This is just Google collecting all of the worlds data, just like they said they were doing to do.
The Droid X2 was released on May 11, 2011. Google announced their intention to acquire Motorola Mobility on August 15, 2011, and completed the acquisition on May 22, 2012.
The Droid X2 runs Android which is made by Google. Any servers Motorola runs today are most likely managed by Google now.
Contracts have to be spelled out verbatim whereas as things like legislation and constitutions are open to some interpretation. Usually, a constitution is not interpreted directly but rather other laws are interpreted against it to ensure they are valid and do not violate the "spirit" of the constitution.
The GPL is based on contract law and copyright rather that it being either a constitution or a law.
Or some republicans really are just batshit insane. "Legitimate rape," anyone?
Changing topics when you have no legitimate retort anyone? Go head and ignore all of it while your civil right erode into nothing. I suppose if your party is doing it, then it is suddenly ok?
Perhaps you should click around some of those links. The Heritage site shows a breakdown of their score which includes not only property rights and government spending but also levels of corruption.
"Exact binaries" is not the point of having the source code.
Uh, you must not have worked in a shop that does continuous integration automated builds? Do you really think QA should be handed binaries that you compile and have them trust them?
The problem is that GCC will always give you a different binary every time you compile from the same source. This makes it impossible that the binary you received comes from the source you claim to have used. You can get around this by never receiving binaries from anywhere but the automated build machine but it would still be useful to be able to test that a build that you received was built from the code you expect.
There were several reasons why Apple moved away from the GCC tool chain to LLVM and Clang but one of the abilities of the LLVM stack is that you can actually get identical binaries from the same source compiled on different machines at different times.
Not a lawyer, but a former police officer. Still not legal advice.
The deal is that there is an intermediate state, typically referred to as "investigative detention." In short, you're not under arrest (in the handcuffs-go-to-jail sense), but neither are you free to go
So, if my first question is: "Am I detained?" (instead of arrested) what should the officer tell you?
INAL, but if you are not involved in a crime but may have information as a witness, why shouldn't you be willing to do you civic duty? Are you one of those libertarian assholes that want to benefit from everything you can get out of society but not do your fair share?
I stopped reading here. To put it in a polite way, you show a "catastrophic failure of imagination".
No, I'm not even a citizen of US. I was fiddling with the idea of travelling there as a tourist, so I was trying to make myself an idea about the "customs of the place". You managed to convince me it's not a place to visit: even ignoring TSA groping, the risk of meeting rabid creatures as yourself seem too high.
The irony is delicious. I am not an American or American resident. I am a Canadian who visits the US at least a couple times a year. I am also a european citizen. I really don't care where you are from pal. If you have no interest in stepping forward as a witness to a crime if you have something that could aid in the investigation then you are a waste of space. People like you not only lack imagination but a moral compass. Why would you not want to help out if you can? Countries like Canada and some countries in Europe are civil societies because some people are brave enough to do the right thing. Don't simply be a taker from society. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
It is ironic that you assumed that I was an american. Libertarianism is a political philosophy which I consider to be unrealistic utopian thought where it is assumed the society works without rules and obligations. There are libertarian parties in Canada as well but they only garner a handful of votes.
Let's see, they handled the PSN breach pretty badly but I immediately contacted my credit card company to get a new card with a new number even though I did not have any fraudulent charges. In the end, I got some free games and movies.
The other OS feature was removed but I never used it anyway.
Rootkit? Was not a windows users. Care factor Zero. It also had nothing to do with the PS3.
Don't know what LikSang is so I don't care.
Contrast that with what Microsoft was going to do, I still did not care personally since I never owned an Xbox but it would have affected everyone who was going to buy one so that was a big deal for a lot of people.
Please do go on about unrelated things you hate about Sony or stuff that affected almost nobody all the while trying to build up a moral equivalency with a company (Microsoft) that were going to arse rape all of their customers.
"I don't think your reputation can be salvaged at this point... most people have already decided on the PS4, and will be leary of signing up since you're just a firmware update away from returning to putting 'em over a barrel."
This made me lol. It's as if you actually believe Sony can't and wouldn't do exactly the same.
Are you really that naive? really?
Is the Eyetoy camera required? Wouldn't Sony look really stupid if they did as you suggest after launching their console stating specifically that they would not do that? I hear you that some nerds are butt hurt about the Other OS feature that basically nobody used ever but that was a feature that they removed later rather that a complete reversal and lockdown on DRM and trading of games.
Small OSS like linux, GHC and more? What are independent devs?
Rebases are done in local repositories to make the changes cleares. If everyone uses it properly the history is actually a LOT easier to audit. You can use software like gerrit to help enforce such things. SVN is worse than git in every sphere. I can't think of a good reason to use it instead of git. If you want to checkout only parts of it, there's git submodules. If you want to add large binary files to your repository, maybe you want to use git-annex.
The only reason svn is still used is due to legacy. Migrating to a new VCS may be very expensive.
Independent devs would be someone working on an iOS project on their own time with their local machine or the sole developer on a project on github. Git is fine to be used for local versioning not attached to a repo. It integrates well with Xcode and Xamarin Studio. Since I have no intention of "open sourcing" my code, I keep in on my machine locally for the moment.
From your reply, I get the impression that you believe that all of the code that you write is "yours". If you are working for a company, the code is "theirs" which is why it is safer to have a central repository rather than distributed ones. It is an asset of the company and as such, it should be controlled centrally and all builds should be automated. We obviously work in different types of environments. Git would never work in my company.
Use the best tool for the job. SVN is great for use with continuous integration when using an agile test driven development process. I use git locally on my laptop for versioning of my code so that I can revert changes of my personal projects at home. SVN on something similar is what you should use if you need to have a history that will stand up to audits. Sorry but rebasing does not sound like something you want in a SOX compliant environment. You must have traceability and audit friendly logs of every change made. That include merges between trunk and branch or branch back to trunk.
I would never use something like GIT for enterprise development.
Versus Subversion where you *can't* rebase. Instead, just let everything degenerate to the point where contributors habitually build up massive diffs that conflict with every other team member, interspersed with episodes of panicked committing, build breakage and mutual recrimination just before planned release dates. Been there.
That's not a problem with SVN. That is a problem with developer discipline and the development process used. We do continuous integration builds with unit tests within those builds. Our team members usually check in at the end of every day or every two days if they need to do a major refactor to support new functionality.
Stop using waterfall and working in silos and your problems will go away.
Does the answer HAVE to be "yes" or "no" and no other answer?
Or can they say "There is an altercation underway and we want you to stay put until we know what's going on over there in case you get involved in it"?
Seems like the police do not want to talk to the people.
So why the fuck is it so hated to say "don't talk to the police"?
Because if you saw something but keep quite then you are a selfish libertarian asshole. Because that violent person might randomly harm a loved one later?
If you don't want to help your fellow man, go buy and island and isolate yourself from society completely. If you depend on the services a society provides they you must be willing to do your civic duty as well.
Generally, they'll try really hard not to actually answer that question. You can also just ask "Am I free to go?" and if the answer is "no", or anything but "yes", you should assume that you are under suspicion and are being detained. That's a big clue that it's time to Shut Up.
Must be nice to live on an island of your own. I guess you do not benefit from society at all? There are two possible reasons why they want to you stay.
1. You are under suspicion because you near the scene of the crime and you are acting nervous.
2. Are considered a possible material witness.
If you are a potential witness, you should be willing to give up some time and help the police investigate the crime. What if the perp ends up hurting or killing someone you love because you had evidence but decided to keep quiet and they randomly come across your loved one later?
Part of living in a society means that we are willing to help out when there is an immediate need.
If you are under suspicion because you were at the wrong place at the wrong time but you are nervous because you have some pot on you, consider growing the f-up and giving up on your habit.
Not a lawyer, but a former police officer. Still not legal advice.
The deal is that there is an intermediate state, typically referred to as "investigative detention." In short, you're not under arrest (in the handcuffs-go-to-jail sense), but neither are you free to go
So, if my first question is: "Am I detained?" (instead of arrested) what should the officer tell you?
INAL, but if you are not involved in a crime but may have information as a witness, why shouldn't you be willing to do you civic duty? Are you one of those libertarian assholes that want to benefit from everything you can get out of society but not do your fair share?
Try having a better attitude and maybe they will let you go sooner. Don't be an asshole if you want to be treated without suspicion.
I hate to break it to you but the world does not revolve around you. While I generally think less government is better, I believe that we have a responsibility to the society we live in to offer testimony if we actually witnessed something. We should also have enough patience to allow the police to do their jobs effectively.
Do you remember the Superman movie where Peter Parker left the wrestling match without intervening in the robbery and that robber killed his uncle? What if you witnessed a crime but you did not testify and that guy later killed someone you love?
Whether you are being arrested or not, you have the right to remain silent, to an attorney, yada, yada, yada (It's been a while since I watched a cop show depicting the reading of the rights. Do they still show that?). Your rights are there for you to claim.
Right, they are there for you to "claim" but if you choose to answer some questions rather than remain silent, those answers as well as silence on other questions can be used against you.
Does that mean they can put you in prison as long as they don't arrest you and-
Oh, I see.
What? You see what exactly? Can I see a quote where anyone says that? If you choose to answer some questions post miranda then those statements and any silence to others can be used against you. If you are concerned about your right to remain silent then you should remain silent instead of selectively answering questions without council present.
Wrong. Silence post-Miranda cannot be used against you in the case in chief. That is, if you remain silent post-Miranda, it cannot be brought up by the prosecution. The prosecution can use silence to rebut a defense, where your silence would have been inconsistent with your alleged defense.
Silence pre-Miranda or pre-arrest was generally thought to be useable against you. This case isn't surprising, it's merely confirmation that conservative justices are more concerned with 18th century notions of justice than actual 21st century abuses by governments.
I think you are missing the point where "anything you say or do" may be used against you. If you choose to not answer any questions without a lawyer present or advice of council then there is nothing really there to use against you.
If, however, you choose to answer some questions but remain silent on others then that can be used against you post miranda. That silence is in the context of some questions answered post miranda. That silence is an action rather that a statement.
A recent example of selective silence would be the IRIS official who made a statement of defence and then refused to answer any questions. Some might argue that they waived their 5th Amendment right when they made their statement of defence. In the same way, if you answer some questions but not others, those statements and the silence on others can be used as evidence.
Miranda rights are only read to you if you're being arrested. But I guess you'd have to read all the way to the fourth sentence in the summary to see that this guy hadn't been arrested at the time his silence was used against him.
So, whether you are arrested or not, your silence can be used against you. What is you point exactly? Have you never heard of the phrase "your silence speaks volumes"? The silence in a specific context can be more incriminating than anything a person might have to say.
When you remain silent, that is an action rather than a statement. Both your statements and actions can be used against you. It's right there in the Miranda rights.
That sounds like the experience of a recently inflicted paranoid schizophrenic.
No, it is more like listening to someone talking on the phone and only hearing one side of the conversation. Time and time I again, I have seen people like you parrot select quotes from the bible and taking them completely out of context. If you read them within the context, they make more sense even to someone like you but if you don't understand or know the author, it can be difficult seeing how everything fits together. You are missing the back story because you don't know god.
Once you accept god as your savior, you start to see the connections between the old and new testament. You cannot see that the old testament is talking about what will happen in the new testament and the new testament is talking about what has been fulfilled from the old testament.
One guy in the old testament who really "got it" was King David. He could see what was to come. He foresaw how man and god would be united once again in the spirit.
You are completely missing the point. Your primary system enforces a two party system. You can only declare yourself as a Republican, Democrat or Independent full stop.
Not quite that simple. Primaries are run by the parties. Each party has their own systems for each state. Some are primaries, and some are a caucus. Each state has different laws dealing with how these are handled. Some let them do their thing, some bind everything together at the same time. IIRC, most that deal with it at the state level are not tied to the two parties but to the amount of votes that any given party got the prior year. The realpolitik is that we have a two party system that makes it extremely hard for any other party to come in (but this has happened and does happen about every 20 years with one of the old main parties dying about every hundred) but in reality, there are many parties, divided up between at least fifty state organizations each all operating under different state laws.
There is your problem right there. The state laws should play no part in a FEDERAL election of the US president, US senate or US congress. The state government should have no say in how the US election is handled there. You should have an independent agency handling the US election and independent agencies in each state handling state elections.
Look at what happened in florida in previous elections, the state government interfered with the US presidential election. They should have no involvement at all.
That is not to say that state parties could not canvas/help their federal candidate counterparts but there should be some clear separation between the State government and the US election process.
You only have a choice between Obama and Bush at the end of a very long and involved process of vetting and primaries that is reasonably democratic, although many people do not participate out of laziness and ignorance. It would be ridiculous to have 50 presidential candidates in the general election. You start with 50 but they get narrowed down to 2. I would personally prefer 3 but not more than that.
You are completely missing the point. Your primary system enforces a two party system. You can only declare yourself as a Republican, Democrat or Independent full stop.
Instead of primaries, other countries elect their party leaders at political conventions. The public "election" is held later which I think is a more sensible system. I also think it is a bit idiotic that state officials are involved in the federal election and that you elect everyone in one big election night.
In Canada, we have separate election schedules for provincial and federal elections, we have multiple parties running and elections are handled by independent non-partisan organizations for the provincial and federal elections. For the Federal election, there is Elections Canada and for the Provincial election, there is an elections . We do not use voting machines but rather a simple paper ballot where you mark and X by the candidate you want to represent your riding.
Canada is way more fucked on the telecom regulatory/monopoly end than the US will ever be...
Fascinating. Perhaps you could expand on that a bit? Verizon had a "special" 700Mhz spectrum LTE that is incompatible with AT&T and Canadian 700Mhz LTE whereas in Canada, the CDMA carriers all switched to HSPA+ back in late 2009 rather than waiting for a CDMA compatible iPhone. So even back in 2009, Canadians could get an iPhone or other HSPA+ smartphone on a choice of several carriers whereas Verizon customers had to have a special CDMA version and then they managed to screw up LTE with compatiblity by having LTE handsets that used CDMA for voice.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just Google collecting all of the worlds data, just like they said they were doing to do.
The Droid X2 was released on May 11, 2011. Google announced their intention to acquire Motorola Mobility on August 15, 2011, and completed the acquisition on May 22, 2012.
The Droid X2 runs Android which is made by Google. Any servers Motorola runs today are most likely managed by Google now.
The GPL is based on contract law and copyright rather that it being either a constitution or a law.
Or some republicans really are just batshit insane. "Legitimate rape," anyone?
Changing topics when you have no legitimate retort anyone? Go head and ignore all of it while your civil right erode into nothing. I suppose if your party is doing it, then it is suddenly ok?
Perhaps for a more balanced overall perspective, these lists should also be considered in conjunction with this list as well?
http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/least-corrupt-countries.html
(Captcha: "paycheck")
Perhaps you should click around some of those links. The Heritage site shows a breakdown of their score which includes not only property rights and government spending but also levels of corruption.
"Exact binaries" is not the point of having the source code.
Uh, you must not have worked in a shop that does continuous integration automated builds? Do you really think QA should be handed binaries that you compile and have them trust them?
The problem is that GCC will always give you a different binary every time you compile from the same source. This makes it impossible that the binary you received comes from the source you claim to have used. You can get around this by never receiving binaries from anywhere but the automated build machine but it would still be useful to be able to test that a build that you received was built from the code you expect.
There were several reasons why Apple moved away from the GCC tool chain to LLVM and Clang but one of the abilities of the LLVM stack is that you can actually get identical binaries from the same source compiled on different machines at different times.
There was a documentary on that in the early 90's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Versus_the_Volcano starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.
Not a lawyer, but a former police officer. Still not legal advice.
The deal is that there is an intermediate state, typically referred to as "investigative detention." In short, you're not under arrest (in the handcuffs-go-to-jail sense), but neither are you free to go
So, if my first question is: "Am I detained?" (instead of arrested) what should the officer tell you?
INAL, but if you are not involved in a crime but may have information as a witness, why shouldn't you be willing to do you civic duty? Are you one of those libertarian assholes that want to benefit from everything you can get out of society but not do your fair share?
I stopped reading here. To put it in a polite way, you show a "catastrophic failure of imagination". No, I'm not even a citizen of US. I was fiddling with the idea of travelling there as a tourist, so I was trying to make myself an idea about the "customs of the place". You managed to convince me it's not a place to visit: even ignoring TSA groping, the risk of meeting rabid creatures as yourself seem too high.
The irony is delicious. I am not an American or American resident. I am a Canadian who visits the US at least a couple times a year. I am also a european citizen. I really don't care where you are from pal. If you have no interest in stepping forward as a witness to a crime if you have something that could aid in the investigation then you are a waste of space. People like you not only lack imagination but a moral compass. Why would you not want to help out if you can? Countries like Canada and some countries in Europe are civil societies because some people are brave enough to do the right thing. Don't simply be a taker from society. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
It is ironic that you assumed that I was an american. Libertarianism is a political philosophy which I consider to be unrealistic utopian thought where it is assumed the society works without rules and obligations. There are libertarian parties in Canada as well but they only garner a handful of votes.
The other OS feature was removed but I never used it anyway.
Rootkit? Was not a windows users. Care factor Zero. It also had nothing to do with the PS3.
Don't know what LikSang is so I don't care.
Contrast that with what Microsoft was going to do, I still did not care personally since I never owned an Xbox but it would have affected everyone who was going to buy one so that was a big deal for a lot of people.
Please do go on about unrelated things you hate about Sony or stuff that affected almost nobody all the while trying to build up a moral equivalency with a company (Microsoft) that were going to arse rape all of their customers.
"I don't think your reputation can be salvaged at this point... most people have already decided on the PS4, and will be leary of signing up since you're just a firmware update away from returning to putting 'em over a barrel."
This made me lol. It's as if you actually believe Sony can't and wouldn't do exactly the same.
Are you really that naive? really?
Is the Eyetoy camera required? Wouldn't Sony look really stupid if they did as you suggest after launching their console stating specifically that they would not do that? I hear you that some nerds are butt hurt about the Other OS feature that basically nobody used ever but that was a feature that they removed later rather that a complete reversal and lockdown on DRM and trading of games.
What is your gamertag on Xbox live?
Small OSS like linux, GHC and more? What are independent devs? Rebases are done in local repositories to make the changes cleares. If everyone uses it properly the history is actually a LOT easier to audit. You can use software like gerrit to help enforce such things. SVN is worse than git in every sphere. I can't think of a good reason to use it instead of git. If you want to checkout only parts of it, there's git submodules. If you want to add large binary files to your repository, maybe you want to use git-annex. The only reason svn is still used is due to legacy. Migrating to a new VCS may be very expensive.
Independent devs would be someone working on an iOS project on their own time with their local machine or the sole developer on a project on github. Git is fine to be used for local versioning not attached to a repo. It integrates well with Xcode and Xamarin Studio. Since I have no intention of "open sourcing" my code, I keep in on my machine locally for the moment.
From your reply, I get the impression that you believe that all of the code that you write is "yours". If you are working for a company, the code is "theirs" which is why it is safer to have a central repository rather than distributed ones. It is an asset of the company and as such, it should be controlled centrally and all builds should be automated. We obviously work in different types of environments. Git would never work in my company.
I would never use something like GIT for enterprise development.
...Having to rebase is tiresome...
Versus Subversion where you *can't* rebase. Instead, just let everything degenerate to the point where contributors habitually build up massive diffs that conflict with every other team member, interspersed with episodes of panicked committing, build breakage and mutual recrimination just before planned release dates. Been there.
That's not a problem with SVN. That is a problem with developer discipline and the development process used. We do continuous integration builds with unit tests within those builds. Our team members usually check in at the end of every day or every two days if they need to do a major refactor to support new functionality.
Stop using waterfall and working in silos and your problems will go away.
Does the answer HAVE to be "yes" or "no" and no other answer?
Or can they say "There is an altercation underway and we want you to stay put until we know what's going on over there in case you get involved in it"?
Seems like the police do not want to talk to the people.
So why the fuck is it so hated to say "don't talk to the police"?
Because if you saw something but keep quite then you are a selfish libertarian asshole. Because that violent person might randomly harm a loved one later?
If you don't want to help your fellow man, go buy and island and isolate yourself from society completely. If you depend on the services a society provides they you must be willing to do your civic duty as well.
Generally, they'll try really hard not to actually answer that question. You can also just ask "Am I free to go?" and if the answer is "no", or anything but "yes", you should assume that you are under suspicion and are being detained. That's a big clue that it's time to Shut Up.
Must be nice to live on an island of your own. I guess you do not benefit from society at all? There are two possible reasons why they want to you stay.
1. You are under suspicion because you near the scene of the crime and you are acting nervous.
2. Are considered a possible material witness.
If you are a potential witness, you should be willing to give up some time and help the police investigate the crime. What if the perp ends up hurting or killing someone you love because you had evidence but decided to keep quiet and they randomly come across your loved one later?
Part of living in a society means that we are willing to help out when there is an immediate need.
If you are under suspicion because you were at the wrong place at the wrong time but you are nervous because you have some pot on you, consider growing the f-up and giving up on your habit.
Not a lawyer, but a former police officer. Still not legal advice.
The deal is that there is an intermediate state, typically referred to as "investigative detention." In short, you're not under arrest (in the handcuffs-go-to-jail sense), but neither are you free to go
So, if my first question is: "Am I detained?" (instead of arrested) what should the officer tell you?
INAL, but if you are not involved in a crime but may have information as a witness, why shouldn't you be willing to do you civic duty? Are you one of those libertarian assholes that want to benefit from everything you can get out of society but not do your fair share?
Try having a better attitude and maybe they will let you go sooner. Don't be an asshole if you want to be treated without suspicion.
I hate to break it to you but the world does not revolve around you. While I generally think less government is better, I believe that we have a responsibility to the society we live in to offer testimony if we actually witnessed something. We should also have enough patience to allow the police to do their jobs effectively.
Do you remember the Superman movie where Peter Parker left the wrestling match without intervening in the robbery and that robber killed his uncle? What if you witnessed a crime but you did not testify and that guy later killed someone you love?
Whether you are being arrested or not, you have the right to remain silent, to an attorney, yada, yada, yada (It's been a while since I watched a cop show depicting the reading of the rights. Do they still show that?). Your rights are there for you to claim.
Right, they are there for you to "claim" but if you choose to answer some questions rather than remain silent, those answers as well as silence on other questions can be used against you.
Does that mean they can put you in prison as long as they don't arrest you and-
Oh, I see.
What? You see what exactly? Can I see a quote where anyone says that? If you choose to answer some questions post miranda then those statements and any silence to others can be used against you. If you are concerned about your right to remain silent then you should remain silent instead of selectively answering questions without council present.
Wrong. Silence post-Miranda cannot be used against you in the case in chief. That is, if you remain silent post-Miranda, it cannot be brought up by the prosecution. The prosecution can use silence to rebut a defense, where your silence would have been inconsistent with your alleged defense.
Silence pre-Miranda or pre-arrest was generally thought to be useable against you. This case isn't surprising, it's merely confirmation that conservative justices are more concerned with 18th century notions of justice than actual 21st century abuses by governments.
I think you are missing the point where "anything you say or do" may be used against you. If you choose to not answer any questions without a lawyer present or advice of council then there is nothing really there to use against you.
If, however, you choose to answer some questions but remain silent on others then that can be used against you post miranda. That silence is in the context of some questions answered post miranda. That silence is an action rather that a statement.
A recent example of selective silence would be the IRIS official who made a statement of defence and then refused to answer any questions. Some might argue that they waived their 5th Amendment right when they made their statement of defence. In the same way, if you answer some questions but not others, those statements and the silence on others can be used as evidence.
Miranda rights are only read to you if you're being arrested. But I guess you'd have to read all the way to the fourth sentence in the summary to see that this guy hadn't been arrested at the time his silence was used against him.
So, whether you are arrested or not, your silence can be used against you. What is you point exactly? Have you never heard of the phrase "your silence speaks volumes"? The silence in a specific context can be more incriminating than anything a person might have to say.
When you remain silent, that is an action rather than a statement. Both your statements and actions can be used against you. It's right there in the Miranda rights.
and everything will suddenly make sense
That sounds like the experience of a recently inflicted paranoid schizophrenic.
No, it is more like listening to someone talking on the phone and only hearing one side of the conversation. Time and time I again, I have seen people like you parrot select quotes from the bible and taking them completely out of context. If you read them within the context, they make more sense even to someone like you but if you don't understand or know the author, it can be difficult seeing how everything fits together. You are missing the back story because you don't know god.
Once you accept god as your savior, you start to see the connections between the old and new testament. You cannot see that the old testament is talking about what will happen in the new testament and the new testament is talking about what has been fulfilled from the old testament.
One guy in the old testament who really "got it" was King David. He could see what was to come. He foresaw how man and god would be united once again in the spirit.
You are completely missing the point. Your primary system enforces a two party system. You can only declare yourself as a Republican, Democrat or Independent full stop.
Not quite that simple. Primaries are run by the parties. Each party has their own systems for each state. Some are primaries, and some are a caucus. Each state has different laws dealing with how these are handled. Some let them do their thing, some bind everything together at the same time. IIRC, most that deal with it at the state level are not tied to the two parties but to the amount of votes that any given party got the prior year. The realpolitik is that we have a two party system that makes it extremely hard for any other party to come in (but this has happened and does happen about every 20 years with one of the old main parties dying about every hundred) but in reality, there are many parties, divided up between at least fifty state organizations each all operating under different state laws.
There is your problem right there. The state laws should play no part in a FEDERAL election of the US president, US senate or US congress. The state government should have no say in how the US election is handled there. You should have an independent agency handling the US election and independent agencies in each state handling state elections.
Look at what happened in florida in previous elections, the state government interfered with the US presidential election. They should have no involvement at all.
That is not to say that state parties could not canvas/help their federal candidate counterparts but there should be some clear separation between the State government and the US election process.
You only have a choice between Obama and Bush at the end of a very long and involved process of vetting and primaries that is reasonably democratic, although many people do not participate out of laziness and ignorance. It would be ridiculous to have 50 presidential candidates in the general election. You start with 50 but they get narrowed down to 2. I would personally prefer 3 but not more than that.
You are completely missing the point. Your primary system enforces a two party system. You can only declare yourself as a Republican, Democrat or Independent full stop.
Instead of primaries, other countries elect their party leaders at political conventions. The public "election" is held later which I think is a more sensible system. I also think it is a bit idiotic that state officials are involved in the federal election and that you elect everyone in one big election night.
In Canada, we have separate election schedules for provincial and federal elections, we have multiple parties running and elections are handled by independent non-partisan organizations for the provincial and federal elections. For the Federal election, there is Elections Canada and for the Provincial election, there is an elections . We do not use voting machines but rather a simple paper ballot where you mark and X by the candidate you want to represent your riding.
Step 2. Plug charger into regular electrical outlet.
Most lounges have regular power outlets that you can use. The United Club at O'Hare certainly did.
Canada is way more fucked on the telecom regulatory/monopoly end than the US will ever be...
Fascinating. Perhaps you could expand on that a bit? Verizon had a "special" 700Mhz spectrum LTE that is incompatible with AT&T and Canadian 700Mhz LTE whereas in Canada, the CDMA carriers all switched to HSPA+ back in late 2009 rather than waiting for a CDMA compatible iPhone. So even back in 2009, Canadians could get an iPhone or other HSPA+ smartphone on a choice of several carriers whereas Verizon customers had to have a special CDMA version and then they managed to screw up LTE with compatiblity by having LTE handsets that used CDMA for voice.