Well, AC, your post mostly just confused me. Maybe you should try posting sober.
As far as collecting evidence of voter fraud it shouldn't be that hard. Who voted is a matter of public record available to anyone. Take that list and start going through it to see if the voter say they actually voted. Check their citizenship status and eligibility to vote in that specific district.
As far as voting on a website I would never put any important vote on a website. It's too easily hacked.
As for the comment about uninformed people voting, I think if you had compulsory voting the push would move from convincing people to actually vote to convincing them that you are the right option. It would probably lead to a higher level of political understanding in the wider population and potentially lead to better outcomes overall. Of course it may not.
I admire Australia's election system but you still get someone like Tony Abbott for Prime Minister.
IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Oregon elections? Register where you do claim residence and vote there. Pretty simple.
I live in Oregon. In this state you are not required to have voter ID. We have vote-by-mail. The only ID requirement is your signature on the outside of the envelope your ballot is enclosed in (actually your ballot goes in a privacy envelope or the signature is on a piece of the envelope they can tear off before opening the actual ballot envelope so they can connect your ballot to your name). The signature on the ballot envelope is compared to the signature on your voter registration card to validate your right to vote. If the signatures don't match they will let you know so you can come in and correct the situation.
I will say that's changed a bit in the last legislative session earlier this year. Now in Oregon everyone who gets a drivers license and is otherwise eligible to vote will be automatically registered to vote and they use you signature from your drivers license for ID.
The time to validate whether someone is eligible to vote is when they register to vote and if you're going to require voter ID it should be issued at that time at no cost to the voter. Anything else is needless regulation and bureaucracy on election day.
Wow, I'd like to see you try and get away with those scenarios you outlined. I've heard of others trying that but they didn't get away with it. I'd LMAO as they hauled your ass off to jail.
In my state at least I've always had to sign my name in the poll book in order to vote so you'd have to be able to forge my name in order to vote for me.
As far as detecting fraud, who votes in an election is a matter of public record. My understanding is a number of groups have tried to use that information to show that there was voter fraud in different places but once the dig in they just quietly drop the matter because they didn't find enough fraud to make an issue over.
They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why?
Because voting is a right reserved for citizens of the US and the political subdivision holding the election. Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.
There are continuous claims that voting is ineffective because "my vote doesn't count" when it is because someone is voting for a losing candidate, why should we dilute the vote even further by letting everyone who walks into the polling place vote? Why SHOULDN'T voting be reserved for citizens?
Oh please! Show me a case of where in person voter fraud is more than an occasional occurrence. The GW Bush administration made it a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they found basically nothing. Voter ID is a solution looking for a problem. I thought the R's were against more regulations and bureaucracy.
In what way do people involved in a corporation lose any of their individual rights by virtue of their involvement with the corporation such that we need to give them additional rights through the corporation?
Since corporations are totally artificial creations of the law in the first place I don't see how they can have any rights beyond what is explicitly allowed in the laws that make them possible.
That seems to be the elephant in the room WRT fusion, producing 3x as much energy out as you push in won't help with global warming if you produce 100x as much waste heat as you do usable energy out.
The amount of waste heat produced by all human activities is trivial compared to the energy the Sun puts on Earth. Waste heat has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.
Sheesh! How did we get from Amazon drones having transponders or ADS-B to guys using airplanes to smuggle cocaine? Are you saying we should spend the money to cover the whole country with radar down to below 500 feet AGL?
Of course transponders and ADS-B are two completely separate things. Transponders only squawk a code and their pressure altitude. ADS-B broadcasts position, velocity, altitude and other information. Yes, it would be possible to get both to send incorrect information but it couldn't be too far off from what you are actually doing because both systems have limited range (maybe 200 miles under optimal conditions) so your reported position would have to be well within that range. With a radio direction finder you could check whether the reported position is consistent with direction of detection. Nothing is perfect but ADS-B will be a big improvement because it makes it possible to detect other aircraft near you when you are out of radar range (such as over the North Atlantic).
Your Aegis Destroyer example makes no sense to me. I was responding to the part of your original post about Amazon possibly having drones flying above 500 feet and merely said the FAA would probably require them to have transponders and eventually ADS-B. The comment about eliminating the need for radar was only about the ground based radar near airports. ADS-B gives better information than you can get from them.
If a drone is flying over 500 feet the FAA is probably going to require that they have a transponder and after 2020 ADS-B as most manned aircraft will be required to have.
A uniformed law enforcement officer will be happy to stop by to assist you with all your drone spying problems.
I don't know about where you live but in my state there are a lot of law enforcement agencies that don't have the manpower or budget to send an officer to minor incidents like this. They'll take down your complaint over the phone but that's about it. I guess you'd have to fire off your shotgun to get them to come out.
Hah! Firearms only give you power to the extent that others with firearms are willing to join you. An individual or even a small group with firearms has no chance if TPTB decide to take you out.
I'm pretty sure the *ELITES* have convinced you that the Ds and the Rs are different.
I'm pretty sure they've convinced you to be cynical enough about it all that you don't bother to discern the differences. The fewer people who vote the better for them. Yeah, they're both beholden to big business and the wealthy but one of the parties appears totally divorced from reality whereas the other is only partially divorced.
I'm not going to try and rebut all of that. If you're young enough I think you'll find your sanguine disregard of the effects of AGW will come back to bite you in the butt. Good luck.
The adaption conversation is happening right now as the effects of AGW start to manifest themselves. It might not always be obvious to those directly involved that AGW is a factor. One obvious case of adaption is Miami Beach spending $300 million installing pumps to combat the effects of rising sea levels. That will buy them a few more decades of viability.
All I'm saying is that if we don't have a plan to cut CO2 by enough to stop the climb of CO2 in the air, then perhaps we should look at other options, such as adapting to the new world we're making.
Any reason why we can't work on both at the same time?
Except for the first one those articles are all from the beginning of 2014. The picture has apparently changed a bit since then. As I said coal use has started to drop in China and I see no reason to think that trend won't continue. The Chinese government is well aware of the issues around anthropogenic global warming and are doing some things about it, more than the US at this point.
Rowing from Oregon where I live to Australia is not something that feels totally out of the realm of possibility to me but at 63 years old it would not be something my doctor and family would be happy about.
I don't think your 747 analogy works. It's like saying if we can't figure out how to do it in one step it's not worth starting. But the challenge of reducing and eventually eliminating CO2 emissions has a lot of different parts that will require different solutions and there is no need to wait for all of them to be available to get started.
China is building a new coal fired power plant every month, they have 50 under construction right now.
I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.
That is true, but if the goal is to walk from America to Australia, you might want to rethink the whole plan.
As a whitewater rafter I know how to row so I'll amend that to say "The longer journey starts with the first step or first oar stroke.":)
Looking at the CO2 problem holistically in the active carbon cycle the carbon is balanced between the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere (with a small piece in the geosphere). The balance between them remains about the same so if you cut carbon emissions by 50% that doesn't mean the water or plants continue to absorb at the same rate they do now but the rate adjusts in all areas so the balance between them remains about the same. So around 45% of CO2 emissions will continue to stay in the atmosphere even under a reduced emissions scenario.
No one expects this to fix the problem by itself or to be the final answer. As they say "The longest journey starts with the first step."
Ultimately CO2 emissions need to go to a net zero. That's the only answer. That won't cure the warming that's already in the pipeline but it will stop it from getting even worse as time goes on. There is no clear top limit to how bad global warming could get so it makes sense to prevent as much of it as we can.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, AC, your post mostly just confused me. Maybe you should try posting sober.
As far as collecting evidence of voter fraud it shouldn't be that hard. Who voted is a matter of public record available to anyone. Take that list and start going through it to see if the voter say they actually voted. Check their citizenship status and eligibility to vote in that specific district.
As far as voting on a website I would never put any important vote on a website. It's too easily hacked.
As for the comment about uninformed people voting, I think if you had compulsory voting the push would move from convincing people to actually vote to convincing them that you are the right option. It would probably lead to a higher level of political understanding in the wider population and potentially lead to better outcomes overall. Of course it may not.
I admire Australia's election system but you still get someone like Tony Abbott for Prime Minister.
IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Oregon elections? Register where you do claim residence and vote there. Pretty simple.
I live in Oregon. In this state you are not required to have voter ID. We have vote-by-mail. The only ID requirement is your signature on the outside of the envelope your ballot is enclosed in (actually your ballot goes in a privacy envelope or the signature is on a piece of the envelope they can tear off before opening the actual ballot envelope so they can connect your ballot to your name). The signature on the ballot envelope is compared to the signature on your voter registration card to validate your right to vote. If the signatures don't match they will let you know so you can come in and correct the situation.
I will say that's changed a bit in the last legislative session earlier this year. Now in Oregon everyone who gets a drivers license and is otherwise eligible to vote will be automatically registered to vote and they use you signature from your drivers license for ID.
The time to validate whether someone is eligible to vote is when they register to vote and if you're going to require voter ID it should be issued at that time at no cost to the voter. Anything else is needless regulation and bureaucracy on election day.
Wow, I'd like to see you try and get away with those scenarios you outlined. I've heard of others trying that but they didn't get away with it. I'd LMAO as they hauled your ass off to jail.
In my state at least I've always had to sign my name in the poll book in order to vote so you'd have to be able to forge my name in order to vote for me.
As far as detecting fraud, who votes in an election is a matter of public record. My understanding is a number of groups have tried to use that information to show that there was voter fraud in different places but once the dig in they just quietly drop the matter because they didn't find enough fraud to make an issue over.
They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why?
Because voting is a right reserved for citizens of the US and the political subdivision holding the election. Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.
There are continuous claims that voting is ineffective because "my vote doesn't count" when it is because someone is voting for a losing candidate, why should we dilute the vote even further by letting everyone who walks into the polling place vote? Why SHOULDN'T voting be reserved for citizens?
Oh please! Show me a case of where in person voter fraud is more than an occasional occurrence. The GW Bush administration made it a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they found basically nothing. Voter ID is a solution looking for a problem. I thought the R's were against more regulations and bureaucracy.
In what way do people involved in a corporation lose any of their individual rights by virtue of their involvement with the corporation such that we need to give them additional rights through the corporation?
Since corporations are totally artificial creations of the law in the first place I don't see how they can have any rights beyond what is explicitly allowed in the laws that make them possible.
That seems to be the elephant in the room WRT fusion, producing 3x as much energy out as you push in won't help with global warming if you produce 100x as much waste heat as you do usable energy out.
The amount of waste heat produced by all human activities is trivial compared to the energy the Sun puts on Earth. Waste heat has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.
Maybe that's the next step in the marriage equality fight. /s
Sheesh! How did we get from Amazon drones having transponders or ADS-B to guys using airplanes to smuggle cocaine? Are you saying we should spend the money to cover the whole country with radar down to below 500 feet AGL?
Of course transponders and ADS-B are two completely separate things. Transponders only squawk a code and their pressure altitude. ADS-B broadcasts position, velocity, altitude and other information. Yes, it would be possible to get both to send incorrect information but it couldn't be too far off from what you are actually doing because both systems have limited range (maybe 200 miles under optimal conditions) so your reported position would have to be well within that range. With a radio direction finder you could check whether the reported position is consistent with direction of detection. Nothing is perfect but ADS-B will be a big improvement because it makes it possible to detect other aircraft near you when you are out of radar range (such as over the North Atlantic).
Your Aegis Destroyer example makes no sense to me. I was responding to the part of your original post about Amazon possibly having drones flying above 500 feet and merely said the FAA would probably require them to have transponders and eventually ADS-B. The comment about eliminating the need for radar was only about the ground based radar near airports. ADS-B gives better information than you can get from them.
ADS-B practically eliminates the need for radar and even works outside the range of existing radar.
22 seconds is quite a long time to hover over private property. It is legal to shoot firearms in my neighborhood - I would have shot it down too.
22 seconds is longer than the attention span of most millennials.
It's one thing to have a drone fly over your property on its way to somewhere else, it's another to have it stop and hover for any length of time.
If a drone is flying over 500 feet the FAA is probably going to require that they have a transponder and after 2020 ADS-B as most manned aircraft will be required to have.
A uniformed law enforcement officer will be happy to stop by to assist you with all your drone spying problems.
I don't know about where you live but in my state there are a lot of law enforcement agencies that don't have the manpower or budget to send an officer to minor incidents like this. They'll take down your complaint over the phone but that's about it. I guess you'd have to fire off your shotgun to get them to come out.
Hah! Firearms only give you power to the extent that others with firearms are willing to join you. An individual or even a small group with firearms has no chance if TPTB decide to take you out.
I'm pretty sure the *ELITES* have convinced you that the Ds and the Rs are different.
I'm pretty sure they've convinced you to be cynical enough about it all that you don't bother to discern the differences. The fewer people who vote the better for them. Yeah, they're both beholden to big business and the wealthy but one of the parties appears totally divorced from reality whereas the other is only partially divorced.
I'm not going to try and rebut all of that. If you're young enough I think you'll find your sanguine disregard of the effects of AGW will come back to bite you in the butt. Good luck.
The adaption conversation is happening right now as the effects of AGW start to manifest themselves. It might not always be obvious to those directly involved that AGW is a factor. One obvious case of adaption is Miami Beach spending $300 million installing pumps to combat the effects of rising sea levels. That will buy them a few more decades of viability.
All I'm saying is that if we don't have a plan to cut CO2 by enough to stop the climb of CO2 in the air, then perhaps we should look at other options, such as adapting to the new world we're making.
Any reason why we can't work on both at the same time?
Except for the first one those articles are all from the beginning of 2014. The picture has apparently changed a bit since then. As I said coal use has started to drop in China and I see no reason to think that trend won't continue. The Chinese government is well aware of the issues around anthropogenic global warming and are doing some things about it, more than the US at this point.
Rowing from Oregon where I live to Australia is not something that feels totally out of the realm of possibility to me but at 63 years old it would not be something my doctor and family would be happy about.
I don't think your 747 analogy works. It's like saying if we can't figure out how to do it in one step it's not worth starting. But the challenge of reducing and eventually eliminating CO2 emissions has a lot of different parts that will require different solutions and there is no need to wait for all of them to be available to get started.
China is building a new coal fired power plant every month, they have 50 under construction right now.
I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.
That is true, but if the goal is to walk from America to Australia, you might want to rethink the whole plan.
As a whitewater rafter I know how to row so I'll amend that to say "The longer journey starts with the first step or first oar stroke." :)
Looking at the CO2 problem holistically in the active carbon cycle the carbon is balanced between the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere (with a small piece in the geosphere). The balance between them remains about the same so if you cut carbon emissions by 50% that doesn't mean the water or plants continue to absorb at the same rate they do now but the rate adjusts in all areas so the balance between them remains about the same. So around 45% of CO2 emissions will continue to stay in the atmosphere even under a reduced emissions scenario.
No one expects this to fix the problem by itself or to be the final answer. As they say "The longest journey starts with the first step."
Ultimately CO2 emissions need to go to a net zero. That's the only answer. That won't cure the warming that's already in the pipeline but it will stop it from getting even worse as time goes on. There is no clear top limit to how bad global warming could get so it makes sense to prevent as much of it as we can.