Did they fix that little problem of the install process hosing drive geometry tables so that Windows won't load anymore?
That was a feature.
Seriously though, is this a serious question? "Did they fix this major, huge, well-known bug that was in their last release, 6 months ago?" OF COURSE THEY DID.
This mantra is just one of many aspects of a culture that refuses to see the conscientious refusal to vote as valid.
The problem with this view: there's nothing to distinguish your "not voting to show disillusionment with the system" with someone else's "not voting because of laziness and apathy".
Traditionally, the former is expressed by casting a spoiled ballot. With voting machines, though, that's not really possible anymore.
As an American, I too think this should be illegal. In fact, I'd go as far as to say no one should attempt to declare a winner until the following morning.
That said, I'll probably be keeping up with the "score" all day and all night, because it's there.
Thought problem: 60% of people want a candidate with position A and 40% of people want a candidate with position B. Unfortunately, there are 2 candidates with position A. With the votes split between them, the single candidate with position B will win.
1992 called, they want their election results back:)
Fair enough. The right choice in your case is clearly to vote for the third-party person. I believe there are a lot of people, though, that roughly fit my model.
Whatever the reason was, going back now and celebrating freedom is backpedaling of the worst kind. If the U.S. was really in the business of liberating people, there are MANY nations that a) are in worse shape now than Iraq ever was and b) would be easier to "fix" than Iraq has been.
I can't just ignore the fact that the motivation for this war keeps changing, regardless of how it's turning out. The ends do NOT justify the means.
Look at the issue in more than a black & white sense. Many people have the following two goals, in order of priority:
Get _____ 3rd party candidate elected.
Get Bush out of office.
In reality, voting for the 3rd party candidate contributes to the failure of both goals (goal 1 is already at 100% failure). Voting for Kerry leaves goal 1 at its predetermined failure state, but actually does something towards goal 2.
If you really don't care whether Bush or Kerry wins (keep in mind, one of the two is definitely going to), then this doesn't apply to you. But if you have any preference at all, it arguably makes sense to vote along that preference.
nooooo . . . evolutionists attempt to construct an explanation for existing evidence. This is very different from taking thousands-of-years-old mythology literally.
Slashdot Mirror
That was a feature.
Seriously though, is this a serious question? "Did they fix this major, huge, well-known bug that was in their last release, 6 months ago?" OF COURSE THEY DID.
A very good point. This suggests that biometric authentication is a bad idea, due to the inability to "rekey" the system.
If you're already using #3, #1 becomes redundant.
Sorry, you blew your point with this aside.
That's no planet . . . it's a space station!!
</ob. Star Wars>
That doesn't make it sound any less stupid.
Yup. I reread Brave New World recently, and couldn't help but think "Greedo shoots first" when reading that introduction.
haha, you're probably right. Just curious, what do you want? Is it the electoral college you're opposed to, or the two-party system, or what?
The problem with this view: there's nothing to distinguish your "not voting to show disillusionment with the system" with someone else's "not voting because of laziness and apathy".
Traditionally, the former is expressed by casting a spoiled ballot. With voting machines, though, that's not really possible anymore.
I guess facts aren't really important when you're just trying to fan flames, though.
That said, I'll probably be keeping up with the "score" all day and all night, because it's there.
Oh, in that case it's OK then.
I guess I voted this morning.
I don't suppose they're getting the word out via a "direct email" campaign . . .
Haha, you took the original comment and switched Kerry and Bush!!11 U R teh funnie!!!11
1992 called, they want their election results back :)
Here's a spoiler: one of the evils is going to win.
Fair enough. The right choice in your case is clearly to vote for the third-party person. I believe there are a lot of people, though, that roughly fit my model.
I can't just ignore the fact that the motivation for this war keeps changing, regardless of how it's turning out. The ends do NOT justify the means.
Wait a minute, did you just paint Lincoln as "hostile to human rights"? Please go on, I gotta hear how this plays out.
- Get _____ 3rd party candidate elected.
- Get Bush out of office.
In reality, voting for the 3rd party candidate contributes to the failure of both goals (goal 1 is already at 100% failure). Voting for Kerry leaves goal 1 at its predetermined failure state, but actually does something towards goal 2.If you really don't care whether Bush or Kerry wins (keep in mind, one of the two is definitely going to), then this doesn't apply to you. But if you have any preference at all, it arguably makes sense to vote along that preference.
If only that were the primary reason we're there. Or even the secondary or tertiary reason.
. . . or inflammatory .sigs . . .
Lousy sight still beats no sight. That's pretty much what the article is about.
nooooo . . . evolutionists attempt to construct an explanation for existing evidence. This is very different from taking thousands-of-years-old mythology literally.