Re: CHAT: browsers

En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:

>
> Ah, love Windows...
>
Most Windows users have really a love-hate relation with it ;)) .

>
> Oh, no. I don't often talk of computer measurements in real life, or
> when I do, I say things like 'kays' and 'megs', which I can accept as
> ambiguous.
>
Hehe...

>
> But would they still be cricket bats?
>
LOL. Why not? You've taken them from Britain anyway ;)) (do they have many
crickets in Britain? ;)) ).

>
> Sorry. I imagine you don't compile your own software anyway, so it's
> probably all irrelevant.
>
Sorry, Windows user here (not a choice: a reality :(( ). Pay me a new hard
drive to put in my computer at home and I'll be happy to install Linux on
it! ;))

>
> Well, spellcheckers also get it wrong (like with the organization
> thing
> I meantioned before)...
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 ;)) .

 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.

 If
> not, that could lead to inconsistencies in the spellchecker...
>
Well, there are none :)) . It can make mistakes of agreement (which are
understandable. Normal people do them too and you cannot expect a program to be
more intelligent than people ;)) ) but doesn't have inconsistent patterns.
French has no variant orthographies.

>
> It's hardly my fault.
Did I blame you? It was a you-plural :) .

 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?

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

>
> Give us another twenty years or so. When I'm Prime Minister of this
> godforesaken land, I'll do my best to make us a Republic.
>
Hehe, a democratic one or one where you are elected president for life? ;)))

>
> If the president isn't voted for by the people, he isn't voted for in
> my
> book: he's appointed.
The parliament is the representant of the people. It doesn't appoint, it
elects. If the President was appointed by the government, that would be
different. But he was elected by the parliament, so it's really an election.
That may not be a direct election, but it's an election anyway. To be appointed
means to be chosen without vote. As soon as there is a vote, it's an election.

 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.

 That actually makes it possible for anyone to get the
> position.
> If the people vote for it, it'd go out of reach of the majority...
> (think America). I would not consider that an elected position, any
> more
> than the Governor-Generalship or Governorships are elected (officially
> appointed by the Queen, but by tradition 'on the advice' of the
> PM/Premier (i.e. whoever the PM/Premier says to)). (The Premier is the
> head of the State governments.)
>
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 :((( ).

> (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.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Replies