Re: CHAT: browsers

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> LOL. Why not? You've taken them from Britain anyway ;)) (do they have many
> crickets in Britain? ;)) ).
I wouldn't know. ;)

> Sorry, Windows user here (not a choice: a reality :(( ).
Plenty of Linux users don't either. (RPM or apt-get or whatever).

> Pay me a new hard
> drive to put in my computer at home and I'll be happy to install Linux on
> it! ;))
When I get around to buying everything I need and having enough money to
move out of home, I might think about it ;)

> But that may be because they are programmed wrong (which is probably due to the
> absence of official English spelling). Since French has a strict official
> orthography, it's easier not to make mistakes in the spell checker ;)) .
Yes, I guess. Confusion of culture again.

> > Is Quebecois spelt the same way as French?
>
> Joual has no official spelling, but Standard French is spelt the same way in
> France and Quebec. Actually, Standard French is spelt the same way in any
> country that has French as an official language. They all follow the French
> standard of France, which is in turn decided by the Academie.
Really? I'm amazed. If America *or*[1] Britain decided to have their own
official spellings (and changed a few) I doubt we'd adopt them.

[1]: Why can't we have an unambiguous, well-known word for xor?

> > We have a warped Prime Minister who wanted us to
>>stay with a constitutional monarchy, so he only grudgingly held the
>>referendum and had the question biassed against the republic. And
>>anyway, he held it a few years early. I bet if he waited for some of
>>the
>>new generation of republicans to reach 18 (and some of the older
>>monarchists to die), the No group would've lost.
>
> And you cannot have the referendum again can you?
We could have the same referendum till the cows came home (or it
passed). The question is more would the Electorate allow it. If a Labor
government decided that they would repeatedly have a referendum till it
got through, we'd probably vote them out.

>>And anyway, what does the Queen *do*? She doesn't even sit there
>>looking
>>pretty-
>
> Difficult thing to do for Elisabeth anyway ;)) .
Elizabeth, and LOL :)

> Hehe, a democratic one or one where you are elected president for life? ;)))
I would never be a president for life. When I'm the ruler of the World,
I'm going to adopt a title the reflects my position. Something like
Despotic Ruler.

And anyway: I'm after a powerless president. Why would I want that
position? (Hmm... a highly paid (incl. accommodation, servents etc.)
bludge job (only responsibility is to be at the right place at the right
time)... of *course* I want it, what am I thinking!)

> > The system I prefer for an Australian Republic
>
>>would have the President be a powerless position, appointed by the
>>Prime
>>Minister (or maybe the Government) from a list of *nominations* by the
>>people.
>
>
> A strange contrary system to the French system where the Prime Minister gets
> appointed by the President and then forms a government.
Actually, the very same happens here. The Governor-General is appointed
by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. After an election, the
Govenor-General then *asks* the leader of the majority party/coallition
(assuming he's in the House of Reps) to form Government (and become the
Prime Minister). It's incredibly complicated and very empty.

> You'd be happy in Holland. Mayors and similar positions are not elected but are
> just jobs anybody can apply for. To become a mayor, you need to pass an
> interview, like for any other job :) . I find it quite good, since it means
> mayors are really fit for their job rather than being the next-door moron who
> said things nice enough to get elected (as we have in France :((( ).
Is a Mayor a position of power in Holland? I'm none too keen on
positions of power being unelected.

>>(So it seems the Australian and European senses are basically
>>equivalent; the difference is what we consider elected.)
>
> I doubt it. Your definition is simply not valid. Being appointed means being
> chosen without vote from the people or a group chosen by the people to
> represent them. Anything else is an election, even if it's not an election
> directly from the people. That's the whole point of a representative democracy:
> to have people represent us! If you accept this definition of the system, then
> any person elected by the representatives is indirectly elected by the people,
> and thus is *not* appointed.
Hmm... well... A Prime Minister can appoint people, regardless of
whether he's elected in or not. Collectively, Ministers can appoint
people, regardless of whether they're elected in or not. Collectively, a
Government can appoint people, regardless of whether they're elected in
or not. But all those are of one mind, so an election would have the
same result. A Parliament, on the other hand, elect things, because a
Paliament is of differing minds. Would you consider a situation where
the Government appointed the Head of State to be a Republic? If not,
what would you call it?

Tristan.

Reply