And within the precinct, the same thing happens...each ballot box is counted by someone, usually with a few people watching (Which, BTW, it is your right to be able to watch. Call them up, tell them you want to watch the count, and they'll tell you where to go.), and each box is tallied on a board, right there in front of everyone, and added up in front of everyone, who can check the math.
So it's not just the precinct leader who will holler if something's wrong. You can sit in a precinct and watch one box worth of votes physically get counted and talley the vote totals yourself, and watch the numbers get sent in. Now, as there's only one of you, you can obviously only watch one counter at one precinct, so maybe that won't satify the AC. But there are people doing that in every precinct.
Which is why purely electronic voting is an incredibly bad idea. People think the vote counting process is a black box, they hand in ballots, 'the government' tallies them and accounces the results, so who cares if a machine is doing that. But that's not how the process works.
In fact, the counting works so well the easiest forms of tampering are a) adding fake (or dead) voters to the ballot, having people come in and vote for them, infamously the dead vote Democrat, b) 'accidently' removing people from the voting rolls, usually minorities, and c) 'misplacing' ballot boxes, or making sure they have non-functional voting equipment, at certain precincts, ones that usually vote way to the left or right. All those result in a different number of ballots in the end, which are then counted correctly.
Tampering with the count is incredibly hard, because too many people know part of it, and know how to add, and it just takes one person noticing the count from their precinct is wrong or the totals don't add up.
I just want to point out that for years we've not had a problem with providing a blind person some assistence in filling out their ballot, providing someone who knows how they voted.
So I'm suddenly very suspicious when suddenly it's not acceptable to let them fill out the ballot in secret, (Via headphones and a telephone keypad, all blind people know how to dial the telephone, they've memorized the numbers. Press 1 if you want to vote for X, press 2 if you want to vote for Y, etc...) and just have an optional step that they can ask someone to check their ballot printed correctly. Whereas before it was acceptable to force them to let someone else know their vote?
If it's really that relevent, you can do what I've been suggesting, and have the ballot box also be an OCR machine that reads the ballot to make sure it's readable and makes you vote again if it's not. It can read the ballot back to the blind person.
The linux kernel is just as modular as the NT kernel, and you can load drivers for whenever you need them, or have the system do that...exactly like NT. And Linux users don't 'have to' compile the kernel, either. Oh, and the size of the NT kernel on my box: 229k, which is about the size of the Linux kernel with minimal drivers compiled into it. Considering they do the same thing...load disk drivers, run file system, find rest of OS, load some starting programs, it's not odd they're roughly the same size.
Both NT and Linux run processes in 'seperate memory spaces', where they cannot step on each other, at least in theory, and they can all be forcibly shut down and the memory recovered.
However, neither Linux or NT run any of the kernel in seperate memory spaces, unless you have a goofy defination of 'NT' that means just 'NT 3.5'. See, what you're talking about is a microkernel, and NT was designed as one...and it was too slow for current machines and that got changed in NT 4, which was the first NT anyone used. If your video driver crashes, it can easily take the system down, because it runs in kernel memory space. (In fact, most blue screens in NT are supposedly due to bad drivers, which is what driver signing came out of.) Yes, this couldn't happen in NT 3.5, and the file system and the graphics subsystem and all sort of stuff could be restarted when it crash. I don't know how that's relevent now.
And Linux does not have a kernel level exploit every few months. It has one every few years. And, yes, NT has them just as often, MS just doesn't call them that.
As for your comment about DLLs...well, you're just a troll. Linux has had shared libraries since before 1.0. And on Unix, they come with version numbers in the filenames, and it doesn't end up in the DLL hell that Windows does.
The one thing you're correct about is priorities. Unix for the past 20 years, and Linux from the start, have had the priority of 'security', whereas Windows has only had that as a priority of 'security' for about five years now.
Someone mod this guy up. This is exactly what happened. I have a PS/2->USB convertor, and it's a real convertor that will convert a PS2-only keyboard to USB (or, incidently, a PS2 mouse. I think it can even handle a splitter and do both.), and it cost 15 bucks. It clearly has circuitry in a little bump in the middle.
What the goober that posted purchased was a plug adapter that just makes a dual PS2/USB keyboard physically fit into a USB socket and switches the internal keyboard circuitry to use USB. This will obviously not work on a PS2-only keyboard, as they have no USB circuitry.
I'd blame the store for selling them, but it clearly says that it won't work without the correct keyboard. And I guess someone has to sell replacements if you lose them.
I operated for years with a double speed CD burner.
I've also ripped music at 1x, even though I probably could have done it at 4x or 8x or whatever speed the reader was...simply because the computer was so slow, it took longer to encode MP3s than the running time of the song. So I'd rip one song while encoding the one before it...I even wrote a script that would loop though all my ripped.wavs and convert them to.mp3 and delete the originals, and left it running all the time.
Yes, that computer, which was my experimental Linux box, a 486 something, was too slow to play MP3s, and didn't have a sound card, but it was the only one that could digitally read CDs, and my network was so crappy I didn't want to transfer the WAV files over it.
I don't know about attorney-client priviledges, the courts have circumstances where they will ignore evidence if taken improperly, and even acidental spying on a converstation with a lawyer might fall under those rules, but trade secrets are not like copyrights or patents...if you violate no laws in discovering them, you are free to use them however you want.
You can be standing on a toilet in a bathroom stall delibrately spying over the top at two company executives who thinking they're alone talking about the trade secret, you can bring super-zoom lens along on the offical tour, you can find people in bars and delibrately get them really drunk hoping they'll talk. As long as you do not violate any law or contractual obligation, you're free and clear to use whatever you get in any way you want.
An NDA will stop this behavior, but you haven't magically signed an NDA because of a disclaimer at the end of a mail message.
Actually, and I'm not sure exactly how this works, but companies can lose their trade secret even if you violated the law but you can show they didn't protect it enough. For example, they have the trade secret posted on the wall in an employee break room with a 'employees only' sign on the door, and you run in, learn the secret, and they rightfully claim you were trespassing. That may be so, but an unlocked unguarded door that just asked people not to come in was probably not enough to protect the trade secret, and so while you can still be charged with trespassing, you might be free to use the trade secret anyway.
It's sad how the amazing video of Enterprise was overshadowed by the music debate. It really is the best intro, way better than showing the ship fly past.
Which they even did on DS9, where it made no sense. Show us Bajor, damnit. Show us Cardissia Prime. Show us the inside of the wormhole. I understand not showing people, it's a good thematic choice, but DS9 actually had locations they could have shown.
I think that all the interpetations of QM have equal predictive power, otherwise they'd be 'theories' and not 'interpetations'. With all interpetations, the math is identical, it's just that they're trying to explain what the math means.
Both Many Worlds and transactional attempt to explain how non-existent photons interfere with existing ones, the first by postulating photons in other universes, and the second by postulating that it's not the photons at all, it's advance waves from the opposite direction causing interference.
Which is why I call Coperhagen a copout. It basically says that the math means is that when we measure the photons, we will get these results. Duh. It doesn't explain why anything, it doesn't even assert what we measure exists, it just say 'this is what results we will get'.
There's actually at least one more interpetation that I can't remember out there, too.
The Copenhagen theory is basically 'we only know what we know' which is a cop-out if I ever heard one.
There are other interpetations besides Many Worlds, like transactional, which basically says that QM is really non-local. It has invisible waves propagating backwards in time from everywhere to everywhere, and photons and other waves happen when there's a forward wave in the opposite direction on top of invisble backwards waves.
I.e., for the slit experiment, it's not photons interfering with photons in other universes, like Many Worlds, or 'probablity waves' interfering with other waves, it's the advanced waves that interfere with each other (While, of course, going backwards in time), and to have a photon, it has to be following one of these backwards waves.
And anyone who knows anything about electromagnetic radiation is nodding their head at this point, because they already learned about these hypothetical 'advanced waves' when learning Maxwell's equations, which do not take QP into account. The transactional interpetation just says that even non-existent waves have advanced waves going the other way, and it's those waves that are interfering with each other.
And if we're talking in a generic sense [about intellectual property] then the concept of "stealing" as "taking without permission" is an apt one.
Seems to me you have no idea what you're rambling about, as that was, in fact, your assertation. The very first post you made was to take issue with someone saying:
It's called "patent infridgement", not theft.
Now, you did try to pussyfoot around your claim by saying that theft of trade secrets is theft, and thus patent infringement could be theft also. But this is simply incorrect.
You also tried to claim that nothing was technically theft, and you are wrong. And, no it's not a Georiga thing..larceny is just another word for 'theft by taking', and it's defined that way everywhere. But feel free to prove me wrong.
Oh, and what are you talking about, me claiming you claimed that infringement == theft. I didn't say anything of the sort. (See, two can play at this game of implying stuff and then denying it later.)
Oh, really? No crime dealing with theft, eh? None at all? Well, Georgia seems to have some.
GA Code 16-8-2
A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.
In fact, 16-8-2 through 16-8-9 all deal with the different kinds of theft, yes, theft, and it's called all called 'theft'. Not just referred to as 'theft by whatever', but that's actually the name of the offense, it's what you get charged with. 'theft by taking', 'theft of services', 'theft while naked', etc.
Whereas it doesn't even appear to talk about 'larceny' except in the taking of funds.
And, for fun, here's the relevant section of US Code for patent infringements. Have fun finding 'theft' or 'larceny' or 'steal' in there.
Oh, yes, because you assert that you've 'heard' something, that must make it somehow legally correct.
How dare I go by what the law says, where it clearly defines theft and clearly defines the various types of 'intellectual properties', and the infringement thereof. I'm sure secondhand reports of someone who heard a case once is more important.
Here's a hint: Just because lawyers refer to something in a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because the judge doesn't complain doesn't make it so, either.
And, FYI, there is basically no overlap of laws that deal with patents and trade secrets. Trade secrets are the opposite of patents and copyright.
No, in the generic sense you do not 'take' anything when you impliment an idea someone else has thought of. That's just idiotic on the face of it.
To take something you must change possession of it to yourself, from someone else. Patent infringement is not taking possession of anything, it is altering your property in a certain way that matches up with their patent.
And 'to steal' is a verb meaning 'the act of theft'. Saying 'stealing' is not a crime is like saying 'robbing a bank' is not a crime, because the crime is 'bank robbery'. Yes, the crime is the act, not the verb meaning 'to commit the act', but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
And, yes, in a court of law they will call the act of theft 'stealing' and say people 'stole' things when they committed the theft. They will not use that term to refer to patent infringement or copyright infringement. (In fact, the RIAA lawyers were ordered to stop doing that by the judge.)
I'll assume you just misaimed that comment, and you're right. The person I replied to is apparently completely ignorant of the existence of unjust laws.
Beware anyone who uses the term 'illegal' when talking about right and wrong, because they are a fucking moron.
Especially so in the case of 'order crimes', which are victimless, or at least the harm incurred to someone else is the same as the harm incurred by you if you don't do it.
Like, oh, violating the rules of the radio spectrum so no one's cell phone works is 'wrong', in that it causes notable harm to society, and you could have used an unlicensed band or gotten your own. Or driving down the wrong side of the road.
Those, and copyright infringement, are only 'wrong' in the sense society supposedly loses, they are not harming others directly.
As people quite rightly have different ideas about how much of that behavior is wrong, calling it wrong because it's illegal shows you are naive. Some of your 'wrong' behavior helps society, which is clearly nonsensical.
And that's not even getting into the fact that actions that do hurt other people and most people agree with those actions being illegal still are debateable at the edges, like the exception to murder called 'self-defense'.
what about the right of those who create content to decide how content can be used for a limited time as copyright law allows. What about artists rights to be appropriately compensated for those ideas if the creators don't want to give their content away for free?
Neither of those are rights in any meaingful sense. The US doesn't believe in the 'natural right' theory of copyright.
Copyrights are government granted monopolies to infringe on other's right to their property, like the 'right' of the telephone company to string up wires across whatever land it needs to do so.
Or combine the ideas, and have a completely seperate machine print a human-readable ballot out, which you then look over and stick in the 'vote' slot if you like it, and the 'discard' slot if you don't.
You start out good, nitpicker, but you are incorrect. You are correct when you're talking about people who didn't get the majority popular vote, but not when you talk about 'winning' the poopular vote...all you need to win the popular vote is a plurality, not a majority. (And the same with the electorial vote, in fact.)
To win a majority you'd need to get >50 of the votes, to win a plurality you'd just need to get more than anyone else.
While I don't know where you got your list, and how people got on it, it is incorrect for how you're using it..President Clinton, at least, did win the popular and electorial votes, because he got more votes than anyone else.
However, he didn't win some hypothetical majority vote, getting about 6 million more votes his first election and 8 million more votes the second election to the next runner up, while in his first election Perot got 20 million votes, and in the second he got 8 million. Thus leaving Clinton with something like 45% of the vote the first election and 49% the second...both of which handily beat the Republican's vote totals, but were not a majority.
The fact peopel confuse majority with plurality does not alter the fact that very few elections in the US have had differing popular and electorial votes.
It's independent, but, if the court finds the entire filing was so stupid as to result in a dismissal with prejudice, they're rather more likely to award court costs.
As opposed to without prejudice, which is often just because of an honest mistake, like suing the wrong part of an umbrella corperation or filing a certain suit in a court where you can't technically file that kind of suit.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's not just the precinct leader who will holler if something's wrong. You can sit in a precinct and watch one box worth of votes physically get counted and talley the vote totals yourself, and watch the numbers get sent in. Now, as there's only one of you, you can obviously only watch one counter at one precinct, so maybe that won't satify the AC. But there are people doing that in every precinct.
Which is why purely electronic voting is an incredibly bad idea. People think the vote counting process is a black box, they hand in ballots, 'the government' tallies them and accounces the results, so who cares if a machine is doing that. But that's not how the process works.
In fact, the counting works so well the easiest forms of tampering are a) adding fake (or dead) voters to the ballot, having people come in and vote for them, infamously the dead vote Democrat, b) 'accidently' removing people from the voting rolls, usually minorities, and c) 'misplacing' ballot boxes, or making sure they have non-functional voting equipment, at certain precincts, ones that usually vote way to the left or right. All those result in a different number of ballots in the end, which are then counted correctly.
Tampering with the count is incredibly hard, because too many people know part of it, and know how to add, and it just takes one person noticing the count from their precinct is wrong or the totals don't add up.
So I'm suddenly very suspicious when suddenly it's not acceptable to let them fill out the ballot in secret, (Via headphones and a telephone keypad, all blind people know how to dial the telephone, they've memorized the numbers. Press 1 if you want to vote for X, press 2 if you want to vote for Y, etc...) and just have an optional step that they can ask someone to check their ballot printed correctly. Whereas before it was acceptable to force them to let someone else know their vote?
If it's really that relevent, you can do what I've been suggesting, and have the ballot box also be an OCR machine that reads the ballot to make sure it's readable and makes you vote again if it's not. It can read the ballot back to the blind person.
The linux kernel is just as modular as the NT kernel, and you can load drivers for whenever you need them, or have the system do that...exactly like NT. And Linux users don't 'have to' compile the kernel, either. Oh, and the size of the NT kernel on my box: 229k, which is about the size of the Linux kernel with minimal drivers compiled into it. Considering they do the same thing...load disk drivers, run file system, find rest of OS, load some starting programs, it's not odd they're roughly the same size.
Both NT and Linux run processes in 'seperate memory spaces', where they cannot step on each other, at least in theory, and they can all be forcibly shut down and the memory recovered.
However, neither Linux or NT run any of the kernel in seperate memory spaces, unless you have a goofy defination of 'NT' that means just 'NT 3.5'. See, what you're talking about is a microkernel, and NT was designed as one...and it was too slow for current machines and that got changed in NT 4, which was the first NT anyone used. If your video driver crashes, it can easily take the system down, because it runs in kernel memory space. (In fact, most blue screens in NT are supposedly due to bad drivers, which is what driver signing came out of.) Yes, this couldn't happen in NT 3.5, and the file system and the graphics subsystem and all sort of stuff could be restarted when it crash. I don't know how that's relevent now.
And Linux does not have a kernel level exploit every few months. It has one every few years. And, yes, NT has them just as often, MS just doesn't call them that.
As for your comment about DLLs...well, you're just a troll. Linux has had shared libraries since before 1.0. And on Unix, they come with version numbers in the filenames, and it doesn't end up in the DLL hell that Windows does.
The one thing you're correct about is priorities. Unix for the past 20 years, and Linux from the start, have had the priority of 'security', whereas Windows has only had that as a priority of 'security' for about five years now.
What the goober that posted purchased was a plug adapter that just makes a dual PS2/USB keyboard physically fit into a USB socket and switches the internal keyboard circuitry to use USB. This will obviously not work on a PS2-only keyboard, as they have no USB circuitry.
I'd blame the store for selling them, but it clearly says that it won't work without the correct keyboard. And I guess someone has to sell replacements if you lose them.
I've also ripped music at 1x, even though I probably could have done it at 4x or 8x or whatever speed the reader was...simply because the computer was so slow, it took longer to encode MP3s than the running time of the song. So I'd rip one song while encoding the one before it...I even wrote a script that would loop though all my ripped .wavs and convert them to .mp3 and delete the originals, and left it running all the time.
Yes, that computer, which was my experimental Linux box, a 486 something, was too slow to play MP3s, and didn't have a sound card, but it was the only one that could digitally read CDs, and my network was so crappy I didn't want to transfer the WAV files over it.
The results would not be interesting, at all. Coke would be laughed out of court.
Copying computer software enough to use it is already an exemption under copyright law. You haven't needed a license for that since the mid-80s.
As you cannot run it from the CD, you must copy it to your hard drive.
I don't know about attorney-client priviledges, the courts have circumstances where they will ignore evidence if taken improperly, and even acidental spying on a converstation with a lawyer might fall under those rules, but trade secrets are not like copyrights or patents...if you violate no laws in discovering them, you are free to use them however you want.
You can be standing on a toilet in a bathroom stall delibrately spying over the top at two company executives who thinking they're alone talking about the trade secret, you can bring super-zoom lens along on the offical tour, you can find people in bars and delibrately get them really drunk hoping they'll talk. As long as you do not violate any law or contractual obligation, you're free and clear to use whatever you get in any way you want.
An NDA will stop this behavior, but you haven't magically signed an NDA because of a disclaimer at the end of a mail message.
Actually, and I'm not sure exactly how this works, but companies can lose their trade secret even if you violated the law but you can show they didn't protect it enough. For example, they have the trade secret posted on the wall in an employee break room with a 'employees only' sign on the door, and you run in, learn the secret, and they rightfully claim you were trespassing. That may be so, but an unlocked unguarded door that just asked people not to come in was probably not enough to protect the trade secret, and so while you can still be charged with trespassing, you might be free to use the trade secret anyway.
Everyone looks around, some point at the servers, some point at the VP, some think they've figured it out and point at themselves.
The VP pulls out an air tank and breathing mask and says, "Wrong." as the giant vacuum outside cuts in...
Which they even did on DS9, where it made no sense. Show us Bajor, damnit. Show us Cardissia Prime. Show us the inside of the wormhole. I understand not showing people, it's a good thematic choice, but DS9 actually had locations they could have shown.
I didn't have any issues with it at first, but the new drum track sounds goofy.
Both Many Worlds and transactional attempt to explain how non-existent photons interfere with existing ones, the first by postulating photons in other universes, and the second by postulating that it's not the photons at all, it's advance waves from the opposite direction causing interference.
Which is why I call Coperhagen a copout. It basically says that the math means is that when we measure the photons, we will get these results. Duh. It doesn't explain why anything, it doesn't even assert what we measure exists, it just say 'this is what results we will get'.
There's actually at least one more interpetation that I can't remember out there, too.
There are other interpetations besides Many Worlds, like transactional, which basically says that QM is really non-local. It has invisible waves propagating backwards in time from everywhere to everywhere, and photons and other waves happen when there's a forward wave in the opposite direction on top of invisble backwards waves.
I.e., for the slit experiment, it's not photons interfering with photons in other universes, like Many Worlds, or 'probablity waves' interfering with other waves, it's the advanced waves that interfere with each other (While, of course, going backwards in time), and to have a photon, it has to be following one of these backwards waves.
And anyone who knows anything about electromagnetic radiation is nodding their head at this point, because they already learned about these hypothetical 'advanced waves' when learning Maxwell's equations, which do not take QP into account. The transactional interpetation just says that even non-existent waves have advanced waves going the other way, and it's those waves that are interfering with each other.
And if we're talking in a generic sense [about intellectual property] then the concept of "stealing" as "taking without permission" is an apt one.
Seems to me you have no idea what you're rambling about, as that was, in fact, your assertation. The very first post you made was to take issue with someone saying:
It's called "patent infridgement", not theft.
Now, you did try to pussyfoot around your claim by saying that theft of trade secrets is theft, and thus patent infringement could be theft also. But this is simply incorrect.
You also tried to claim that nothing was technically theft, and you are wrong. And, no it's not a Georiga thing..larceny is just another word for 'theft by taking', and it's defined that way everywhere. But feel free to prove me wrong.
Oh, and what are you talking about, me claiming you claimed that infringement == theft. I didn't say anything of the sort. (See, two can play at this game of implying stuff and then denying it later.)
GA Code 16-8-2
A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.
In fact, 16-8-2 through 16-8-9 all deal with the different kinds of theft, yes, theft, and it's called all called 'theft'. Not just referred to as 'theft by whatever', but that's actually the name of the offense, it's what you get charged with. 'theft by taking', 'theft of services', 'theft while naked', etc.
Whereas it doesn't even appear to talk about 'larceny' except in the taking of funds.
And, for fun, here's the relevant section of US Code for patent infringements. Have fun finding 'theft' or 'larceny' or 'steal' in there.
How dare I go by what the law says, where it clearly defines theft and clearly defines the various types of 'intellectual properties', and the infringement thereof. I'm sure secondhand reports of someone who heard a case once is more important.
Here's a hint: Just because lawyers refer to something in a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because the judge doesn't complain doesn't make it so, either.
And, FYI, there is basically no overlap of laws that deal with patents and trade secrets. Trade secrets are the opposite of patents and copyright.
To take something you must change possession of it to yourself, from someone else. Patent infringement is not taking possession of anything, it is altering your property in a certain way that matches up with their patent.
And 'to steal' is a verb meaning 'the act of theft'. Saying 'stealing' is not a crime is like saying 'robbing a bank' is not a crime, because the crime is 'bank robbery'. Yes, the crime is the act, not the verb meaning 'to commit the act', but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
And, yes, in a court of law they will call the act of theft 'stealing' and say people 'stole' things when they committed the theft. They will not use that term to refer to patent infringement or copyright infringement. (In fact, the RIAA lawyers were ordered to stop doing that by the judge.)
I think people should stop being outraged and start being violent.
I'll assume you just misaimed that comment, and you're right. The person I replied to is apparently completely ignorant of the existence of unjust laws.
Especially so in the case of 'order crimes', which are victimless, or at least the harm incurred to someone else is the same as the harm incurred by you if you don't do it.
Like, oh, violating the rules of the radio spectrum so no one's cell phone works is 'wrong', in that it causes notable harm to society, and you could have used an unlicensed band or gotten your own. Or driving down the wrong side of the road.
Those, and copyright infringement, are only 'wrong' in the sense society supposedly loses, they are not harming others directly.
As people quite rightly have different ideas about how much of that behavior is wrong, calling it wrong because it's illegal shows you are naive. Some of your 'wrong' behavior helps society, which is clearly nonsensical.
And that's not even getting into the fact that actions that do hurt other people and most people agree with those actions being illegal still are debateable at the edges, like the exception to murder called 'self-defense'.
Neither of those are rights in any meaingful sense. The US doesn't believe in the 'natural right' theory of copyright.
Copyrights are government granted monopolies to infringe on other's right to their property, like the 'right' of the telephone company to string up wires across whatever land it needs to do so.
This gives you at least three totals.
To win a majority you'd need to get >50 of the votes, to win a plurality you'd just need to get more than anyone else.
While I don't know where you got your list, and how people got on it, it is incorrect for how you're using it..President Clinton, at least, did win the popular and electorial votes, because he got more votes than anyone else. However, he didn't win some hypothetical majority vote, getting about 6 million more votes his first election and 8 million more votes the second election to the next runner up, while in his first election Perot got 20 million votes, and in the second he got 8 million. Thus leaving Clinton with something like 45% of the vote the first election and 49% the second...both of which handily beat the Republican's vote totals, but were not a majority.
The fact peopel confuse majority with plurality does not alter the fact that very few elections in the US have had differing popular and electorial votes.
Don't be an idiot. The aliens have conclusively proved there were no aliens.
As opposed to without prejudice, which is often just because of an honest mistake, like suing the wrong part of an umbrella corperation or filing a certain suit in a court where you can't technically file that kind of suit.