The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Elections are useful to keep the populace from revolting, by giving them an illusion that their opinions matter and appealing to their "our team against their team" instinct (even when the differences between the "teams" are both artificial and superficial).
Elections are just a small part of a functioning democratic process. You also need: - An informed electorate - A diverse choice of parties and representatives, with a low barrier to entry. - Real accountability that will make corruption a very unappealing choice (not impeachment, long jail terms).
Being allowed to choose which lizard will be in power is not enough.
The conservatives only got 40% of the popular vote, so 60% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power....
Ok, but look at the alternatives...
31% voted for the NDP, that means 70% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power... 19% voted for the Liberals, that means 81% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power... 6% voted for the Bloc, that means 94% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power... 4% voted for the Greens, that means 96% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power...
In a sane(r) system: the Conservatives would get ~40% of the seats, the NDP would get ~31% of the seats, the Liberals would get ~19% of the seats, the Bloc would get ~6% of the seats, and the Greens would get ~4% of the seats.
Then, the governing party would have to hold talks with the other parties and make compromises that would be acceptable to most of the populace.
There isn't really anything that people in Canada can do. Our weird political system has given someone with less than 50% of the popular support a *majority government*. That means we have a fascist party in government with no effective means to control them.
It is way more ridiculous. Let me crunch the numbers for you:
The popular support for the Conservatives was 39.62% with a 61.4% voter turnout. Which means that LESS THAN 25% OF ELIGIBLE CANADIANS VOTED FOR THEM. That's right, less than a quarter, not counting
However, if we consider all Canadians, not just the electors on the list, out of 31,612,897 people, 5,832,401 voted Conservative. That's right boys and girls, the whole of 18.45%.
And this gave us a majority government that, contrary to the US, has no checks nor balances.
Logitech is working as hard as they can to remove anything remotely "advanced" from the Harmony line. The older remotes had an artificial limitation on sequence length of 5 commands. (And no, activities are not a replacement for sequences).
It's also worth noting that the Catholic school system in Ontario represent almost 1/3 of all the students. Students in other separate schools are much, much smaller numbers.
I think you are confusing cause and effect. Maybe the enrolment in other separate schools is so much lower because they receive no government funding and have to charge charge mucho dinero.
We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising. Businesses use our AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. In addition, the third parties that comprise the Google Network use our AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience.
We generate our revenues almost entirely from advertising, and the reduction in spending by or loss of advertisers could seriously harm our business.
How We Generate Revenue Advertising revenues made up 97% of our revenues in 2009 and 96% of our revenues in 2010 and 2011. We derive most of our additional revenues from our enterprise products, as well as our display advertising management services to advertisers, ad agencies, and publishers.
Please explain how a corporation that consistently derives over 95% of their revenues from ad-related services is not an "ad network".
Yes. Religion implies, by definition, believing in the supernatural. Soviet communists believed in many things, but definitely not in the supernatural.
That may be the most common definition, but it is not the only one.
I find signing an internet petition as useful as praying for a cure.
I don't know. In this case, we can show the petition to our "elected representatives" and say: "X voters will be upset with you if you support this". Or we could send it to the CBC and generate some talk.
[Dear Saudi Arabia:] If you had no oil, your women would be going topless and your sons would listening to death metal.
I am not Saudi but circletimessquare's statement got me concerned. As I have no oil, how do I prevent my women from going topless and my sons from listening to death metal? (If worst comes to worst, I could consider compromising on the going topless part)
This is exactly the type of extremism that turns me away from religion, and that applies to all forms of it.
That's not specific to religion. If in the former Soviet Union you had said that you don't think communism is a good idea, your life wouldn't exactly have been safe either.
Are you implying that Soviet Communism was not a religion?
Which you would have gotten had you read the article. We're dealing with facts not opinions. Opinions carry no weight.
Opinions carry far more weight than facts. Facts are raw data that mean little without a (subjective) context. Opinions, on the other hand, create policy.
For example: The physics underlying aerospace engineering are a matter of fact. The decision to put a man on the moon was a matter of opinion.
If your culture is defined as movies and canned music, then something is rotten...
If the draconian copyright terms applied only to "movies and canned music", they would be less of a problem.
That said, movies and music can influence -- even define -- culture just as well as literature and plays. It is not the medium, it's the message that matters.
I propose that we limit not just the Executive and Legislative branches back to their original Constitutional limits, but also the Judicial, so they can't keep ruling themselves more and more power.
No amount of reduction in copyright will cause piracy to cease either.
Cease, as in "completely disappear", no. But it will be significantly reduced if the public domain becomes rich enough to provide people alternative content form their generation.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly IP laws are needed and useful.
[citation needed]
The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Elections are useful to keep the populace from revolting, by giving them an illusion that their opinions matter and appealing to their "our team against their team" instinct (even when the differences between the "teams" are both artificial and superficial).
Elections are just a small part of a functioning democratic process. You also need:
- An informed electorate
- A diverse choice of parties and representatives, with a low barrier to entry.
- Real accountability that will make corruption a very unappealing choice (not impeachment, long jail terms).
Being allowed to choose which lizard will be in power is not enough.
No, idiot. The Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round.
And they were close but not exactly right.
I'm so sick of that argument.
The conservatives only got 40% of the popular vote, so 60% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power....
Ok, but look at the alternatives...
31% voted for the NDP, that means 70% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power...
19% voted for the Liberals, that means 81% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power...
6% voted for the Bloc, that means 94% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power...
4% voted for the Greens, that means 96% of Canadians didn't want them to be in power...
In a sane(r) system:
the Conservatives would get ~40% of the seats,
the NDP would get ~31% of the seats,
the Liberals would get ~19% of the seats,
the Bloc would get ~6% of the seats,
and the Greens would get ~4% of the seats.
Then, the governing party would have to hold talks with the other parties and make compromises that would be acceptable to most of the populace.
There isn't really anything that people in Canada can do. Our weird political system has given someone with less than 50% of the popular support a *majority government*. That means we have a fascist party in government with no effective means to control them.
It is way more ridiculous. Let me crunch the numbers for you:
The popular support for the Conservatives was 39.62% with a 61.4% voter turnout.
Which means that LESS THAN 25% OF ELIGIBLE CANADIANS VOTED FOR THEM. That's right, less than a quarter , not counting
However, if we consider all Canadians, not just the electors on the list, out of 31,612,897 people, 5,832,401 voted Conservative. That's right boys and girls, the whole of 18.45% .
And this gave us a majority government that, contrary to the US, has no checks nor balances.
Fun, eh?
And the moral of the story: NEVER EVER give any Canadian political party a majority. They cannot be trusted with it.
Man up and post under your name, you cunt.
Logitech is working as hard as they can to remove anything remotely "advanced" from the Harmony line.
The older remotes had an artificial limitation on sequence length of 5 commands.
(And no, activities are not a replacement for sequences).
See here.
Bill C-11...
Bill C-30...
TPP...
What the hell happened?
I want my Canada back!
It's also worth noting that the Catholic school system in Ontario represent almost 1/3 of all the students. Students in other separate schools are much, much smaller numbers.
I think you are confusing cause and effect. Maybe the enrolment in other separate schools is so much lower because they receive no government funding and have to charge charge mucho dinero.
I simply pointed out that someone who defines Google as an "ad network" is biased and no more rational than the guy he complained about.
Excerpts from Google's fiscal report for 2011 (emphasis mine):
We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising. Businesses use our AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. In addition, the third parties that comprise the Google Network use our AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience.
We generate our revenues almost entirely from advertising, and the reduction in spending by or loss of advertisers could seriously harm our business.
How We Generate Revenue
Advertising revenues made up 97% of our revenues in 2009 and 96% of our revenues in 2010 and 2011. We derive most of our additional revenues from our enterprise products, as well as our display advertising management services to advertisers, ad agencies, and publishers.
Please explain how a corporation that consistently derives over 95% of their revenues from ad-related services is not an "ad network".
Yes. Religion implies, by definition, believing in the supernatural. Soviet communists believed in many things, but definitely not in the supernatural.
That may be the most common definition, but it is not the only one.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion :
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I find signing an internet petition as useful as praying for a cure.
I don't know. In this case, we can show the petition to our "elected representatives" and say: "X voters will be upset with you if you support this".
Or we could send it to the CBC and generate some talk.
This may be close to your last chance to be an anonymous coward, so sign the petition at openmedia,
http://openmedia.ca/StopSpying
And don't forget to donate as well
[Dear Saudi Arabia:]
If you had no oil, your women would be going topless and your sons would listening to death metal.
I am not Saudi but circletimessquare's statement got me concerned.
As I have no oil, how do I prevent my women from going topless and my sons from listening to death metal?
(If worst comes to worst, I could consider compromising on the going topless part)
Communism is atheistic and killed millions in it wars against those that opposed them.
Communism, as practised by the Soviets, is a religion in and of itself. It's "atheistic" aspects are just ways of getting rid of the competition.
This is exactly the type of extremism that turns me away from religion, and that applies to all forms of it.
That's not specific to religion. If in the former Soviet Union you had said that you don't think communism is a good idea, your life wouldn't exactly have been safe either.
Are you implying that Soviet Communism was not a religion?
It is always about power and control.
Religion is not a requirement, it is just a handy tool to facilitate obtaining and exercising the above.
Which you would have gotten had you read the article. We're dealing with facts not opinions. Opinions carry no weight.
Opinions carry far more weight than facts. Facts are raw data that mean little without a (subjective) context. Opinions, on the other hand, create policy.
For example:
The physics underlying aerospace engineering are a matter of fact.
The decision to put a man on the moon was a matter of opinion.
The GP analogy was more believable.
The fifth amendment is perfectly clear, and he's violated it.
As far as I remember, there is no penalty or punishment attached to violating the constitution.
If it works in a congressional hearing investigating potential ethics violations of the Attorney General, why not in a court of law?
Because "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
If your culture is defined as movies and canned music, then something is rotten...
If the draconian copyright terms applied only to "movies and canned music", they would be less of a problem.
That said, movies and music can influence -- even define -- culture just as well as literature and plays. It is not the medium, it's the message that matters.
I propose that we limit not just the Executive and Legislative branches back to their original Constitutional limits, but also the Judicial, so they can't keep ruling themselves more and more power.
And who exactly is going to do that?
No amount of reduction in copyright will cause piracy to cease either.
Cease, as in "completely disappear", no.
But it will be significantly reduced if the public domain becomes rich enough to provide people alternative content form their generation .