(...) tried several different approaches to try to tamper with the software installed on the machines, and even to physically interfere in other stages of the process.
I read the link, but there are a few things which aren't clear to me yet:
1. How many boxes are there to count? 2. Do you have representatives from all parties at every box when it gets counted?
Depending on the answer, I'd think that system to be quite expensive.
Then, regarding some of the arguments presented there:
For the results to be seriously tampered in one table, it would be necessary to have all "vocales" and the president in agreement. That implies:
1. President, "vocales" and the administration representative to be from the same party.
2. All four to have little honor
3. All four to be bold enough to go against the law.
Considering that three of them are chosen by chance and don't know each other, what is the probability that these three conditions would happen?
Maybe Spanish people are extremely law abiding, but I don't see the unlikeliness of that happening if the current government tried to perpetuate itself. Basically it would need only to tamper the selection mechanism to put "loyal" people at the tables. For the Brazilian government to tamper with the election system, they'd have to choose another system. At least that's what I get from the article.
In any case, this could just be a "silver bullet" case. The Spanish system may work for the Spanish people, but would hardly work for Brazil where fraud is lurking in every corner. And the Brazilian system may work for Brazil, but might not provide any clear advantage to Spain.
Every now and then, there's a news flash about a dad hitting his wives and children after getting drunk.
Personally, I believe that alcohol just kills inhibition. If you already had aggressive ideas before getting drunk, you're likely to put them to action when drunk. If, in the other hand, you had happy thoughts, you're likely to make a fool of yourself.
Because they don't want you to think something like "if the government allows it to be sold in my grocery, it must be harmless". After that, if you want to create your own home poison, it's your loss^H^H^H^Hchoice.
Ditto. In my idiotic mind, I can't follow an argument that says "X shouldn't be illegal because Y isn't". I'd rather go for adding more restrictions to Y. Maybe some nice shocking messages like those in cigarette packs.
For our "luck", the tobacco companies went the way of "it's harmless" instead of "alcohol is worse". A few decades and researches later, when they were proven wrong and that they knew it all along, we have Canadian provinces suing them to recover the money spent treating lung cancer victims.
Unfortunately, drugs haven't become the main source of revenue of any legal big company (except for prescription drugs, but that's another topic, wouldn't you say?), so there will be no such prosecution coming for them in the near future.
I seriously hope that GP won't turn that around and say "that's my point! If they were legal, we could sue!"
People fall over each other trying to get that 'Insightful' mod, hence nearly every smart phone thread gets a modded up "I just want a phone that makes calls!" comment.
So that's how they do it! Dammit, I gotta stop wasting my time trying to not humiliate, to make sense and/or be a little funny...
Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?
Not really, no... I did not click on links that clearly showed a sequence of alphabetical words trying to get hits on search engines. But I don't remember ever finding a hit on Google that could answer my question and not clicking it.
Seriously, though. Randomness is just an imperfect, yet good enough concept caused by the impossibility of having enough computational power within this Universe to compute its next state given all its variables.
It's only as good as a probabilistic answer is good to you, and only if you trust the behavior of a certain system to hold on to the Law of Large Numbers, which you already can't take for a fact, given the already mentioned Halting Problem.
Starting with the premises above, to me "free will" is randomness, as in a person's decision cannot be anticipated with 100% certainty with anything within this Universe.
1. Exploiting the security hole with a Rick Roll is precisely the nice way the nice hacker used to tell you to lock your back door and avoid a real threat. 2. Sophos did not claim the worm not to be harmless. It says that the exploit is not harmless. From TFA:
Presently it appears that the worm does nothing more malicious than spread and change the infected user's lock screen wallpaper. However, that doesn't mean that attacks like this can be considered harmless.
The problem is the Democrats are too big a bunch of wusses to actually do what needs to be done with the country's healthcare system. They're scared of not being seen to appeal to the whole country, they're scared of the big bad "Socialism" word.
Grampa always told me: the enemy of "good" is "best".
Let's try to see it from an optimistic perspective where the people proposing changes actually hope for a better life to everyone.
There's a reason for being scared of big bad words like "Socialism": people get scared at such words. With people scared, there's no support. With no support, there's no change. So you have two options:
Aim for the optimal change and lose much needed support, ending with no change, or
Aim for a compromise between the best change possible with the minimum support needed.
Trust me, if the Public Option were a "first step" towards something the Democrats really want, the Democrats wouldn't need to bother. They don't want what you want.
Interesting assumption, but not very constructive, except for seeing your own preferred party in power and/or keeping a status quo that is comfortable only to you. Why should I trust you when you say stuff like that? No thanks.
I'm sorry to break it down to you, Mr. iamhassi, but Lt. Cook is not after the money. He's after punishing people that go over the speed limit. The $194 is part of the punishment first, then a potential source of revenue. If it costs $15,000 instead "for traffic safety", it's a very unfortunate collateral damage to the tax payers' money, but a potential gain on saving priceless lives.
Too bad the kid's family isn't paying all that, but I guess we can rejoice that if anyone lose a case on a ticket he honestly thought incorrect he's still just paying for the ticket.
I wish him good luck in trying to convince people with arguable morality to just look away from the cheaper solution.
Now, when he decides to target the rest of the people, it could be more profitable to change the message from:
"It's illegal to make any copy or to broadcast this media on your own."
into
"It's ok to record and repeat it to yourself, family and friends for no profit. If you plan to broadcast it to a larger audience, contact our Customer Service for ideas on how everyone can profit from that. We understand that we can't keep growing our profit by strangling our customers. With a little compromise, everyone will be happy."
My suggestions for the aforementioned ideas:
- If the broadcast will take place on a commerce, we only ask for a feeble 1% from the sales during the broadcast. - If the broadcast will take place on a public area, tell us where and we'll bring the catering, to which the profit will be entirely to us or shared with the government responsible for the area. - If you plan to distribute the media online, allow us to insert some ad service.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to see the day where people will say "bing it" instead of "google it".
And what about those who view a life long debt and slavery as insufficient to make up for persistance on a piece of paper?
Considering today's preferences for the other kind, I might call those short sighted : )
-1 Troll?
(...) tried several different approaches to try to tamper with the software installed on the machines, and even to physically interfere in other stages of the process.
You just couldn't resist sneaking a car analogy in there, could you ; )
I read the link, but there are a few things which aren't clear to me yet:
1. How many boxes are there to count?
2. Do you have representatives from all parties at every box when it gets counted?
Depending on the answer, I'd think that system to be quite expensive.
Then, regarding some of the arguments presented there:
For the results to be seriously tampered in one table, it would be necessary to have all "vocales" and the president in agreement. That implies:
1. President, "vocales" and the administration representative to be from the same party.
2. All four to have little honor
3. All four to be bold enough to go against the law.
Considering that three of them are chosen by chance and don't know each other, what is the probability that these three conditions would happen?
Maybe Spanish people are extremely law abiding, but I don't see the unlikeliness of that happening if the current government tried to perpetuate itself. Basically it would need only to tamper the selection mechanism to put "loyal" people at the tables. For the Brazilian government to tamper with the election system, they'd have to choose another system. At least that's what I get from the article.
In any case, this could just be a "silver bullet" case. The Spanish system may work for the Spanish people, but would hardly work for Brazil where fraud is lurking in every corner. And the Brazilian system may work for Brazil, but might not provide any clear advantage to Spain.
dad hitting his wives
Not necessarily in Middle East, but a honest typo : )
Second result from googling "aggressive drunk".
Every now and then, there's a news flash about a dad hitting his wives and children after getting drunk.
Personally, I believe that alcohol just kills inhibition. If you already had aggressive ideas before getting drunk, you're likely to put them to action when drunk. If, in the other hand, you had happy thoughts, you're likely to make a fool of yourself.
Because they don't want you to think something like "if the government allows it to be sold in my grocery, it must be harmless". After that, if you want to create your own home poison, it's your loss^H^H^H^Hchoice.
Darn! I thought it was "pot"!
Ditto. In my idiotic mind, I can't follow an argument that says "X shouldn't be illegal because Y isn't". I'd rather go for adding more restrictions to Y. Maybe some nice shocking messages like those in cigarette packs.
For our "luck", the tobacco companies went the way of "it's harmless" instead of "alcohol is worse". A few decades and researches later, when they were proven wrong and that they knew it all along, we have Canadian provinces suing them to recover the money spent treating lung cancer victims.
Unfortunately, drugs haven't become the main source of revenue of any legal big company (except for prescription drugs, but that's another topic, wouldn't you say?), so there will be no such prosecution coming for them in the near future.
I seriously hope that GP won't turn that around and say "that's my point! If they were legal, we could sue!"
You probably spent them on Noundi : )
(warning nudity)
Thanks for the warning : ) I'm always happy to see people open to suggestions.
People fall over each other trying to get that 'Insightful' mod, hence nearly every smart phone thread gets a modded up "I just want a phone that makes calls!" comment.
So that's how they do it! Dammit, I gotta stop wasting my time trying to not humiliate, to make sense and/or be a little funny...
Hey, congratulations! You got your Insightful mod! Too bad you posted anonymously...
Can he go to jail now? It would be great to have one less scammer at large.
In fact, it would find your browser to be the safest on Earth. I sure would ditch my Firefox to use it in a blink!
You're next! I'll get all you slimy coward names! MWAHAHA!
By the way, have you noticed how everything seems to fall on a Cook County Circuit judge lately?
Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?
Not really, no... I did not click on links that clearly showed a sequence of alphabetical words trying to get hits on search engines. But I don't remember ever finding a hit on Google that could answer my question and not clicking it.
It's as good as "God"...
Seriously, though. Randomness is just an imperfect, yet good enough concept caused by the impossibility of having enough computational power within this Universe to compute its next state given all its variables.
It's only as good as a probabilistic answer is good to you, and only if you trust the behavior of a certain system to hold on to the Law of Large Numbers, which you already can't take for a fact, given the already mentioned Halting Problem.
Starting with the premises above, to me "free will" is randomness, as in a person's decision cannot be anticipated with 100% certainty with anything within this Universe.
Two things to clarify:
1. Exploiting the security hole with a Rick Roll is precisely the nice way the nice hacker used to tell you to lock your back door and avoid a real threat.
2. Sophos did not claim the worm not to be harmless. It says that the exploit is not harmless. From TFA:
Presently it appears that the worm does nothing more malicious than spread and change the infected user's lock screen wallpaper. However, that doesn't mean that attacks like this can be considered harmless.
The problem is the Democrats are too big a bunch of wusses to actually do what needs to be done with the country's healthcare system. They're scared of not being seen to appeal to the whole country, they're scared of the big bad "Socialism" word.
Grampa always told me: the enemy of "good" is "best".
Let's try to see it from an optimistic perspective where the people proposing changes actually hope for a better life to everyone.
There's a reason for being scared of big bad words like "Socialism": people get scared at such words. With people scared, there's no support. With no support, there's no change. So you have two options:
Trust me, if the Public Option were a "first step" towards something the Democrats really want, the Democrats wouldn't need to bother. They don't want what you want.
Interesting assumption, but not very constructive, except for seeing your own preferred party in power and/or keeping a status quo that is comfortable only to you. Why should I trust you when you say stuff like that? No thanks.
Well, it's good to know that we'll reach the technology to escape tractor beams before going for the warp drive : )
I'm sorry to break it down to you, Mr. iamhassi, but Lt. Cook is not after the money. He's after punishing people that go over the speed limit. The $194 is part of the punishment first, then a potential source of revenue. If it costs $15,000 instead "for traffic safety", it's a very unfortunate collateral damage to the tax payers' money, but a potential gain on saving priceless lives.
Too bad the kid's family isn't paying all that, but I guess we can rejoice that if anyone lose a case on a ticket he honestly thought incorrect he's still just paying for the ticket.
I wish him good luck in trying to convince people with arguable morality to just look away from the cheaper solution.
Now, when he decides to target the rest of the people, it could be more profitable to change the message from:
"It's illegal to make any copy or to broadcast this media on your own."
into
"It's ok to record and repeat it to yourself, family and friends for no profit. If you plan to broadcast it to a larger audience, contact our Customer Service for ideas on how everyone can profit from that. We understand that we can't keep growing our profit by strangling our customers. With a little compromise, everyone will be happy."
My suggestions for the aforementioned ideas:
- If the broadcast will take place on a commerce, we only ask for a feeble 1% from the sales during the broadcast.
- If the broadcast will take place on a public area, tell us where and we'll bring the catering, to which the profit will be entirely to us or shared with the government responsible for the area.
- If you plan to distribute the media online, allow us to insert some ad service.
What about sharin' a lot of songs with the entire unknown world?