I'd personally prefer a system where the winner was the least objectionable candidate
Makes me think of Hotelling's Law (get more votes by leaning to the center) and Arrow's Theorem (it's essentially impossible to stop strategic voting). I agree that the importance of voting systems is widely undervalued.
44.45% of the popular vote, with about 25% of the eligible population abstaining
Reminder: 75% turnout is really rather good: it beats the UK turnout rates[PDF warning]. Also, 44.5% of the voters is a huge number. To imply that anything less than 50% makes it illegitimate is just stupid: thankfully, not all countries are stuck with a two-party system.
Your other points (possible duress, unfair blame) are sound.
I believe they also used to use custom chips with extended instruction sets designed to interop well with their custom JVM. Not sure if they still do that.
I could've sworn I'd read that they'd stopped with their hardware work, but I think I was wrong: Appendix A of this page gives the impression (though I can't see it explicitly stated) that they're still doing custom hardware, but their software will work on ordinary Intel/AMD chips as well.
GC doesn't have to suck.
Indeed. It's Sturgeon's Law, but I think the '90%' part might be too low in this case. Major interpreters/'VMs' - even the ones with optimised native-code compilation - have awful GCs. Up until quite recently, Mono was using the Boehm GC. The GCs in OCaml and D show no signs of improving any time soon.
You're just emphasising that they don't make the effort. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to suggest they should. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but this doesn't strike me as a compelling argument.
Supply reclamation. Not just a broker. Not just a trader. Someone who specialises in dealing with these products coming from failing companies. I don't agree that they're 'just a buyer and seller'.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, mob rule is so much better than law and order...
(I'm not saying all that lawyers do is in the public good - far from it - but you're still an idiot.)
Errr... no, my comment is correct.
I can only assume you misread theists as atheists.
under controlled conditions
So the original tests weren't under controlled conditions?
Looks like you got your contrapositive all twisted up, there.
There are better ways to deal with trolls than by using obviously invalid reasoning.
The existence of murderous atheists doesn't disprove the suggestion that all theists are murderous. The existence of peaceable theists does, however.
Back to the drawing board.
Try your luck with our driverless cars!
You can say that to just about anything.
I'd personally prefer a system where the winner was the least objectionable candidate
Makes me think of Hotelling's Law (get more votes by leaning to the center) and Arrow's Theorem (it's essentially impossible to stop strategic voting). I agree that the importance of voting systems is widely undervalued.
Nope. Just slightly annoying.
44.45% of the popular vote, with about 25% of the eligible population abstaining
Reminder: 75% turnout is really rather good: it beats the UK turnout rates[PDF warning]. Also, 44.5% of the voters is a huge number. To imply that anything less than 50% makes it illegitimate is just stupid: thankfully, not all countries are stuck with a two-party system.
Your other points (possible duress, unfair blame) are sound.
Really, it's not necessary.
On GitHub at least, apparently copycenter licences are indeed by far the most popular.
Meta godwin aside
Nonsense. It's clearly a quasi-Godwin.
You, sir, are worse than Hitler.
No. I'm pretty obviously not thinking of that.
Why is it that damn dear all the stupid bullshit I see on Slashdot is posted by ACs? Really. The correlation is remarkable.
I think most cell phone providers will start to standardize on that
Perhaps not, depending on how badly they want to stop people unlocking and switching providers.
I think the idea is to make it clear the military doesn't get to just run amok and do as they please.
Why do you think they put programs in place to break up minority families?
What?
Or, as theshowmecanuck figures, the monopolistic ISPs would use their uncontested power to push customers to their preferred services.
ISP roadblocks are only temporary and actually spur innovation far more than they disrupt it
Right, which is why there are so many competing ISPs in the US.... errr...
Well, predicted as in considered the possibility of, right?
Eventually a unified world government is more efficient but since that scares the hell out of a lot of people
And for damn good reason. Dilution of democracy for one, instability another. Huge empires don't tend to last.
Err, what? If we adjusted the welfare laws such that they would no longer qualify for welfare, then they'd end up qualifying for welfare?
At least they'll be stealing from Linux Voice, and not you.
I believe they also used to use custom chips with extended instruction sets designed to interop well with their custom JVM. Not sure if they still do that.
I could've sworn I'd read that they'd stopped with their hardware work, but I think I was wrong: Appendix A of this page gives the impression (though I can't see it explicitly stated) that they're still doing custom hardware, but their software will work on ordinary Intel/AMD chips as well.
GC doesn't have to suck.
Indeed. It's Sturgeon's Law, but I think the '90%' part might be too low in this case. Major interpreters/'VMs' - even the ones with optimised native-code compilation - have awful GCs. Up until quite recently, Mono was using the Boehm GC. The GCs in OCaml and D show no signs of improving any time soon.
You're just emphasising that they don't make the effort. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to suggest they should. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but this doesn't strike me as a compelling argument.
Supply reclamation. Not just a broker. Not just a trader. Someone who specialises in dealing with these products coming from failing companies. I don't agree that they're 'just a buyer and seller'.