Humodour

Oh god don't do that. Some Christian watchdog organization will take it and run with it. And that will be awesome. Very awesome.

Or you could post the REST of the story dude... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8682390.stm As I said, you're biased. You only hear what you want to about the Greece/Turkey relationship.

I don't know how much I trust that since it's on a hackintosh.

I'm so glad I'm not high right now or I would lose my **** and freak out over this: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/05/privates-...et-in-a-vagina/ I can't describe it. The link does. Just click it.

The book. What a mind****. It's a lot of food for thought. I see myself to a disturbing degree in the book. Philip K. ****'s writing doesn't seem to age, unlike Asimov's.

Just tried Steam and Osmos on Mac. Downloading Torchlight now. I believe it carries over my Windows save games via Steam Cloud, so that should be awesome. WILL, it's all very well not to care about the Mac, but do you think a Linux port would be viable without a Mac port? Without a Mac port there'd be no OpenGL ports of Source (Portal, etc), so the success of the Mac port of Steam and Steam games is important.

Is it possible lof is multiple people? Like 3 or 4 commie/anarchist uni students sharing the account around?

It's permanent. If you buy the game now (i.e. add it to Steam) it will stay there for free permanently. GOG did a similar thing with some Tex Murphy games at one point. You just have to add it before the 24th.

So yeah. Torchlight and Civ 4 are among the games out for Mac. There's also the typical indie games - World of Goo, etc. Hot stuff since I already own them on Steam! The interesting points are: Portal is free till the 24th, and Valve are working on a Linux client which will be like the Mac client in that games you own in Windows which have a Linux version on Steam will be automatically added to your account (Steam Play). Steam for Mac: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/12/steam-fo...ilable-sort-of/ Steam for Linux: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti...ement&num=1 Like on Mac, the Linux Steam client will get all Valve's games, so you'll be able to play things like World of Goo and Portal 2, Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, etc natively on Linux this year.

And you have no conception of how ugly real racism is. Well said.

Says someone who comes from a country where more cows than Muslims are living. There are 340,392 Muslims in Australia. There are 351,818 Muslims in Austria. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Wow, you guys are really going Muslims-hating crazy aren't you? What happened to you Europe? You used to be cool.

It requires a username and password.

While I applaud your spirit of generosity, I have literally a shelf of Mao's own words downstairs in my library which suggest LoF is being revisionist to say the least. Mao's revolutionary doctrine is predicated at the most basic level on undermining the status quo through violence and fear. The people must be made to doubt the authorities' ability to govern first before they will consider any alternative. As I say, I need to look up the Nepalese point this weekend, when I have some proper time. But I don't see the Indian Maoists shying away from violence and thuggish intimidation. Well... Wals, does the above post not indicate that LoF recognises modern Maoism is divorced from Mao? At least in Nepal. True, the Indian Maoists are mass murderers truely fitting of the term 'Maoist'.

Guys, I think if you'll look at this thread objectively for a second you'll notice that this is one of LoF's more serious, thoughtful, and rational threads. I hate Mao as much as anybody, but instead of knee-jerk reactionism (Maoism = murder!) this would be an appropriate place (compared to most of LoF's other threads) to actually put forth convincing arguments and cite sources.

This post is about what policies you can expect to come from this coalition: The Guardian: Also, from the Australian Broadcasting Service: The Australian: I like Cameron and I like Clegg. The referendum on AV voting is interesting because while it's superior to FPTP, it's not proportional. Wals should like it because it functions very similarly to FPTP except that you have preferences. So of 3 parties, A, B, C all competing for a seat, if you voted A but A only gets 10% of the vote, your vote goes to your next preference (say B) which was 40% of the vote, let's assume all A votes flow to B, so B gets 50% of the vote and wins. Even though C might have got 45% of the vote in their own right (and thus won under FPTP). In this case it's clear that more voters PREFER candidate B than C. Basically, preferential voting means all votes count (though less so than prop rep IMHO). It helps to prevent situations such as in Canada under FPTP where 60% or more of the people voted for progressive and centre-left parties, yet the Conservatives had the highest vote share on 40% and formed government (partly because the other parties were too retarded to form a coalition, admittedly).

*snort* Hahahaha good. I dislike the Tories, but they're better than Labour right now, and with the Lib Dems moderating them on civil liberties and social justice maybe they'll do alright. Or maybe they'll tear eachother apart. It's hard to tell, although the fact that they've been willing to negotiate with the Lib Dems indicates to me that it'll work reasonably well. It helps that the Lib Dems have an economic libertarian wing.

All parties in Britain are minority parties. Where does that leave you?

On the other hand, Neanderthals existed for 600,000 years before dying out about 20,000 years ago. So their hips worked fine for them for a good couple of hundred thousand years...

And I take it you missed how what I (and Boo) was saying has nothing to do with that. FPTP can result in relatively popular candidates not getting a seat and therefore skewed parliamentary majorities, but unlike some other undemocratic bull****, it will not result in gravely impopular politicians getting "elected", ever. Apparently, some people believe Gordy is the bestamest PM, evar. That's freedom of opinion for ya. Ah, I see. Wals made it sound like you were talking about prop rep in general, not closed lists. Coalitions are bad because big parties are willing to compromise on important issues if that's what it'll take for them to keep power for themselves -- this is what places political dwarves in a position of strength that doesn't correspond to popular support. However, coalition governments formed by large parties in Germany have worked well for some time, so coalitions aren't necessarily bad. The problem comes when the people don't punish the party they voted for forming a coalition with a small party whose stated goals and policies are at odds with their own. Leaders in a democracy are, for good or ill, a very accurate reflection of the quality of the electorate. Well said. Coalitions CAN be bad, but they CAN be good. To exclusively portray coalitions as bad is ill logic. Further, it's kind of like the argument against democracy... how does it go? "Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the others." Don't like coalitions? What's the alternative - that a party without a majority or mandate - elected by a minority - forms government to represent the majority? And I don't mean coalition as "both parties get cabinet members" here - it could simply be the acknowledgement between two parties that one should form government and hence the other won't block supply and such.

Also, Mao was (I've said this numerous times before) one of the largest mass-murderers in history. He puts Hitler and Stalin to shame. People supporting this is not a good thing. Indeed.

I wish this board had a reputation system, because I'd rep this post up.

As opposed to the other election loser (Conservatives) ruling with a minority of the people's vote (about 36%)? That's democracy alright. At least the LibDems and Labour collectively make up a majority of the vote share (50% or so), if not seats due to FPTP quirks. Argue that the LibDems should form coalition with the conservatives all you want, but please Morgoth, don't be so obviously stupid as to argue that coalitions are bad, because that implies that a single party should try to govern without the support of the majority of voters.

But as you can clearly see (since the UK is FPTP, and so is Canada), this issue has nothing to do with prop rep in particular. What? We just had it explained by Numbers and Boo* that severing the direct connection between voter and individual as with pure prop rep creates perfect conditions for corruption. I'm not saying we can't have corruption here, but FPTP means at the end of teh day that anyone, including the prime minister, can be removed by a local movement of a few thousand people. I take it all three of you missed the posts earlier in this thread where myself and (I believe) Zoraptor pointed out that prop rep in no way requires group voting tickets. Sigh.

But as you can clearly see (since the UK is FPTP, and so is Canada), this issue has nothing to do with prop rep in particular. The Conservatives can try to govern as a minority, as they do in Canada (with reasonable success). Uhg.