Yes, Hillary will be different. She may still be the establishment candidate, but she's not a fucking moron who just spouts out shit seemingly at random. She's hardly the greatest candidate ever, but compared to Trump she's an intellectual and moral giant.
I find Edge barely usable, like some sort of alpha piece of software. I have no idea how fast its rendering is, nor do I care, because it is so utterly deficient and prone to errors that it's irrelevant.
At my organization where we've just completed our Windows 10 rollout, there is not a single person who wanted to stick with Edge for more than a few days, and more than a few that were exasperated that the damned thing was the default PDF reader. i sure learned how to make a default applications XML file to stick in the GPO quickly.
In the old days the divide was between interpreted and compiled languages, but with JIT compilers and virtual machines that distinction has faded somewhat. Still the fact is some languages compile to machine code and are distributed as object files, while some are distributed as plain text or some sort of interpreter code (tokenized or byte code).
Can you tell me the precise difference between the two? Sure Python may have JIT, but at the end of the day, it's distributables are plain text files, so it has a lot more in common with sh/ksh/bash than C or Java.
I can't help it. I'm judging you. I can understand why someone has to use JS (I've been one of those on far too many occasions), but to actually identify it as your language of choice seems bizarre to me.
Forcing countries like Japan and South Korea to build nuclear weapons because his resolve to continue US's longstanding defense of its allies is not going to make a better world. The last time the United States retreated behind its borders and let its Allies fend for themselves, we ended up with the most destructive conflict in history, and the costs dwarfed what it would have cost to keep a proper military presence in potential trouble spots.
No, you interpret what he said as sarcasm. But with Trump, it's virtually impossible without applying a filter, either in his favor, or biased against him, to sort out much of what he means. To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence.
He only said that if you don't listen to what he actually said, but instead replace his treasonous and idiotic statement with what you wish he had said.
Just how much more wishful thinking can Trump supporters apply to this man? Clinton ain't no perfect candidate, but she's right about one thing, he's not fit to be President. For fuck's sakes, it's pretty clear now he's not really even fit to a run a fucking business.
You call off the cuff remarks that are often implausible or borderline retarded "working for it"? I see Trump do precious little actual work. He seems almost willfully ignorant of constitutional and legal matters, and seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.
There does not need to be such a relationship. There merely needs to be a candidate for POTUS who thinks Russia is the US's bestest buddy, and should help that candidate out by hacking his competitor's network to dig up dirt.
"Yeah, I'm going to totally let you search for the guns, drugs and bodies, after I try to challenge it in court. Oh, and of course I'm totally not going to tamper with or dispose evidence. No sirreee! See you in court, Mr. Swat Team."
It's not hard. 10,000 widgets x 20% = 2,000 widgets, leaving you 8,000 widgets. 1,000 widgets x 20% = 200 widgets, leaving you 800 widgets. Which person has more widgets at the end of the day?
And your solution of an income exemption level clearly signals that you understand this, and that to make sure the tax is not so regressive that it damages the poorest, you end up having to excuse some or all of their taxes. In other words, you've just made a non-flat tax.
For the most part, what the hell is a platform worth? Sure, a President gets lucky on occasion and his party may dominate the Representatives and the Senate, but other than that, whatever platform a president may have campaigned on generally has to morph into something that can get enough votes. Even where a President's party controls Congress, that's no guarantee of smooth sailing.
Addicts are put in jail all the time, because most of the drugs people are addicted to are illegal to buy or possess. So yes, being an addict in many cases is illegal.
$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.
Elected SCOTUS judges is even worse. There are enough politicians without making what amounts to a constitutional court effectively a third legislature with the power to veto the others.
Even in countries with effective third parties, where FPTP is in play, it almost always tends towards a two-party system, with a third parties playing spoiler, but almost never becoming a governing party. FPTP almost inevitably shuts out third parties from power. There can be unique situations where FPTP multiparty Parliamentary countries can enter a period of minorities, this is particularly true in Canada during the mid 2000s until 2011, where a strong regional party in Quebec managed to destabilize the national parties enough to force two hung Parliaments, and it happened in the UK in 2010, where a strong regional party in Scotland (the SNP) wrestled enough votes from Labour to deprive it of power, but a similar effect with UKIP deprived the Conservatives of an absolute majority. But all in all, these are fairly rare in FPTP legislative assemblies.
It should also be noted that in the UK, in particular, it has a huge lower house, 649 seats in the House of Commons as compared to 435 in the US House of Representatives, and the House of Lords with 798 seats as compared to the US Senate's 100. This far greater number of representatives must also be factored in to any modeling of how FPTP plays out, the UK has a lot more room for third parties to find their niche with smaller Parliamentary constituencies than US districts.
If you truly want to give third parties a shot at significant power, you need to move to some sort of proportional representation. Even normal instant-runoff systems are not truly proportional, and are vulnerable to certain strategies that can give unfair advantage (with the exception of multi-member district STV, which is roughly proportional). But I'm not sure how that would even play out in US presidential elections, where by and large, the game has been rigged to make third party runs for the White House all but impossible. You'd have to make some big changes to the way the electoral college works, or abandon it entirely, but that seems pretty damned unlikely to me, since the intent of the electoral college was to create a sort of hybrid popular vote/state vote system, and any support for amending it after the 2000 election seems to have long since failed, though perhaps a very close election (which this one might be), might bring back demands to reform or eliminate the electoral college (though what kind of voting would replace it isn't clear).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Hillary will be different. She may still be the establishment candidate, but she's not a fucking moron who just spouts out shit seemingly at random. She's hardly the greatest candidate ever, but compared to Trump she's an intellectual and moral giant.
A desire of iPhones and laptops leads to human misery. A good many products consumed in the Industrialized World create human misery.
It doesn't help that Trump seems to be willfully trying to throw the election.
I find Edge barely usable, like some sort of alpha piece of software. I have no idea how fast its rendering is, nor do I care, because it is so utterly deficient and prone to errors that it's irrelevant.
At my organization where we've just completed our Windows 10 rollout, there is not a single person who wanted to stick with Edge for more than a few days, and more than a few that were exasperated that the damned thing was the default PDF reader. i sure learned how to make a default applications XML file to stick in the GPO quickly.
In the old days the divide was between interpreted and compiled languages, but with JIT compilers and virtual machines that distinction has faded somewhat. Still the fact is some languages compile to machine code and are distributed as object files, while some are distributed as plain text or some sort of interpreter code (tokenized or byte code).
Can you tell me the precise difference between the two? Sure Python may have JIT, but at the end of the day, it's distributables are plain text files, so it has a lot more in common with sh/ksh/bash than C or Java.
I can't help it. I'm judging you. I can understand why someone has to use JS (I've been one of those on far too many occasions), but to actually identify it as your language of choice seems bizarre to me.
Have you actually used Edge? It and it's JS component are utter crap. Why would anyone want to run their JS variant?
Which is a good way to describe Edge.
Can you define "noble". The proxy wars fought during the Cold War had been one reason; containment of the USSR (and to a lesser extent China).
Forcing countries like Japan and South Korea to build nuclear weapons because his resolve to continue US's longstanding defense of its allies is not going to make a better world. The last time the United States retreated behind its borders and let its Allies fend for themselves, we ended up with the most destructive conflict in history, and the costs dwarfed what it would have cost to keep a proper military presence in potential trouble spots.
No, you interpret what he said as sarcasm. But with Trump, it's virtually impossible without applying a filter, either in his favor, or biased against him, to sort out much of what he means. To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence.
He only said that if you don't listen to what he actually said, but instead replace his treasonous and idiotic statement with what you wish he had said.
Just how much more wishful thinking can Trump supporters apply to this man? Clinton ain't no perfect candidate, but she's right about one thing, he's not fit to be President. For fuck's sakes, it's pretty clear now he's not really even fit to a run a fucking business.
Yes, if you just interpret Trump's bizarre statements in just the right way, with just the right amount of rationalization, suddenly he's a genius!
You call off the cuff remarks that are often implausible or borderline retarded "working for it"? I see Trump do precious little actual work. He seems almost willfully ignorant of constitutional and legal matters, and seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.
There does not need to be such a relationship. There merely needs to be a candidate for POTUS who thinks Russia is the US's bestest buddy, and should help that candidate out by hacking his competitor's network to dig up dirt.
The incentive still exists because you still keep a significant portion of the value.
"Yeah, I'm going to totally let you search for the guns, drugs and bodies, after I try to challenge it in court. Oh, and of course I'm totally not going to tamper with or dispose evidence. No sirreee! See you in court, Mr. Swat Team."
It's not hard. 10,000 widgets x 20% = 2,000 widgets, leaving you 8,000 widgets. 1,000 widgets x 20% = 200 widgets, leaving you 800 widgets. Which person has more widgets at the end of the day?
And your solution of an income exemption level clearly signals that you understand this, and that to make sure the tax is not so regressive that it damages the poorest, you end up having to excuse some or all of their taxes. In other words, you've just made a non-flat tax.
But the Constitution does impose a voting system that makes a third party's chances of winning very very very low.
For the most part, what the hell is a platform worth? Sure, a President gets lucky on occasion and his party may dominate the Representatives and the Senate, but other than that, whatever platform a president may have campaigned on generally has to morph into something that can get enough votes. Even where a President's party controls Congress, that's no guarantee of smooth sailing.
Addicts are put in jail all the time, because most of the drugs people are addicted to are illegal to buy or possess. So yes, being an addict in many cases is illegal.
$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.
Elected SCOTUS judges is even worse. There are enough politicians without making what amounts to a constitutional court effectively a third legislature with the power to veto the others.
Even in countries with effective third parties, where FPTP is in play, it almost always tends towards a two-party system, with a third parties playing spoiler, but almost never becoming a governing party. FPTP almost inevitably shuts out third parties from power. There can be unique situations where FPTP multiparty Parliamentary countries can enter a period of minorities, this is particularly true in Canada during the mid 2000s until 2011, where a strong regional party in Quebec managed to destabilize the national parties enough to force two hung Parliaments, and it happened in the UK in 2010, where a strong regional party in Scotland (the SNP) wrestled enough votes from Labour to deprive it of power, but a similar effect with UKIP deprived the Conservatives of an absolute majority. But all in all, these are fairly rare in FPTP legislative assemblies.
It should also be noted that in the UK, in particular, it has a huge lower house, 649 seats in the House of Commons as compared to 435 in the US House of Representatives, and the House of Lords with 798 seats as compared to the US Senate's 100. This far greater number of representatives must also be factored in to any modeling of how FPTP plays out, the UK has a lot more room for third parties to find their niche with smaller Parliamentary constituencies than US districts.
If you truly want to give third parties a shot at significant power, you need to move to some sort of proportional representation. Even normal instant-runoff systems are not truly proportional, and are vulnerable to certain strategies that can give unfair advantage (with the exception of multi-member district STV, which is roughly proportional). But I'm not sure how that would even play out in US presidential elections, where by and large, the game has been rigged to make third party runs for the White House all but impossible. You'd have to make some big changes to the way the electoral college works, or abandon it entirely, but that seems pretty damned unlikely to me, since the intent of the electoral college was to create a sort of hybrid popular vote/state vote system, and any support for amending it after the 2000 election seems to have long since failed, though perhaps a very close election (which this one might be), might bring back demands to reform or eliminate the electoral college (though what kind of voting would replace it isn't clear).
If only the US had a voting system where such a formula made sense. Alas, it does not.