I definitely see your situation, although I don't think it applies to most people. I still say move to England. I'm not sure about Canada's government, I'll have to wiki it sometime.
But of course that's true. That's still not the situation I set up, though. From anecdotal experience, most of the people that vote for Ralph Nader are fine with the policies of the democratic candidate. If you don't, fine. I'm just talking about the "Don't blame me! I voted for Nader!" crowd.
The problem that does encompass your thinking is this: Is there a side you find more acceptable? Certainly not all find either candidate attractive, but most find one acceptable. Now, if neither strongly supports or detracts from the issues that are important to you, so be it. But it's still likely that one is more suitable to you. If it is? You're still better off "hedging your bets" and going for the best fit. After all realistically, no, your candidate is not going to win. Barring an unprecedented shift, a third party won't be viable for decades.
Your best bet? Move somewhere with a more representative government system. England or France are lovely choices. Each has several minority candidates in office, which allows not only lawmakers to realise you exist, but even hear your opinions!
There are 101 people voting for president of the world. 51 of them are "Liberal," and 50 of them are "Conservative." (Both in the American sense.) In a two party system, the Liberal Candidate would win.
49 People have voted for Jack Johnson, a Democrat.
50 People have voted for John Jackson, a Republican.
That leaves just you (Robert Bobson,) and your close friend (Bob Robertson) to vote. Instead of voting for Jack, you both vote for Jesse Ventura, a "Liberal" independent. Now, you did not vote for John, because you disagree with his policies. You did not vote for jack, because you dislike him personally, although you agree with his policies. As result, you walk around saying "Don't blame me! I voted for a third party!," When in actuality, it is just as much a result of you, as it is of anyone who voted for John. The same scenario also works in reverse, of course, but Conservatives tend to have fewer major candidates.
So in this great place called 'reality,' unless you really don't care who wins, or it is not a close race, voting for anyone but the DFL or GOP candidate is not only a waste of your vote, but probably against your self interests. Now, this isn't to say I never do. Whenever the outcome of an election is clear, I vote Socialist or Green (assuming any candidates are available.) But in elections where my vote could, in fact, make a difference? I know better.
Right, once again missing the point. If I had the money to set up a windmill, or for that matter a yard, why do I care that the monopolistic system stops competition?
Oh, of course I have other options for electricity. But do I have the capitol to finance them? Of course not. If I did, why would I care in the first place? Producing my own electricity is NOT comparable to buying it. I have ONE choice of where to purchase electricity, and alternatives to purchasing it aren't cost effective without a fairly high amount of startup.
As fro dropping gas, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the idea of a furnace, but it's much more efficient to run on gas than electricity.
As for cable, I do mean cable. Internet and/or television. Not satellite, not DSL. If you even want to bother calling mid-range DSL "broadband," it's still more expensive. So for internet? Yes, I do have choices. I could get any number of dialup providers, I could get DSL, I could even go for satellite. But, are any of these services really comparable? No.
So yes, you're right. I do have a choice. I can go without food or utilities for a few years, save up money, and get a different option later. So do i see alternatives? Yes. Are they reasonably available to me, the average consumer? A resounding NO. Have I dead the contracts? Of course. Do I have any say? Nope. So until I get this money, I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.
Indeed. Utilities generally have no choice whatsoever. So, say you live in my area, and you want cable? Your choices are: 1) Comcast
Say you want land-line phone service? Your choices are: 1) Qwest
Say you want natural gas? Your choices are: 1) Center-point
Want electricity? Oh, gobs of choices here: 1) Xcel
Is this legal? Perfectly! Does it create competition? Not in any possible way. Does it always screw the customer, every time? Naturally. The US has essentially decided that as long as your monopoly only covers a county or two, it's not a monopoly. Because of course, no one's forcing me to live here. But if I choose to? My utility companies are forced on me.
The point is that he is selling his adapter to people who want more battery life or skip protection out of their video iPods. Stop using a jackhammer while listening to your iPod. No, seriously, it's not easy to make them skip. And if you simply must listen to your iPod while jack-hammering for more than 20 hours straight, and don't mind having a rather limited hard-drive, why not just get a freaking nano? They're cheaper, with a longer battery life, and already have a flash drive.
I was going to mention this. It's not terribly uncommon for a team or two to break 100 wins, but 110?? The last time they broke 110 was 1998, and their lineup was a LOT better.
I have to ask if you're talking about the old version of mail (I.E. the one that came with 10.3) or the newer one. I didn't much care for the former, but IMO, the latter is leaps and bounds above thunderbird.
Slashdot Mirror
I definitely see your situation, although I don't think it applies to most people. I still say move to England. I'm not sure about Canada's government, I'll have to wiki it sometime.
1) It's too much effort to read the article.
2) It's um... Can you repeat this one, I didn't read it.
But of course that's true. That's still not the situation I set up, though. From anecdotal experience, most of the people that vote for Ralph Nader are fine with the policies of the democratic candidate. If you don't, fine. I'm just talking about the "Don't blame me! I voted for Nader!" crowd.
The problem that does encompass your thinking is this: Is there a side you find more acceptable? Certainly not all find either candidate attractive, but most find one acceptable. Now, if neither strongly supports or detracts from the issues that are important to you, so be it. But it's still likely that one is more suitable to you. If it is? You're still better off "hedging your bets" and going for the best fit. After all realistically, no, your candidate is not going to win. Barring an unprecedented shift, a third party won't be viable for decades.
Your best bet? Move somewhere with a more representative government system. England or France are lovely choices. Each has several minority candidates in office, which allows not only lawmakers to realise you exist, but even hear your opinions!
Look at it this way:
There are 101 people voting for president of the world. 51 of them are "Liberal," and 50 of them are "Conservative." (Both in the American sense.) In a two party system, the Liberal Candidate would win.
49 People have voted for Jack Johnson, a Democrat.
50 People have voted for John Jackson, a Republican.
That leaves just you (Robert Bobson,) and your close friend (Bob Robertson) to vote. Instead of voting for Jack, you both vote for Jesse Ventura, a "Liberal" independent. Now, you did not vote for John, because you disagree with his policies. You did not vote for jack, because you dislike him personally, although you agree with his policies. As result, you walk around saying "Don't blame me! I voted for a third party!," When in actuality, it is just as much a result of you, as it is of anyone who voted for John. The same scenario also works in reverse, of course, but Conservatives tend to have fewer major candidates.
So in this great place called 'reality,' unless you really don't care who wins, or it is not a close race, voting for anyone but the DFL or GOP candidate is not only a waste of your vote, but probably against your self interests. Now, this isn't to say I never do. Whenever the outcome of an election is clear, I vote Socialist or Green (assuming any candidates are available.) But in elections where my vote could, in fact, make a difference? I know better.
Well, someday, I won't be playing cards with Kurt and miles Davis when I don't go to the afterlife that doesn't exist...
Right, once again missing the point. If I had the money to set up a windmill, or for that matter a yard, why do I care that the monopolistic system stops competition?
Oh, of course I have other options for electricity. But do I have the capitol to finance them? Of course not. If I did, why would I care in the first place? Producing my own electricity is NOT comparable to buying it. I have ONE choice of where to purchase electricity, and alternatives to purchasing it aren't cost effective without a fairly high amount of startup.
As fro dropping gas, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the idea of a furnace, but it's much more efficient to run on gas than electricity.
As for cable, I do mean cable. Internet and/or television. Not satellite, not DSL. If you even want to bother calling mid-range DSL "broadband," it's still more expensive. So for internet? Yes, I do have choices. I could get any number of dialup providers, I could get DSL, I could even go for satellite. But, are any of these services really comparable? No.
So yes, you're right. I do have a choice. I can go without food or utilities for a few years, save up money, and get a different option later. So do i see alternatives? Yes. Are they reasonably available to me, the average consumer? A resounding NO. Have I dead the contracts? Of course. Do I have any say? Nope. So until I get this money, I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.
Indeed. Utilities generally have no choice whatsoever. So, say you live in my area, and you want cable? Your choices are:
1) Comcast
Say you want land-line phone service? Your choices are:
1) Qwest
Say you want natural gas? Your choices are:
1) Center-point
Want electricity? Oh, gobs of choices here:
1) Xcel
Is this legal? Perfectly! Does it create competition? Not in any possible way. Does it always screw the customer, every time? Naturally. The US has essentially decided that as long as your monopoly only covers a county or two, it's not a monopoly. Because of course, no one's forcing me to live here. But if I choose to? My utility companies are forced on me.
Indeed. My wife has a 939, but coincidentally, we're broke :D
Eh, The universe wasn't the best idea :D
Someone tag this article "flamebait."
That's all it is. Nothing insightful, nothing interesting, not even funny. It's just meant to piss off apple fanbois.
I suppose technically, a mini-black hole could eventually suck all the air off the planet... but not before exploding...
I always knew math was out to get me :(
I have my broadcasted browser as konfabulator, but I'm on safari... So give another .000000000000000001% to apple :)
Thank you! I wish I could mod you informative :p
That decision seems questionably legal... Any lawyers around to explain this more thoroughly??
I was going to mention this. It's not terribly uncommon for a team or two to break 100 wins, but 110?? The last time they broke 110 was 1998, and their lineup was a LOT better.
I seriously doubt it. According to wiki, the wind travels at about 55km/h in the summer, and 120km/h in the winter.
Build one yourself! It's fun, and not too hard. Also, family bonding and whatnot!
You left out bragging rights :)
Ah, thank god for their constitutionally protected right to lie! God bless america *single dramatic tear*
I have to ask if you're talking about the old version of mail (I.E. the one that came with 10.3) or the newer one. I didn't much care for the former, but IMO, the latter is leaps and bounds above thunderbird.
If you weren't anonymous, I would wish I had mod points.
Oh yeah, wait...
You are attempting to extend the joke [Cancel or Allow]?
At least you didn't have mono holding you back :)