You've obviously never seen an Australian ballot - especially for our senate they can be enormously complicated, but there are simplificaitons in the selection/voting process. I don't feel like getting into detail here, but perhaps another Australian voter would care to explain it. The point is that you can have a ballot with about 60 candidates on it, and still get a very small percentage of invalid votes (and I doubt that the Australian electorate is substantially smarter than the American electorate, as we keep electing the same kind of arseholes as you do).
The key here is that a properly implemented electronic system is impossible.
Paper systems are inherently less vulnerable to fraud, etc, as (when properly implemented) there is a MASSIVE amount of oversight during the counting process - which you just don't get with electronic systems.
Thanks for the pointer to that article. I used to have that argument with my ex-wife and my sons - they're all cultural relativists and post-modernists. I got sick of arguing that words mean what they mean (although I accept that meaning can drift over a long time), and that just because people used them incorrectly, it didn't mean that the words had changed meaning - it just meant that those people were wrong.
I actually got given a slang dictionary a couple of years ago - the two nice things about it are that it _only_ has slang in it, and it has old slang (like 16th C) as well as new slang.
Although I agree with your criticism of the imeddiate parent, I think 'Shakespear' is also correct (along with about 1/2 dozen other variants - Sheikhspeer didn't spell all that well, despite writing like an angel).
Interestingly, the Puritans who fled religious persecution (and, like one of my ancestors, the vengeful son of an executed king) weren't very tolerant of people with different beliefs to their own. They were quite happy to persucute Quakers, for instance.
I just rented the dvd of a movie called 'Takedown! (the Kevin Mitnick story)' or some such... parts of it really weren't plausible, but I don't remember enough of the actual details to be absolutely sure.
God! Even without the clown add-ons, he's an ugly little fucker, isn't he. Kind of like a junior republican crossed with a used-car salesman, with a touch of tele-evangelist thrown in for good measure.
Wait... let me get this straight...she has a BA in Communications from some university I've never heard of, and she thinks she's qualified to read and understand some bit of software written in C. Hey, is it April Fool's day, and no-one told me?
I'd say you _totally_ miss the point. I have very little patience with libertarians and economic liberals, as they either don't understand anything, or their pronouncements are totally self-serving.
I remember one show when Marlin was attempting to pick up a tiger cub (or something similar), and got quite badly bitten just as the other bloke said, "Watch those sharp teeth and claws, Marlin." It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Or he'd optimise a lot of his time playing Tetris and looking at porno.
Merely watching a demonstration of an experiment (or anything else, for that matter) is _not_ an adequate substitute for actually doing it yourself.
Also the U-boat machines had an extra rotor.
Yeah - I was going to ask if the consortium that built Concorde ever made back the development costs.
You've obviously never seen an Australian ballot - especially for our senate they can be enormously complicated, but there are simplificaitons in the selection/voting process. I don't feel like getting into detail here, but perhaps another Australian voter would care to explain it. The point is that you can have a ballot with about 60 candidates on it, and still get a very small percentage of invalid votes (and I doubt that the Australian electorate is substantially smarter than the American electorate, as we keep electing the same kind of arseholes as you do).
The key here is that a properly implemented electronic system is impossible.
Paper systems are inherently less vulnerable to fraud, etc, as (when properly implemented) there is a MASSIVE amount of oversight during the counting process - which you just don't get with electronic systems.
Just try to picture John Belushi singing it ... that might help.
You've clearly never drunk any British beer.
Ascenders and descenders are the words you were looking for.
I guess it depends on whether or not you read by shape - I tend to have to when I've forgotten my reading glasses.
Thanks for the pointer to that article. I used to have that argument with my ex-wife and my sons - they're all cultural relativists and post-modernists. I got sick of arguing that words mean what they mean (although I accept that meaning can drift over a long time), and that just because people used them incorrectly, it didn't mean that the words had changed meaning - it just meant that those people were wrong.
I actually got given a slang dictionary a couple of years ago - the two nice things about it are that it _only_ has slang in it, and it has old slang (like 16th C) as well as new slang.
Although I agree with your criticism of the imeddiate parent, I think 'Shakespear' is also correct (along with about 1/2 dozen other variants - Sheikhspeer didn't spell all that well, despite writing like an angel).
Interestingly, the Puritans who fled religious persecution (and, like one of my ancestors, the vengeful son of an executed king) weren't very tolerant of people with different beliefs to their own. They were quite happy to persucute Quakers, for instance.
I just rented the dvd of a movie called 'Takedown! (the Kevin Mitnick story)' or some such ... parts of it really weren't plausible, but I don't remember enough of the actual details to be absolutely sure.
God! Even without the clown add-ons, he's an ugly little fucker, isn't he. Kind of like a junior republican crossed with a used-car salesman, with a touch of tele-evangelist thrown in for good measure.
I can assure you that that is not true.
Wait ... let me get this straight ...she has a BA in Communications from some university I've never heard of, and she thinks she's qualified to read and understand some bit of software written in C. Hey, is it April Fool's day, and no-one told me?
How do you know they don't?
No, it would only be 6 for _transfinite_ values of 2.
I think he played Ben Affleck in that one ...
That's a revolting thought.
Umm ... I'm not sure I see any substantial difference between this and other speculative trading like that in futures, derivatives, etc.
I'd say you _totally_ miss the point. I have very little patience with libertarians and economic liberals, as they either don't understand anything, or their pronouncements are totally self-serving.
You could - if you put out a contract of your own ...
We probably ate them as "bush meat".
I remember one show when Marlin was attempting to pick up a tiger cub (or something similar), and got quite badly bitten just as the other bloke said, "Watch those sharp teeth and claws, Marlin." It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.