That's not CA setting the emissions standard for your state, it's the auto companies deciding that the economy of scale on the changes that need to be made are a greater benefit to the bottom line if applied to the whole production line than either a) not selling cars in CA or b) setting up a separate production line for CA specific autos. CA has every right to set emission standards for their own state, and the auto companies have every right to deal with those standards in any way legal.
Your post (to me at least) smacks of bashing those damn hippies without saying so directly. If you're really pissed about the situation, place the blame on the car companies, where it belongs.
And this is again making an assumption, but you seem to be pissed that programmers are gonna be pouring over this code. WTF? Do you really think that this is some big negative inconvenience, or is it just west coast bashing? I just don't see the problem.
Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under.
In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).
This is called "having your cake and eating it, too." No, the first case is a matter of a company trying to end-run around already existing laws that deal with the topic, at least as it applies to your analogy. The second case is a matter of an author expressly permitting you, with conditions, to have addition rights with their work that normal copyright would not allow.
And as for a more proper cake analogy: The first case is saying "here's a cake, and don't you pay no nevermind to what's in it, don't be doin none of them dang 'tests' on it either, we know what you want. that'll be $249.99" The second case is like saying "here's a cake recipe, but if you make cakes with it, you have to give out the recipe too. that's the rules for getting this recipe for free"
Um, thanks. And I apologize as well for the venom I squeezed out in my reply too. I guess harshness is doled out a little too quickly here on slashdot.
Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot for thinking that someone posting on slashdot could believe something so ridiculous. It's not like you see people seriously posting far more outrageous claims everyday.
And even if I -AM- thick for thinking something with such an obviously low probability could happen, what's with the bile and troll like shit throwing attitude in your reply? What, does EVERYTHING you say just have to be dripping with cutting edge sarcasm? You're so fucking obviously cooler than me, I'm sorry to have wasted your obviously precious and important time. Oh, and look, you know about the Onion too, god, that's cool AND modern.
Gimme a fucking break. The chances of finding an idiot post on any given slashdot thread approaches 1 as the number of posts approach, oh, about 20. About the same as troll posts actually. So I think I can be excused for thinking you were being an idiot rather than the troll you were actually being.
Oppression card? That's cute. You declare that the decentralized network is dead (which is the exact opposite of the truth, decentralization is just MAYBE starting to slow down) and then say I'm screaming 'oppression'.
What I was screaming about is the utter denial you're in about the situation, the thought that the decentralized network is dead because you said so. You're not oppressing me, in fact this is one case where attempts of oppression invariably fail. Why do they fail? Why, the nature of the decentralized network.
That's why I told you to go get your own network, not to give me mine back. In fact, since the decentralized network is so open and versatile, you can build your (virtual) centralized network right on top of the actual decentralized one.
In short, you're not oppressive (though your ideas would be if possible to implement) you're simply mistaken.
I'm willing to be my left nut that you're so undershooting the mark it's sick.
Look at it this way, if there are only 2 million internet connected computers in the U.S. (not the World, just the U.S.) that would be 1 internet connected computer for ever 150 people.
I simply cannot buy into that.
If the internet population is anything less than 100,000,000 at any given time I'd be shocked and amazed. I'd believe 1 billion, and I'd believe 1 device for every man, woman, and child on earth if you included everything with a local IP address that could get a packet to or from the ole' intartubes.
That's all speculation though... Still, I have a hard time imagining that there are only 2,000,000 internet connected machines at any given time. Hell, I have 7 right here in my house.
??? Your post time on slashdot says 11:45 today, your livejournal timestamp says 11:42 today, and the GP's timestamp says 11:08 today. I'm not slinging any mud here, but from the timestamps it looks more like you copied GP's post to your livejournal and then came here and posted your comment immediately afterwards.
I'm not saying that's what happened, just that if the GP did steal your (interesting and provocative) work, it's not so blatantly obvious.
The answer is that you don't program pre-written behaviors, you train them.
You simulate that condition (and everything else you can think of) over and over and over again, letting it learn from it's mistakes. You make it a little different each time so that it can't be learning just that one circumstance. You repeat and repeat (at computer simulation speeds) until the car does at least as good as a person does, or make sure it does at least twice as good as Avg Joe.
This isn't an expert system we're talking about, it's learned behavior, capable of intelligent decision making even when confronted with an event it's never experienced, as long as it's been trained well in SIMILAR circumstances. It'll make 'judgement calls' on the parts that call for judgement, all based on it's past experience. Just like you.
Mind you, that level of complexity is a far way off from the model in the article, but we're talking about the foundations of that.
The way the machine in question learns is not by programming in every possible circumstance and letting it look at a list of things it knows how to do. This particular machine learns the same way YOU learned to drive, experience. When it does well it repeats what it did, when it does badly it tries something else.
The system being used isn't complex enough to handle those things yet, I mean this simulation has far fewer neurons than anything alive with a nervous system but it still does a damn fine job of getting from A to B in most cases.
If you're really interested in this, google for the NetLogo package. (not the 3d one, just regular NetLogo) It comes with a whole bunch of neat models that can give you the basics of complex behavior evolved from interactive simple structures, like neurons.
She posted (afaik) 1 small piece of video that contained the NFL notice we've all been talkign about. Fair Use mentions educational use, and she's a law professor. WTF about that isn't fair use?
And, umm, those "technicalities" proved you technically wrong. The fact that you're also literally wrong is just gravy.
Now stop being a troll, I'm not gonna feed you no more.
When she loses (the NFL is clearly in the right, she's blatantly taking their copyrighted work and using it for her own gain), she'll have only hurt them. Ever head of fair use? of course you have, it's been mentioned right here at least 50 times.
Remember the last case the EFF won? Of course not, that would involve them winning on occasion. The EFF has, on the other hand, been a great force for enshrining draconian copyright restrictions into case law due to inept handling of cases You're lying and you probably know it. Read http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227427&cid =18425981 for more information.
Don't forget, the EFF losing a case is worse than if they'd never brought the case at all, because it provides case law for the validity of the DMCA. And when that happens in this case, and it will, she'll have only further restricted rights, not helped them. While what you said is true on the surface, you seem to be implying that by taking action against rights-abusers is just playing into their hands. Foolish. If you don't call these gorillas on their thuggary then they will walk all over all of us for the rest of time. The chance you might lose is the price you must pay to defend your freedoms through the legal system.
I think you are mistaken about the power gap between income groups shrinking.
Everything I've read on the subject (that is based in reality that is) shows that the income gap is growing enormously, as has been for a long time now...
And honestly, I'm 30, not 50, but all MY life I've watched as those around me, and then later I myself, work longer and harder just to not fall behind. Of course there were ups and downs, but the general trend has been lower quality of life and higher working hours.
Yes yes, because we all know 'Oops' is all any corporation need say after breaking the law. It's not THEIR fault, it's just too complicated for them to bother trying to comply.
I wonder if I could get away with this line of reasoning while doing my taxes. "Why yes Mr/Ms IRS agent, I suppose I -DID- deduct this list of items multiple times, but if you take into account the sheer volume of my deductions, you can clearly see that actually making sure I don't repeat any is far too complicated."
I don't think it would fly, and I'm just one guy sifting through the data, as you correctly point out, they have whole TEAMS.
And just how hard do you think it would be to check outgoing takedown notices against a list of clips with takedown disputes active?
Probably alot simpler than setting up teams of people (or even better, bots) to search for infringement.
How is this offtopic? What, they don't have a -1 I Don't Believe You mod, so you call it offtopic? This is one of the most ONtopic posts in the whole batch I've read so far.
Even if the dude is full of shit, it's very on-topic. Quit being a mod-punk.
Interesting post, and consistent with the information I've seen on the subject.
One little thing that sprung to my mind a few years ago as I was reading about the Mayan calendar and it's legendary implications mixed with Christian end-time lore is the fact that the apocalypse, if information from both sides is taken into account, should have started in late 2005. Mind you, (by my understanding of Christian theology) things won't get noticeably horrible until 3 1/2 years in, sometime around June 2009.
Of course, that's assuming that the December 2012 date is the final culminating event of the whole ordeal. The end-times scenarios seem similar in their implications to me, but I'm no Theologian, just interested in the topic.
It's really an interesting thing to think about, the unification of creation and it's subsequent re-unfolding.
No, see, the whole point of modern DRM is that a signal can't GET to a regular old audio-out jack without being downgraded significantly. It's the whole "Trusted Computing" thing. You'll have digital bits screaming out of that jack, and you can't make any sense of it (without cracking it, which is illegal, in the U.S. at least). Only after it's actually INSIDE the speaker itself can it be trusted to be turned back into a real audio waveform, and only if the speaker (and every other piece of hardware in between it and the source) checks itself out regularly to make sure there aren't any unexpected voltage drops or other signs that could be indicative of a tapped line somewhere.
It's completely obnoxious in both scale and obtrusiveness, technologically speaking.
And WE get to pay for it! Don't we all feel warm and fuzzy now, knowing we're paying for people to protect themselves from us. God knows -I- can't be trusted with something as powerful as a nsync album, and I should have to pay to make sure that very complicated steps are being taken to make absolutely SURE I don't do anything dangerous with that music-like-abomination.
That's very true. In my 1 1/2 months of owning Vista (preinstalled Vista at that, so I didn't boff the install) it has crashed (reboot required) more times than my XP box has in the 3 years I've had the current one.
Seriously, the thing goes down at least once a week. Mind you, I -DO- use my computer for more than e-mail and web browsing, but I do the same things on my (significantly less capable) XP box without the system taking a shit on me.
I am so completely unimpressed with Vista it hurts. It -IS- quite pretty tho, I guess that counts for something. It doesn't make the crashes piss me off less, but I suppose if you desire aesthetics over functionality, it's the best of the microsoft family of OS offerings.
Seriously though, if you're looking for a stable Windows machine, stick with XP, at LEAST until Vista's first Service Pack.
I'm just wondering if you've noticed but people who talk to you about this start off rational and nice, and then after 3 or 4 messages from you full of nothing but attacks and subtle (for a gorilla) insults of people's intelligence they get pissed and call you on being the bullshitter troll you are.
Yes yes, the democrats (who had gotten all their information PRE-exaggerated and PRE-cherrypicked) did vote for Bush to be able to go to war if needed. Funny, but you seem to have forgotten that Congress was reading the intelligence reports that had already been bastardized by the administration. There goes that selective memory you've been accusing others of.
I think your entire line of posts on this subject have been like the pot calling the tupperware black.
And don't go off on people providing sources of information, if you remember from out little thread a while back you didn't offer me ANYTHING but supposition and empty rhetoric.
And tell me, as a lightbulb factory worker, just how HAVE you become such an expert at what evidence is 'obvious' and which is of the 'tinfoil hat' variety? Does your association with luminescent devices make you think you're bright? (Even my trite little jabs are better than yours)
Yes yes, democrats (especialy those on the DLC) can be corrupt too, but you (should) know that that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
No no, I respond to people who clearly bring valid points to the table, and I ignore people who's version of a 'fact' means that it's FOXNews balanced and approved, and checked to make sure it's not too full of reality.
And I 'foed' you because people who whip out the 'tinfoil hat' in the face of overwhelming evidence (whether you like that evidence or not) are not worth my time talking too. You're an obnoxious fuck, anything I say will be responded to in an obnoxious fuck style, and I will not waste my time on you.
Feel better now? Good.
P.S. In response to that trite little tinfoil hat comment, I'll toss out one of my own, keep drinking the Kool-Aid buddy.
Did it sound witty comming from me? No? That's pretty much how you sounded too, tired, played out, and full of shit. You think you're cute, but you're nothing but a factless tactless troll.
P.S.S. Since you seem to want to continue this, tell me exactly WHERE exit polls have been proven to be anything but THE MOST ACCURATE measure of election results. Tell me why they are the indicator the U.N. looks at worldwide to see if elections are going fairly, and if they suck so bad tell me why the U.S. used them to justify forcing Shevardnadze to resign from the P.M. post in Georgia (Europe Version, since I'm pretty sure a reactionary troll like you wouldn't have known that) or is that something I shouldn't bring up because it points out just how full of shit you are.
Can you tell you pissed me off? I'm tired of you fucking idiots claiming people wear tinfoil hats just because they can fucking READ.
Turn off your T.V. and join the real world you ignorant fuck.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not CA setting the emissions standard for your state, it's the auto companies deciding that the economy of scale on the changes that need to be made are a greater benefit to the bottom line if applied to the whole production line than either a) not selling cars in CA or b) setting up a separate production line for CA specific autos. CA has every right to set emission standards for their own state, and the auto companies have every right to deal with those standards in any way legal.
Your post (to me at least) smacks of bashing those damn hippies without saying so directly. If you're really pissed about the situation, place the blame on the car companies, where it belongs.
And this is again making an assumption, but you seem to be pissed that programmers are gonna be pouring over this code. WTF? Do you really think that this is some big negative inconvenience, or is it just west coast bashing? I just don't see the problem.
If you're distributing binaries, it probably compiled.
In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).
This is called "having your cake and eating it, too." No, the first case is a matter of a company trying to end-run around already existing laws that deal with the topic, at least as it applies to your analogy.
The second case is a matter of an author expressly permitting you, with conditions, to have addition rights with their work that normal copyright would not allow.
And as for a more proper cake analogy: The first case is saying "here's a cake, and don't you pay no nevermind to what's in it, don't be doin none of them dang 'tests' on it either, we know what you want. that'll be $249.99"
The second case is like saying "here's a cake recipe, but if you make cakes with it, you have to give out the recipe too. that's the rules for getting this recipe for free"
Wow.
Um, thanks. And I apologize as well for the venom I squeezed out in my reply too. I guess harshness is doled out a little too quickly here on slashdot.
Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot for thinking that someone posting on slashdot could believe something so ridiculous. It's not like you see people seriously posting far more outrageous claims everyday.
And even if I -AM- thick for thinking something with such an obviously low probability could happen, what's with the bile and troll like shit throwing attitude in your reply? What, does EVERYTHING you say just have to be dripping with cutting edge sarcasm? You're so fucking obviously cooler than me, I'm sorry to have wasted your obviously precious and important time. Oh, and look, you know about the Onion too, god, that's cool AND modern.
Gimme a fucking break. The chances of finding an idiot post on any given slashdot thread approaches 1 as the number of posts approach, oh, about 20. About the same as troll posts actually. So I think I can be excused for thinking you were being an idiot rather than the troll you were actually being.
My bad.
Oppression card? That's cute. You declare that the decentralized network is dead (which is the exact opposite of the truth, decentralization is just MAYBE starting to slow down) and then say I'm screaming 'oppression'.
What I was screaming about is the utter denial you're in about the situation, the thought that the decentralized network is dead because you said so. You're not oppressing me, in fact this is one case where attempts of oppression invariably fail. Why do they fail? Why, the nature of the decentralized network.
That's why I told you to go get your own network, not to give me mine back. In fact, since the decentralized network is so open and versatile, you can build your (virtual) centralized network right on top of the actual decentralized one.
In short, you're not oppressive (though your ideas would be if possible to implement) you're simply mistaken.
Gonorrheic Gander is my vote...
Hey, where is the poll person at anyways?
Thank you oh grand overlord for taking our decentralized network from our unworthy hands.
Seriously, you want a CENTRALIZED network, go get one, using another protocol. One that's not chocked full of features you seem to take as bugs.
I'm willing to be my left nut that you're so undershooting the mark it's sick.
Look at it this way, if there are only 2 million internet connected computers in the U.S. (not the World, just the U.S.) that would be 1 internet connected computer for ever 150 people.
I simply cannot buy into that.
If the internet population is anything less than 100,000,000 at any given time I'd be shocked and amazed.
I'd believe 1 billion, and I'd believe 1 device for every man, woman, and child on earth if you included everything with a local IP address that could get a packet to or from the ole' intartubes.
That's all speculation though... Still, I have a hard time imagining that there are only 2,000,000 internet connected machines at any given time. Hell, I have 7 right here in my house.
??? Your post time on slashdot says 11:45 today, your livejournal timestamp says 11:42 today, and the GP's timestamp says 11:08 today. I'm not slinging any mud here, but from the timestamps it looks more like you copied GP's post to your livejournal and then came here and posted your comment immediately afterwards.
I'm not saying that's what happened, just that if the GP did steal your (interesting and provocative) work, it's not so blatantly obvious.
Hey, a 1.2 million member botnet can't be ALL wrong.
The answer is that you don't program pre-written behaviors, you train them.
You simulate that condition (and everything else you can think of) over and over and over again, letting it learn from it's mistakes. You make it a little different each time so that it can't be learning just that one circumstance. You repeat and repeat (at computer simulation speeds) until the car does at least as good as a person does, or make sure it does at least twice as good as Avg Joe.
This isn't an expert system we're talking about, it's learned behavior, capable of intelligent decision making even when confronted with an event it's never experienced, as long as it's been trained well in SIMILAR circumstances. It'll make 'judgement calls' on the parts that call for judgement, all based on it's past experience. Just like you.
Mind you, that level of complexity is a far way off from the model in the article, but we're talking about the foundations of that.
The way the machine in question learns is not by programming in every possible circumstance and letting it look at a list of things it knows how to do. This particular machine learns the same way YOU learned to drive, experience. When it does well it repeats what it did, when it does badly it tries something else.
The system being used isn't complex enough to handle those things yet, I mean this simulation has far fewer neurons than anything alive with a nervous system but it still does a damn fine job of getting from A to B in most cases.
If you're really interested in this, google for the NetLogo package. (not the 3d one, just regular NetLogo) It comes with a whole bunch of neat models that can give you the basics of complex behavior evolved from interactive simple structures, like neurons.
She posted (afaik) 1 small piece of video that contained the NFL notice we've all been talkign about. Fair Use mentions educational use, and she's a law professor. WTF about that isn't fair use?
And, umm, those "technicalities" proved you technically wrong. The fact that you're also literally wrong is just gravy.
Now stop being a troll, I'm not gonna feed you no more.
Through gills, if the GP is anything like the sharks he/she is defending.
I think you are mistaken about the power gap between income groups shrinking.
n /oped/articles/2006/04/19/income_gap_mentality/
Everything I've read on the subject (that is based in reality that is) shows that the income gap is growing enormously, as has been for a long time now...
Just one example, right off the top of my google is http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinio
And honestly, I'm 30, not 50, but all MY life I've watched as those around me, and then later I myself, work longer and harder just to not fall behind. Of course there were ups and downs, but the general trend has been lower quality of life and higher working hours.
Yes yes, because we all know 'Oops' is all any corporation need say after breaking the law. It's not THEIR fault, it's just too complicated for them to bother trying to comply.
I wonder if I could get away with this line of reasoning while doing my taxes. "Why yes Mr/Ms IRS agent, I suppose I -DID- deduct this list of items multiple times, but if you take into account the sheer volume of my deductions, you can clearly see that actually making sure I don't repeat any is far too complicated."
I don't think it would fly, and I'm just one guy sifting through the data, as you correctly point out, they have whole TEAMS.
And just how hard do you think it would be to check outgoing takedown notices against a list of clips with takedown disputes active?
Probably alot simpler than setting up teams of people (or even better, bots) to search for infringement.
How is this offtopic? What, they don't have a -1 I Don't Believe You mod, so you call it offtopic? This is one of the most ONtopic posts in the whole batch I've read so far.
Even if the dude is full of shit, it's very on-topic. Quit being a mod-punk.
Interesting post, and consistent with the information I've seen on the subject.
One little thing that sprung to my mind a few years ago as I was reading about the Mayan calendar and it's legendary implications mixed with Christian end-time lore is the fact that the apocalypse, if information from both sides is taken into account, should have started in late 2005. Mind you, (by my understanding of Christian theology) things won't get noticeably horrible until 3 1/2 years in, sometime around June 2009.
Of course, that's assuming that the December 2012 date is the final culminating event of the whole ordeal. The end-times scenarios seem similar in their implications to me, but I'm no Theologian, just interested in the topic.
It's really an interesting thing to think about, the unification of creation and it's subsequent re-unfolding.
No, see, the whole point of modern DRM is that a signal can't GET to a regular old audio-out jack without being downgraded significantly. It's the whole "Trusted Computing" thing. You'll have digital bits screaming out of that jack, and you can't make any sense of it (without cracking it, which is illegal, in the U.S. at least). Only after it's actually INSIDE the speaker itself can it be trusted to be turned back into a real audio waveform, and only if the speaker (and every other piece of hardware in between it and the source) checks itself out regularly to make sure there aren't any unexpected voltage drops or other signs that could be indicative of a tapped line somewhere.
It's completely obnoxious in both scale and obtrusiveness, technologically speaking.
And WE get to pay for it! Don't we all feel warm and fuzzy now, knowing we're paying for people to protect themselves from us. God knows -I- can't be trusted with something as powerful as a nsync album, and I should have to pay to make sure that very complicated steps are being taken to make absolutely SURE I don't do anything dangerous with that music-like-abomination.
That's very true. In my 1 1/2 months of owning Vista (preinstalled Vista at that, so I didn't boff the install) it has crashed (reboot required) more times than my XP box has in the 3 years I've had the current one.
Seriously, the thing goes down at least once a week. Mind you, I -DO- use my computer for more than e-mail and web browsing, but I do the same things on my (significantly less capable) XP box without the system taking a shit on me.
I am so completely unimpressed with Vista it hurts. It -IS- quite pretty tho, I guess that counts for something. It doesn't make the crashes piss me off less, but I suppose if you desire aesthetics over functionality, it's the best of the microsoft family of OS offerings.
Seriously though, if you're looking for a stable Windows machine, stick with XP, at LEAST until Vista's first Service Pack.
I'm just wondering if you've noticed but people who talk to you about this start off rational and nice, and then after 3 or 4 messages from you full of nothing but attacks and subtle (for a gorilla) insults of people's intelligence they get pissed and call you on being the bullshitter troll you are.
c asDefenses.pdf says other wise... Here's a google PDF-HTML translation to be kind to your browser.: www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefen ses.pdf+PNAC+Rebuilding+America's+Defenses&hl=en&c t=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Yes yes, the democrats (who had gotten all their information PRE-exaggerated and PRE-cherrypicked) did vote for Bush to be able to go to war if needed. Funny, but you seem to have forgotten that Congress was reading the intelligence reports that had already been bastardized by the administration. There goes that selective memory you've been accusing others of.
I think your entire line of posts on this subject have been like the pot calling the tupperware black.
And don't go off on people providing sources of information, if you remember from out little thread a while back you didn't offer me ANYTHING but supposition and empty rhetoric.
And tell me, as a lightbulb factory worker, just how HAVE you become such an expert at what evidence is 'obvious' and which is of the 'tinfoil hat' variety? Does your association with luminescent devices make you think you're bright? (Even my trite little jabs are better than yours)
Yes yes, democrats (especialy those on the DLC) can be corrupt too, but you (should) know that that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
As for your little "we have plans to attack britain, my mom's house and the keebler elves" or whoever it is you listed, did we have a plan to attack them at the earliest convenience? No? Oh, we didn't with Iraq either? http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeri
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ruMnHnl98cAJ
Please, PLEASE bring some sense and relevant facts to the table or just walk away.
No no, I respond to people who clearly bring valid points to the table, and I ignore people who's version of a 'fact' means that it's FOXNews balanced and approved, and checked to make sure it's not too full of reality.
And I 'foed' you because people who whip out the 'tinfoil hat' in the face of overwhelming evidence (whether you like that evidence or not) are not worth my time talking too. You're an obnoxious fuck, anything I say will be responded to in an obnoxious fuck style, and I will not waste my time on you.
Feel better now? Good.
P.S. In response to that trite little tinfoil hat comment, I'll toss out one of my own, keep drinking the Kool-Aid buddy.
Did it sound witty comming from me? No? That's pretty much how you sounded too, tired, played out, and full of shit. You think you're cute, but you're nothing but a factless tactless troll.
P.S.S. Since you seem to want to continue this, tell me exactly WHERE exit polls have been proven to be anything but THE MOST ACCURATE measure of election results. Tell me why they are the indicator the U.N. looks at worldwide to see if elections are going fairly, and if they suck so bad tell me why the U.S. used them to justify forcing Shevardnadze to resign from the P.M. post in Georgia (Europe Version, since I'm pretty sure a reactionary troll like you wouldn't have known that) or is that something I shouldn't bring up because it points out just how full of shit you are.
Can you tell you pissed me off? I'm tired of you fucking idiots claiming people wear tinfoil hats just because they can fucking READ.
Turn off your T.V. and join the real world you ignorant fuck.
try posting in plaintext, not html, your tags will still work.