When you vote via computer, you're voting via proxy.
Would America allow the following idea: "You walk into a polling station. You tell a person there everybody you want to vote for. That person disappears into a back room, comes back a minute later, and assures you your votes have been cast as you directed."
If the answer is 'no,' then you also must be against computer voting, because it's exactly the same. You are directing a system to cast a vote, then trusting it to do so.
Paper ballots and proper election scrutineering. It's the only way to go.
There have been multiple places where the total paper ballots cast exceeded the number of eligible voters. Paper changes the fraud, but does *nothing* to stop it.
Think of 'rights' and 'freedoms' being a continuum. You want to be somewhere in that continuum.
If you live in a society of absolute freedom, you no longer have, for example, the 'right to be secure in one's person.' Somebody else in your society is at absolute freedom to assault or kill you.
If, on the other hand, you live in a society of 'absolute rights,' you are not allowed to do anything that society hasn't expressly allowed.
So you want to be somewhere in the middle. If you want 'privacy,' then somebody else's freedom to gather information about you has been curtailed. If you want 'absolute liberty,' then there can be no privacy, as somebody is at 'absolute liberty' to get information about you, by any means they care to use.
Put another way: Your rights are, by definition, a curtailment of *somebody's* freedom to act against that right.
I wonder though, if they really needed it to do that sort of thing, wouldn't they go with something like the titan or quadro or whatever is the one that's aimed at that sort of work, and not at gaming?
I agree completely with everything you said. I simply object to referring to it as a 'first amendment issue.'
It is, in fact, an employment discrimination issue. What that discrimination is, is irrelevant. 'Statement affirming optimal body fat percentage' would be no different. 'Statement affirming purity of blood' would be no different. 'Statement affirming hair is naturally red' would be no different.
The first amendment prevents Congress from doing various things. Says nothing about state legislatures.
(Fun arugment: If anybody claims America is founded on 'christan values,' ask them why the first amendment is the exact opposite of the first commandment.)
I don't know why the State got involved in funding the park in the first place (it is a pretty obvious potential conflict with their first amendment duties, but then again, this is Kentucky),
Which duties are those? I agree that the State shouldn't have touched this with a ten foot pole, but I fail to see what the first amendment has to do with it.
If so, then shhhhh, don't tell anybody who cares to that for the investment of several throw-away Wi-Fi routers, and several cheap digital timer-enabled powerbars, they can utterly fuck up any airport they choose to, for potentially years to come, with a few hours work of plugging the aforementioned bits in out-of-the-way places.
No, no, I meant that the person of faith claiming that any evidence that supports your view, and disputes theirs, must be false evidence planted by some sort of adversary, isn't 'reason.'
It's the same 'logic' where one points to 2nd Timothy, 3:16, as definitive proof that there are, in fact, no contradictions in the Bible.
Dammit, I want my 80s cyberpunk sit at the table, order from computer (bonus points for miniature holographic waiter who appears in middle of table), and food is delivered out of hidden conveyor system experience!
Out of curiosity, other than trappings (laser rifle versus wand of lightning, say,) how would you differentiate 'Science Fiction' from 'Fantasy Fiction?'
Are they under some sort of obligation? You seem to think that there's something odd about this. From the original story, it sounds like these guys work on this software as part of their (paid) jobs. Are you willing to pay them to continue to work on it? If so, they may very well choose to.
Slashdot Mirror
When you vote via computer, you're voting via proxy.
Would America allow the following idea:
"You walk into a polling station. You tell a person there everybody you want to vote for. That person disappears into a back room, comes back a minute later, and assures you your votes have been cast as you directed."
If the answer is 'no,' then you also must be against computer voting, because it's exactly the same. You are directing a system to cast a vote, then trusting it to do so.
Paper ballots and proper election scrutineering. It's the only way to go.
Then they're simply not doing it correctly.
The Linux kernel itself violates 1,2,4 and probably 6 of your arguments. If it was designed according to those tenants, it would be a microkernel.
Sorry, no.
Think of 'rights' and 'freedoms' being a continuum. You want to be somewhere in that continuum.
If you live in a society of absolute freedom, you no longer have, for example, the 'right to be secure in one's person.' Somebody else in your society is at absolute freedom to assault or kill you.
If, on the other hand, you live in a society of 'absolute rights,' you are not allowed to do anything that society hasn't expressly allowed.
So you want to be somewhere in the middle. If you want 'privacy,' then somebody else's freedom to gather information about you has been curtailed. If you want 'absolute liberty,' then there can be no privacy, as somebody is at 'absolute liberty' to get information about you, by any means they care to use.
Put another way: Your rights are, by definition, a curtailment of *somebody's* freedom to act against that right.
I wonder though, if they really needed it to do that sort of thing, wouldn't they go with something like the titan or quadro or whatever is the one that's aimed at that sort of work, and not at gaming?
I agree completely with everything you said. I simply object to referring to it as a 'first amendment issue.'
It is, in fact, an employment discrimination issue. What that discrimination is, is irrelevant. 'Statement affirming optimal body fat percentage' would be no different. 'Statement affirming purity of blood' would be no different. 'Statement affirming hair is naturally red' would be no different.
The first amendment prevents Congress from doing various things. Says nothing about state legislatures. (Fun arugment: If anybody claims America is founded on 'christan values,' ask them why the first amendment is the exact opposite of the first commandment.)
Which duties are those? I agree that the State shouldn't have touched this with a ten foot pole, but I fail to see what the first amendment has to do with it.
And the first few chapters should detail how to build and operate a printing press.
If so, then shhhhh, don't tell anybody who cares to that for the investment of several throw-away Wi-Fi routers, and several cheap digital timer-enabled powerbars, they can utterly fuck up any airport they choose to, for potentially years to come, with a few hours work of plugging the aforementioned bits in out-of-the-way places.
Flight Delayed when excited man greeted his friend, Jack Plainsman, at the gate.
No, no, I meant that the person of faith claiming that any evidence that supports your view, and disputes theirs, must be false evidence planted by some sort of adversary, isn't 'reason.'
It's the same 'logic' where one points to 2nd Timothy, 3:16, as definitive proof that there are, in fact, no contradictions in the Bible.
No, you can't, because it's not reason.
These are the same people who think that Christianity is pro-family.
So what you're saying is that information has no value.
Also, I'm fairly sure that something like that would be laughed out of existence by the Human Rights Tribunal.
Dammit, I want my 80s cyberpunk sit at the table, order from computer (bonus points for miniature holographic waiter who appears in middle of table), and food is delivered out of hidden conveyor system experience!
I've wanted a modern version of Omega for quite while now.
Out of curiosity, other than trappings (laser rifle versus wand of lightning, say,) how would you differentiate 'Science Fiction' from 'Fantasy Fiction?'
Compare and contrast the First Commandment with the First Amendment.
Yes, lets. And then, lets send them back to base, and go back on with our lives once the direct threat is averted.
Canada knows how to deal with terrorists and move on with life.
Canada doesn't take shit.
Are they under some sort of obligation? You seem to think that there's something odd about this. From the original story, it sounds like these guys work on this software as part of their (paid) jobs. Are you willing to pay them to continue to work on it? If so, they may very well choose to.
Or perhaps, having retired, they'd like to pursue other interests, hobbies, goals and ideas.
Apparently this is a real thing.
South America too, for that matter.