Before you decide conscience thought is possibly too complicated, there is another viewpoint to try out. Conscience thought is NOT complicated.
Everyone agrees (I think!) that humans have conscience thought. What about monkeys that can use sugn language and are sad when their babies are taken away? What about a dog? A bird? A slime mold?
Just recently, on NPR, I heard a story about possible intelligence in slime molds. It was debunked by an expert who convincingly claimed it was not. It seems we sometimes attribute internal thinking too much to external behavior.
The problem we all see now wasn't that they used a mechanical system. Some say that is more accurate, some say less.
The problem is that no one ever accounted for margin of error. A known margin of error could be determined for the mechanical system, as well as for a hand-tallied system. In either case, I'll bet that the margin of error completely swallows the tiny lead Dubya has over Gore.
So, the problem isn't with HOW votes are tallied, its with how much faith we put in those tallies. There is a margin of error in every system. Both candidates are arguing about variances that fall within that margin of error.
We need to account for error and decide what to do when the decision is within the error. Do we throw out the whole state? Use an alternative voting method? Have a 100 yard race?
Frankly, I doubt we will ever develop computers with the sophisticated power of even a mouse brain, although many may protest that we already have exceeded their gross power. I believe that things like perception and reasoning are beyond the scope of raw power.
Just to offer my viewpoint... The brain is slow, but massively parallel and interconnected in a vast array of various neural networks. Inherently, the brain is analog -- down to the quanta of electrons involved in the chemical reactions.
In order to simulate that in a computer that executes things very quickly, but serially, would require a HUGE AMOUNT of computing power. You'd have to be able to simulate time-slices as small as those significant in the brain.
However, if we were to take several slow processors, and network them together in parallel, we'd probbably get a lot closer for a lot less.
I don't believe consciencenous is anything special. Its just the superposition of hundreds or thousands of neural networks all owrking together. Heck, at one time, man-kind thought the motion of the planets and stars were just too complicated to ever figured out, so they were labeled as something mysterious and never to be known. We shouldn't make that same mistake with the brain and mind simple because it appears at present to be too complicated to figure out.
Don't forget row-level locking. Last I heard, MySQL only supported tabel-level locking. Someone was supposed to be adding it to their own flavor of MySQL, but not the main package.
I think the lack of tools, row-level locking, transaction support, etc. in MySQL are a shame. Yet, people talk like its the best thing since sliced bread. This has lead me to discover two kinds of MySQL users:
The first-time DB user who jumped into MySQL because its free. They sing the praises because they like OpenSource, the popularity of MySQL and they don't know any better.
The experienced DB-user who knows of MySQL's shortcomings and have determined that those shortcomings are not significant compared to the cost of a DB that does have those features -- at least for their purposes.
Agreed. I don't think we'll ever really know who "won" this election at the vote level, or the court level. It really is up to the Electoral College to decide.
As I understand it, we still have a problem. I'm lead to believe that each party has their own electors (chosen by the party so they'd presumably be in strong standing with the party). The party whose cadidates win the popular vote get to have their electors do the voting.
It even says on the Florida ballot something like "A vote for a president and vice president is a vote for their electors."
Thus, we're back to square one. The electors can't decide the vote until the vote decides whose electors will do the voting.
What I don't get then is why those people would be whining if they didn't really feel they voted improperly.
Would a Buchanan voter really come out and say they wanted Gore instead of Bush when it appeared Bush would win? I could understand a Nader voter switching to Gore for that reason, or a Buchanan voter switching to Dubya if the edge was in favor of Gore. But that isn't what is happening. People would have to be switching from one extreme to the other side.
Or are you suggesting they're whining because they really did make a mistake -- but that they made the mistake simply because they're "stupid"?
I don't have a reliable photograph. All I have available to me is my own experience and news photos. The best photo of an actual ballot in the booth (doesn't show much outside the book) is at CNN.
The photo doesn't show much. The pages are metal-framed, so they coudl've been sexured quite well as opposed to as if they were just cardboard. But, that doesn't mean they were. I'm only suggesting it as a devil's advocate and no one has refuted or confirmed it yet.
In my own experience where I voted, our books are mounted such that the pages leave a gap between them such that a different column of holes is exposed for eahc page turn. The whole book was quite loose in addition to the actual pages.
What are you missing? Well, one thing were missing is a better photo of the real setup to show if play in the book was possible.
Regarding what we're missing regarding other mistaken votes is this. We know that Gore and Bush both have extremely high precentages in ANY county ANYWHERE. Let's say 48% each to give room for third parties. With that large portion of Gore voters compared to a smaller population of [whatever-third-party-candidate-was-below-Buchanan ], and the same liklihood to "screw up", more Gore voters, as a number, would screw up than Buchanan voters. If we say there are 1,000,000 voters in the county, 480,000 would've wanted to vote for Gore, and say, 4,800 for [other candidate]. Assuming a 10% screw-up rate, that 48,000 Gore votes that wentto Buchanan and 480 that went to [other candidate].
So, yes, voters for [other candidate] could've screwed up too, but a much smaller number than for Gore.
Many people are suggesting that the people who claim to have made mistakes are out of luck. It was up to them to vote properly and they "blew it".
Let me remind you that voting is supposed to take the opinion of the people to decide something. Any electro-mechanical means inbetween should not have a bearing on the election.
To say that their vote is chiseled in stone because of mistakes caused by someting between their opinion in their mind and the final decision is downright mean.
I realize there are many implications of throwing or not throwing out votes, revoting, etc. Just keep in mind the big picture and the ultimate reason we vote.
I'm not suggesting that the ballot was shifted (as you said, their is a hard stop and pegs to prevent that). I'm suggesting that the ballot book shifted. Those plastic pages (mine were cardboard where I live) have play in them.
Relative to each other, the holes (plastic hole guard and ballot behind it) could've shifted from the pages that were supposed to align with the holes.
I still say that just because an official who happened to be democratic approved the ballot, it doesn't mean all Democrats should bend over and take it up the ass.
And, as I've said many times, the ballot that was available to the public (as I understand it), was a paper booklet. It did not provide an opportunity to evalutate the real circumstances where the ballot book could nudge slightly to misalign the holes.
I submit that your reasoning for letting the votes stand are just plain one-sided and silly.
What a one-sided view! Thank you! Let me see if I can counter some of your points...
The ballot's pretty fucking obvious. The number "3" beside Gore's name makes it pretty fucking clear that you punch the third hole for Gore.
Or, you could say that since we read left-to-right, top-to-bottom, left-page-to-right-page in America, that the holes and numbers should've followed that ordering -- perhaps some people thought it so obvious that they didn't read into it further, as you have done into their mistakes.
Nobody protested the ballot design during the campaign, even though sample ballots were made widely-available.
The ballot samples were paper booklets, unlike the loosly mounted and bound ballots in the voting booths that allowed for play so that they could potentially be misaligned with the holes.
If you still can't figure out the ballot, the time to ask is before you punch the hole, not after
And some people did. Some asked for help and got the reply that the volunteers "just didn't know". Others realized their mistakes in the booths and asked for new ballots and were DENIED.
We have a secret ballot, and as such, you cannot second-guess it. For every Democrat willing to perjure him or herself on the stand and say "I punched the second hole even though Gore's arrow pointed to the third hole") there's a Republican equally willing to perjure by saying they "Oh yeah? Well I saw the big long underline below Bush's name pointing to the second hole, so I punched the second hole for Bush!"
I really like how you assume everyone would like and nobody could be telling the truth about this. I hope you never have such a day in court. Anyways, you're right, Republicans could claim a similar thing (with far few legitimate reasons, though) -- but then all the Republicans who have been calling the Democrats stupid for this would label themselves the same.
I loathe Buchanan deeply, but the bottom line is that you can't second-guess the electorate. If there are 3400 votes with the Buchanan-hole (heh-heh, I said "Buchanan-hole"!) punched, those are valid Buchanan votes, and they should stand.
Would you feel differently if you were on the other side? What if the ballots were from dead people? Are you suggesting that under no circumstances the ballots should be questioned?
What I'm seeing today - a bunch of Gore's lawyers looking to replace a bunch of unspoiled ballots validly marked for Buchanan because they believe those votes "should have been Gore's" - is terrifyingly close to a coup d'etat
Actally, a bunch of citizens first felt they had been wronged and filed suit -- and more will follow. That is probably a coup too, right? But, regarding Gore, if they feel they were wronged, then they have every right to seek resolution as they see fit. Is it the best thing for the country? Probably not. Is it the right thing? Well, that's subjective. Having the wrong president elected because of voting irregularities migth be bad to depending on your opinion (or perhaps party).
I urge the electors of Florida to consider casting their votes according to the results of the mandatory recount, and to ignore the implications of any legal decision to throw out validly-marked ballots for any candidate.
Or, perhaps, we should let the electors vote as they see fit? After all, depending on the state (anyone know about FL?), they can vote however the heck they want (they could elect Buchanan if they wanted to).
Let me sum up by saying that I'm playing devil's advocate. I don't like Bush or Gore -- they're both friggin' liars and both parites probably commited voting fraud in many counties of many states (too bad for them they cancelled each other out?).
One more point. How come in the recount, the counts are both going higher? Where were those votes the first time? How come no one is losing any votes?
How does she know it turned out to be "the Buchanan hole"?
How does she know it was wrong? Like mmany Slashdot commenters today, she had the benefit of the media, other people and hindsight to formulate her opinion that she had voted wrong.
The complain to the democrat who approved them
As for the "democrat" approving it, what does that matter? First of all, the ballot is illegal according to Florida state law (the marks MUST go to the right of candidate names). So, even though she approved it, it is still not a legal ballot.
Secondly just because a woman in charge of the elections in that county happened to be a democrat doesn't mean that the Democratic party accepted it. What if she had been a Republican? Would that then point to a conspiracy? Only as much as you credit her for representing the whole party.
Yes, the democratic campaign did get a sample ballot, as did the voters of the county. However, the sample they were given was a paper booklet that did not demostrate where the holes will be, or the fact that the book would have some play in it allowing for the holes to misalign.
So anyway, it was confusing, now what?
I don't think we can revote. Nader voters who voted purposely might switch their vote to Gore out of fearof electing Bush.
We can't assume every Buchanan vote was intended for Gore. We can't even look at the restof each ballot's party trend to assume they would also have voted for Gore. It's just not full-proof.
Could we just throw out the county's whole vote? That too would cause an uproar.
Do we throw out the whole indecisive state of Florida? Then neither candidate would be able to reach 270. You could leave at that in which case Congress would pick the winner. Or, you could recalculate the winner based on a (538-25=513) electoral votes total. Would that be fair? Then we'd piss off all of Florida.
Let's remember that irregularities happend in other counties and undoubtedly, other states. It's just that the people in Florida, the deciding state because of the way the cookie crumbled, realize that the irregularities NOW MATTER. In other states, states with landslides, another 1,000 votes for Gore wouldn't topple Dubya's 50,000 vote lead. But in Florida, it can, so people are taking action.
How would you feel if your miscounted vote got the guy you DIDN'T want into office?
You're missing that the book was misaligned, not the ballot. Like I said...
But if you consider that the holes could've been shifted (really, the book would've been what shifted, but for all intensive purposes...) you can see how it could be confusing.
The book is connected to the table, but the way it is hinged so that the pages expose a gap for the hole to show throw, the book itself could have shifted making the holes line up wrong.
I am truly disgusted at the number of posters who think these voters were purely stupid! My other comment explains my view of how the ballots oculd be confusing in more than one way.
Heck, I even included a picture that shows the effect that shifted holes would have.
Don't be so quick to judge. You're making fools of yourselves!
Last, I keep hearing stories of 'thousands' calling up the Gore campaign in tears saying the voted for the wrong person because of the ballot. How on Earth did you realise that at home, hours later, and not WHEN YOU VOTED? The whole thing sounds pretty suspicious.
How could they? Becuase, like you've found, hindsight is 20/20. The ballot could've easily been confusing (see my other comment). Don't be so quick to judge until you try to look at it from their perspective without your 20/20 hindsight glasses on.
Look, the first problem is not with the pages alone. Its how the pages lined up with the holes. Check out the mock image I threw together. The black dots are where holes might have been if there was play in the ballot book. The light grey dots is where they should've been (and where the one news photo I've seen shows them).
The stories from people just don't match that perfectly aligned news photo. But if you consider that the holes could've been shifted (really, the book would've been what shifted, but for all intensive purposes...) you can see how it could be confusing. One lady said she saw a dot RIGHT NEXT to the word Democratic, not the separating line above -- that turned out to be the Buchanan hole.
But there is another problem people have cited. If you go in there thinking only of two candidates, Bush and Gore, you look only for those two. In English, we read left->right, top->bottom, left_page->right_page. You could easily say "First one is Bush, so that's teh first hole... Second one is Gore so that must be the second hole!". Why read further? Why examine the right page at all when your candidate isn't over there? Remember, your hindsight is 20/20, so don't be so quick to label these people as "stupid" or you might be so yourself!
The fact is, the ballot was redsigned on to two pages so they could use bigger fonts to make it easier to read. That was a nice idea. But, they never evaluated what the other ramifications were.
Furthermore, the sample ballots sent out to the voters, etc. were paper books! There were no holes in there, no gap, etc. It was not what the ballot actually was. No one could've guessed.
What get's me is that this electionw ould be so easy to tamper with. With so many close states, a slight nudge either way could toggle the entire electoral vote for that state. And with Nader in the picture, he's an easy place to pull or push extra votes from in order to make the switch.
You say that such items do not need static addresses because you only do short Internet-related activities with them.
I submit that once you have a static IP and permanent connection, it enables yot o use that device in new ways. I know once I set my computer to stay connect 24x7 with a 56k modem, my work began to revolve around the Internet. Now with DSL, it is even more so.
It's one of those things you don't need unitl you have.
Look, Quantum Theory is a theory just like any theory except that it tends to explain a few things that more rudimentary theories cannot. It is not the ultimate reality, though. All of these theories are just casting our eyes further away from the shadow we perceive as reality and towards what is casting that shadow.
I did research for a paper on quantum computing a couple of years ago. There have been demonstrated uses of quantum effects in this field, as well as the dozens of other fields where quantum theory is applied.
In fact, they have been able to use NMR to glean the bulk spin of the composing atoms of a liquid and perform simple operations. In another angle of quantum computing, they've been able to use lasers to super-cool cesium atoms and manipulate their quantum states to the same effect.
All of this is pointing to the fact that quantum theory correctly predicted the ability of such quantum computing. It is enabling the theories from long ago, as well as newer ones, to finally be applied. It has the potential to disrupt (and even re-invent, but that's another story) encryption as we know it.
Furthermore, quantum entanglement is not a requirement for these processes.
You seem to believe that reality is what you see. You cannot see quantum states from our macroscopic world. Nor can you see relativity in action. Hundreds of years ago, people couldn't "see" gravity, either. And long before that, people couldn't even "see" air. Please, see the light. Quantum theory, like all theory, is a mathematical abstraction of how the world works. And each successive model is getting closer and closer to what can actually be experimentally observed.
Flat tax? What is a flat tax? Here's how I define them:
Flat Tax:
A flat tax is a constant dollar ammount that is calculated by the total needed money divided by the number of tax-paying citizens.
Flat Tax Rate:
A flat tax rate is a constant percentage rate where people pay that portion of their income.
Now, what would be the fair thing to do? Well, if you consider that taxes pay for roads, defense, etc., then everyone should pay the same flat tax as we all have equal access to those things.
However, if you consider that taxes pay for the upkeep of such things, then maybe you should pay according to how much you use them. A telecommuter should pay less for roads thana commuter. A rich person with a lot of property should pay more for protection and defense than someone in poverty.
Or, as it seems Nader sees it, a tax should be use to fund a country based on how the people benefit from the country.
So, I just don't know what is fair. I certainly don't think any of these above are entirely fair. What do you think?
As everyone has pointed out, Tomcat is only a reference implementation. But what about the server-side Hotspot VM? These are just now coming out and offer to improve performance beyond beleif for server-side java!
I think the system of higher taxes for the rich and less for the poor would work in a capitalistic society where the wealthy take advantage of those under them to become even more wealthy. Such a tax system wou become an equalizing factor.
However, ideally, you're right. Those who do not try hard should not benefit from those who do. You can get rich by working hard, and it shoudl stay that way.
Now, what kind of a society do we live in? An idealistic society where the poor don't try and the rich work hard? Or a society where the rich get rich by starting with their paarent's wealth and weezle their way to even more riches on the backs of the poor?
Preventative measures. I'm making my representative aware of this EU law now and voicing myc oncern should it ever come to America.
Unfortunately, our spineless government has a tendency of copying foreign laws in some respects in the spirit of "harmonizing laws". Just look at copyright terms and extensions.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone agrees (I think!) that humans have conscience thought. What about monkeys that can use sugn language and are sad when their babies are taken away? What about a dog? A bird? A slime mold?
Just recently, on NPR, I heard a story about possible intelligence in slime molds. It was debunked by an expert who convincingly claimed it was not. It seems we sometimes attribute internal thinking too much to external behavior.
The problem is that no one ever accounted for margin of error. A known margin of error could be determined for the mechanical system, as well as for a hand-tallied system. In either case, I'll bet that the margin of error completely swallows the tiny lead Dubya has over Gore.
So, the problem isn't with HOW votes are tallied, its with how much faith we put in those tallies. There is a margin of error in every system. Both candidates are arguing about variances that fall within that margin of error.
We need to account for error and decide what to do when the decision is within the error. Do we throw out the whole state? Use an alternative voting method? Have a 100 yard race?
Frankly, I doubt we will ever develop computers with the sophisticated power of even a mouse brain, although many may protest that we already have exceeded their gross power. I believe that things like perception and reasoning are beyond the scope of raw power.
Just to offer my viewpoint... The brain is slow, but massively parallel and interconnected in a vast array of various neural networks. Inherently, the brain is analog -- down to the quanta of electrons involved in the chemical reactions.
In order to simulate that in a computer that executes things very quickly, but serially, would require a HUGE AMOUNT of computing power. You'd have to be able to simulate time-slices as small as those significant in the brain.
However, if we were to take several slow processors, and network them together in parallel, we'd probbably get a lot closer for a lot less.
I don't believe consciencenous is anything special. Its just the superposition of hundreds or thousands of neural networks all owrking together. Heck, at one time, man-kind thought the motion of the planets and stars were just too complicated to ever figured out, so they were labeled as something mysterious and never to be known. We shouldn't make that same mistake with the brain and mind simple because it appears at present to be too complicated to figure out.
I think the lack of tools, row-level locking, transaction support, etc. in MySQL are a shame. Yet, people talk like its the best thing since sliced bread. This has lead me to discover two kinds of MySQL users:
As I understand it, we still have a problem. I'm lead to believe that each party has their own electors (chosen by the party so they'd presumably be in strong standing with the party). The party whose cadidates win the popular vote get to have their electors do the voting.
It even says on the Florida ballot something like "A vote for a president and vice president is a vote for their electors."
Thus, we're back to square one. The electors can't decide the vote until the vote decides whose electors will do the voting.
Perhaps I have it wrong?
Would a Buchanan voter really come out and say they wanted Gore instead of Bush when it appeared Bush would win? I could understand a Nader voter switching to Gore for that reason, or a Buchanan voter switching to Dubya if the edge was in favor of Gore. But that isn't what is happening. People would have to be switching from one extreme to the other side.
Or are you suggesting they're whining because they really did make a mistake -- but that they made the mistake simply because they're "stupid"?
The photo doesn't show much. The pages are metal-framed, so they coudl've been sexured quite well as opposed to as if they were just cardboard. But, that doesn't mean they were. I'm only suggesting it as a devil's advocate and no one has refuted or confirmed it yet.
In my own experience where I voted, our books are mounted such that the pages leave a gap between them such that a different column of holes is exposed for eahc page turn. The whole book was quite loose in addition to the actual pages.
What are you missing? Well, one thing were missing is a better photo of the real setup to show if play in the book was possible.
Regarding what we're missing regarding other mistaken votes is this. We know that Gore and Bush both have extremely high precentages in ANY county ANYWHERE. Let's say 48% each to give room for third parties. With that large portion of Gore voters compared to a smaller population of [whatever-third-party-candidate-was-below-Buchanan ], and the same liklihood to "screw up", more Gore voters, as a number, would screw up than Buchanan voters. If we say there are 1,000,000 voters in the county, 480,000 would've wanted to vote for Gore, and say, 4,800 for [other candidate]. Assuming a 10% screw-up rate, that 48,000 Gore votes that wentto Buchanan and 480 that went to [other candidate].
So, yes, voters for [other candidate] could've screwed up too, but a much smaller number than for Gore.
Let me remind you that voting is supposed to take the opinion of the people to decide something. Any electro-mechanical means inbetween should not have a bearing on the election.
To say that their vote is chiseled in stone because of mistakes caused by someting between their opinion in their mind and the final decision is downright mean.
I realize there are many implications of throwing or not throwing out votes, revoting, etc. Just keep in mind the big picture and the ultimate reason we vote.
Relative to each other, the holes (plastic hole guard and ballot behind it) could've shifted from the pages that were supposed to align with the holes.
And, as I've said many times, the ballot that was available to the public (as I understand it), was a paper booklet. It did not provide an opportunity to evalutate the real circumstances where the ballot book could nudge slightly to misalign the holes.
I submit that your reasoning for letting the votes stand are just plain one-sided and silly.
The ballot's pretty fucking obvious. The number "3" beside Gore's name makes it pretty fucking clear that you punch the third hole for Gore.
Or, you could say that since we read left-to-right, top-to-bottom, left-page-to-right-page in America, that the holes and numbers should've followed that ordering -- perhaps some people thought it so obvious that they didn't read into it further, as you have done into their mistakes.
Nobody protested the ballot design during the campaign, even though sample ballots were made widely-available.
The ballot samples were paper booklets, unlike the loosly mounted and bound ballots in the voting booths that allowed for play so that they could potentially be misaligned with the holes.
If you still can't figure out the ballot, the time to ask is before you punch the hole, not after
And some people did. Some asked for help and got the reply that the volunteers "just didn't know". Others realized their mistakes in the booths and asked for new ballots and were DENIED.
We have a secret ballot, and as such, you cannot second-guess it. For every Democrat willing to perjure him or herself on the stand and say "I punched the second hole even though Gore's arrow pointed to the third hole") there's a Republican equally willing to perjure by saying they "Oh yeah? Well I saw the big long underline below Bush's name pointing to the second hole, so I punched the second hole for Bush!"
I really like how you assume everyone would like and nobody could be telling the truth about this. I hope you never have such a day in court. Anyways, you're right, Republicans could claim a similar thing (with far few legitimate reasons, though) -- but then all the Republicans who have been calling the Democrats stupid for this would label themselves the same.
I loathe Buchanan deeply, but the bottom line is that you can't second-guess the electorate. If there are 3400 votes with the Buchanan-hole (heh-heh, I said "Buchanan-hole"!) punched, those are valid Buchanan votes, and they should stand.
Would you feel differently if you were on the other side? What if the ballots were from dead people? Are you suggesting that under no circumstances the ballots should be questioned?
What I'm seeing today - a bunch of Gore's lawyers looking to replace a bunch of unspoiled ballots validly marked for Buchanan because they believe those votes "should have been Gore's" - is terrifyingly close to a coup d'etat
Actally, a bunch of citizens first felt they had been wronged and filed suit -- and more will follow. That is probably a coup too, right? But, regarding Gore, if they feel they were wronged, then they have every right to seek resolution as they see fit. Is it the best thing for the country? Probably not. Is it the right thing? Well, that's subjective. Having the wrong president elected because of voting irregularities migth be bad to depending on your opinion (or perhaps party).
I urge the electors of Florida to consider casting their votes according to the results of the mandatory recount, and to ignore the implications of any legal decision to throw out validly-marked ballots for any candidate.
Or, perhaps, we should let the electors vote as they see fit? After all, depending on the state (anyone know about FL?), they can vote however the heck they want (they could elect Buchanan if they wanted to).
Let me sum up by saying that I'm playing devil's advocate. I don't like Bush or Gore -- they're both friggin' liars and both parites probably commited voting fraud in many counties of many states (too bad for them they cancelled each other out?).
One more point. How come in the recount, the counts are both going higher? Where were those votes the first time? How come no one is losing any votes?
How does she know it was wrong? Like mmany Slashdot commenters today, she had the benefit of the media, other people and hindsight to formulate her opinion that she had voted wrong.
The complain to the democrat who approved them
As for the "democrat" approving it, what does that matter? First of all, the ballot is illegal according to Florida state law (the marks MUST go to the right of candidate names). So, even though she approved it, it is still not a legal ballot.
Secondly just because a woman in charge of the elections in that county happened to be a democrat doesn't mean that the Democratic party accepted it. What if she had been a Republican? Would that then point to a conspiracy? Only as much as you credit her for representing the whole party.
Yes, the democratic campaign did get a sample ballot, as did the voters of the county. However, the sample they were given was a paper booklet that did not demostrate where the holes will be, or the fact that the book would have some play in it allowing for the holes to misalign.
So anyway, it was confusing, now what?
I don't think we can revote. Nader voters who voted purposely might switch their vote to Gore out of fearof electing Bush.
We can't assume every Buchanan vote was intended for Gore. We can't even look at the restof each ballot's party trend to assume they would also have voted for Gore. It's just not full-proof.
Could we just throw out the county's whole vote? That too would cause an uproar.
Do we throw out the whole indecisive state of Florida? Then neither candidate would be able to reach 270. You could leave at that in which case Congress would pick the winner. Or, you could recalculate the winner based on a (538-25=513) electoral votes total. Would that be fair? Then we'd piss off all of Florida.
Let's remember that irregularities happend in other counties and undoubtedly, other states. It's just that the people in Florida, the deciding state because of the way the cookie crumbled, realize that the irregularities NOW MATTER. In other states, states with landslides, another 1,000 votes for Gore wouldn't topple Dubya's 50,000 vote lead. But in Florida, it can, so people are taking action.
How would you feel if your miscounted vote got the guy you DIDN'T want into office?
But if you consider that the holes could've been shifted (really, the book would've been what shifted, but for all intensive purposes...) you can see how it could be confusing.
The book is connected to the table, but the way it is hinged so that the pages expose a gap for the hole to show throw, the book itself could have shifted making the holes line up wrong.
Heck, I even included a picture that shows the effect that shifted holes would have.
Don't be so quick to judge. You're making fools of yourselves!
How could they? Becuase, like you've found, hindsight is 20/20. The ballot could've easily been confusing (see my other comment). Don't be so quick to judge until you try to look at it from their perspective without your 20/20 hindsight glasses on.
And I say to you that the ballot *was* confusing. Check out my other comment.
Look, the first problem is not with the pages alone. Its how the pages lined up with the holes. Check out the mock image I threw together. The black dots are where holes might have been if there was play in the ballot book. The light grey dots is where they should've been (and where the one news photo I've seen shows them).
The stories from people just don't match that perfectly aligned news photo. But if you consider that the holes could've been shifted (really, the book would've been what shifted, but for all intensive purposes...) you can see how it could be confusing. One lady said she saw a dot RIGHT NEXT to the word Democratic, not the separating line above -- that turned out to be the Buchanan hole.
But there is another problem people have cited. If you go in there thinking only of two candidates, Bush and Gore, you look only for those two. In English, we read left->right, top->bottom, left_page->right_page. You could easily say "First one is Bush, so that's teh first hole... Second one is Gore so that must be the second hole!". Why read further? Why examine the right page at all when your candidate isn't over there? Remember, your hindsight is 20/20, so don't be so quick to label these people as "stupid" or you might be so yourself!
The fact is, the ballot was redsigned on to two pages so they could use bigger fonts to make it easier to read. That was a nice idea. But, they never evaluated what the other ramifications were.
Furthermore, the sample ballots sent out to the voters, etc. were paper books! There were no holes in there, no gap, etc. It was not what the ballot actually was. No one could've guessed.
I'm not sure what you intended by this, but to be sure, the Electorals of all states cast their votes on December 18th this year.
Now, does anyone know if they can vote out of faith with their state's popular vote?
Am I too suspicious?
I submit that once you have a static IP and permanent connection, it enables yot o use that device in new ways. I know once I set my computer to stay connect 24x7 with a 56k modem, my work began to revolve around the Internet. Now with DSL, it is even more so.
It's one of those things you don't need unitl you have.
Look, Quantum Theory is a theory just like any theory except that it tends to explain a few things that more rudimentary theories cannot. It is not the ultimate reality, though. All of these theories are just casting our eyes further away from the shadow we perceive as reality and towards what is casting that shadow.
I did research for a paper on quantum computing a couple of years ago. There have been demonstrated uses of quantum effects in this field, as well as the dozens of other fields where quantum theory is applied.
In fact, they have been able to use NMR to glean the bulk spin of the composing atoms of a liquid and perform simple operations. In another angle of quantum computing, they've been able to use lasers to super-cool cesium atoms and manipulate their quantum states to the same effect.
All of this is pointing to the fact that quantum theory correctly predicted the ability of such quantum computing. It is enabling the theories from long ago, as well as newer ones, to finally be applied. It has the potential to disrupt (and even re-invent, but that's another story) encryption as we know it.
Furthermore, quantum entanglement is not a requirement for these processes.
You seem to believe that reality is what you see. You cannot see quantum states from our macroscopic world. Nor can you see relativity in action. Hundreds of years ago, people couldn't "see" gravity, either. And long before that, people couldn't even "see" air. Please, see the light. Quantum theory, like all theory, is a mathematical abstraction of how the world works. And each successive model is getting closer and closer to what can actually be experimentally observed.
Flat Tax:
A flat tax is a constant dollar ammount that is calculated by the total needed money divided by the number of tax-paying citizens.
Flat Tax Rate:
A flat tax rate is a constant percentage rate where people pay that portion of their income.
Now, what would be the fair thing to do? Well, if you consider that taxes pay for roads, defense, etc., then everyone should pay the same flat tax as we all have equal access to those things.
However, if you consider that taxes pay for the upkeep of such things, then maybe you should pay according to how much you use them. A telecommuter should pay less for roads thana commuter. A rich person with a lot of property should pay more for protection and defense than someone in poverty.
Or, as it seems Nader sees it, a tax should be use to fund a country based on how the people benefit from the country.
So, I just don't know what is fair. I certainly don't think any of these above are entirely fair. What do you think?
As everyone has pointed out, Tomcat is only a reference implementation. But what about the server-side Hotspot VM? These are just now coming out and offer to improve performance beyond beleif for server-side java!
However, ideally, you're right. Those who do not try hard should not benefit from those who do. You can get rich by working hard, and it shoudl stay that way.
Now, what kind of a society do we live in? An idealistic society where the poor don't try and the rich work hard? Or a society where the rich get rich by starting with their paarent's wealth and weezle their way to even more riches on the backs of the poor?
(personally, I think we're somewhere inbetween)
Unfortunately, our spineless government has a tendency of copying foreign laws in some respects in the spirit of "harmonizing laws". Just look at copyright terms and extensions.