I mentioned my observations of the Argentine electoral process above. This is another interesting point of theirs: legally, everyone is required to vote, with a few very specific, very narrow exemptions. But one of the valid choices is votar en blanco (to submit a blank ballot). Doing so is seen as a protest vote.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seems Apple doesn't want to compete with free.
Value = quality (fitness for use) divided by Cost.
Every iPhone comes with no real keyboard, only an on-screen keyboard.
If you hold the phone vertically, ("portrait" orientation,) the "keys" are tiny and accuracy suffers horribly.
If you hold the phone horizontally, ("landscape" orientation), the keys are decent-sized, but the keyboard blocks a significant amount of the screen space, so it's very hard to see what you're working on.
Either way, it violates Einstein's maxim: make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Value = fitness for use / cost. 0 divided by anything = 0. Only an iDiot would buy an iPhone.
To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers... It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"Competition is a sin."
-- John D. Rockefeller
There is nothing new under the sun -- Ecclesiastes, The Bible
Re: Re: Re: Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
...in some issues. Definitely in regards to money and corporate power.
Socially, on the other hand, if anyone from the 80s or even the 90s were to look at the state of US politics today and the way that things like marijuana legalization and gay marriage have gotten such widespread acceptance, they'd say we've moved crazy-far to the left. So it all depends on your perspective.
In the end, after all the campaign money is spent, politicians still need to get elected by the people, and if enough people make it clear that they aren't going to stand for X, X will end up not happening.
Don't get me wrong, most countries see an increase in attack ads near elections,
Do they? This may not be accurate, but I've read that in "most countries" with democratic elections, attack ads are flat-out illegal.
And whether that's true or not, I would definitely like it to be true in the USA! We voted in our last three presidents, not because of who they were, but because of who they were not, (Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama all got into office skillfully riding a wave of backlash and positioning themselves as the opposite of the guy before them,) and all three have been disastrous presidents. We need to put a stop to it.
Re: Re: Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
It's not "a single person wing." It's a faction within the Democratic Party that call themselves "the Warren Wing" because they subscribe to her views. It's still fairly new, so the name might not last as things continue to progress. (I kind of hope it does change, actually; if you're for an idea, you should be for it because it's a good idea, not because some person, even an admirable person, is for it.) But for the moment, that's what they're calling it.
Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
To be fair, things are changing quite a bit in the last couple years, with the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and the "Warren Wing" on the political scene. We've got people actually talking very seriously about breaking up the big banks, mass debt forgiveness on student loans, expanding Social Security by raising taxes on the rich rather than cutting it in an attempt to keep it solvent for longer, and all sorts of stuff that would have been essentially unthinkable ten years ago.
(Note: I'm not advocating all this stuff. I agree with some parts of it and disagree with other parts. But it's a fact, not a matter of opinion, that a strong, viable, closer-to-diametrically-opposed political platform is currently emerging in US politics. It'll be interesting to see where it goes.)
In 2003, I was living in Argentina. It was an interesting time, and one of the things that happened was a presidential election. There were five major candidates, and in the end it came down to two guys, where the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error. Former president Carlos Ménem, trying to win his way back into La Casa Rosada (in the USA we have the White House; the Argentine equivalent is the Pink House,) garnered a very narrow plurality of the vote, with Néstor Kirchner coming in a very close second.
The most recent US election at the time was the one in 2000, and we all remember what a horrendous mess that was. (For values of "all" including US citizens who are not significantly younger than myself.) So it was interesting to watch what happened.
The short version is, instead of wasting time and money on endless recounts and re-recounts and re-re-recounts and court cases and whatnot, they scheduled a runoff election in a few weeks' time. But here's the interesting thing: that runoff election never happened. It quickly became clear that almost everyone who had not voted for Ménem the first time was going to support Kirchner in the runoff, and so Ménem conceded. And I couldn't help but think, this is so much more civilized than the way we did it. (And when a perpetual basket case of a nation like Argentina has more civilized elections than we do, you know something's seriously wrong!)
But something like that can't happen without multiple strong parties in the first place.
Before advocating getting rid of something, you need to ask, "would I rather have this thing, or the problem that this thing solves." Because this one's a doozy, and the case could be made that we owe the entirety of modern civilization to the patent system.
The problem that patents solve is trade secrets. How big a problem is it? I've mentioned this before on here. The earliest known samples of steel date back to the 14th century BC. For millennia, the secrets of making steel were discovered, kept secret, then all too frequently lost again when the smith who figured it out died, time and time again. The only reason it didn't happen again in the 19th century is because of the patent system, which required the details to be published in order to receive protection for this "new" invention.
And when that patent expired, cheap steel was available for everyone, and it kickstarted the Industrial Revolution, which gave us mass-produced steel. From the automobile and the skyscraper to the cutlery you eat with and the zipper on your trousers, steel is everywhere in modern life, and we'd never have gotten there without patents.
Yes, the current system is broken, but that means it needs to be fixed, not killed. Getting rid of it would mean going back to the old system of keeping new discoveries secret, which literally set civilization back by 3000 years!
If a person is on your property and you tell him to leave and he does not, he is trespassing. Call the police; the law is on your side. But if you attack him--even if it's just with a hose--then the law is on his side and he could take you to court and have a pretty good chance of winning, even though he was trespassing.
I'm not quite sure where Google is getting that convenient summary definition in the big box at the top from, but when you look at the actual links it comes up with, they all say "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" or very similar.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians are as bad and how about screw you relgious nutjobs
Both the Old and New Testaments are full of directives in favor of slavery.
That's the problem with natural languages: they're very imprecise. We tend to combine things that are superficially similar into the same word (calling American bison "buffalo" even though they're biologically quite distinct from actual buffalo, for example) and most of the time it's a useful trick to reduce cognitive load. But sometimes you get cases like this.
The terms translated as "slave," "slavery," etc. in the Old Testament referred to indentured servitude to work off a debt, and almost every relevant passage in the Law was about defining the rights of indentured servants and limiting the abusive things that their "master" could potentially do to them. It was an economic choice that could and frequently did benefit the servant just as much as the master, and the consideration in the law for a servant who has worked off his debt choosing to voluntarily remain in the master's service afterwards was something that really did happen.
All of the abominations of slavery in the American South--treating people as inherently property for life, beatings and other physical abuse, sexual abuse, breaking up families by selling one slave to another master but not their family members--were strictly forbidden and condemned by Biblical law. American slavery literally bore zero resemblance to Biblical indentured servitude.
As for racism, consider that when Mitt Romney was preaching in France, his church still taught that blacks were cursed and damned.
Unsurprisingly, your ignorance of Mormon doctrine is very much on par with your ignorance of Biblical doctrine. Please, stick to subjects you actually know about, rather then just regurgitating random stuff you saw on some attack site. It just makes you look bad when someone who's actually studied this stuff sees what you wrote.