I vastly prefer the nested menus to the Metro "all apps" mess. It takes far too long to scan through the apps in the full screen in comparison.
In what way? Ok let's take a look at my start menu. One item is Cisco Packet tracer. Inside of that is Cisco Packet Tracer Help, Cisco Packet Tracer, Qt Linguist, Saves, Uninstall Cisco Packet Tracer. I think I've used all of one of those in my entire lifetime, yet there's an entire nested menu for all of the other crap I never touch. If I wanted to uninstall, I'd hit the programs and features applet, if I wanted help, I'd click the help menu while packet tracer is running (though I can't think of any time when those "help" files have ever been of any use.)
Let's keep looking, shall we? There's a hearthstone folder that just has hearthstone and nothing else in it. To launch hearthstone, I have to first open the hearthstone menu, as if there was something else I needed to run in there, only there isn't. Under Steam there's Steam and Steam Support Center.
I could go on for days. This entire thing is stupid. Sure, if you want the "all programs" nested menu, that's fine, but any nested folders beyond that is not only useless but also a waste of time. If the app is broken, do the right thing and fucking google it, not screw around with useless help files.
Android you effectively have exactly as I describe, only the icons are bigger relative to the screen size to accommodate touch.
Android has no way to browse documents or files, you can only see apps.
I use ES File Explorer. Before that there was Astro, which has been around since like forever. What the hell are you talking about?
IMO the start menu was long overdue for an overhaul. It's a big fucking mess of bested menus containing mostly stuff you'll never even use. Compare to say the android ui where you open your app drawer and everything relevant is sitting there waiting for you.
The problem is that metro is a shitty replacement. IMO the tiled interface is an ugly throwback to the Brady Bunch intro.
I think that statement is every bit as accurate for individual people as it is for all of the above groups you mentioned.
These groups are every bit as capable as being good or bad as individuals. That isn't being gullible, that is just reality. If you only choose to acknowledge the criminal element, then THAT truly is cynicism.
If you accept that one of them is just as likely to rip you off as they are to help you as your neighbor is, then you aren't being gullible, you're being reasonable.
If the study holds true, I'd consider changing your viewpoint. I've seen people with dementia, and I'd very much hate to be them.
Mean time mean's just that..."mean" aka statistical average. However it isn't an actually measured number. Some products, especially integrated circuits, have an MTBF of hundreds of years, yet the technology itself hasn't even been around long enough to establish that as an average.
On this same token, a common product walmart sells that is cheaper than the competition are Levi dress jeans. The wal-mart ones have a lower aesthetic value in that they are made from thinner material which "feels" cheaper. But in my experience they last just as long, and have the side benefit of being lighter and more forgiving to wear during hot summer days. Perhaps if you were to always be trawling through a jungle the other ones would have a reduced chance of tearing, but neither product is marketed for that kind of thing; that is, they are both marketed for business casual wear.
I don't own a curved TV, nor am I interested in defending the concept, but one thing I do notice with flat TVs is that even matte displays are prone to reflecting at least some fixed outside light source to the viewer. I can't help but wonder if a curved screen would reduce this.
I have a window that reflects off of a matte display and is annoyingly visible on the screen during the day. The only way to get rid of it is to either put a heavy blanket over it or to turn the tv in a very uncomfortable angle.
Or perhaps they're willing to give all of the above a chance first rather than outright assuming they're inherently up to no good at every possible turn.
This is quite false, and in many respects is a red herring.
The first problem with this argument is that there is no set time period for how much something will last. The second is that at the same time, marginal reductions in production cost don't necessarily equate to reduced durability. Generally when they refer to lower quality, at least in the case of Wal-Mart, they're referring to a substitute for a cheaper material in all or part of the product, which generally results in lower aesthetics and has nothing to do with durability.
Take for example, substituting leather for vinyl. Vinyl actually carries a few advantages over leather (for example, it is far more tolerant of getting wet, more tolerant of direct sunlight exposure, and less likely to crack or fade.) It also carries a few disadvantages in that it generally feels somehow rubbery/artificial and not as "soft," in addition to being more likely to cause you to sweat if it sits against your skin. The cheaper "quality" product will be made with vinyl rather than leather, but as for which one expires sooner depends on how the product ends up being used. In a more wet environment, the vinyl product is guaranteed to last longer.
Indeed, the defining characteristics of modern manufacturing are for cheaper products while having fewer defects. This is called Lean Principles. Arguably by cutting out some of the more expensive manufacturing processes, you also reduce the chances for error, simultaneously reducing cost as well as increasing quality. Historically (over the last 60 years) this argument has proven to be accurate. Yes there are some products that are so horribly built that they have poor endurance, however that has more to do with poor manufacturing techniques than cost of production. I've seen plenty of expensive products have the same characteristic, take for example the mac mini's which are often built from notoriously bad parts (meanwhile Apple fans tend to praise them anyways.)
Or drop them about 10 feet into a "pit" that is then sealed and has the air replaced with pure nitrogen. IMO a 10 foot drop is more painful than an injection (even if you control your landing) but not exactly hard for an executioner to stomach doing.
I'll repeat this sentiment. The FDA does some things right, but other things oh so wrong.
I'm actually living proof of what's wrong with the FDA. Currently my corneas are actively deteriorating due to a condition called keratoconus that eventually leads to total blindness. Eventually a cornea transplant is needed to correct it, which comes with a lot of downsides.
There however is a treatment available, called corneal crosslinking, which halts the progression of the disease in some 90% of patients, yet it isn't permitted in the US. Why? Because the FDA doesn't allow it. It's been done in Europe since 1998 though, and they still do it today. Supposedly it was going to finally get FDA approval this year as it had an action date of March 15th 2014, but the FDA declined it, and who knows when the hell it will ever be approved. Meanwhile there is no treatment for the disease whatsoever permitted in the US, and you can't do anything about it until after you've already gone blind.
Stars on Amazon were about the game experience. If a single player game requires servers to be always operational in order to play, and the servers are extremely unreliable, then you aren't going to have a very good game experience, assuming you even get one at all.
Not only that, but apparently the loot system was stupidly broken so that the drop rates were so low that in order to advance at all you had to buy gear from other people with real money. Which basically means that the 10 cent an hour gold farmers in wow took that game over so that they could sell loot, and lots of other players were either bots and/or didn't speak your language, assuming they speak at all. That's what you call a pay to win system, which is awful.
You forgot to mention the total crapfest that was Diablo 3...or so I've heard. One of very few AAA titles bad enough to manage to score only 2 out of 5 stars on Amazon.
The game hearthstone is fun, but I've already had a few arena matches (which you have to spend either gold or money on) bug out to where I was forced to lose. I even took screenshots and everything to show that the game and/or their servers were clearly at fault, yet they won't bother to refund my attempt.
(I asked them about it and gave them more detail in a trouble ticket, and they told me that they have a strict policy of never issuing in-game credits for any kind of issue at all, even when it is THEIR fault.)
"Do you really want us to have to blame you if there is another terrorist attack?" Scares the shit out of any politician.
Political squabbles aside, if Benghazi is any indication for how Washing treats information it receives about actual terror threats (as opposed to just imagined ones) then the NSA spying doesn't even serve its supposed purpose anyways. That is to say, they were well aware in advance that something was going to happen, and deliberately chose not to act on it. Meanwhile we have to have our domestic IT industry is being crushed (e.g. Cisco losing foreign customers) and businesses like Lavabit forced to close because we absolutely MUST have this spying program to gather information that we don't even bother to use correctly.
Ditto for the Boston bomber (another incident which we had intelligence on before the fact, but didn't act on, and we didn't even need a spying program to obtain this information.)
Though as a direct response to your question, if Benghazi is any indication, then instead of identifying incidents as a straight up terror attack for the politicians to be held accountable for, they'll simply find something innocuous to blame it on (in this case a poorly made movie that nobody gives a shit about.)
You're not really making a salient point. Your 5th bullet alone renders everything before it moot. As for your paragraph after that one, I often hear democrats complain that the GOP only has house majority due to gerrymandering. You can't have it both ways on this one. (Not that I care as I don't bother to vote. The whole system strikes me as pointless; basically it's a reality show drama where you choose the winner. Shockingly enough I'm registered to vote every year even though I deliberately avoid registering to vote.)
Also both parties make the same arguments about higher turnout being in their favor, and both of them are equally full of crap. Only two presidential elections since 1960 (when actual counts became reliable) didn't have record numbers of voters, which was Bush Sr's only term and Clinton's second term. As a percentage, in 2004 Bush Jr had the highest turnout percentage since 1968, which was also the year Nixon won his second term, and his has not been matched since (though there have been numerous times where turnout percentages were higher before him.)
I'm especially tired of hearing that argument, by the way, because it's one of the worst examples of how much our political system is best compared to NFL fans arguing about which team is better.
That's a nice logical-sounding rant and all, but at the end of the day you're telling me unions, corporations, and some very informed people spend billions of dollars every year without getting any return on their investment? Even though there is a giant mountain of evidence showing that lobbying has higher ROI than any other investment?
No amount of money could have convinced people to vote for Romney. He was a terrible, terrible candidate. But with ~$1B of negative ads, they probably dissuaded a lot of people from voting for Obama and many other Democrats (or made them less eager to do so). And you're ignoring the fact that Romney wouldn't have even been a contender if he didn't have vast financial support.
Ok look at what you just told me here. First you essentially deny that campaign contributors aren't getting a return on investment, and then you essentially say that ~1B of money towards negative adds was effectively wasted since there was no chance in him winning.
So clearly we need to revise the first amendment.
(Which by the way, you pulled that figure out of your ass; the amount spent on his campaign fell well short of that figure, it was actually Obama's camp that came close to that.)
Actually I've heard of one of these things happening before. A cousin of mine was carrying $5,000 in cash. They just flat out took it away, and demanded receipts showing that he legally earned that money. THAT is fucked up. Past pay stubs and crap like that don't work either; they work under the assumption that you spend every dime you get and never save anything, and if you didn't just recently make a big sale or something like that, your money is guilty until proven innocent (i.e. they automatically assume it's drug money.)
There are certain cases of eminent domain that I'll accept. For example, a while back the city wanted to reclaim some of the property that my dad's business was sitting on because they needed to make the road wider. They were paying less than what I think it was worth, but I could understand it because that road was tiny for how much traffic it carried. But outright taking your entire property and then giving you the finger...not just no, but hell no.
The problem with those surveys is they don't take into account at all the popular sentiment. Take for example the Wisconsin recall a few years back. I think the incumbent campaign outspent the competition, but in the broader scheme that isn't what won the election. What won the election was that the voters genuinely believed that the teachers unions had gotten out of hand, and they believed that Walker was doing the right thing (it wasn't just Republicans that voted for him, he was popular among some Democrats as well.) This is probably also why Walker was able to raise more funds.
If somebody believes in your cause, your campaign, your message, etc, they are far more likely to donate to your campaign. If they really have a vested interest in seeing you win, they'll jump aboard. Naturally, it follows that you'll likely be able to raise much more money. In the case of the politifact statistic, they don't take that into consideration at all. In the case of John Morse, he had huge financial backers from all over the country putting a ton of money towards getting him re-elected. The problem is, those people that contributed to his campaign can't vote for him (they aren't even in his state, let alone his district.) So, of course they lost.
Otherwise, do you think Obama couldn't have won those elections without outspending the competition in both elections? Recalling off of the top of my head, I think he spent some $200 million above and beyond what the Romney campaign spent.
Think about both the Wisconsin and Colorado recalls for a second though. If you hadn't heard of either of these events at the time they were going on, you had to have been living under a rock. I mean these were local issues that caught national media attention. What exactly is this campaign money buying, if not air time? Do you really think an informed voter couldn't have heard the political message from either side, and then researched the topic on their own? Of course they can, but most people won't bother. They also won't bother listening to that cold call either. Shockingly, most people will just vote however their friends tell them to vote, which goes back into the public sentiment part, so again the campaign dollars spent don't really mean shit unless the particular candidate is a complete unknown. If you really want to clean up elections, then stop telling people to get out to vote just for the sake of voting. It's my personal belief that you can do more damage by voting for somebody you don't know about than simply not voting at all.
I mean really this is just a big show starring ugly people This guy's reaction pretty much reminds me of how most people react when their favorite sports team loses the final game in the playoffs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Democracy has nothing to do with it, he's just upset because he had so much hope for his side winning, and they lost. Tough shit, get over yourself, move on, and in spite of his comments democracy is still the same as it ever has been.
I'm really shocked though that we're actually seriously considering eroding the first amendment over this petty bullshit. I mean fuck, what's next, we put a dollar cap on the amount of sports merchandising? This issue is every bit as meaningless.
That really depends on what city you live in. Besides, I wouldn't say required to be livable or sustainable; in some cases it is rather the opposite. In areas like where I live at, the population density is so low that mass transit is extremely impractical. Either there need to be a ton of stopping off points, or you would often have to walk quite a ways; in any scenario all of the mass transit options here require you spend a lot of time on your commute as it typically involves two hours worth of commute time each day if you take that option.
We're not New York City or Chicago. We don't have massive skyscrapers that tons of people can camp inside of all at once. You could never, EVER, have a subway run to every neighborhood in a practical manner, and in spite of there being no shortage of buses, bus schedules, or bus stops, the bus still takes a long fucking time to get anywhere. Meanwhile there's no shortage of parking. EVERYBODY has a car out here for this reason. The area I'm talking about is the greater Phoenix metro area.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Metro is pretty notorious for having shitty apps compared to...well...everything.
I vastly prefer the nested menus to the Metro "all apps" mess. It takes far too long to scan through the apps in the full screen in comparison.
In what way? Ok let's take a look at my start menu. One item is Cisco Packet tracer. Inside of that is Cisco Packet Tracer Help, Cisco Packet Tracer, Qt Linguist, Saves, Uninstall Cisco Packet Tracer. I think I've used all of one of those in my entire lifetime, yet there's an entire nested menu for all of the other crap I never touch. If I wanted to uninstall, I'd hit the programs and features applet, if I wanted help, I'd click the help menu while packet tracer is running (though I can't think of any time when those "help" files have ever been of any use.)
Let's keep looking, shall we? There's a hearthstone folder that just has hearthstone and nothing else in it. To launch hearthstone, I have to first open the hearthstone menu, as if there was something else I needed to run in there, only there isn't. Under Steam there's Steam and Steam Support Center.
I could go on for days. This entire thing is stupid. Sure, if you want the "all programs" nested menu, that's fine, but any nested folders beyond that is not only useless but also a waste of time. If the app is broken, do the right thing and fucking google it, not screw around with useless help files.
Android you effectively have exactly as I describe, only the icons are bigger relative to the screen size to accommodate touch.
Android has no way to browse documents or files, you can only see apps.
I use ES File Explorer. Before that there was Astro, which has been around since like forever. What the hell are you talking about?
Maybe, but Chromebook runs more than metro does. Much, much more.
s/bested/nested/
IMO the start menu was long overdue for an overhaul. It's a big fucking mess of bested menus containing mostly stuff you'll never even use. Compare to say the android ui where you open your app drawer and everything relevant is sitting there waiting for you.
The problem is that metro is a shitty replacement. IMO the tiled interface is an ugly throwback to the Brady Bunch intro.
On the contrary, having a view that the so called 1% are your enemies is not only cynical, it also means you're very greedy.
I think that statement is every bit as accurate for individual people as it is for all of the above groups you mentioned.
These groups are every bit as capable as being good or bad as individuals. That isn't being gullible, that is just reality. If you only choose to acknowledge the criminal element, then THAT truly is cynicism.
If you accept that one of them is just as likely to rip you off as they are to help you as your neighbor is, then you aren't being gullible, you're being reasonable.
If the study holds true, I'd consider changing your viewpoint. I've seen people with dementia, and I'd very much hate to be them.
Mean time mean's just that..."mean" aka statistical average. However it isn't an actually measured number. Some products, especially integrated circuits, have an MTBF of hundreds of years, yet the technology itself hasn't even been around long enough to establish that as an average.
On this same token, a common product walmart sells that is cheaper than the competition are Levi dress jeans. The wal-mart ones have a lower aesthetic value in that they are made from thinner material which "feels" cheaper. But in my experience they last just as long, and have the side benefit of being lighter and more forgiving to wear during hot summer days. Perhaps if you were to always be trawling through a jungle the other ones would have a reduced chance of tearing, but neither product is marketed for that kind of thing; that is, they are both marketed for business casual wear.
I don't own a curved TV, nor am I interested in defending the concept, but one thing I do notice with flat TVs is that even matte displays are prone to reflecting at least some fixed outside light source to the viewer. I can't help but wonder if a curved screen would reduce this.
I have a window that reflects off of a matte display and is annoyingly visible on the screen during the day. The only way to get rid of it is to either put a heavy blanket over it or to turn the tv in a very uncomfortable angle.
Or perhaps they're willing to give all of the above a chance first rather than outright assuming they're inherently up to no good at every possible turn.
This is quite false, and in many respects is a red herring.
The first problem with this argument is that there is no set time period for how much something will last. The second is that at the same time, marginal reductions in production cost don't necessarily equate to reduced durability. Generally when they refer to lower quality, at least in the case of Wal-Mart, they're referring to a substitute for a cheaper material in all or part of the product, which generally results in lower aesthetics and has nothing to do with durability.
Take for example, substituting leather for vinyl. Vinyl actually carries a few advantages over leather (for example, it is far more tolerant of getting wet, more tolerant of direct sunlight exposure, and less likely to crack or fade.) It also carries a few disadvantages in that it generally feels somehow rubbery/artificial and not as "soft," in addition to being more likely to cause you to sweat if it sits against your skin. The cheaper "quality" product will be made with vinyl rather than leather, but as for which one expires sooner depends on how the product ends up being used. In a more wet environment, the vinyl product is guaranteed to last longer.
Indeed, the defining characteristics of modern manufacturing are for cheaper products while having fewer defects. This is called Lean Principles. Arguably by cutting out some of the more expensive manufacturing processes, you also reduce the chances for error, simultaneously reducing cost as well as increasing quality. Historically (over the last 60 years) this argument has proven to be accurate. Yes there are some products that are so horribly built that they have poor endurance, however that has more to do with poor manufacturing techniques than cost of production. I've seen plenty of expensive products have the same characteristic, take for example the mac mini's which are often built from notoriously bad parts (meanwhile Apple fans tend to praise them anyways.)
Wouldn't that be "Sucks Cox"?
Or drop them about 10 feet into a "pit" that is then sealed and has the air replaced with pure nitrogen. IMO a 10 foot drop is more painful than an injection (even if you control your landing) but not exactly hard for an executioner to stomach doing.
Fuck the FDA.
I'll repeat this sentiment. The FDA does some things right, but other things oh so wrong.
I'm actually living proof of what's wrong with the FDA. Currently my corneas are actively deteriorating due to a condition called keratoconus that eventually leads to total blindness. Eventually a cornea transplant is needed to correct it, which comes with a lot of downsides.
There however is a treatment available, called corneal crosslinking, which halts the progression of the disease in some 90% of patients, yet it isn't permitted in the US. Why? Because the FDA doesn't allow it. It's been done in Europe since 1998 though, and they still do it today. Supposedly it was going to finally get FDA approval this year as it had an action date of March 15th 2014, but the FDA declined it, and who knows when the hell it will ever be approved. Meanwhile there is no treatment for the disease whatsoever permitted in the US, and you can't do anything about it until after you've already gone blind.
Stars on Amazon were about the game experience. If a single player game requires servers to be always operational in order to play, and the servers are extremely unreliable, then you aren't going to have a very good game experience, assuming you even get one at all.
Not only that, but apparently the loot system was stupidly broken so that the drop rates were so low that in order to advance at all you had to buy gear from other people with real money. Which basically means that the 10 cent an hour gold farmers in wow took that game over so that they could sell loot, and lots of other players were either bots and/or didn't speak your language, assuming they speak at all. That's what you call a pay to win system, which is awful.
You forgot to mention the total crapfest that was Diablo 3...or so I've heard. One of very few AAA titles bad enough to manage to score only 2 out of 5 stars on Amazon.
The game hearthstone is fun, but I've already had a few arena matches (which you have to spend either gold or money on) bug out to where I was forced to lose. I even took screenshots and everything to show that the game and/or their servers were clearly at fault, yet they won't bother to refund my attempt.
http://us.battle.net/hearthsto...
(I asked them about it and gave them more detail in a trouble ticket, and they told me that they have a strict policy of never issuing in-game credits for any kind of issue at all, even when it is THEIR fault.)
"Do you really want us to have to blame you if there is another terrorist attack?" Scares the shit out of any politician.
Political squabbles aside, if Benghazi is any indication for how Washing treats information it receives about actual terror threats (as opposed to just imagined ones) then the NSA spying doesn't even serve its supposed purpose anyways. That is to say, they were well aware in advance that something was going to happen, and deliberately chose not to act on it. Meanwhile we have to have our domestic IT industry is being crushed (e.g. Cisco losing foreign customers) and businesses like Lavabit forced to close because we absolutely MUST have this spying program to gather information that we don't even bother to use correctly.
Ditto for the Boston bomber (another incident which we had intelligence on before the fact, but didn't act on, and we didn't even need a spying program to obtain this information.)
Though as a direct response to your question, if Benghazi is any indication, then instead of identifying incidents as a straight up terror attack for the politicians to be held accountable for, they'll simply find something innocuous to blame it on (in this case a poorly made movie that nobody gives a shit about.)
Oops 1968 was Nixon's first term, actually.
You're not really making a salient point. Your 5th bullet alone renders everything before it moot. As for your paragraph after that one, I often hear democrats complain that the GOP only has house majority due to gerrymandering. You can't have it both ways on this one. (Not that I care as I don't bother to vote. The whole system strikes me as pointless; basically it's a reality show drama where you choose the winner. Shockingly enough I'm registered to vote every year even though I deliberately avoid registering to vote.)
Also both parties make the same arguments about higher turnout being in their favor, and both of them are equally full of crap. Only two presidential elections since 1960 (when actual counts became reliable) didn't have record numbers of voters, which was Bush Sr's only term and Clinton's second term. As a percentage, in 2004 Bush Jr had the highest turnout percentage since 1968, which was also the year Nixon won his second term, and his has not been matched since (though there have been numerous times where turnout percentages were higher before him.)
I'm especially tired of hearing that argument, by the way, because it's one of the worst examples of how much our political system is best compared to NFL fans arguing about which team is better.
That's a nice logical-sounding rant and all, but at the end of the day you're telling me unions, corporations, and some very informed people spend billions of dollars every year without getting any return on their investment? Even though there is a giant mountain of evidence showing that lobbying has higher ROI than any other investment?
No amount of money could have convinced people to vote for Romney. He was a terrible, terrible candidate. But with ~$1B of negative ads, they probably dissuaded a lot of people from voting for Obama and many other Democrats (or made them less eager to do so). And you're ignoring the fact that Romney wouldn't have even been a contender if he didn't have vast financial support.
Ok look at what you just told me here. First you essentially deny that campaign contributors aren't getting a return on investment, and then you essentially say that ~1B of money towards negative adds was effectively wasted since there was no chance in him winning.
So clearly we need to revise the first amendment.
(Which by the way, you pulled that figure out of your ass; the amount spent on his campaign fell well short of that figure, it was actually Obama's camp that came close to that.)
Sorry editing mistake, the police somehow saw him carrying that much money and took it.
Actually I've heard of one of these things happening before. A cousin of mine was carrying $5,000 in cash. They just flat out took it away, and demanded receipts showing that he legally earned that money. THAT is fucked up. Past pay stubs and crap like that don't work either; they work under the assumption that you spend every dime you get and never save anything, and if you didn't just recently make a big sale or something like that, your money is guilty until proven innocent (i.e. they automatically assume it's drug money.)
There are certain cases of eminent domain that I'll accept. For example, a while back the city wanted to reclaim some of the property that my dad's business was sitting on because they needed to make the road wider. They were paying less than what I think it was worth, but I could understand it because that road was tiny for how much traffic it carried. But outright taking your entire property and then giving you the finger...not just no, but hell no.
The problem with those surveys is they don't take into account at all the popular sentiment. Take for example the Wisconsin recall a few years back. I think the incumbent campaign outspent the competition, but in the broader scheme that isn't what won the election. What won the election was that the voters genuinely believed that the teachers unions had gotten out of hand, and they believed that Walker was doing the right thing (it wasn't just Republicans that voted for him, he was popular among some Democrats as well.) This is probably also why Walker was able to raise more funds.
If somebody believes in your cause, your campaign, your message, etc, they are far more likely to donate to your campaign. If they really have a vested interest in seeing you win, they'll jump aboard. Naturally, it follows that you'll likely be able to raise much more money. In the case of the politifact statistic, they don't take that into consideration at all. In the case of John Morse, he had huge financial backers from all over the country putting a ton of money towards getting him re-elected. The problem is, those people that contributed to his campaign can't vote for him (they aren't even in his state, let alone his district.) So, of course they lost.
Otherwise, do you think Obama couldn't have won those elections without outspending the competition in both elections? Recalling off of the top of my head, I think he spent some $200 million above and beyond what the Romney campaign spent.
Think about both the Wisconsin and Colorado recalls for a second though. If you hadn't heard of either of these events at the time they were going on, you had to have been living under a rock. I mean these were local issues that caught national media attention. What exactly is this campaign money buying, if not air time? Do you really think an informed voter couldn't have heard the political message from either side, and then researched the topic on their own? Of course they can, but most people won't bother. They also won't bother listening to that cold call either. Shockingly, most people will just vote however their friends tell them to vote, which goes back into the public sentiment part, so again the campaign dollars spent don't really mean shit unless the particular candidate is a complete unknown. If you really want to clean up elections, then stop telling people to get out to vote just for the sake of voting. It's my personal belief that you can do more damage by voting for somebody you don't know about than simply not voting at all.
I mean really this is just a big show starring ugly people This guy's reaction pretty much reminds me of how most people react when their favorite sports team loses the final game in the playoffs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Democracy has nothing to do with it, he's just upset because he had so much hope for his side winning, and they lost. Tough shit, get over yourself, move on, and in spite of his comments democracy is still the same as it ever has been.
I'm really shocked though that we're actually seriously considering eroding the first amendment over this petty bullshit. I mean fuck, what's next, we put a dollar cap on the amount of sports merchandising? This issue is every bit as meaningless.
That really depends on what city you live in. Besides, I wouldn't say required to be livable or sustainable; in some cases it is rather the opposite. In areas like where I live at, the population density is so low that mass transit is extremely impractical. Either there need to be a ton of stopping off points, or you would often have to walk quite a ways; in any scenario all of the mass transit options here require you spend a lot of time on your commute as it typically involves two hours worth of commute time each day if you take that option.
We're not New York City or Chicago. We don't have massive skyscrapers that tons of people can camp inside of all at once. You could never, EVER, have a subway run to every neighborhood in a practical manner, and in spite of there being no shortage of buses, bus schedules, or bus stops, the bus still takes a long fucking time to get anywhere. Meanwhile there's no shortage of parking. EVERYBODY has a car out here for this reason. The area I'm talking about is the greater Phoenix metro area.