Keep in mind that this is a country that still hasn't figured out separation of church and state...
That's not it. It's simpler than that.
It's "southernness".
In general, "southern" countries, that is, countries which do not experience overly cold climate have in common the fact that democracy is either poorly developped or a newfangled phenomenon (think of Spain, Greece and Portugal who ditched their fascist dictatorships [often installed by the US] around 30 years ago).
In these countries, the mild climate means that one can live for cheap, as one does not need an elaborate house to keep him warm during the winter.
Thus, the necessity of work is less ingrained in southern populations, and this is reflected by the presence of stupid religions that do not push hard towards hard work (scatholicism, orthododoxy or islam), and actually suppress the accumulation of wealth (for a devout scatholic, making money is a one-way reserved ticket to hell; I recall seeing in a scatholic school book that "money is the devil's dung" [actual french: l'argent est le crottin du diable]).
Contrast this to northern protestant countries where wealth is not only welcome, but necessary for survival in the winter; hence, it's not surprising that protestantism evolved this way because when you have to bust your arse all year long to insure that you won't freeze in winter, any jerk who comes along and tells you that you oughta share with the poor is going to attain #1 grade asshole status pretty quickly...
In southern countries, democracy is underdevelopped also because only a few people managed to hold a disproportionate amount of influence, because they alone worked harder than the rest of the people whose religion does not push them towards hard-work. Hence governments are more tilted towards the oligarchy and the kind of stupid banana-republic antics southern countries are well known for.
The greek blog aggregator crackdown is yet another illustration of this principle that little chickenshit dictators can pop-up everywhere (a good example is the sicilian and calabrese mafias of southern Italy) and are able to bamboozle authorities into silencing critics (interestingly, this principle is also alive and well in the US, too, hardly a southern scatholic country in principle).
Why bother downloading when you can legally copy CDs you borrow from friends or public libraries? This is how I got more than the 5000 pieces of music I have, most of them copied from other CDs.
And GOD FORBID that people should get to make that kind of choices for themselves. You obviously know better.
Yup, I know that some people are absolute wimps who can't stand by themselves and have to bow to peer pressure and have to do what makes them look good in the eyes of others rather than doing what's good.
I have been an election official during the last two federal elections, and a candidate representative during a Québec by-election.
The Directeur Général des Élections (DGE) is in charge of all elections/referendum within Québec.
In Canada, federal elections are handled by Elections Canada. Rules are virtually the same (exceptions listed below).
Registration. Everyone is automagically registered. If you file an income tax report, you are registered UNLESS you specifically ask so (a part of the tax form asks for it).
When the election comes, the DGE sends out notices to everyone on the list. If there are mistakes, or you are not listed, you can ask to be properly registered at the local election office (usually, one by riding).
The part-time election personnel is chosed riding by riding. The incumbent hands out the "important" jobs (poll center supervisor, revision official, scrutineers) while the "less important" jobs (security, assistant revisor, poll clerk) are left to the other candidates.
Training for the poll workers lasts about 3 hours, and happens a week before the election. It explains what are the general procedures. We are also given a book that explains special cases, which we have to read (but are not tested). The scrutineer is given the ballot box which contains the paperwork. We are to meet 2-3 days (usually in the scrutineer's home) before the election to check that the contents are okay; we are to report discrepancies so they can be fixed in time.
We are given a list of all the people entitled to vote (about 400 per box), with those who voted in advance and those who moved-out or otherwise no longer voting there crossed-out.
On election day, at each poll you have the scrutineer, the poll clerk, and as many representatives as there are candidates. The representatives are there to watch that everything is done properly; they can question some aspect of the procedure, like question the identity of voters and question the admissibility of a ballot when counted (but in all respect, the scrutineer has the last word). And representatives can be expelled at will if they don't behave.
Showing ID is not compulsory. But in Québec, anyone can demand a voter identify himself; however, in Canada, election officers are specifically prohibited by law from asking for ID. What is interesting is that many people spontaneously show their ID when they come to vote, and we have to tell them they don't need to (this shows how people accept to show their ID in order to vote).
The situation is different in Québec because federalist parties were caught red-handed rigging elections, so when the law was put in front of parliament, they could not very well vote against it, given the huge amount of egg on their face...
When the voting begins, the ballot boxes are sealed after everyone present agrees that they are empty. The representatives can sign the seals, and note down the serial numbers.
The ballots are printed on stapled booklets, from which the ballots are detached. Each ballot has the list of candidates (or options for referenda), a space for the scrutineer to put his initials and two identical serial numbers.
The serial numbers are on different tear-off stubs; the first remains in the booklet, the second is kept on the ballot when it is handled to the voter.
Before handling the ballot to the voter (AND ONLY AT THAT TIME!!!!), the scrutineer marks the back of the ballot with his initials, with the stub with the serial number in plain view.
The voter votes, and either tears-off the serial number stub in plain view of everyone, and shows the scrutineer's initials (this is to insure that this is the same ballot that was handed earlier - in order to avoid "telegrams"), or the scrutineer does it for him without unfolding the ballot. THE STUB WITH SERIAL NUMBER IS TO BE KEPT!!!
The voter then puts the ballot in the box, a
If you ride a bike to work, live in a small house, feed your family and are happy, and I drive one of my BMWs to work, live in a big house, feed my family and am happy, does that make you less free that me?
By riding a bike and having a small house, you're not held by the balls by the finance company and your mortgage so you can SAVE more and have a less-paying job that is much more interesting and rewarding that doesn't send you home with ulcers and stress. Now THINK at how the latter will do wonders to your health in later years, those years where you precious private medical insurance will dump you because you're no longer profitable...
What my neighbor makes has no bearing on how free I am. We use the same tax schedule but there are boatloads of folks in the U.S. who make more than me but who manage it poorly. Thus, they pay more to the common weal, may have more in the bank, but are constrained about what they can do in terms of family trips/home improvements.
...
I hated Clinton
Obviously...
Finally, as for keeping guns in drawers - the primary reason for this right in the US is to kill government types who overstep their bounds. It's less about neighbors and hunting and more about preventing idiocy in the ruling class.
Oh yeah? How many people lived (or stayed free) after shooting "government types who overstep their bounds"????
This does only apply to criminal judgment, not civil ones (as in the case of Spamhaus). A criminal judgment would never has been rendered this way, as criminal rules of proceeding prevent a judgment to be entered when the defendant is not present.
Let's make one thing clear, the original judgment is of no value.
Lindtard, e360 insight lawyer, actually LIED to the court by stating that Spamhaus did business in Illinois. This is patently false.
Spamhaus has stated such to the judge, but the judge chose to ignore that advice and press forward with the case.
Upon seeing that it would not be able to get heard by the court, Spamhaus wisely decided to withdraw completely. Being based in Britain, Spamhaus would not be bound by any judgment that would arise, and since the court chose to be bamboozled by the chickenboning spammers, the judgment rendered would be of no value anyways.
The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff by default, but such a judgment is ineffective as US judgments do not apply to the UK.
The case redux came about when chickenboning Lindtard drew an amazingly broad order that the judge refused to enterinate, as being "far too broad in regard to the violation effected".
However, given the potential disruption if Spamhaus.org would be suspended, a prominent Chicago law firm has offered it's services pro-bono.
So we can expect the chickenboning Lindtard's gang of e360 insight to have their gonads flattenned pretty quick by the court pretty soon (if not by Angel's Anvil Delivery Service)...
Let this be a warning to spammers: YOU CHICKENBONERS CANNOT EXPECT TO WIN, AND AS PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE TIRED OF YOUR SHENANIGANS, YOU CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE HUNTED AND SEE YOUR SPAMMING OPERATIONS KILLED PRETTY MUCH EFFECTIVELY.
Jeeesuss H. Fucking Christ, if the morons were adhering to standards (what part of "e-mail is text-only"), there would be no problems with web-bugs.
I mean, if you have to get jazzy e-mail, it means you're bullshitting because the ideas you're conveying don't stand up by themselves.
It's like a rock show where the mediocrity of the music and the utter stupidity of the lyrics have to be hidden by light shows and pyrotechnics and tight leather (or spandex for you KISS afficionados).
The problem is the women
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
The problem really is the women.
They want their prince charming to bring them money so they can spend, but in order to earn, you have to work.
Ladies, you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time, so if what you want is a warm body, get yourself a gigolo. But just make sure he's out of the way when hubby comes home and wants to pork you or wants a blowjob, and, by all means, give him the blowjob. After all, he's the one who pays the bills.
Another good one, it means groups like labor unions, the ACLU, and the NRA can't run issue-specific ads. This is especially bad since there are often other law-related measures on the ballot other than who gets elected.
What it means that deep-pocketed interest groups don't get a bigger voice than the "normal" citizens.
Not in Canada. The last federal referendum was about 16 years ago. And before that it was during World-War-II.
Sounds good on the surface, but individual executives and shareholders can still donate big bucks (and get around donation limit laws).
In Québec, individual contributions are limited to $100. So, again, deep-pocketed individuals don't get a bigger voice than "normal" citizens.
Publically financed elections would save lots of money. Politicians would have to convince the voters to vote for them by words and actions instead of their fund-raising prowess. They would no longer be indebted to big money interests, but to each voter equally. They would not have to spend half their lives chasing the big money and instead could spend it talking to and working for their constituents.
In Canada, political parties receive money according to the number of votes they received at the last election.
During elections, only political parties can run advertising, and each advertisement, down to each poster and pamhplet has to be accounted for.
There are also talks of absolutely prohibiting croporate political donations, like it has been the case in Québec for nearly 30 years.
Canada always have had 3 parties (conservatives, liberals, new-democrats [labour]), which makes for a more balanced parliament, even more so for the last 2-3 years where minority governments have been elected.
This is just a big hoopla for nothing. Basically, what happens is a spammer is just taking his wet-dreams for reality, nothing else, and he's been able to do so by misrepresenting facts to a judge that can only act on the facts. You know the old adage: "garbage in, garbage out".
The pity here is the media circus surrounding it which has made this the big mountain it isn't.
Lindtard bamboozled the court when he lied that Spamhaus had any business in Illinois, which is not the case at all.
When Spamhaus pointed that fact to the court, the court ignored it, so the counsel did the only thing they could do, withdraw because the court was clearly acting on wrong information and, in any case, had absolutely no jurisdiction on Spamhaus.
When the court will realize it was bullshitted by Lindtard, it will gladly send him for a nice ass reaming at the PMITA jail...
People in many "3rd world" countries get along fine without automobiles because their economies are local ones. They walk to the corner-market to get what they need; have tailors, butchers, shoemakers, and every other trade or commerce (in which they often participate) available within a fairly short distance. The transit system only helps them where there is something that can't be had in the neighborhood already, or in the sad cases of urbanization where the people become dependent upon bureaucracy or else live in poverty.
It is not necessary to be in the third world to do that. Many european cities have mixed land use. In Paris, for example, you will find office buildings next to residences, and here and there will be the odd artisan cabinetmaker, garage or sheet-metal shop, all merrily mixed-up. Not to mention the corner bakery and the corner café.
100 years ago, parisian buildings were designed to house shops at the street level, then two stories of luxury appartments, then several "middle-class" stories, topped by one or two servants' quarters, most often occupied by poor students or simply poor people, in the same buildings.
During the last 5 years, I have had two jobs less than two kilometers away from where I live, which is about four kilometers from the business district of a 2 million people north-american city. I was able to live my life completely by foot, as I had all the services needed within walking distance, and whenever I wanted to go downtown, the bicycle did fine.
The secret is to have properly planned mixed land use, and do without the ridiculous segregation of residential, commercial and industrial that is too often the case in North-America, and which forces unnecessary commutings.
We should be bringing everyone else UP to our standards rather than racing to the lowest level out there. But we are racing to the bottom. That is the problem.
Of course. Governments have consistently failed their populations by caving in to special business interests, and changing the international commerce rules to only suit them.
Proper regulations would have entailed the use of tariffs to level the playing field, by raising the price of products made by cheap (or slave) labour to a level equivalent to the cost of domestic labour.
This way gives the incentive for the exporting countries to raise their wages, and the extra prosperity means that the "poor" countries will become rich enough to afford products made by "rich" countries, thus increasing their exports, and, most importantly, maintaining a healthy trade balance.
By exporting jobs to the third world, the US has seriously damaged it's manufacturing capability, and it's ballooning commercial deficit do not look well.
Speculators have worked very hard to keep land and house prices beyond the reasonable capacity of people to pay for them, hence overreliance on credit which increases the prices of the goods often by 100% (20 years at 5%).
In addition, the sprawling lifestyle puts an extra burden on governments who have to maintain an extensive networks of roads, in addition to the people who have to pay a fortune to acquire (also on credit) automobiles and run them.
It's not for nothing that third-worlders can live for a king for $10 per day; over there, people are not burdened by the expensive western lifestyle.
Automobiles are particularly to blame, because this is one expense that can be done without. When people will spend a third of their income to support their automobile, this means that with a proper public transportation system that allows ordinary people to live decently without a car, salaries could be cut by 25% without any diminished quality of life.
When this little fact will be understood by the thousands chambers of commerce, there will be serious moves toward better transit. In addition of lowering the expenses of employers, it will free the roads from millions of otherwise useless vehicles, leaving a free way for what cannot be transacted without a truck, thus cutting down on the time lost in traffic, furthering even more the savings.
Plus, when there are sufficient people using a transit system, they can be self-sufficient or even turn a profit and thus not be an eternal drain on public ressources like roads are (no right-wing wacko is talking about privatizing roads). 100 years ago, transit systems were big business, and railroads were the high-technology.
Slashdot Mirror
It's "southernness".
In general, "southern" countries, that is, countries which do not experience overly cold climate have in common the fact that democracy is either poorly developped or a newfangled phenomenon (think of Spain, Greece and Portugal who ditched their fascist dictatorships [often installed by the US] around 30 years ago).
In these countries, the mild climate means that one can live for cheap, as one does not need an elaborate house to keep him warm during the winter.
Thus, the necessity of work is less ingrained in southern populations, and this is reflected by the presence of stupid religions that do not push hard towards hard work (scatholicism, orthododoxy or islam), and actually suppress the accumulation of wealth (for a devout scatholic, making money is a one-way reserved ticket to hell; I recall seeing in a scatholic school book that "money is the devil's dung" [actual french: l'argent est le crottin du diable]).
Contrast this to northern protestant countries where wealth is not only welcome, but necessary for survival in the winter; hence, it's not surprising that protestantism evolved this way because when you have to bust your arse all year long to insure that you won't freeze in winter, any jerk who comes along and tells you that you oughta share with the poor is going to attain #1 grade asshole status pretty quickly...
In southern countries, democracy is underdevelopped also because only a few people managed to hold a disproportionate amount of influence, because they alone worked harder than the rest of the people whose religion does not push them towards hard-work. Hence governments are more tilted towards the oligarchy and the kind of stupid banana-republic antics southern countries are well known for.
The greek blog aggregator crackdown is yet another illustration of this principle that little chickenshit dictators can pop-up everywhere (a good example is the sicilian and calabrese mafias of southern Italy) and are able to bamboozle authorities into silencing critics (interestingly, this principle is also alive and well in the US, too, hardly a southern scatholic country in principle).
Those who live by copying...
Practice. Learn a new language, just for fun. To do so, program a new application to do something useless that has been nagging you for months.
Why bother downloading when you can legally copy CDs you borrow from friends or public libraries? This is how I got more than the 5000 pieces of music I have, most of them copied from other CDs.
The Directeur Général des Élections (DGE) is in charge of all elections/referendum within Québec.
In Canada, federal elections are handled by Elections Canada. Rules are virtually the same (exceptions listed below).
Registration. Everyone is automagically registered. If you file an income tax report, you are registered UNLESS you specifically ask so (a part of the tax form asks for it).
When the election comes, the DGE sends out notices to everyone on the list. If there are mistakes, or you are not listed, you can ask to be properly registered at the local election office (usually, one by riding).
The part-time election personnel is chosed riding by riding. The incumbent hands out the "important" jobs (poll center supervisor, revision official, scrutineers) while the "less important" jobs (security, assistant revisor, poll clerk) are left to the other candidates.
Training for the poll workers lasts about 3 hours, and happens a week before the election. It explains what are the general procedures. We are also given a book that explains special cases, which we have to read (but are not tested). The scrutineer is given the ballot box which contains the paperwork. We are to meet 2-3 days (usually in the scrutineer's home) before the election to check that the contents are okay; we are to report discrepancies so they can be fixed in time.
We are given a list of all the people entitled to vote (about 400 per box), with those who voted in advance and those who moved-out or otherwise no longer voting there crossed-out.
On election day, at each poll you have the scrutineer, the poll clerk, and as many representatives as there are candidates. The representatives are there to watch that everything is done properly; they can question some aspect of the procedure, like question the identity of voters and question the admissibility of a ballot when counted (but in all respect, the scrutineer has the last word). And representatives can be expelled at will if they don't behave.
Showing ID is not compulsory. But in Québec, anyone can demand a voter identify himself; however, in Canada, election officers are specifically prohibited by law from asking for ID. What is interesting is that many people spontaneously show their ID when they come to vote, and we have to tell them they don't need to (this shows how people accept to show their ID in order to vote).
The situation is different in Québec because federalist parties were caught red-handed rigging elections, so when the law was put in front of parliament, they could not very well vote against it, given the huge amount of egg on their face...
When the voting begins, the ballot boxes are sealed after everyone present agrees that they are empty. The representatives can sign the seals, and note down the serial numbers.
The ballots are printed on stapled booklets, from which the ballots are detached. Each ballot has the list of candidates (or options for referenda), a space for the scrutineer to put his initials and two identical serial numbers.
The serial numbers are on different tear-off stubs; the first remains in the booklet, the second is kept on the ballot when it is handled to the voter.
Before handling the ballot to the voter (AND ONLY AT THAT TIME!!!!), the scrutineer marks the back of the ballot with his initials, with the stub with the serial number in plain view.
The voter votes, and either tears-off the serial number stub in plain view of everyone, and shows the scrutineer's initials (this is to insure that this is the same ballot that was handed earlier - in order to avoid "telegrams"), or the scrutineer does it for him without unfolding the ballot. THE STUB WITH SERIAL NUMBER IS TO BE KEPT!!!
The voter then puts the ballot in the box, a
This does only apply to criminal judgment, not civil ones (as in the case of Spamhaus). A criminal judgment would never has been rendered this way, as criminal rules of proceeding prevent a judgment to be entered when the defendant is not present.
Of course I've seen him rant on NANAE. He's almost as funny as Tim "Put that bottle down" Bolen...
Let's make one thing clear, the original judgment is of no value.
Lindtard, e360 insight lawyer, actually LIED to the court by stating that Spamhaus did business in Illinois. This is patently false.
Spamhaus has stated such to the judge, but the judge chose to ignore that advice and press forward with the case.
Upon seeing that it would not be able to get heard by the court, Spamhaus wisely decided to withdraw completely. Being based in Britain, Spamhaus would not be bound by any judgment that would arise, and since the court chose to be bamboozled by the chickenboning spammers, the judgment rendered would be of no value anyways.
The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff by default, but such a judgment is ineffective as US judgments do not apply to the UK.
The case redux came about when chickenboning Lindtard drew an amazingly broad order that the judge refused to enterinate, as being "far too broad in regard to the violation effected".
However, given the potential disruption if Spamhaus.org would be suspended, a prominent Chicago law firm has offered it's services pro-bono.
So we can expect the chickenboning Lindtard's gang of e360 insight to have their gonads flattenned pretty quick by the court pretty soon (if not by Angel's Anvil Delivery Service)...
Let this be a warning to spammers: YOU CHICKENBONERS CANNOT EXPECT TO WIN, AND AS PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE TIRED OF YOUR SHENANIGANS, YOU CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE HUNTED AND SEE YOUR SPAMMING OPERATIONS KILLED PRETTY MUCH EFFECTIVELY.
Why not in a puff of logic???
Why would a judge be asked to condone prior restraint, and expected to do it???
I mean, if you have to get jazzy e-mail, it means you're bullshitting because the ideas you're conveying don't stand up by themselves.
It's like a rock show where the mediocrity of the music and the utter stupidity of the lyrics have to be hidden by light shows and pyrotechnics and tight leather (or spandex for you KISS afficionados).
They want their prince charming to bring them money so they can spend, but in order to earn, you have to work.
Ladies, you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time, so if what you want is a warm body, get yourself a gigolo. But just make sure he's out of the way when hubby comes home and wants to pork you or wants a blowjob, and, by all means, give him the blowjob. After all, he's the one who pays the bills.
Not in Canada. The last federal referendum was about 16 years ago. And before that it was during World-War-II.
In Québec, individual contributions are limited to $100. So, again, deep-pocketed individuals don't get a bigger voice than "normal" citizens.The video is plainly accessible.
During elections, only political parties can run advertising, and each advertisement, down to each poster and pamhplet has to be accounted for.
There are also talks of absolutely prohibiting croporate political donations, like it has been the case in Québec for nearly 30 years.
Canada always have had 3 parties (conservatives, liberals, new-democrats [labour]), which makes for a more balanced parliament, even more so for the last 2-3 years where minority governments have been elected.
The pity here is the media circus surrounding it which has made this the big mountain it isn't.
Lindtard bamboozled the court when he lied that Spamhaus had any business in Illinois, which is not the case at all.
When Spamhaus pointed that fact to the court, the court ignored it, so the counsel did the only thing they could do, withdraw because the court was clearly acting on wrong information and, in any case, had absolutely no jurisdiction on Spamhaus.
When the court will realize it was bullshitted by Lindtard, it will gladly send him for a nice ass reaming at the PMITA jail...
The US have plenty of "antiterrorist" video games.
The US have plenty of nukular weapons.
Why are the yankees allowed to have video games and not the iranians?
Why are the yankees allowed to have nukular weapons and not the iranians?
100 years ago, parisian buildings were designed to house shops at the street level, then two stories of luxury appartments, then several "middle-class" stories, topped by one or two servants' quarters, most often occupied by poor students or simply poor people, in the same buildings.
During the last 5 years, I have had two jobs less than two kilometers away from where I live, which is about four kilometers from the business district of a 2 million people north-american city. I was able to live my life completely by foot, as I had all the services needed within walking distance, and whenever I wanted to go downtown, the bicycle did fine.
The secret is to have properly planned mixed land use, and do without the ridiculous segregation of residential, commercial and industrial that is too often the case in North-America, and which forces unnecessary commutings.
Proper regulations would have entailed the use of tariffs to level the playing field, by raising the price of products made by cheap (or slave) labour to a level equivalent to the cost of domestic labour.
This way gives the incentive for the exporting countries to raise their wages, and the extra prosperity means that the "poor" countries will become rich enough to afford products made by "rich" countries, thus increasing their exports, and, most importantly, maintaining a healthy trade balance.
By exporting jobs to the third world, the US has seriously damaged it's manufacturing capability, and it's ballooning commercial deficit do not look well.
In fact, the US economic situation could very well copy the phenomenon that basically destroyed the spanish economy 400 years ago, turning the richest european country into one of the poorest.
It's the high-cost of life in the US.
Speculators have worked very hard to keep land and house prices beyond the reasonable capacity of people to pay for them, hence overreliance on credit which increases the prices of the goods often by 100% (20 years at 5%).
In addition, the sprawling lifestyle puts an extra burden on governments who have to maintain an extensive networks of roads, in addition to the people who have to pay a fortune to acquire (also on credit) automobiles and run them.
It's not for nothing that third-worlders can live for a king for $10 per day; over there, people are not burdened by the expensive western lifestyle.
Automobiles are particularly to blame, because this is one expense that can be done without. When people will spend a third of their income to support their automobile, this means that with a proper public transportation system that allows ordinary people to live decently without a car, salaries could be cut by 25% without any diminished quality of life.
When this little fact will be understood by the thousands chambers of commerce, there will be serious moves toward better transit. In addition of lowering the expenses of employers, it will free the roads from millions of otherwise useless vehicles, leaving a free way for what cannot be transacted without a truck, thus cutting down on the time lost in traffic, furthering even more the savings.
Plus, when there are sufficient people using a transit system, they can be self-sufficient or even turn a profit and thus not be an eternal drain on public ressources like roads are (no right-wing wacko is talking about privatizing roads). 100 years ago, transit systems were big business, and railroads were the high-technology.