Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 3, Interesting) 218

$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.

Elected SCOTUS judges is even worse. There are enough politicians without making what amounts to a constitutional court effectively a third legislature with the power to veto the others.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 5, Insightful) 218

Even in countries with effective third parties, where FPTP is in play, it almost always tends towards a two-party system, with a third parties playing spoiler, but almost never becoming a governing party. FPTP almost inevitably shuts out third parties from power. There can be unique situations where FPTP multiparty Parliamentary countries can enter a period of minorities, this is particularly true in Canada during the mid 2000s until 2011, where a strong regional party in Quebec managed to destabilize the national parties enough to force two hung Parliaments, and it happened in the UK in 2010, where a strong regional party in Scotland (the SNP) wrestled enough votes from Labour to deprive it of power, but a similar effect with UKIP deprived the Conservatives of an absolute majority. But all in all, these are fairly rare in FPTP legislative assemblies.

It should also be noted that in the UK, in particular, it has a huge lower house, 649 seats in the House of Commons as compared to 435 in the US House of Representatives, and the House of Lords with 798 seats as compared to the US Senate's 100. This far greater number of representatives must also be factored in to any modeling of how FPTP plays out, the UK has a lot more room for third parties to find their niche with smaller Parliamentary constituencies than US districts.

If you truly want to give third parties a shot at significant power, you need to move to some sort of proportional representation. Even normal instant-runoff systems are not truly proportional, and are vulnerable to certain strategies that can give unfair advantage (with the exception of multi-member district STV, which is roughly proportional). But I'm not sure how that would even play out in US presidential elections, where by and large, the game has been rigged to make third party runs for the White House all but impossible. You'd have to make some big changes to the way the electoral college works, or abandon it entirely, but that seems pretty damned unlikely to me, since the intent of the electoral college was to create a sort of hybrid popular vote/state vote system, and any support for amending it after the 2000 election seems to have long since failed, though perhaps a very close election (which this one might be), might bring back demands to reform or eliminate the electoral college (though what kind of voting would replace it isn't clear).

Comment Re:that's (Score 0) 108

the sad truth is trump and "trump" are 2 different people. one the real person and the other a troll created by faux media outrage. the attacks on him only make him stronger

It's not as though that faux media outrage were not Trumps intention. It serves Trump's purpose of diverting attention away from his many shortcomings - and his opponent's many strengths being put forward by this week's Democratic infomercial. Yep, we're all talking about whether "Trump" is committing treason, and by virtue of being distracted from questioning it, accepting the underlying meme that there's something nefarious to find in the emails Clinton deleted in the course of, y'know, dealing with an email inbox. No matter that there's zero evidence that there's anything beyond the more or less routine stuff that's already been found - and found not to merit prosecution.

It's a 'brilliant' strategy that only works because the media is so stupid and predictable. Whether or not it will backfire and destroy any shred of credibility Trump may have will not be known until November.

Comment Re:How many times... (Score 3, Funny) 54

Don't you worry. After this election we'll eliminate oversized regulatory agencies like the FCC that are full of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who make it harder for small businesses like AT&T to come up with new business models (such as throttling websites that don't pay extortion fees).

Comment Re: Computers are for chumps (Score 1) 118

I doubt you can match my benefit package: paid federal holidays off, 20 Paid Time Off (PTO), 401K and healthcare package, and a fully funded contract for the next three years.

20 PTO days (plus approx. 10 holidays) is a little high, but only a little. 15 days is standard at most companies and I've never had trouble negotiating for 5 extra PTO days (I did exactly that for my current job). I've never worked at a company without a 401k plan and the match has always been 3-4%. Health care plans can certainly range, but the difference between a Cadillac plan and a crappy plan can be covered with a $10k bump in salary.

As for job security, I could certainly see that being worth $10-20k at your salary level if you're very cautious, but working at half to a third of your actual value for job security is extreme. Do you really think you would be unemployed 7 months out of 12?

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 998

Well - no he didn't. He invited a foreign power to find something. Any assault or other intention attributed is purely in your mind. It is wishful thinking too as last we heard the server was permanently off line. However, there is already a presumption in the republican camp that the server was already accessed years ago so it is more likely he was suggesting they search through whatever documents they already have.

Either way, anything outside of looking for or finding something is all something the viewer has to read into the statement. I'm certain Russia might take it differently - perhaps even as a joke. It depends on what they read into it.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 998

Because despite all appearances of illegality and wrong doing, she has yet to be charged with something to get in front of a jury in the first place.

Of course that is not good if done by a corporations but a future president it is aces. It instills trust and creates a roll model for future citizens.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 998

Well, they didn't come up with nothing. They came up with patterns of incompetence and knowledge that we (as in Clinton and Obama as well as our intelligence community) knew it was a terrorist attack instead of some protest over a movie the night it happened (before the movie claim). This was illustrated by Hillary's email to Chelsea stating an al qeada stile attack and comments from witnesses and department heads. We know that the decision not to send a rescue team was a political one based on appearances instead of any logistical problems.

That may not mean much to you but it says we acted callously with regard to the safety of our diplomats because of political reasons which shows extreme incompetence to me.

The fact that you keep bringing it up and saying we found nothing is sort of telling. It somewhat says you think the same but feel the need to gloss over it. And the reason there was 9 investigations instead of just one is because the administration (not necessarily Hillary) kept stonewalling and facts were being discovered after the process was winding down including facts revealed by the eventual release of Hillary's email. Or in other words, the administration want it stretched out through multiple sessions of congress for whatever reason. Given what we know, it was likely a shrewd political calculation too.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol