hmmm, sounds familiar.
The US system is patently absurd. And no, they'll never change it. They don't even tackle the low-hanging fruit - for example, 1,2% of Americans have no voting representation in congress (DC, Puerto Rico, others).
The problem with your plan is that you COULD be alive when the first effects will be felt.
So what? You have yet to show that the "first effects" are going to be serious. In the meantime, status quo means I'll probably live to see half the world achieve developed world status. Elimination of global poverty still looks to me to be a more worthy goal than mitigating climate change and I do believe there is a large trade off between the two.
What's worse is the Fascist media that keeps recording lower temperatures than actually occur.
LOL. There's a reason I go with evidence and not feelings.
1) Embassy voting is not a real thing. Nor would it make any sense, as different states handle elections differently, but embassies are a unified federal system. Nor does the US have embassies in every country. Nor are embassies guaranteed to be anywhere remotely near where a person lives within a country.
2) "Advance voting" makes no sense for expats. Believe it or not, some citizens live overseas. Including the military, by the way, who you apparently want to disenfranchise.
3) Your #1 case does nothing to guarantee vote privacy. The person can very well watch the individual fill out their ballot and then seal it up. All it does is make it harder/more expensive for the disabled to vote.
Because I still have citizenship and because I still have to fill out stupid freaking IRS returns every year (unlike every other country on earth concerning their expats)?
US citizenship is a big disadvantage to carry around and getting to vote is the one decent thing that one gets out of it as an expat.
So should I have to drive to the US across the North Atlantic from Iceland in order to vote? Nice "screw you" to expats you've got there.
With the added ability of also being able to cast a ballot in person, and have that override the online ones.
Indeed, it's not too hard to make a system with online voting deniable. And meanwhile, the current system which allows mail-in voting, does not guarantee deniability.
That 3% number is clearly nonsense. And you can contact the county offices to make sure your ballot was received and is in order (which I did).
My vote is overseas. They're counted at the same time as local votes. You're thinking of absentee ballots.
What state are you? Don't forget about the downballot races.
What about people who vote by mail?
WTF will it be looking like with consumers torrenting @ 10Gbps? Meh. Not really thought through this article...
Would we download more though, or just faster? A Netflix 4K stream is 25 Mbps, BluRay Video has a max rate of 54 Mbps, UHD BluRay 128 Mbps. I have a 150 Mbps line and apart from occasionally downloading a season and figuring out it's junk after a few episodes I use the bandwidth regardless. The only advantage is that huge game patches and such download quicker so I don't get stuck just because Steam wants to install a 2GB patch right when I want to play. Even a big family streaming half a dozen UHD monsters shouldn't be able to saturate a 1 Gbps link.
His huge downloads are probably hogging the whole bandwidth because of poor QoS, so 10 Gbps solves the problem with brute excess capacity. Either that or he ran into some kind of soft limiter because 30000*10GB = 300TB a year is way, way outside the norm but they let it pass if you pay the 10 Gbps price. And if the software was a little smarter at caching 30000 images / 2000 working hours = average 4 minutes/photo, download takes about 10 seconds so if it would preload he wouldn't be waiting at all. I'm sure he can well afford the extra $3k/year to just make the problem go away though.
There is overwhelming evidence that Climate Change is real. The problem isn't the evidence, but your refusal (for whatever reason) to accept it. It's the exact same attitude as anti-vaxxers or anti-evolution people. The evidence is overwhelming, yet instead of accepting that the evidence exists and adjusting their opinions accordingly, they double-down on their pre-conceived notions because of some kind of emotional investment in what they believe.
Given that the GP stated that he accepts that climate change is real, do you have any relevant to say?
However, I agree with your main point. People need to stop fucking like rabbits. I see religion as being a serious factor in this, because most religions *insist* that people fuck like rabbits for "the greater glory of god" or some bullshit. The Catholic Church, for example, consider contraceptives to be Bad(tm).
Religion bashing. Ok.
We're eating this planet alive with our collective greed and self-obsession, and nobody seems to care. I hate to say it, but we *need* another world war to thin down the numbers.
And a pointless diatribe about the imaginary loose morals of humanity which are again irrelevant. A lot of people care, but they also care about other things which are in conflict with reversing climate change, such as doing good by the people alive now.
The real problem with climate change is that it is not the only problem we have. So obsessively focusing on it at the expense of everything else will result not just in making those other problems worse, but also not actually fixing climate change in a positive direction either.
For example, human fertility gets higher when people get poorer. So the many mitigation strategies out there that make people poorer will make future population higher. It's not going to be a win against climate change since you're making the overpopulation problem, which is the basic driver behind climate change, worse.
Blaming this on religion is silly. Most people aren't significantly religious. It's not the driving factor here though in some cases, it can contribute to the problem and sometimes it can help.
My view is to get rid of overpopulation, we need two things in particular: wealthy people and women who have equal rights to men. A lot of other stuff, such as democracy, rule of law, caring about environmental matters, and developed world infrastructure can follow from that.
The exact same sentence on say, Ars, would have been massively upvoted.
No one has been banned from Slashdot because they had the wrong opinion on climate change. I have on Ars Technica. Ars Technica is the real echo chamber.
Further, I guess I'm not alone in getting tired of idiots using the same irrelevant cliched statements. Sure, there are people who still don't believe in climate change, but why always assume the other party such? Give consideration to others and maybe you'll get some in turn.
Zoo keeper mauled to death 'after defecating on tiger'
A young Chinese tiger keeper has been mauled to death after apparently trying to defecate on one of his big cats.
The 19-year-old appears to have climbed the railings of the Bengal tiger cage and pulled his trousers down.
Evidence at the scene of the death at the Jinan animal park included toilet paper, excrement and a trouser belt.
Zoo officials think Xu Xiaodong either slipped into the cage or was pulled in by one of the four angry tigers.
According to the South China Morning Post, the man told a co-worker he needed to go to the toilet but police were called when he failed to return.
They found his body lying on the ground surrounded by tigers. The teenager had reportedly been bitten in the neck and was covered in blood.
Police believe Xu climbed the wall of a partially constructed building used to raise the tigers to relieve himself. They said the smell probably caused the tigers to pounce.
You can see more stories about tigers and zoos on Ananova,
or read our Animal attacks file.
To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus