Yeah, but you couldn't send a message to someone's phone number that they receive as an SMS message. Although, honestly I'm not sure what the difference is, use-case wise...
If you have someone on Skype, why not just use the normal text message feature? If you have someone's phone number (but they're not on Skype) why not just text them from your phone?
He's not talking about "liberals" in general. He means the Liberals, the name of the party that currently has a majority in the Canadian House of Commons, i.e. the Canadian Government.
That being said, I also live in Canada and I'm not sure I agree that they're planning to do that, but who knows.
They don't give it to the person who "achieved" the most. They give it to the person they believe to be the most influential. That's why Osama Bin-Laden got it.
When the Senate changed to popular vote instead of appointment by the state governments it became just another House of Representatives.
Umm, no, that's ridiculous. Wyoming has 1.5% of the population of California yet has equal representation in the Senate. It is absolutely not the same as the House of Representatives.
It's even more confusing than that. The "Democratic-Republican" party usually called itself the "Republican" party. Later the party split, one half becoming the Whigs and the other becoming the "modern" Democrats. So today we refer to it as the Democratic-Republican party because it's the "Republican party that went on to become the Democratic party", distinguishing it from the "modern" Republicans, which formed a few decades after the split.
See, you think what you are saying is funny. But in reality it is very, very sad. Every day you go on YouTube and look up people crying about Hillary losing? You actually have nothing better to do?
which would require 38 states to decide they should have no say on who is President, that whatever a handful of northeastern and west coast cities decide is fine with them
A few thoughts come to mind:
1. The Amendment that abolishes the EC could allow states to retain control of handling the elections, as well as do any number of other things allowing the states to have some say.
2. If the President was elected by a pure national vote, then the people in deep red/blue states who don't bother to turn out because they generally vote against the majority would have a much stronger reason to. California might not be 70% Democrat anymore if all the people who would vote Republican actually show up because now they know their vote matters.
3. By a strange coincidence there are exactly 12 swing states, so maybe the other 38 states will vote to have more of a say then they do now. Then election issues will go beyond the jobs of rust-belt factory workers, which are never coming back despite what voodoo economic powers our President-Elect thinks he has.
I know to you it looks like "brain damage" because it makes us skeptical of the magical man in the sky and biases us towards fact based evidence, but we like to call it "education" and "critical thinking".
I like how once the Republicans win, the possibility of investigating any potential voter/election fraud goes out the window. Whereas before the election they couldn't shut up about it.
Yeah... clearly the problem with science is that it's done by scientists. Damn them and their dedication to reasonable conclusions based on empirical evidence! Damn them all!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but you couldn't send a message to someone's phone number that they receive as an SMS message. Although, honestly I'm not sure what the difference is, use-case wise...
If you have someone on Skype, why not just use the normal text message feature?
If you have someone's phone number (but they're not on Skype) why not just text them from your phone?
I'm actually trying to think of the use-case for SMS in Skype. As opposed to using the normal instant messaging feature I mean.
You want to SMS someone that doesn't have their phone number linked to Skype, but not using your phone? Am I missing something?
Judging by how much Skype for Windows sucks, I wouldn't hold my breath.
the gorilla in the phone market
Is that anything like a bull in a china shop? Just seems like a bad idea from the start.
Maybe the phones bursting into flames was to protect you from said gorilla?
Yeah but then the battery indicator is still wrong. It should be adjusted so that the indicator maps 0-100 to 20-80.
Perhaps he was dictating?
He's not talking about "liberals" in general. He means the Liberals, the name of the party that currently has a majority in the Canadian House of Commons, i.e. the Canadian Government.
That being said, I also live in Canada and I'm not sure I agree that they're planning to do that, but who knows.
They don't give it to the person who "achieved" the most. They give it to the person they believe to be the most influential. That's why Osama Bin-Laden got it.
Of course they are, they're the ones that vote Republican! Bah-dum-tiss!
When the Senate changed to popular vote instead of appointment by the state governments it became just another House of Representatives.
Umm, no, that's ridiculous. Wyoming has 1.5% of the population of California yet has equal representation in the Senate. It is absolutely not the same as the House of Representatives.
It's even more confusing than that. The "Democratic-Republican" party usually called itself the "Republican" party. Later the party split, one half becoming the Whigs and the other becoming the "modern" Democrats. So today we refer to it as the Democratic-Republican party because it's the "Republican party that went on to become the Democratic party", distinguishing it from the "modern" Republicans, which formed a few decades after the split.
See, you think what you are saying is funny. But in reality it is very, very sad. Every day you go on YouTube and look up people crying about Hillary losing? You actually have nothing better to do?
I pity you, honestly I do.
the one system that was perfectly okay before the election
No, no it wasn't.
If your going by number of votes cast the when you look at the total votes, the majority of Americans voted that they did NOT want Hillary.
By that same logic, an even larger majority of Americans voted that they did NOT want Trump.
Also, changing the electoral college requires a Constitutional amendment, which is a process that does not involve the President anyway.
which would require 38 states to decide they should have no say on who is President, that whatever a handful of northeastern and west coast cities decide is fine with them
A few thoughts come to mind:
1. The Amendment that abolishes the EC could allow states to retain control of handling the elections, as well as do any number of other things allowing the states to have some say.
2. If the President was elected by a pure national vote, then the people in deep red/blue states who don't bother to turn out because they generally vote against the majority would have a much stronger reason to. California might not be 70% Democrat anymore if all the people who would vote Republican actually show up because now they know their vote matters.
3. By a strange coincidence there are exactly 12 swing states, so maybe the other 38 states will vote to have more of a say then they do now. Then election issues will go beyond the jobs of rust-belt factory workers, which are never coming back despite what voodoo economic powers our President-Elect thinks he has.
Why would you have a problem with a special voter-ID card that is given for free? I'm trying to meet you halfway.
Maybe she picked the 3 states that had the closest votes?
It is controversial if it costs you money, because then it is effectively the same as a poll tax.
I know to you it looks like "brain damage" because it makes us skeptical of the magical man in the sky and biases us towards fact based evidence, but we like to call it "education" and "critical thinking".
I like how once the Republicans win, the possibility of investigating any potential voter/election fraud goes out the window. Whereas before the election they couldn't shut up about it.
Who is "they"? And what is the "other hand"? I'm not even sure I know which side you're on...
Ask pretty much anyone if water boils at 100degC and they will probably answer "Yes."
Ask a scientist if water boils at 100degC, and they will say "It depends on the ambient pressure."
Yeah... clearly the problem with science is that it's done by scientists. Damn them and their dedication to reasonable conclusions based on empirical evidence! Damn them all!
Russia could do it more easily, since Germany can't extradite someone to a country if they might receive the death penalty.