Completely agree, it was a really badly run Yes campaign. It still doesn't negate the fact a large amount of people made no effort to understand the problem for themselves. I had to do something similar to yourself. In my case I was listening to somebody in work say that people like the BNP would receive more votes as people would have to vote for them. My though process went like: 1. What a load of bollox he's talking 2. Hold on, I'll just check that out. If you are required to put a number in every box then that isn't good. 3. Check it out 4. What a load of bollox he's spreading around the office.
I'm very well aware that it's nigh on impossible, especially for general elections, however for referenda it's a bit simpler seeing as we should be dealing with facts. For the alternative vote referendum, one could have asked "Will you be required to vote for every candidate on the ballot paper?"
Except that it's got nothing to do with wealth. It's got to do with having a desire to understand the world around you.
Why should the vote of a wealthy land owner count more than that of a newly enfranchised former slave?
Slavery was abolished in 1833 in the UK. It was only on 1928 that all people aged 21 and over could vote. I was going to say that the slavery point is moot, there are of course all kinds of modern slavery. However how many of those people would even be illegible to vote if released? In all honest I didn't realise literacy tests were used to disenfranchise people in the US up until 1965 - I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
It's all academic of course - too many problems: adult illiteracy, fairness of questions, etc. The setup we currently have is the most feasible. I'd still like to see some kind of method for rewarding those who make an effort to further themselves. Otherwise we'll end up in the world of Harrison Bergeron.
Yup, it's definitely a bad idea. It also interferes with my idea of weighted ballots:
A series of (simple unambiguous) questions acompany the ballot. During counting, the quiz is marked, and that vote is weighted using the result (you get one mark for turning up)
This way you're not disenfranchising anyone as their vote will count. It just means that people who understand what they're voting have a greater say as to what goes on. I'm sick to death of seeing knuckle dragging Neanderthals (who have voted the way their television told them to) have as much say as myself (if I don't understand what the vote is on, I'll make sure I read up on it).
Point in question: The alternative vote refurendum in the UK. The number of people I heard saying they'd vote no for completely false reasons was ridiculous. Fine, if you don't agree. Just make sure you know the facts first.
On the other hand, have you driven down a motorway with those LED cats eyes? The M40 at J5 has them and at night they can be a complete sensory overload when going down the cutting. You can see them on the opposite side so you have 8 rows of lights stretching into the distance. Cool but sometimes a little disconcerting.
Some people keep their headlights on even on blindingly bright days, to increase the visibility of their cars. Bet there's a study on the efficacy of that tactic.
I started doing this when I got my Westfield - I felt that anything that made be more visible while driving a 425kg fibreglass panelled car was a good idea. Since then I do it in any car. Nothing annoys me more* than driving in fog/poor visiblity and some twat in a grey car is driving with their sidelights on.
* Actually, the other thing is people driving with fog lights on in clear weather - they should be made to present an eye test to the police confirming that they don't have cataracts - that'd learn 'em.
For various reasons, I stopped buying US products years ago.
Anyway it's sad that the country which created the Bill of rights (although numerous clauses have been all but repealed by the PATRIOT act) and other documents of personal liberty has come to this.
Unfortunately the UK is heading towards the same direction.
I'm not trying to be an arse - I completely agree with you, but in reality both countries are as bad as each other.
Just today I was reading about a retired UK businessman that has been extradited to the US for making £500 for transporting batteries to the Netherlands. He says he was the target of entrapment. The US say he's an arms dealer as the batteries were destined for anti-aircraft missiles in Iran (which were sold to them by the US).
Who's the worst? The US for extraditing somebody on flimsy evidence, or the UK for handing over one of their citizen without being allowed to examine the evidence. I think we can all agree that we're all losers.
I'm looking forward to Scottish independence, no really I am. I'm Irish, but living in England, if the majority of the country want to be independent, then they should be. The benefit for England will be that they won't have a bunch of MPs voting on things that will never affect their own constituents.
I remember this being in the news, it nearly started a war. Luckily some English chap and a Chinese bird managed to stop Rupert Murdock before it was too late.
It's an embarrassment that somebody came up with this. Personally, I think the guy should be dropped off in a minefield with an ADE-651 and see how far he gets.
If your lawyer every moves to a new town, I recommend moving too. You've struck gold. My experience with solicitors (in the Ireland & the UK): 1. Father told by solicitor to withhold separation settlement by his solicitor until the very last hour, even though it had been decided months before. 2. Friend's solicitors attempting to get her to screw her husband over for a divorce settlement - all she wanted was a fair settlement and for it to end amicably - they obviously realised they weren't going to get many court hours out of her as she wasn't bitter. 3. Father having to deal with my Grandmother's probate - Irish solicitors get 3%, and he has to nudge them along every part of the way. 4. Sister having to get a bridging loan when buying a house, as her solicitors couldn't be arsed to send the contracts in time, so she was left out of pocket.
Four cases, four different legal firms in two countries. As far as I'm concerned "representing your client's best interests" is bollocks. I don't know too many people that have had a positive experience with the legal profession.
Good to see I'm not the only one. I don't tend notice the ads because I'm too busy reading the comments (the article? don't be daft), but there have been a few occasions when an ad has been useful (like RC helicopters). Without the income Slashdot would be slashdoted daily.
I heard a story that where there was a sign saying "These cables are fibre optic, and have zero scrap value", somebody dug them up, and then wrote on the sign "Yeah, but we had to check anyway".
Speaking of spoiling ballots, the e-voting machines wouldn't let me. For the Nice referendum they just gave me a yes/no option. How are you supported to register your distaste at the options. In my case I wanted to vote yes, however when I arrived at the polling station the local TD (MP) had parked a minibus emblazoned with "Vote Yes", completely disregarding the moratorium on campaigning within 24 hours of polling. The Guard chatting to him didn't give a shit either. I decided to spoil my ballot, then found I couldn't, so voted no instead.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this - my mum trained as a nurse in Germany (instead of national service), nurses then were the ones who cleaned everything (not orderlies as is now the case, who appear to liken it to cleaning a supermarket). She also remembers everything being absolutely spotless. Also, from the memoirs of a WWII nurse in the UK, she said they were drilled by the matron that any dirt was not allowed. When preparing beds coming into new wards (due to a large influx of caualties from D-Day), they weren't allowed in from outside until they'd been scrubbed down with carbolic, and then it was done again once they were actually in the ward. Visiting hours were also limited, so that patients were allowed to rest, and it made it a lot easier to keep conditions sanitary.
Cleanliness isn't the main problem (to a point, I had a housemate who insisted on regularly bleaching the kitchen floor), it's the fact that people don't understand the difference between bacterial and viral infections and insist on having antibiotics for everything.
What pisses me off is that I'm very rarely ill, and the last two times I've been given antibiotics I haven't taken them - I was on the mend at that stage, and I was buggered if I wasn't allowed to drink on my birthday. However, if I end up in hospital, being healthy isn't going to be of any help if I end up contracting MRSA due to a generation of hypochondriacs (I exaggerate, but the point stands).
Likewise, the US had no interest in becoming involved in WWII until Pearl Harbour (or at least until Hitler declared war on the USA four days later) - over 2 years since the start of the war in Europe. Don't get me wrong, I can see why, after the loss of 110,000 soldiers in WWI.
It's common for some Americans to go on about how we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for them, so I think it's only fair for them to be reminded that it's quite possible they'd still be speaking the Queen's English and drinking warm beer if it weren't for the French.
Like Britain petitioning the USA to enter WWII, Benjamin Franklin actively petitioned for support in France in 1776 - the only difference was that the French covertly entered the American War of Independence before formally recognising the USA two years later - causing Britain to declare war on France.
Well, it doesn't seem to be blocked using BT's DNS (not that we would ever rely on their DNS) or via packet filtering. Though we are using a BTnet leased line, but I would have thought the ruling should affect all of BT's customers.
Slashdot Mirror
They also the acronym CPS wrong, it "Criminal Protection Service" - schoolboy error.
Are you sure you don't mean Alexei Sayle?
But I only read the promotional material for the articles.
How about the UK start requesting the extradition of Americans that own assault rifles and handguns as it's illegal to own those over here?
Completely agree, it was a really badly run Yes campaign. It still doesn't negate the fact a large amount of people made no effort to understand the problem for themselves.
I had to do something similar to yourself. In my case I was listening to somebody in work say that people like the BNP would receive more votes as people would have to vote for them. My though process went like:
1. What a load of bollox he's talking
2. Hold on, I'll just check that out. If you are required to put a number in every box then that isn't good.
3. Check it out
4. What a load of bollox he's spreading around the office.
I'm very well aware that it's nigh on impossible, especially for general elections, however for referenda it's a bit simpler seeing as we should be dealing with facts.
For the alternative vote referendum, one could have asked "Will you be required to vote for every candidate on the ballot paper?"
Except that it's got nothing to do with wealth. It's got to do with having a desire to understand the world around you.
Why should the vote of a wealthy land owner count more than that of a newly enfranchised former slave?
Slavery was abolished in 1833 in the UK. It was only on 1928 that all people aged 21 and over could vote. I was going to say that the slavery point is moot, there are of course all kinds of modern slavery. However how many of those people would even be illegible to vote if released? In all honest I didn't realise literacy tests were used to disenfranchise people in the US up until 1965 - I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
It's all academic of course - too many problems: adult illiteracy, fairness of questions, etc. The setup we currently have is the most feasible. I'd still like to see some kind of method for rewarding those who make an effort to further themselves. Otherwise we'll end up in the world of Harrison Bergeron.
Yup, it's definitely a bad idea. It also interferes with my idea of weighted ballots:
A series of (simple unambiguous) questions acompany the ballot.
During counting, the quiz is marked, and that vote is weighted using the result (you get one mark for turning up)
This way you're not disenfranchising anyone as their vote will count. It just means that people who understand what they're voting have a greater say as to what goes on. I'm sick to death of seeing knuckle dragging Neanderthals (who have voted the way their television told them to) have as much say as myself (if I don't understand what the vote is on, I'll make sure I read up on it).
Point in question: The alternative vote refurendum in the UK. The number of people I heard saying they'd vote no for completely false reasons was ridiculous. Fine, if you don't agree. Just make sure you know the facts first.
Online voting would just make it easier to cheat.
On the other hand, have you driven down a motorway with those LED cats eyes? The M40 at J5 has them and at night they can be a complete sensory overload when going down the cutting. You can see them on the opposite side so you have 8 rows of lights stretching into the distance. Cool but sometimes a little disconcerting.
Some people keep their headlights on even on blindingly bright days, to increase the visibility of their cars. Bet there's a study on the efficacy of that tactic.
I started doing this when I got my Westfield - I felt that anything that made be more visible while driving a 425kg fibreglass panelled car was a good idea. Since then I do it in any car. Nothing annoys me more* than driving in fog/poor visiblity and some twat in a grey car is driving with their sidelights on.
* Actually, the other thing is people driving with fog lights on in clear weather - they should be made to present an eye test to the police confirming that they don't have cataracts - that'd learn 'em.
For various reasons, I stopped buying US products years ago.
Anyway it's sad that the country which created the Bill of rights (although numerous clauses have been all but repealed by the PATRIOT act) and other documents of personal liberty has come to this.
Unfortunately the UK is heading towards the same direction.
I'm not trying to be an arse - I completely agree with you, but in reality both countries are as bad as each other.
Just today I was reading about a retired UK businessman that has been extradited to the US for making £500 for transporting batteries to the Netherlands. He says he was the target of entrapment. The US say he's an arms dealer as the batteries were destined for anti-aircraft missiles in Iran (which were sold to them by the US).
Who's the worst? The US for extraditing somebody on flimsy evidence, or the UK for handing over one of their citizen without being allowed to examine the evidence. I think we can all agree that we're all losers.
I wouldn't say that Labour kept the ball rolling, I'd say they did everything in their power to go far beyond what Thatcher started:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html
I'm looking forward to Scottish independence, no really I am. I'm Irish, but living in England, if the majority of the country want to be independent, then they should be. The benefit for England will be that they won't have a bunch of MPs voting on things that will never affect their own constituents.
I remember this being in the news, it nearly started a war. Luckily some English chap and a Chinese bird managed to stop Rupert Murdock before it was too late.
It's an embarrassment that somebody came up with this. Personally, I think the guy should be dropped off in a minefield with an ADE-651 and see how far he gets.
If your lawyer every moves to a new town, I recommend moving too. You've struck gold.
My experience with solicitors (in the Ireland & the UK):
1. Father told by solicitor to withhold separation settlement by his solicitor until the very last hour, even though it had been decided months before.
2. Friend's solicitors attempting to get her to screw her husband over for a divorce settlement - all she wanted was a fair settlement and for it to end amicably - they obviously realised they weren't going to get many court hours out of her as she wasn't bitter.
3. Father having to deal with my Grandmother's probate - Irish solicitors get 3%, and he has to nudge them along every part of the way.
4. Sister having to get a bridging loan when buying a house, as her solicitors couldn't be arsed to send the contracts in time, so she was left out of pocket.
Four cases, four different legal firms in two countries. As far as I'm concerned "representing your client's best interests" is bollocks. I don't know too many people that have had a positive experience with the legal profession.
From this we can determine that the half life of the Fukushima 50 is 994 days
Good to see I'm not the only one. I don't tend notice the ads because I'm too busy reading the comments (the article? don't be daft), but there have been a few occasions when an ad has been useful (like RC helicopters).
Without the income Slashdot would be slashdoted daily.
I heard a story that where there was a sign saying "These cables are fibre optic, and have zero scrap value", somebody dug them up, and then wrote on the sign "Yeah, but we had to check anyway".
Speaking of spoiling ballots, the e-voting machines wouldn't let me. For the Nice referendum they just gave me a yes/no option.
How are you supported to register your distaste at the options. In my case I wanted to vote yes, however when I arrived at the polling station the local TD (MP) had parked a minibus emblazoned with "Vote Yes", completely disregarding the moratorium on campaigning within 24 hours of polling. The Guard chatting to him didn't give a shit either. I decided to spoil my ballot, then found I couldn't, so voted no instead.
Why should I worry about the tiny minority of suicide bombers rather than the vast majority of the nice co-travelers?
Umm, you shouldn't.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this - my mum trained as a nurse in Germany (instead of national service), nurses then were the ones who cleaned everything (not orderlies as is now the case, who appear to liken it to cleaning a supermarket). She also remembers everything being absolutely spotless.
Also, from the memoirs of a WWII nurse in the UK, she said they were drilled by the matron that any dirt was not allowed. When preparing beds coming into new wards (due to a large influx of caualties from D-Day), they weren't allowed in from outside until they'd been scrubbed down with carbolic, and then it was done again once they were actually in the ward.
Visiting hours were also limited, so that patients were allowed to rest, and it made it a lot easier to keep conditions sanitary.
Cleanliness isn't the main problem (to a point, I had a housemate who insisted on regularly bleaching the kitchen floor), it's the fact that people don't understand the difference between bacterial and viral infections and insist on having antibiotics for everything.
What pisses me off is that I'm very rarely ill, and the last two times I've been given antibiotics I haven't taken them - I was on the mend at that stage, and I was buggered if I wasn't allowed to drink on my birthday. However, if I end up in hospital, being healthy isn't going to be of any help if I end up contracting MRSA due to a generation of hypochondriacs (I exaggerate, but the point stands).
Likewise, the US had no interest in becoming involved in WWII until Pearl Harbour (or at least until Hitler declared war on the USA four days later) - over 2 years since the start of the war in Europe. Don't get me wrong, I can see why, after the loss of 110,000 soldiers in WWI.
It's common for some Americans to go on about how we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for them, so I think it's only fair for them to be reminded that it's quite possible they'd still be speaking the Queen's English and drinking warm beer if it weren't for the French.
Like Britain petitioning the USA to enter WWII, Benjamin Franklin actively petitioned for support in France in 1776 - the only difference was that the French covertly entered the American War of Independence before formally recognising the USA two years later - causing Britain to declare war on France.
Well, it doesn't seem to be blocked using BT's DNS (not that we would ever rely on their DNS) or via packet filtering. Though we are using a BTnet leased line, but I would have thought the ruling should affect all of BT's customers.
$ dig +short @ns3.bt.net newszbin.com
74.55.102.12
$ dig +short @ns4.bt.net newszbin.com
74.55.102.12
Interestingly, using BT's consumer DNS servers returns a different IP, though it appears to work too
$ dig +short @62.6.40.178 newzbin.com
178.73.222.20
Einstein was working in hex.
As far as I'm aware (in the UK at least), it must be proven that I have agreed to the contract.*
* IANAL etc