Which is of course, radically different from the Slashdot "If you don't hate RFID then you're a government stooge" line of thinking.
You'd think by now that people would wake up, realize that RFID is not really much different from bar codes, and see right through this... but I guess there are a bunch of slow learners out there.
Magnetic induction? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
There's no physics difference between how passive RFID tags work and how the the coils you find in CDs work. If the signal being sent back is being modulated by the tag, then it's an RFID tag. Both UHF and HF RFID can work at tens of feet, under good conditions, but depending on the design of the tag and the reader, they can also be designed to only work at a few cm.
Maybe you should have sex in front of your kids. There are plenty of cultures where that's automatically a bad thing. Why must sex be a shameful, private thing?
My problem with the whole halftime show was that it was boring. The whole point of the show was to shock, or at least titillate. It did that by being an over-produced, plastic-seeming event showing skin, and bondage-style costumes, etc. I'm not shocked or excited by that -- I'm bored by it. I'm more interested in the commercials than the halftime show. It's not that I don't appreciate skin, but these shows are so carefully produced that they're just not interesting anymore. Besides, the superbowl is interesting to me because of the sport. What does that have to do with football? Nothing.
If the controversy resulted in these big halftime shows being cancelled, I'd be happy. On the other hand, if the controversy results in reinforcing puritanical views, I'd be annoyed.
The problem is that, for some reason, the culture in American news says that the reporter can't take a stand.
If politician A says "my opponent is going to raise your taxes", the reporter can't simply look up the information on politician B's web site, find out that his plan doesn't include a tax increase and report "politician A falsely claimed that politician B would raise taxes". Instead, they have to get a rebuttal quote from politician B saying "He's lying, I won't raise your taxes". And it simply becomes opinion A vs. opinion B.
The problem with that is that it allows someone to make ludicrous claims like "my opponent snacks on baby foetuses" and forces politician B to respond to it.
Even when the claim is absurd, the reporter isn't allowed to reach the obvious conclusion him/herself, they have to have an "expert" give them the quote they need.
Being a comedy show, the Daily Show doesn't have those constraints. When someone says something absurd, they can say "that's absurd" and show why it is, without having to pretend to not draw conclusions, etc.
Say Osama bin Laden is hated by all of the US, and a few hundred million people in other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care much either way because he's not targeting them. So that's about half a billion people that hate him. On the other hand, for much of the muslim world, he's a hero. Pakistan alone probably has at least 50 million people who love him.
Bush, on the other hand, has an influence on the entire globe, and had done a whole lot to get people to hate him everywhere. Remember the standoff with China in early 2001? The hatred isn't as universal as the hatred for bin Laden in the US, but even in countries which were once US allies, a lot of people hate Bush. Add to that the hundred million Americans who hate him, and I'm sure he takes the crown for the most hated person.
The very assumption that Osama bin Laden would be the most hated person in the world just betrays a very US-centric attitude, ignorant of the rest of the planet. It's about time American started realizing that the rest of the world doesn't see things the same way they do.
It's a major difference, if you say "inciteful" it sounds like you're saying that people thinks he incites something, say violence. In that case, people proabably don't like him. If you say "insightful" youre saying people think he's right and has great insight.
Most of your other spelling mistakes are minor, but there are times when spelling something right is very important to convey the right meaning.
A game titled "Madden NFL 2005" is coming to Palm OS and Pocket PC. It simply means they have the rights to that title. It's not like the game will be anything like what you can play on a game system or a PC.
I wish the manufacturers would admit this and call the game "Mobile Madden" or something.
Look. Watergate was a hotel. There's nothing about the suffix -gate that denotes a scandal, nor did the Watergate scandal involve "Water".
I know you didn't invent the term, but by using it you're giving it credibility. Can't you just call it the "Forged memos scandal"? Or if you really want to implicate Dan Rather, the "Dan Rather memos scandal"?
And at least according to the Cambridge dictionary series, they all can have the same pronunciation. Whether they do or not will vary from region to region, but that's another matter.
I wonder whether the weather is getting worse. <- Are those pronounced the same?
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, good luck passing the quiz, Chilean boy!
What, there's no quiz before you vote?
But then how do we know that American voters know about social boxes, or tart reforms or taxing flats?
What? Some of them don't?
Are you serious? Some of them think they do, because they watched Fox News?
And nobody checks that with some kind of quiz before they vote?
Hrm... maybe that Chilean farmer does know more about things than Americans do. Heck, I bet he knows more about immigration!
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Well, considering the president has to deal with "them", it is useful to know if they want to work with him.
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Are you sure?
Aside from the obvious examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a whole lot of Mexicans (in Mexico) who are affected by US policy than the average American.
I really doubt that. I've been on a plane when there's heavy turbulence and I felt like I was falling for about a second. Your body doesn't distinguish between "falling" and "floating". Eventually your brain can convince your body that it's not falling, but it sure isn't an instantaneous thing.
Banning the guns by name was meaningless. So are some of the restrictions, but what about these ones:
Folding/telescoping stock I'd imagine that it's harder to carry a rifle concealed if folding stocks are banned. How often do hunters or sport-shooters really need concealed weapons?
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon This is a hugely important distinction. It is generally easy to convert a semi-automatic weapon to become fully automatic. If a weapon was only ever designed to be semi-automatic, it may be very difficult to make it fully automatic.
Shotgun with fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds Unless you're using it as an "assault" weapon, do you really need more than 5 rounds in a shotgun?
It's true that the assault weapons ban is not a very well written or well designed law. It focuses way too much on little details which may be completely irrelevant. On the other hand, it is trying to address a real concern.
If it is illegal to own an automatic weapon, but it is easy to buy a semi-automatic weapon that's easy to modify, then it's easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.
The page you link to says this:
As an example, the AR-15 rifles above have five internal parts modified to make the rifle difficult to convert to full automatic. The parts are modified in such a way that even if the rifle is illegally modified to full automatic, the parts will hang up on each other and cause the rifle to jam. In addition, most civilian AR-15s contain extra metal on the inside to prevent addition of these parts (since removal of metal without destroying the receiver is very difficult). Possession of even one of these parts and an AR15 constitutes illegal possession of a machine gun under federal law and is subject to prosecution by the ATF under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Doesn't it make sense that it should always be that hard to convert a weapon to fully automatic?
Anyhow, if the assault weapons ban is so badly written, what alternative do you propose? No law at all? Or a better written law that targets assault weapons properly?
Right, and rather than give the inspectors time to find out what exactly Saddam was hiding, Bush decided to swing the stick.
Who knows if France and Germany would have ever agreed to attack, but their last position was "We should give the inspectors more time". It wasn't exactly an outrageous suggestion. Bush got impatient and decided that meeting a timeline he had created was more important than going in with allies, so he attacked.
But that share of the responsibility is lower, isn't it? If I hand someone a loaded gun and they decide to shoot someone, I'm partially responsible for their shooting. Even if I tell them "you can only use this as a last resort and only in self-defense, and you have to convince me that using it is necessary" (which Kerry did), you're still giving them a loaded weapon, and should be held responsible. The point is that the responsibility is shared, but not shared evenly.
Just by mentioning his name, do you know how low your credibility drops?
So you're saying that Kerry did think it was a good idea to fund the war properly? Gee, haven't the republicans been saying for weeks that Kerry didn't want to fund the war, and didn't want the soldiers to have body armour?
In August 2003, the war was in full-swing. Once the war has started I'm not at all surprised that Kerry would want to spend what it takes to keep the soldiers safe. Even a strongly anti-war person would have to be insane, stupid or cruel to vote to cut off funding once the war has started. They might argue that those funds be used to extract the troops as quickly as possible, but voting against funding them as much as necessary would mean abandoning them.
Funding a war that's already in progress is not the same as starting that war. If you think it is, well I guess you don't speak English.
You did make the mistake that authorizing the war and using that authorization were the same thing. They're not. To claim they were the same would be the same thing as claiming that handing someone a loaded gun is the same thing as shooting someone in the head.
While you may disagree with Kerry's position (and I happen to disagree with it too), there's a vast gulf of difference between saying "Ok, you can wage war, but only as a last resort under this limited set of conditions" and saying "Open fire". I happen to mostly agree with Badnarik's position, though I wouldn't describe him as an "anti-war" candidate -- just an "anti-this-war" candidate.
Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.
Brainwashed by the republicans, are you? He never said he supported the war. He said he voted to give the president the authority to go to war, and he would do it again. I know, it's really hard to pay attention to little details like that when there are all kinds of shiny things around, but it's important, so try. If you read the text of the law that Kerry voted for, it's very explicit. It doesn't say "We vote to attack Iraq", it puts conditions under which the President is given the authority to attack Iraq.
Some of the more illuminating bits of this law include:
...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;
...
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
...
(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
I don't believe in the process, nor do I believe that the process can be fixed by voting. I think that the only thing that could possibly fix the system is not voting. If enough people vote with their feet by not voting, then it will send a signal to the powers that be that people don't believe that the system can be fixed by voting.
I agree, for the process to change requires action. I think the first step in that action is to not vote. If you vote you endorse the broken system.
The winning candidate thinks nothing of non-voters when there are only a small handful of non-voters. When virtually nobody votes, the winning candidate would be an idiot not to worry. This time the people expressed their frustration by simply not voting. Next time, who knows what will happen.
If you believe in the system but don't like the candidates, vote. Vote for nothing, or for a third party candidate, or for yourself, or for mickey mouse. On the other hand, if you think the system is corrupt and can't be changed from the inside, don't vote. Tell people why you didn't vote, and let it be known that there are lots of people who refuse to take part in the broken system.
Yeah, everybody else is saying "Vote, even if you vote for yourself or for Mickey Mouse, it's voting that's important" or "if you don't vote, you don't have any right to complain."
That's all complete BS.
If you're watching a magician and you know how he does the trick, do you still have to play along?
If your complaint is that party A is ruining things, and that party B will fix things, by all means vote for party B. If you don't, you're a hypocrite for complaining. On the other hand, if you think that both party A and party B are wholly corrupt and that the system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one that works better, then you'd be a real hypocrite for taking part in such a broken system, wouldn't you?
"Yeah, I voted, and thereby endorsed the political system, but I didn't really mean that I thought that the system was good, or that party A was good."
If voter turnout is at 70% and party A gets 55% of the voters who turn out, then they're pretty comfortable with how things are running, and they'll continue their corrupt ways. On the other hand, if they get their 55% of the votes cast, but only 10% of the population votes, if they're smart they'll worry. That 90% of the population that didn't vote obviously cares about what's going on in their own lives. If they didn't vote, that means they don't think that voting will help them. If they're smart, party A will realize that people are losing faith in the system, and the system will have to be changed, otherwise people will find a new (probably violent) way of changing things.
Don't think that by non-voters don't send a message. That message may be misinterpreted, but it is a message nonetheless.
If you believe the system is broken, don't vote. If you think the system is broken and you vote, you have no right to complain. You're a hypocrite for endorsing a system you don't believe in.
Now if you're a moderator and your finger is twitching near "flamebait", or "troll", think about it. Will people disagree with the contents of this post? Sure. Is it likely to provoke a heated discussion? Sure. If after that you think that it is a malicious attempt to subvert the discussion, go ahead and mod it down. But don't do it just because you disagree. If you disagree, post, don't moderate.
First of all, if your spouse/roommate/etc asks you what you want, there's some chance you'll get it. Not so with voting. Secondly, it's not like it's an open question. It's more like "Which do you want for dinner, raw sewage or a block of wood?"
You make it sound like there are only two options, when in fact, there are 3. "Candidate A, and the system works.", "Candidate B, and the system works" or "Nobody at all, the system is broken". The only real way to show that the system is broken is to refuse to participate in the system.
If I voted, I would be a complete hyprocrite. I think the system is completely broken and tell everybody who asks about it. If I participated in a system I thought was corrupt and broken then complained that the system was broken, I'd be a hypocrite. The only thing that makes my complaining not hypocritical is that I don't participate in the broken system.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is of course, radically different from the Slashdot "If you don't hate RFID then you're a government stooge" line of thinking.
You'd think by now that people would wake up, realize that RFID is not really much different from bar codes, and see right through this... but I guess there are a bunch of slow learners out there.
Magnetic induction? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
There's no physics difference between how passive RFID tags work and how the the coils you find in CDs work. If the signal being sent back is being modulated by the tag, then it's an RFID tag. Both UHF and HF RFID can work at tens of feet, under good conditions, but depending on the design of the tag and the reader, they can also be designed to only work at a few cm.
Maybe you should have sex in front of your kids. There are plenty of cultures where that's automatically a bad thing. Why must sex be a shameful, private thing?
My problem with the whole halftime show was that it was boring. The whole point of the show was to shock, or at least titillate. It did that by being an over-produced, plastic-seeming event showing skin, and bondage-style costumes, etc. I'm not shocked or excited by that -- I'm bored by it. I'm more interested in the commercials than the halftime show. It's not that I don't appreciate skin, but these shows are so carefully produced that they're just not interesting anymore. Besides, the superbowl is interesting to me because of the sport. What does that have to do with football? Nothing.
If the controversy resulted in these big halftime shows being cancelled, I'd be happy. On the other hand, if the controversy results in reinforcing puritanical views, I'd be annoyed.
The problem is that, for some reason, the culture in American news says that the reporter can't take a stand.
If politician A says "my opponent is going to raise your taxes", the reporter can't simply look up the information on politician B's web site, find out that his plan doesn't include a tax increase and report "politician A falsely claimed that politician B would raise taxes". Instead, they have to get a rebuttal quote from politician B saying "He's lying, I won't raise your taxes". And it simply becomes opinion A vs. opinion B.
The problem with that is that it allows someone to make ludicrous claims like "my opponent snacks on baby foetuses" and forces politician B to respond to it.
Even when the claim is absurd, the reporter isn't allowed to reach the obvious conclusion him/herself, they have to have an "expert" give them the quote they need.
Being a comedy show, the Daily Show doesn't have those constraints. When someone says something absurd, they can say "that's absurd" and show why it is, without having to pretend to not draw conclusions, etc.
Seriously.
Say Osama bin Laden is hated by all of the US, and a few hundred million people in other countries like Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care much either way because he's not targeting them. So that's about half a billion people that hate him. On the other hand, for much of the muslim world, he's a hero. Pakistan alone probably has at least 50 million people who love him.
Bush, on the other hand, has an influence on the entire globe, and had done a whole lot to get people to hate him everywhere. Remember the standoff with China in early 2001? The hatred isn't as universal as the hatred for bin Laden in the US, but even in countries which were once US allies, a lot of people hate Bush. Add to that the hundred million Americans who hate him, and I'm sure he takes the crown for the most hated person.
The very assumption that Osama bin Laden would be the most hated person in the world just betrays a very US-centric attitude, ignorant of the rest of the planet. It's about time American started realizing that the rest of the world doesn't see things the same way they do.
It's a major difference, if you say "inciteful" it sounds like you're saying that people thinks he incites something, say violence. In that case, people proabably don't like him. If you say "insightful" youre saying people think he's right and has great insight.
Most of your other spelling mistakes are minor, but there are times when spelling something right is very important to convey the right meaning.
A game titled "Madden NFL 2005" is coming to Palm OS and Pocket PC. It simply means they have the rights to that title. It's not like the game will be anything like what you can play on a game system or a PC.
I wish the manufacturers would admit this and call the game "Mobile Madden" or something.
Look. Watergate was a hotel. There's nothing about the suffix -gate that denotes a scandal, nor did the Watergate scandal involve "Water".
I know you didn't invent the term, but by using it you're giving it credibility. Can't you just call it the "Forged memos scandal"? Or if you really want to implicate Dan Rather, the "Dan Rather memos scandal"?
And at least according to the Cambridge dictionary series, they all can have the same pronunciation. Whether they do or not will vary from region to region, but that's another matter.
I wonder whether the weather is getting worse. <- Are those pronounced the same?
Yeah, good luck passing the quiz, Chilean boy!
What, there's no quiz before you vote?
But then how do we know that American voters know about social boxes, or tart reforms or taxing flats?
What? Some of them don't?
Are you serious? Some of them think they do, because they watched Fox News?
And nobody checks that with some kind of quiz before they vote?
Hrm... maybe that Chilean farmer does know more about things than Americans do. Heck, I bet he knows more about immigration!
Well, considering the president has to deal with "them", it is useful to know if they want to work with him.
Are you sure?
Aside from the obvious examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a whole lot of Mexicans (in Mexico) who are affected by US policy than the average American.
It can be done. Sure, it's not the real TiVo service, but it's pretty good.
I really doubt that. I've been on a plane when there's heavy turbulence and I felt like I was falling for about a second. Your body doesn't distinguish between "falling" and "floating". Eventually your brain can convince your body that it's not falling, but it sure isn't an instantaneous thing.
Banning the guns by name was meaningless. So are some of the restrictions, but what about these ones:
It's true that the assault weapons ban is not a very well written or well designed law. It focuses way too much on little details which may be completely irrelevant. On the other hand, it is trying to address a real concern.
If it is illegal to own an automatic weapon, but it is easy to buy a semi-automatic weapon that's easy to modify, then it's easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.
The page you link to says this:
Doesn't it make sense that it should always be that hard to convert a weapon to fully automatic?
Anyhow, if the assault weapons ban is so badly written, what alternative do you propose? No law at all? Or a better written law that targets assault weapons properly?
Right, and rather than give the inspectors time to find out what exactly Saddam was hiding, Bush decided to swing the stick.
Who knows if France and Germany would have ever agreed to attack, but their last position was "We should give the inspectors more time". It wasn't exactly an outrageous suggestion. Bush got impatient and decided that meeting a timeline he had created was more important than going in with allies, so he attacked.
But that share of the responsibility is lower, isn't it? If I hand someone a loaded gun and they decide to shoot someone, I'm partially responsible for their shooting. Even if I tell them "you can only use this as a last resort and only in self-defense, and you have to convince me that using it is necessary" (which Kerry did), you're still giving them a loaded weapon, and should be held responsible. The point is that the responsibility is shared, but not shared evenly.
Just by mentioning his name, do you know how low your credibility drops?
So you're saying that Kerry did think it was a good idea to fund the war properly? Gee, haven't the republicans been saying for weeks that Kerry didn't want to fund the war, and didn't want the soldiers to have body armour?
In August 2003, the war was in full-swing. Once the war has started I'm not at all surprised that Kerry would want to spend what it takes to keep the soldiers safe. Even a strongly anti-war person would have to be insane, stupid or cruel to vote to cut off funding once the war has started. They might argue that those funds be used to extract the troops as quickly as possible, but voting against funding them as much as necessary would mean abandoning them.
Funding a war that's already in progress is not the same as starting that war. If you think it is, well I guess you don't speak English.
You did make the mistake that authorizing the war and using that authorization were the same thing. They're not. To claim they were the same would be the same thing as claiming that handing someone a loaded gun is the same thing as shooting someone in the head.
While you may disagree with Kerry's position (and I happen to disagree with it too), there's a vast gulf of difference between saying "Ok, you can wage war, but only as a last resort under this limited set of conditions" and saying "Open fire". I happen to mostly agree with Badnarik's position, though I wouldn't describe him as an "anti-war" candidate -- just an "anti-this-war" candidate.
He invented the Internet, and without that, where would we all be?
(More seriously, Yukihiro Matzumoto, _why_the_lucky_stiff_, and other Rubyists.)
Brainwashed by the republicans, are you? He never said he supported the war. He said he voted to give the president the authority to go to war, and he would do it again. I know, it's really hard to pay attention to little details like that when there are all kinds of shiny things around, but it's important, so try. If you read the text of the law that Kerry voted for, it's very explicit. It doesn't say "We vote to attack Iraq", it puts conditions under which the President is given the authority to attack Iraq.
Some of the more illuminating bits of this law include:
Oh, you mean how the US forbids people under 18 from voting, or how they won't allow illegal aliens to vote, or foreigners?
I don't believe in the process, nor do I believe that the process can be fixed by voting. I think that the only thing that could possibly fix the system is not voting. If enough people vote with their feet by not voting, then it will send a signal to the powers that be that people don't believe that the system can be fixed by voting.
I agree, for the process to change requires action. I think the first step in that action is to not vote. If you vote you endorse the broken system.
The winning candidate thinks nothing of non-voters when there are only a small handful of non-voters. When virtually nobody votes, the winning candidate would be an idiot not to worry. This time the people expressed their frustration by simply not voting. Next time, who knows what will happen.
If you believe in the system but don't like the candidates, vote. Vote for nothing, or for a third party candidate, or for yourself, or for mickey mouse. On the other hand, if you think the system is corrupt and can't be changed from the inside, don't vote. Tell people why you didn't vote, and let it be known that there are lots of people who refuse to take part in the broken system.
Yeah, everybody else is saying "Vote, even if you vote for yourself or for Mickey Mouse, it's voting that's important" or "if you don't vote, you don't have any right to complain."
That's all complete BS.
If you're watching a magician and you know how he does the trick, do you still have to play along?
If your complaint is that party A is ruining things, and that party B will fix things, by all means vote for party B. If you don't, you're a hypocrite for complaining. On the other hand, if you think that both party A and party B are wholly corrupt and that the system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one that works better, then you'd be a real hypocrite for taking part in such a broken system, wouldn't you?
"Yeah, I voted, and thereby endorsed the political system, but I didn't really mean that I thought that the system was good, or that party A was good."
If voter turnout is at 70% and party A gets 55% of the voters who turn out, then they're pretty comfortable with how things are running, and they'll continue their corrupt ways. On the other hand, if they get their 55% of the votes cast, but only 10% of the population votes, if they're smart they'll worry. That 90% of the population that didn't vote obviously cares about what's going on in their own lives. If they didn't vote, that means they don't think that voting will help them. If they're smart, party A will realize that people are losing faith in the system, and the system will have to be changed, otherwise people will find a new (probably violent) way of changing things.
Don't think that by non-voters don't send a message. That message may be misinterpreted, but it is a message nonetheless.
If you believe the system is broken, don't vote. If you think the system is broken and you vote, you have no right to complain. You're a hypocrite for endorsing a system you don't believe in.
Now if you're a moderator and your finger is twitching near "flamebait", or "troll", think about it. Will people disagree with the contents of this post? Sure. Is it likely to provoke a heated discussion? Sure. If after that you think that it is a malicious attempt to subvert the discussion, go ahead and mod it down. But don't do it just because you disagree. If you disagree, post, don't moderate.
First of all, if your spouse/roommate/etc asks you what you want, there's some chance you'll get it. Not so with voting. Secondly, it's not like it's an open question. It's more like "Which do you want for dinner, raw sewage or a block of wood?"
You make it sound like there are only two options, when in fact, there are 3. "Candidate A, and the system works.", "Candidate B, and the system works" or "Nobody at all, the system is broken". The only real way to show that the system is broken is to refuse to participate in the system.
If I voted, I would be a complete hyprocrite. I think the system is completely broken and tell everybody who asks about it. If I participated in a system I thought was corrupt and broken then complained that the system was broken, I'd be a hypocrite. The only thing that makes my complaining not hypocritical is that I don't participate in the broken system.