obfuscator

To add to this: The prime minister is (in theory) just another member of parliament. But because they're the leader of the party, they have a huge amount of power (enforced by the party whip). On paper they have less power than the president of the US. In practice (in some areas) they have more. This does vary a bit over the different flavours of westminster democracy. Australia is less like this because they have frequent leadership reviews, so it's easier for the caucus to turf a leader they don't like. Canada never has these, so basically the only way a leader gets removed is if they resign (or lose multiple elections so a leadership convention is called for). From what little I know of the UK it's somewhat in between. Good points. It also strikes me that a key point of confusion for Americans might be our seeming lack of an executive branch of Government. Using Canada as my example, our Head of State is the British Monarch, who is represented in the Federal Government by the Governor General (an equivalent exists for each of the provinces, called the Lieutenant Governor). Much like the United States, our Judicial functions are managed by the courts, headed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The legislative functions are carried out by the House of Commons and the Senate, and since only the House of Commons may draft new laws, the legislative branch is effectively headed by the Prime Minister. So far as I know, executive power is formally retained by the crown, the Governor General and Lieutenant Generals. Without going into the fine details, the convention is that the Governor General and Queen exercise executive power only at the direction of Cabinet (the Prime Minister, and appointed Cabinet Ministers; our equivalent to Secretaries). Since Cabinet in turn takes their marching orders from the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has in practice near absolute control of our executive functions, on top of being the head of the legislative branch, making them very powerful relative to a US President. Bills passed by the legislature must be 'signed into law'; they must be granted Royal Assent, usually by the Governor General. If Royal Assent is withheld, the Queen may at any point in the next two years formally annul the law. I can't think of any examples of this happening at the Federal level, but I think it happened at least once nearly a century ago in one of the Provinces. So imagine if the President of the United States, and the Senate Majority Leader took their orders from the Speaker of the House, and you'd have some idea of what at least a Canadian or British Prime Minister is, and I think all the Commonwealth nations are fairly similar. Oh, and declarations of war are part of the Royal Prerogative. Budget notwithstanding, that means that a declarion of war doesn't require any consultation of the legislature; it is a purely executive power. Good post. One clarification: Our head of state is the Canadian Monarch (who also happens to be the monarch of the UK). Legally speaking, they're distinct positions.

To add to this: The prime minister is (in theory) just another member of parliament. But because they're the leader of the party, they have a huge amount of power (enforced by the party whip). On paper they have less power than the president of the US. In practice (in some areas) they have more. This does vary a bit over the different flavours of westminster democracy. Australia is less like this because they have frequent leadership reviews, so it's easier for the caucus to turf a leader they don't like. Canada never has these, so basically the only way a leader gets removed is if they resign (or lose multiple elections so a leadership convention is called for). From what little I know of the UK it's somewhat in between.

From afar, this seems like a pretty good result. You have the conservatives sent a clear message about how shit they are (which hopefully leads to a new leader) but you avoid having corbyn as PM.

Really? WTF Yes. There's potentially more. I think there were (maybe still are) questions about socialist/communist beliefs on security clearance applications, too. (Also nearly all IT jobs in professional firms around here require top secret clearance too. Hahaha. The joys of living next to one of the biggest military bases in the United States.) Looks like that law only applies to public employees. Are defense contractors considered public employees? I wouldn't think so. Obviously California law has no effect where you are, but still...that's dumb.

Really? WTF

Ehh, entire languages have been written around the idea that dynamic typing is awful and leads to all kinds of bugs @Veiva: I figured, just clarifying for anyone not as familiar with the topic

Also, Java != Javascript

People already adjust by themselves, for the most part. The birth rate in most western countries is well below replacement (and that's with the vast majority of people getting married, some multiple times). As wealth increases, people have fewer children. WW3 would fix that. World sure would be great after a nuclear holocaust, right?!

It's not really like it bothers me at all, it's just a curiosity thing. I'm just really curious as to what goes/went through their heads. Getting married at such a young age seems like such a waste. Probably not the best way to put it, but i can't really think of any other way. I'm grateful every day that i moved away from SA and from that mentality. I find it ironic because when i was 10 years younger i was the one saying i would be married by 25 and they were the ones saying they were going to wait till they're much older, now it's the complete opposite. The older i get the harder i find it to believe that married people are 100% happy/satisfied. I can't imagine eating the same steak for the rest of my life, even if i get to eat it everyday. If you think getting married is like eating steak, I think you'd be wise to avoid it :) I'm sure you understood the analogy anyway. I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is that based on your post, you have the type of personality that may not be conducive to marriage. There's nothing wrong with this (a lot of people are like this) as long as you realize it and don't try to get married when it will just make you unhappy.

It's not really like it bothers me at all, it's just a curiosity thing. I'm just really curious as to what goes/went through their heads. Getting married at such a young age seems like such a waste. Probably not the best way to put it, but i can't really think of any other way. I'm grateful every day that i moved away from SA and from that mentality. I find it ironic because when i was 10 years younger i was the one saying i would be married by 25 and they were the ones saying they were going to wait till they're much older, now it's the complete opposite. The older i get the harder i find it to believe that married people are 100% happy/satisfied. I can't imagine eating the same steak for the rest of my life, even if i get to eat it everyday. If you think getting married is like eating steak, I think you'd be wise to avoid it :)

My, wet, friend was intrigued by this idea and requested I respond with this meme. [image]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/034/999/1de.gif[/image] in a total fluke I stumbled across your reddit account lol I mean, when I don't change my username across boards thats on me. Yeah it was just really random....I was reading something you posted and then noticed the username lol

My, wet, friend was intrigued by this idea and requested I respond with this meme. [image]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/034/999/1de.gif[/image] in a total fluke I stumbled across your reddit account lol. on another note: rip forums. I assume they were down for everyone else too?

CanadaPolitics is pretty good too. Obviously Canada specific, but I've learned a ton from people on all sides of the political spectrum. But most of reddit in general is an echo chamber.

The best way to figure out how much you need is by tweaking your caloric intake till it's right. Calculators will get you close, but weighing yourself every day and trying different intakes week by week is good. Try 2700 for a week and get your average weight for the end of the week. Adjust +/- 100 cals accordingly till you maintain your weight. 2) Yeah. There's a whole diet plan based on that exactly (cuts on non-workout days, bulks on workout days). 3) As long as you're generally eating appropriate amounts, I wouldn't worry too much about micromanaging one day. Your body will naturally fluctuate in weight regardless, I'd worry more about week by week results. It's much easier to manage that way.

There is nothing backwards about having full service available. There is something quite definitely backwards about not allowing people self-service if they choose. Veiva is spot on; full service is pretty close to the equivalent of throwing stones over a wall. Employment in and of itself is not the goal; *useful* employment is, because that's what society benefits from. Also, people are adaptable. They'd get used to self-serve pretty quickly. Look into Dagen_H (when Sweden switched what side of the road they drove on, in 1967). There were more accidents for a few days, but people quickly got used to it.

the spam company, apparently

It's amazing how much people are willing to pay in hidden taxes. It's actually a pretty serious policy probem, since there are a whole bunch of visible taxes that would be much more economically efficient if they replaced hidden ones, but they're politically unpopular (a carbon tax/vat is a good example).

"Creating jobs" is fine, but if government policy is making it so people can't pump their own gas, that is much more problematic than any number of jobs that might be created. I don't object to full service stations, I just think people should have the option

I thought the chocolate coffee bread was the secret project?

I guess this is where the term "meathead" comes from

True, but often it cuts the other way - where an argument for veganism pits a good vegan diet against a bad normal diet.

Is a normal diet actually worse, though? It's true that vegans/vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease than the general population, but I suspect it's due to two main factors (neither of which have much to do with any health benefits of vegan/vegitarianism). 1) Vegans/Vegetarians are likely to be significantly more well off than average. It's a well accepted fact that (at least in North America) obesity is more prevalent among the poor, because high calorie low nutrient food is usually cheaper than healthier alternatives. 2) Vegans/Vegetarians who want to stay alive have to pay much more attention to their diet, since the restrictions make it harder to get appropriate nutrients. A serious vegan, for example, has to be aware of calorie counts and protien levels in pretty much all of their food, to ensure they're getting appropriate nutrition. I suspect that if you tested a group of "normal" eaters who also took the same care to consume the proper levels of calories and macronutrients, you'd probably find their health outcomes were pretty similar, despite the meat consumption. On a somewhat related note, I'm also not convinced by veganism/vegetarianism from a moral perspective. Sure, the industrial meat industry is pretty sleazy, but it is possible to buy ethically sourced meat etc. I've also heard arguments about not wanting to cause pain to animals, but I haven't found that particularly convincing either. Basically every organism on earth (including plants) has some kind of sensory perception that functions like pain does in mammals. It seems like choosing to draw the line at fish/meat is more based on an emotional connection we have to these creatures due to similarity, than something that really represents objective scientific fact...

Yeah well i'm a flat Earther unevolved vegan, so [bleep] you

did they find any treasure? I mean, they did plunder your booty

I'm sure she knows the difference, but it's difficult for anyone to call themselves fat, let alone when they know it's going to disqualify them sexually. I don't disagree with your choice (I'd have done the same thing) but I wouldn't have bothered responding at all.