Posted on 09/16/2019 8:11:43 AM PDT by Biggirl
I’d bet $10 that you’re right.
You can't take little kids to pirate movies since they're all rated AARRRRR. 
You should always add extra scotch. 
In with the ping. 
WWG1WGA
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
What was the site for the chart of false climate change claims that Rush talked about?
Is Fatso going to talk about Senate S.386 300,000 new green cards for IT workers form India? Hell no. Rush is a joke.
Seriously, though. If the app - and the code behind it - are so persnickety that they can't handle an OS upgrade AND that you must give instructions about arcane version numbers, compatibility etc then the fault lies with the issuer of the app not with the end users or Apple.
Moreover, isn't Rush the one telling us all the time that Apple stuff just works, is solid, is reliable, doesn't require a lot of tech fiddling, updates, patches, etc.? All of sudden we've got to hit a bullseye from a thousand yards in order to use his precious app. He's got beta-mania in that he wants to see the newest code/GUI ASAP. But to what end? Anyone who's done beta testing knows that it BY DEFINITION isn't the finished article. In other words, crashes, incompatibility, incomplete features, etc. are part of the deal.
Developers usually run a simple test - if your phone can accept the new version of an app then you can install it. If it won't then you can't. Easy enough. Instead, we've had literally hours of eye-crossingly dull monologues about OS flagship versions, incremental versions and app versions. Streamlined? Transparent? User-friendly? Not a bit of it in this case.
It also sounds as if RL/EIB are unable or unwilling to support multiple and/or old versions of the app. Sorry but that's on him.
It proves the old saw that hobbyists might enjoy talking about their hobby but everyone else finds it boring as hell.
PS - what the blinkered HELL was that old biddy rabbiting on about? It was the most aimless story in history.
See you all tomorrow for “Open Line Fridays” with El Rushbo.
How about a nice Hawaiian Punch? (I think I'm dating myself here.) 
Needs mushrooms and anchovies. 
More please. 
In with the ping.
WWG1WGA
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I've been suggesting this since at least March2019.
I elaborated on this idea in May 2019.
This is why I've been suggesting that instead of eliminating the Electoral College or bypassing it with schemes like the National Popular Vote compact, we incorporate electoral colleges in the several states instead.My plan is to encourage state legislatures to exercise their Constitutional powers to choose the method of selecting Electors, and move to establishing state electoral colleges based on the lower chamber of their legislatures. Let the party that controls the Assembly select their Electors to the Electoral College.
The people still vote, but locally. The biggest cities in each state will no longer dominate the state. The Assembly itself will act as a statewide electoral college that gives all regions of each state a voice.
This plan also denies the National Popular Vote compact a statewide Presidential vote tally to be used for the compact's purposes. It would be grossly inappropriate to declare that the cumulative Assembly votes constitutes a proxy for the President, as each local vote for Assemblyman is based on local issues, and cannot be interpreted to be the voters' sentiment for the President.
-PJ
...my suggestion to kill this [National Popular Vote] off is for a state to move to a method that does not involve "popular votes," thereby denying the compact a "national popular vote."My suggestion is for some states to enact what is effectively electoral colleges inside their states. One simple approach would be to declare that the party that wins control of the lower chamber of the legislature (usually the assembly) determines the state's electoral college makeup.
Voting would be at the state assembly district level. Voters would be voting for their local state assembly representatives. It wouldn't matter if the party wins the chamber by 1 vote or 1 million votes. For example, Texas has 150 Representative districts; Republicans hold 83 seats and Democrats hold 67 seats. Therefore, Texas' Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. Or, the chamber may decide to split the vote if the chamber is more evenly divided.
Now, the media can try to infer a Texas popular vote by adding up all the Texas House of Representative votes by party, but they would lose a court challenge because they cannot say that a vote for a local assemblyman automatically means the person intended to vote for the Presidential candidate of the same party, even though the winning party chooses the President. People may argue that they were more concerned with voting for local issues like property taxes, school policy, and road repair.
So, if there is no direct vote for a President in one or more states, how does the national popular vote compact handle that when there is no longer a full national popular vote?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.