Messages

Top of my list is the Barn Runner Series.

Even Queen Victoria would have been amused.

[personal opinion] With no offence to anyone involved, I would stay away from breakfast radio style slogans or you may as well just call the site Scorez4uDirect.com. That stuff is fine if you are just doing badly formatted guitar tab or chords with lyrics, but for professional classical scores it would probably ensure I did not visit your site.

Go with something professional sounding making the points you have stated, maybe something along the lines of "Cutting Edge Contemporary Classical Scores. Professionally Produced, Unique, Affordable, Available Music." (only something that sounds better than that!). In other words, try and stay classy rather than "Now that's what I call Classical Muzik 2.0" [/personal opinion]

Nice Idea!

It's an amorphous martian blob.

In the first part of the sentence I was referring to Earthquakes specifically, although the second part of the sentence, and the main point really I suppose, does indeed refer to all of the physical universe (obviously including earthquakes!)

@ Snarky

Yes, and this is why I say it is not enough and that there must be a cause/force whether Human or otherwise.

In terms of the word force, I used it to mean "external influencing factor" in the way I assumed (although perhaps incorrectly) Calin had used it.

@ Calin

Earthquakes: Yes, the mechanics of it are reasonably clear, but not the how and why of how they (the mechanics) came to be.

Climate: Agree and I should underline I am not denying climate change or disagreeing that it is overwhelmingly likely to be caused/contributed to by man currently.

Your point being? We (human scientists) have already established what caused global warming.
"It's natural" isn't an explanation with regard to "what caused global warming?", just as it isn't an explanation for "what killed JFK?"
Other things, like for instance earthquakes, have natural (as opposed to man-made) causes, just as the universe itself.

Obviously, you are correct in terms of JFK, as even conspiracy theorists will accept that it was a bullet, or at least if they do not they deny it in the face of countless witnesses who were there at the time.

However, "it's natural" still is not enough for me for earthquakes or the universe itself. Even the mechanics of tectonic plate shift or the effect of volcanic eruptions do not go far enough (by which I mean they explain what is happening but not why) and I stick with Calin's logical process (although he did not apply it as I am doing and I am not suggesting that he did) to ask what is behind these things bringing about changes such as the origin of the universe. There must be a force doing/having done it.

Current scientific thinking tells us that there has been climate change previously and clearly not influenced by man. Why then can climate change not be natural? (not that I am saying it is in the present case). Because "it's natural" is not enough and there must be a force behind it.

Because 'It's natural' isn't an explanation. There must be a force driving the change in global temperatures. If it is natural then what is doing it? It's not the sun because the sun's output hasnt changed. The level of carbon gases in the atmosphere has changed and it's well established that it's humans that made it change.

...but that logic doesn't apply to the origins of the universe itself, of course!

Actually I don't think your avatar does look like a girl!

Or if it does then she's not the one for me to be honest.

My vote goes to Tabata.

Good looking weapon with four lasers and duct tape? IN!

Ha! Easy when you know how.

And that game is definitely worth one minute of anybody's time!

x2

Features:

* Whilst viewed as pointless by many it is able to destroy most games within a few minutes!
* Massive effort to damaged caused ratio when used in combat!
* Do not use without wrist strap (now you can't sue us!)
* Can be used with nunchuck but really, what's the point?

Great little game, very enjoyable.

Looking forward to the next one already!

[was]

Next: I was going to, but stuff got in the way...

Well, why not move your code into room after fadein? Display your loading picture in room before fade in, then run your 10 second code in room after fade in and then remove your loading picture. This way when your code has finished loading your 10 seconds worth of whatever it is, you can go straight from your loading picture to the room.

On the off chance that your code doesn't take 10 seconds to load but you want to give the impression that it does, then why not send the player to another room first with your loading picture as the background and Wait (400);?

FANTASTIC!

Cannot wait, but have to, stupid job...

Just a quick one, and not a real entry as 1. it doesn't fit the theme and 2. I obviously copied it!

However, I just couldn't resist!




x2

Beautiful, really beautiful! :o

Definitely looking forward to this.

[second]

No, but the point is that anomalies always exist in any voting system, and it's a misunderstanding to think that "democracy" is tied to a particular system.

Perhaps so, but this is a long way from saying that every system is democratic or equally democratic.

It sounds like you don't really understand what "simulates a series of elimination rounds" means. Everyone gets to vote in every round. If your first preference is still in the running, you get to vote for that. What, you want to vote for something else as well? Or you want you vote to weigh more? If anything, it's the people whose first choice has been eliminated and who have to choose from the remaining candidates who should be complaining.

Your opinion of my understanding is, of course, your own, as are your implications that I consider my vote should be more important than the vote of others. 

My point by saying that everyone's second vote should count (you could read that as just mine if you're determined I suppose! ) is this. Why not take the first and second vote of all voters and not eliminate anyone, rather than only permit those with whom the fewest agreed to change their vote? Stilll no winner and it's the 1st, 2nd and 3rd votes etc. This also means that all candidates stay in so no-one needs to complain that their candidate was eliminated. After all it is possible that everyone who did not vote for the bottom candidate as their first choice may have voted for them as second choice.

No one's vote (including mine 8)) counts for anything more or less than anyone else's.

Let's say we were trying to decide where to hold Mittens next year, and we had three proposals with different number of people in favor:

Canada - 12
Spain - 10
Netherlands - 5

Now, there's not a whole lot of support for the Netherlands, so let's rule that out, and we might get:

Canada - 12
Spain - 15

(Because the people who wanted to go to the Netherlands would rather stay in Europe.) Has this been unfair? Undemocratic? Have the people who originally wanted the Netherlands had "more votes" than anyone else?

They are the only ones who have been able to use their second vote. I do not accept that, even after their country (candidate) has been eliminated, their first vote is worth anything less that any other vote for an unsuccessful country (candidate). They have therefore had two "goes" when others - including others who were not "successful" - have not.

Obviously the option is still open to still only vote for 1 country (candidate) if that is the only thing you want.

Is it fair or democratic that some people's second (hird etc.) vote counts and other's don't? In my opinion the answer is No.

[only]

There are all kinds of ways to organize voting systems, and none of them is perfect. Under FPTP, the LibDems get nearly a quarter of the votes, but less than 10% of MPs. Is that more fair and democratic?

...and as I said if the referendum was on FPTP vs PR I might think differently.

AV will not equate % of overall votes to % MPs.

AV essentially simulates a series of elimination rounds: Each round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and everyone gets to vote again for the remaining candidates.

If that were the case it might well be fair and reasonable. It is however only the votes of those who voted first for the eliminated candidate in each round which are added to the totals of the others.

Everyone votes for their highest-ranked option as long as it's available, and if it gets eliminated they move on to their second-ranked option, and so on

So, in practice (and I will admit this is an over simplification) only those who have voted for the fringe/no hoper/nutter parties will have their second (etc.) votes counted, not everyone. =/= democratic in my book as only a selection of people have effectively voted twice.

Just personal opinion of course, but in my book FPTP>AV.

[directly]

I voted No (contrary to popular AGS opinion apparently! ), although the No campaign themselves nearly put me off it.

Personally, I generally find it hard enough to vote for someone, not in terms of bothering to get along, but simply finding the least worst. I simply do not want to have to vote for more than 1 party, If I vote for one thing then that is what I want (or deem "best") there should not be a "well if I can't have it then this will do" vote as well.

Of course, you may say that I don't have to vote for any more than 1 party, but then my vote is not worth the same as other people's, in my opinion at least.

If the debate were FPTP vs PR then I might well think differently, but this version of AV is too wishy washy for my taste.

I see the point that, should a party win with 40% of the vote, that means there are 60% who did not vote for them (I do not accept that that means all of that 60% are against them) and that may seem unfair as it is not a "majority mandate". However, if a party with 40% of the vote gets another 11% or more through the AV second preference system, then that party (candidate) is elected with 20%+ of his/her "supporters" preferring someone else to do the job. This is not the same as directly winning a majority of the vote and I do not see it is any better than a FPTP result of 40% giving the win.

If there is a situation as Scarab sets out above, A - 40%, B - 35% and C - 25%, and "second choice" votes mean that B ends up with 51% then we have a candidate elected who had less "first choice" votes than candidate A. To me this is not fair, sensible or democratic.

Furthermore, it is the "second vote" of the people who voted for the party with the least votes which will count (unless I have misunderstood), rinse and repeat until we have more than 50% for one party. Why should people who vote for fringe/no hoper/nutter parties get to make the difference? Why should it not be the second vote of everyone who has voted?

Finally, the biggest benefit of AV would probably be to the Lib Dems. Of the "Big 3" they are the only party that I think would not be capable of governing alone and I much prefer a "one party" government to a coalition in any event, even if the "one party" is not one I voted for.