If we had a brain, a conscience and some balls we would be chasing these politician fucks down the street with baseball bats until we splattered every last one of their heads open.
It's easy for me as a foreigner to say, but shouldn't you be working the soap box harder before going straight to the ammo box? It seems to me that part of the reason that people live in two-party systems is that the people who live in them think that they live in a two-party system. It's a tight circle, but I should hope that it can be broken without having to circumvent normal civic processes.
"Would you believe the Inspector General from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it would violate the privacy of Americans for the IG office to tell us how many people in the United States had their privacy violated via the NSA warrantless wiretap powers which were granted under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008?"
Too bad I just did my mod points in. But you're completely right. I don't understand this urge to make things even more illegaler than they already are, except that it is done in such a way as to give it a far wider scope than necessary. Which is probably the point of the exercise, if I may be so cynical.
I don't. I watch it on catch-up and zap the ads. Or I buy the DVD/BluRay. Or I just read/. or play $SOME_GAME instead. I'm afraid that I'm not that good a product for the advertisers.
Looking at the choice currently facing the Australian voter, a three legged sheep would stand a "real chance" of election.
The only way I'd vote for a three-legged sheep is if the ballot contained only one of ALP or Coalition candidates on it. As soon as both go on the ballot, I must put one of them second-last in order to vote for the three-legged sheep, which is as good as voting for them. No thanks. Informal voting for me until they change the voting system.
In my division there were 8 candidates at the last election. Regrettably, in order to register a vote I had to put a preference for each candidate, numbering all boxes 1 to 8 in order of my preference. Fortunately, the candidate that I numbered 8 got the majority of the cote on the primary count, which meant that I didn't vote for her.
In principle, however, if the count has to go out to 7th preferences, I may end up voting in candidate number 7.
If it wasn't instant run-off here, but regular run-off instead (which would be stupidly expensive), I could turn up to vote at the primary election and for as many run-offs as there were still candidates that I was interested in, and then either a) stop voting once I run out of candidates I like or b) cast informal votes if voting was still mandatory.
Alternatively, we could just do what we do in NSW state elections: optional preferential voting.
As I've read elsewhere on this site, you'll also need the source code for the compiler. How far does the paranoia have to go? Maybe I'm in my depressive cycle or something.
It may have been obvious in this particular instance, but it's still incorrect, it's still irritating and it still intrudes itself into what was otherwise a fluid transfer of information. Maybe I'm just irritable, but the irritant itself is avoidable and unnecessary. We already have a phrase that means "raises the question": it's "raises the question". It's not at all clear to me why that one could not have been used.
By the way, I'm not having a go at cold fjord who simply quoted the passage. Just wanted that to be clear.
AV software is like car insurance, most of the time you are just paying for nothing but when you actually need it, it's pretty damn helpful.
I think a better model is preventive maintenance, which is aimed at stopping it go wrong in the first place. Insurance is about collecting a payout if it does go wrong. Presumably indulging in the former might lower your premiums for the latter, but it's not clear to me how that applies to the AV scenario. I never took insurance against viral infections on my computers.
This phenomenon begs the question: How do jihadists reconcile such hypocrisy and ingratitude in their own minds?
No it doesn't. To any language curmudgeon curmudgeons out there who tire of this apparent nit-pickery, I can only say that getting this shit wrong interferes unnecessarily with communication. Why I should have to carry more than my own 50% of the load of the task of communication is quite beyond me. What's wrong with getting it right?
2) Enact some sort of acceptability voting (e.g. instant run-off), starting with local and state elections and building support for federal elections.
We have that here in Australia in most jurisdictions. We call it preferential voting, as you probably know. Just in case you don't know, there are two distinct flavours of it here: optional preferential voting and mandatory preferential voting. In the former, as in the elections in the state of New South Wales, you need only allocate preferences to the candidates you want to vote for. In the latter, as in the federal elections, you must number EVERY FUCKING CANDIDATE.
Seriously, if you take instant runoff, make sure you take the OPV flavour of it. Do NOT force your voters to vote for candidates they don't want.
The american government at this point is pretty much entirely owned by various corporations and private interests that don't represent the thoughts and will of the american people.
Unless you're willing to allege (and, preferably, to prove) that a non-trivial percentage of the votes are physically corrupted/subverted/whatever, then these various corporations and private interests very much do represent the thoughts and will of the American people who bother to vote.
Yes, I did read the rest of your post; my point is that the vote -- assuming it is a fair one -- turns out overwhelmingly to favour the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy for me as a foreigner to say, but shouldn't you be working the soap box harder before going straight to the ammo box? It seems to me that part of the reason that people live in two-party systems is that the people who live in them think that they live in a two-party system. It's a tight circle, but I should hope that it can be broken without having to circumvent normal civic processes.
Reminds me of those bloody Waterdhavian creatures that Lady Aribeth wouldn't shut up about in NWN.
We got rocks that other people want.
Yes. Ask me another one.
Scroll down to "A fool's paradise" to see an example of the fucking curmudgeons that this will drive out of the woodwork.
is not the same as
Because some of us at least think that he's entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Too bad I just did my mod points in. But you're completely right. I don't understand this urge to make things even more illegaler than they already are, except that it is done in such a way as to give it a far wider scope than necessary. Which is probably the point of the exercise, if I may be so cynical.
Notwithstanding what digitig said, it's necessary for parliamentarians to be able to speak freely. Imagine being able to muzzle legislators.
And if/when enough people finally get jack of it, up goes the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
These tools are virtually daring us to vote for "that other little man".
Go fuck Elizabeth yourself.
I don't. I watch it on catch-up and zap the ads. Or I buy the DVD/BluRay. Or I just read /. or play $SOME_GAME instead. I'm afraid that I'm not that good a product for the advertisers.
The only way I'd vote for a three-legged sheep is if the ballot contained only one of ALP or Coalition candidates on it. As soon as both go on the ballot, I must put one of them second-last in order to vote for the three-legged sheep, which is as good as voting for them. No thanks. Informal voting for me until they change the voting system.
All connected with Monster Ethernet Cable.
In my division there were 8 candidates at the last election. Regrettably, in order to register a vote I had to put a preference for each candidate, numbering all boxes 1 to 8 in order of my preference. Fortunately, the candidate that I numbered 8 got the majority of the cote on the primary count, which meant that I didn't vote for her.
In principle, however, if the count has to go out to 7th preferences, I may end up voting in candidate number 7.
If it wasn't instant run-off here, but regular run-off instead (which would be stupidly expensive), I could turn up to vote at the primary election and for as many run-offs as there were still candidates that I was interested in, and then either a) stop voting once I run out of candidates I like or b) cast informal votes if voting was still mandatory.
Alternatively, we could just do what we do in NSW state elections: optional preferential voting.
Fair enough, mate, and thanks for your forbearance. It's still irritating, but I can do better than I did. Lesson learned.
As I've read elsewhere on this site, you'll also need the source code for the compiler. How far does the paranoia have to go? Maybe I'm in my depressive cycle or something.
By the way, I'm not having a go at cold fjord who simply quoted the passage. Just wanted that to be clear.
Sure, but why work with millifurlongs or whateverthefuck it is that imperial unit people work with?
Nice: http://xkcd.com/37/
I think a better model is preventive maintenance, which is aimed at stopping it go wrong in the first place. Insurance is about collecting a payout if it does go wrong. Presumably indulging in the former might lower your premiums for the latter, but it's not clear to me how that applies to the AV scenario. I never took insurance against viral infections on my computers.
No it doesn't. To any language curmudgeon curmudgeons out there who tire of this apparent nit-pickery, I can only say that getting this shit wrong interferes unnecessarily with communication. Why I should have to carry more than my own 50% of the load of the task of communication is quite beyond me. What's wrong with getting it right?
We have that here in Australia in most jurisdictions. We call it preferential voting, as you probably know. Just in case you don't know, there are two distinct flavours of it here: optional preferential voting and mandatory preferential voting. In the former, as in the elections in the state of New South Wales, you need only allocate preferences to the candidates you want to vote for. In the latter, as in the federal elections, you must number EVERY FUCKING CANDIDATE.
Seriously, if you take instant runoff, make sure you take the OPV flavour of it. Do NOT force your voters to vote for candidates they don't want.
Unless you're willing to allege (and, preferably, to prove) that a non-trivial percentage of the votes are physically corrupted/subverted/whatever, then these various corporations and private interests very much do represent the thoughts and will of the American people who bother to vote.
Yes, I did read the rest of your post; my point is that the vote -- assuming it is a fair one -- turns out overwhelmingly to favour the status quo.