It's not direct. You have to vote strategically, not vote for the party you actually want to win. If you prefer a 3rd party, but dislike a main party, then you have to vote for the other main party.
It's funny how you mention cost given that the US elections have no cap on the money that they can spend, and as a result spend many many times (proportionally for size) what they do in the UK where we do have a cap. (Same with many other eu countries.)
Also it's broken where you really dislike one party, and so you have no choice but to vote for the other party. In a multi-party system you would still have some choice.
It's also broken (although it could debatabled otherwise) where even if the country is divided 50/50, the party that wins gets a lot more power than the party that lost. As opposed to proportional representation which seems a lot fairer. (e.g. Germany iirc).
Sure Clinton and Carter are different - so why can't you have a system where you could chose between them, instead of having the parties try to guess what choice you want?
You argue that people would be too lazy to look at more than 2 candidates, but it works pretty well in other countries. What would be different in the US?
You forgot to mention that he's spent a fortune on installing solar panels etc on his house, and that even though he uses a lot of electricity, almost all of it will supplied by himself.
It's a broken voting system that leads to the two party system. there are much better voting systems. look at most countries in west europe, or even look at how debian votes.
The channel tunnel easily pays for itself in terms of what they spent on it compared to its income. The problem is the high interest rates on the loan.
If the government had paid for the project itself, then it would have been classed a huge success
I've helped in irc forums long enough to know that a lot of the time when people ask questions like that, going back to the roots of the problem is sometimes better than directly answering their question.
He's not exactly interested in embedding office components, but rather he's got some specific problem that he wants to solve, and embedding office components was the solution that he knows of. It's a subtle difference, but often by going back to the original problem that he's trying to solve a better or different solution can be found - e.g. by using pdf or converting to html instead.
The embrace-extend tactic usually refers to when MS embraces some technology/standard then extends it to break it for everyone else. e.g. kerberos, tcp/ip (evil 'extensions' in IIS), html, and so on.
I'm 'suggesting' that Microsoft uses immoral tactics.
The rest of your points are just overblown and silly. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft and their tactics, but saying that everyone in the community hates them is too strong. Same thing for the rest of your post.
What actually happens is when a piece of PC hardware is changed/created, the hardware manufacturer writes only windows drivers for it that mostly follow the specs, but also contain various workarounds for the bugs/mistakes that they introduced. It's then in MS's favour to then still allow that hardware to be classed as 'ready for Vista' despite not adhering to the various open standards/specs, since it will make Linux's work more trouble.
And yeah Microsoft does have various conspiracies against linux. See the recent news on Bill Gates asking how to make an open ACPI spec that would be difficult for linux to implement.
The freedom to be able to live? Post WW1 Germany was in a horrible state because the allies punished them far more than they should. If it wasn't for Hitler, it would have just been someone else.
A couple of months ago I was with my wife and this obnoxious 16 year old girl had her music on full playing the same song over and over for several hours on the bus. I went up to her and told her to cut that out, which of course she didn't.
I got off the bus and she did as well and punched me from behind. I punched her straight back and made her head bleed. Then some group of her friends came out and tried to give me a beating. I got away, but my wife is now too scared to leave the house alone and so on.
The sad thing is that I've now learnt my lesson to not intervene. It's just not worth the stress on my wife. Despite that I feel that I should for social reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm the author of the kde task manager thing. It would be interesting to add a view for I/O. If you find out how to do it code wise, let me know :-)
I see your point, but:
It's not direct. You have to vote strategically, not vote for the party you actually want to win. If you prefer a 3rd party, but dislike a main party, then you have to vote for the other main party.
It's funny how you mention cost given that the US elections have no cap on the money that they can spend, and as a result spend many many times (proportionally for size) what they do in the UK where we do have a cap. (Same with many other eu countries.)
Also it's broken where you really dislike one party, and so you have no choice but to vote for the other party. In a multi-party system you would still have some choice.
It's also broken (although it could debatabled otherwise) where even if the country is divided 50/50, the party that wins gets a lot more power than the party that lost. As opposed to proportional representation which seems a lot fairer. (e.g. Germany iirc).
Sure Clinton and Carter are different - so why can't you have a system where you could chose between them, instead of having the parties try to guess what choice you want?
You argue that people would be too lazy to look at more than 2 candidates, but it works pretty well in other countries. What would be different in the US?
You forgot to mention that he's spent a fortune on installing solar panels etc on his house, and that even though he uses a lot of electricity, almost all of it will supplied by himself.
what have you done to help the environment?
It's a broken voting system that leads to the two party system. there are much better voting systems. look at most countries in west europe, or even look at how debian votes.
Oh, well.. if it's to make money then I guess that makes everything alright.
Jeez, if you work for a company then you _are_ supporting its tactics.
The channel tunnel easily pays for itself in terms of what they spent on it compared to its income. The problem is the high interest rates on the loan.
If the government had paid for the project itself, then it would have been classed a huge success
I've helped in irc forums long enough to know that a lot of the time when people ask questions like that, going back to the roots of the problem is sometimes better than directly answering their question.
He's not exactly interested in embedding office components, but rather he's got some specific problem that he wants to solve, and embedding office components was the solution that he knows of. It's a subtle difference, but often by going back to the original problem that he's trying to solve a better or different solution can be found - e.g. by using pdf or converting to html instead.
You think "that object is about 7 meters away due West". What would be the equivalent for that in time?
And actually the 'distance' between two objects in our 4 dimensional space is distance = x + y + z - ct
where t is the time it takes light to travel to that point.
Also on your last point, there aren't any scientifically confirmed cases of anything supernatural, so there's nothing that needs explaining.
The embrace-extend tactic usually refers to when MS embraces some technology/standard then extends it to break it for everyone else. e.g. kerberos, tcp/ip (evil 'extensions' in IIS), html, and so on.
If you have a snuff movie that didn't hurt anyone to produce (anime, CG, or acted etc) then why shouldn't it be legal to own?
I'm 'suggesting' that Microsoft uses immoral tactics.
The rest of your points are just overblown and silly. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft and their tactics, but saying that everyone in the community hates them is too strong. Same thing for the rest of your post.
I'm not surprised you were modded down. This post is barely coherent, and stupid at best. Maybe you should look inward first?
What actually happens is when a piece of PC hardware is changed/created, the hardware manufacturer writes only windows drivers for it that mostly follow the specs, but also contain various workarounds for the bugs/mistakes that they introduced. It's then in MS's favour to then still allow that hardware to be classed as 'ready for Vista' despite not adhering to the various open standards/specs, since it will make Linux's work more trouble.
And yeah Microsoft does have various conspiracies against linux. See the recent news on Bill Gates asking how to make an open ACPI spec that would be difficult for linux to implement.
I was simply pointing out a major flaw in your classification scheme.
The freedom to be able to live? Post WW1 Germany was in a horrible state because the allies punished them far more than they should. If it wasn't for Hitler, it would have just been someone else.
Where do suicide bombers fit in there? Those seem closer to your description of freedom fighters.
What about a religion with no God?(Buddism) or multiple Gods? Or even a religion with Gods you don't like and don't trust? (Many Pagan Gods)
Not anti-US spiel, but anti-hypocrite spiel
Yeah, because the right for under 18's to be able to level for more than 5 hours a day is really fundamental. Let's get up in arms
AMD spent a lot of money on improving gcc (for all architectures) while Intel only made their proprietary closed icc compiler.
I think blaming AMD for ATI's old mistakes is a bit premature at this stage.
How about simply rooting for the underdog because it would really suck if Intel (or any other company for that matter) because a monopoly?
I would disagree that there isn't a problem. If someone Google's specifically for one company, then should a competitor be able to have the top ad?
And you've totally missed the problem.
The problem is about trademarked keywords. Websites can still make money from non-trademarked keywords.
Yeah, I'm afraid that's true, and I can see why.
A couple of months ago I was with my wife and this obnoxious 16 year old girl had her music on full playing the same song over and over for several hours on the bus. I went up to her and told her to cut that out, which of course she didn't.
I got off the bus and she did as well and punched me from behind. I punched her straight back and made her head bleed. Then some group of her friends came out and tried to give me a beating. I got away, but my wife is now too scared to leave the house alone and so on.
The sad thing is that I've now learnt my lesson to not intervene. It's just not worth the stress on my wife. Despite that I feel that I should for social reasons.
It's not just us whiteys. The minorities I've talked to really dislike the current youth behaviour and also pretty much want any way to stop it.