Re:Old method still isn't good enough
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Whats completely relevant is that what happened did follow the legal process. Every law was kept to the letter. So what is irrelevant is the accusaion that their votes were taken away. No valid vote was taken away. No invalid process insued to malign or misinform the voters.
nope, if they couldn't mark those correctly, than how do you know any other method would have. At least this way we could detect they didn't know what they were doing so they could be thrown away.
A completely idiot proof system would only make it easier to appear that they did know what they were doing. And that illusion is the most dangerous. Its that illusion that fools and tamperers alike love to hide behind.
Re:Old method still isn't good enough
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 3
Nope, this is a tired argument. Any one can get a new one and start over.
Its the immediate permenance of the mark that is valuable to the process. Its what makes recounts valid, and tampering easy to find.
You know what, we should have it so that every party that wants to has to okay the interface used. Then no matter what the interface, both parties can make sure their best interests are served by the ballots. It was sooo unfair of that Democrat who made those ballots so unreadable in Palm Beach, if only they had okayed the ballot before the election then they would have nothing to complain about... (warning, sarcasm at work here.)
Becuase the people marked them wrong and they were incoherant, but thats not important now. We're talking about punch-cards verses electronic tallying.
Really, before you respond again think very long about a question. If they couldn't mark them correctly then do you really think giving them another method would increase voter accuracy?
Yeah but when my fiancee tries to log in to her hotmail account with my M18 build, the server refuses the connection. Anyone else get this problem? Is there a work around?
Nothing is as indisputable as a completely real process. Not infallible in a man to the moon sence, but indisputable in a legal sence. No worries of hackings, miswirings, and other imperseptable anomolies. Just person and paper. The simplest, unmolestable process there is.
Note to moderators: check the posting time before moderating something as redundant. Also mine was my own project done on an apple ][c *with* stereo-scoping.
Really this *fear* thing is getting tired. Presidents don't have 1/4 the power we are afraid of them having, and about a 1/10th of what we want them to have.
Sometimes I feel the people in america are humorously misinformed on this matter. The CIA learned it was easier to control a monarchy (hence Sadam, Noriega, etc...) but American voters knew that long before. Or maybe its just a wistful fantasy.
hmm, I've heard discussion that the Fig Tree is the Priesthood and the Olive Tree is more generaly Israel. Therefore it would specificaly be additions to the prienthood lineage that would be the sprouting of the fig tree. The line between our interpretations is moot though, since Israel a lot of the time means God's authority to act on the earth and condiut for his Word, which is also priesthood.
i have nothing against this being the generation that sees Christ's return. Thanks for the info.
And what about America? Could it be one of the beasts? Maybe the Lady with a sword? Maybe the Home of the New Jerusalem?
I have some prophecies on America. Boston being swallowed by the sea, New York destroyed by earthquake and Albany by fire. The railroads being cankered with rust, civil racial wars, etc... These aren't cute, I would be disturbed to see them come about. But thats what the Apocolypse is about isn't it.
a few quick but obvious points to get out of the way before the meaty stuff.
1) Candidates put their views on the line here
2) Some thought Slashdot to weak an audience to consider answering to.
3) Slashdot is, regrettable well informed, but not very experienced.
Everyone likes taking pot shots at the big guys. Admit it, we all feel almost equal to them when we do. It inflates our ego, which is _really_ what slashdot is for right?
Examples, two candidates responded here. One is main stream, the other isn't. One got more flaque.
Also, think about this from running for candidacy yourself. What would you do? Would you shamelessly put out your beliefs hoping to rally people who felt the same way, or would you try to shape and word your beliefs to appeal to the broadest segment of the population. Wait, I mean really, answer that.... okay...
Chances are you would do both, they aren't mutualy exclusive. Yet you can pick on people so easily for doing either or both. Its also easy to pick on a number of other views, in a damned if I do, damned if I don't kind of way.
Oh well. Slashdot can continue its ego-trip. As for myself I think I've learned enough from these candidates to make up my mind.
One of my favorite quotes is "The numbers in Pi pass every test for randomness," which is interesting since it can be calculated. Is that true for all trancendental numbers?
I've heard very compelling argument of the anti-christ, simular to yours. But I've never seen evidence to the "lie time of those alive when the State of Israel was established." Some have gone so far as to speculate that no one will die of natural causes who were born after that date. Although this may be true, I don't know where the backing for it is. I wish I did know.
I think if I don't see it, my children definately will. Not even the Son of Man knows the hour or the day.
Ever heard of prophecies for the American Continent for the same time?
Israel being mentioned in the Koran is interesting, but not important to this discussion.
And you ment *that* gentile occupation of Israel. Yep can't argue there. But Britain did control the area after the Turks, and could be considered gentile control. But I always considered that fulfilment of Isaiah, where the gentile kings would bear Israel on their wings. They would find they had children they didn't have and such from the Christian movement of compassion toward the Jews.
Where you get that the Anti-Christ is alive right now, I would like to see (maybe I wouldn't). And yeah, some interpret that the temple must be built for the anti-christ to sit on the throne and be revealed, and some say that the rock is the throne already. Me, I'll wait for the Messiah to tell me directly what he ment. In the mean time, I'm not convinced of either interpretation.
We know the army gathered against Israel is 220,000,000 in the beginning of the second woah. The Witnesses (as described in Rev 11:3-12) are pretty powerful last for 2000+days, and culminate the end of the second woe which begins with the amassing of an army of 220,000,000 (Rev 9:16) all pointed at Israel. So an army that big is pointed at Israel at the begining of the woe, and finaly make war against the two witnesses who are then resurected to finish off the second woe. Its actualy *okay* to think that they fended them off.
In fact some think that the escape through the Mount of Olives (messiah) happens right after that, once the two witnesses aren't around to protect them anymore.
HA! So busy acting like someone you think is cool you didn't even read it. If you did you would realize that it is a Christian site, mostly quoting the New Testament.
Now, being one who believes in prophecy I can't agree that this person (who is an Arab Christian I believe) deny's prophecy. Nor would I be so quick to play the good vs bad saga with the current events in Israel.
What he might be missing is the symbolic structure of a mosque (holy house) being at Jerusalem before the physical one was actualy built. Its holyness being there before the house was there.
But his interpretation, although not conclusive is complete. Jerusalem is only alluded to in the Koran, and that reference might be ascribed as an afterthought.
And you missed my favorite prophecies, thing to happen next. Two witnesses raised up to the Jews that fend off an army of 220 million for three years (or months I can't remember). And the reconstruction of the Temple at Jerusalem where the Levites are purged and once again offer an acceptable sacrifice.
And your interpretation of prophecy is interesting but who's to say that the gentile control of Jerusalem hasn't happened? Whos to say that the AntiChrist isn't already sitting on the throne in the temple (the rock supposedly was the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant which was God's Mercy seat.)
p.s. only on slashdot would you see a reference to Jews acting like Nazis. I think its time to change my sig.
I found this at http://www.templemount.org/recent.html. The author is credited at the end.
The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.
In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.
The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.
Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.
With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.
[DR. MANFRED R. LEHMANN is a writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994.]
hmm, your use of degrees to calculate vantage point probability is probably flawed, since several degrees (and not neccisarily quantized specificaly to 360) could produce a workable vantage point. But I get your point.
It might be easier to assume that its easy to think that three holes in a spherical shape could easily look like a skull. Especially on Halloween. Now if a nebulae looked like a crab, that would be something (j/k).
Yep, A infinite number of rednecks shooting at an infinite number of road signs will produce Shakespears works in braile.
Randomness is the new way to "explain what we can't explain." Kind of like what God was to people before Darwin showed them the way.
There was a Scientific article even that showed how there could be a negative value of entropy, if the rest of the universe was infinite entropy (meaning enough randomness should produce one example of extreme order) right? The problem is we aren't in a universe of infinite entropy.
p.s. I'm not saying this is random, I'm not saying this is a sign from heaven.
sorry he got you on this one. It would have been better to say that the odds are greater that it wasn't Liz Hurley since there is only one of those and probably dozens if not more look alikes.
Then the problem of Occams Razor would be that no matter who you saw that looked like Liz Hurley, you would never believe it was really her since a look alike is the simplest explanation.
Occams Razor is a Roulette Table stratagy, its just playing the odds. It may be applied to every situation, but it is not correct in every situation (hence its a razor not a law.)
Believe it or not there is a NASA team set aside for working out extra-terrestrial encounter scenarios. There was even a law passed outlawing any unauthorized contact with extra-terrestrial life or something like that.
Its funny, I read the law on the internet, and read about the team but now I don't have a clue as to where to start searching for it now. It was brought up in a Slashdot article many years ago, and with all the scrutiny Slashdot could muster at that time it actually turned out as legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Whats completely relevant is that what happened did follow the legal process. Every law was kept to the letter. So what is irrelevant is the accusaion that their votes were taken away. No valid vote was taken away. No invalid process insued to malign or misinform the voters.
As someone said about the 80's "We listen to our comedians for politics, and our politicians for comedy."
I guess its insights like this that we have to thank for that. Your really Gallagher aren't you.
nope, if they couldn't mark those correctly, than how do you know any other method would have. At least this way we could detect they didn't know what they were doing so they could be thrown away.
A completely idiot proof system would only make it easier to appear that they did know what they were doing. And that illusion is the most dangerous. Its that illusion that fools and tamperers alike love to hide behind.
Nope, this is a tired argument. Any one can get a new one and start over.
Its the immediate permenance of the mark that is valuable to the process. Its what makes recounts valid, and tampering easy to find.
You know what, we should have it so that every party that wants to has to okay the interface used. Then no matter what the interface, both parties can make sure their best interests are served by the ballots. It was sooo unfair of that Democrat who made those ballots so unreadable in Palm Beach, if only they had okayed the ballot before the election then they would have nothing to complain about... (warning, sarcasm at work here.)
Becuase the people marked them wrong and they were incoherant, but thats not important now. We're talking about punch-cards verses electronic tallying.
Really, before you respond again think very long about a question. If they couldn't mark them correctly then do you really think giving them another method would increase voter accuracy?
Yeah but when my fiancee tries to log in to her hotmail account with my M18 build, the server refuses the connection. Anyone else get this problem? Is there a work around?
Nothing is as indisputable as a completely real process. Not infallible in a man to the moon sence, but indisputable in a legal sence. No worries of hackings, miswirings, and other imperseptable anomolies. Just person and paper. The simplest, unmolestable process there is.
Nope, a good ol' punchcard never lies.
Note to moderators: check the posting time before moderating something as redundant. Also mine was my own project done on an apple ][c *with* stereo-scoping.
okay fawnaphobe, so I'm right. thanks.
Really this *fear* thing is getting tired. Presidents don't have 1/4 the power we are afraid of them having, and about a 1/10th of what we want them to have.
Sometimes I feel the people in america are humorously misinformed on this matter. The CIA learned it was easier to control a monarchy (hence Sadam, Noriega, etc...) but American voters knew that long before. Or maybe its just a wistful fantasy.
hmm, I've heard discussion that the Fig Tree is the Priesthood and the Olive Tree is more generaly Israel. Therefore it would specificaly be additions to the prienthood lineage that would be the sprouting of the fig tree. The line between our interpretations is moot though, since Israel a lot of the time means God's authority to act on the earth and condiut for his Word, which is also priesthood.
i have nothing against this being the generation that sees Christ's return. Thanks for the info.
And what about America? Could it be one of the beasts? Maybe the Lady with a sword? Maybe the Home of the New Jerusalem?
I have some prophecies on America. Boston being swallowed by the sea, New York destroyed by earthquake and Albany by fire. The railroads being cankered with rust, civil racial wars, etc... These aren't cute, I would be disturbed to see them come about. But thats what the Apocolypse is about isn't it.
a few quick but obvious points to get out of the way before the meaty stuff.
1) Candidates put their views on the line here
2) Some thought Slashdot to weak an audience to consider answering to.
3) Slashdot is, regrettable well informed, but not very experienced.
Everyone likes taking pot shots at the big guys. Admit it, we all feel almost equal to them when we do. It inflates our ego, which is _really_ what slashdot is for right?
Examples, two candidates responded here. One is main stream, the other isn't. One got more flaque.
Also, think about this from running for candidacy yourself. What would you do? Would you shamelessly put out your beliefs hoping to rally people who felt the same way, or would you try to shape and word your beliefs to appeal to the broadest segment of the population. Wait, I mean really, answer that.... okay...
Chances are you would do both, they aren't mutualy exclusive. Yet you can pick on people so easily for doing either or both. Its also easy to pick on a number of other views, in a damned if I do, damned if I don't kind of way.
Oh well. Slashdot can continue its ego-trip. As for myself I think I've learned enough from these candidates to make up my mind.
Yep particularly relevant due to the recent legislation to restrict pagan ritual rights... wait, there isn't any.
One of my favorite quotes is "The numbers in Pi pass every test for randomness," which is interesting since it can be calculated. Is that true for all trancendental numbers?
Ha! I add a zero to your number and.... well...
dangit.
I suppose every number begins with zero also...
I've heard very compelling argument of the anti-christ, simular to yours. But I've never seen evidence to the "lie time of those alive when the State of Israel was established." Some have gone so far as to speculate that no one will die of natural causes who were born after that date. Although this may be true, I don't know where the backing for it is. I wish I did know.
I think if I don't see it, my children definately will. Not even the Son of Man knows the hour or the day.
Ever heard of prophecies for the American Continent for the same time?
Israel being mentioned in the Koran is interesting, but not important to this discussion.
And you ment *that* gentile occupation of Israel. Yep can't argue there. But Britain did control the area after the Turks, and could be considered gentile control. But I always considered that fulfilment of Isaiah, where the gentile kings would bear Israel on their wings. They would find they had children they didn't have and such from the Christian movement of compassion toward the Jews.
Where you get that the Anti-Christ is alive right now, I would like to see (maybe I wouldn't). And yeah, some interpret that the temple must be built for the anti-christ to sit on the throne and be revealed, and some say that the rock is the throne already. Me, I'll wait for the Messiah to tell me directly what he ment. In the mean time, I'm not convinced of either interpretation.
We know the army gathered against Israel is 220,000,000 in the beginning of the second woah. The Witnesses (as described in Rev 11:3-12) are pretty powerful last for 2000+days, and culminate the end of the second woe which begins with the amassing of an army of 220,000,000 (Rev 9:16) all pointed at Israel. So an army that big is pointed at Israel at the begining of the woe, and finaly make war against the two witnesses who are then resurected to finish off the second woe. Its actualy *okay* to think that they fended them off.
In fact some think that the escape through the Mount of Olives (messiah) happens right after that, once the two witnesses aren't around to protect them anymore.
HA! So busy acting like someone you think is cool you didn't even read it. If you did you would realize that it is a Christian site, mostly quoting the New Testament.
Now, being one who believes in prophecy I can't agree that this person (who is an Arab Christian I believe) deny's prophecy. Nor would I be so quick to play the good vs bad saga with the current events in Israel.
What he might be missing is the symbolic structure of a mosque (holy house) being at Jerusalem before the physical one was actualy built. Its holyness being there before the house was there.
But his interpretation, although not conclusive is complete. Jerusalem is only alluded to in the Koran, and that reference might be ascribed as an afterthought.
And you missed my favorite prophecies, thing to happen next. Two witnesses raised up to the Jews that fend off an army of 220 million for three years (or months I can't remember). And the reconstruction of the Temple at Jerusalem where the Levites are purged and once again offer an acceptable sacrifice.
And your interpretation of prophecy is interesting but who's to say that the gentile control of Jerusalem hasn't happened? Whos to say that the AntiChrist isn't already sitting on the throne in the temple (the rock supposedly was the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant which was God's Mercy seat.)
p.s. only on slashdot would you see a reference to Jews acting like Nazis. I think its time to change my sig.
I found this at http://www.templemount.org/recent.html. The author is credited at the end.
The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.
In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.
The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.
Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.
With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.
[DR. MANFRED R. LEHMANN is a writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994.]
hmm, your use of degrees to calculate vantage point probability is probably flawed, since several degrees (and not neccisarily quantized specificaly to 360) could produce a workable vantage point. But I get your point.
It might be easier to assume that its easy to think that three holes in a spherical shape could easily look like a skull. Especially on Halloween. Now if a nebulae looked like a crab, that would be something (j/k).
missed the nebulae part. And it doesn't require "cloning" to know that there are people who look alike in this world. Thanks for the update though!
Yep, A infinite number of rednecks shooting at an infinite number of road signs will produce Shakespears works in braile.
Randomness is the new way to "explain what we can't explain." Kind of like what God was to people before Darwin showed them the way.
There was a Scientific article even that showed how there could be a negative value of entropy, if the rest of the universe was infinite entropy (meaning enough randomness should produce one example of extreme order) right? The problem is we aren't in a universe of infinite entropy.
p.s. I'm not saying this is random, I'm not saying this is a sign from heaven.
sorry he got you on this one. It would have been better to say that the odds are greater that it wasn't Liz Hurley since there is only one of those and probably dozens if not more look alikes.
Then the problem of Occams Razor would be that no matter who you saw that looked like Liz Hurley, you would never believe it was really her since a look alike is the simplest explanation.
Occams Razor is a Roulette Table stratagy, its just playing the odds. It may be applied to every situation, but it is not correct in every situation (hence its a razor not a law.)
dangit, that deserved a dd-"yeeeaaaaahhhh!" but it flips out the lameness filters.
Believe it or not there is a NASA team set aside for working out extra-terrestrial encounter scenarios. There was even a law passed outlawing any unauthorized contact with extra-terrestrial life or something like that.
Its funny, I read the law on the internet, and read about the team but now I don't have a clue as to where to start searching for it now. It was brought up in a Slashdot article many years ago, and with all the scrutiny Slashdot could muster at that time it actually turned out as legitimate.