I see. So the Nazi Party, and the "Keg Party" would get the same funding as the Democrats and Republicans. We would soon have ten thousand political parties.
We have something vaguely similar here and it's based on votes from the previous election. If you get minimum 2% (?) of the vote you get access to public election funding in the next election, above another threshold you get included in debates etc. Don't quote me on this, but there is some system which classifies who the "opposition" are (2nd place from the last election), who the minor parties are (minimum vote requirement) and who the fringe parties are (the rabble). This way valid opposition can get access funding and a voice, which is the whole point of a democracy yeah?
Americans are very wealthy, but that doesn't mean they "focus on wealth as a measure of success". In fact, the opposite is the case: Americans are fairly non-materialistic in comparison to the rest of the world, including Europeans.
This is the country that gave us Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Real Housewives right? I appreciate not all of America is Hollywood and Manhattan, but you are joking if you don't think the US has the most materialistic people on the planet amongst it population.
The kind of European bigotry, ignorance, and chauvinism you display doesn't keep Greece in the EU and doesn't get down Spanish youth unemployment. Europe has severe economic and social problems that no pissing contest with the US will fix.
You seem to be confusing the EU with the continent. You've also assumed that I'm somehow European which is also a common error amongst Americans. Poor geographic knowledge is common in your country, probably due to your second rate education system which Europeans definitely don't want.
I'm guessing the irony of your bigot, ignorance and chauvinism comment is lost on you...
Am I arguing with a 16 year old? This is the kind of answer I would expect someone to write that has no past life experience or has no clue about engineering and more specifically mechanical engineering. Do you have any idea of the cost implications? Are we building an airplane here? Just like current vehicles there is a certain amount of risk that the general population accepts to keep things affordable.
You don't have to tell me, I think personally-owned robot cars will never be mainstream due to cost/complexity. I playing devil's advocate based on a hypothetical, fully automated car. In that scenario, the user liability is almost zero, and the manufacturer will bear most of the risk, unlike right now.
In one example the classification board prevents distribution (product is still accessible on black market)
In the other the Channel Manager of the distribution company prevents distribution (product is still accessible on the black market).
Same, same. Someone somewhere has an opinion which affects the availability of a product. In the case of a distributor it is worse because a large distributor can own the rights to distribution from a studio, thereby guaranteeing your product never sees the light of day. With public classification, you can always appeal your case, or tweak it slightly to get it approved.
Before bitching about someone not "pointing out the holes in the logic" - you need to to be able to discern those holes.
I just did. Please reference data that shows women across the board getting paid less than a man for the same jobs with the same responsibilities, with the same level of experience?
Most serious research on this takes into account equal pay/time/degree/responsibility/job level/etc... So it's not like they're comparing women on a 4/5th or part-time schedule earning less than men on a full schedule for the same job.
Citation? I'm not picking a fight, I am genuinely interested in where these numbers come from because I can't find anything reliable.
Which part of the constitution forbids restrictions? Some restrictions are already are already in place (ie you can't go pay cash for a mini-gun today and walk out of the store with it). Or is that restriction unconstitutional too?
Interesting comment. I distinctly remember the year 2000, the Y2K hype, my town had the Olympics, I got engaged, the worse political event in a decade was a blow job. I still recall thinking, this is the future, the 21st will be prosperity for all.
Then 9/11 happened, and the opportunity of a lifetime to promote western values over superstitious mumbo jumbo was squandered by the worst political leader in living memory. 14 years on we are still living in the shadow of those decisions and will continue to count the cost for at least another decade. Yes I blame Bush for this. History will indeed judge him, and it won't be kind.
Newer versions don't provide much additional usability and make certain things more difficult such as removing the ability to select chart curves directly from the legend. Why??
Because for those people that need those new features, they are invaluable (note I don't use any of those features myself, but having been a part of a few migrations, with proper training courses for users, the end result was always positive). The people who complain tend to be the ones forced to figure it out themselves and so are frustrated with that, rather than the actual product.
I swear the similarities between modern feminism and the Satanism scare of the 80s are becoming increasingly uncomfortable.
I've noticed this but not sure what kicked it off. I remember feminism in the 70's and early 80's, then it all seemed to go away. Then some time about 5 years ago it came back with a vengeance. Every day is some man hate article in the local rag, and there's never any counter argument exposing the holes in the logic (ie women on average earn less, because women on average choose lower paying careers AND take more time off, not because they are paid less for identical jobs).
Women get raped, but so do men. Women get breast cancer, but more men die from prostate cancer. Pornography is anti-women, even gay porn etc...
I have daughters. I work in IT. I have tried all sorts of shit to get them into it and give them an unfair advantage in life but there's precisely zero interest in it whatsoever. All they want to do is gymnastics and dancing, they love that stuff and spend every waking hour doing it. One day they will grow up and probably have average jobs earning mediocre wages while my mate's son, who absolutely loves anything technical and is years ahead of every other kid his age, is earning huge dollars in some technology field. In 15 years some feminist somewhere will compare their wages and blame misogynist men for all of that.
Taylor Swift has somewhat of a prodigious talent for song writing and a knack for business. Not through money, but her personal talent. Just because you have a problem with her rare ability to pen a catchy pop song which made her rich, or don't personally like her music, you somehow think she doesn't deserve her success and should give all that money back?
According to your logic people can only be rich if you work hard for decades? How many decades? Is 2 enough, or does it have to be 4? Or 6? What is the exact requirement of decades before someone earns their rewards in your world?
You throw that out there as if that somehow makes it less of an accomplishment? Everyone in her industry is out to fleece her and she's still coming out on top. Just hiring someone doesn't make it any easier, because now you have to manage those people and make sure they're not fleecing you, selling you short, or doing dodgy deals on your behalf to shaft you.
Dude, she's a young girl singing about boyfriends, what the fuck do you think she should be singing about? Climate Change or the Asian Century?
If you looking for a role model of Women's suffrage, maybe look a little further afield than the Top 40 charts...
I don't get why people hate Taylor Swift so much. I'm from a heavy metal background so not into pop music, but out of all the bubblegum trash on the radio she stands out as a star to me. Her songs are catchy and original (for that genre), she writes them herself, and as you say doesn't have to resort to cheapening herself like so many of her peers to stay in the public eye. And based on this she has a brain on her too. We'll never get rid of pop music, so I'd much rather 10 more Taylor Swifts than any more Beyonce, Katy, Iggy, Aria, Nicky clones...
It used to be that no classification of R18 existed for games. So an R18 game like GTA got "refused classification" since it couldn't be given any of the existing lower classifications (MA15 was the highest). There was an interesting political story behind this, since a change in classification rules required unanimous agreement from all 6 states, one State's Attorney General simply refused to discuss the matter saying he didn't want it. The entire country had to wait for him to finally retire before the new classification was introduced immediately after he left office.
"People don't want to buy this game" is not the same as censorship.
It's the same end result. I used to work for a game distributor, and just like every other distributor in every other industry, there are channel managers who decide what products they think are worth trying to distribute. If your product comes across as unmarketable, then your game was effectively "un-buyable". Obviously this is no longer true in the age of the Internet, but the same goes for government censorship attempts.
Hhhmmm. Combined grammatical use of z in "citizen", the s in "legalisation", and the g in whinge.
I discern from these clues you are a careless, yet educated Brit with a stunted ability to appreciate any humor near the self-deprecation side of the scale.
You're discerning powers are as useless as your ability to argue logically...
Did you even read those links you posted? Yes the US does well compared to China, Saudi Arabia and Mongolia, but my point was that the US is the #1 in terms of wealth globally, but compared to similar economies (ie Western Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ) they never seem to rank as high.) Your own references even confirm this.
And comparing the US as a whole against individual EU member nations makes little sense either.
So directly comparing one country against another is not fair? Good luck with that argument...
Slashdot Mirror
equally to all candidates
I see. So the Nazi Party, and the "Keg Party" would get the same funding as the Democrats and Republicans. We would soon have ten thousand political parties.
We have something vaguely similar here and it's based on votes from the previous election. If you get minimum 2% (?) of the vote you get access to public election funding in the next election, above another threshold you get included in debates etc. Don't quote me on this, but there is some system which classifies who the "opposition" are (2nd place from the last election), who the minor parties are (minimum vote requirement) and who the fringe parties are (the rabble). This way valid opposition can get access funding and a voice, which is the whole point of a democracy yeah?
Americans are very wealthy, but that doesn't mean they "focus on wealth as a measure of success". In fact, the opposite is the case: Americans are fairly non-materialistic in comparison to the rest of the world, including Europeans.
This is the country that gave us Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Real Housewives right? I appreciate not all of America is Hollywood and Manhattan, but you are joking if you don't think the US has the most materialistic people on the planet amongst it population.
The kind of European bigotry, ignorance, and chauvinism you display doesn't keep Greece in the EU and doesn't get down Spanish youth unemployment. Europe has severe economic and social problems that no pissing contest with the US will fix.
You seem to be confusing the EU with the continent.
You've also assumed that I'm somehow European which is also a common error amongst Americans. Poor geographic knowledge is common in your country, probably due to your second rate education system which Europeans definitely don't want.
I'm guessing the irony of your bigot, ignorance and chauvinism comment is lost on you...
Am I arguing with a 16 year old? This is the kind of answer I would expect someone to write that has no past life experience or has no clue about engineering and more specifically mechanical engineering. Do you have any idea of the cost implications? Are we building an airplane here? Just like current vehicles there is a certain amount of risk that the general population accepts to keep things affordable.
You don't have to tell me, I think personally-owned robot cars will never be mainstream due to cost/complexity. I playing devil's advocate based on a hypothetical, fully automated car. In that scenario, the user liability is almost zero, and the manufacturer will bear most of the risk, unlike right now.
In one example the classification board prevents distribution (product is still accessible on black market)
In the other the Channel Manager of the distribution company prevents distribution (product is still accessible on the black market).
Same, same. Someone somewhere has an opinion which affects the availability of a product. In the case of a distributor it is worse because a large distributor can own the rights to distribution from a studio, thereby guaranteeing your product never sees the light of day. With public classification, you can always appeal your case, or tweak it slightly to get it approved.
Before bitching about someone not "pointing out the holes in the logic" - you need to to be able to discern those holes.
I just did. Please reference data that shows women across the board getting paid less than a man for the same jobs with the same responsibilities, with the same level of experience?
Not for its intended purpose from the sounds of it.
Most serious research on this takes into account equal pay/time/degree/responsibility/job level/etc... So it's not like they're comparing women on a 4/5th or part-time schedule earning less than men on a full schedule for the same job.
Citation? I'm not picking a fight, I am genuinely interested in where these numbers come from because I can't find anything reliable.
Which part of the constitution forbids restrictions? Some restrictions are already are already in place (ie you can't go pay cash for a mini-gun today and walk out of the store with it). Or is that restriction unconstitutional too?
Interesting comment. I distinctly remember the year 2000, the Y2K hype, my town had the Olympics, I got engaged, the worse political event in a decade was a blow job. I still recall thinking, this is the future, the 21st will be prosperity for all.
Then 9/11 happened, and the opportunity of a lifetime to promote western values over superstitious mumbo jumbo was squandered by the worst political leader in living memory. 14 years on we are still living in the shadow of those decisions and will continue to count the cost for at least another decade. Yes I blame Bush for this. History will indeed judge him, and it won't be kind.
You'll never believe what this Government did next!
10 secrets the Military don't want you to know!
This one simple trick made $9 Million!
It's not funny, it's sad.
Newer versions don't provide much additional usability and make certain things more difficult such as removing the ability to select chart curves directly from the legend. Why??
Because for those people that need those new features, they are invaluable (note I don't use any of those features myself, but having been a part of a few migrations, with proper training courses for users, the end result was always positive). The people who complain tend to be the ones forced to figure it out themselves and so are frustrated with that, rather than the actual product.
I swear the similarities between modern feminism and the Satanism scare of the 80s are becoming increasingly uncomfortable.
I've noticed this but not sure what kicked it off. I remember feminism in the 70's and early 80's, then it all seemed to go away. Then some time about 5 years ago it came back with a vengeance. Every day is some man hate article in the local rag, and there's never any counter argument exposing the holes in the logic (ie women on average earn less, because women on average choose lower paying careers AND take more time off, not because they are paid less for identical jobs).
Women get raped, but so do men. Women get breast cancer, but more men die from prostate cancer. Pornography is anti-women, even gay porn etc...
I have daughters. I work in IT. I have tried all sorts of shit to get them into it and give them an unfair advantage in life but there's precisely zero interest in it whatsoever. All they want to do is gymnastics and dancing, they love that stuff and spend every waking hour doing it. One day they will grow up and probably have average jobs earning mediocre wages while my mate's son, who absolutely loves anything technical and is years ahead of every other kid his age, is earning huge dollars in some technology field. In 15 years some feminist somewhere will compare their wages and blame misogynist men for all of that.
Ms. Swift has a ticket for Ship B.
Taylor Swift has somewhat of a prodigious talent for song writing and a knack for business. Not through money, but her personal talent. Just because you have a problem with her rare ability to pen a catchy pop song which made her rich, or don't personally like her music, you somehow think she doesn't deserve her success and should give all that money back? According to your logic people can only be rich if you work hard for decades? How many decades? Is 2 enough, or does it have to be 4? Or 6? What is the exact requirement of decades before someone earns their rewards in your world?
She'd hire people to do it for her.
You throw that out there as if that somehow makes it less of an accomplishment? Everyone in her industry is out to fleece her and she's still coming out on top. Just hiring someone doesn't make it any easier, because now you have to manage those people and make sure they're not fleecing you, selling you short, or doing dodgy deals on your behalf to shaft you.
Vocal range may not be the only indication of a talented singer, but someone with a very narrow range doesn't seem to me like a 'top shelf' performer.
The entire catalog of Rock Music history consists of 3 chords. The Arts have always been about expression over technical superiority.
Dude, she's a young girl singing about boyfriends, what the fuck do you think she should be singing about? Climate Change or the Asian Century? If you looking for a role model of Women's suffrage, maybe look a little further afield than the Top 40 charts...
I don't get why people hate Taylor Swift so much. I'm from a heavy metal background so not into pop music, but out of all the bubblegum trash on the radio she stands out as a star to me. Her songs are catchy and original (for that genre), she writes them herself, and as you say doesn't have to resort to cheapening herself like so many of her peers to stay in the public eye. And based on this she has a brain on her too. We'll never get rid of pop music, so I'd much rather 10 more Taylor Swifts than any more Beyonce, Katy, Iggy, Aria, Nicky clones...
I am letting everyone know that I have been tested this on a Pc at work and on a VM in my virtual lab.
Most likely user error. Don't quit your day job...
It used to be that no classification of R18 existed for games. So an R18 game like GTA got "refused classification" since it couldn't be given any of the existing lower classifications (MA15 was the highest). There was an interesting political story behind this, since a change in classification rules required unanimous agreement from all 6 states, one State's Attorney General simply refused to discuss the matter saying he didn't want it. The entire country had to wait for him to finally retire before the new classification was introduced immediately after he left office.
"People don't want to buy this game" is not the same as censorship.
It's the same end result. I used to work for a game distributor, and just like every other distributor in every other industry, there are channel managers who decide what products they think are worth trying to distribute. If your product comes across as unmarketable, then your game was effectively "un-buyable". Obviously this is no longer true in the age of the Internet, but the same goes for government censorship attempts.
Why does it even matter?
Because it is fraud.
It's a lot worse than that
I presume you are in the UK.
Why would you do that?
Hhhmmm. Combined grammatical use of z in "citizen", the s in "legalisation", and the g in whinge.
I discern from these clues you are a careless, yet educated Brit with a stunted ability to appreciate any humor near the self-deprecation side of the scale.
You're discerning powers are as useless as your ability to argue logically...
And comparing the US as a whole against individual EU member nations makes little sense either.
So directly comparing one country against another is not fair? Good luck with that argument...