I think the "lucky" is indeed a reference to Irish luck.
I'm in England and my message is:
"Dear GB,
We're sorry, but full episodes and video clips of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are not available. But please don't send any Red Coats in retaliation at this time, as you CAN get your headlines on Channel 4."
While the total amount of tax collected will swing with economic cycles, would the proportion paid by different individuals change much? Maybe it does, after all being made redundant would reduce your tax paid and thus your weighting relative to someone who is still working - don't really know what the overall effect would be.
The first two points could be dealt with by using a longer control period. For example considering the total amount of tax paid over the last four or five years (maybe rating up for people who have just become old enough to start paying tax).
Agree that since your vote somehow needs to be linked to your individual weighting factor there would be issues with protecting anonymity. Perhaps tax-paid-bands would give some protection, but if you know someone's age, rough level of wealth and district that probably narrows down which vote is theirs fairly well. I'm sure electronic voting machine manufacturers will rise to the challenge and come up with something secure :)
Not sure I see why it creates more of an incentive to buy votes than the current system?
I guess it means if you do want to buy votes then there are certain people with high weightings who you would target - but they are likely to charge a lot for it, since they're by definition rich and probably wouldn't want to get caught selling votes for pennies. With diminishing weights you might be better paying small amounts to a lot of lower tax payers for their votes
Of course with any mass vote buying you'd probably have to do it indirectly as with the current system, whereby votes are "bought" by promising services etc to sections of the electorate.
While I can see the merit in the idea of determining how long you'll be affected by the government I don't think it really has much of an effect. After all, government policies change fairly frequently. A decision made today is likely to be reversed or amended within the next 10 years say. As such everyone who is likely to survive for most of those 10 years should have an equal say. You'd therefore only really start to drop off the weighting over age 70 say which would probably cost more (in money and hassle) than it would stand to improve the system.
I don't think the voter involvement should be in there. It seems to be a weighting to give each age bracket the same weight in the total result. If you want to do this - and I don't see why you would - why not have it like the electoral college where you see who each age bracket votes for and then see who won the most age brackets (or whatever other buckets you want to use). That would cope with changes in voter turnout due to different weights.
While I think adjusting for political understanding as a concept is a good idea, to make sure decisions are made by those who understand what they're voting on*, I think trending by age masks a whole load of individual differences. I think this is too broad an adjustment to make to someone's vote. A better determinant might be level of education, but that's not really a good indicator of political understanding either.
One adjustment I do think could be good would be tax weighted. Since the government is there to decide how to spend the tax payers' money, why not weight votes by how much you contribute to the tax pot. To avoid disenfranchising people the weighting should be flattened so paying twice as much tax gives you a weight less than twice as much and there should be a minimum weighting so that those who pay no tax (eg low income / on benefits) would still get a vote.
This would mean those who have to fund the government get the greatest say in how their money is spent which seems fair to me. It could also be self correcting, as parties who like to lower taxes will end up giving their high-wealth and thus high-tax supporters proportionally less power in the vote.
*some sort of test of understanding would be better applied to our legislators than our voters I think!
In context I read the term "the UK" as meaning "the UK's government" or "the UK as a political entity". For example we talk about "the US passes the PATRIOT ACT" or "France claims HADOPI is working" referring to branches of government rather than suggesting PATRIOT was passed by referendum or there was a widespread poll on HADOPI.
Although as a UK citizen anything which can be done to distance myself from dumb decisions by our government/courts/etc I guess I should welcome!
Maybe the contribution to the economy is that from the patent office itself.
As it only managed to process under 250k patents last year, to get through the extra 700k applications it would have had to hire almost three times as many patent examiners. That could make an appreciable dent in the unemployment rates.
One thing that puzzles me is MPs can mention these injunctions in parliament without sanction, since what they say in parliament is somehow protected (IANAL so I don't understand the intricacies). For example Trafigura dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast came out because an MP asked a question about it despite an injunction.
So, why doesn't an MP simply ask a "question" once a month which lists all the new super-injunctions taken out? That would rapidly end the practice. Good luck to the celebrities in persuading parliament to end parliament's free speech priviledges!
Yes, if you're picking up a channel as it is being broadcase then you need a licence. Not just watching it, but recording requires a licence as well.
It also seems that if you don't have a licence you shouldn't have anything able to receive signals - ie don't tune your TV in, don't plug the aerial in, and don't install the TV receiving software on your computer. I think if you have a TV all set up and plugged in without a good explanation the authorities are likely to determine that you should have bought a licence and fine you.
I don't really know how it works with the new technology though. You need the licence to receive TV signals - even if you only ever watch Sky and never watch terrestrial broadcasts. You need the licence if you watch or record the live signals. However, you don't need a licence to watch pre-recorded stuff like bought DVDs or catch-up stuff like the BBC's iPlayer.
So how do services like Sky+ fit in? If you only ever watch things using Sky+ (ie on demand, not as broadcast) do you need a licence?
Seems that you don't - but I can see you having to argue that in court.
Well, they would do but all those damn pirates would probably spread the word about the comedy tour, including sending out free clips to drum up interest. After several sell out tours the RIAA would be forced to stop as it's just not worth playing to stadiums packed with pirates.
However, it seems to me that the first amendment should protect you from government punishment as a result of exercising your free speech.
After all there's not much point in free speech if the government can, for example, put you in prison for saying certain things. The government isn't stopping you from speaking, just you'll only be able to speak to your significant other once a month through a wire mesh ...
Otherwise all the first amendment would do is prevent the government from taping your mouth shut and breaking your fingers?
Sadly heath & safety people have stepped in and old newspaper is no longer used to wrap your fish supper :( something to do with the ink getting onto the food I think
There now seems to be a business making greaseproof paper and cardboard/styrofoam boxes printed to look like newspaper!
Plus it's fairly easy to destroy newspapers. I do it every day by stuffing my read paper into a recycling bin, and I understand some people even contract out the work to their hamsters.
Of course, destroying newspaper companies would be a harder feat.
Plus it had the good old Daily Mail rant on immigrants coming to the UK and causing trouble*, since Google is a US company I think that counts. All it needs to be a complete Daily Mail article is a reference to Diana ...
* They either complain that immigrants are:
(a) stealing jobs that would go to British people, or
(b) not taking jobs, and living off benefits
Their ability to complain about both typifies their hypocritical stance on nearly everything**
** Except Princess Diana, the princess of our hearts!!1!one!
On the post: DailyDirt: Our Eight-Legged Friends
Camel spiders
But is it a camel?
On the post: Daily Show Highlights Seal Team 6 Trademark & FCC Commish Joining Comcast
Re: Re: Ironic
I'm in England and my message is:
"Dear GB,
We're sorry, but full episodes and video clips of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are not available. But please don't send any Red Coats in retaliation at this time, as you CAN get your headlines on Channel 4."
Quite why they think I'd send over some children's entertainers I don't know ...
What messages do other non-US countries get?
(Also - not available? Yes they are. Just not in my country, wish they'd been honest about that)
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
Re:
Are you going to vote for the Conservatives? Y/N
Y = pass, you can vote. In fact you just did.
N = fail, you can't be trusted to vote correctly.
Although I guess other people would want to change the question slightly ...
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
Re: Re: alternative weightings
The first two points could be dealt with by using a longer control period. For example considering the total amount of tax paid over the last four or five years (maybe rating up for people who have just become old enough to start paying tax).
Agree that since your vote somehow needs to be linked to your individual weighting factor there would be issues with protecting anonymity. Perhaps tax-paid-bands would give some protection, but if you know someone's age, rough level of wealth and district that probably narrows down which vote is theirs fairly well. I'm sure electronic voting machine manufacturers will rise to the challenge and come up with something secure :)
Not sure I see why it creates more of an incentive to buy votes than the current system?
I guess it means if you do want to buy votes then there are certain people with high weightings who you would target - but they are likely to charge a lot for it, since they're by definition rich and probably wouldn't want to get caught selling votes for pennies. With diminishing weights you might be better paying small amounts to a lot of lower tax payers for their votes
Of course with any mass vote buying you'd probably have to do it indirectly as with the current system, whereby votes are "bought" by promising services etc to sections of the electorate.
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
alternative weightings
While I can see the merit in the idea of determining how long you'll be affected by the government I don't think it really has much of an effect. After all, government policies change fairly frequently. A decision made today is likely to be reversed or amended within the next 10 years say. As such everyone who is likely to survive for most of those 10 years should have an equal say. You'd therefore only really start to drop off the weighting over age 70 say which would probably cost more (in money and hassle) than it would stand to improve the system.
I don't think the voter involvement should be in there. It seems to be a weighting to give each age bracket the same weight in the total result. If you want to do this - and I don't see why you would - why not have it like the electoral college where you see who each age bracket votes for and then see who won the most age brackets (or whatever other buckets you want to use). That would cope with changes in voter turnout due to different weights.
While I think adjusting for political understanding as a concept is a good idea, to make sure decisions are made by those who understand what they're voting on*, I think trending by age masks a whole load of individual differences. I think this is too broad an adjustment to make to someone's vote. A better determinant might be level of education, but that's not really a good indicator of political understanding either.
One adjustment I do think could be good would be tax weighted. Since the government is there to decide how to spend the tax payers' money, why not weight votes by how much you contribute to the tax pot. To avoid disenfranchising people the weighting should be flattened so paying twice as much tax gives you a weight less than twice as much and there should be a minimum weighting so that those who pay no tax (eg low income / on benefits) would still get a vote.
This would mean those who have to fund the government get the greatest say in how their money is spent which seems fair to me. It could also be self correcting, as parties who like to lower taxes will end up giving their high-wealth and thus high-tax supporters proportionally less power in the vote.
*some sort of test of understanding would be better applied to our legislators than our voters I think!
On the post: UK Court Expands 'Super Injunction' Censorship Rules To Include Twitter & Facebook
Re:
Although as a UK citizen anything which can be done to distance myself from dumb decisions by our government/courts/etc I guess I should welcome!
On the post: European Court Of Human Rights Says Newspapers Don't Need To Pre-Inform Celebrities Of Coverage
Re:
Perhaps a full page "ad" in a national newspaper/website would inform them that you had a story you wanted to run ...
On the post: The Economist Disagrees With The Economist: Argues We Need More Patents, Approved Faster
Re: For that matter...
As it only managed to process under 250k patents last year, to get through the extra 700k applications it would have had to hire almost three times as many patent examiners. That could make an appreciable dent in the unemployment rates.
On the post: TSA Molests Miss USA, Makes Her Cry... For Your Safety
Re: The saddest thing is...
On the post: BBC Journalist Admits He Took Out Super Injunction
Parliamentary priviledge v super injunctions?
So, why doesn't an MP simply ask a "question" once a month which lists all the new super-injunctions taken out? That would rapidly end the practice. Good luck to the celebrities in persuading parliament to end parliament's free speech priviledges!
Going to email my MP tonight.
On the post: TV People Realizing That The Internet Is Global
Re: Re: Re:
It also seems that if you don't have a licence you shouldn't have anything able to receive signals - ie don't tune your TV in, don't plug the aerial in, and don't install the TV receiving software on your computer. I think if you have a TV all set up and plugged in without a good explanation the authorities are likely to determine that you should have bought a licence and fine you.
I don't really know how it works with the new technology though. You need the licence to receive TV signals - even if you only ever watch Sky and never watch terrestrial broadcasts. You need the licence if you watch or record the live signals. However, you don't need a licence to watch pre-recorded stuff like bought DVDs or catch-up stuff like the BBC's iPlayer.
So how do services like Sky+ fit in? If you only ever watch things using Sky+ (ie on demand, not as broadcast) do you need a licence?
Seems that you don't - but I can see you having to argue that in court.
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming
On the post: New RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!
Re:
On the post: Wisconsin County That 'Found' Lost Votes Apparently Has Major Voting Irregularities For Years...
Re: Re:
I am riting to you as a PRESIDENT of the US. I would like to asks your HELP in moving some funds out of the country.
I have $50MILLION to transfer. If you are able to help by providing my with your bank details I will pay you $2MILLION DOLLARS
Thankyou
On the post: Is It A First Amendment Violation To Kick A Student Out Of Nursing School For Blogging About A Patient?
Re: Re: But there is a Constitutional issue
However, it seems to me that the first amendment should protect you from government punishment as a result of exercising your free speech.
After all there's not much point in free speech if the government can, for example, put you in prison for saying certain things. The government isn't stopping you from speaking, just you'll only be able to speak to your significant other once a month through a wire mesh ...
Otherwise all the first amendment would do is prevent the government from taping your mouth shut and breaking your fingers?
On the post: UK Paper Insists Google Is Out To Destroy British Culture
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sorry, My Brain Accidentally Called You
Re: Ever tried it
</obscure movie link>
On the post: UK Paper Insists Google Is Out To Destroy British Culture
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
There now seems to be a business making greaseproof paper and cardboard/styrofoam boxes printed to look like newspaper!
On the post: UK Paper Insists Google Is Out To Destroy British Culture
Re: Not Newspapers!
Of course, destroying newspaper companies would be a harder feat.
On the post: UK Paper Insists Google Is Out To Destroy British Culture
Re:
* They either complain that immigrants are:
(a) stealing jobs that would go to British people, or
(b) not taking jobs, and living off benefits
Their ability to complain about both typifies their hypocritical stance on nearly everything**
** Except Princess Diana, the princess of our hearts!!1!one!
Next >>