We *have* a "First past the post" system. What you're thinking of is single transferable vote or proportional voting.
I'd prefer a weaker party system first. First past the post sounds bad, but it is the best way of accurately representing the wishes of a particular riding. You elect your mayor that way, after all. Where it breaks down is that once elected, your MP is far more accountable to their party than their riding (reinforced by the fact that most people vote down party lines anyway).
But if we ever get around to doing that Senate reform, *that* would be a lovely place to do proportional voting. Use the votes from the House of Commons elections, farm out the senate seats proportionally.
I read it as it must be both criminal *and* sexual, because it's entirely possible for a legally-defined "child" to be having legal sex (say, two 16 year olds).
I'd drop #4 in that context, myself, and replace it with "must be actual photographs or sourced from such". (Making the definition as: you're taking pictures of naking kids having sex in ways that is itself illegal")
Sadly, they're going to get away with a hell of a lot of damage before their term runs out, because the people were stupid enough to give them a majority.
Let's be clear - the Conservatives didn't win a majority because a majority of voters picked them. (IIRC, they only polled about 40% overall). They won because the NDP did well enough to vote-split with the Liberals (or BQ in Quebec) letting the PCs slip up the middle in many ridings.
Not a critique of the voting system here, but I do wish there was a second conservative party in Canada so the vote splitting went both ways.
If there is a reason for anyone in this guys riding not to vote for him the next time, that comment is the best. Terrorists and pedophiles; if you can't come up with a good argument, use those. What a dink.
Unfortunately, Canadian politics focuses much more on the party-level than the personal in most cases. If he continues to put his foot in it, it's far more likely that he won't get the nomination for the PCs next election than a Prairie riding suddenly going Liberal.
I'm sorry, Parliamentary Privilege renders the Minister immune to logical fallacy. Or maybe to logic. It's hard to tell.
What Parliamentary Privilege doesn't immunize The Honorable Mr. Toews from is much-deserved mockery. So let's make sure he gets a full dose of that.
Unfortunately, our party system is even more immune to criticism than the US one.
The reason Harper's in such a hurry to get all this passed is so the maximum amount of time will pass before the next election (giving us more time to forget).
(Disclaimer: I'm born-and-bred Albertan, although of the "Redmonton" variety.)
The major centers (Edmonton, Calgary) are fairly liberal, at least on local politics. Get about ten minutes out of town, and you're back in hard-core conservative country. Once you move up to provincial or federal politics, except for a couple university ridings they all go reliably Conservative, every time without fail. (We're getting ready for a provincial election here, and there's more coverage of the Conservative riding nominations than there'll be for the actual election, because winning the nomination pretty much guarantees you the seat).
And it's far worse than "never elected a left of centre government" - since it's founding in 1905, we've had exactly *four* governments in power, and that's in sequential order. The Conservatives in Alberta have been in uninterrupted power since 1971!
All of this would be fine, except that my politicians keep looking to American politicians for inspiration.
I prefer my mobile communication devices to be surly.
Gone are the good ole days when your satellite phone was a briefcase.
Which is a bit of a shame - my wife's boss only gave up her brick-sized car phone when the cell companies flatly refused to support it any longer.
Reason? That big battery and big antenna mean that she had reception in a lot of places these new small phones don't. And when you work out in random fields, that's important.
I personally feel that search engine manipulation is a problem, and while I commend Google's position on their neutrality - I feel some precedence should be given when it involves peoples names. If you have a unique name and somebody blogs bad things about you, you are stuck with those results *for life* every time someone Google's you.
And if those bad things weren't directly correlated to your repeated public statements while holding public office, I might feel sorry for you.
And no-one has accused Spreading Santorum of manipulating results - it's simply the older and (apparently still more relevant) result than his election site. Which is how it should be.
Would it make people feel better if Savage created a corporation for SS (so it's now "speech"?)
While clever, what Savage did was wrong. Not wrong as illegal, but wrong in terms of civility. It's just as bad as the birthers who made sign of Obama with a bone through his nose.
Here's the difference - the arguments against Santorum are *true*.
Let's say that again - Obama was obviously native-born, and any "doubt" was showmanship for political points (do you think the Democratic Party wouldn't check that sort of thing as a routine matter before letting someone get that far into a political contest?). Santorum is on record as being all the things he's accused of. This isn't even a "he was convicted of being a first-degree asshole" - you can go ask him today and he'll happily confirm that yes, he wants to ban gay marriage. Yes, he wants to ban not only abortions, but contraception entirely. The only positive thing you can say is that he doesn't even bother to hide it - anyone who votes for Santorum can't say that they didn't see his agenda coming.
That's the difference.
I'm in Canada, so my only interest in who wins is concern for when I can eventually take my daughter to Disneyland without worrying about what the authorities will do to her. But if I was in Obama's camp, I'd be hoping like crazy Santorum gets the nomination - when you can guarantee yourself the entire women's vote simply by replaying the opponent's own speeches saying they'll ban birth control?
That's one poll, it's not clear if it's accurate or not. Given that both Obama and McCain came out against legalized gay marriage in their political campaigns, I'm guessing they didn't sense the winds of the nation particularly blowing in that direction yet. (Taking a cynical view of politicians.)
To be cynical as well, I'd say that's more likely due to the fact that the hard-religious groups are remarkably well backed and funded, and the alternative-lifestyle groups haven't matched that level - thus in the political calculus, it's a better move to be mildly anti-legalized gay marriage (which placates the religious and doesn't honk off the alts *too* much) than to be mildly pro-gay marriage (which won't get you much more support from the alts, but will bring the wrath of religious groups down on your relentlessly). Just look at the flak he took trying to get church-run hospitals to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Stop doing businees in and with China, entirely.
Bring manufacturing and jobs back to your home country/state and improve your own damn economy./radical concept I know.
And go out of business because your competitors did not and Labor costs here 20x's higher ($0.60/hr vs $12/hr). It is quite radical and the only way it won't be is if US labor costs go down and tarrifs/Made in the US tax exemptions are used to make the US manufacturing industry globally competitive at least in the US markets.
Or, just to throw a completely unworkable option out there: if US citizens were willing to pay the extra for products made in non-sweatshops. But you're not, so they won't stop.
thermostat might have just been shorthand for a more complete environment monitoring system measuring temperature, humidity, lighting etc
Even if it's just the thermostat, that's still useful information. Think about it - if you know both the presets for the temperature (when the heat comes on/off) and the current temperature, you can make some decent inferences about how many people work there during various shifts.
If you have *control* over the 'stat, then you're in "mess with them" territory. If it's an interactive display with a keypad, bet you could do some decent phishing...
Since your laptop can be confiscated legally at the border.
Yes, but you know it's happened. They scan your laptop for CP and bomb plans, then hand it back. In China, your privacy is raided without you ever knowing. This is the crucial difference.
Might want to re-check that - US Customs reserves the right to make a complete copy of your data before handing the machine back to you (and they can wait 90 days before giving you the machine).
The difference between US and China is simply that China tries to be discreet - the US has no problems telling you that they're making full copies of your data to peruse at their leisure. (And I will laugh at anyone who doesn't believe that at the very least, TSA agents have the most complete collection of "seized" TV shows, movies, and music on the planet.)
Tell what - when we start paying China royalties on those compasses and gunpowder (y'know, *their* intellectual property), then we might have some moral ground to stand on.
Oh, and I think the British might want some cash back for all those books early America copied (and didn't pay the British authors for). And wasn't Hollywood founded waay the hell out West specifically to avoid various licenses and patents?
Do you really still heat water by putting it in a metal kettle and putting that over an open fire? Don't they have electric kettle's where you live?. Don't they have gas mains or bottled gas? That phrase is so out of date in most of the world.
I've been known to do that (while camping). Hell, it wasn't too far gone when my mother heated water over the stove.
And I have a few co-workers here today who live on acreages and use wood burning stoves over trucked-in gas for their main source of heating (and I wouldn't doubt they heat up their tea over those stoves.
If we're looking for a retire-able phrase, look up a few posts and find "straw man" - those aren't exactly popular these days either.
Good point. From now on, an incompetent affirmative action hire will be known as an "obama".
And an incompetent legacy admission will be known as a "bush".
And here's the rub - if you can get enough people to agree with you and use those terms, why wouldn't The Search Engines start returning those definitions as results?
The article shows a lack of research - Santorum hasn't had this problem for a few months; he's had it for nearly a decade now - "santorum" was redefined back in 2003. That's nearly ten years of that definition being bounced around, shared, accumulating hits and links and all that other cred that search engines look for. Of course it's going to rank higher.
If there's a lesson, it's that (a) politicians should be held accountable to their views, and (b) it's a pity this doesn't happen to them more.
Socialized. Not social. As in "I have learned how to get along with other people". You can be an extreme introvert who is socialized or an extreme extrovert who no one wants to spend time with because you're a pain in the ass.
You are using yourself and your siblings as an example relative to each other, but have you considered that you might have turned out more socially inept had you been home-schooled?
Anything is possible. But by "social", I meant get along with other people - they are easily more comfortable in groups than I. They make friends more easily.
I'm not saying I'm muttering in a corner about burning the place down, but I'm not the life of the party either.
As for your question, there's no real way to know. But I wanted to put the example out there that it's entirely possible to be taught at home and still learn how to get along with people.
I'd like to hear the anti-homeschool argument again. Pros: pretty much everything, if done correctly and you've already allowed your kid to socialize properly and build a group of friends with which she can maintain contact and socialize. Cons: um, nothing?
Con: it's a substantial investment in time and energy on the part of the parents, and some aren't able (or willing) to put in that time (especially when you consider that you're effectively both Teacher and Parent - no breaks!). You'll get parents who just let the kids run around and play (and get in trouble), simply to get a break. Related con - it requires a non-working parent.
Con: not every kid is suited to self-directed study. Some kids need the routine, they need the structure. (Heck, look at how hit-and-miss telecommuting is with us "grownups" for an example).
Con: unless you have significant resources, you might not be able to match all the special programs a school can offer. Part of school is trying new things - possibly things they didn't know they wanted to do until they tried.
As long as you don't factor socialization as something schools teach. Which I do. Especially since I was home schooled for 2 years and know many home schooled adults. And no special home schooling outings don't count. The socialization schools provide is being with people you don't like day-in day-out. That's a real life skill.
Counter-example: I went through public school the whole way, my brother and sister were both homeschooled from about 7 on. They are both far more social than I am.
Want your kids to socialize outside of school? Sports teams. Volunteer. Make 'em play at the park. Plenty of ways to get them in the "real world" without going to school.
The other students in the room are as important as the teacher is. If the teachers have to take away from teaching to deal with students who are not there to learn, everyone suffers.
This.
And note that it isn't a question of background, lifestyle, or any other hot-button issue - it's simply "do the kids want to learn".
The best classes I've ever been in had teachers who had no problems telling kids "if you don't want to learn, then please sit and entertain yourselves quietly so the rest of the class can". And peer pressure takes care of the rest.
This is something I wonder about almost every day: are kids REALLY better off when parents help with homework? It's certainly my bent, but then I wonder if my kids wouldn't be better off figuring their work out on their own. I don't know the answer -- anyone? I do the same thing with Legos -- we just built the Millennium Falcon and I know Leif wouldn't have been able to do it on his own. But would he have been better off in the long run doing a less complex kid, independently, and then building toward the Falcon?
My understanding (I have a 5-year-old, so I'll let you know if the theory pans out) is that especially at young ages, helping out (not "doing for them") sends social signals that "this is important". Same reason you should ask how school was (and listen to the answer) - it's not just polite conversation, it's telling your kid that yes, school is important. And habits started young tend to persist through life.
Slashdot Mirror
We *have* a "First past the post" system. What you're thinking of is single transferable vote or proportional voting.
I'd prefer a weaker party system first. First past the post sounds bad, but it is the best way of accurately representing the wishes of a particular riding. You elect your mayor that way, after all. Where it breaks down is that once elected, your MP is far more accountable to their party than their riding (reinforced by the fact that most people vote down party lines anyway).
But if we ever get around to doing that Senate reform, *that* would be a lovely place to do proportional voting. Use the votes from the House of Commons elections, farm out the senate seats proportionally.
Not the original author, but...
I read it as it must be both criminal *and* sexual, because it's entirely possible for a legally-defined "child" to be having legal sex (say, two 16 year olds).
I'd drop #4 in that context, myself, and replace it with "must be actual photographs or sourced from such". (Making the definition as: you're taking pictures of naking kids having sex in ways that is itself illegal")
Sadly, they're going to get away with a hell of a lot of damage before their term runs out, because the people were stupid enough to give them a majority.
Let's be clear - the Conservatives didn't win a majority because a majority of voters picked them. (IIRC, they only polled about 40% overall). They won because the NDP did well enough to vote-split with the Liberals (or BQ in Quebec) letting the PCs slip up the middle in many ridings.
Not a critique of the voting system here, but I do wish there was a second conservative party in Canada so the vote splitting went both ways.
If there is a reason for anyone in this guys riding not to vote for him the next time, that comment is the best. Terrorists and pedophiles; if you can't come up with a good argument, use those. What a dink.
Unfortunately, Canadian politics focuses much more on the party-level than the personal in most cases. If he continues to put his foot in it, it's far more likely that he won't get the nomination for the PCs next election than a Prairie riding suddenly going Liberal.
I'm sorry, Parliamentary Privilege renders the Minister immune to logical fallacy. Or maybe to logic. It's hard to tell.
What Parliamentary Privilege doesn't immunize The Honorable Mr. Toews from is much-deserved mockery. So let's make sure he gets a full dose of that.
Unfortunately, our party system is even more immune to criticism than the US one.
The reason Harper's in such a hurry to get all this passed is so the maximum amount of time will pass before the next election (giving us more time to forget).
(Disclaimer: I'm born-and-bred Albertan, although of the "Redmonton" variety.)
The major centers (Edmonton, Calgary) are fairly liberal, at least on local politics. Get about ten minutes out of town, and you're back in hard-core conservative country. Once you move up to provincial or federal politics, except for a couple university ridings they all go reliably Conservative, every time without fail. (We're getting ready for a provincial election here, and there's more coverage of the Conservative riding nominations than there'll be for the actual election, because winning the nomination pretty much guarantees you the seat).
And it's far worse than "never elected a left of centre government" - since it's founding in 1905, we've had exactly *four* governments in power, and that's in sequential order. The Conservatives in Alberta have been in uninterrupted power since 1971!
All of this would be fine, except that my politicians keep looking to American politicians for inspiration.
Apologies - as a Canadian all those three-letter agencies start to look the same.
And hate to break it to you, but US border guards *will* mess with us on the way out as well - and even give you a beatdown for failing to sufficiently respect their authoritah
In fact, Santorum’s had his Bing problem for months, if not years.
I suppose they could mean that Bing isn't that old.
I want to do the attack ads for this. "Harper is more concerned about your cell phone than your shotgun."
I prefer my mobile communication devices to be surly.
Gone are the good ole days when your satellite phone was a briefcase.
Which is a bit of a shame - my wife's boss only gave up her brick-sized car phone when the cell companies flatly refused to support it any longer.
Reason? That big battery and big antenna mean that she had reception in a lot of places these new small phones don't. And when you work out in random fields, that's important.
I personally feel that search engine manipulation is a problem, and while I commend Google's position on their neutrality - I feel some precedence should be given when it involves peoples names. If you have a unique name and somebody blogs bad things about you, you are stuck with those results *for life* every time someone Google's you.
And if those bad things weren't directly correlated to your repeated public statements while holding public office, I might feel sorry for you.
And no-one has accused Spreading Santorum of manipulating results - it's simply the older and (apparently still more relevant) result than his election site. Which is how it should be.
Would it make people feel better if Savage created a corporation for SS (so it's now "speech"?)
While clever, what Savage did was wrong. Not wrong as illegal, but wrong in terms of civility. It's just as bad as the birthers who made sign of Obama with a bone through his nose.
Here's the difference - the arguments against Santorum are *true*.
Let's say that again - Obama was obviously native-born, and any "doubt" was showmanship for political points (do you think the Democratic Party wouldn't check that sort of thing as a routine matter before letting someone get that far into a political contest?). Santorum is on record as being all the things he's accused of. This isn't even a "he was convicted of being a first-degree asshole" - you can go ask him today and he'll happily confirm that yes, he wants to ban gay marriage. Yes, he wants to ban not only abortions, but contraception entirely. The only positive thing you can say is that he doesn't even bother to hide it - anyone who votes for Santorum can't say that they didn't see his agenda coming.
That's the difference.
I'm in Canada, so my only interest in who wins is concern for when I can eventually take my daughter to Disneyland without worrying about what the authorities will do to her. But if I was in Obama's camp, I'd be hoping like crazy Santorum gets the nomination - when you can guarantee yourself the entire women's vote simply by replaying the opponent's own speeches saying they'll ban birth control?
That's one poll, it's not clear if it's accurate or not. Given that both Obama and McCain came out against legalized gay marriage in their political campaigns, I'm guessing they didn't sense the winds of the nation particularly blowing in that direction yet. (Taking a cynical view of politicians.)
To be cynical as well, I'd say that's more likely due to the fact that the hard-religious groups are remarkably well backed and funded, and the alternative-lifestyle groups haven't matched that level - thus in the political calculus, it's a better move to be mildly anti-legalized gay marriage (which placates the religious and doesn't honk off the alts *too* much) than to be mildly pro-gay marriage (which won't get you much more support from the alts, but will bring the wrath of religious groups down on your relentlessly). Just look at the flak he took trying to get church-run hospitals to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Stop doing businees in and with China, entirely. Bring manufacturing and jobs back to your home country/state and improve your own damn economy. /radical concept I know.
And go out of business because your competitors did not and Labor costs here 20x's higher ($0.60/hr vs $12/hr). It is quite radical and the only way it won't be is if US labor costs go down and tarrifs/Made in the US tax exemptions are used to make the US manufacturing industry globally competitive at least in the US markets.
Or, just to throw a completely unworkable option out there: if US citizens were willing to pay the extra for products made in non-sweatshops. But you're not, so they won't stop.
thermostat might have just been shorthand for a more complete environment monitoring system measuring temperature, humidity, lighting etc
Even if it's just the thermostat, that's still useful information. Think about it - if you know both the presets for the temperature (when the heat comes on/off) and the current temperature, you can make some decent inferences about how many people work there during various shifts.
If you have *control* over the 'stat, then you're in "mess with them" territory. If it's an interactive display with a keypad, bet you could do some decent phishing...
Since your laptop can be confiscated legally at the border.
Yes, but you know it's happened. They scan your laptop for CP and bomb plans, then hand it back. In China, your privacy is raided without you ever knowing. This is the crucial difference.
Might want to re-check that - US Customs reserves the right to make a complete copy of your data before handing the machine back to you (and they can wait 90 days before giving you the machine).
The difference between US and China is simply that China tries to be discreet - the US has no problems telling you that they're making full copies of your data to peruse at their leisure. (And I will laugh at anyone who doesn't believe that at the very least, TSA agents have the most complete collection of "seized" TV shows, movies, and music on the planet.)
Tell what - when we start paying China royalties on those compasses and gunpowder (y'know, *their* intellectual property), then we might have some moral ground to stand on.
Oh, and I think the British might want some cash back for all those books early America copied (and didn't pay the British authors for). And wasn't Hollywood founded waay the hell out West specifically to avoid various licenses and patents?
Do you really still heat water by putting it in a metal kettle and putting that over an open fire? Don't they have electric kettle's where you live?. Don't they have gas mains or bottled gas? That phrase is so out of date in most of the world.
I've been known to do that (while camping). Hell, it wasn't too far gone when my mother heated water over the stove.
And I have a few co-workers here today who live on acreages and use wood burning stoves over trucked-in gas for their main source of heating (and I wouldn't doubt they heat up their tea over those stoves.
If we're looking for a retire-able phrase, look up a few posts and find "straw man" - those aren't exactly popular these days either.
Good point. From now on, an incompetent affirmative action hire will be known as an "obama".
And an incompetent legacy admission will be known as a "bush".
And here's the rub - if you can get enough people to agree with you and use those terms, why wouldn't The Search Engines start returning those definitions as results?
The article shows a lack of research - Santorum hasn't had this problem for a few months; he's had it for nearly a decade now - "santorum" was redefined back in 2003. That's nearly ten years of that definition being bounced around, shared, accumulating hits and links and all that other cred that search engines look for. Of course it's going to rank higher.
If there's a lesson, it's that (a) politicians should be held accountable to their views, and (b) it's a pity this doesn't happen to them more.
Socialized. Not social. As in "I have learned how to get along with other people". You can be an extreme introvert who is socialized or an extreme extrovert who no one wants to spend time with because you're a pain in the ass.
You are using yourself and your siblings as an example relative to each other, but have you considered that you might have turned out more socially inept had you been home-schooled?
Anything is possible. But by "social", I meant get along with other people - they are easily more comfortable in groups than I. They make friends more easily.
I'm not saying I'm muttering in a corner about burning the place down, but I'm not the life of the party either.
As for your question, there's no real way to know. But I wanted to put the example out there that it's entirely possible to be taught at home and still learn how to get along with people.
I'd like to hear the anti-homeschool argument again. Pros: pretty much everything, if done correctly and you've already allowed your kid to socialize properly and build a group of friends with which she can maintain contact and socialize. Cons: um, nothing?
Con: it's a substantial investment in time and energy on the part of the parents, and some aren't able (or willing) to put in that time (especially when you consider that you're effectively both Teacher and Parent - no breaks!). You'll get parents who just let the kids run around and play (and get in trouble), simply to get a break. Related con - it requires a non-working parent.
Con: not every kid is suited to self-directed study. Some kids need the routine, they need the structure. (Heck, look at how hit-and-miss telecommuting is with us "grownups" for an example).
Con: unless you have significant resources, you might not be able to match all the special programs a school can offer. Part of school is trying new things - possibly things they didn't know they wanted to do until they tried.
As long as you don't factor socialization as something schools teach. Which I do. Especially since I was home schooled for 2 years and know many home schooled adults. And no special home schooling outings don't count. The socialization schools provide is being with people you don't like day-in day-out. That's a real life skill.
Counter-example: I went through public school the whole way, my brother and sister were both homeschooled from about 7 on. They are both far more social than I am.
Want your kids to socialize outside of school? Sports teams. Volunteer. Make 'em play at the park. Plenty of ways to get them in the "real world" without going to school.
Or... it could be that it's more "fun" to impress the teacher in front of the class than Mom and Dad.
Example: this is why your kid is *always* better behaved for the sitter than they are for you. :)
The other students in the room are as important as the teacher is. If the teachers have to take away from teaching to deal with students who are not there to learn, everyone suffers.
This.
And note that it isn't a question of background, lifestyle, or any other hot-button issue - it's simply "do the kids want to learn".
The best classes I've ever been in had teachers who had no problems telling kids "if you don't want to learn, then please sit and entertain yourselves quietly so the rest of the class can". And peer pressure takes care of the rest.
This is something I wonder about almost every day: are kids REALLY better off when parents help with homework? It's certainly my bent, but then I wonder if my kids wouldn't be better off figuring their work out on their own. I don't know the answer -- anyone? I do the same thing with Legos -- we just built the Millennium Falcon and I know Leif wouldn't have been able to do it on his own. But would he have been better off in the long run doing a less complex kid, independently, and then building toward the Falcon?
My understanding (I have a 5-year-old, so I'll let you know if the theory pans out) is that especially at young ages, helping out (not "doing for them") sends social signals that "this is important". Same reason you should ask how school was (and listen to the answer) - it's not just polite conversation, it's telling your kid that yes, school is important. And habits started young tend to persist through life.