I'm Belgian and I worked in the senate when the decision was made in 2003 to buy support for the government from the green parties. It was clear then to political insiders that the nuclear power plants would not close in 2015, and it is just as clear now. Notice the IFs in the statement. We will face shortages and prices will skyrocket if we close the nuclear power plants, so we won't. Why are they saying this then? Once again to buy support from the green parties, this time not for the government but for the state reform which they helped negotiate and still need to vote through.
Belgian here. The sad thing is, trying to avoid the SABAM fees by only playing rights-free music in your business leads to all kinds of administrative hassle where you are forced to prove the music you play is rights free. Most people who'd be open to this alternative decide not to bother, which is of course the intention of the hassle. It's just another case of politicians serving business interests over their voters' interests.
Whether someone gets 1% or 3% is not going to make any difference for his party's chances, there's no hope for election in sight.
Given that California has voted in Repubs before, future Republican candidates' chances are greater than 0.
His vote wasn't a wasted vote because the result of the current Republican candidate has an impact on the chances of future Republican candidates, which are real. Your vote however was entirely wasted because the next libertarian candidate's chances will be as non-existant as Barr's. I wish it were otherwise but that's the system. At least you didn't end up voting against your own interest, like Nader voters in 2000.
"communists need to have a look at their ideology and ask themselves why every time communists get sweeping powers they do such unpleasant things."
Perhaps you need to take a look at history and ask yourself why only communists who did unpleasant things managed to get and hold on to power, and what happened to all the communists who just wanted to rule with popular support. Hint: you might want to take a look at US military history and the history of CIA-involvement in foreign affairs.
You'll notice that in countries with PR, there IS NO movement to change to fptp, and there IS NO support for such an idea, academic or otherwise. EVEN though the large parties and all the people who vote for them would gain from it, while in the USA and UK only the smaller parties and their smaller electorates would gain from changing the system.
Someone who thinks Afghanistan borders Iraq, who thinks Karzai was already in power before the Taliban, who insinuates the USA organised 9/11 and who thinks the Soviet Union still exists gets moderated to 4?
from the next-time-gadget-next-time dept.
Colonel Korn writes "Ubisoft's recent announcement that upcoming games would require a constant internet connection in order to play has been discussed at length on Slashdot ('The Awful Anti-Pirate System That Will Probably Work'). Many were of the opinion that this new, more demanding DRM would have effectiveness to match its inconvenience, at least financially justifying its use. Others assumed that it would be immediately cracked, as is usually the case, leaving the inconvenience for paying customers and resulting in a superior product for pirates. As usual, the latter group was right. Though Ubisoft won't yet admit it, Skid-Row managed to crack the new DRM less than a day after it was first released."
The error in that line of thought is that if the 40% DRM-provider really grows and grows, all the others *will* allow licensing to each other. And if it gets 80%, like iTunes did, the publishing industry will favour alternatives, like the music industry did.
Israel could only be (re)founded because the territory was already colonised by foreign powers (first the Turks, then the British). Historically it was a fluke; let's see if it can survive longer than the crucader states did. The way they're making friends in the region, I'm not betting on it.
But then their populations would KNOW they're being cut off by their government. That would be a negative for regimes trying to keep their populations in check. Why do you think those regimes are allowing internet right now? Because they have to. Dictatorship aren't all-powerful, they have to make sure they don't exert power to the point that the population massively revolts. Not being able to contact relatives abroad would surely contribute to discontent.