I'm sorry that you didn't do the research that I asked for.
I'll restate it if you're still interested in continuing this mockery of a debate. I want exit polls tied directly to demographics, rather than electoral tallies. Those can be made to mean anything through a properly tinted lens.
I'm not finding them because I'm confident I'm right, and I don't need reassurance.
So, in other words, if you looked around for the exit polls I requested, you couldn't find any that supported your claims.
More probably, you didn't even bother to look, because you didn't understand my point. I suspect this is true because it goes with the profile you've already demonstrated as a true buffoon.
Let me give you a word of advice: you're not destined to be a political pundit. Your analysis is all but completely meaningless. Back your shit up with exit polls or something, if you want to have a case about who voted for whom. Until then, squeezing blood from rocks.
It's only no better if you agree with those who claim that certain skin colors denote higher levels of intelligence and responsibility. That seems to be the postulate behind your claim--I certainly don't agree with that.
A tyranny is an unjust form of government. You haven't demonstrated that my proposition is unjust, only that you have some misconceptions about racial differences.
Anyone in my system would be allowed to vote, provided that they were able to pass the requisite tests. These tests would obviously have nothing to do with race, but rather competence as a voter.
Sorry. I didn't realize I was dealing with a retard. Maybe you didn't notice that I said the viability of a "republic" as a form of government, and that I didn't believe in the democratic "ideal."
The alternative is a highly altered form of republic where the representation is far less direct and the voting population is screened according to their capabilities to be responsible and intelligent voters. This would be a sort of republic/oligarchy hybrid.
Education isn't necessarily an indication of sensibility. That's why I said "sensible and educated." You inferred far too much.
The more voters you have the more likely you're going to have an ineffectually centrist government. If you have fewer voters who take the issues seriously, you'll have the same balances but with less latency for political action.
I'd consider that far too many. Clearly we're arguing from different sides of a fence.
I don't believe in a democratic ideal. I'd rather have fewer but more sensible and educated people making my decisions for me than a horde of uneducated minds ripe for manipulation.
I'd say 20-30 percent VOTING would be getting good.
Actually, when all of the ordinarily apathetic people vote, you end up with a woefully uneducated voter base making clueless decisions. Keep in mind that in France something like 80-85 percent of the eligible population votes in every election, and M. Le Pen is a result of that effect.
Politics in America are so centrist anyway that it hardly would matter here.
I will get one of these as soon as possible. Currently I don't watch very much TV because I feel that the content is only loosely relevant to me. I would watch a lot more TV if stations were able to accurately target me with programs that I would like, based on the viewing habits of mine that they've observed.
I don't really see how this could be bad. I trust that the TV companies won't misuse the information they receive. Most likely, their doing so would constitute a serious breach of contract (as I assume there is an accompanying sheaf of paperwork in order to become eligible to use this).
While I imagine many people here will tear their hair out while bleating about large companies invading privacy, these people need to get a reality check. Not everyone cares if some nameless faceless person at company X knows you watched some porn last night, and most people would appreciate the service that company X could provide with that information.
Did you only bother to skim his post? He specifically addresses the OS X support for other types of mice. His problem is that after years and years, Apple still doesn't ship with a real mouse. It becomes a much bigger deal with laptops. I like my iBook quite well, but I certainly wish the trackpad had two mouse buttons. It is not an acceptable solution to have to use a peripheral (this is a laptop, and it's meant to be mobile) in order to have full functionality.
The thing is that when I download music, it's either because I want to try it before I buy it, or because I have no intention of ever buying it anyway.
Since I'm not using an RIAA company's bandwidth to download the music, they are incurring no costs as a result of my hearing their music, even if I don't intend to buy it.
Music's generally too expensive for me to buy, but if I think something is really worth its price tag, of course I'll pay.
Is life on earth the product of an "infection" from space?
I'm not talking about ALH84001 or whatever that asteroid was called. It is quite possible that the most basic postulate of biology (that terrestrial life originated here on Earth) is false. There isn't any convincing evidence that it HAD to have started here, certainly. The panspermia movement has some interesting things to say about this.
This post is idiotic. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but it is both presumptuous and pompous without retaining any kernel of utility.
Firstly, evolution relies heavily on environmental effects. It is wholly conceivable that with slight modifications in chance and circumstance, life on Earth might never have crossed the multicellular threshold.
Secondly, the rate might be more or less the same (though not likely, since Mars certainly never had the same amount of ocean that we had), the initial spark of life might have come 20 percent later. That would mean that Mars wouldn't be slated to enter the realm of multicelluarism for several hundred million years.
Your assertion about temperature contrast is misguided, at best. It would only take a few bacteria to survive the temperature fluctuations to cause irreparable damage.
That said, I couldn't care less about that. If the life on Mars is fragile enough that some Earth bacteria could wipe it out, then it probably wasn't worth studying.
Boy, you sure are right! The last thing we need is a government that makes laws that impede crime by PEOPLE. Government's supposed to represent PEOPLE, not limit them, right?
Because we all know that corporations are comprised of populations of robots who exist on a different dimensional plane from humanity.
Or maybe it's better to compare corporations to giant superorganisms, kind of like monsters, that hide in PEOPLE's closests and eat their children. This should definitely be illegal, and anyone who thinks otherwise is suspect.
to state unequivocally that if you spent $3800 on any one piece of computer hardware, you got ripped off, you need a life, and you deserve to have it break after two days.
All this means, actually, is that the sites that would include the information "Bill Gates Sucks" are not being updated very often, or have little else to say.
It's an indicator of the dubious kind of context in which one finds such rash statements.
The distinction isn't between fiction and science fiction but science fiction and children's fantasy. The line is crossed when the material exits the scope of infantile whimsy and becomes.. well, unintentionally infantile whimsy.
Whereas this is a unique foray into asshole-dom for you? I'm sorry if you think that my pointing out why you were twice an idiot isn't nice, but you were the one complaining. I was only setting the record straight. I notice that you didn't even bother to try to claim that I wasn't right, because you knew in the depths of your battered soul that I was.
You were moderated that way because you completely missed an obvious joke. You made a complete moron of yourself, and therefore you were likely to attract flames. How could you construe that as anything but flamebait?
Slashdot Mirror
Down on Astor Place in NYC they sell T-Shirts with this picture on it. Very ho-hum once you've seen it a few times.
I'm sorry that you didn't do the research that I asked for.
I'll restate it if you're still interested in continuing this mockery of a debate. I want exit polls tied directly to demographics, rather than electoral tallies. Those can be made to mean anything through a properly tinted lens.
I'm not finding them because I'm confident I'm right, and I don't need reassurance.
So, in other words, if you looked around for the exit polls I requested, you couldn't find any that supported your claims. More probably, you didn't even bother to look, because you didn't understand my point. I suspect this is true because it goes with the profile you've already demonstrated as a true buffoon.
Let me give you a word of advice: you're not destined to be a political pundit. Your analysis is all but completely meaningless. Back your shit up with exit polls or something, if you want to have a case about who voted for whom. Until then, squeezing blood from rocks.
Are you saying that it isn't unjust? I didn't introduce the term into the debate.
It's only no better if you agree with those who claim that certain skin colors denote higher levels of intelligence and responsibility. That seems to be the postulate behind your claim--I certainly don't agree with that.
A tyranny is an unjust form of government. You haven't demonstrated that my proposition is unjust, only that you have some misconceptions about racial differences.
Anyone in my system would be allowed to vote, provided that they were able to pass the requisite tests. These tests would obviously have nothing to do with race, but rather competence as a voter.
Sorry. I didn't realize I was dealing with a retard. Maybe you didn't notice that I said the viability of a "republic" as a form of government, and that I didn't believe in the democratic "ideal."
The alternative is a highly altered form of republic where the representation is far less direct and the voting population is screened according to their capabilities to be responsible and intelligent voters. This would be a sort of republic/oligarchy hybrid.
That should tell you something about the viability of the republic as a form of government.
Education isn't necessarily an indication of sensibility. That's why I said "sensible and educated." You inferred far too much.
The more voters you have the more likely you're going to have an ineffectually centrist government. If you have fewer voters who take the issues seriously, you'll have the same balances but with less latency for political action.
I'd consider that far too many. Clearly we're arguing from different sides of a fence.
I don't believe in a democratic ideal. I'd rather have fewer but more sensible and educated people making my decisions for me than a horde of uneducated minds ripe for manipulation.
I'd say 20-30 percent VOTING would be getting good.
Actually, when all of the ordinarily apathetic people vote, you end up with a woefully uneducated voter base making clueless decisions. Keep in mind that in France something like 80-85 percent of the eligible population votes in every election, and M. Le Pen is a result of that effect.
Politics in America are so centrist anyway that it hardly would matter here.
I will get one of these as soon as possible. Currently I don't watch very much TV because I feel that the content is only loosely relevant to me. I would watch a lot more TV if stations were able to accurately target me with programs that I would like, based on the viewing habits of mine that they've observed.
I don't really see how this could be bad. I trust that the TV companies won't misuse the information they receive. Most likely, their doing so would constitute a serious breach of contract (as I assume there is an accompanying sheaf of paperwork in order to become eligible to use this).
While I imagine many people here will tear their hair out while bleating about large companies invading privacy, these people need to get a reality check. Not everyone cares if some nameless faceless person at company X knows you watched some porn last night, and most people would appreciate the service that company X could provide with that information.
Did you only bother to skim his post? He specifically addresses the OS X support for other types of mice. His problem is that after years and years, Apple still doesn't ship with a real mouse. It becomes a much bigger deal with laptops. I like my iBook quite well, but I certainly wish the trackpad had two mouse buttons. It is not an acceptable solution to have to use a peripheral (this is a laptop, and it's meant to be mobile) in order to have full functionality.
The thing is that when I download music, it's either because I want to try it before I buy it, or because I have no intention of ever buying it anyway.
Since I'm not using an RIAA company's bandwidth to download the music, they are incurring no costs as a result of my hearing their music, even if I don't intend to buy it.
Music's generally too expensive for me to buy, but if I think something is really worth its price tag, of course I'll pay.
I'm not talking about ALH84001 or whatever that asteroid was called. It is quite possible that the most basic postulate of biology (that terrestrial life originated here on Earth) is false. There isn't any convincing evidence that it HAD to have started here, certainly. The panspermia movement has some interesting things to say about this.
This post is idiotic. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but it is both presumptuous and pompous without retaining any kernel of utility.
Firstly, evolution relies heavily on environmental effects. It is wholly conceivable that with slight modifications in chance and circumstance, life on Earth might never have crossed the multicellular threshold.
Secondly, the rate might be more or less the same (though not likely, since Mars certainly never had the same amount of ocean that we had), the initial spark of life might have come 20 percent later. That would mean that Mars wouldn't be slated to enter the realm of multicelluarism for several hundred million years.
Your assertion about temperature contrast is misguided, at best. It would only take a few bacteria to survive the temperature fluctuations to cause irreparable damage.
That said, I couldn't care less about that. If the life on Mars is fragile enough that some Earth bacteria could wipe it out, then it probably wasn't worth studying.
Boy, you sure are right! The last thing we need is a government that makes laws that impede crime by PEOPLE. Government's supposed to represent PEOPLE, not limit them, right?
Because we all know that corporations are comprised of populations of robots who exist on a different dimensional plane from humanity.
Or maybe it's better to compare corporations to giant superorganisms, kind of like monsters, that hide in PEOPLE's closests and eat their children. This should definitely be illegal, and anyone who thinks otherwise is suspect.
to state unequivocally that if you spent $3800 on any one piece of computer hardware, you got ripped off, you need a life, and you deserve to have it break after two days.
All this means, actually, is that the sites that would include the information "Bill Gates Sucks" are not being updated very often, or have little else to say.
It's an indicator of the dubious kind of context in which one finds such rash statements.
Lots of people like science fiction. What makes someone a nerd is when they like sci-fi/fantasy better than they like reality.
The distinction isn't between fiction and science fiction but science fiction and children's fantasy. The line is crossed when the material exits the scope of infantile whimsy and becomes .. well, unintentionally infantile whimsy.
Maybe when people started flying and walking on bamboo shoots?
Etc?
sometimes, to be brutally honest, being this elite hurts my balls. a lot.
Whereas this is a unique foray into asshole-dom for you? I'm sorry if you think that my pointing out why you were twice an idiot isn't nice, but you were the one complaining. I was only setting the record straight. I notice that you didn't even bother to try to claim that I wasn't right, because you knew in the depths of your battered soul that I was.
Don't shoot the messenger, dork.
You were moderated that way because you completely missed an obvious joke. You made a complete moron of yourself, and therefore you were likely to attract flames. How could you construe that as anything but flamebait?