We can do multiple simultaneous elections here too, and often do for our provincial elections.
In those, you get several ballots, each a different color. Put an X on each for whoever you want, put the ballot in the appropriately colored box. Each race then gets counted separately, with appropriate scrutineers present.
Here's what gets me though.. it's not like the world ends if you don't know who won by the end of the night. Hell, you've got 2 months before it's even finalized. Why not spend the time and count for.. what.. 3-5 hours with scrutineers present and avoid the 6-8 weeks of legal wrangling and the inestimable cost of a loss of faith in the electoral system?
If you guys weren't so impatient, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Worst case scenario, you loop once. Seeing as it's all centrally controlled, those that have been waiting longest get their space on the side-track reserved.
I think he assumed that some of his plants got cross-pollinated from the Round-Up Ready plants.
If Monsanto has a problem with that, then they best make sure their liscences contain stringent requirements on those they sell to to ensure that this cross-pollination doesn't happen.
They went after the wrong guy. They should have gone after their customers that let their seed spread.
And we all know that the US invasion has done absolutely no damage to the Iraqi fields and seed stores, which would force them to look for other sources for seeds if they want to get on with little things like.. say.. eating, right?
Except that what you're saying boils down to "if you find anything that grows better, you should automatically assume it isn't yours and submit it for full genetic testing before saving any of it."
Let's be realistic here. Farmers have.. for thousands of years.. been saving the seeds of plants that "grow better". It's both unreasonable and impractical to expect them to avoid using things they find that happen to grow better.
Bah.. this just proves that SCO was right all along.
Now SCO has proof that Novell's scrivener's had a wrong impression from the get-go, it should be a slam dunk to show that the contract wasn't what was intended in the first place.
On the other side of the coin, do you WANT the nation's poor dying in the streets because the farmers outvote the city folk in providing tax money to create shelters? Do you WANT the religion of the midwest dominating the lives of people in the cities?
There are losers and there are winners in any system. Why should owning more land be a better way to determine winners than making the majority of the populace the winners?
Sorry.. I not only didn't intend to insult, but fail to see one in the question.
11 out of 11 states with the amendment on the ballot dropped it. Obviously these states feel there is something seriously wrong with the idea. So what is it?
A Democrat who is opposed to homosexual marriage... can win
I sadly believe that you're right. What I, as a Canadian, can't understand, is why?
What is so amazingly threatening about homosexual marriages? I mean, it's not like some gay guy can come up and force you to marry him at gunpoint. It's not like they'll actually have any effect on heterosexuals who want to get married, will they?
It wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriages were looked on with the same type of disgust, but I thought we.. you.. had managed to grow up a little and realize that people are people and love is.. well.. love.
I honestly don't understand what the kerfuffle is about it.
In fact, I can honestly say that the Patriot Act has had the exact same effect on me as terrorism has.
The sad thing is, while I'm fairly confident that terrorism probably won't ever affect me directly, I'm also fairly confident that the Patriot Act eventually will.
Since when was the world reduced to the Coalition, Russia, China, and France, eh?
When you consider that the case the US made to the UN was loaded with false evidence (metal tubes being called nuclear weaponry, missile trucks being called mobile WMD manufacturing plants) that Saddam at that point was actually bending over backwards to meet every demand he could while still holding on to power, and that your president made it very clear from the get-go that he wasn't prepared to listen to any contrary opinion to his own (even such minor compromises as Canada proposed -- like giving the inspectors enough time to finish a full report before charging in with guns blazing), are you at all surprised the UN turned their back?
Are the motives of all the other countries completely clean? Probably not. Does that mean you'll be invading them next? Who knows.. the Bush doctrine is now set, the US assumes the authority to invade any country it chooses on any reasoning it chooses to give.
There's a reason America is being villified, it's because it's engaging in actions that would cause any nation undertaking them to be villified.
Invading a country on false pretexts, stealing resources from said invaded country (note that new laws pushed through the Iraqi puppet..err.. political system give the rights of outside corporations to be 100% non-Iraqi owned, and operated for anything except oil, probably because that was given to Halliburton directly), imprisoning and torturing citizens of said country without trial, etc. America is currently acting as a rogue nation. The only difference is that you've got a democracy/republic back at home calling the shots rather than a dictator (today, anyway..)
As for Reagan, he just happened to be in the Right Place at the Right Time. The Soviet Union had been collapsing on itself for a while. He was the lucky one who was in power when it finally fell in. And yes, he was playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union. Fortunately, for all of us, he won the bet. What the international community was villifying him for, however, was forcing them to be part of the stakes he was betting with.
Interesting comment, coming from an anonymous coward. Not even the strength to stand behind your own words -- I'd suggest that moves you into the realm of hypocrite, which even moral relativists like me agree are wrong.
I'm sure no matter which candidate wins they'll still be getting killed in Iraq.
However their children might thank me for encouraging a real choice from political parties as to whether the US should or shouldn't send troops to invade a foreign country.
Whoever said that democracy was about getting the best government?
It's about getting the fairest representation of the people. Which is exactly what it does, even if, perhaps especially if, people who don't care about politics vote.
On the other hand, this may be the best time to make a statement.
If the election is lost and the number of third party voters in the swing states would have changed the results, I can think of no better notice to the loser in the duopoly that they have to leave "business as usual" behind and start coming up with policies that actually represent a majority of the people.
Agnosticism makes about as much sense as nihilism.
I take it you also don't dispute the possible existance of dragons, unicorns, responsible government, vampires, alternate realities, and pink elephants from the bizarro dimension either, hm?
The idea that "If we cannot prove it, we must not assume it" may be purely logical, it's also patent garbage when it comes face to face with the realities of living. You cannot prove that you won't win the time-travelling lotto tomorrow and have some relative from the future appear and give you a backpack full of diamonds from the future. However, unless you put your notice in with your employer for tomorrow, you're making an assumption that this won't happen.
Thus, it's perfectly rational to assume either a god or a lack thereof if it enables you to have a better understanding of your place in the universe, and such leaves you more effective in your day to day life than being confused about such matters would.
And many fanatical muslims argue that it is their responsibility to make the American people islamic, as by doing this they save your immortal soul. What comparison is that to the 80 years or so here on earth?
All that's happening is when a coincidence is particularly memorable, people remember it. After all, the year that on June 23rd the New York lotto came up 623 nobody remembered.. at least, not more than a couple days later.
Slashdot Mirror
We can do multiple simultaneous elections here too, and often do for our provincial elections.
In those, you get several ballots, each a different color. Put an X on each for whoever you want, put the ballot in the appropriately colored box. Each race then gets counted separately, with appropriate scrutineers present.
Here's what gets me though.. it's not like the world ends if you don't know who won by the end of the night. Hell, you've got 2 months before it's even finalized. Why not spend the time and count for.. what.. 3-5 hours with scrutineers present and avoid the 6-8 weeks of legal wrangling and the inestimable cost of a loss of faith in the electoral system?
If you guys weren't so impatient, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Worst case scenario, you loop once.
Seeing as it's all centrally controlled, those that have been waiting longest get their space on the side-track reserved.
I think he assumed that some of his plants got cross-pollinated from the Round-Up Ready plants.
If Monsanto has a problem with that, then they best make sure their liscences contain stringent requirements on those they sell to to ensure that this cross-pollination doesn't happen.
They went after the wrong guy. They should have gone after their customers that let their seed spread.
Really?
Consider that Opera's been functioning under this business model for 7 years now, and that this recent article shows massive growth in their business.
People *do* use browsers because of features. Unfortunately, most have no idea that browsers with features exist.
And we all know that the US invasion has done absolutely no damage to the Iraqi fields and seed stores, which would force them to look for other sources for seeds if they want to get on with little things like.. say.. eating, right?
Except that what you're saying boils down to "if you find anything that grows better, you should automatically assume it isn't yours and submit it for full genetic testing before saving any of it."
Let's be realistic here. Farmers have.. for thousands of years.. been saving the seeds of plants that "grow better". It's both unreasonable and impractical to expect them to avoid using things they find that happen to grow better.
Actually, there was a large push to get out the older people vote, and it's no conspiracy. It just wasn't orchestrated (directly) by the RNC.
However, if you went to church regularly before the election, church leaders were very much encouraging their congregations to get out and vote.
Bah.. this just proves that SCO was right all along.
Now SCO has proof that Novell's scrivener's had a wrong impression from the get-go, it should be a slam dunk to show that the contract wasn't what was intended in the first place.
Right?
On the other side of the coin, do you WANT the nation's poor dying in the streets because the farmers outvote the city folk in providing tax money to create shelters? Do you WANT the religion of the midwest dominating the lives of people in the cities?
There are losers and there are winners in any system. Why should owning more land be a better way to determine winners than making the majority of the populace the winners?
Or.. they'd have you by the balls.
After all.. you did it.
And if anybody asks, you did it on your own.
Sorry.. I not only didn't intend to insult, but fail to see one in the question.
11 out of 11 states with the amendment on the ballot dropped it. Obviously these states feel there is something seriously wrong with the idea. So what is it?
Quick! Somebody convince them to vote Badnarik!
A Democrat who is opposed to homosexual marriage ... can win
I sadly believe that you're right.
What I, as a Canadian, can't understand, is why?
What is so amazingly threatening about homosexual marriages? I mean, it's not like some gay guy can come up and force you to marry him at gunpoint. It's not like they'll actually have any effect on heterosexuals who want to get married, will they?
It wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriages were looked on with the same type of disgust, but I thought we.. you.. had managed to grow up a little and realize that people are people and love is.. well.. love.
I honestly don't understand what the kerfuffle is about it.
Personally, I would rather have a God-fearing man in office than one who isn't.
So you'd rather have Osama Bin Laden over Thomas Jefferson?
Interesting.
As long as you're not gay. ..or poor. ..or non-white. (sorry.. redundancy) ..or non-christian. ..or mentally ill. ..or non-english.
I think you need to differentiate between "fundamentally wrong" and "fundamentally not in tune with the people of America".
It's becoming apparant that the two are very different things.
In fact, I can honestly say that the Patriot Act has had the exact same effect on me as terrorism has.
The sad thing is, while I'm fairly confident that terrorism probably won't ever affect me directly, I'm also fairly confident that the Patriot Act eventually will.
Since when was the world reduced to the Coalition, Russia, China, and France, eh?
When you consider that the case the US made to the UN was loaded with false evidence (metal tubes being called nuclear weaponry, missile trucks being called mobile WMD manufacturing plants) that Saddam at that point was actually bending over backwards to meet every demand he could while still holding on to power, and that your president made it very clear from the get-go that he wasn't prepared to listen to any contrary opinion to his own (even such minor compromises as Canada proposed -- like giving the inspectors enough time to finish a full report before charging in with guns blazing), are you at all surprised the UN turned their back?
Are the motives of all the other countries completely clean? Probably not. Does that mean you'll be invading them next? Who knows.. the Bush doctrine is now set, the US assumes the authority to invade any country it chooses on any reasoning it chooses to give.
There's a reason America is being villified, it's because it's engaging in actions that would cause any nation undertaking them to be villified.
Invading a country on false pretexts, stealing resources from said invaded country (note that new laws pushed through the Iraqi puppet..err.. political system give the rights of outside corporations to be 100% non-Iraqi owned, and operated for anything except oil, probably because that was given to Halliburton directly), imprisoning and torturing citizens of said country without trial, etc. America is currently acting as a rogue nation. The only difference is that you've got a democracy/republic back at home calling the shots rather than a dictator (today, anyway..)
As for Reagan, he just happened to be in the Right Place at the Right Time. The Soviet Union had been collapsing on itself for a while. He was the lucky one who was in power when it finally fell in. And yes, he was playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union. Fortunately, for all of us, he won the bet. What the international community was villifying him for, however, was forcing them to be part of the stakes he was betting with.
Interesting comment, coming from an anonymous coward. Not even the strength to stand behind your own words -- I'd suggest that moves you into the realm of hypocrite, which even moral relativists like me agree are wrong.
I'm sure no matter which candidate wins they'll still be getting killed in Iraq.
However their children might thank me for encouraging a real choice from political parties as to whether the US should or shouldn't send troops to invade a foreign country.
Whoever said that democracy was about getting the best government?
It's about getting the fairest representation of the people. Which is exactly what it does, even if, perhaps especially if, people who don't care about politics vote.
On the other hand, this may be the best time to make a statement.
If the election is lost and the number of third party voters in the swing states would have changed the results, I can think of no better notice to the loser in the duopoly that they have to leave "business as usual" behind and start coming up with policies that actually represent a majority of the people.
Agnosticism makes about as much sense as nihilism.
I take it you also don't dispute the possible existance of dragons, unicorns, responsible government, vampires, alternate realities, and pink elephants from the bizarro dimension either, hm?
The idea that "If we cannot prove it, we must not assume it" may be purely logical, it's also patent garbage when it comes face to face with the realities of living. You cannot prove that you won't win the time-travelling lotto tomorrow and have some relative from the future appear and give you a backpack full of diamonds from the future. However, unless you put your notice in with your employer for tomorrow, you're making an assumption that this won't happen.
Thus, it's perfectly rational to assume either a god or a lack thereof if it enables you to have a better understanding of your place in the universe, and such leaves you more effective in your day to day life than being confused about such matters would.
And many fanatical muslims argue that it is their responsibility to make the American people islamic, as by doing this they save your immortal soul. What comparison is that to the 80 years or so here on earth?
Who's to say you're more right than they are?
Here's the answer:
No.
All that's happening is when a coincidence is particularly memorable, people remember it. After all, the year that on June 23rd the New York lotto came up 623 nobody remembered.. at least, not more than a couple days later.