University is a vocational school only if your vocation is academic. That they are not primarily vocational is the definition of an institute of higher education. The wealth of a given student is an irrelevant concern.
Universities are not supposed to be vocational training facilities. That's one of the reasons why it's inappropriate to use a degree as a job requirement. You are part of the problem.
Brain organization isn't the only potential factor there. I think most of us southpaws are used to using right-handed mice. I'm potentially taking a dip in mouse accuracy by doing so, but after a lifetime of use I suspect the difference is slight. I'm in no other sense ambidextrous, but with a mouse and keyboard I certainly don't feel like I have an "off hand". So your study would probably want to consider only games with left/right symmetric input devices, if you want to isolate the brain component.
No shit, Sherlock. If you thought anyone here needs to be told that then I hope that you were drunk instead of assuming that everyone else here is at your intellectual level.
For fuck's sake. I'm talking about single-member elections. AV is not the same thing as IRV, and neither are equivalent to PR. Just fuck off, all right?
I mean, does it make sense to you that there would be only two political theories in a country this big? I put "real" in quotes because I'm not really interested in getting into speculation on the matter, or worse, a semantic argument. That there are more than two can be evidenced by the fact that there are already more than two, but the way the system is set up, well, we wouldn't have the (pejorative) phrase "third party" if it weren't well known that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
The exact number doesn't matter, it just matters that we need more choices than we have.
The EC is fine. The biggest problem is that we need more viable parties, and with First Past the Post that's just not going to happen. This massive partisan divide that we have is completely artificial. This country mostly agrees on things, except for a few specific issues. However, running on an "everything's fine" campaign doesn't get anyone elected, so we campaign on wedge issues.
I've heard it said that America required an existential external threat in order to function properly, that an overarching national crisis was required to elevate all of us above our partisan bickering. It's suggestive at least that the Hastert Rule was adopted after the breakup of the Soviet Union. However, today we have nothing left but wedge issues and team politics.
This is a mathematical weakness of our democracy, that we can only accommodate two political stripes at a time. There are actually more distinct points of view out there, which are not enjoying separate representation. From what I've read, there are at least six "real" parties in this country.There are assuredly dangers of multi-party systems, but it's apparently all-too-easy for one powerful individual to hijack a political party for their own ends: both major candidates did so last election, in different ways.
The right solution here is to use some other voting method: IRV, range voting, approval voting, whatever. It doesn't require changing the Constitution or the Electoral College, but it does require teaching math concepts to the U.S. electorate and convincing the courts that this doesn't violate "one man, one vote".
Printers are either going to be an issue with Apple, who developed the printing system used by Linux and OSX, the vendor for not making their system compatible with the above operating systems, or (most likely) the end user, who in this case is presumed to be too stupid to set up a network printer. The only time in the last decade that I've had sound issues would be when emulating other systems. I'm sure that you would not be so thick as to complain about that sort of thing. I'm sure you also always buy quality audio hardware. And did I hear you say you filed a bug report about these sound issues?
This is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on this subject. It is factually incorrect on nearly every point, and the conclusion would be irredeemably stupid even if there were reason to believe the arguments.
AC, It sounds like you would like a free version of Windows. Why don't you go ask Microsoft for a copy and see what they say.
All you are saying is that a chromebook/chrromebox can be repurposed as a linux box by replacing chromeos with linux, much as one might do with windows on a regular pc.
That is not at all what I am suggesting. You either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are lying through your teeth.
Have you actually even used ChromeOS? It is pretty locked-down by default, yes. You can however set it to developer mode with a key combination at boot, install crouton, and treat it like any other Linux box. Most Chromebooks will run XFCE pretty happily. As it happens, they can also run a fair number of Android apps, although I'm not sure why one would.
You have a far stronger argument in Android, but ChromeOS is Linux in every meaningful sense. It's locked-down to the point of absurdity, and its build process is atrocious, but c'mon, it's like four keystrokes to get to a developer shell running dash. If that's too much effort then we may have to confiscate your geek card.
Linux is relatively secure by default. It can be secured further fairly easily. Typically all of your software will be obtained either from a secure channel or from source code. That's really par for the course in 2017. You can say mostly the same thing about Windows, aside from the teeming crowds of idiots who use it. However, Red Hat (for one) has removed claims about being virus-free from their ad copy, and I suspect that if IBM claims that, they aren't saying it where their lawyers can hear them.
Now I'd like to point out that your comment is ignorant, vapid, ungrammatical, and barely sensible in context. Which for six words is impressive. You're extremely consistent about lowering the signal-to-noise ratio here. Why don't you find some way to address that.
Downvoting is not and has never been equivalent to censorship. Your post is right there, unredacted. I read it. Surfing at -1 is as long a tradition here as trolling. What you object to is that people have exercised their free speech and labeled you a stupid asshole.
Supporting Linux is not some huge ordeal, and probably at this point it's mostly a sunk cost. Also, the Ubuntu software survey had Firefox as the overwhelming choice of Linux users. Linux marketshare is (shockingly) in the 3-5% range, and Firefox is 5-6% marketshare. You do the math there, buckwheat. Subsequently, fuck off: there's nothing more boring than a whiny troll.
Kinda sorta. Read this to get an idea of what it was like in London prior to the Met. You had night watchmen, constables, beadles and other parish officials, volunteer laymen, and various degrees of hired thugs. You can explore the differences between those things and what we consider a police force these days if you like. New York City also had some sort of more-or-less official system of night watchmen before the NYPD which you should be able to find more information about if you choose.
As to the clarity of the language, well...it was half-past eleven, I was some intersection of intoxicated and insomniac. In truth, it's actually a pretty badly written post. The differences between the past and present systems are really quite interesting, though; it was an entirely different world back then.
Fired on the spot? How about making them equally accountable as any other citizen for their actions? When police were introduced, it was not necessarily intended that they be armed -- in Britain where the concept originated, they still aren't. Over here, of course, we have the Second Amendment, so police required no-one's permission to carry guns. Being permitted to carry a gun is implicit permission to use it, but giving these people an additional shield of law means that we are accepting that the government has the right to kill you without trial for any reason they deem sufficient. This may or may not have been the best idea ever.
It's not necessary, by the way, to invoke analogies to firefighters: there are already about twice the number of private security guards as police. Since police were originally a cost-saving measure over private security, I believe it's fair to count them as private police.
When this country was founded there were only private 'police' forces. You could hire a night watchmen, or a locality might pay for one. It's one of the reasons for our adversarial justice system: the idea is not that the government was tracking down evildoers, but that you personally would go to a magistrate with sworn evidence, obtain a warrant, and if necessary obtain the bunch of thugs necessary to arrest the person who wronged you (dueling was also an accepted alternative). It does have a certain libertarian appeal to it, but as law enforcement is a service which is required to be universal, [1] privatizing it amounts to a private tax, and [2] it's less efficient. Police forces were introduced originally (in London, by one Robert Peel, from whence they derived the nickname 'bobbies') as a cost-saving measure.
Anyone wishing to return to the days of private police is an idiot, an anarchist, or more frequently both.
Slashdot Mirror
University is a vocational school only if your vocation is academic. That they are not primarily vocational is the definition of an institute of higher education. The wealth of a given student is an irrelevant concern.
Universities are not supposed to be vocational training facilities. That's one of the reasons why it's inappropriate to use a degree as a job requirement. You are part of the problem.
Brain organization isn't the only potential factor there. I think most of us southpaws are used to using right-handed mice. I'm potentially taking a dip in mouse accuracy by doing so, but after a lifetime of use I suspect the difference is slight. I'm in no other sense ambidextrous, but with a mouse and keyboard I certainly don't feel like I have an "off hand". So your study would probably want to consider only games with left/right symmetric input devices, if you want to isolate the brain component.
The "wrong" leader because you wanted things to be otherwise. This is an idiotic argument.
No shit, Sherlock. If you thought anyone here needs to be told that then I hope that you were drunk instead of assuming that everyone else here is at your intellectual level.
Thank you for the semantic argument. When proportional representation applies to the Presidency then we will consider the rest of your argument.
For fuck's sake. I'm talking about single-member elections. AV is not the same thing as IRV, and neither are equivalent to PR. Just fuck off, all right?
At no point did I mention proportional representation. You seem like a stupid troll.
Six or eight.
I mean, does it make sense to you that there would be only two political theories in a country this big? I put "real" in quotes because I'm not really interested in getting into speculation on the matter, or worse, a semantic argument. That there are more than two can be evidenced by the fact that there are already more than two, but the way the system is set up, well, we wouldn't have the (pejorative) phrase "third party" if it weren't well known that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
The exact number doesn't matter, it just matters that we need more choices than we have.
In short the USA should switch to a parliamentary system, and turn the presidency into a figure head, like our king.
No.
The EC is fine. The biggest problem is that we need more viable parties, and with First Past the Post that's just not going to happen. This massive partisan divide that we have is completely artificial. This country mostly agrees on things, except for a few specific issues. However, running on an "everything's fine" campaign doesn't get anyone elected, so we campaign on wedge issues.
I've heard it said that America required an existential external threat in order to function properly, that an overarching national crisis was required to elevate all of us above our partisan bickering. It's suggestive at least that the Hastert Rule was adopted after the breakup of the Soviet Union. However, today we have nothing left but wedge issues and team politics.
This is a mathematical weakness of our democracy, that we can only accommodate two political stripes at a time. There are actually more distinct points of view out there, which are not enjoying separate representation. From what I've read, there are at least six "real" parties in this country.There are assuredly dangers of multi-party systems, but it's apparently all-too-easy for one powerful individual to hijack a political party for their own ends: both major candidates did so last election, in different ways.
The right solution here is to use some other voting method: IRV, range voting, approval voting, whatever. It doesn't require changing the Constitution or the Electoral College, but it does require teaching math concepts to the U.S. electorate and convincing the courts that this doesn't violate "one man, one vote".
When you get back from looking up the regulatory history we will allow you to apologize for your ignorance.
I think the only thing that conflating those two concepts accomplishes is raising the noise floor.
Based on the clarity and brilliance of your remarks, I believe I'll buy some GOOG.
taxation (aka theft)
And there goes your credibility.
Good. It's not a general purpose OS; you are expected to know what you are doing.
Printers are either going to be an issue with Apple, who developed the printing system used by Linux and OSX, the vendor for not making their system compatible with the above operating systems, or (most likely) the end user, who in this case is presumed to be too stupid to set up a network printer. The only time in the last decade that I've had sound issues would be when emulating other systems. I'm sure that you would not be so thick as to complain about that sort of thing. I'm sure you also always buy quality audio hardware. And did I hear you say you filed a bug report about these sound issues?
This is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on this subject. It is factually incorrect on nearly every point, and the conclusion would be irredeemably stupid even if there were reason to believe the arguments.
AC, It sounds like you would like a free version of Windows. Why don't you go ask Microsoft for a copy and see what they say.
All you are saying is that a chromebook/chrromebox can be repurposed as a linux box by replacing chromeos with linux, much as one might do with windows on a regular pc.
That is not at all what I am suggesting. You either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are lying through your teeth.
Have you actually even used ChromeOS? It is pretty locked-down by default, yes. You can however set it to developer mode with a key combination at boot, install crouton, and treat it like any other Linux box. Most Chromebooks will run XFCE pretty happily. As it happens, they can also run a fair number of Android apps, although I'm not sure why one would.
You have a far stronger argument in Android, but ChromeOS is Linux in every meaningful sense. It's locked-down to the point of absurdity, and its build process is atrocious, but c'mon, it's like four keystrokes to get to a developer shell running dash. If that's too much effort then we may have to confiscate your geek card.
Linux is relatively secure by default. It can be secured further fairly easily. Typically all of your software will be obtained either from a secure channel or from source code. That's really par for the course in 2017. You can say mostly the same thing about Windows, aside from the teeming crowds of idiots who use it. However, Red Hat (for one) has removed claims about being virus-free from their ad copy, and I suspect that if IBM claims that, they aren't saying it where their lawyers can hear them.
Now I'd like to point out that your comment is ignorant, vapid, ungrammatical, and barely sensible in context. Which for six words is impressive. You're extremely consistent about lowering the signal-to-noise ratio here. Why don't you find some way to address that.
Downvoting is not and has never been equivalent to censorship. Your post is right there, unredacted. I read it. Surfing at -1 is as long a tradition here as trolling. What you object to is that people have exercised their free speech and labeled you a stupid asshole.
Supporting Linux is not some huge ordeal, and probably at this point it's mostly a sunk cost. Also, the Ubuntu software survey had Firefox as the overwhelming choice of Linux users. Linux marketshare is (shockingly) in the 3-5% range, and Firefox is 5-6% marketshare. You do the math there, buckwheat. Subsequently, fuck off: there's nothing more boring than a whiny troll.
Kinda sorta. Read this to get an idea of what it was like in London prior to the Met. You had night watchmen, constables, beadles and other parish officials, volunteer laymen, and various degrees of hired thugs. You can explore the differences between those things and what we consider a police force these days if you like. New York City also had some sort of more-or-less official system of night watchmen before the NYPD which you should be able to find more information about if you choose.
As to the clarity of the language, well...it was half-past eleven, I was some intersection of intoxicated and insomniac. In truth, it's actually a pretty badly written post. The differences between the past and present systems are really quite interesting, though; it was an entirely different world back then.
Fired on the spot? How about making them equally accountable as any other citizen for their actions? When police were introduced, it was not necessarily intended that they be armed -- in Britain where the concept originated, they still aren't. Over here, of course, we have the Second Amendment, so police required no-one's permission to carry guns. Being permitted to carry a gun is implicit permission to use it, but giving these people an additional shield of law means that we are accepting that the government has the right to kill you without trial for any reason they deem sufficient. This may or may not have been the best idea ever.
It's not necessary, by the way, to invoke analogies to firefighters: there are already about twice the number of private security guards as police. Since police were originally a cost-saving measure over private security, I believe it's fair to count them as private police.
When this country was founded there were only private 'police' forces. You could hire a night watchmen, or a locality might pay for one. It's one of the reasons for our adversarial justice system: the idea is not that the government was tracking down evildoers, but that you personally would go to a magistrate with sworn evidence, obtain a warrant, and if necessary obtain the bunch of thugs necessary to arrest the person who wronged you (dueling was also an accepted alternative). It does have a certain libertarian appeal to it, but as law enforcement is a service which is required to be universal, [1] privatizing it amounts to a private tax, and [2] it's less efficient. Police forces were introduced originally (in London, by one Robert Peel, from whence they derived the nickname 'bobbies') as a cost-saving measure.
Anyone wishing to return to the days of private police is an idiot, an anarchist, or more frequently both.