It looks like Office for iOS is http://www.macworld.com/articl...>free. If you're used to it being free for your tablet, why would you expect hundreds of dollars on your desktop?
I like it the way it is. A balance of states right and direct democracy - I'd improve the overall system by repealing direct election of senators (or maybe have it toggle every 100 years or so, disrupt the lobbyists).
... brown [people]... problem that can't be fixed at the ballot box. White people need to have more babies or accept the change in the power structure.
Suddenly, it's all about race.
As a white Californian, I've already made the transition in Silicon Valley. I see that as a strength and not a weakness.
It will happen more and more as campaigning continues focusing on the election as a resource management game to be played for maximum efficiency, rather than broader appeals to the people.
Heck, the central issue of this election was: "flyover country" is tired of simply being ignored by DC. Immigration was the focus of that, as most of the nation faces hard economic times, but it was more about concerns with immigration being dismissed as "shut up racist" than immigration itself. It's a strong parallel with Brexit, and the changes to come in mainland Europe as this wave continues building.
In other words, it's about the culture war, and I'm very glad to see it won at the ballot box - we really don't want to let it go further, which is exactly what I fear of DC plays some trick to say "no, you flyover people still don't matter, even when you vote".
Let's please not start saying "but Clinton" to defend Trump. If was fucking annoying all the "but Bush"ing we had for the past 8 years - let's not be those assholes all over again.
Repealing the 17th amendment would do a lot to reduce the corruption in DC. At the time, the 17th was a fix for corruption, and it worked for some time, until all the lobbyists moved to DC. I think it's time to reset that breaker, we'll again get years, maybe decades, of better governance while the lobbyists figure out how to bribe 50 state governments.
The swing states don't decide the election. The total of all states does. Swing states use the same rules as any other states. And this election, the "surprise" result came from states that weren't considered swing states. Of course, if the pollsters had been more honest or competent, it wouldn't have been such a surprise.
Ah, one dollar one vote. Well, that's pretty much the exact corrupt system the voters just rejected by flushing Hillary away with the rest of the shit.
But if we're going to do it that way, it should obviously be "one tax dollar paid, one vote", not ruled as today by the very wealthy (richest 100 families) who don't actually pay much taxes.
Ah, the Democrats, always trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Didn't work in 2000, won't work now.
If you really care about the process, not the winner, change the rules at a time when your guy will lose as a result. You'll get far more support then. Or, you know, amend the constitution following the normal process right after an election (like, say, this one), so that it's all settled before the 2020 campaign begins.
Personally, I think the founders were wise. Balance states' rights against direct democracy, to avoid the historical mistakes going in either extreme have demonstrated (for many centuries in both cases).
The farmers in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Deleware, Maine, California, Oregon, Washington,... would disagree with you.
That's very true. Also true: they're mostly conservative.
Look at the county-level votes. The only blue left in America is the cities.
do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?
You are entirely wrong. That's simply not what "peer review" means. That's a step after peer review, which BTW almost never happens. Peer review is simply a methodology check: did this research use accepted best practices.
Sea levels rising a bit would be expensive, no doubt, since we tend to build cities on the coast. Maybe it's cheaper to emit less carbon? Maybe it's not. But either way, hyperbole like "destroy the planet" is political propaganda, not science, and obviously so - speaking of counter-productive.
Nothing you said refutes his point. Talk radio was mostly delivering a message that Nancy Pelosi did not approve of. The law was designed to require that media outlets also delivered a message that she did approve of.
Surely you mean "shot himself in the head in Fort Macy park, then wiped his fingerprints off the gun before dying, shortly after writing a suicide note in someone else's handwriting".
Everything California does is stupid, but there are plenty of good sniper rifles out there. Current record holder is a.338 magnum after all. Heck, if you're good enough, you can apparently use a.50-90 Sharps at 1500 yards (once Cali gets around to outlawing everything except black power rifles).
Sure, anytime you don't like someone's politics, just ban them for "harassment" and people like serviscope_minor will tell everyone "it's a good reason", and just assume you're telling the truth (oh, someone may need to claim harassment every so often as well). It's very convenient.
The usual motivations are accessibility and some idea of cost savings. Accessibility because blind people need Braille or spoken ballots, and people are worried about improper influence if a living person helps.
These are all important concerns, and reasons for computer-assisted voting. Use whatever UI you want at a computerized kiosk, but the result needs to be a ballot printed on paper, which is then placed in a ballot box.
See how simple this whole thing is? You vote using the touch screen or whatever, then then you take your printed ballot, check it, and cast it normally. Accessible to everyone, enough people will check the printed ballot to catch anything fishy going on, and no spoiled ballots.
OK, now I'm totally confused as to what you're even going on about.
You said the system must be repaired "by clarifying that corporations are NOT human beings, but only legal fictions that must sometimes have limited treatment as juridical persons", but that is in fact the current state of affairs, so what's to repair?
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like Office for iOS is http://www.macworld.com/articl...>free. If you're used to it being free for your tablet, why would you expect hundreds of dollars on your desktop?
I like it the way it is. A balance of states right and direct democracy - I'd improve the overall system by repealing direct election of senators (or maybe have it toggle every 100 years or so, disrupt the lobbyists).
... brown [people] ... problem that can't be fixed at the ballot box. White people need to have more babies or accept the change in the power structure.
Suddenly, it's all about race.
As a white Californian, I've already made the transition in Silicon Valley. I see that as a strength and not a weakness.
Plus the inevitable virtue signaling.
Ah, so what you're saying is: "shut up racists". Figures.
That's not normal by historical standards.
It will happen more and more as campaigning continues focusing on the election as a resource management game to be played for maximum efficiency, rather than broader appeals to the people.
Heck, the central issue of this election was: "flyover country" is tired of simply being ignored by DC. Immigration was the focus of that, as most of the nation faces hard economic times, but it was more about concerns with immigration being dismissed as "shut up racist" than immigration itself. It's a strong parallel with Brexit, and the changes to come in mainland Europe as this wave continues building.
In other words, it's about the culture war, and I'm very glad to see it won at the ballot box - we really don't want to let it go further, which is exactly what I fear of DC plays some trick to say "no, you flyover people still don't matter, even when you vote".
Let's please not start saying "but Clinton" to defend Trump. If was fucking annoying all the "but Bush"ing we had for the past 8 years - let's not be those assholes all over again.
Repealing the 17th amendment would do a lot to reduce the corruption in DC. At the time, the 17th was a fix for corruption, and it worked for some time, until all the lobbyists moved to DC. I think it's time to reset that breaker, we'll again get years, maybe decades, of better governance while the lobbyists figure out how to bribe 50 state governments.
The swing states don't decide the election. The total of all states does. Swing states use the same rules as any other states. And this election, the "surprise" result came from states that weren't considered swing states. Of course, if the pollsters had been more honest or competent, it wouldn't have been such a surprise.
Ah, one dollar one vote. Well, that's pretty much the exact corrupt system the voters just rejected by flushing Hillary away with the rest of the shit.
But if we're going to do it that way, it should obviously be "one tax dollar paid, one vote", not ruled as today by the very wealthy (richest 100 families) who don't actually pay much taxes.
So bottom line, slavery is defunct, so we no longer need to appease slave states
Ah, there's the "it's racist". Thanks for conceding the argument.
Ah, the Democrats, always trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Didn't work in 2000, won't work now.
If you really care about the process, not the winner, change the rules at a time when your guy will lose as a result. You'll get far more support then. Or, you know, amend the constitution following the normal process right after an election (like, say, this one), so that it's all settled before the 2020 campaign begins.
Personally, I think the founders were wise. Balance states' rights against direct democracy, to avoid the historical mistakes going in either extreme have demonstrated (for many centuries in both cases).
The farmers in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Deleware, Maine, California, Oregon, Washington, ... would disagree with you.
That's very true. Also true: they're mostly conservative.
Look at the county-level votes. The only blue left in America is the cities.
do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?
You are entirely wrong. That's simply not what "peer review" means. That's a step after peer review, which BTW almost never happens. Peer review is simply a methodology check: did this research use accepted best practices.
Sea levels rising a bit would be expensive, no doubt, since we tend to build cities on the coast. Maybe it's cheaper to emit less carbon? Maybe it's not. But either way, hyperbole like "destroy the planet" is political propaganda, not science, and obviously so - speaking of counter-productive.
Nothing you said refutes his point. Talk radio was mostly delivering a message that Nancy Pelosi did not approve of. The law was designed to require that media outlets also delivered a message that she did approve of.
Yes, denying access to a leftwing political agitator is totally the same as denying access to a rightwing political agitator. What's your point?
Keep telling yourself that; keep dismissing a third or so of America as sexist, racist, and unimportant. That's the surefire way we get Trump 2020.
Surely you mean "shot himself in the head in Fort Macy park, then wiped his fingerprints off the gun before dying, shortly after writing a suicide note in someone else's handwriting".
Everything California does is stupid, but there are plenty of good sniper rifles out there. Current record holder is a .338 magnum after all. Heck, if you're good enough, you can apparently use a .50-90 Sharps at 1500 yards (once Cali gets around to outlawing everything except black power rifles).
"now back to that DRM I bought off steam"
Most games don't bother. But worst case, maybe I have to buy it twice, at 80% off, then later at, what 90% off? Sounds fine to me.
Console peasants never had a golden age. That was the "covered with slightly less shit" age.
Now, back to the game I bought off Steam at 80% off.
Sure, anytime you don't like someone's politics, just ban them for "harassment" and people like serviscope_minor will tell everyone "it's a good reason", and just assume you're telling the truth (oh, someone may need to claim harassment every so often as well). It's very convenient.
Twitter always claims that anyone they banned was banned for "harassment". It's such a convenient reason, always paints them as the good guys.
The usual motivations are accessibility and some idea of cost savings. Accessibility because blind people need Braille or spoken ballots, and people are worried about improper influence if a living person helps.
These are all important concerns, and reasons for computer-assisted voting. Use whatever UI you want at a computerized kiosk, but the result needs to be a ballot printed on paper, which is then placed in a ballot box.
See how simple this whole thing is? You vote using the touch screen or whatever, then then you take your printed ballot, check it, and cast it normally. Accessible to everyone, enough people will check the printed ballot to catch anything fishy going on, and no spoiled ballots.
Why do it any other way?
OK, now I'm totally confused as to what you're even going on about.
You said the system must be repaired "by clarifying that corporations are NOT human beings, but only legal fictions that must sometimes have limited treatment as juridical persons", but that is in fact the current state of affairs, so what's to repair?