Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



EFF Hints At Lawsuit Against Verizon For Its Stealth Cookies

jnaujok The code rotates randomly every week (81 comments)

The code is encrypted and rotates every week. It can only be used by contracted partners of Verizon, and the contract contains a "no-advertising" clause. The EFF should spend money on something actually important.

about 3 months ago

Mayday Anti-PAC On Its Second Round of Funding

jnaujok So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading (247 comments)

This "Anti-PAC" is just a PAC supporting the two largest Democrat campaign finance bills which are more properly termed the "Silence Dissent Acts" or "Incumbent Protection Act" then any kind of real campaign finance reform.

So, all they are is another Democrat PAC masquerading under a fake name. Oh, they claim to support three other bills with bi-partisan support, which are bills sponsored by four back-benchers (Tom Petrie anyone? 30+ years in Congress and I don't think he's successfully sponsored one bill.) that will never make it out of sub-committee.

So, two hyper-left (Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein type) proposals, and three non-events.

Anti-PAC, it's another way of saying "Democrat".

Makes you wonder why they feel they have to lie about their intentions.

about 8 months ago

Meat Makes Our Planet Thirsty

jnaujok Maybe... stop growing food in a desert? (545 comments)

In case no one has noticed, California is a desert (or nearly one) for most of its area. Before the farm subsidy act of the 1950's, no one grew food crops in California, and no one raised cattle. Then, after subsidies were based on your distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where they get 30-40" of rain a year, suddenly California became *the* address for raising food. When you can raise dairy cattle at a loss, milk them at a loss, and produce a gallon of milk for $6, and still sell it for $2 wholesale -- and the government ensures you're making a profit by handing you a $5 a gallon subsidy, of course you're going to raise cattle and farm in California.

California has to drain the Colorado river, and the showsheds of something like 1,000,000 hectares of mountains to even get close to their water needs on a good year. In the meantime, farms in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and the rest of the heartland are all collapsing into bankruptcy, unable to compete with the ever-increasing subsidies bought by the legislatures of California with its 50+ congressmen and electoral votes.

about a year ago

90% of Nuclear Regulators Sent Home Due To Shutdown

jnaujok Re:Oh noes.... (358 comments)

Assuming, of course, the Captain Planet model of industry, where the moment the Federal Regulator steps away, the CEO pulls the lever to dump the toxic waste into the nearby river.

Or, maybe the guys running the plant (and likely living nearby) don't want to die in a nuclear waste spill either.

I'd think that one regulator on-site, one shift a day, would be more than enough to catch any worrisome behaviors. Maybe with a surprise inspection once a week on an off-shift time if you really think "Mr. Slimeholio" runs the plant.

about a year ago

90% of Nuclear Regulators Sent Home Due To Shutdown

jnaujok Oh noes.... (358 comments)

The article says 90% of employees is 3600 furloughed. Which would say the remaining 10% would be 400 workers.

To monitor 100 plants.

That would mean you could have one regulator on-site 24 hours a day, seven days a week (That's 21 eight-hour shifts for the math challenged) or 5 shifts per person, with one overtime shift.

At every plant. 24/7 surveillance, with 10% of the workforce. What the hell were they doing before that? 10 regulators per plant, 24/7?!?!?!

about a year ago

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

jnaujok Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (1105 comments)

Arrhenius stated only that CO2 acted to absorb heat (long-wave infra-red radiation for the nitpickers). He posited that if you added CO2 to the atmosphere the heat would increase. What Arrhenius didn't know, or didn't fully grasp, is that at 280ppm, the atmospheric CO2 already absorbs 97% of all incoming long-wave infra-red radiation. Doubling the CO2 to 560ppm, would not make it absorb 194% of the radiation, it would make it absorb about 99% of the incoming radiation. Since CO2 accounts for approximately 4-7 degrees C of the Earth's warming (there's arguments on the exact figure) that would be an increase of about 0.08 to 0.14 degrees C. Now, there are some factors that add to that (re-radiation, tropospheric concentration and re-reflection of albedo infra-red, etc) that could make that as much as 1 degree C of surface warming. But that's it.

Adding twice the CO2 doesn't mean twice the temperature. And the feedback mechanisms are neutral to negative. They must be, or the 7000ppm CO2 of the carboniferous period would have resulted in Earth looking like a ball of molten rock.

Now, let's get back to the real point.

Climate scientists continue to make statements like, "We can expect more Katrina's every year!" Yet the U.S. is now in its longest cycle without a major hurricane landing since records began being kept in the 1930's. "We can expect more tornados to ravage cities across the U.S.!", yet tornadic activity across the U.S. is at a 50 year low. Total thunderstorms are average at best, and while there is some evidence of slightly stronger convection cells, there's a certain bias in the fact that we never before had satellites capable of sampling and quantifying such activity in seconds rather than days.

In short, the evidence all points the other way.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no shill for gas or oil or coal. I'd rather see all of it go away. Give me clean, safe, cheap, plentiful nuclear power every day of the week over all of that. Preferably LFTR designs spread out like candy all over the country. I'd love fusion too, but like my Grandfather who was promised to see it "within his lifetime" and died in 1988, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Solar power is a joke, with its rare earths and sulfur-hexafluoride washes doing a dozen times more damage to the environment then they'll ever recover in a lifetime. We've already tapped 95% or more of the hydropower on Earth, and I doubt the birds will live through putting up enough windmills to power a typical city, much less the planet. Not to mention, that has it's own problems. Wind Power Potential Overestimated

Your point, "We've seen warming" ignores the one great thing about climate change -- the climate is a complex system -- it is always changing. It is a vast, living, breathing system taking in all life on earth, all changes in the sun, all chemistry in the oceans, every wave, every sunbeam, every butterfly flapping its wings. It must be constantly changing. We are looking at a tiny sliver of it and saying, "Oh no, we're all doomed!" We act as if we want the climate never to change, not one iota, not one jot.

The climate never changes on Venus, on Mercury, on Mars... They all have one thing in common. They're dead worlds.

Give me a changing climate any day over that.

about a year and a half ago

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

jnaujok Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (1105 comments)

So, the fact that both Tornadic activity in the United States and Cyclonic Activity globally are at 50 year lows all point to this "increased activity". Somewhere you have failed to notice that your claims must be backed up with data. Also, you have failed to explain why the actual global temperatures over the last 30 years have come in below the lowest predicted warming of all the models used by the IPCC, yet they continue to increase the predicted response. The last IPCC report posited a 3.0 degreeC/century rise in temperature, while actual data points at 1.2 degrees C/century or lower.

I work in computer science, and there's a name for a model which cannot predict, it's called "broken" or "incomplete". The fact that you now wish to make multi-trillion dollar, economy-wrecking, and real-life endangering decisions based on computer models that still can't agree with each other, much less the facts, is frightening beyond belief.

The amazing thing to me is that the same crowd that doesn't trust a banana with an extra gene inserted through a science evolved through 60 years of study, or grown with a fertilizer used for 80 years without a downside, are completely willing to take steps that will result in starvation, civil wars, and economic catastrophe over an increase of 0.012% of a particularly harmless gas in the atmosphere, which is required for life on Earth. A gas which, during the most life-bearing phase of the earth's history, was almost 20 times as abundant. All of which is based on computer programs developed by non-computer programmer programmers, over the course of a few months, which are less than accurate in the short term, and whose predictions are wildly inaccurate over the long term.

Not to mention, if tree-rings are such great thermometers, why has the dendrochronological record not been updated since the 1980's? Surely in the billions being funneled to climate research, someone can pay some grad students $10 an hour to go get some tree cores with a hand-drill every weekend?

Most of these climate scientists wouldn't know the climate it if rained on them.

about a year and a half ago

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

jnaujok Re:Better Arguments (1105 comments)

You want an analysis of the article itself? I could do that, but someone already has: Cook's Survey not only Meaningless, but Misleading

The survey is full of self-confirming bias, and selection bias. And the 97% number ignores the 65% of the papers that said *NOTHING* either way about AGW. In fact, if you take only those papers that explicitly endorse AGW, versus those that deny it, the ratio is actually flipped, with the "deniers" winning out.

In fact, by percentages of publications, the number that support AGW have been steadily declining year after year since 1995 according to the very numbers in this paper. Make of that what you will.

That was a brief synopsis for those of you too lazy to RTFA.

about a year and a half ago

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

jnaujok Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (1105 comments)

Would you like me to work the Navier-Stokes equations for you to show convective heat transfer in a fluid body? I'm quite aware of what heating does, and I'm also quite aware that you have no concept of the numbers being talked about here. You talk about adding thousands of watts per square meter to a liquid forcing a transition to a gaseous (and often turbulent) state. The difference the math talked about here is 1.3 watts per square meter, out fo 1365 watts per square meter. And spread that over a 30 kilometer high column of gas. The overall increase is down in the third to fourth decimal place. Climate scientists know that, and they posit that there are dozens of "positive feedback" methods that will drive temperatures higher and higher. They believe the climate is in a unstable dynamic equilibrium, rather than a stable dynamic equilibrium -- think the difference between being on a roller-coaster poised at the top of the hill, or one at the bottom of a valley.

We have heard words like "tipping point" or "past the point of no return" which are all associated with an unstable equilibrium. Yet the climate of the Earth is no such thing. Yes, we may be able to push the roller coaster a little way up the hill, but when we release it, it will roll back down to the bottom again. The climate is the same way. It must be, or over the 4.6 billion year long life of this planet, some event (the Siberian Traps for instance -- look it up) would have long since sent the planet spiraling into catastrophe.

Anything -- ANYTHING -- we humans can do is temporary. To believe otherwise is the most blatant of arrogance on our part. The fact is, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be having some effect on temperatures. But so what? We live in every biosphere. No one is going to die from it. It could be good. Things will change. So what -- they've changed before. We'll adapt. Some things won't. They'll die. There's this thing out there called evolution. It's been doing that for nearly 4 billion years.

So, your boiling pot of water, while a wonderful visual, is totally wrong. To get a more accurate model, turn your burner up to full, and when you've got a nice rolling boil, light a match and add it. See if you can spot the difference. That's the real model.

about a year and a half ago

97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

jnaujok Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (1105 comments)

The hypotheses must make testable predictions.

Please cite the testable predictions that the Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Science conglomerate has made. Please include any time when they stated a falsifiable claim. In other words, a prediction, which if found not to occur, would falsify their model.

The only one I found was made back in the 1990's which claimed that the Tropical troposphere would show faster and larger warming than all other areas of the planet.

This did not happen, and is not happening. In fact, the tropical troposphere has cooled over the entire satellite record. In response to this, the climate scientists have modified their models so they can "reverse forecast" this occurrence. Their model was proven wrong, their theory proven wrong, so they simply changed the rules.

Every time there's a heat wave or a drought, we hear, "GLOBAL WARMING!" shouted from the rooftops, yet when we have the coldest spring on record in the U.S., we're told that's also caused by global warming. We're told after Hurricane Katrina, that such "extreme weather" was going to be continuously increasing as the warming drove the weather. However, total Accumulated Cyclonic Energy hasn't increased. In fact it's been the lowest levels in history. We have gone over 2500 days without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or above) hitting the United States. Again, that's the longest stretch in the history of records. And yet, we're told this must be caused by global warming as well.

So, if it gets hotter, it's global warming, if it gets colder, it's global warming. In the end, there's no way to prove it wrong. By your own definition, that's not science.

No climate science prediction showed the current 15 year period of global cooling, and yet we see them talking about 97% agreement. This doesn't point to settled science, this points to a monopoly on the publishing of papers.

97% of people in a room can call a rabbit a cat, but that doesn't make it a cat.

about a year and a half ago

FAA On Travel Delays: Get Used To It

jnaujok Re:Summary is Wrong (720 comments)

Gotta call Bullshit. Sequestration cut every program by 1.4%. And there was a mandatory 1.7% increase on most budgets. If we really cut all programs 10% then it wouldn't be $44B in savings this year, it would be $370B in savings. We'd still be spending over $1T we don't have, but that would be a vast improvement over the $44B we're actually cutting.

about 2 years ago

Real World Code Sucks

jnaujok Re:No surprises here. (292 comments)

You forgot:

- No one is willing to fix code that already exists because it works "good enough"
- No one is willing to expend the resources (read time and money) to go back and rewrite bad piece of code.
- Fear of new code exposing how bad the other code is.

(32 years of real world coding.)

more than 2 years ago

Using Technology To Make Guns Safer

jnaujok Re:The most important rule of gun safety (1013 comments)

The full and proper set of rules is:

1 - Always treat a gun as if it is loaded, unless you, personally, have ensured that it is not.
2 - If you do not intimately know how the gun is loaded or unloaded, or how to check for a chambered round -- consider the gun is loaded.
3 - If another person tells you the gun is not loaded, treat it as loaded.

My dad taught me those when I was 8. I've always followed those rules to the letter, and I have never had a single accident with a gun. I have taught my kids the same rules, and they have never had a single accident with a gun.

This is not rocket science.

However, one of my "gun control nut" friends continues to tell me that there is no safe way to have a gun in your home without your kids blowing their heads off. This, despite me demonstrating that, with proper training, a gun is completely safe.

more than 2 years ago

Using Technology To Make Guns Safer

jnaujok Re:Bias (1013 comments)

Horrible example. The term "Cancer Stick" for cigarettes was coined in 1873. "Coffin Nails" was a favorite term since the 1890's. We didn't need the tobacco companies to tell us anything, we all knew it. Personal responsibility is the fact that, knowing this, people smoked them anyway. And I say this as a person who watched his two pack a day uncle die of lung cancer at age 59. He knew damn well that they were killing him, but he refused to stop smoking. He never thought they were anything but bad for him.

Guess what, alcohol can kill you too, so can cheeseburgers. So can not exercising. I suppose you want Big Brother government to tell you what you can eat, drink, and do with your free time too. Funny, our current "health-conscious" president is a notorious chain-smoker.

more than 2 years ago

Using Technology To Make Guns Safer

jnaujok Re:Still haven't seen a good argument (1013 comments)

About three years ago in Colorado Springs, three drunk teenagers broke into the home of a 93 year old man and his wife. The teenagers were all swinging baseball bats and tire irons. The 93 year old male pulled out a Colt .45 ACP fired one warning shot and then drilled the first kid in the chest, one-shot. Great. The other two advanced, and hit his arm with the bat. At that point, his aim was no longer ideal. He took four more shots to get one in the arm of the attacker, then a second round that disabled him. At this point the third attacker fled, and he fired one more shot that grazed the buttocks of the third attacker. Police, called by the wife at the start of the attack, took 4 minutes to arrive. They followed the blood drops to the third attacker who was arrested.

Total rounds fired: 8
Rounds remaining: 2 or 3 (not sure if he had a chamber + 10, or just the 10 in the mag)

Had the third attacker continued to press, he would have had a chance to drop them. The three attackers were later linked to another home invasion where they had beaten an 80+ year old couple to death after repeatedly raping the wife. Your three round limit would have ensured two more dead victims, and only one dead attacker.

If you limit weapons to three rounds, all you ensure is that home-invasion teams will start having at least four members.

more than 2 years ago

DirecTV Drops Viacom Channels

jnaujok Re:Costs vs Promises (378 comments)

I've already demonstrated elsewhere in this thread that it's not "two cents a month". That's a number you've pulled firmly out your backside. The real number is somewhere between $0.60 and nearly $5 a month, depending on whose numbers you take as gospel. It's also been three days since this happened. I can guarantee you haven't gotten your next bill yet to see whether or not DirecTV *has* cut your billing.

It amazes me how you blame everything here on DirecTV, who is a distributor of goods, and not on the manufacturer of those goods that is demanding an increase in prices. Do you expect the grocery store to eat the cost when the price of milk goes up from the distributor?

You point out that DirecTV wants to make a profit as if that were some horrible thing. Ask yourself how much profit they have to make to pay to launch a $2B satellite so you can watch Sponge Bob? And then you want them to have redundancy, so it's not just one satellite but two or three. And then everyone wants their local channels available, so it's not 200 channels, it's 2000 or more. Each satellite only has so much capacity. And when you reach that limit, it's another $2B to add the next channel. These aren't minor costs, and they can't pass those costs on to the customer. That's *their* cost of doing business. The only cost they can control at all is how much they pay to the suppliers for content to rebroadcast. And you criticize them for doing that.

more than 2 years ago

DirecTV Drops Viacom Channels

jnaujok Re:Costs vs Promises (378 comments)

You expect a company to "absorb the costs". Hey, great idea, let's do that to all companies out there. You know, it costs more to make a car now than in 1903, when cars cost $800. You should go in to your local dealership and tell them they should "absorb the cost" of the increases from their suppliers. It's only fair, right? Heck, when I was a kid in the 70's cars were under $3000, and that's like a promise to me, so they should sell me a car at the cost it was when I was born, right?

Get real, it's not a rental contract. They wrote into the contract that they will pass on substantial cost increases to the consumer. Go get your contract, read it. It's in there. You signed it. Tough luck.

And, yes, if they can't resolve the issue with Viacom, then they should offer a rate reduction of between $1.20 and $10 per month (see calculations in another message) which is the cost of the Viacom channels. I expect if they truly reach an impasse, that's what they'll do.

more than 2 years ago

DirecTV Drops Viacom Channels

jnaujok Re:Costs vs Promises (378 comments)

Fine, let's take the lowball of $144M. DirecTV has a well-known number of customers, namely 20,000,000. Viacom's channels are part of core programming, so everyone gets them. We divide $144M by 20M and we get $7.20 per subscriber per year. Okay, easy enough, that's a $0.60 per month increase, matching Viacom's claim of "pennies" per month. (60 pennies is still less than a dollar.)

DirecTV is putting a dollar figure on all their scrolls, a number I haven't seen Viacom deny. That number is $1,000,000,000 per year. Dividing by number of customers, that's $50 per customer, per year, or about $4.25 per month increase in the bill. Guess what, 425 pennies is still "pennies" per month.

If we go with your estimate of splitting the difference, it's $20 per year, and $1.75 per month. Again, if you want to stretch the term, it's still "pennies per month."

Now, if DirecTV is lying about the $1B number, why is Viacom not shouting "Liar Liar!" from the rooftops and giving out the real number instead? All they give us is "pennies per month" which describes absolutely *nothing* in terms of actual cost, other than greater than $0.01, since it's plural.

Both sides are using semantics. One is using them to defend my wallet, the other to pick my pocket. I know which side I'm naturally going to come down on.

more than 2 years ago

DirecTV Drops Viacom Channels

jnaujok Re:Costs vs Promises (378 comments)

So, you would prefer that DirecTV simply accept any rate increase of the content provider and pass them on to you? So, the $1B increase ($50/year/subscriber) should just be passed on to you? Like Viacom says, "it's only pennies a day."

And once that precedent is set, when Disney want's another $5 a month, and HBO does, and every other network, and your bill goes to $400 a month, will you vent your anger at the content providers or will you scream at DirecTV for not attempting to argue with the content providers to maintain a fair rate?

I'm no fanboi of DirecTV (although I do have it) but I'd rather they fought against a price increase even if it means temporarily losing channels, rather than tagging another $5 a month onto my bill.

more than 2 years ago

Hubble Discovers 5th Moon of Pluto

jnaujok Re:BB sized debris (137 comments)

Because space is big...

Imagine there were only 19,000 people on Earth, roughly evenly distributed. What's the chance you'd ever run into another person? Now, instead of just the land area, make sure that 3/4ths of those people are on the ocean. What are the odds of running into one of them now?

Now, imagine that, instead of just the surface of the Earth, you stack up about 500 layers, each one of them the surface of a sphere wrapping the entire Earth, each one a mile higher than the last and starting about 160 miles up. Now instead of just the surface of the Earth, spread those 19,000 people across those 500 spheres evenly and evenly spread them around the surface of the sphere they're on. And all of those spheres have more area than the surface of the Earth.

Now, would you consider that area "dangerously heavily populated?" On top of that, you need to shrink the people down for most of the debris.

Now, to be fair, the real test is that many of these "people" are moving really, really fast, although most of them are moving in roughly the same direction. But a few of them are going in different directions. And some of those are jumping between spheres. But it's still areas larger than the whole surface of the Earth. There have been only a tiny number of collisions between these objects. (I think the number is actually -- one.)

Like I said, space is big. Really big. Bigger than the biggest thing you can imagine. You may think it's a long way down to the pharmacy, but that's peanuts compared to space. (With apologies to Douglas Adams)

more than 2 years ago



Apple iPhone 5 now on Sprint Nextel

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 3 years ago

jnaujok (804613) writes "We not only have a release date for the iPhone 5, but also news that it will be available for the first time on the Sprint Nextel network in addition to AT&T and Verizon. The news comes from CNBC, and includes a release date of mid October. This will impact Apple's bottom line, as the date is in Apple's fourth quarter, instead of the original late September date that would have helped push their 3rd quarter earnings. In other news, they're also releasing an 8GB "cheap" version of the iPhone at the same time."
Link to Original Source

SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon make it to orbit

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 4 years ago

jnaujok (804613) writes "This morning the Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon capsule lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 10:43 Eastern time, after an earlier launch had been scrubbed because of a bad telemetry feed. A little over 9 minutes later, the Dragon capsule separate from the second stage into its intended orbit. Part of the COTS (Commercial access To Space) program, this is the first test of the Dragon capsule by SpaceX to prove it can be used to ferry supplies to the ISS. The Dragon capsule will make two or three orbits before returning to Earth about four hours after launch."
Link to Original Source

GPS Tracking Without a Warrant Declared Legal

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 4 years ago

jnaujok (804613) writes "The Ninth Circuit court has declared that attaching a GPS tracker to your car, as it sits in your driveway, or, by extension on a public street, and then using it to monitor every one of your movements, is totally legal, and can be performed by the police without needing a warrant. So, if you live in the Western United States, big brother has arrived."
Link to Original Source

Space Ship Two to be Unveiled Today

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 5 years ago

jnaujok (804613) writes "Today in the Mojave desert, after five years of secrecy, Virgin Galactic will be unveiling, "in a theatrical reveal," their new spacecraft, Space Ship Two. Although it's parent craft, White Knight Two, was shown to the public several months ago, Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites have kept Space Ship Two tightly under wraps, releasing very little information, and fewer pictures.

"We've all been patiently waiting to see exactly what the vehicle is going to look like," said Peter Cheney, a 63-year-old potential space tourist from Seattle. "It would be nice to see it in the flesh.""

Link to Original Source

Physicists Find Formula for Spiderman Suit

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 7 years ago

jnaujok writes "SpaceDaily reports that Physicists have found the formula for a Spiderman suit: "Only recently has man come to understand how spiders and geckos effortlessly scuttle up walls and hang from ceilings but it was doubted that this natural form of adhesion would ever be strong enough to hold the weight of real life Peter Parkers."
Now all we need are web shooters to live out our childhood fantasies."

Link to Original Source



The Second Bill of Rights

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 4 years ago Today it occurred to me that what this country really needs is a second Bill of Rights. A codification, if you will, into the Constitution of the true intent of the Founding Fathers, and the lessons of the last 230 years of nationhood. My version would look like this.

The Second Bill of Rights

The Balanced Budget
The Congress shall pass no budget which exceeds the collected receipts of that budget year, save in times of Declared War. The Congress shall pass no law or order that assumes a debt for a term in excess of 15 years.

Repeal of the 16th Amendment
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.

Revocation of All Direct Taxation of Citizens
The Congress shall pass no law directly taxing the Citizens of the United States, its Corporations, Businesses, or other entities. The powers of Taxation are left to the States alone.

Establishment of a National Sales Tax
The States shall provide to the Federal Government, a portion of the Revenue of all final sales which occur within their border. This revenue shall not include the purchase of unprepared foodstuffs and medicinal or medical items required by the order of physician. The Congress shall not pass any laws either adding to or subtracting from the list of items subject to this taxation.
The amount of this taxation shall be initially set at 18% of the cost of the goods.
The Congress shall not be enabled to increase this rate, save through the process of a National Referendum, requiring a majority of the citizenry of the United States to approve of such an increase. No such restriction shall be placed on the reduction of said rate.
The States shall provide this revenue to Federal Government once per quarter-year, or more often at the State's discretion.

The Right to Own Property
The congress shall make no law by which the private property of a Citizen shall be taken and given to another Citizen, corporation, or organization. Although the Federal Government shall retain the power of Eminent Domain, any property taken under that power, must be held for the free use of the Citizenry for a term of no less than 25 years.

The Definition of Public Good
History has shown us that the Public Good in America is ensured only by the guarantee of the smallest, least personally intrusive Federal Government possible. Thus the Congress shall make no law creating or sustaining any federal agency not directly related to, and budgeted as a part of, the National Defense, the regulation of Interstate Commerce, the regulation of immigration, the protection of the borders and establishment of ports, the collection of tariffs on foreign goods, and the provision of the census.

The Definition of Interstate Commerce
Interstate Commerce shall be defined solely as goods or services which cross the boundary of a state within the purview of the United States. The Congress shall make no laws redefining this definition, nor shall they make law regulating commerce which does not meet this requirement.

Abolition of the Federal Reserve and Restoration of the Gold Standard
The Currency of the United States, being of utter concern to the Nation; the Congress shall make no law establishing any outside agency to create, distribute or in any way control the monetary funds of the United States. All such currency shall be based on the value of gold held in reserve to establish said currency. That rate of exchange to be set at $1,000 per Troy Ounce of Gold. The Congress shall make no law changing this definition of value.

Single Issue Bills
The Congress shall pass no bill into law which contains any clause, amendment, or rider not directly related to the title and purpose of the bill.

Public Knowledge of Legislation
The Congress must publish the full and complete text of all bills, in full legal form, and in "plain language" form, to the public for a minimum of 14 days before a final vote may be taken. A formal Declaration of War is exempted from this requirement. For the purpose of this amendment, publishing requires the dissemination of the materials through a media that can reach at least 50% of the citizenry within 24 hours.

Require Roll-Call Votes on All Bills
The final passage of all bills must be taken by roll-call vote and the results of that vote must be made public within 24 hours of the vote. For the purpose of this amendment, publishing requires the dissemination of the materials through a media that can reach at least 50% of the citizenry within 24 hours.

Establishment of the House of Abrogation
This amendment creates a new House of Abrogation in the Legislature. The House of Abrogation will be peopled by one Councilor from each State of the Union, and shall serve for a term of three years. Each Councilor will be sworn into duty with the same oath of office as used for the members of the Senate. The House of Abrogation shall meet under the same conditions as the current House of Representatives, and will elect a Speaker from the majority party. It is the duty of the House of Abrogation to consider, debate, and vote upon the dissolution of laws that are currently in place. Upon a simple majority vote, the Councilors will send to President an Order of Abrogation naming the Law to be removed from the books. In the same manner as a Bill, the President shall have the right of Veto over the Order of Abrogation. Should a two-thrids vote of the House of Abrogation override said veto, the law shall be stricken. If the President approves, via signature, the Order of Abrogation, the law shall be stricken. If the President vetoes the Order of Abrogation, he must return it to the House of Abrogation with a written explanation for his veto.

Federal Term Limits
No person shall serve in the House of Representatives, the House of Abrogation, or the Senate for more than a term of 12 years, combined.

Identification of Citizens for Voting
The right of a democratic vote being paramount among the citizenry, and the need of said vote to be correctly enumerated and as free from fraud as possible, it is hereby established that no person shall be allowed to vote in any Federal Election save that they provide reasonable proof of their identity, the least of which to include some form of photographic evidence by which their appearance can be established as the owner of said identity. Each State shall provide such identification for all of their confirmed citizens, and shall include a means of verification of proper and currently eligible Citizen lists to their polling places.

Abolish Non-Discretionary Budgeting
The Congress shall pass no law establishing any policy, program, agency, or department for which the budget is set for a term of longer than one year. All spending and budgeting must be open to debate and vote each and every budget year.

English as the Official Language
English is hereby declared as the single, standard language of all functions of the Federal Government.

Restriction of Debate
The Congress shall pass no law which in any way restricts the future debate of any law, motion, or proclamation passed by Congress.

Abolition of Entitlements
The Congress shall make no law which distributes funds to any individual Citizen, group, corporation, organization, or other entity, save for the purchase of goods or services rendered.

Limitation of Treaties
The President and Congress shall not make the United States party to any treaty that shall infringe on the sovereignty of the United States and its citizenry. Nor shall any treaty or agreement place the armed forces of the United States under the control of any foreign power. Any treaty already entered which violates this amendment shall be declared null and void.

Federal Funding to States Restricted to Block Grants
The Congress shall pass no law funding any program to the States save that it be funded through a single payment made on a per capita assessment of the population of the State. The Congress shall attach no conditions, rules, or assessment to such funding of the States. Given that the People are more responsive to the government of their local State; the Administration of said programs shall be reserved to the States alone.


The Ideal Federal Government

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 6 years ago I've posted some political commentary on this board, and so it occurred to me today, that I should probably elaborate at some length and detail, what I would consider the perfect form that the federal government should take.

The Ideal Government: Small

It's a simple concept that was embraced by nearly all of our Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton disagreed, and found things like the federal banking system in the words "ensure the public good." But, as far as I'm concerned, I'd hold firm and fast to what the Constitution lays out.

The Ideal Government: Armed Forces

First, providing for the national defense. Okay, clearly we need an armed forces capable of protecting our shores and our overseas interests. History has taught us it must be capable of fighting on two fronts simultaneously and be modern and capable. I believe that it was George Washington who replied when Thomas Jefferson asked, "can we limit the army to 5,000 men?", and said, "Only if you can guarantee that we're never attacked by an enemy with over 5,000 men in their army."

National defense is expensive, but forms one of the few, legitimate purposes of the Federal Government.

Waste within a government agency is inevitable, but we do need a level of oversight within the Armed Forces to minimize it as much as possible. This is an area that I still need to put more thought into, but is definitely important.

The Ideal Government: Customs and Immigration

This is another area specifically laid out in the Constitution. We must provide for customs at the border, and a means of immigration. Right now, this system is horribly broken. I suggest three ideas to help fix it.

One, a fence. Yes, a fence. We can start with a 6' cyclone fence along both the northern and southern borders. If it gets breached, we replace it with a concrete wall where it was breached. We add electronic countermeasures, etc. If we finally end up with three layers of concrete walls separated by "moats" with crocodiles, lions, and machine guns, that's fine with me. But we shouldn't have to, because of part two.

Two, if you enter this country illegally, then you are a criminal. A felon. You can never get a job, you can never earn money. If you are found you are deported. If you attempt to re-apply, you can't get in because of your felony status. If you ever cross the border illegally, you're never going to be allowed to cross it legally. And, if you are found employing an illegal, then you are also a felon. You will go to jail. If it's a corporation, then the entire HR department goes to jail, along with the CEO. I would make it so painful to get caught hiring an illegal, that no one in their right mind would dare do it to save a few dollars.

Three, customs is broken. We have 5,000 pages of regulations on the importation of cabbage. Who cares? It's not the government's job to protect the people from a bad cabbage. Customs should be looking for illegal weapons, illegal substances, and illegal goods, not worrying whether a cabbage is the right shade of green. If a company imports bad cabbages, it's not going to be able to sell them anyway. That kind of inspection should be done at the plant, not at the border.

Four, tariffs are simple. Mirror them. If country X charges an import tariff on our goods, we charge the same tariff on their goods entering our country. Any nation can, therefore, establish free trade by simply removing all tariffs on our goods entering their country.

Five, H1-B visas should have a limit of zero. If we truly need a worker that only can be found abroad, then a company should be able to pay for their travel and their immigration and citizenship paperwork, and has to pay them at 3 times the going "average" wage. The definition of a worker taken on an H1-B visa is that the worker cannnot be found in America. It does not say "cannot be found cheaply." I want it to be cheaper for a company to get a local worker and pay to train them then to simply go overseas and raid other country's talent pool.

Speaking of companies...

The Ideal Government: Corporations

Corporations, like many things, are good ideas executed poorly. Corporations have their place in the real world, because businesses rarely are one person. Corporations allow entrepreneurs to take a risk on something without necessarily risking everything they have and own. In that respect, I like corporations. However, they've been poorly executed.

We have created a society where a corporation stands entirely on its own, and faces no consequences. You cannot throw a corporation in jail. You can't hold a corporation responsible for it's actions in any meaningful, criminal sense. So I propose the following changes.

One, Corporate officers are directly responsible for the actions of their corporation in a criminal sense. If a corporation knowingly ships tainted meat, knowingly poisons a river with toxic waste, or knowingly hires an illegal alien (as examples), then the CEO and the people who directly made the decision are now criminally responsible for those actions. How much more careful must a CEO be when they are personally responsible for the actions of their employees?

Two, Officer level compensation cannot exceed 10 times the wages of the median salary at the company. In other words, if you're the CEO of a 10,000 person company, with a median salary of $20,000 then you cannot receive more than $200,000 in direct salary. This means that a CEO can not get a raise without also providing raises to the majority of workers.

Three, An officer of the corporation can receive a bonus package -- with the following caveat. Any corporate officer who is to receive a bonus package, must distribute, as part of the annual voting of shareholders, a yay or nay vote on whether that officer should receive their bonus package. The officer will receive the portion of said bonus package based solely on the percentage of shares voted from that referendum. In other words, if 60% of the shares vote that the officer should receive their bonus, then they will receive 60% of their bonus package. If more than 50% vote that the officer should not receive a bonus package, then all the money for said bonus must go back into the corporation's profit and the officer receives no bonus.

Four, at no time may the combined total of all officer bonus packages exceed 90% of net profits for the corporation. This will prevent any bonuses at a corporation where there are no net profits.

Five, no other corporate perk, via per diem, moving expense, etc. may exceed 90% of annual salary. This keeps a CEO honest and prevents the "I only took a $1 salary, but I got a $10,000,000 housing allowance."


Wow, I just got a First Post

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 7 years ago Okay, so it's a meaningless ego stroke, but after five years on Slashdot, I finally got a first post.

The Comment

And not only that, it's been modded up . Wow.


Foes of mine

jnaujok jnaujok writes  |  more than 7 years ago Neat, I just checked the journal of some of my foes to find a rant about how, if I'm on their foe list, that I've made horrible scientifically untrue statements, or "supported ideology above science."

Now, I know that this comes from my ongoing defense of the non-anthropogenic global warming view. Whenever I comment on this, I'm relentlessly attacked, usually ad hominem, by the "other side". What surprises me is that this would somehow qualify as "ideology before science."

The more and more I'm reading about how climate science is performed in this country, the more I continue to doubt that Anthropogenic Global Warming is anything other than political ideology. In other words, ideology before science.

What kind of things bother me?

  • Many of the studies refuse to publish their raw data, algorithms, or even detailed methodology. That's not science. The point of publishing is to put the idea out there so that the experiment can be duplicated. It is this duplication that is the point of science. Reproducible results. The idea of hiding data and methodology would mean automatic disqualification in any other peer reviewed journal. Nature in fact, requires public data archiving for all other branches of science, but not climate science. Why the exception?
  • The maintenance and siting of the climate network appears to be atrocious. Not just really bad, not even poorly maintained, but possibly intentionally bad. Look at http://surfacestations.org/ and if you're not horrified, then you're not paying attention.
  • The conflict of interests is overwhelming. Al Gore is out there "raising awareness" of AGW. But Al Gore also owns the largest Carbon Credit Trading organization in the world. Who is making money on every person who buys into purchasing Carbon Credits? That's right, Al Gore. When tobacco companies sponsor cigarette studies, no one believes the results. Why do we believe Al?
  • The science is being bought. Turns out James Hansen, the poor oppressed scientist at NASA, got $750,000 from known left-winger George Soros. I don't know about you, but if someone gives me three quarters of a million dollars, I'm thinking they want something in return.
  • In the same vein, Hansen is the sole source of climate data. He wrote and runs the code that generates the "adjusted climate values" from the raw temperature data. Problem is, for the last ten years, he absolutely refused to turn over the code. Then he got caught by analysis as having a "bug" in his code that just so happened to make the years from 2000 - 2006 the hottest years on record. Turns out most of those years weren't even in the top 20 warmest years. Suddenly the hottest year in the U.S. was no longer the El Nino driven year of 1998, but the year 1934. In fact five of the ten values were in the 1930's. Hmm. Where'd all the warming go.
    Then, after an act of Congress (okay, a Congressman threatening to pull all of Hansen's funding if he didn't) Hansen turned over the source code. It took only a few days to find that any measurement with more than one series (i.e. a temperature gauge that got moved so it was in a new location) introduced a bias in the temperature. The more series, the bigger the bias. And thats just in step 1. They haven't even gotten through all the steps yet.
  • No global climate model has been accurate. Not one. You can't take the output of any GCM from five years ago and compare it to the last five years and get anywhere close to a match. If the model isn't accurate, then it can't be used to predict. I don't even want to go into how horrible the models are to begin with. I could write a journal entry on that all by itself.
  • We don't understand precipitation. We don't know if it's a positive or a negative feedback. Most research is pointing at a hugely negative feedback. A recent paper said it may account for as much as an additional 30% cooling in the tropics. However, every computer model says it's a positive feedback. Every single one. And most of them consider it a huge positive feedback. Look up the "Iris Effect" and you'll see that it has to be negative.
  • More and more scientists are starting to doubt the findings of global warming. Gray put out an absolute lambasting of AGW after Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Heck, Al's movie has been found by an English court of law to be inaccurate.
  • So much data doesn't line up with AGW theory. Yes, we see warming -- in the Northern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere has been having record cold years. That would seem to average out. We see melting of the Artic Ice cap, but the Antarctic is having record amounts of mass added. We see glaciers in Europe melting, but many southern glaciers are advancing.
  • So much of our data is inaccurate. Fifty years ago no one thought that taking the temperature every day would suddenly become a life or death struggle. Of the six stations in Brazil, five are listed as "Rural" when, in fact, they sit at the center of cities of over 500,000 residents. The Urban Heat Island skews all of these measurement upwards, while the actual rural station shows that temperatures have dropped.
  • Many of the glaciers touted as "shrinking because of global warming" have actually been shrinking since the 1700's or even since the end of the last ice age.

I could go on and on. All of these facts have to be ignored to believe in AGW, but I'm the one being called an idealist. Sigh.

I guess I should be happy that my foes don't read this, but I can't be. Ignorance of the scientific method is what's driving AGW. "Scientific Consensus" is a meaningless term. If I get 500 scientists together and they all say that box number one contains a rabbit, it doesn't make it true. It should only take one scientist to walk in and say, "Uh, no, that's a fox," for the whole thing to fall apart. In real science, that lone scientist carries as much credence, more even, than the 500 "consensus scientists." An unconfirmable story runs that Einstein was once approached by a reporter, "Mr. Einstein," he said, "there's a new book coming out called 100 Scientists Prove Einstein Wrong. What do you think about that?" To which Einstein replied, "One, it takes one."

What ever happened to science?

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?