You shouldn't be anonymous for the voting process, otherwise you'll get all kinds of shenanigans occurring. People voting twice, ineligible people voting, using someone else's vote, etc. Who you voted for is all that needs to be anonymous.
There was over 70% represented in the vote. That's a huge turnout. What % was required for them to get into the EU, btw?
If people treated their vote as a joke, then they don't deserve a re-vote. Simple as that.
In the end, this petition is just more petulant crying. "Waahhhhhh, I don't like the result and want another another vote!! And another. And another.. Until I get MY way!" If it had turned out the other way, the remain side would be saying the same thing to the Brexit side: Too fucking bad.
Probably because the "experts" have been so completely clueless over and over again that it's time to give your head a shake and stop listening to them.
Look at all the so-called experts that advise on the economy, such as Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen. How's that going? Not so fucking well, that's how. Experts said there was no housing bubble. Experts said that the (non-existant) housing bubble was contained and wouldn't spread into the rest of the economy. Experts said Greece wasn't a problem. Experts said that just another IMF loan and some austerity and the problem would be fixed. Experts said that "when it becomes serious, you have to lie."
The MP that said it was time to stop listening to these kinds of experts is the kind that actually has a chance at running things properly.
It's quite possible to have a phone in a venue and *not* be a douche. There's plenty of people who do it every day, you just don't notice because they're doing it right!
This applies to almost every law out there. I know people who can drive just fine while operating a cell phone, and others who can't due to the distraction. The laws are always aimed at the lowest common denominator, and the masses are punished for the actions of the few.
If you can get away with it while not bothering anyone, good on ya.
As you get older, you'll start seeing the aspects of society that have actually regressed while being called "progress". Usually it involves your rights being stripped away or trampled on by government, big business, and people who would call themselves your fellow citizens if it weren't so obvious they were trying to be your master.
There also have been numerous cases where officers have had their weapon taken from them and sometimes killed with it. Yet I don't see the usual screaming from the anti-gun crowd that cops should be subject to the same restrictions they demand upon the public, despite making the same blunders that the anti-gun crowd vilifies the gun owners for.
It's one of the reasons the establishment is so successful at steering the public's attention. Use some hot words like "racist" or "terrorist" and you can get people angry at whatever you want. They won't even stop to think if the label you've applied is even accurate.
This is what I was thinking. A driver is supposed to be an interface to the hardware. It shouldn't be overly complicated. Why is there so much processing going on there? Shouldn't that kind of processing be either in the graphics subsystem (D3D, OpenGL, Vulkan) or in the card's firmware?
Trade barriers and walls never made anyone more productive and wealthy
I'm not entirely sure about that. Every time we reduce trade barriers, things seem to get worse. We lose jobs, products get shittier, wages go down, and prices still go up. The only thing that's gotten better overall is electronics/tech, and that's probably in spite of what's happening.
"Free" trade made sense when shipping costs meant that it was still profitable to produce goods locally and you only bought from other nations what you couldn't produce yourselves. When shipping is almost free, and labor in another country is almost free, when that other country doesn't make you properly dispose of environmental waste or treat workers like human beings, how can you possibly compete?? You can't. This outsourcing will continue until America is nothing but a shadow of its former self. Do you really want the majority of the people living in huts and on the streets like in India?
Some love to say that people just need to get into "more creative" jobs, but ignore that fact that it's statistically impossible for any significant portion of the people to do that. Not just due to ability, but if you do get that situation, creative jobs will no longer pay a living wage. Even if you can get 30% of the workforce into these positions, are you just going to throw the other 70% overboard?
Why is it that in the 50's, you could have a single family member working a blue collar job, while still having enough to buy a modest house, a car, and the ability to feed and raise 6 kids, yet 60 years of "progress" later, there's no way in hell that is possible. The excuse these days is that people buy way too much house and spend money on junk. To a degree, that's true, but even if you didn't have cell phone, cable, and 2 brand new cars, you still couldn't live like they could in the 50's.
I think free trade is a great idea, IF all countries are playing on the same level. That's not the case, so what's the solution?
Of course they always keep the promises that will screw you. The ones that will benefit you? Not so much. "Oh, our hands were tied, the other parties kiboshed it, or it was too hard, or something. Uh, excuse me, I've got a meeting with an oligarch, I mean, constituent."
The tops of multi-national corporations that got to take advantage of wage arbitrage and guaranteed protections were the beneficiaries. Workers and the public got the shaft, big time. Exactly how it will be with TPP, but mulitplied.
I got a phone call from Windows support the other day. The kind gentleman on the phone advised me that my IP address had a virus and to let him into my computer so he could fix it.
That's more about gaining wisdom and appreciating the more important things in life as you age, and nothing to do with "losing the ability to adjust to 'civilized' life as you get old."
Socialist governments quickly turn into authoritarian, totalitarian states. The State sees the need for more of itself in order provide more social services. They will drive out productive members who eventually tire of being stolen from, leaving them with a smaller tax base, which they will squeeze even harder. The recipients of social services will demand that more be done to squeeze people, and that there be a need to regulate people's behavior in order to ensure the services can continue.
Regulating how you live your life will be justified by the fact that you can receive social services.
"No, you can't eat that because you'll make yourself less healthy and therefore a burden on the health care system." "No, you can't have any means of self defense, because we already have the police to do that." "No, you can't sell booze or run a casino because the State has a monopoly on that." "No, you can't opt out of our lifestyle data collection because we're providing public insurance." "No, you can't opt out of any of these services we offer, because the whole system will fall apart if people do that, and also because we wouldn't have the high ground to tell you how to behave."
It's a road to hell that's paved with good intentions.
Anyone who thinks that there will be some semblance of "justice" from any of these kangaroo courts is dreaming.
It has gotten pretty blatant: If you're a local, if you're white, you will feel the full wrath of the government. If you're a minority, especially a new immigrant, you can do whatever you want with near impunity.
Yet, amazingly, people are baffled as to why there's backlash against the immigrants and the government by the locals. They're totally perplexed.
One would almost think the government's goal here is some sort of violent uprising among the people. To what end? Maybe so they could get away with a complete crackdown on freedoms in order to control the populace. In that case, guess what 'fugees? You're being used as pawns in this evil game.
So we can expect to see you at the next pro-gun rally then? Guns themselves aren't a problem, just a small handful of people who misuse them are. I'm sure we can count on you to tell the rest of these lunatic gun-grabbers who would violate the 2nd amendment that the whole group isn't to blame for the actions of a few, right?
I stopped buying video games that required online activation. If the publishers care about my money, they'll release it on GoG. Sure, I sometimes have to wait a few years, but that just means I don't have to update my hardware as often either.
Once you can come to grips with not having every latest shiny the day it comes out, is the day you can be much happier.
A phobia means an abnormal, irrational fear of something. You know how people are though, they are desperate to paint their enemies with as many negative terms as possible, in hopes that others will be convinced to feel the same way, that they will stoop to misusing terms or outright lying.
Being terrified of a black widow crawling up your arm is not arachnophobia. The fear of that spider biting and poisoning you is real and rational. Likewise, if someone is bringing a few thousand spiders into your house, some of which are poisonous, and you tell them to stop it, that is not arachnophobia either. Telling someone you do not like spiders does not make you an arachnophobe.
Not liking the ways of Islam and not wanting to see your country adopt those ways is not "Islamophobia" either. Which brings to question, why does that term even exist? Why is there not Christophobia, or Buddiphobia? It's only when there's an agenda to push that doesn't have a solid, logical, and beneficial backing to it that there's a need to pull out the 'ophobia terms in attempt to shame the opposition into caving to your demands.
When CGI and voice synthesis reaches a certain level, you'll probably see the end of the overpaid actor.
Back in the early 90's I was wondering when we'd have an Arnie action movie star that wasn't real. They could have him in a hundred movies spanning 50 years, and he'd never age, he'd never ask for too much money, he'd never get injured on the set or call in sick.
The biggest criminals in the world are the banks and governments.
The biggest money launderers are the banks.
The biggest supporters of terrorism are governments.
Regulating bitcoin does not stop any of the above. It might inconvenience some small time criminals, but the people it hurts the most are the average citizens. You give governments complete control over a person's financial state, and you will see what crimes against humanity they will commit. This "we're doing it to eliminate crime" is nothing but a lie that the government uses to convince simple minds to go along with the plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you realize that there are still many people who do not have a cell phone, mainly the elderly? There are also people without bank accounts.
You shouldn't be anonymous for the voting process, otherwise you'll get all kinds of shenanigans occurring. People voting twice, ineligible people voting, using someone else's vote, etc. Who you voted for is all that needs to be anonymous.
There was over 70% represented in the vote. That's a huge turnout. What % was required for them to get into the EU, btw?
If people treated their vote as a joke, then they don't deserve a re-vote. Simple as that.
In the end, this petition is just more petulant crying. "Waahhhhhh, I don't like the result and want another another vote!! And another. And another.. Until I get MY way!" If it had turned out the other way, the remain side would be saying the same thing to the Brexit side: Too fucking bad.
Probably because the "experts" have been so completely clueless over and over again that it's time to give your head a shake and stop listening to them.
Look at all the so-called experts that advise on the economy, such as Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen. How's that going? Not so fucking well, that's how.
Experts said there was no housing bubble.
Experts said that the (non-existant) housing bubble was contained and wouldn't spread into the rest of the economy.
Experts said Greece wasn't a problem.
Experts said that just another IMF loan and some austerity and the problem would be fixed.
Experts said that "when it becomes serious, you have to lie."
The MP that said it was time to stop listening to these kinds of experts is the kind that actually has a chance at running things properly.
It's quite possible to have a phone in a venue and *not* be a douche. There's plenty of people who do it every day, you just don't notice because they're doing it right!
This applies to almost every law out there. I know people who can drive just fine while operating a cell phone, and others who can't due to the distraction. The laws are always aimed at the lowest common denominator, and the masses are punished for the actions of the few.
If you can get away with it while not bothering anyone, good on ya.
As you get older, you'll start seeing the aspects of society that have actually regressed while being called "progress". Usually it involves your rights being stripped away or trampled on by government, big business, and people who would call themselves your fellow citizens if it weren't so obvious they were trying to be your master.
Yes, you too will pine for the Good Old Days.
You might want to rethink civilians ability with firearms with respect to police.
"In fact, gun owners mistakenly kill about 30 innocent persons a year, one-eleventh of the number killed by police"
There also have been numerous cases where officers have had their weapon taken from them and sometimes killed with it. Yet I don't see the usual screaming from the anti-gun crowd that cops should be subject to the same restrictions they demand upon the public, despite making the same blunders that the anti-gun crowd vilifies the gun owners for.
If you want to have guns, that's fine. But don't say they are the solution to the same problem they create...
Maybe you should tell the police that when they next respond to a situation where the perp is armed.
No joke. That actually happens.
The owner could have purchased the place a long time ago, when prices weren't bubble crazy. Or inherited it
Nothing clouds logic quite like emotion.
It's one of the reasons the establishment is so successful at steering the public's attention. Use some hot words like "racist" or "terrorist" and you can get people angry at whatever you want. They won't even stop to think if the label you've applied is even accurate.
This is what I was thinking. A driver is supposed to be an interface to the hardware. It shouldn't be overly complicated. Why is there so much processing going on there? Shouldn't that kind of processing be either in the graphics subsystem (D3D, OpenGL, Vulkan) or in the card's firmware?
Reminds me of the old WinModems and WinPrinters.
Trade barriers and walls never made anyone more productive and wealthy
I'm not entirely sure about that. Every time we reduce trade barriers, things seem to get worse. We lose jobs, products get shittier, wages go down, and prices still go up. The only thing that's gotten better overall is electronics/tech, and that's probably in spite of what's happening.
"Free" trade made sense when shipping costs meant that it was still profitable to produce goods locally and you only bought from other nations what you couldn't produce yourselves. When shipping is almost free, and labor in another country is almost free, when that other country doesn't make you properly dispose of environmental waste or treat workers like human beings, how can you possibly compete?? You can't. This outsourcing will continue until America is nothing but a shadow of its former self. Do you really want the majority of the people living in huts and on the streets like in India?
Some love to say that people just need to get into "more creative" jobs, but ignore that fact that it's statistically impossible for any significant portion of the people to do that. Not just due to ability, but if you do get that situation, creative jobs will no longer pay a living wage. Even if you can get 30% of the workforce into these positions, are you just going to throw the other 70% overboard?
Why is it that in the 50's, you could have a single family member working a blue collar job, while still having enough to buy a modest house, a car, and the ability to feed and raise 6 kids, yet 60 years of "progress" later, there's no way in hell that is possible. The excuse these days is that people buy way too much house and spend money on junk. To a degree, that's true, but even if you didn't have cell phone, cable, and 2 brand new cars, you still couldn't live like they could in the 50's.
I think free trade is a great idea, IF all countries are playing on the same level. That's not the case, so what's the solution?
Of course they always keep the promises that will screw you. The ones that will benefit you? Not so much. "Oh, our hands were tied, the other parties kiboshed it, or it was too hard, or something. Uh, excuse me, I've got a meeting with an oligarch, I mean, constituent."
The tops of multi-national corporations that got to take advantage of wage arbitrage and guaranteed protections were the beneficiaries. Workers and the public got the shaft, big time. Exactly how it will be with TPP, but mulitplied.
I got a phone call from Windows support the other day. The kind gentleman on the phone advised me that my IP address had a virus and to let him into my computer so he could fix it.
That's more about gaining wisdom and appreciating the more important things in life as you age, and nothing to do with "losing the ability to adjust to 'civilized' life as you get old."
Socialist governments quickly turn into authoritarian, totalitarian states. The State sees the need for more of itself in order provide more social services. They will drive out productive members who eventually tire of being stolen from, leaving them with a smaller tax base, which they will squeeze even harder. The recipients of social services will demand that more be done to squeeze people, and that there be a need to regulate people's behavior in order to ensure the services can continue.
Regulating how you live your life will be justified by the fact that you can receive social services.
"No, you can't eat that because you'll make yourself less healthy and therefore a burden on the health care system."
"No, you can't have any means of self defense, because we already have the police to do that."
"No, you can't sell booze or run a casino because the State has a monopoly on that."
"No, you can't opt out of our lifestyle data collection because we're providing public insurance."
"No, you can't opt out of any of these services we offer, because the whole system will fall apart if people do that, and also because we wouldn't have the high ground to tell you how to behave."
It's a road to hell that's paved with good intentions.
Anyone who thinks that there will be some semblance of "justice" from any of these kangaroo courts is dreaming.
It has gotten pretty blatant: If you're a local, if you're white, you will feel the full wrath of the government. If you're a minority, especially a new immigrant, you can do whatever you want with near impunity.
Yet, amazingly, people are baffled as to why there's backlash against the immigrants and the government by the locals. They're totally perplexed.
One would almost think the government's goal here is some sort of violent uprising among the people. To what end? Maybe so they could get away with a complete crackdown on freedoms in order to control the populace. In that case, guess what 'fugees? You're being used as pawns in this evil game.
So we can expect to see you at the next pro-gun rally then? Guns themselves aren't a problem, just a small handful of people who misuse them are. I'm sure we can count on you to tell the rest of these lunatic gun-grabbers who would violate the 2nd amendment that the whole group isn't to blame for the actions of a few, right?
I stopped buying video games that required online activation. If the publishers care about my money, they'll release it on GoG. Sure, I sometimes have to wait a few years, but that just means I don't have to update my hardware as often either.
Once you can come to grips with not having every latest shiny the day it comes out, is the day you can be much happier.
A phobia means an abnormal, irrational fear of something. You know how people are though, they are desperate to paint their enemies with as many negative terms as possible, in hopes that others will be convinced to feel the same way, that they will stoop to misusing terms or outright lying.
Being terrified of a black widow crawling up your arm is not arachnophobia. The fear of that spider biting and poisoning you is real and rational. Likewise, if someone is bringing a few thousand spiders into your house, some of which are poisonous, and you tell them to stop it, that is not arachnophobia either. Telling someone you do not like spiders does not make you an arachnophobe.
Not liking the ways of Islam and not wanting to see your country adopt those ways is not "Islamophobia" either. Which brings to question, why does that term even exist? Why is there not Christophobia, or Buddiphobia? It's only when there's an agenda to push that doesn't have a solid, logical, and beneficial backing to it that there's a need to pull out the 'ophobia terms in attempt to shame the opposition into caving to your demands.
When CGI and voice synthesis reaches a certain level, you'll probably see the end of the overpaid actor.
Back in the early 90's I was wondering when we'd have an Arnie action movie star that wasn't real. They could have him in a hundred movies spanning 50 years, and he'd never age, he'd never ask for too much money, he'd never get injured on the set or call in sick.
That would have made the end of Se7en pretty anti-climactic.
The biggest criminals in the world are the banks and governments.
The biggest money launderers are the banks.
The biggest supporters of terrorism are governments.
Regulating bitcoin does not stop any of the above. It might inconvenience some small time criminals, but the people it hurts the most are the average citizens. You give governments complete control over a person's financial state, and you will see what crimes against humanity they will commit. This "we're doing it to eliminate crime" is nothing but a lie that the government uses to convince simple minds to go along with the plan.