It strikes me as odd that you must register to vote
It's probably due to people moving around and weak ID laws, and some discrimination too. I agree there's room for improvement.
and in the process you are required to say which party you support (correct me if I'm wrong)
That's only if you want to vote in the primaries (party elections).
A simple cross on a paper ballot counted by people is much less error-prone.
Maybe, but then it's slower to count, and recounts are dubious.
IMHO feedom of speech should come with responsibility. It is hard to ignore that Fox (ab)uses their power to support a certain political direction. A news channel should try to be unbiased.
Should it? I would prefer it, but then the market wants biased news, which is why you have the opposite of Fox News in MSNBC. The conservative right charges that the mainstream media is biased to the left, and I tend to agree with them. This isn't something I want to see regulated.
Disagree. If you can't be bothered to vote, then your voice doesn't count. Seems fair to me. Also, if you aren't going to educate yourself on the choices, I'd rather you didn't vote.
a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on
That's your own political spin.
b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.
Your argument is if all those apathetic people voted, then they would make a difference. So it's their fault for not voting, as they are part of the problem.
Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane.
Uh huh. And I'm sure your politicians are completely rational people who never engage in polemics.
2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....
Agree.
3. State-level reform of your electoral college system
Agree.
4. Paper ballots.
Maybe require a paper trail, but I don't think electronic voting is unfixable. Back in 2000 in Bush vs. Gore, paper ballots took center stage at the controversy and prompted the move to electronic.
5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote.
Agree in principle, although I'm iffy on your implementation.
6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time.
Agree.
ban all campaign contributions above, say $50 per person per year. complete ban on contributions from non-natural persons - corporations, lobby groups, religious organisations, etc
Disagree. I have a libertarian bent, and freedom to associate and spend money on a common political cause fits in with that.
Finally, you've got thousands of nukes. You can afford to drop a few on FOX news' HQ.
Wow, fuck off. I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I'm not a fan of MSNBC either, and freedom of speech and the press is paramount.
In this case, you're supposed to either start a new corporation to compete with the existing one, or convince one of their competitors to do things differently such that the existing corporation either goes out of business or also changes. Those are the options that are consistent with the libertarian ideology.
The caveat was that at the end of the term there was a vote to see if the incumbent had done a good job. If not they were executed. Caveat or advantage.
I can't find any support of that. Wikipedia has a reference that says it was for officials chosen by vote, as opposed to lottery, for whom the death penalty was a possibility:
"So, for [offices which required expertise] they made an exception to their general, ideologically-driven rule, and held elections. [..] The corollary of this conscious, deliberate exception was that the people came down extremely hard on elected officials who were deemed in some way to have failed them, by losing a key battle as a general, say, or embezzling public funds as a sacred treasurer. For such high crimes and misdemeanours the penalty could all too often be death."
There is/was a paywall, but it is/was very leaky. They could have made it a nagwall by saying "Click here to proceed without paying", but they didn't do that. An uninformed user going to the site would have assumed they had to pay to proceed.
Also, when you called the poster a "sack of lying shit", you said "three people seem to have checked and noticed there is no paywall - not even in Google's cache", but made no argument about semantics. Now you're moving the goalposts after having been wrong about the existence of whatever you want to call the popup that prompted the article.
Yes, almost any politician is. Mitt takes flip-flopping to a whole new level. I seriously have no idea what the man stands for besides getting elected, being rich, and being a Mormon.
It's not disingenuous, it's being polite and respectful of your potential audience.
If he really wanted to be polite and respectful to his audience, he would replacing "fucking morons" with "stupid", or do away with the insult entirely and just focus on the argument. Words like "f*ck" are a lame copout.
It pretty much has. You've got the insults, the arrogant opinions, and the inability to admit mistakes. I wouldn't charge him with being boring, though, since we're talking about kernel development, and the questions asked were mundane.
If they really wanted to spice things up they could have brought up Tridgell and see if he's changed his position on that at all.
And your argument may be true for yourself but not true at all for the poster to which you replied.
Yet it's a common argument among addicts.
Please stop projecting your addiction onto others
Nope, as nicotine is known to be addictive and cigarettes bad for your health. I can't say with 100% certainty that he wasn't addicted, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't speak out against his position.
To be precise, it's "chiefly UK". Another alternative in idiomatic American English would be "putting to rest", which wins the Google fight against "putting paid to" by a large margin.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw
You don't go wrapping your lips around some guy sitting in the park's cigarette.
The post of mine that you originally applied to was concerned about first-hand health effects. I have never mentioned bad health effects from second-hand smoke. The worst second-hand effect I mentioned was smell.
Do you really know the effects of that car exhaust you breath every day?
Compared to first-hand smoking, yes.
How long would you last in that closed garage with the car running?
You'd die from carbon monoxide poisoning, so don't do that. Out in the open it normally isn't a problem.
You are just rationalizing why your shade of gray is so much better than other peoples shade of gray.
That's because the world is full of shades of gray and not black and white.
You don't wrap your lips around the exhaust pipe to go for a drive. People who drive don't have smoker's cough in the morning. Your argument is ridiculous.
The driver who is spewing crap into the air because you want to go watch a movie in a theater is no better than the smoker who is sitting on a park bench puffing away.
Nope. Driving to the theater isn't going to take an average of 10 years off my life, give me a chronic cough or reduced lung capacity, or make me smell. Cars offer an immense amount of convenience and variety and help the economy. Smoking is a singular pleasure with direct health consequences.
To bad for your argument that the patent number he cited for that patent is actually a Samsung patent.
Well you're right, and now I'm thoroughly confused. The jury ruled Apple didn't infringe against the '460, and he's talking about Apple's software versus the "prior art", unless he's calling Samsung's software prior art? But then how is that "defending" the Samsung patent? I think he just used the wrong patent number and instead was talking about an Apple patent.
Slashdot Mirror
It strikes me as odd that you must register to vote
It's probably due to people moving around and weak ID laws, and some discrimination too. I agree there's room for improvement.
and in the process you are required to say which party you support (correct me if I'm wrong)
That's only if you want to vote in the primaries (party elections).
A simple cross on a paper ballot counted by people is much less error-prone.
Maybe, but then it's slower to count, and recounts are dubious.
IMHO feedom of speech should come with responsibility. It is hard to ignore that Fox (ab)uses their power to support a certain political direction. A news channel should try to be unbiased.
Should it? I would prefer it, but then the market wants biased news, which is why you have the opposite of Fox News in MSNBC. The conservative right charges that the mainstream media is biased to the left, and I tend to agree with them. This isn't something I want to see regulated.
you yanks
Gee, thanks.
1. Compulsory voting.
Disagree. If you can't be bothered to vote, then your voice doesn't count. Seems fair to me. Also, if you aren't going to educate yourself on the choices, I'd rather you didn't vote.
a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on
That's your own political spin.
b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.
Your argument is if all those apathetic people voted, then they would make a difference. So it's their fault for not voting, as they are part of the problem.
Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane.
Uh huh. And I'm sure your politicians are completely rational people who never engage in polemics.
2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....
Agree.
3. State-level reform of your electoral college system
Agree.
4. Paper ballots.
Maybe require a paper trail, but I don't think electronic voting is unfixable. Back in 2000 in Bush vs. Gore, paper ballots took center stage at the controversy and prompted the move to electronic.
5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote.
Agree in principle, although I'm iffy on your implementation.
6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time.
Agree.
ban all campaign contributions above, say $50 per person per year. complete ban on contributions from non-natural persons - corporations, lobby groups, religious organisations, etc
Disagree. I have a libertarian bent, and freedom to associate and spend money on a common political cause fits in with that.
Finally, you've got thousands of nukes. You can afford to drop a few on FOX news' HQ.
Wow, fuck off. I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I'm not a fan of MSNBC either, and freedom of speech and the press is paramount.
In this case, you're supposed to either start a new corporation to compete with the existing one, or convince one of their competitors to do things differently such that the existing corporation either goes out of business or also changes. Those are the options that are consistent with the libertarian ideology.
Libertarians also believe in free speech.
BZzzzzt!
Get out of the 1990s and grow up.
The caveat was that at the end of the term there was a vote to see if the incumbent had done a good job. If not they were executed. Caveat or advantage.
I can't find any support of that. Wikipedia has a reference that says it was for officials chosen by vote, as opposed to lottery, for whom the death penalty was a possibility:
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-43.html
"So, for [offices which required expertise] they made an exception to their general, ideologically-driven rule, and held elections. [..] The corollary of this conscious, deliberate exception was that the people came down extremely hard on elected officials who were deemed in some way to have failed them, by losing a key battle as a general, say, or embezzling public funds as a sacred treasurer. For such high crimes and misdemeanours the penalty could all too often be death."
There is/was a paywall, but it is/was very leaky. They could have made it a nagwall by saying "Click here to proceed without paying", but they didn't do that. An uninformed user going to the site would have assumed they had to pay to proceed.
Also, when you called the poster a "sack of lying shit", you said "three people seem to have checked and noticed there is no paywall - not even in Google's cache", but made no argument about semantics. Now you're moving the goalposts after having been wrong about the existence of whatever you want to call the popup that prompted the article.
I was just quoting Linus.
Like any politician is any better?
Yes, almost any politician is. Mitt takes flip-flopping to a whole new level. I seriously have no idea what the man stands for besides getting elected, being rich, and being a Mormon.
http://mittromneysflipflops.com/
I took a quick perusal and there was a pretty good list. Anybody who doesn't think Romney is a serial flip-flopper has their head in the sand.
Sure, Obama and every politician does to some extent, but Mitt takes the cake.
Funny how only three people seem to have checked and noticed there is no paywall - not even in Google's cache.
I just checked and noticed there is no paywall... while running NoScript. When I used a browser with JavaScript enabled, I saw the paywall popup.
If you have "one overriding idea,"
Like "everything is an object" in Git?
It's not disingenuous, it's being polite and respectful of your potential audience.
If he really wanted to be polite and respectful to his audience, he would replacing "fucking morons" with "stupid", or do away with the insult entirely and just focus on the argument. Words like "f*ck" are a lame copout.
It pretty much has. You've got the insults, the arrogant opinions, and the inability to admit mistakes. I wouldn't charge him with being boring, though, since we're talking about kernel development, and the questions asked were mundane.
If they really wanted to spice things up they could have brought up Tridgell and see if he's changed his position on that at all.
The difference, as I see it, is that the GGGP didn't want to quit permanently
Yeah, I know, and then you go right back to my original reply. I'm not going in circles, so bye.
And your argument may be true for yourself but not true at all for the poster to which you replied.
Yet it's a common argument among addicts.
Please stop projecting your addiction onto others
Nope, as nicotine is known to be addictive and cigarettes bad for your health. I can't say with 100% certainty that he wasn't addicted, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't speak out against his position.
I'll be glad to be back in Moscow later this week.
Reminds me of that Beatles song.
It is an English phrase
To be precise, it's "chiefly UK". Another alternative in idiomatic American English would be "putting to rest", which wins the Google fight against "putting paid to" by a large margin.
Or in other words:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw
Taiwan remaining independent is more important to the US than it is to Taiwan.
And how would you quantify and/or qualify those statements?
You don't go wrapping your lips around some guy sitting in the park's cigarette.
The post of mine that you originally applied to was concerned about first-hand health effects. I have never mentioned bad health effects from second-hand smoke. The worst second-hand effect I mentioned was smell.
Do you really know the effects of that car exhaust you breath every day?
Compared to first-hand smoking, yes.
How long would you last in that closed garage with the car running?
You'd die from carbon monoxide poisoning, so don't do that. Out in the open it normally isn't a problem.
You are just rationalizing why your shade of gray is so much better than other peoples shade of gray.
That's because the world is full of shades of gray and not black and white.
You don't wrap your lips around the exhaust pipe to go for a drive. People who drive don't have smoker's cough in the morning. Your argument is ridiculous.
The driver who is spewing crap into the air because you want to go watch a movie in a theater is no better than the smoker who is sitting on a park bench puffing away.
Nope. Driving to the theater isn't going to take an average of 10 years off my life, give me a chronic cough or reduced lung capacity, or make me smell. Cars offer an immense amount of convenience and variety and help the economy. Smoking is a singular pleasure with direct health consequences.
That clears that up. You did come off as sounding technical and involved in the project.
To bad for your argument that the patent number he cited for that patent is actually a Samsung patent.
Well you're right, and now I'm thoroughly confused. The jury ruled Apple didn't infringe against the '460, and he's talking about Apple's software versus the "prior art", unless he's calling Samsung's software prior art? But then how is that "defending" the Samsung patent? I think he just used the wrong patent number and instead was talking about an Apple patent.
Maybe he doesn't really have them and is bullshitting. People do that a lot.