Argentina, like most Latin American countries, would do well to toss the Presidential system. The US, by and large, has lucked out, in no small part to what Bagehot referred to as Americans' "genius for politics". But in other societies, where the legislative and judicial branches have remained stunted as compared to the US Congress, SCOTUS and the Federal Courts, all the Presidential system does is deliver near-dictatorial powers into the hands of the President. The checks and balances may exist on paper in countries like Argentina, but the reality is that legislative assemblies and courts become little more than rubber stamps.
A parliamentary system like the Westminster system would, I think, work far better. The titular head of state of a parliamentary state does hold some potent reserve powers, but is restricted from using them in all but the most extreme circumstances. The "effective" government, that is the governing Executive, only survives so long as the legislative assembly retains confidence in it, and ministers are normally chosen from among members of the legislature, and thus, at least in a nominal way, remain equals to every other person sitting in the legislature. In a parliamentary system, the titular head of state represents a sort of negative power; in that he or she deprives the effective executive of absolute control of reserve powers and prerogatives.
But is it really overvalued? Debt is only part of the equation. When the statement "the dollar is backed by the US Government", that means the whole thing; Executive (including the Federal Reserve, military, and so forth), the courts, and of course Congress, not to mention the collective will of the citizens of the United States. When you look at the greenback in that light, it's hard to imagine a currency in modern times as well backed.
Indeed. I fail to see what the difference between $1 electronically stored in a bank account or being transferred between two banks is measurably any better than a one dollar bill.
A unit of currency, whether digital or physical, is issued by a country's central bank and backed by the country's government. If Argentina burned all its physical currency tomorrow, everything would still be denominated in Argentinian pesos, whose value, by and large, would still be determined by the same mechanisms. I suppose certain aspects of physical currency, like counterfeiting and hoarding, might be eliminated, but it certainly wouldn't prevent monetary crises.
This article seems to have a rather odd view of what modern currencies are.
People can spend a long time on death row. Punishing those that are guilty of framing an innocent man who faced the death penalty for years might not even possible.
And let's be pretty clear here, most incidents of wrongful imprisonment involve police investigators and prosecutors, both of which are heavily protected against any charges of wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and the like.
So once again, what happens if an innocent man is executed?
I thought the entire intent of SNMP was to create a common management platform.
Why oh why do we have to keep reinventing the wheel here? Well, because Microsoft needs to dominate in any way it can, even if it means imposing its own management tools on other operating systems.
If they had just given us Bash with extensions for handling Windows internals, we'd all be a lot better off. But Microsoft is allergic to the notion of cooperating on toolsets. It has to constantly make Windows special and unique.
Slashdot Mirror
Argentina, like most Latin American countries, would do well to toss the Presidential system. The US, by and large, has lucked out, in no small part to what Bagehot referred to as Americans' "genius for politics". But in other societies, where the legislative and judicial branches have remained stunted as compared to the US Congress, SCOTUS and the Federal Courts, all the Presidential system does is deliver near-dictatorial powers into the hands of the President. The checks and balances may exist on paper in countries like Argentina, but the reality is that legislative assemblies and courts become little more than rubber stamps.
A parliamentary system like the Westminster system would, I think, work far better. The titular head of state of a parliamentary state does hold some potent reserve powers, but is restricted from using them in all but the most extreme circumstances. The "effective" government, that is the governing Executive, only survives so long as the legislative assembly retains confidence in it, and ministers are normally chosen from among members of the legislature, and thus, at least in a nominal way, remain equals to every other person sitting in the legislature. In a parliamentary system, the titular head of state represents a sort of negative power; in that he or she deprives the effective executive of absolute control of reserve powers and prerogatives.
But is it really overvalued? Debt is only part of the equation. When the statement "the dollar is backed by the US Government", that means the whole thing; Executive (including the Federal Reserve, military, and so forth), the courts, and of course Congress, not to mention the collective will of the citizens of the United States. When you look at the greenback in that light, it's hard to imagine a currency in modern times as well backed.
Indeed. I fail to see what the difference between $1 electronically stored in a bank account or being transferred between two banks is measurably any better than a one dollar bill.
A unit of currency, whether digital or physical, is issued by a country's central bank and backed by the country's government. If Argentina burned all its physical currency tomorrow, everything would still be denominated in Argentinian pesos, whose value, by and large, would still be determined by the same mechanisms. I suppose certain aspects of physical currency, like counterfeiting and hoarding, might be eliminated, but it certainly wouldn't prevent monetary crises.
This article seems to have a rather odd view of what modern currencies are.
Seeing two researchers explaining an experiment, and the first thing you care to say about it is some variation of "nice tits" suggests a misogynist.
And when your special antivaxxer school suffers a measles or whooping cough outbreak, you can shout "YAY FOR FREEDOM!!!"
Thank you for proving my point. How many night lights did you have as a child?
Apparently one of the long-term effects is to turn males into mysognistic Aspies
I welcome our Goatse-inapired judicial overlords.
iPiss!
Or your average engineer...
No, you're just a troll, the kind of person who is so intimidated by the real world that he has to go on the Internet to prove he's a real man.
Translation: Girls don't like me, so it must be their fault.
People can spend a long time on death row. Punishing those that are guilty of framing an innocent man who faced the death penalty for years might not even possible.
And let's be pretty clear here, most incidents of wrongful imprisonment involve police investigators and prosecutors, both of which are heavily protected against any charges of wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and the like.
So once again, what happens if an innocent man is executed?
You didn't actually answer the question as to what happens if an innocent man is executed.
We do know that. The CMBR demonstrates thatvery fact.
The Big Bang was not an explosion. It had no epicenter. The entire universe; including space itself, expanded.
It's Microsoft's attempt to blur the line between *nix and Windows, with the hopes that future morons will go "Well, I guess I don't need *nix"
Embrace, extend, extinguish. This is the same Redmond we know and love.
Exactly. Somehow running in console mode has been redefined as not automatically starting EXPLORER.EXE.
I thought the entire intent of SNMP was to create a common management platform.
Why oh why do we have to keep reinventing the wheel here? Well, because Microsoft needs to dominate in any way it can, even if it means imposing its own management tools on other operating systems.
Or use Powershell minimally.
It can't be concise.
Exactly. It's a Windows-only shell, a glue for all the shitty cruft that constitutes the upper layers of the Windows OS.
I use it when I have to, and that's it.
You mean sort of like how people claim Powershell can do something that Bash can't?
The Crusades were fought so that Western European princes could get their hands on the most important trade hub on the planet.
Frankly, if I was king for a day, I would ban all sororities for campuses.
If they had just given us Bash with extensions for handling Windows internals, we'd all be a lot better off. But Microsoft is allergic to the notion of cooperating on toolsets. It has to constantly make Windows special and unique.
But, you know, OBJECTS!!!!!