What excuse do we have for voting these people in, even if we know that they are bloody morons? There is more than two political parties in Australia. The Australian population is stupid for not researching the alternatives.
Exactly! We have a two-party system mainly because most people think it's a two-party system. "Why did you vote for the ALP" is often answered with "I couldn't stand the Coalition" and vice-versa. Reinforcing this ugly situation is the preferential voting system in which a formal vote requires that you cast a vote for every candidate on your ballot paper. You can't help but vote either of the major parties in, unless you cast an informal vote. If we had an optional preferential voting system, in which one can formally exhaust their preferences before giving one to either or both of the majors, we would have a truer representation of the will of the electorate.
I don't think it'd make a great deal of difference, but at least I could then cast a formal vote and honestly say that I had nothing to do with affirming some of the stupid and obnoxious legislation that manages to get passed in this country.
I don't want to be beaten by some 13yo who has awesome BoE gear paid for by mum's credit card because I didn't want to waste (more?) cash.
This is a bigger deal for PvP players than for PvE players, right? I mean, the mobs don't take part in the economy, buying cheap BoE gear in the AH or what-not, so the PvE game is relatively free from gold farming influence. That's because a lot of the you-beaut stuff that drops drops in instances. PvP is more at risk from gold farming because those that can and do buy gold and/or gear with meatspace money will generally have a material edge over their more idealistic opponents.
I guess it's easy for me to be philosophical about this, because I don't play EverQuake. I imagine I'd be a bit more exercised about this if I played PvP.
The conditions for liquid water are remarkable enough, do we need to include the outrageously small probability of life developing before we've looked at the more answerable questions like "where's the heat coming from?"
If they went there to look for life, I'm sure they could squeeze in a bit of "say, where is that heat coming from anyway?" And let's say they find the answer to the heat source problem, are you proposing that we just ignore the possibility of life anyway?
Welcome to Corporate America. You obviously have never read Dilbert.
But don't get me wrong. The salaries more than make up for having to deal with incompetence.:-)
We buy software from people who pay people to deal with incompetence. Nice.:)
Cold fusion happens every day inside the earth, people just don't know why or how it happens.
Wait a sec... isn't a He atom just an alpha particle with a couple of electrons? And aren't alpha particles produced in the normal course of spontaneous fission of heavy radioactive elements?
I think the kind of over-sexualized images you see in games has a negative effect on society's attitudes towards women...
You don't think that it's more reflective of society's attitudes towards women? It's probably both, I think.
Then again, maybe I'm the exception
Assuming the IVR menu is sensible, that's how it ought to be. I answer calls that come through an IVR,and, while I think that it could be done a little better, I find that quite a few people just don't listen to the menu options
Perception is reality. Which is why two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions. Change the perception, change the reality. A marketer's dream.
I think it's fairer to say that local perception is local reality. Your perception is not my reality. If you say "perception is reality" then you can say that because of your perception others must see your reality as the One True Reality. Not what you intended, I'm sure. That's why I like to add the word "local" to the expression; explicitly state the local nature of the perception and it becomes easier for people to understand that what we believe is real depends on how we each see things, and that we will see things differently. I think that also brings to the forefront the idea that we need common reference systems.
I like your plan to a point. Your point four worries me, though. What if you don't want country X to be blown to oblivion. What if you wanted a way to reach a server in country X? If country X has total control, how can you reach it if they don't want Joe Freedomnik's server to be reached from the outside world?
Or did I just ask a stupid question?
The idea of us ringing up the Australians and saying "What ho! We're going to build a rocket base in your outback. Look, I know you chaps think you're independent now, but Queen Liz says to tell you to bally well stuff off" is just not going to fly, I'm afraid.
So what we need, then, is some plan that will reduce human contribution to the apparent problem (not a bad thing by itself, really), but that will not cause the loss of trillions of dollars and millions of lives. If we want to what-if on the side of human contribution to global warming, we ought also to what-if on the side of the cost of mitigating our actions.
but I really think the people should be allowed to choose which optional programs get their money - if it really needs to be taken from them in the first place.
Don't you get to choose that at each election? Each time you write to your representatives and candidates?
Doesn't going with what you know works completely defeat the point?
Proves the first one wasn't a fluke, I suppose. I know it's expensive, and maybe this is bread-and-circuses, but I'd sure like to see it again. But then again, it's not so much the launch of the rocket I want to see, it's people on the moon I want to see.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! We have a two-party system mainly because most people think it's a two-party system. "Why did you vote for the ALP" is often answered with "I couldn't stand the Coalition" and vice-versa. Reinforcing this ugly situation is the preferential voting system in which a formal vote requires that you cast a vote for every candidate on your ballot paper. You can't help but vote either of the major parties in, unless you cast an informal vote. If we had an optional preferential voting system, in which one can formally exhaust their preferences before giving one to either or both of the majors, we would have a truer representation of the will of the electorate.
I don't think it'd make a great deal of difference, but at least I could then cast a formal vote and honestly say that I had nothing to do with affirming some of the stupid and obnoxious legislation that manages to get passed in this country.
The good news is that you don't have to like them. Just like no-one has to dislike them. Ain't freedom of choice great?
I don't want to be beaten by some 13yo who has awesome BoE gear paid for by mum's credit card because I didn't want to waste (more?) cash.
This is a bigger deal for PvP players than for PvE players, right? I mean, the mobs don't take part in the economy, buying cheap BoE gear in the AH or what-not, so the PvE game is relatively free from gold farming influence. That's because a lot of the you-beaut stuff that drops drops in instances. PvP is more at risk from gold farming because those that can and do buy gold and/or gear with meatspace money will generally have a material edge over their more idealistic opponents.
I guess it's easy for me to be philosophical about this, because I don't play EverQuake. I imagine I'd be a bit more exercised about this if I played PvP.
If they went there to look for life, I'm sure they could squeeze in a bit of "say, where is that heat coming from anyway?" And let's say they find the answer to the heat source problem, are you proposing that we just ignore the possibility of life anyway?
Grandparent poster's perception may have been informed by a high noise-to-signal ratio.
You might go to the opera to receive emergency calls. The rest of us go there to see the opera. And we switch the bloody phone off while we're at it.
We buy software from people who pay people to deal with incompetence. Nice. :)
Wait a sec... isn't a He atom just an alpha particle with a couple of electrons? And aren't alpha particles produced in the normal course of spontaneous fission of heavy radioactive elements?
That's no galaxy, it's a space station!
As the joke goes, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.
Can't say as I've heard that one. Anyone care to let me in on it?
First prize: A weekend away with Bill Gates. Second prize: The whole week.
Ohm my god, that was revolting.
I think the kind of over-sexualized images you see in games has a negative effect on society's attitudes towards women... You don't think that it's more reflective of society's attitudes towards women? It's probably both, I think.
It's made by Sanyo, and it even has a clock on it...
Then again, maybe I'm the exception Assuming the IVR menu is sensible, that's how it ought to be. I answer calls that come through an IVR,and, while I think that it could be done a little better, I find that quite a few people just don't listen to the menu options
Perception is reality. Which is why two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions. Change the perception, change the reality. A marketer's dream. I think it's fairer to say that local perception is local reality. Your perception is not my reality. If you say "perception is reality" then you can say that because of your perception others must see your reality as the One True Reality. Not what you intended, I'm sure. That's why I like to add the word "local" to the expression; explicitly state the local nature of the perception and it becomes easier for people to understand that what we believe is real depends on how we each see things, and that we will see things differently. I think that also brings to the forefront the idea that we need common reference systems.
How'd you get Bob Marley to sign up for that?
I like your plan to a point. Your point four worries me, though. What if you don't want country X to be blown to oblivion. What if you wanted a way to reach a server in country X? If country X has total control, how can you reach it if they don't want Joe Freedomnik's server to be reached from the outside world? Or did I just ask a stupid question?
Yeah, like the fucking retailers would know the difference. :/
Actually, it probably would.
So what we need, then, is some plan that will reduce human contribution to the apparent problem (not a bad thing by itself, really), but that will not cause the loss of trillions of dollars and millions of lives. If we want to what-if on the side of human contribution to global warming, we ought also to what-if on the side of the cost of mitigating our actions.
Well, yes. I did mean "one" as in program, but I stand corrected.
but I really think the people should be allowed to choose which optional programs get their money - if it really needs to be taken from them in the first place.
Don't you get to choose that at each election? Each time you write to your representatives and candidates?
Doesn't going with what you know works completely defeat the point?
Proves the first one wasn't a fluke, I suppose. I know it's expensive, and maybe this is bread-and-circuses, but I'd sure like to see it again. But then again, it's not so much the launch of the rocket I want to see, it's people on the moon I want to see.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!