MATLAB on a ram-constrained windows machine without root, at least for older versions. acroread you ran as you, so you could kill the process, but matlab ran a big chunk as admin which didn't go away. Finding that my memory had been swallowed by matlab made me like acroread, at least for a little while.
Science is not about absolute Truth. It is about saying "This describes everything relevant we know today. If we assume that our description is correct, we can expect to see foo." In this case we can go and look for foo, and if we find it we can say "Well, that works OK, can we do something interesting with that idea." If we find something which contradicts foo, we know our theory was broken and can go away and look for an better one. Other time we find that our theory works, but only under certain assumptions (like, we are moving slowly, or we're looking at a large enough object).
The big bang theory (or rather the many theories which feature a big bang) describe the universe as we see it and offer interesting (to cosmologists) predictions about what we might see, and are the simplest solution which offers us useful, testable predictions. "God made the universe 6014 years ago, but made it so it looks like it does today" would lead to an accurate description of the universe, but it isn't testable because it fits any evidence we find no matter what, so it isn't science. It also doesn't provide any useful predictions (since God is being rather passive at the moment), so it is utterly unhelpful in terms of advancing the boundaries of our knowledge.
It is a reasonable lie for small children, so I would probably answer yes if a survey monkey asked me that. The point is to find out if you know WTF the questioner is babbling on about, and if you do, do you believe the general idea, not whether you have a more specific understanding. I would probably have asked "The universe began with a brief rapid expansion billions of years ago," but it should ahve been reasonably obvious what the questioner was getting at.
In that case, what is our former foreign minister doing these days? Just because it isn't blatantly called a lobbying firm doesn't mean that's not what they're doing. There is also an official register of lobbyists for federal parliament, which certainly isn't empty.
You are right that we don't have campaign contributions like the Americans do, but we have directorships and sinecures at think tanks. IMO, in many ways that's even worse, because you don't see those until the politician retires.
Country speed limits are higher, usually 100kmph with 110 and 130 in some places, although some clowns at Monash Uni claimed that 75% of those they asked would like to see country speed limits reduced to 90, I can only assume that asked a sample of people from central Sydney who never go out into the countryside.
50-60kmph is typical in urban areas, except on main roads, which seems to be about similar to the UK.In my city, 4 lane, 60kmph roads are typically suburban trunk roads, which do have a lot of turnings and lights, and during the day 60 isn't unreasonable, and is usually unreachable in peak hour.
There is a lot of hand-wringing in my state about young drivers who get injured or killed in crashes, typically by driving out into the hills and then speeding down narrow winding roads, although drag racing late at night through the suburbs is also popular. The response to this is usually to mumble a lot, cut down some trees, and make it slower and more expensive for people to get drivers licences, ignoring the fact that most of those who crash are deliberately breaking the law, and most of them are actually fully licensed and have been for 3-4 years.
While you were aiming for funny, I suspect you are the closest anyone has got to being right so far. If there is any basis in reality for that comment, he is probably thinking of incidents in towns with large (mostly aboriginal) homeless or nearly homeless populations nearby, where there are significant drug and alcohol problem in the camps.Supposedly (I have never been to any of these towns, but have friends from them) it is not overly unusual to see drunk or stoned derelicts passed out in the middle of roads where they are likely to get hit. If that is the case, it would be understandable (not right, but understandable) for police to assume that any aboriginal person hit by a car was at fault, that the family will never come forward to identify him, and that the police could be doing far more worthwhile things with their time than investigating the accident.
Christians in general aren't the Christian lobby, mostly it is the the more crazy evangelicals and a few equally loony Catholics[1] or high Anglicans who are. Essentially, the "Christian Lobby" are those who support "traditional family values" as endorsed by the FFP, and probably vote for either the FFP (or the DLP, but everyone ignores them, of course).
Of course, there are a lot of Christians in Australia, and calling yourself the Christian lobby sounds a lot better than calling yourself the Lunatic Fringe of Christians lobby. Unfortunately, while they seem to have lunatic down pat, they are nowhere near as fringe as I would like them to be.
[1] those whose opinions more closely match, say His Eminence George Cardinal Pell, rather than His Grace Archbishop Philip Wilson[2] [2] he is actually in charge of the Catholic Church in Australia, and is a rather decent chap except when he tries to take an interest, at which point he becomes a minor nuisance. Back when I was a Catholic and worked for the church, we used to call him Bish Wilson, or Philly Willy, although not to his face.[3] [3] I probably ought to stop this linked list of footnotes, it is getting rather ridiculous[4] [4] Although I am having fun here
Mickey Mouse knock-off t-shirts are a trademark issue, not a copyright issue, which is an area which could do with reform but which is a separate (and far less important) area than copyright.
ISTR a proposed but never adopted EU scheme to apply a harsh import tax to any goods not produced in line with EU rules regarding CO2 emissions. If such rules were generalised, so that, for example, companies had to demonstrate that their employees received no less then the minimum wage in the lowest-paying member state, and had similar protections in terms of plant safely, working hours, and the like at all stages of the supply chain, or pay punitive tariffs, and similar rules were used for pollution and other laws, it would greatly reduce the attractiveness of off-shoring.
The taxes would have to be increased gradually, otherwise there would be significant opposition in the implementing countries, but in the long run it would probably be popular. It would also probably be the only practical way to force the PRC to do its part in fighting climate change.
(in the UK parliament, didn't turn up == abstained)
This is true, but I wish members would abstain properly (go through both doors in a division) if they don't have an opinion. Not turning up is IMO a sign of them not doing their jobs properly at all.
The very fact that they are unelected is part of their strength, since they don't need the support of the party machine, can do what's right rather than what's popular, and (before 1999) mostly didn't owe their positions to anyone and were often too rich to bribe. Since most Lords can probably make more money or have more fun doing whatever it is they do when they're not in the house, those who don't care about the good of the country for the most part don't turn up, so they are likely to actually think through what it is they are voting on and make sure they understand it. OTOH, in the Commons, people are generally there for their careers, and since advancement usually comes from the party, members have far less freedom or even interest in good government, especially thse in safe seats or where the issue doesn't affect their constituents.
Life peers mean that you can have experts like Lord Cherwell (who was a Cabinet member during WWII, acting as scientific advisor), but unfortunately it also means that people like Darth Mandelson can be brought in.
I'm not involved with the PPUK, but ISTM that you are the only person in this thread saying anything of the sort (or at least the only person with a karma bonus or upmods), so do you have links to forum threads or IRC logs which demonstrate this behaviour. If you are correct, it is something we ought to see and which PPUK need to sort out, but as it is it there is a strong whiff of sour grapes.
It is only yours because the law says so, there is no natural right to IP like there is in real property. Even if you claimed that you expected to make money into the future when you made the works, if the reforms only affected new works in this way, and old works were released into the PD on the date they would have when they were first produced, no-one would lose anything they have a legitimate reason to expect, not even their potential future income, except from the competition with new works.
You can still release your work using an NDA and a contract requiring the recipient to only use the software on a certain number of computers, you just can't impose those terms using a click-through or shrink-wrap licence or anything like that, since they would have to receive some consideration (the software) in exchange for agreeing to those terms.
Australia manages fine with IRV for the lower houses (I have a few problems with the PR system used in the senate, but the South Australian Legislative Council implementation lacks the main bug). You simply number the (usually 10) candidates in order of preference, and in the better variants, if you stop numbering, they use your ballot paper as long as it is valid, then ignore it thereafter. Only a complete retard would have problems with understanding it, especially since it is so simple it is commonly used for club elections and the like, so a lot of people will have been a RO or scrutineer in an election using IRV, so they will have seen it in action.
You get a few donkey votes, where people number all the boxes in order down the paper, but you'll get idiot votes in any system, all you can do is randomise the candidates on the paper and hope there aren't too many of them.
PR has problems too, since you don;t have your "own" MP, local issues tend to get less attention. Of course,t hat reduces porkbarreling, but it means that no-one risks losing their seat for doing things which are bad for one area, but neutral for most of the country (like letting parks be sold off for housing, for example). IMO, the House of Commons should use the same system as the Tasmanian House of Assembly: each electorate returns 3 members, the top 3 after votes have been distributed using the Hare-Clarke instant runoff system. This way, you still get local members, minor candidates have a chance of getting seats (because there is less need for tactical voting), but also it provides some protection to people's issues when they are in your situation, since Labour would probably get 2 candidate, but you would get one (of course, the constituencies need to be larger unless you are going to triple the size of the House, but the principle is the same).
There is still room for gerrymandering, but you can do that in any electorate-based system with flexible boundaries, but having fixed boundaries is what enabled the situation before the Reform Acts, so that isn't a good answer either.
Cheese? Stilton (blue or white), (good) Cheddar, Cheshire, Red Leicester, Wensleydale, all excellent cheeses and all from the UK. Puddings? Before wartime rationing and modern diet-conciousness, British puddings were long considered the best in the world, even by Frenchmen. Lamb? Welsh lamb is very good. Breakfast? The traditional Victorian country-house breakfast is famous (or infamous, if you're a dietician) throughout the world. Baked goods? crumpets, muffins, teacakes, scones and cakes of all sorts.
British food done well is as good as anywhere, especially since the cuisine, like the language, has formed by stealing anything good from anyone else, and hacking it into a coherent whole along with a load of original aspects. It is just that it is relatively easy to execute terribly, by, for example, overcooking everything.
As for haggis, what can you expect from the Scots? They get whisky right, so I suppose they don't need to care about anything else:)
It still seems to make enough to hire the entire state opposition to provide material for their house cartoonist:)
Their website does serve a useful purpose though: after I've been moderating/. with my threshold as -1, I need to remind myself that this isn't the most retarded news discussion site ever. It's group-think seems to belong to the Christian Far-Right, except the government should do everything for them. Internal consistency, even within a single post, is far too much to ask for. After I read that, i feel like banging my head into a wall.
always remarks, when she sees a condom manufacturing line on the television
She must watch some rather odd TV to see one more than once or twice a lifetime. Condom ads, fine, sexual products in general, again fine, but a condom manufacturing line? I wouldn't have thought the rubber industry made that interesting viewing.:)
Given the sort of thinking behind the 00...0 launch codes, it wouldn't be too surprising if the key was whatever makes the system the equivalent of 2ROT13.
If the children are never alone with the supervisor, the children are probably safe. However, unless there are several adults, the supervisor may not be safe (especially if he is male). There was a false accusation at my old school a few years ago, and if girls in question had had the sense to rehearse their stories the teacher's career might have been ruined.
Has that been tested in court yet? ISTR some speculation about encryption keys being analogous to safe keys, where you cold make them try to break the encryption but they could charge you with an obstruction-related offence (although depending on what your emails were, that might be worthwhile. Also, for sent emails, you wouldn't be able to give up the key, and there are AFAIK (IANAL) no laws in the US requiring you to keep keys (although keeping the emails without the keys would be suspicious).
So you can, in fact, keep your marriage to any number of people entirely separate from the government, as long as you don't expect said government to legally recognize said marriage - but if you do, it's hardly reasonable to demand that the government stays away from your issues when you yourself seek to bring them to its attention.
Personally, I think the privileges and benefits associated with marriage should be based on n-ary partnership contracts essentially similar to those used in business partnerships, and that since most of the benefits are justified by the supposed need to encourage people to have children and bring them up in a certain kind of environment, they should actually be tied to having children. However, this is a big can of worms, and it gets discussed to death in every thread about sexuality, gay rights, or marriage, so lets ignore it here where it is completely OT.
The view that Utahians should be able to conduct themselves as they please but Europeans should conduct themselves as an American posting on Slashdot pleases are quite inconsistent.
I think Utahans should be able to conduct themselves as they please, but I also think they should do things a certain way. It isn't contradictory at all to say "I think they should do foo, but it's their city/county/state/country so they can do what they like," and it is also isn't contradictory to say that "I think my country should be organised like bar, and that a country (or international organisation with pretensions to nationhood) with certain broad similarities should be organised in a similar way." You can have an opinion about something without wishing to impose your opinion on others.
(For the record, I don't think either the US constitution or the Treaty of Lisbon are particularly good constitutions, and both have strengths and weaknesses. I am in favour of keeping government at the lowest level possible, partly because it means that people are screwing things up for themselves but not for everyone else, partly because it means that things like nude beaches controversy in Sydney last year becomes a non-issue, and partly because that would avoid a some of the development scandals that have been occurring where I am which affect only those in a small area, so most people don't care about them come election day.)
Slashdot Mirror
MATLAB on a ram-constrained windows machine without root, at least for older versions. acroread you ran as you, so you could kill the process, but matlab ran a big chunk as admin which didn't go away. Finding that my memory had been swallowed by matlab made me like acroread, at least for a little while.
Science is not about absolute Truth. It is about saying "This describes everything relevant we know today. If we assume that our description is correct, we can expect to see foo." In this case we can go and look for foo, and if we find it we can say "Well, that works OK, can we do something interesting with that idea." If we find something which contradicts foo, we know our theory was broken and can go away and look for an better one. Other time we find that our theory works, but only under certain assumptions (like, we are moving slowly, or we're looking at a large enough object).
The big bang theory (or rather the many theories which feature a big bang) describe the universe as we see it and offer interesting (to cosmologists) predictions about what we might see, and are the simplest solution which offers us useful, testable predictions. "God made the universe 6014 years ago, but made it so it looks like it does today" would lead to an accurate description of the universe, but it isn't testable because it fits any evidence we find no matter what, so it isn't science. It also doesn't provide any useful predictions (since God is being rather passive at the moment), so it is utterly unhelpful in terms of advancing the boundaries of our knowledge.
Look at the quantum level, but try not to think about it or you'll go blind.
Dude! This is Slashdot so I'd say thinking about the quantum level is the least likely cause of blindness amongst our readers!
...says someone who's never heard of a nerdgasm.
It is a reasonable lie for small children, so I would probably answer yes if a survey monkey asked me that. The point is to find out if you know WTF the questioner is babbling on about, and if you do, do you believe the general idea, not whether you have a more specific understanding. I would probably have asked "The universe began with a brief rapid expansion billions of years ago," but it should ahve been reasonably obvious what the questioner was getting at.
In that case, what is our former foreign minister doing these days? Just because it isn't blatantly called a lobbying firm doesn't mean that's not what they're doing. There is also an official register of lobbyists for federal parliament, which certainly isn't empty.
You are right that we don't have campaign contributions like the Americans do, but we have directorships and sinecures at think tanks. IMO, in many ways that's even worse, because you don't see those until the politician retires.
Country speed limits are higher, usually 100kmph with 110 and 130 in some places, although some clowns at Monash Uni claimed that 75% of those they asked would like to see country speed limits reduced to 90, I can only assume that asked a sample of people from central Sydney who never go out into the countryside.
50-60kmph is typical in urban areas, except on main roads, which seems to be about similar to the UK.In my city, 4 lane, 60kmph roads are typically suburban trunk roads, which do have a lot of turnings and lights, and during the day 60 isn't unreasonable, and is usually unreachable in peak hour.
There is a lot of hand-wringing in my state about young drivers who get injured or killed in crashes, typically by driving out into the hills and then speeding down narrow winding roads, although drag racing late at night through the suburbs is also popular. The response to this is usually to mumble a lot, cut down some trees, and make it slower and more expensive for people to get drivers licences, ignoring the fact that most of those who crash are deliberately breaking the law, and most of them are actually fully licensed and have been for 3-4 years.
While you were aiming for funny, I suspect you are the closest anyone has got to being right so far. If there is any basis in reality for that comment, he is probably thinking of incidents in towns with large (mostly aboriginal) homeless or nearly homeless populations nearby, where there are significant drug and alcohol problem in the camps.Supposedly (I have never been to any of these towns, but have friends from them) it is not overly unusual to see drunk or stoned derelicts passed out in the middle of roads where they are likely to get hit. If that is the case, it would be understandable (not right, but understandable) for police to assume that any aboriginal person hit by a car was at fault, that the family will never come forward to identify him, and that the police could be doing far more worthwhile things with their time than investigating the accident.
Christians in general aren't the Christian lobby, mostly it is the the more crazy evangelicals and a few equally loony Catholics[1] or high Anglicans who are. Essentially, the "Christian Lobby" are those who support "traditional family values" as endorsed by the FFP, and probably vote for either the FFP (or the DLP, but everyone ignores them, of course).
Of course, there are a lot of Christians in Australia, and calling yourself the Christian lobby sounds a lot better than calling yourself the Lunatic Fringe of Christians lobby. Unfortunately, while they seem to have lunatic down pat, they are nowhere near as fringe as I would like them to be.
[1] those whose opinions more closely match, say His Eminence George Cardinal Pell, rather than His Grace Archbishop Philip Wilson[2]
[2] he is actually in charge of the Catholic Church in Australia, and is a rather decent chap except when he tries to take an interest, at which point he becomes a minor nuisance. Back when I was a Catholic and worked for the church, we used to call him Bish Wilson, or Philly Willy, although not to his face.[3]
[3] I probably ought to stop this linked list of footnotes, it is getting rather ridiculous[4]
[4] Although I am having fun here
WFM, in .AU, no proxies or other dodyness.
Mickey Mouse knock-off t-shirts are a trademark issue, not a copyright issue, which is an area which could do with reform but which is a separate (and far less important) area than copyright.
ISTR a proposed but never adopted EU scheme to apply a harsh import tax to any goods not produced in line with EU rules regarding CO2 emissions. If such rules were generalised, so that, for example, companies had to demonstrate that their employees received no less then the minimum wage in the lowest-paying member state, and had similar protections in terms of plant safely, working hours, and the like at all stages of the supply chain, or pay punitive tariffs, and similar rules were used for pollution and other laws, it would greatly reduce the attractiveness of off-shoring.
The taxes would have to be increased gradually, otherwise there would be significant opposition in the implementing countries, but in the long run it would probably be popular. It would also probably be the only practical way to force the PRC to do its part in fighting climate change.
(in the UK parliament, didn't turn up == abstained)
This is true, but I wish members would abstain properly (go through both doors in a division) if they don't have an opinion. Not turning up is IMO a sign of them not doing their jobs properly at all.
The very fact that they are unelected is part of their strength, since they don't need the support of the party machine, can do what's right rather than what's popular, and (before 1999) mostly didn't owe their positions to anyone and were often too rich to bribe. Since most Lords can probably make more money or have more fun doing whatever it is they do when they're not in the house, those who don't care about the good of the country for the most part don't turn up, so they are likely to actually think through what it is they are voting on and make sure they understand it. OTOH, in the Commons, people are generally there for their careers, and since advancement usually comes from the party, members have far less freedom or even interest in good government, especially thse in safe seats or where the issue doesn't affect their constituents.
Life peers mean that you can have experts like Lord Cherwell (who was a Cabinet member during WWII, acting as scientific advisor), but unfortunately it also means that people like Darth Mandelson can be brought in.
I'm not involved with the PPUK, but ISTM that you are the only person in this thread saying anything of the sort (or at least the only person with a karma bonus or upmods), so do you have links to forum threads or IRC logs which demonstrate this behaviour. If you are correct, it is something we ought to see and which PPUK need to sort out, but as it is it there is a strong whiff of sour grapes.
that which isn't theirs
It is only yours because the law says so, there is no natural right to IP like there is in real property. Even if you claimed that you expected to make money into the future when you made the works, if the reforms only affected new works in this way, and old works were released into the PD on the date they would have when they were first produced, no-one would lose anything they have a legitimate reason to expect, not even their potential future income, except from the competition with new works.
You can still release your work using an NDA and a contract requiring the recipient to only use the software on a certain number of computers, you just can't impose those terms using a click-through or shrink-wrap licence or anything like that, since they would have to receive some consideration (the software) in exchange for agreeing to those terms.
Australia manages fine with IRV for the lower houses (I have a few problems with the PR system used in the senate, but the South Australian Legislative Council implementation lacks the main bug). You simply number the (usually 10) candidates in order of preference, and in the better variants, if you stop numbering, they use your ballot paper as long as it is valid, then ignore it thereafter. Only a complete retard would have problems with understanding it, especially since it is so simple it is commonly used for club elections and the like, so a lot of people will have been a RO or scrutineer in an election using IRV, so they will have seen it in action.
You get a few donkey votes, where people number all the boxes in order down the paper, but you'll get idiot votes in any system, all you can do is randomise the candidates on the paper and hope there aren't too many of them.
PR has problems too, since you don;t have your "own" MP, local issues tend to get less attention. Of course,t hat reduces porkbarreling, but it means that no-one risks losing their seat for doing things which are bad for one area, but neutral for most of the country (like letting parks be sold off for housing, for example). IMO, the House of Commons should use the same system as the Tasmanian House of Assembly: each electorate returns 3 members, the top 3 after votes have been distributed using the Hare-Clarke instant runoff system. This way, you still get local members, minor candidates have a chance of getting seats (because there is less need for tactical voting), but also it provides some protection to people's issues when they are in your situation, since Labour would probably get 2 candidate, but you would get one (of course, the constituencies need to be larger unless you are going to triple the size of the House, but the principle is the same).
There is still room for gerrymandering, but you can do that in any electorate-based system with flexible boundaries, but having fixed boundaries is what enabled the situation before the Reform Acts, so that isn't a good answer either.
Cheese? Stilton (blue or white), (good) Cheddar, Cheshire, Red Leicester, Wensleydale, all excellent cheeses and all from the UK.
Puddings? Before wartime rationing and modern diet-conciousness, British puddings were long considered the best in the world, even by Frenchmen.
Lamb? Welsh lamb is very good.
Breakfast? The traditional Victorian country-house breakfast is famous (or infamous, if you're a dietician) throughout the world.
Baked goods? crumpets, muffins, teacakes, scones and cakes of all sorts.
British food done well is as good as anywhere, especially since the cuisine, like the language, has formed by stealing anything good from anyone else, and hacking it into a coherent whole along with a load of original aspects. It is just that it is relatively easy to execute terribly, by, for example, overcooking everything.
As for haggis, what can you expect from the Scots? They get whisky right, so I suppose they don't need to care about anything else :)
Those little cheesy goldfish. Everything else, the UK wins hands down, but Goldfish are proof that even Americans can't be wrong all the time.
It still seems to make enough to hire the entire state opposition to provide material for their house cartoonist :)
Their website does serve a useful purpose though: after I've been moderating /. with my threshold as -1, I need to remind myself that this isn't the most retarded news discussion site ever. It's group-think seems to belong to the Christian Far-Right, except the government should do everything for them. Internal consistency, even within a single post, is far too much to ask for. After I read that, i feel like banging my head into a wall.
always remarks, when she sees a condom manufacturing line on the television
She must watch some rather odd TV to see one more than once or twice a lifetime. Condom ads, fine, sexual products in general, again fine, but a condom manufacturing line? I wouldn't have thought the rubber industry made that interesting viewing. :)
Given the sort of thinking behind the 00...0 launch codes, it wouldn't be too surprising if the key was whatever makes the system the equivalent of 2ROT13.
If the children are never alone with the supervisor, the children are probably safe. However, unless there are several adults, the supervisor may not be safe (especially if he is male). There was a false accusation at my old school a few years ago, and if girls in question had had the sense to rehearse their stories the teacher's career might have been ruined.
Has that been tested in court yet? ISTR some speculation about encryption keys being analogous to safe keys, where you cold make them try to break the encryption but they could charge you with an obstruction-related offence (although depending on what your emails were, that might be worthwhile. Also, for sent emails, you wouldn't be able to give up the key, and there are AFAIK (IANAL) no laws in the US requiring you to keep keys (although keeping the emails without the keys would be suspicious).
So you can, in fact, keep your marriage to any number of people entirely separate from the government, as long as you don't expect said government to legally recognize said marriage - but if you do, it's hardly reasonable to demand that the government stays away from your issues when you yourself seek to bring them to its attention.
Personally, I think the privileges and benefits associated with marriage should be based on n-ary partnership contracts essentially similar to those used in business partnerships, and that since most of the benefits are justified by the supposed need to encourage people to have children and bring them up in a certain kind of environment, they should actually be tied to having children. However, this is a big can of worms, and it gets discussed to death in every thread about sexuality, gay rights, or marriage, so lets ignore it here where it is completely OT.
The view that Utahians should be able to conduct themselves as they please but Europeans should conduct themselves as an American posting on Slashdot pleases are quite inconsistent.
I think Utahans should be able to conduct themselves as they please, but I also think they should do things a certain way. It isn't contradictory at all to say "I think they should do foo, but it's their city/county/state/country so they can do what they like," and it is also isn't contradictory to say that "I think my country should be organised like bar, and that a country (or international organisation with pretensions to nationhood) with certain broad similarities should be organised in a similar way." You can have an opinion about something without wishing to impose your opinion on others.
(For the record, I don't think either the US constitution or the Treaty of Lisbon are particularly good constitutions, and both have strengths and weaknesses. I am in favour of keeping government at the lowest level possible, partly because it means that people are screwing things up for themselves but not for everyone else, partly because it means that things like nude beaches controversy in Sydney last year becomes a non-issue, and partly because that would avoid a some of the development scandals that have been occurring where I am which affect only those in a small area, so most people don't care about them come election day.)