded idea that the past was some great and epic time where things where fair and anyone that wanted to work was showered with good wages. It is unfortunate that reality disagrees with you.

The problem here is you are blaming poor people and 'welfare' programs on being able to buy shitty food with SNAP.

Go ahead and see what happens the moment you foot a bill to ban cola purchases with benefits. Oh look, the coca-cola corp just cut all your reelection financing. Oh look, your political competitor just more funding.

It's easier for politicians to reduce the entire benefits system then attempt to define what is and isn't allowed to be purchased in the system.

Oh, and many poorer people are going to be pissed about your needs to be frozen and cooked with short shelf life food choices. And even after that, are you going to stop people from buying bags of sugar and flour so they can't 'bake' unhealthy food choices?

> plenty of other countries manage to feed their people without needing to resort to a program like that.

Trying to compare American problems to the problems of other countries is not easy. Western Europe isn't an easy comparison, they didn't have slavery and endemic racism affecting a significant portion of its population for a two centuries. There populations are very homogeneous. Add in that many countries don't have 'food stamp' program, there are benefits programs by other names to the same effect. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/26/payment-cards-emergency-assistance-food-stamps

The U.S. has had a food stamp program for a very long time, it wasn't till the economic collapse 6 years ago that it doubled in size. Welcome to the world of outsourcing and increased robotics.

>The whole idea of paying farmers not to farm is wrong headed.

Yet another person who doesn't understand land and soil conversation, and the long term effects of farming on soil health.