Daniel0

Denmark is pretty different in that respect. It's a constitutional monarchy and we have a queen and a prime minister. In reality the queen (or king) doesn't have a real power and is just for show and public relations so to speak. There are also quite a lot of parties in Denmark and it's virtually impossible for a single party to form the government. The government will often be composed of at least two parties and they will likely also need the support from other parties as well in order to get the majority of mandates so they can become the government. There are 179 seats in the parliament, two of which are reserved for Greenland and two of which are reserved for the Faeroe Islands. You'll also often vote for a party instead of an individual. The election for the prime minister and the members of parliament is a single election. Votes for an individual will obviously go to him/her while if you vote for a party then the party decides. It is possible to become a member of parliament entirely on your own without any affiliation with a party. Quite a few years ago a comedian got one mandate. He didn't really do anything, but he was in there for four years and got fully paid for it. The terms are four years, but there is no restriction on how long you can be in office. Technically speaking you can be the prime minister for the rest of your life if you keep getting elected. Our current prime minister is on his third term at the moment. He won the election last autumn. The individual party will decide internally who is running for prime minister and that person will also be the leader of the party. Elections are also very short compared to the American. Last election lasted, from the moment it was announced to the moment the outcome was public, one month tops. This means there is no time for smear campaigns and that the short time will have to be used on actual political debates.

Microdollaroft? Never heard of them...

Indeed, however, I think the problem also lies in that people feel they waste their vote if they don't vote either republican or democratic because they know that currently there is no way another party is going to win. It's a catch-22. In order for the other parties/candidates to get more votes then people must feel there is a fair chance they will actually get elected (otherwise they'd "waste" their vote), but in order for that to happen more people will have to vote on them. Both of these requirements can obviously not be satisfied simultaneously. That's just what I think, but my knowledge of it is fairly limited. I'm not American and thus do not have the right to vote in American elections so it's not something I focus too much on.

The winner of the US presidential election is de facto locked to either the democratic or republican candidate anyway. It's highly unlikely that any of the other candidates would be able to get enough votes to even get near the amount of votes they'd need to win.

I agree. Besides, how the code is written can have an impact on how it works so it's not completely irrelevant. Also, we know you didn't mention school or a teacher, but saying that "a teacher would likely fail it" is a measure of the code's quality.

AKA:

It believe it already falls in under the individual forums under the client side category.

When does someone deserve it? To me it certainly seems like that in the American society, whether you deserve it or not depends on your bank account. For instance, if you are not able to pay for medical insurance then it's just tough luck if you become really sick. Nobody says it has to be "yo, here is $200, spend them wisely". If you are, for instance, poor and a drug addict then you are obviously not able to administer your funds wisely. There are plenty of alternatives to just handing out a check. Also, imagine a drug addict desperate to get some more money to get some money for drugs. He is not able to get a job so needs to turn to alternative means of acquiring it. You know that friendly kiosk owner down the corner? Well, unfortunately things went wrong and he got killed because someone was desperate to get some money and nobody wanted to help him. Was the kiosk owner also meant to die? "Hey, tough luck, buddy. Just wasn't your day today. Gotta move on..." Had the drug addict got help from someone then he wouldn't have to do a robbery. The kiosk owner wouldn't have died. Now imagine the kiosk owner was the sole parent of a, say 16-year-old boy. Now there is no income anymore and the kid ends up on the streets. Vicious circle you know. Things likely won't turn out well for him either...

For me I would rather die that rely on others to keep me going. I am one that if I cant do it myself, then it doesnt need to be done for me. I would love to help others out that can help themselves, or want to help themselves, but it they dont what to help themselves, why should we give them everything. Because they deserve a life just as anyone else? They just happened to not be fortunate enough to get a good life like many others. They deserve a chance for a good life. But do you just think you should only get help if you have the money to get it? May I ask why you are on this site then? This site is about helping other people for free without getting anything in return. It seems to contradict with your view on life.

perenha, say one day something happened to you and you couldn't work (meaning you couldn't earn any income by yourself). There is nothing left in your life and the drugs are the last thing keeping you up. Should we let you die or should we help you get back up and running again? People do not choose to be miserable, they are it because there is no other option, or at least they see no other option. Just leaving them alone is cruel in my opinion. "Just let them suffer. As long as I'm good I don't give a shit." Way to go!!

............................................................................

Yeah, me too. There is no way I'll physically be able to stay up that long :-X

That I can do for you.

I'm sorry you're concerned about this, but we deny any username change requests regardless of the reason. If, however, someone harasses you here then report it to a member of staff and we'll take care of it. They would likely be able to figure out who you are anyway.

Hehe... yeah, but it's 00:10 here right now. UTC+1

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=3.0

I wonder when the outcome of the election will be out? Just trying to figure out whether it's worth staying up or not... :-\

Ah...

Huh?

Oh, don't worry. I don't take it personally. I'm just as adamant in defending my views as you are with yours

Exactly. That's my point and that's the reason why browser vendors are implementing improved zooming so it'll not break when you try to enlarge it.

By your logic we could also turn it around. Should we be forced to design a specific way just because some browsers do not support full-page zooming? Besides, how are you in position to evaluate how much is "acceptable" for things to break on text-zoom? How can you tell that there won't be people who will still have problems reading the text at e.g. fifth zoom level? The point of full-page zoom is not keeping the graphic looking pretty. The point of it is to retain the structure of the design. I think it's astounding you don't get it. Enlarge the container's content without enlarging the container and things will break. It's obvious. Furthermore, if text-only zooming is really the way to go, why do you think browser vendors are turning away from it? Safari is doing it too. It's in the nightlies. Why even bother doing it all in ems? It'll just be a maintenance hell. See for instance: http://tomayko.com/writings/full-page-zoom I still do think it's Chrome's and Safari's fault for not currently supporting proper zoom. Trying to fit larger text into smaller containers is like those girls purposely try to fit in too small jeans - it'll look really ugly. PS: Sorry for hijacking your thread, Jeff.

It was three times. Read my post. Besides, it's not excessive. Imagine you have really poor sight. Then you may have to zoom in three times. I don't think you understand how it works. Lets say you have one liter of milk. It's stored in a container designed to store one liter. So if you double the amount of milk but you still have the same container then it'll obviously overflow. It's the same with the text. Increase the text size but leave the container size and the text will overflow. That's why full-page zooming is superior. Full-page zooming increases the text size and the size of the containers and any graphic there may be. Therefore, the text will not overflow and the design will not break - it'll just be larger.

Are you telling me that you don't think the type of zooming in the first attachment is not inferior to the type of zooming in the second attachment? Both of them has 3x zoom. Full-page zooming is obviously superior to text only zooming seeing as all the other elements will scale along with the text. If you only zoom the text then eventually it'll not be able to fit inside their containers. [attachment deleted by admin]

That's because Chrome and Safari don't support full-page zooming. They only support text-zooming which is an inferior type of zooming. I.e. it's the browsers' fault.