Actually, nobody goes to heaven when they die (according to the bible). Everyone must wait until judgement day when all the graves, etc, open and we all face judgement at that point. This surprised me when I first learned it because it goes against all the Christian culture I've ever been taught and experienced.
So grandma isn't currently in heaven no matter how good she was.
Handguns did the job on Ronald Reagan and almost for Gerald Ford.
Leaving Abe Lincoln to one side, but if you are lucky and your security detail is a bit lax, a handgun can get the job done. I'm Australian, so we don't see much of that sort of thing.
Europe is not designed for oversized cars. As soon as you are off the "A" roads, it is goat tracks in every direction. And, you can forget about parking. Regular cars have enormous trouble already. Every new car gets panel damage within a couple of weeks. Put those monster US vehicles in the villages it will be carnage.
Why do we have to sign up to every fucking thing and it's brother? Everything gets hacked eventually. Why don't we just hand over our data to the hackers and cut out the middle man?
I disagree. Voting with your wallet is the only metric they understand. They just ascribe different analysis as to why it failed to their boardrooms. In the end, you put 70 million into the development and marketing of a game that doesn't sell, that is going to get attention. Complaining on Reddit won't.
It's like the corporate world has made gaming into a twisted version of THEIR game. How do we grind money out of these idiots?
Well, I think that they will probably work it out in the end by going bust. Every CEO - in the end - blames the consumer, not the product nor the service.
Speak it brother. I'm currently playing Far Cry 3 and other past greats. I have money in my pocket, happy to buy something worthwhile, but nothing new AND good is available. Nothing.
I'm afraid that I still don't get it, most probably because I am thick.
Someone has to be eliminated. That's the whole point of elections. OPV means that your choice counts, well your preferences do. It also means that you don't have to vote for the person you don't want to, but you can rank your preferences. It is very rare that I would rank a bunch of people the same value. It is generally easy to rank candidates.
In our senate we sometimes have to rank over 100 candidates. If you do that you must number every box and can't make a mistake. Or, the parties have registered their preferences and you just tick one box for your chosen party and that's it. So it's either one box ticked or 100 or so. The optional thing is that you don't have to pick all 100, but that changes sometimes due to party politics playing with the system. One the whole, our electoral system limits how much political parties can mess about with elections. For instance, no party chooses electoral boundaries. Gerrymandering doesn't happen here anymore. It used to, but not now.
I don't see the point. In preferential voting you choose your candidates in a ranked order, so if number 5 doesn't make the cut in the final count, your next vote (number 4) kicks in, and so on. Not exactly - all number 1 votes are tallied, and the losers are eliminated and then the second vote from the loser candidate gets tallied and so on until the winner is chosen. In this way your ranked choice is never exhausted until a winner arises. Your number 3 choice may get voted in. All votes are potentially important. FPTP sounds like a crap shoot.
Australia has optional preferential voting. If there is 10 candidates, you can list them in order you want, but you don't have to pick them all. You can stop at any point. Pick 3 or 4 in order, or say 7, but you don't have to rank the nazi at all.
Guaranteed to fail the next health inspection too after Trump's leaking diaper wreaks every floor surface.