Canada is culturally closer to Europe at this point than the US... and the US will be punishing them for that at every opportunity.
Heh. Just wait 'til we JOIN the EU and watch their knickers twist, then.;-)
Actually, it's a pretty good idea... unscientific sample, of course, but most of my friends support it. And the funny thing about that is that, through some weird chance, most of us were born in the States but are now either landed immigrants or Canadian citizens. All mighty glad to be here, too.
Didn't see anything in here on them, so I thought I'd toss out the venerable Rail Builder series. Empire Builder, British Rails, Iron Dragon (my fave), and several others all feature the same basic idea: build track, operate train(s) on it, carry goods from place of production to place of demand. Sounds simple, right? It can be fiendishly complex, cut-throat (especially with more than 3 players), and unbelievably entertaining. Five stars from someone who's been gaming for nearly 40 years. Cheers!
Thanks for that - well worth the link. I too am a US-born Canadian who "know(s) damn well what Canada is." Should we ever find that pub, the first round's on me. Cheers!
They've overlooked FirstClass, probably because it's a Canadian product and not well known in the USA (big in parts of Europe, though). Recently acquired by OpenText, FirstClass features unbelievable solidity and scalability; it provides email and web server, groupware, and unified messaging in a simple, easily managed client/server package. Brought to you by the folks who created Meridian mail. Supports Mac and Wintel, though I couldn't tell you whether the Linux project is out of beta yet.
Don't take my word for it, though. Download it for free and play around with it. The only limitation is the number of seats (5); you have to pay for additional licenses.
An interesting distinction between the Canadian and US constitutions: the latter is based upon "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and the former is based upon "Peace, order, and good government". You get what you pay for, I guess.;-)
I'm a dual citizen, BTW, from NH no less (the "Live Free Or Die" state). Personally, I'd rather live in Canada. But YMMV. Cheers!
Did you notice that the population factor was conspicuously missing from TFA? The scary thing is, we HAVEN'T broken the cycle of nature and evolution at all - we just dodged the consequences while we ramped up our population. The crash at the end, which is inevitable unless we control our population, still awaits us.
Cut our global population by somewhere between 50 and 90 percent, though, and it's all good. Plenty of resources to go around. No political will to do anything about it, though, and even talking about it is well-nigh taboo.
My friend Steve won that in 1993 for a novel called Stolen Voices. He's a critically-acclaimed fantasy novelist these days, and the three-day thing definitely played an important role in his burgeoning career. Oh, if you're into fantasy, you'll probably recognize him better as Steven Erikson.
Well, there are other modes of subsistence besides hunter-gatherer, but yes, I think we can learn something about effective social organization from societies that did not involve a state. To say that in order to do so we need to go back to living as hunter-gatherers is disingenuous.
Likewise I said nothing about a lack of laws; in fact, I specifically referred to a different approach to law. States tend to produce laws that proscribe certain behaviours and prescribe punishments for those behaviours. Some cultures' laws focus more on recognizing the gamut of human behaviour and prescribing a process for ameliorating the social damage arising from specific situations. I believe that this approach would work well in relatively small groups of like-minded individuals who are socialized to recognize and value the "right thing to do". I also believe that our society, with its layman-incomprehensible legal system and profoundly mixed messages, does a piss-poor job of that kind of socialization. I don't have all the answers, but I think there are clear pointers to better approaches than what we have right now.
As for corporations in their current incarnation, I think you're correct in calling them voluntary associations, but only to a degree. Like feudalism, they're good for the people at the top, but become less voluntary and promote less quality-of-life the further you get from the top. My big problem with corporations, though, is that they are a way of insulating their owners from the long-term consequences of their collective actions. Corporations - again, in their current incarnation - exist solely to make money, and whatever makes them money is by definition good for them. The problem is that "whatever makes them money" is not necessarily good for their social or physical environment.
And yes, capital is a consequence of property "rights" - but you probably won't be surprised to know that I believe property "rights" to be mostly wrong as well. Which is a whole 'nother discussion, really. But getting back to what you're saying: until there is no distinction between "owners" and "employees", until the people that make up an association for economic activity are liable for all consequences of their actions (and take the implied responsibility seriously), until (in short) corporations are reinvented as an entity with more goals than simply making money, I believe they will continue to be part of the problem.
Your last sentence is interesting because of its focus on "rights". While the rights any society grants its individuals are important, I firmly believe that the "responsibilities" side of the equation has largely been ignored in recent years. I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what your final question refers to, but I suspect my answer lies in greater societal emphasis on the reciprocity of rights and responsibilities.
To put this in some kind of context for you (very briefly), I think we need to move to a loose, heterogenous mix of smallish semi-autonomous social groups (think more-or-less town-sized), voluntarily organized around a particular physical location or economic activity, between which people are free to move. I also believe we need to massively reduce our population (by roughly an order of magnitude). The resulting per capita natural wealth ought to be enough for everyone, and I think we'd still have enough people to maintain the specialization required for a highly technical civilization. Meta-political organization beyond that level would be, I think, largely unnecessary beyond some kind of world court for dispute resolution and the consideration of "universal" rights and responsibilities.
I could go on, but I have to go. Thanks for your comments, they help me work this stuff out in my head. Cheers!
Face it, government serves a useful purpose and that's why we have it.
Um, I don't think so. Government serves no useful purpose that voluntary organizations could not serve. Government exists to maintain its own power and control.
But we need a police force to enforce basic social rules, since the alternative is lynch mobs and chaos.
Dude, you need to read some anthropology. Plenty of societies have managed quite nicely without resort to any of the above. It seems to be more a matter of what kind of approach your laws take (punishment vs. how to fix a problem) and how people are socialized, at least according to my reading.
As for the following examples, I see no reason why voluntary organizations couldn't accomplish the same tasks. Corporations are a special case, and I happen to believe they should be either severely curtailed or eliminated entirely; I'll freely admit to being a bit of a radical, though.
All of these sorts of functions have been necessary as long as humans have been social creatures, and they have been filled, by kings, tribal chieftains, religious leaders, or elected governments.
No, actually, most of the functions you describe are artifacts of the state - a very recent arrival in the greater context of human social history. Roughly contemporaneous with the rise of what's been called "totalitarian agriculture"; the causal relationship is strongly suggested.
I will never understand why some people think that anarchy has to be hostile, ruled by mobs, and devoid of any organization whatsoever. It requires nothing of the sort - merely that people govern themselves, cooperate, and organize as they wish. It's society for grownups, really.
...why would this be considered "stuff that matters"? Not trolling, not baiting flames, just looking for an explanation, here. Maybe I just don't "get" the whole game thing, but I really don't see how they matter in the context of things with actual, you know, importance.
I never claimed to prove anything, only that the issue of the procedures used for people unable to read or mark a paper ballot in most cases violate their anonymity has been discussed.
Yes, it violates their anonymity to the extent that someone they trust has to help them. Not quite the same as excluding them from voting. I honestly don't understand your objection, if indeed you're NOT trolling. Do you think that voting machines are somehow more accessible to people with disabilities, and if so, how? I'm professionally curious. (Oh, and at the risk of being repetitive, we don't tend to sweat the whole anonymity thing quite as much.)
That being said, I have no problem with electronic voting, provided that it improves accessibility, is more secure and accountable than the existing system, and is cost-effective. Until it is, though, I like paper ballots just fine. The only good argument against them I have seen - in the context of US elections - is the fact that many more positions are elected in the US. Here, we basically vote for one representative at each of three levels - civic, provincial, and federal. Oh, and school board trustees and mayors. But most of these are separate elections, anyway.
Hmmm... seems to me that there's usually something like a fixed "Election Day" in the States, and many positions are elected on the same day... would it work to give each position a separate ballot, or even separate polls (in the sense of ballot boxes, not locations)? Still might be cumbersome, I guess....
This has been discussed already. If you're going to jump into the middle of an argument you might at least have the courtesy of reading it first.
Actually, I have read the whole thread and I don't see you offering any proof of Canadians - blind, quadraplegic, developmentally disabled, black, white, puce, mauve, or fucking Martian - disenfranchised by our system.
So I have to conclude that you're trolling, though rather more skilfully than most. Cheers!
So if I'm counting votes in a Canadian election, I can bias the vote by simply keeping a #2 pencil in my shirt pocket, and adding an extra X or two when some silly voter voted for the wrong candidate.
Well, no, not very easily, because the scrutineers (volunteers appointed by each candidate, I've done it myself) are watching and counting and looking at the ballots along with you.
It's a fun social time, really, and everyone enjoys it.;-)
No one has yet proven to me that failing to follow a set of arbitrary instructions once is sufficient grounds to disqualify the voter from having his voice heard, especially when he will never know that he was disqualified.
Um... how is putting a pencil mark inside a circle any more arbitrary than operating a voting machine? You have to follow instructions either way. Or are you thinking that the machine should just divine the voter's intentions?
But another point, would you be willing to accept the same low perentages (sic) of vote tampering?
Vote tampering, you say? Like what? And is it somehow more likely in a paper ballot system overseen by neutral officials AND the candidates' volunteers than it would be in a black-box electronic system? It's all about the transparency.
...with the added benefits of validation and equal access to the sight impaired or those who cannot read or don't speak english...
Yeah, 'cause, you know, we have such trouble validating our election results. And blind people, they can't vote. And neither can people who can't read or don't speak English.
Oh, wait a minute, what was I thinking? Yes they can vote, and they do, and sometimes I help them, and it works fine. Sorry, I'm being a bit of a smartass here, but really - you're reaching.
Waiter, I'll have some of whatever HE's smoking.;-)
Your whole argument is, IMNSHO, kind of daft. I've been an election scrutineer in more than one election in Canada, and while this kind of theoretical criticism might be fun, the fact is our election system works. Really well, even, unless you want to get into various styles of election and representation reform - but that's not what we're talking about here.
We don't tend to value anonymity to the fanatical degree that people in the US do, though - if people want help voting, they can get help voting. Kind of a common-sense thing, I would think. We're pretty big on common sense... Also on anonymity, my folks (my family is from the States) report that people here talk about who they will vote for much more freely than people in the US. It's no big deal.
The system: voting locations are set up within relatively easy reach of every registered voter. Each location contains a number of polls (a glorified cardboard box), each to be used by the people residing at a certain range of addresses. You get your ballot, you mark it, you fold it, you put it in the box.
When the polls close and it's time to count the ballots, the counting is scrutinized by Elections Canada officials AND by volunteers appointed by each candidate on the ballot. I have yet to see a disagreement as to what constitutes a properly marked ballot, but there are resolution procedures in place to handle disputed ballots. Really, it's not a problem the way you seem to expect that it would be. Your comments about "blindingly obvious mistakes" and mindreading are, frankly, out to lunch. It's not a problem.
As to voting by disabled people, there are other mechanisms in place (advance polling, for example) that allow people to vote via alternative means. If someone chooses to have assistance in casting their vote, and chooses someone that is untrustworthy (which strikes me as unlikely, but I suppose it could happen), they should really make better choices.
That being said, though, we tend to frown upon taking advantage of disabled people, and as someone who has professionally supported people with disabilities for over a decade, I would be mightily surprised to see that kind of vote fraud. People who work in my field don't do it for the money (it doesn't pay very well), we do it because we like to help people and help them live fully determined lives; casting that aside for the sake of a vote that is extremely unlikely to affect the outcome of an election would be morally repugnant and statistically insignificant.
So, yeah, people do have to mark the ballot properly, and yeah, it will be thrown out if the scrutineers (NOT one person, a bunch of them representing all the interested parties) agree that it should be. Maybe somebody, somewhere, somehow, could conceivably vote improperly all his or her life... but I really doubt it.
Personally, I agree with throwing out improperly-marked ballots. It's really easy to indicate your preference, and assistance is available. If you choose to vote unassisted and your preference cannot be determined, tough beans. We don't want election outcomes affected by people who can't either follow simple directions or get help doing so.
I like our system; you might prefer yours. Ours works, and yours has problems, at least from what I read on/. I'll stick with ours, thanks. Cheers!
I've only done one in the last couple of days, and he's thrilled with both Firefox and Thunderbird. Of course, this comes after recommending it to all my friends, rolling it out across my entire workplace, and converting all the family members for whom I do tech support. Everyone - no exceptions - loves both programs.
So the fact that I've only done one new install since 1.0PR was released reflects the fact that I'm running out of vict^H^H^H^H converts.:-)
Well, not to me, per se. Firstly, I'm more of an anarchist than anything else; second, I don't live in the Excited States (though I was born there), so I'm neither Dem nor Rep; and third, I abhor knee-jerk name-calling in political debate.
The key is not opinions, it's values. One key, rather, because there's more to a successful relationship than just shared values. Core values can be interpreted differently, leading to different opinions; values and opinions can also be acted upon (or not) in different ways.
Shared values are important, though, both in my experience and in the analyses I've read. Other key factors: compatible fighting style, "givers" vs. "takers" (should be matched at the very least, but as a giver myself, I don't tend to think much of takers), activity level, degree of adherence to one's supposed principles, and sexual compatibility. And yes, I'm leaving "similar interests" out deliberately; probably nowhere near as important as those I've mentioned.
Especially the ones without a television, like me. I don't own a TV and don't want one, but there are times (e.g. winter Olympics, hockey playoffs, major events like crucial elections) when I would like to be able to watch a broadcast on my only home computer - my notebook. If the event lasts long enough, I might even consider paying for cable for a couple of months.
Thank you, ATI - I think I'll be getting one of these babies before too long.
If you haven't integrated Clerks into your personal lexicon, you have no business moderating here.
I think you're reaching a little too far there. While I thought Clerks was a good flick when I finally saw it a couple of years ago, I have to say that keeping up with any one expression of pop culture should hardly be considered a prerequisite for moderator privileges.
Now, not being familiar with the particular pop culture reference at hand should be enough to keep anyone with a functioning cortex from moderating a given comment or thread; that's why I don't moderate any TV references, and pretty much skip anything to do with games. I don't do either.
But there's lots of "stuff that matters" besides entertainment, and people who know something about it should feel free to moderate the stuff they know. Cheers!
Slashdot Mirror
Better to build the thing in orbit, using mass from the asteroid belt. Should cost a lot less to get the mass where you need it.
;-)
Of course, that's going to require some infrastructure. Which reminds me, why was the ISS built in LEO again?
Canada is culturally closer to Europe at this point than the US... and the US will be punishing them for that at every opportunity.
;-)
Heh. Just wait 'til we JOIN the EU and watch their knickers twist, then.
Actually, it's a pretty good idea... unscientific sample, of course, but most of my friends support it. And the funny thing about that is that, through some weird chance, most of us were born in the States but are now either landed immigrants or Canadian citizens. All mighty glad to be here, too.
Didn't see anything in here on them, so I thought I'd toss out the venerable Rail Builder series. Empire Builder, British Rails, Iron Dragon (my fave), and several others all feature the same basic idea: build track, operate train(s) on it, carry goods from place of production to place of demand. Sounds simple, right? It can be fiendishly complex, cut-throat (especially with more than 3 players), and unbelievably entertaining. Five stars from someone who's been gaming for nearly 40 years. Cheers!
Thanks for that - well worth the link. I too am a US-born Canadian who "know(s) damn well what Canada is." Should we ever find that pub, the first round's on me. Cheers!
They've overlooked FirstClass, probably because it's a Canadian product and not well known in the USA (big in parts of Europe, though). Recently acquired by OpenText, FirstClass features unbelievable solidity and scalability; it provides email and web server, groupware, and unified messaging in a simple, easily managed client/server package. Brought to you by the folks who created Meridian mail. Supports Mac and Wintel, though I couldn't tell you whether the Linux project is out of beta yet. Don't take my word for it, though. Download it for free and play around with it. The only limitation is the number of seats (5); you have to pay for additional licenses.
An interesting distinction between the Canadian and US constitutions: the latter is based upon "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and the former is based upon "Peace, order, and good government". You get what you pay for, I guess. ;-)
I'm a dual citizen, BTW, from NH no less (the "Live Free Or Die" state). Personally, I'd rather live in Canada. But YMMV. Cheers!
Did you notice that the population factor was conspicuously missing from TFA? The scary thing is, we HAVEN'T broken the cycle of nature and evolution at all - we just dodged the consequences while we ramped up our population. The crash at the end, which is inevitable unless we control our population, still awaits us.
Cut our global population by somewhere between 50 and 90 percent, though, and it's all good. Plenty of resources to go around. No political will to do anything about it, though, and even talking about it is well-nigh taboo.
Go, humans, go.
My friend Steve won that in 1993 for a novel called Stolen Voices. He's a critically-acclaimed fantasy novelist these days, and the three-day thing definitely played an important role in his burgeoning career. Oh, if you're into fantasy, you'll probably recognize him better as Steven Erikson.
Well, there are other modes of subsistence besides hunter-gatherer, but yes, I think we can learn something about effective social organization from societies that did not involve a state. To say that in order to do so we need to go back to living as hunter-gatherers is disingenuous.
Likewise I said nothing about a lack of laws; in fact, I specifically referred to a different approach to law. States tend to produce laws that proscribe certain behaviours and prescribe punishments for those behaviours. Some cultures' laws focus more on recognizing the gamut of human behaviour and prescribing a process for ameliorating the social damage arising from specific situations. I believe that this approach would work well in relatively small groups of like-minded individuals who are socialized to recognize and value the "right thing to do". I also believe that our society, with its layman-incomprehensible legal system and profoundly mixed messages, does a piss-poor job of that kind of socialization. I don't have all the answers, but I think there are clear pointers to better approaches than what we have right now.
As for corporations in their current incarnation, I think you're correct in calling them voluntary associations, but only to a degree. Like feudalism, they're good for the people at the top, but become less voluntary and promote less quality-of-life the further you get from the top. My big problem with corporations, though, is that they are a way of insulating their owners from the long-term consequences of their collective actions. Corporations - again, in their current incarnation - exist solely to make money, and whatever makes them money is by definition good for them. The problem is that "whatever makes them money" is not necessarily good for their social or physical environment.
And yes, capital is a consequence of property "rights" - but you probably won't be surprised to know that I believe property "rights" to be mostly wrong as well. Which is a whole 'nother discussion, really. But getting back to what you're saying: until there is no distinction between "owners" and "employees", until the people that make up an association for economic activity are liable for all consequences of their actions (and take the implied responsibility seriously), until (in short) corporations are reinvented as an entity with more goals than simply making money, I believe they will continue to be part of the problem.
Your last sentence is interesting because of its focus on "rights". While the rights any society grants its individuals are important, I firmly believe that the "responsibilities" side of the equation has largely been ignored in recent years. I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what your final question refers to, but I suspect my answer lies in greater societal emphasis on the reciprocity of rights and responsibilities.
To put this in some kind of context for you (very briefly), I think we need to move to a loose, heterogenous mix of smallish semi-autonomous social groups (think more-or-less town-sized), voluntarily organized around a particular physical location or economic activity, between which people are free to move. I also believe we need to massively reduce our population (by roughly an order of magnitude). The resulting per capita natural wealth ought to be enough for everyone, and I think we'd still have enough people to maintain the specialization required for a highly technical civilization. Meta-political organization beyond that level would be, I think, largely unnecessary beyond some kind of world court for dispute resolution and the consideration of "universal" rights and responsibilities.
I could go on, but I have to go. Thanks for your comments, they help me work this stuff out in my head. Cheers!
Face it, government serves a useful purpose and that's why we have it.
Um, I don't think so. Government serves no useful purpose that voluntary organizations could not serve. Government exists to maintain its own power and control.
But we need a police force to enforce basic social rules, since the alternative is lynch mobs and chaos.
Dude, you need to read some anthropology. Plenty of societies have managed quite nicely without resort to any of the above. It seems to be more a matter of what kind of approach your laws take (punishment vs. how to fix a problem) and how people are socialized, at least according to my reading.
As for the following examples, I see no reason why voluntary organizations couldn't accomplish the same tasks. Corporations are a special case, and I happen to believe they should be either severely curtailed or eliminated entirely; I'll freely admit to being a bit of a radical, though.
All of these sorts of functions have been necessary as long as humans have been social creatures, and they have been filled, by kings, tribal chieftains, religious leaders, or elected governments.
No, actually, most of the functions you describe are artifacts of the state - a very recent arrival in the greater context of human social history. Roughly contemporaneous with the rise of what's been called "totalitarian agriculture"; the causal relationship is strongly suggested.
I will never understand why some people think that anarchy has to be hostile, ruled by mobs, and devoid of any organization whatsoever. It requires nothing of the sort - merely that people govern themselves, cooperate, and organize as they wish. It's society for grownups, really.
Pity there aren't more around.
...why would this be considered "stuff that matters"? Not trolling, not baiting flames, just looking for an explanation, here. Maybe I just don't "get" the whole game thing, but I really don't see how they matter in the context of things with actual, you know, importance.
I never claimed to prove anything, only that the issue of the procedures used for people unable to read or mark a paper ballot in most cases violate their anonymity has been discussed.
Yes, it violates their anonymity to the extent that someone they trust has to help them. Not quite the same as excluding them from voting. I honestly don't understand your objection, if indeed you're NOT trolling. Do you think that voting machines are somehow more accessible to people with disabilities, and if so, how? I'm professionally curious. (Oh, and at the risk of being repetitive, we don't tend to sweat the whole anonymity thing quite as much.)
That being said, I have no problem with electronic voting, provided that it improves accessibility, is more secure and accountable than the existing system, and is cost-effective. Until it is, though, I like paper ballots just fine. The only good argument against them I have seen - in the context of US elections - is the fact that many more positions are elected in the US. Here, we basically vote for one representative at each of three levels - civic, provincial, and federal. Oh, and school board trustees and mayors. But most of these are separate elections, anyway.
Hmmm... seems to me that there's usually something like a fixed "Election Day" in the States, and many positions are elected on the same day... would it work to give each position a separate ballot, or even separate polls (in the sense of ballot boxes, not locations)? Still might be cumbersome, I guess....
Thank you sir, that was fscking brilliant. Cheers!
This has been discussed already. If you're going to jump into the middle of an argument you might at least have the courtesy of reading it first.
Actually, I have read the whole thread and I don't see you offering any proof of Canadians - blind, quadraplegic, developmentally disabled, black, white, puce, mauve, or fucking Martian - disenfranchised by our system.
So I have to conclude that you're trolling, though rather more skilfully than most. Cheers!
So if I'm counting votes in a Canadian election, I can bias the vote by simply keeping a #2 pencil in my shirt pocket, and adding an extra X or two when some silly voter voted for the wrong candidate.
;-)
Well, no, not very easily, because the scrutineers (volunteers appointed by each candidate, I've done it myself) are watching and counting and looking at the ballots along with you.
It's a fun social time, really, and everyone enjoys it.
No one has yet proven to me that failing to follow a set of arbitrary instructions once is sufficient grounds to disqualify the voter from having his voice heard, especially when he will never know that he was disqualified.
...with the added benefits of validation and equal access to the sight impaired or those who cannot read or don't speak english...
;-)
Um... how is putting a pencil mark inside a circle any more arbitrary than operating a voting machine? You have to follow instructions either way. Or are you thinking that the machine should just divine the voter's intentions?
But another point, would you be willing to accept the same low perentages (sic) of vote tampering?
Vote tampering, you say? Like what? And is it somehow more likely in a paper ballot system overseen by neutral officials AND the candidates' volunteers than it would be in a black-box electronic system? It's all about the transparency.
Yeah, 'cause, you know, we have such trouble validating our election results. And blind people, they can't vote. And neither can people who can't read or don't speak English.
Oh, wait a minute, what was I thinking? Yes they can vote, and they do, and sometimes I help them, and it works fine. Sorry, I'm being a bit of a smartass here, but really - you're reaching.
Waiter, I'll have some of whatever HE's smoking.
Your whole argument is, IMNSHO, kind of daft. I've been an election scrutineer in more than one election in Canada, and while this kind of theoretical criticism might be fun, the fact is our election system works. Really well, even, unless you want to get into various styles of election and representation reform - but that's not what we're talking about here.
/. I'll stick with ours, thanks. Cheers!
We don't tend to value anonymity to the fanatical degree that people in the US do, though - if people want help voting, they can get help voting. Kind of a common-sense thing, I would think. We're pretty big on common sense... Also on anonymity, my folks (my family is from the States) report that people here talk about who they will vote for much more freely than people in the US. It's no big deal.
The system: voting locations are set up within relatively easy reach of every registered voter. Each location contains a number of polls (a glorified cardboard box), each to be used by the people residing at a certain range of addresses. You get your ballot, you mark it, you fold it, you put it in the box.
When the polls close and it's time to count the ballots, the counting is scrutinized by Elections Canada officials AND by volunteers appointed by each candidate on the ballot. I have yet to see a disagreement as to what constitutes a properly marked ballot, but there are resolution procedures in place to handle disputed ballots. Really, it's not a problem the way you seem to expect that it would be. Your comments about "blindingly obvious mistakes" and mindreading are, frankly, out to lunch. It's not a problem.
As to voting by disabled people, there are other mechanisms in place (advance polling, for example) that allow people to vote via alternative means. If someone chooses to have assistance in casting their vote, and chooses someone that is untrustworthy (which strikes me as unlikely, but I suppose it could happen), they should really make better choices.
That being said, though, we tend to frown upon taking advantage of disabled people, and as someone who has professionally supported people with disabilities for over a decade, I would be mightily surprised to see that kind of vote fraud. People who work in my field don't do it for the money (it doesn't pay very well), we do it because we like to help people and help them live fully determined lives; casting that aside for the sake of a vote that is extremely unlikely to affect the outcome of an election would be morally repugnant and statistically insignificant.
So, yeah, people do have to mark the ballot properly, and yeah, it will be thrown out if the scrutineers (NOT one person, a bunch of them representing all the interested parties) agree that it should be. Maybe somebody, somewhere, somehow, could conceivably vote improperly all his or her life... but I really doubt it.
Personally, I agree with throwing out improperly-marked ballots. It's really easy to indicate your preference, and assistance is available. If you choose to vote unassisted and your preference cannot be determined, tough beans. We don't want election outcomes affected by people who can't either follow simple directions or get help doing so.
I like our system; you might prefer yours. Ours works, and yours has problems, at least from what I read on
I've only done one in the last couple of days, and he's thrilled with both Firefox and Thunderbird. Of course, this comes after recommending it to all my friends, rolling it out across my entire workplace, and converting all the family members for whom I do tech support. Everyone - no exceptions - loves both programs.
:-)
So the fact that I've only done one new install since 1.0PR was released reflects the fact that I'm running out of vict^H^H^H^H converts.
Well, not to me, per se. Firstly, I'm more of an anarchist than anything else; second, I don't live in the Excited States (though I was born there), so I'm neither Dem nor Rep; and third, I abhor knee-jerk name-calling in political debate.
;-)
But we can certainly be friends.
You guys on the left just love to exaggerate [...] The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France
Wow, if you guys on the right don't exaggerate, I guess it's gonna have to be Bush. But I'm thinking you might do it, too.
I'll second that! I've only found two so far, and both were remarkably good - inventive, gripping, credibly human. Top-flight SF.
The key is not opinions, it's values. One key, rather, because there's more to a successful relationship than just shared values. Core values can be interpreted differently, leading to different opinions; values and opinions can also be acted upon (or not) in different ways.
Shared values are important, though, both in my experience and in the analyses I've read. Other key factors: compatible fighting style, "givers" vs. "takers" (should be matched at the very least, but as a giver myself, I don't tend to think much of takers), activity level, degree of adherence to one's supposed principles, and sexual compatibility. And yes, I'm leaving "similar interests" out deliberately; probably nowhere near as important as those I've mentioned.
Cheers!
Man, that's tough. 2080 hours is a whole YEAR at 40 hours per week, so that's some seriously heavy... hey, wait a minute! ;-)
Especially the ones without a television, like me. I don't own a TV and don't want one, but there are times (e.g. winter Olympics, hockey playoffs, major events like crucial elections) when I would like to be able to watch a broadcast on my only home computer - my notebook. If the event lasts long enough, I might even consider paying for cable for a couple of months.
Thank you, ATI - I think I'll be getting one of these babies before too long.
If you haven't integrated Clerks into your personal lexicon, you have no business moderating here.
I think you're reaching a little too far there. While I thought Clerks was a good flick when I finally saw it a couple of years ago, I have to say that keeping up with any one expression of pop culture should hardly be considered a prerequisite for moderator privileges.
Now, not being familiar with the particular pop culture reference at hand should be enough to keep anyone with a functioning cortex from moderating a given comment or thread; that's why I don't moderate any TV references, and pretty much skip anything to do with games. I don't do either.
But there's lots of "stuff that matters" besides entertainment, and people who know something about it should feel free to moderate the stuff they know. Cheers!