In real democracies, the executive can only operate with the approval of the legislative. This is an important check that the Usian system lacks. In any real democracy, the legislative wing could express non-confidence in the executive and trigger an election.
Actually, it shows the fallacy of organ donation
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 1
Unless your head spontaneously combusts, there's still a chance for you to get up and walk it off for about as long as your organs are viable.
I'll still grasp at that chance, even if it costs some random stranger a better one.
You're as visible as people want you to be. Business has no intrinsic right to anyone's attention. Lots of people give it to google because they don't abuse it by throwing up garbage like these complainers.
Google search is not for marketing. It's purpose is to help people find information, not advertising. The first page should include things like the wikipedia entry on diamonds, and maybe some information about DeBeers and blood diamonds. It should not in almost all cases include any sales pages at all.
All is not lost, though, you scum sucking bastards. Google has put aside space for you to purchase where you can hawk your gaudy crap. Stop being tightwads, and pay for it like good little capitalists.
The vast majority of applications do not, and even most embedded systems don't. Also, IM protocols aren't really ideal for that sort of thing. Aside from being poorly standardized, they don't really offer anything that plain old smtp doesn't, and smtp can handle connection loss much better. If something requires immediate attention, SMS is better, in case you're not at your desk.
I'm not sure what exactly you plan to do with the knowledge that your coke machine is being molested.
Why go to the trouble of maintaining your own TCP/IP stack, among lots of other stuff, when you can just throw Linux and an ARM or somesuch board together and go.
Pft. While the primary and secondary education I received in California (where the curriculum was chosen more or less by the California Teacher's Association, a non-government body) was doubtlessly slanted, I'm fairly well read. The independent things I've read since then have only backed that information up. You're reading conspiracy into something you have no first-hand experience with. I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise, because conspiracy theorists never want to give up their favorite conspiracy.
What conspiracy? You seem to be reading in something that isn't there.
You know? Using non-standard terminology may make you feel warm and fuzzy ideologically, but there's a reason we have standards: to aid communication. I'm also curious as to how you know what I was taught, because you've obviously never been to the US.
I have been to the US many times, in fact in my last apartment, I could see the US on a clear day. I know the general gist of American views on history from talking to Americans and reading your history books. They're biased and slanted, as all nations are, but Americans especially when compared to other Western nations. Except France, but that's another story.
The terminology I'm using is standard, it's just not *your* standard.
It's interesting to note that both Canada and Australia were influenced by the US system because they both have more of a formal constitution than the UK does. While they don't have a single constitution with amendments, they do have Constitution Acts rather than the half-Acts of Parliament/half-tradition system of the UK.
You're simply incorrect about this. Canada has always had it's Constitution as a single Act. I'm pretty sure the other colonies did, too. The UK doesn't because it wasn't created out of the blue a few hundred years ago. There isn't really any American influence there. (Though there certainly is elsewhere, but again, that's another story.)
As for comparing the Canadian system to the US system, if you're happy with the Canadian system and you're Canadian, you're pretty much from either Ontario or the Marintine Provinces, because the system is very unfair to the Western Provinces and the Quebecois think they need more guarantees of rights.
I live in Vancouver, British Columbia. The regional grumblings in Canada are much more complicated than you seem to think, and there are very few Canadians who oppose our constitution as a whole. The major western grievances with regard to the constitution are with language laws, as there are essentially no French speakers west of Ontario. The Quebec situation is more complicated. A large segment of the Quebec population wants nothing to do with the rest of Canada, and will use any legal means to cause trouble. Another segment feels much the same way, but wants to get as much money out of the situation as possible before leaving. It's much more nuanced than that, but it's not really on topic.
Specifically, the Canadian Senate is one of the most poorly designed legislative bodies in the world. While it doesn't have the power of the House of Commons, it still has power and it represents neither the provinces fairly or the people fairly.
The Senate is not what you think it is, and isn't in any way comparable to the American Senate. It is not a legislative body. It exists as a chamber of "sober second thought", and functions to review legislation for unintended consequences and loopholes. It consists mainly of retired intellectuals, mostly lawyers and politicians because they are most suited to this task. Technically speaking, it does hold some power, but by tradition it does not exercise it. Turning it into an elected body would defeat its purpose, and we'd be better off just scrapping it. While you have a point that it is not as representative as it should be, that does not in any way impact it's purpose. It isn't intended to represent regions.
You can't intelligently route a "series of tubes", where as you can route around congestion on a network. Further, there's an implication that you can't easily expand capacity in a "series of tubes", where as you can, easily, on a network. (Or in our case, simply activate some unused fiber.)
The part of the "series of tubes" metaphor that's made fun of is the "series of" rather than the "tubes". When we talk about pipes, we're referring to an individual connection, not the network as a whole. Like most metaphors, it breaks when you change the scale.
So I gather you're either trying to spark people into doing a bit of research by posting trollish comments or you're trying to get someone to argue so you can offer a clever rebuttal. Offering tidbits of history that aren't popularly accepted may get people to bite on your hook for an arguement, but it isn't actually that useful if you're trying to educate people.
I'm doing exactly what I've said I am. I'm trying to push Americans to do a little reading outside of their safe, government approved, sources. Everything I mentioned is quite accepted everywhere except the US.
The Revolution? I have to assume you're talking about the Loyalists that helped the British and eventually fled to Canada.
Yes, "The Revolution". Contrary to what you where taught, the first American civil war had nothing to do with ideology (neither did the second, but that's another story). Democratic reforms where progressing naturally throughout the Western world with the idea of responsible government. Representation in government had been allocated for quite some time to what were considered the important parts of society: the nobles, the clergy, and the commoners. Post war America did not look significantly different from this, in many states only landowners could vote well into the 19th century.
This first American civil war was a financial dispute between rich colonists and the British nobility. Nothing more.
Historically, it was a valuable experiment, though. It's shown us that gradual change is much, much more effective than revolution. Canada, the UK and Australia now have much more stable and democratic governments than the US. It's a stretch to call the US a democracy at all, with two ruling parties who are largely the same, both in policy and bloodline.
And there was no war of conquest against Canada. I doubt that you could even convince very many Canadians that there was. Again I have to assume that you mean the War of 1812, which was provoked by the British Navy kidnapping US sailors and enslaving them. Annexing Canada was talked about at the time and York (now Toronto, more or less) was burned, but that was the extent of it. Talking about annexing the land of an actively beligerent power in not a war of conquest.
Had the Americans sailed to Britain and dealt with their grievances at the source, you'd have a point. They didn't. Canada was an innocent third party in the conscription issue, and thus invading Canada was a wholly indefensible war of aggression. Annexation didn't go beyond talk because the US was soundly defeated in the war; Washington was sacked and the white house was burned to the ground. (It was actually a green house before this.)
Sure, "buying" a third of Mexico (most of which was unsettled by Mexicans, by the way) at gunpoint was not very neighborly, but if it were Britain or France, the US would have installed a thinly disguised puppet government (something France tried to do, incidently; the French puppet's defeat in Mexico is celebrated every year in May) or taken over the whole place outright.
Would they? All British and French colonies are now vibrant, independent democracies. How independent is the southwest US? That's ignoring the history the US has with puppet governments throughout the world.
And Cuba? There were people in the US and its government who wanted to keep Cuba, but the US honored its promise to the Cuban people of independence. If you wanted to complain about that incident, the least you could have done is taken the part of the people with the real grievance against the US: the Filipinos who switched from fighting the Spanish to fighting the Americans. The whole episode of the Spanish-American War being fought to sell newspapers is distasteful, but any European power (even freaking Belgium in the Congo) would have behaved much poorer by modern standards in that circumstance based on what happened in Africa and Asia around that time.
Americans have taken up arms against each other twice in their short history on a large scale, and many more times on smaller scales. Americans enslaved, in some cases, the majority of their population and extracted forced labour. Americans have waged wars of conquest against Mexico and Cuba, and attempted to do so against Canada. Americans have been at war, in some form or another, for most of their history. Americans even declare war on abstract concepts, like drugs, poverty, or terrorism.
If you're American, read some history from beyond your borders.
the US has remained relatively stable from a civil perspective. It seems that whenever there are problems in Europe, rather than discussing the issue, they take up arms and slaughter each other. The US has been at war with all of it's neighbours in that period, and with many countries with which it shares no borders. Further, it's been in two civil wars, the second of which is still on the minds of the losing section.
How many years has the US *not* been at war? 10-20, in it's entire history, maybe?
There are objective differences in quality that aren't subject to taste. The beans that Starbuck's uses are mid range; not crap, but not excellent either. All else being equal, they'd be just fine as commuter coffee. Unfortunately, they then burn those beans for the majority of what they serve. If you order thier "mild" blend, it's sometimes still drinkable, but a long way from quality coffee. They're still handy, because as you say they're everywhere, and most of the time not garbage.
Tim Horton's uses lower quality beans, but they handle them more professionally. Unfortunately, they don't serve anything other than plain coffee, so you're out of luck if you like random crap thrown into it. *That* is a matter of taste, where as bean quality and roasting is not.
For coffee on the go, both are acceptable, because of their ubiquitousness, not their quality. I personally keep one of those Starbucks cash cards, because there's one on my way to class and it's better than the campus coffee. And the employees are much nicer than Tim Horton's.
There really is much better coffee out there. Go out and find it, when you're not in a rush, and enjoy it. Especially if you're making it at home, there's no reason to use Starbuck's beans. A quick Google tells me to suggest either Kensington Market or Roncesvalles (some sort of Ukranian district). I'd thought Toronto had a large Italian district as well, and that's probably also a good place to try.
One would expect Google to police their sponsored links a tad bit better than slashdot polices their article submissions. At least have a prominent easy-to-use Bad Guy reporting tool. The first thing that comes to mind - a little link like the cached link under each sponsored add might do the trick. Why would google need to police their sponsored links? The worst that could be done to an unwilling mark is to pop up goatse, but that wouldn't make them much money.
If you choose to use a known insecure browser, the results are entirely your responsibility. You may as well be chastising the highway patrol for not checking everyone's break lines.
I imagine there are good coffee shops in Toronto, I was just poking at you. Starbuck's isn't good coffee. If you think it is, I can only conclude that you've never had good coffee. I don't know Toronto very well, so I can't tell you where to go to find it.
You won't find it in corporate chains, at least not in North America. (Though there are places in the world where even free hotel coffee is excellent compared to North American faire.)
Starbucks is consistent. It taste the same regardless of where you go. It's not very good, as Starbucks' "trademark" is overroasted beans, but it's better than McDonald's or gas station coffee.
Are there no real coffee shops in Toronto? It's believable, I guess, Toronto is the armpit of Canada after all. Take a trip up to Montreal, I'm sure there's real coffee up there.
Don't let price fool you, good coffee isn't necessarily expensive, and a lot of expensive coffee is awful. Starbuck's pricing is mostly marketing. It relies on people assuming it must be good because it's expensive.
100% of observed technological species seem to follow Moore's law. Further, expanding it to a more general form, ie "Technological development follows an exponential curve." is also valid for 100% of observed technological species.
I disagree that PC's are reaching a point of stability, but even if they were, it wouldn't matter. We'd just find new sorts of computers to build. Like smartphones, in dash navigation systems, media players and such.
30 year old software won't run on new operating systems, and 30 year old software won't support modern hardware. You won't be getting USB support, and parallel/serial ports are quickly disappearing. Where would you find a modem with drivers for your old OS? Where would you find a dial up ISP, let alone one that would support 1200 baud or whatever you'd be limited to.
You're going to be *far* better off running 30 year old software under emulation, where these things can be faked.
Slashdot Mirror
In real democracies, the executive can only operate with the approval of the legislative. This is an important check that the Usian system lacks. In any real democracy, the legislative wing could express non-confidence in the executive and trigger an election.
Unless your head spontaneously combusts, there's still a chance for you to get up and walk it off for about as long as your organs are viable.
I'll still grasp at that chance, even if it costs some random stranger a better one.
You're as visible as people want you to be. Business has no intrinsic right to anyone's attention. Lots of people give it to google because they don't abuse it by throwing up garbage like these complainers.
Google search is a tool for finding information. That's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with your or anyone else's business.
Google AdWords is a tool for promoting your business. Pony up some cash or shut the fuck up.
Google search is not for marketing. It's purpose is to help people find information, not advertising. The first page should include things like the wikipedia entry on diamonds, and maybe some information about DeBeers and blood diamonds. It should not in almost all cases include any sales pages at all.
All is not lost, though, you scum sucking bastards. Google has put aside space for you to purchase where you can hawk your gaudy crap. Stop being tightwads, and pay for it like good little capitalists.
The vast majority of applications do not, and even most embedded systems don't. Also, IM protocols aren't really ideal for that sort of thing. Aside from being poorly standardized, they don't really offer anything that plain old smtp doesn't, and smtp can handle connection loss much better. If something requires immediate attention, SMS is better, in case you're not at your desk.
I'm not sure what exactly you plan to do with the knowledge that your coke machine is being molested.
Why go to the trouble of maintaining your own TCP/IP stack, among lots of other stuff, when you can just throw Linux and an ARM or somesuch board together and go.
It's just data. No one has any right to tell anyone else what data they may or may not have.
Pft. While the primary and secondary education I received in California (where the curriculum was chosen more or less by the California Teacher's Association, a non-government body) was doubtlessly slanted, I'm fairly well read. The independent things I've read since then have only backed that information up. You're reading conspiracy into something you have no first-hand experience with. I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise, because conspiracy theorists never want to give up their favorite conspiracy.
What conspiracy? You seem to be reading in something that isn't there.
You know? Using non-standard terminology may make you feel warm and fuzzy ideologically, but there's a reason we have standards: to aid communication. I'm also curious as to how you know what I was taught, because you've obviously never been to the US.
I have been to the US many times, in fact in my last apartment, I could see the US on a clear day. I know the general gist of American views on history from talking to Americans and reading your history books. They're biased and slanted, as all nations are, but Americans especially when compared to other Western nations. Except France, but that's another story.
The terminology I'm using is standard, it's just not *your* standard.
It's interesting to note that both Canada and Australia were influenced by the US system because they both have more of a formal constitution than the UK does. While they don't have a single constitution with amendments, they do have Constitution Acts rather than the half-Acts of Parliament/half-tradition system of the UK.
You're simply incorrect about this. Canada has always had it's Constitution as a single Act. I'm pretty sure the other colonies did, too. The UK doesn't because it wasn't created out of the blue a few hundred years ago. There isn't really any American influence there. (Though there certainly is elsewhere, but again, that's another story.)
As for comparing the Canadian system to the US system, if you're happy with the Canadian system and you're Canadian, you're pretty much from either Ontario or the Marintine Provinces, because the system is very unfair to the Western Provinces and the Quebecois think they need more guarantees of rights.
I live in Vancouver, British Columbia. The regional grumblings in Canada are much more complicated than you seem to think, and there are very few Canadians who oppose our constitution as a whole. The major western grievances with regard to the constitution are with language laws, as there are essentially no French speakers west of Ontario. The Quebec situation is more complicated. A large segment of the Quebec population wants nothing to do with the rest of Canada, and will use any legal means to cause trouble. Another segment feels much the same way, but wants to get as much money out of the situation as possible before leaving. It's much more nuanced than that, but it's not really on topic.
Specifically, the Canadian Senate is one of the most poorly designed legislative bodies in the world. While it doesn't have the power of the House of Commons, it still has power and it represents neither the provinces fairly or the people fairly.
The Senate is not what you think it is, and isn't in any way comparable to the American Senate. It is not a legislative body. It exists as a chamber of "sober second thought", and functions to review legislation for unintended consequences and loopholes. It consists mainly of retired intellectuals, mostly lawyers and politicians because they are most suited to this task. Technically speaking, it does hold some power, but by tradition it does not exercise it. Turning it into an elected body would defeat its purpose, and we'd be better off just scrapping it. While you have a point that it is not as representative as it should be, that does not in any way impact it's purpose. It isn't intended to represent regions.
Yeah, the U
You can't intelligently route a "series of tubes", where as you can route around congestion on a network. Further, there's an implication that you can't easily expand capacity in a "series of tubes", where as you can, easily, on a network. (Or in our case, simply activate some unused fiber.)
The part of the "series of tubes" metaphor that's made fun of is the "series of" rather than the "tubes". When we talk about pipes, we're referring to an individual connection, not the network as a whole. Like most metaphors, it breaks when you change the scale.
They've built up a very nice range of consumer level digital cameras, and they did it before they disappeared with chemical photography.
So I gather you're either trying to spark people into doing a bit of research by posting trollish comments or you're trying to get someone to argue so you can offer a clever rebuttal. Offering tidbits of history that aren't popularly accepted may get people to bite on your hook for an arguement, but it isn't actually that useful if you're trying to educate people.
I'm doing exactly what I've said I am. I'm trying to push Americans to do a little reading outside of their safe, government approved, sources. Everything I mentioned is quite accepted everywhere except the US.
The Revolution? I have to assume you're talking about the Loyalists that helped the British and eventually fled to Canada.
Yes, "The Revolution". Contrary to what you where taught, the first American civil war had nothing to do with ideology (neither did the second, but that's another story). Democratic reforms where progressing naturally throughout the Western world with the idea of responsible government. Representation in government had been allocated for quite some time to what were considered the important parts of society: the nobles, the clergy, and the commoners. Post war America did not look significantly different from this, in many states only landowners could vote well into the 19th century.
This first American civil war was a financial dispute between rich colonists and the British nobility. Nothing more.
Historically, it was a valuable experiment, though. It's shown us that gradual change is much, much more effective than revolution. Canada, the UK and Australia now have much more stable and democratic governments than the US. It's a stretch to call the US a democracy at all, with two ruling parties who are largely the same, both in policy and bloodline.
And there was no war of conquest against Canada. I doubt that you could even convince very many Canadians that there was. Again I have to assume that you mean the War of 1812, which was provoked by the British Navy kidnapping US sailors and enslaving them. Annexing Canada was talked about at the time and York (now Toronto, more or less) was burned, but that was the extent of it. Talking about annexing the land of an actively beligerent power in not a war of conquest.
Had the Americans sailed to Britain and dealt with their grievances at the source, you'd have a point. They didn't. Canada was an innocent third party in the conscription issue, and thus invading Canada was a wholly indefensible war of aggression. Annexation didn't go beyond talk because the US was soundly defeated in the war; Washington was sacked and the white house was burned to the ground. (It was actually a green house before this.)
Sure, "buying" a third of Mexico (most of which was unsettled by Mexicans, by the way) at gunpoint was not very neighborly, but if it were Britain or France, the US would have installed a thinly disguised puppet government (something France tried to do, incidently; the French puppet's defeat in Mexico is celebrated every year in May) or taken over the whole place outright.
Would they? All British and French colonies are now vibrant, independent democracies. How independent is the southwest US? That's ignoring the history the US has with puppet governments throughout the world.
And Cuba? There were people in the US and its government who wanted to keep Cuba, but the US honored its promise to the Cuban people of independence. If you wanted to complain about that incident, the least you could have done is taken the part of the people with the real grievance against the US: the Filipinos who switched from fighting the Spanish to fighting the Americans. The whole episode of the Spanish-American War being fought to sell newspapers is distasteful, but any European power (even freaking Belgium in the Congo) would have behaved much poorer by modern standards in that circumstance based on what happened in Africa and Asia around that time.
Where, exactly, do
There is some farming, but there's always pressure to allow old growth harvesting. Often, that pressure succeeds.
Americans have taken up arms against each other twice in their short history on a large scale, and many more times on smaller scales. Americans enslaved, in some cases, the majority of their population and extracted forced labour. Americans have waged wars of conquest against Mexico and Cuba, and attempted to do so against Canada. Americans have been at war, in some form or another, for most of their history. Americans even declare war on abstract concepts, like drugs, poverty, or terrorism.
If you're American, read some history from beyond your borders.
How many years has the US *not* been at war? 10-20, in it's entire history, maybe?
I fully support outlawing bigoted religions. Those who won't join us in the present are free to wither into the past.
There are objective differences in quality that aren't subject to taste. The beans that Starbuck's uses are mid range; not crap, but not excellent either. All else being equal, they'd be just fine as commuter coffee. Unfortunately, they then burn those beans for the majority of what they serve. If you order thier "mild" blend, it's sometimes still drinkable, but a long way from quality coffee. They're still handy, because as you say they're everywhere, and most of the time not garbage.
Tim Horton's uses lower quality beans, but they handle them more professionally. Unfortunately, they don't serve anything other than plain coffee, so you're out of luck if you like random crap thrown into it. *That* is a matter of taste, where as bean quality and roasting is not.
For coffee on the go, both are acceptable, because of their ubiquitousness, not their quality. I personally keep one of those Starbucks cash cards, because there's one on my way to class and it's better than the campus coffee. And the employees are much nicer than Tim Horton's.
There really is much better coffee out there. Go out and find it, when you're not in a rush, and enjoy it. Especially if you're making it at home, there's no reason to use Starbuck's beans. A quick Google tells me to suggest either Kensington Market or Roncesvalles (some sort of Ukranian district). I'd thought Toronto had a large Italian district as well, and that's probably also a good place to try.
At least have a prominent easy-to-use Bad Guy reporting tool. The first thing that comes to mind - a little link like the cached link under each sponsored add might do the trick. Why would google need to police their sponsored links? The worst that could be done to an unwilling mark is to pop up goatse, but that wouldn't make them much money.
If you choose to use a known insecure browser, the results are entirely your responsibility. You may as well be chastising the highway patrol for not checking everyone's break lines.
Internet Explorer has always been insecure. Anyone who uses it accepts that their system is essential public property.
I imagine there are good coffee shops in Toronto, I was just poking at you. Starbuck's isn't good coffee. If you think it is, I can only conclude that you've never had good coffee. I don't know Toronto very well, so I can't tell you where to go to find it.
You won't find it in corporate chains, at least not in North America. (Though there are places in the world where even free hotel coffee is excellent compared to North American faire.)
An exponential increase on 0 is still 0.
Here is some background reading for you.
Starbucks is consistent. It taste the same regardless of where you go. It's not very good, as Starbucks' "trademark" is overroasted beans, but it's better than McDonald's or gas station coffee.
Are there no real coffee shops in Toronto? It's believable, I guess, Toronto is the armpit of Canada after all. Take a trip up to Montreal, I'm sure there's real coffee up there.
Don't let price fool you, good coffee isn't necessarily expensive, and a lot of expensive coffee is awful. Starbuck's pricing is mostly marketing. It relies on people assuming it must be good because it's expensive.
100% of observed technological species seem to follow Moore's law. Further, expanding it to a more general form, ie "Technological development follows an exponential curve." is also valid for 100% of observed technological species.
I disagree that PC's are reaching a point of stability, but even if they were, it wouldn't matter. We'd just find new sorts of computers to build. Like smartphones, in dash navigation systems, media players and such.
30 year old software won't run on new operating systems, and 30 year old software won't support modern hardware. You won't be getting USB support, and parallel/serial ports are quickly disappearing. Where would you find a modem with drivers for your old OS? Where would you find a dial up ISP, let alone one that would support 1200 baud or whatever you'd be limited to.
You're going to be *far* better off running 30 year old software under emulation, where these things can be faked.