Look: 60% of potential voters don't vote in major non-presidential elections. The effect of not voting is just for people to say "look, Americans don't care, we can get away with anything"
This is true, but there's no way to tell a company that they haven't got your money for a specific reason. A game flops when people don't buy DRM stuff(or more accurately the informed audience doesn't and the game does slightly worse than average), and EA just says "oh, no one wants complex city-builders anymore, let's just put that money back into the sports and shovelware departments."
There needs to be some way of specifically telling companies: We don't want to be abused.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree that it doesn't happen anymore, but to say that moralizing crusades to punish people doing no harm to others aren't without a ton of precedent in the U.S.
Actually, the state governments of the U.S. perform raids on polygamist organizations from time to time. Not all of which are associated with other crimes.
You see, what you've failed to do here is propose a mechanism for change or alternative that would work. You've merely suggested that "everyone who votes is wrong" in a kind of roundabout way. There's no point for me to come into agreement with you about, which is counterproductive to a debate. Given the system as it stands, there is a most rational course of action with regards to voting.
I'd love to see real reform, but saying "Ha, I know something is wrong here, so I'm not participating" is a petulant immature attitude, and makes no progress on that front.
Oh yes, because the problem is with the parties and not systemic issues built into the constitution and human psyche. Keep pretending that you're all rebellious and cool and fixing everything.
Because law-suits are, fundamentally speaking, a necessary tool to hold people accountable, and creating a precedent(Canada is common law, right?) that suggests you can be punished to raising the possibility of a lawsuit can be dangerous. In this case, I don't think it is, because maliciousness is inherent in the planning, but think what unsavory corporate lawyers might do with such a ruling.
I think you misread some sarcasm there. Poe's law. It's weird living in a country where there are 2 parties and one defines itself by being factually wrong as much as possible. It makes it impossible to satire.
But see, that changes as soon as you call that rich person a Job Creator. A Job Creator can spend infinite money creating jobs, whereas the middle class will waste in on pointless things like mortgages, new technology, and transportation.
Desertification is a little more complicated because it has to do with unsustainable agriculture practices, ability to divert water, and a host of other man-made factors that are all directly dependent on the climate. But, yes, possibly.
Point of fact: you believed a press release. Don't ever do that. Doesn't matter who said it, when, where, or how. If they said it in a press release, their intent is to trick you somehow.
Yes, but they're both successful bullshit that help the most diuretic shitters rise to the top of the giant manure heap that is the modern economic system.
What I've heard is that the estimation is that locked up natural gasses released by melting permafrost will outpace the CO2 consumed by new plant-life for a couple centuries before equilibrium is restored.
Harvard is a private university with a huge endowment. So large, I've heard, that they only charge tuition to preserve their exclusivity. What's your source on them being subsidized?
At least Google will. I wonder how long until they gain the ability to determine how close your friends are to you, and who's offended by what. Then: automated blackmail. "User invid, it looks like you haven't cleared friend google to remove 15 future credits from your account this month, would you like your browser history from the date of July 10th, 2017 forwarded to your mother?"
120 Years ago we had laws that told black people they couldn't be in certain places on sunny days, women couldn't vote, the senate was appointed for bribe money, people would be killed for daring to form a union, and people routinely died in the street from starvation or illness.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, duh. I was lambasting a stupid concept, not endorsing it. Poe's law is more powerful that I could imagine.
Without responding to the point of your post: "Pavlovian" is the adjective form you're looking for.
Look: 60% of potential voters don't vote in major non-presidential elections. The effect of not voting is just for people to say "look, Americans don't care, we can get away with anything"
This is true, but there's no way to tell a company that they haven't got your money for a specific reason. A game flops when people don't buy DRM stuff(or more accurately the informed audience doesn't and the game does slightly worse than average), and EA just says "oh, no one wants complex city-builders anymore, let's just put that money back into the sports and shovelware departments."
There needs to be some way of specifically telling companies: We don't want to be abused.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree that it doesn't happen anymore, but to say that moralizing crusades to punish people doing no harm to others aren't without a ton of precedent in the U.S.
Actually, the state governments of the U.S. perform raids on polygamist organizations from time to time. Not all of which are associated with other crimes.
You see, what you've failed to do here is propose a mechanism for change or alternative that would work. You've merely suggested that "everyone who votes is wrong" in a kind of roundabout way. There's no point for me to come into agreement with you about, which is counterproductive to a debate. Given the system as it stands, there is a most rational course of action with regards to voting.
I'd love to see real reform, but saying "Ha, I know something is wrong here, so I'm not participating" is a petulant immature attitude, and makes no progress on that front.
Oh yes, because the problem is with the parties and not systemic issues built into the constitution and human psyche. Keep pretending that you're all rebellious and cool and fixing everything.
We're all illegal aliens.
Because law-suits are, fundamentally speaking, a necessary tool to hold people accountable, and creating a precedent(Canada is common law, right?) that suggests you can be punished to raising the possibility of a lawsuit can be dangerous. In this case, I don't think it is, because maliciousness is inherent in the planning, but think what unsavory corporate lawyers might do with such a ruling.
I think you misread some sarcasm there. Poe's law. It's weird living in a country where there are 2 parties and one defines itself by being factually wrong as much as possible. It makes it impossible to satire.
But see, that changes as soon as you call that rich person a Job Creator. A Job Creator can spend infinite money creating jobs, whereas the middle class will waste in on pointless things like mortgages, new technology, and transportation.
Yep, how dare they be locked in prison work-camps in the vicinity of Pyongyang. Such insolence.
With respect to google: adblock(firefox version, the chrome version does nothing) + duckduckgo limits how far they can follow me.
Desertification is a little more complicated because it has to do with unsustainable agriculture practices, ability to divert water, and a host of other man-made factors that are all directly dependent on the climate. But, yes, possibly.
A little late for a reply, but how frequently do politicians have press releases? There's a relationship there.
Point of fact: you believed a press release. Don't ever do that. Doesn't matter who said it, when, where, or how. If they said it in a press release, their intent is to trick you somehow.
Not that I am one, but surely an M.D. would need to be able to tolerate the appearance.
Yes, my mistake. They're also urinating all over us.
No need to worry about how gross that sounds, they wash them before putting them in, using a special sterilizing soap grown from a rat's testicles.
Yes, but they're both successful bullshit that help the most diuretic shitters rise to the top of the giant manure heap that is the modern economic system.
What I've heard is that the estimation is that locked up natural gasses released by melting permafrost will outpace the CO2 consumed by new plant-life for a couple centuries before equilibrium is restored.
Harvard is a private university with a huge endowment. So large, I've heard, that they only charge tuition to preserve their exclusivity. What's your source on them being subsidized?
At least Google will. I wonder how long until they gain the ability to determine how close your friends are to you, and who's offended by what. Then: automated blackmail. "User invid, it looks like you haven't cleared friend google to remove 15 future credits from your account this month, would you like your browser history from the date of July 10th, 2017 forwarded to your mother?"
120 Years ago we had laws that told black people they couldn't be in certain places on sunny days, women couldn't vote, the senate was appointed for bribe money, people would be killed for daring to form a union, and people routinely died in the street from starvation or illness.
What the fuck was so good about 120 years ago?