1) It's true that both are "American Centrist" parties, but they do have differences.
2) Yes, gerrymandering is just another way to commit vote fraud, it is not a reason to ignore vote fraud. If you can't trust the vote count, then it doesn't matter whether other parties are allowed to run. Of course the reverse is true as well, that if no one else is allowed to run then the vote count doesn't really matter. All of these problems need to be fixed.
3) I seriously doubt you can pare down the government to the point where no one "unworthy" wants the job and you
A) Still have a country. The only truly Libertarian "countries" establish in the 20th century were invaded and annexed by their neighbours.
C) Blaming corruption on people who want a government to "solve their problems" is rather lame and ill-used strawman. It's just a reasonable to look at it as people who recognized that there were societal problems which can't effectively be addressed by individual action. I could just as easily categorize you as someone who "wants to screw everyone else for their own benefit".
D) It's not going to happen, anyway, so why don't you focus on goals that are actually acheivable?
To answer your question, in theory, yes. The complacency you display is a little disturbing. I mean shouldn't we care if one candidate cheats and wins. Is there a limit we can place and say as long as you didn't cheat this much, it's ok? Where would you draw the line? 10%? 20%? How much does a person have to cheat to qualify as problem in your opinion? Or do you only care if one side gets caught cheating?
We all know the potential consequences of loosing an election by a few hundred votes not counted. There are 650,000 dead Iraqis, 3,000 dead American soldiers and 21,000 greviously wounded American soldiers to remind us all.
Well with a patchwork process you would subvert the weakest systems, which would be implemented in states where you control the electoral system, and you'd make sure you controlled a few of the influential states where the swing votes are located and tampering is less likely to be obvious, like Ohio and Florida.
You never need to subvert the strongest systems, you just make sure you make sure they're never deployed in the locations you want to keep subverted. Of course, machine based fraud is only part of the way you can subvert the system, you can systematically make it take more time for people who aren't likely to vote for you, thus disinclining those people to vote. In a close election if you can force even 1% of the opposing side to leave the polling place without having voted, you might be able to swing the election. Of course, if you're clever you'll have multiple ways to give yourself multiple 1% advantages.
I don't think he meant collapse as in "no food would be available" but more collapse as in "Armerican farms would go bankrupt". Without trade barriers to protect American grown crops from foreign competitition, many food prices would drop substancially in the United States. That might actually be a good thing in some ways, unprocessed foods would probably drop the most. The down side, is that the United States would become dependent on foreign countries to feed it.
It probably depends on whether the game designer allowed key bindings or not. I know Champions of Norrath 2 on the PS2 allowed you to hook up any usb keyboard and use the text chat while playing online, but I don't know if you could actually control your character from the keyboard.
As for joysticks, I doubt any joystick would work, the signals have to be comprehensible to the PS3, but there are always 3rd party controllers available. I'm guessing that the old PS2 and PS1 controllers will work, but any tilt functionality obviously won't.
You just might need to invest in a better resume. Check with your local government/university for resume workshops, or do some online searching. You need a decent resume to get a job, most employers will receive enough resumes that a single mistake or a poor layout on your resume can disqualify you from the running. It's seen as careless with something that should be of utmost importance to you, and thus makes you appear to be lazy and incompetent before the interview. Most employers won't waste their time on that.
Make sure your synopsis/summary includes the phrase "lack of paper validation trail allows 100% of the tabulated votes to be arbitrarily changed at the push of a button".
I suppose you could say that it was satire. However, I don't think so. What was the video satirizing?
North Korea may have developed a nuclear bomb, but it's 6 years after Bush became president and 14 years after the Republican took control of congress. So how is it the Democrats fault that North Korea may have developed a nuclear weapon? Essentially it's taking an incident of good manners (giving your host a gift), and using it without substantiation or corroboration to accuse the Democrats of working for terrorists.
Most importantly, this is Condaleezza Rice's watch not Madeline Albright's. If the video were critizing the current secretary of state rather than one from 6 years ago, it might actually have some relevance.
Combine that with the simple fact that the U.S. has more enemies now than it did 6 years ago, and you should be able to see that the facts actually contradict the assertions of the narrator. Add in the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and that his administration was specifically warned about al'Queda and still chose to lower their watchfulness and you might begin to see a pattern of hypocrisy forming. A pattern where all of the current administrations troubles are blamed on their predecessors even when they've had plenty of time to make their own personal impact.
Obviously, I found the video neither funny nor satirical, it's just a baseless accusation that says "North Korea has the bomb because Madeline Albright gave them a basketball six years ago". It doesn't even remotely make sense.
These are Republicans, not conservatives. It's really not wise to confuse to the two. Republicans only believe in rights for Repbulicans. Anyone who's not Republican (or voting for them) should not be entitled to any rights, especially the right to vote.
You might think my comments are a little extreme, but here's a transcript from Politically Incorrect where Ann Coulter specifically states women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats.
That may just be the most reputable news source reporting on the incident. I just checked google news, there's only 7 articles on this, all from far right web sites.
My anecdotal observation is that the people most cheesed off about intellectual property are primarily or entirely consumers of IP, and not producers. Nobody enjoys paying for things, but that's how the economy works.
Your anecdotal observation would likely be wrong. There is certainly a natural tendency for those who derive great riches from any system that creates pollution to dismiss the polution as a trivial byproduct. So you will almost always see the people who benefit from the systems that produce the pollution being relatively happy as long as they continue to earn their riches. The people you deride as entirely consumers of IP, are more than likely also the producers of IP, just nothing good enough to make them part of the cabal that reaps the rewards.
It's an interesting dichotomy, if you think about it. Anyone who likes it, is probably making money from it, anyone who doesn't probably doesn't make money from it. But that really doesn't apply to the question of whether "intellectual property" is good or bad.
You're just saying that because you're a pedophile.
Libel laws exist because proving you haven't done something is much, much harder than accusing someone of having done something. For example, even if a person is proven innocent of a crime, the mere allegation that you commited the crime hurts the accused by sullying their reputation. Some people woudl refuse to do business with the accused "just to be safe".
In the real world, free speech is balanced by responsibility.
Actually, I think Geist is a little off on this one: the two issues are ultimate the same issue.
Both deal with the obligations of an individual to respect the interests (if not legally the rights) of the rest of the world. Intellectual property is essentially the intellectual equivalent of pollution, a by-product of the creation of ideas that is frequently toxic to other ideas and inventions. Progress can't be made until the pollution has become less harmless.
Ok, that idea is a little out there, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
No, Berman and Braga (who had writing credits on most of the Enterprise episodes) have no clue what consistency means. Unless it's consistently stupid. They made a "new trek" that was exactly the same as the other shows, but worse. That show is still too painfully bad to watch. The only good episodes in the series were in the final season, but don't watch the series finale, it was written by Berman and Braga.
I've seen this argument enough now, to decide that the people who make it are either stupid or deliberately stupid. We all know the blu-ray drive is an essential part of their greater strategy. It's a "core feature" so to speak, you can't cut core features from a product. Rumble is not a core feature. It's being cut for 2 reasons, one it would cost more to create and test the controller with rumble and they'd have to pay Immersion a royalty for each controller. Combine with the fact that Immersion is far too cozy with Microsoft for Sony's liking and it's obvious optional feature to cut to keep the rest of the console price as low as possible. Plus it deprives Immersion of revenue Sony never wanted to pay them in the first place.
I'm sure Sony's developers know that most players like rumble, but it was considered an acceptable loss.
Immersion is being used as a cat's paw by Microsoft to attack a competitor. I think Sony doesn't trust a company that's already in bed with Microsoft to the point where they settled a court case with the provision that Microsoft would pay them exactly the same amount as they got from Sony in a court case.
I think Sony's executives are pissed and that the only reason they removed rumble.
Of course, theoretically, couldn't a third party developer release a controller with a rumble feature? Or does the console not even have the potential to transmit the rumble information?
I suspect that Sony doesn't specifically need a "Major Nelson" but rather that they need an "American Major Nelson". I think much of what Sony's talking heads say makes sense from a Japanese point of view while they just appear dumb from an American point of view. Sony says "It's not a game machine, it's an entertainment machine" and the American audience only hears "It's not a game machine".
I don't care about Gears of War, Bioshock or Forza Motorsport, FPS/Racing games are not my thing. I'm not partial to the look of Mass Effect I think the screenshots look bad, They seem very artifical and ugly. Blue Dragon might be interesting, but it's nothing that screams "must play" to me.
Frankly, I find "White Night" more impressive than any of those games.
Slashdot Mirror
1) It's true that both are "American Centrist" parties, but they do have differences.
2) Yes, gerrymandering is just another way to commit vote fraud, it is not a reason to ignore vote fraud. If you can't trust the vote count, then it doesn't matter whether other parties are allowed to run. Of course the reverse is true as well, that if no one else is allowed to run then the vote count doesn't really matter. All of these problems need to be fixed.
3) I seriously doubt you can pare down the government to the point where no one "unworthy" wants the job and you
A) Still have a country. The only truly Libertarian "countries" establish in the 20th century were invaded and annexed by their neighbours.
B) Still have a country worth living in. I find it hard to imagine how a truly Libertarian society would function. You tend to end up a corprotocracy where you're governed by an unelected corporation that has no legal requirement to care about your well being.
C) Blaming corruption on people who want a government to "solve their problems" is rather lame and ill-used strawman. It's just a reasonable to look at it as people who recognized that there were societal problems which can't effectively be addressed by individual action. I could just as easily categorize you as someone who "wants to screw everyone else for their own benefit".
D) It's not going to happen, anyway, so why don't you focus on goals that are actually acheivable?
To answer your question, in theory, yes. The complacency you display is a little disturbing. I mean shouldn't we care if one candidate cheats and wins. Is there a limit we can place and say as long as you didn't cheat this much, it's ok? Where would you draw the line? 10%? 20%? How much does a person have to cheat to qualify as problem in your opinion? Or do you only care if one side gets caught cheating?
We all know the potential consequences of loosing an election by a few hundred votes not counted. There are 650,000 dead Iraqis, 3,000 dead American soldiers and 21,000 greviously wounded American soldiers to remind us all.
Well with a patchwork process you would subvert the weakest systems, which would be implemented in states where you control the electoral system, and you'd make sure you controlled a few of the influential states where the swing votes are located and tampering is less likely to be obvious, like Ohio and Florida.
You never need to subvert the strongest systems, you just make sure you make sure they're never deployed in the locations you want to keep subverted. Of course, machine based fraud is only part of the way you can subvert the system, you can systematically make it take more time for people who aren't likely to vote for you, thus disinclining those people to vote. In a close election if you can force even 1% of the opposing side to leave the polling place without having voted, you might be able to swing the election. Of course, if you're clever you'll have multiple ways to give yourself multiple 1% advantages.
I don't think he meant collapse as in "no food would be available" but more collapse as in "Armerican farms would go bankrupt". Without trade barriers to protect American grown crops from foreign competitition, many food prices would drop substancially in the United States. That might actually be a good thing in some ways, unprocessed foods would probably drop the most. The down side, is that the United States would become dependent on foreign countries to feed it.
It probably depends on whether the game designer allowed key bindings or not. I know Champions of Norrath 2 on the PS2 allowed you to hook up any usb keyboard and use the text chat while playing online, but I don't know if you could actually control your character from the keyboard.
As for joysticks, I doubt any joystick would work, the signals have to be comprehensible to the PS3, but there are always 3rd party controllers available. I'm guessing that the old PS2 and PS1 controllers will work, but any tilt functionality obviously won't.
You just might need to invest in a better resume. Check with your local government/university for resume workshops, or do some online searching. You need a decent resume to get a job, most employers will receive enough resumes that a single mistake or a poor layout on your resume can disqualify you from the running. It's seen as careless with something that should be of utmost importance to you, and thus makes you appear to be lazy and incompetent before the interview. Most employers won't waste their time on that.
Make sure your synopsis/summary includes the phrase "lack of paper validation trail allows 100% of the tabulated votes to be arbitrarily changed at the push of a button".
Do you ever understand the origin of the word geek?
Sounds like they might have a mild case of Asperger's Syndrome.
You seem to be confusing intelligent and industrious. Intelligent people understand stuff, industrious people do stuff.
Success is not a measure of intelligence.
I suppose you could say that it was satire. However, I don't think so. What was the video satirizing?
North Korea may have developed a nuclear bomb, but it's 6 years after Bush became president and 14 years after the Republican took control of congress. So how is it the Democrats fault that North Korea may have developed a nuclear weapon? Essentially it's taking an incident of good manners (giving your host a gift), and using it without substantiation or corroboration to accuse the Democrats of working for terrorists.
Most importantly, this is Condaleezza Rice's watch not Madeline Albright's. If the video were critizing the current secretary of state rather than one from 6 years ago, it might actually have some relevance.
Combine that with the simple fact that the U.S. has more enemies now than it did 6 years ago, and you should be able to see that the facts actually contradict the assertions of the narrator. Add in the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and that his administration was specifically warned about al'Queda and still chose to lower their watchfulness and you might begin to see a pattern of hypocrisy forming. A pattern where all of the current administrations troubles are blamed on their predecessors even when they've had plenty of time to make their own personal impact.
Obviously, I found the video neither funny nor satirical, it's just a baseless accusation that says "North Korea has the bomb because Madeline Albright gave them a basketball six years ago". It doesn't even remotely make sense.
Those are two seperate incidents with two separate videos, moron. When you critize someone try to be right once in a while.
Oh wait, it's a different incident. Maybe you should try reading before you write.
These are Republicans, not conservatives. It's really not wise to confuse to the two. Republicans only believe in rights for Repbulicans. Anyone who's not Republican (or voting for them) should not be entitled to any rights, especially the right to vote.
You might think my comments are a little extreme, but here's a transcript from Politically Incorrect where Ann Coulter specifically states women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats.
That may just be the most reputable news source reporting on the incident. I just checked google news, there's only 7 articles on this, all from far right web sites.
Most likely, someone flagged it because it's essentially a political lie. There are lot of people who are more disturbed by slander than nudity.
You fail. He said "nothing is removed" without being reviewed first.
My anecdotal observation is that the people most cheesed off about intellectual property are primarily or entirely consumers of IP, and not producers. Nobody enjoys paying for things, but that's how the economy works.
Your anecdotal observation would likely be wrong. There is certainly a natural tendency for those who derive great riches from any system that creates pollution to dismiss the polution as a trivial byproduct. So you will almost always see the people who benefit from the systems that produce the pollution being relatively happy as long as they continue to earn their riches. The people you deride as entirely consumers of IP, are more than likely also the producers of IP, just nothing good enough to make them part of the cabal that reaps the rewards.
It's an interesting dichotomy, if you think about it. Anyone who likes it, is probably making money from it, anyone who doesn't probably doesn't make money from it. But that really doesn't apply to the question of whether "intellectual property" is good or bad.
You're just saying that because you're a pedophile.
Libel laws exist because proving you haven't done something is much, much harder than accusing someone of having done something. For example, even if a person is proven innocent of a crime, the mere allegation that you commited the crime hurts the accused by sullying their reputation. Some people woudl refuse to do business with the accused "just to be safe".
In the real world, free speech is balanced by responsibility.
Actually, I think Geist is a little off on this one: the two issues are ultimate the same issue.
Both deal with the obligations of an individual to respect the interests (if not legally the rights) of the rest of the world. Intellectual property is essentially the intellectual equivalent of pollution, a by-product of the creation of ideas that is frequently toxic to other ideas and inventions. Progress can't be made until the pollution has become less harmless.
Ok, that idea is a little out there, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
No, Berman and Braga (who had writing credits on most of the Enterprise episodes) have no clue what consistency means. Unless it's consistently stupid. They made a "new trek" that was exactly the same as the other shows, but worse. That show is still too painfully bad to watch. The only good episodes in the series were in the final season, but don't watch the series finale, it was written by Berman and Braga.
I've seen this argument enough now, to decide that the people who make it are either stupid or deliberately stupid. We all know the blu-ray drive is an essential part of their greater strategy. It's a "core feature" so to speak, you can't cut core features from a product. Rumble is not a core feature. It's being cut for 2 reasons, one it would cost more to create and test the controller with rumble and they'd have to pay Immersion a royalty for each controller. Combine with the fact that Immersion is far too cozy with Microsoft for Sony's liking and it's obvious optional feature to cut to keep the rest of the console price as low as possible. Plus it deprives Immersion of revenue Sony never wanted to pay them in the first place.
I'm sure Sony's developers know that most players like rumble, but it was considered an acceptable loss.
Immersion is being used as a cat's paw by Microsoft to attack a competitor. I think Sony doesn't trust a company that's already in bed with Microsoft to the point where they settled a court case with the provision that Microsoft would pay them exactly the same amount as they got from Sony in a court case.
I think Sony's executives are pissed and that the only reason they removed rumble.
Of course, theoretically, couldn't a third party developer release a controller with a rumble feature? Or does the console not even have the potential to transmit the rumble information?
I suspect that Sony doesn't specifically need a "Major Nelson" but rather that they need an "American Major Nelson". I think much of what Sony's talking heads say makes sense from a Japanese point of view while they just appear dumb from an American point of view. Sony says "It's not a game machine, it's an entertainment machine" and the American audience only hears "It's not a game machine".
I don't care about Gears of War, Bioshock or Forza Motorsport, FPS/Racing games are not my thing. I'm not partial to the look of Mass Effect I think the screenshots look bad, They seem very artifical and ugly. Blue Dragon might be interesting, but it's nothing that screams "must play" to me.
Frankly, I find "White Night" more impressive than any of those games.