It wasn't the paper ballots that threw the election you're talking about, it was the supreme court ruling that the paper ballots would not be counted. Mind you, the paper ballots, as they were being counted, were responsible for the shift toward Gore that was the ACTUAL votes of the people that were not reflected appropriately.
If your memory doesn't serve you well, the recount persisted for quite a while and the favor continued to trend that paper ballots actually showed Gore as a winner --- and when the difference was reduced to around 500, the state voting commissioner (who led Bush Jr's campaign in Florida in a blatant conflict of interest... can't recall her name, but she should be shoved off a bridge) halted the count and called upon the supreme court (staffed by Bush Sr. appointees) to decide who won the election.
You tell me where the paper ballot did wrong in that election, and I'll tell you that corruption did wrong and the paper was honest. (Let's rule out those that were too stupid to know which hole they punched and felt deceived later)
Actually, my patent on square boxes has been interpreted by my new lawyer to include boxes with "square" (90 degree) corners. It now includes rectangular boxes, and yours is obsolete.
Don't take this speech lightly. T was given at the CFR, the think tank that is funded by conservative wealth and includes Bush Sr and ole Rumsfeld at the top.
The CFR wrote a plan to invade Iraq in 1998 and pushed it through lobbies.
Iran is a country whose policy, for whatever reason, has induced an embargo by the US. Iran is a country, not a terrorist organization. Please learn enough about what you're talking about, and in the meantime please quit suggesting that Iranians are terrorists.
On the subject at hand, it's clear the clerk was trying to obey the law. This was not prejudice, rather it was a case of "cover your ass". Some commentors have suggested that there are legal loopholes to the law, as some proof that he should have sold it, as if 1) the clerk is aware of the loopholes or is a lawyer, and 2) that a federal prosecutor would let the loophole slide.... no. When in doubt, play it safe.
The best part of the untold truth is that any intelligent adult can pull off acts of terror that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people...... without going near an airport.
Please don't make me brainstorm for all you mindless people wondering what I mean. Big groups of people can be found all over the place.... you can imagine how right I am, or not.
The truth is, the sheer benevolence of our humanity is why most of us are alive. Most people wouldn't kill others if not in defense, and so we are alive. It doesn't take a genius to see what *could* happen, but *doesn't* happen. We are lucky to be so well protected by our nature. The police, TSA, your dad, or your God will have little impact on your safety.
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm glad the police don't have the right to breathalyze everyone all the time; that they must supect intoxication from the overt before subjecting people to tests.
By the way, I think the legal limit for drink driving should be so strict that one pint would breach. That's public safety.
Fortunately, the police don't screen everyone in public. Rather they observe the bad behavior, inquire, then arrest/test as necessary. And now that point should be clearly irrelevant compared to employee drug screens.
If none of your employees right now are using drugs, you can put the "stupid" sticker right on your forehead right next to your negative drug tests. Some actually are.
If none of your friends or family use drugs... guess what... you are, again, too confident in what you don't know. You lack the oversight to actually know. Some of them actually do.
Did you think your litle fantasy of work and life would escape the reality of drugs? It won't. Reality is real, with or without your acknowledgement or permission.
Fire the stoned guy because you noticed. Fire the forklift driver for being reckless.
The best way is to decide if they are worth what you're paying or not, and then decide based on that.
No need to meddle in private lives.
What if the hypothetical drunk you wanted to fire, instead of the mildly slow person, was an alcoholic due to bad parents and genetic propensity? Are you now judging one natural outcome against another while lacking the informed compassion to understand that the drunk never had a choice?
Better yet, avoid being judged as an ignorant or incompassionate employer with one simple foundation: judge the employee as worth/not-worth their pay and leave their life alone.
As an employer that is realistic and wants good efficiency, you have no business trying to find out if employee x is on drugs unless the intox is blatant and/or dangerous.
Measure your employees by their ability to produce desired output; leave alone their human private lives and personal choices.
'Screening' employees for drugs only makes liars out of the honest people you hire. Drug tests should follow a workplace accident where intox is suspected. Otherwise you should fire them for honest reasons, like low productivity or focus or whatever real issue you observe.
Someone should tell all the peaople waiting for others to save them that they should quit wating and put the politicians supporting this crap in the street, eviscerated, en route to a morgue. Or keep waiting around for the Americans. To save the day (we won't for we have the ssame apathy and complicit losers pretending to care). Watch our 99% use facebook after the IO and wonder why they are censored.... lol. Feeding the lions while complaining about lions.
I thought about making a Slashdot thread suggestion... but then I realized I don't care to come up with some savvy abstract and just sent you the link right here.... haha.
... the one about a month ago where someone stole lots of bitcoins or spoofed or whatever...
Yeh... sure... mod me vague, or offtopic for bringing it up, but if you know what link I'm too lazy andon-a-phone to dig up, you're probably right with me on the disbelief of bitcoin as a smart idea.
The gist of the article, IIRC, was that an exploit to the system existed that produced undeserved wealth for one guy and everyone else got devalued....
I reprogram cells to become other cell types. Its a lot of fun.
The telomere issue is underway since 2 years ago. I'd love to live forever, but imagine a world where the new cannot own the world.... where the old persist and never let go of their influence. For example, today's politics largely votes the interests of 50-60 year olds. 30 years ago, the same people voted, but the politics followed their parents who were 50-60 at the time. Since people still die, I expect in 20-30 years for cannabis to be legal (something our generation at 30 already fully wants), for medicine to be socialized, and for green energy to be not a priority, but an expectation. But what if people don't die? When will the new gen get to own it? What happenes to generations and the balance that is established through expected life cycles..... some would argue we *need* to die to keep things balanced.
The basis for speciation is quite complex, still theoretical, and always under debate.
What we are talking about is percentages of variance in the ribosomal subunit called "16S" rRNA sequence. In eukaryotes its 18S.
I'm on. Phone typing this, so I just realized how annoying it will be to spell out the scientific history.... so I will just be frank.
The truth is that species in all cases are a man made idea. The genetic variance among organisms on earth is large, even among same 'species', especially considering new findings in epigenetics. Some call the capacity to reproduce "same species", though bacteria don't reproduce sexually... strangely, some have sex-like interactions and share genetic materials.
The history in microbial species being so widely included was probably from the phenotypic analysis whereby people may have derived larger genetic variance among microbes that looked, acted, lived, etc the same as each other.
What has been clearly shown in science, but has not become the mainstay, yet, is that every organism is quite unique and that there are far more differences we can now see despite the traditiona elements showing "sameness".
Regarding humans, once DNA and genetics were somewhat understood, it was hypothesized that at leasr a million different genes should exist to give us the dynamic expression complexity to make human life. But when the genes were identified, it was more like 30k.... how can that be? But the "million" gene idea was derived from a callous assumption not recognizing the capacity of a single gene to have variable impact at different levels of expression..... and we now know this to be absolutely true.... the "epigenetics" or "above/beyond the genes" controls in the cells are very much involved in the control of each expressed gene.... microRNA, RNAi, CpG methylation, acetyl/methyl transferase activity, etc.... they all can modify how much of a gene is expressed.... this means that 20k genes, each having their own variability, and then variable interactions with other genes, can give rise to thecomplexity of the human.
We still know less than we know.
Each human has its own custom stock of bacteria living in their gut. They are different enough to actually provide microbial fingerprints for forensic scientists.... we can't literally set the threshold so low that your E.coli are called something diff than mine.... yet yours are more different from mine than you are from an ape.... probaly...
Slashdot Mirror
Are you seriously arguing that posting a wanted poster that includes the home address of two dissidents is funny?
it also amounts to a form of blacklisting, which is illegal.
If the police were honest, they would have nothing to hide! (Turning tables with tongue firmly in cheek)
It wasn't the paper ballots that threw the election you're talking about, it was the supreme court ruling that the paper ballots would not be counted. Mind you, the paper ballots, as they were being counted, were responsible for the shift toward Gore that was the ACTUAL votes of the people that were not reflected appropriately.
If your memory doesn't serve you well, the recount persisted for quite a while and the favor continued to trend that paper ballots actually showed Gore as a winner --- and when the difference was reduced to around 500, the state voting commissioner (who led Bush Jr's campaign in Florida in a blatant conflict of interest... can't recall her name, but she should be shoved off a bridge) halted the count and called upon the supreme court (staffed by Bush Sr. appointees) to decide who won the election.
You tell me where the paper ballot did wrong in that election, and I'll tell you that corruption did wrong and the paper was honest. (Let's rule out those that were too stupid to know which hole they punched and felt deceived later)
The clouds are just like Android.... not quite ready for a quality showtime....
Written from an epic4g running android 2.3.... an OS that no dev from the 90s would put over a 0.92 beta.
Its a secret by the "do no evil" corporation.... not unlike the secrets that the Catholic church keeps despite its "Christian" (christ-like) basis.
Aka: big wealthy organizations are imperfect and are quite often caught being involved in dirty deeds.
(Reply killer: I understand child molesting is far worse than undesired tracking.)
Actually, my patent on square boxes has been interpreted by my new lawyer to include boxes with "square" (90 degree) corners. It now includes rectangular boxes, and yours is obsolete.
Thank god for lawyers!
Don't take this speech lightly. T was given at the CFR, the think tank that is funded by conservative wealth and includes Bush Sr and ole Rumsfeld at the top.
The CFR wrote a plan to invade Iraq in 1998 and pushed it through lobbies.
Scary.
Iran is a country whose policy, for whatever reason, has induced an embargo by the US. Iran is a country, not a terrorist organization. Please learn enough about what you're talking about, and in the meantime please quit suggesting that Iranians are terrorists.
On the subject at hand, it's clear the clerk was trying to obey the law. This was not prejudice, rather it was a case of "cover your ass". Some commentors have suggested that there are legal loopholes to the law, as some proof that he should have sold it, as if 1) the clerk is aware of the loopholes or is a lawyer, and 2) that a federal prosecutor would let the loophole slide.... no. When in doubt, play it safe.
The best part of the untold truth is that any intelligent adult can pull off acts of terror that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people...... without going near an airport.
Please don't make me brainstorm for all you mindless people wondering what I mean. Big groups of people can be found all over the place.... you can imagine how right I am, or not.
The truth is, the sheer benevolence of our humanity is why most of us are alive. Most people wouldn't kill others if not in defense, and so we are alive. It doesn't take a genius to see what *could* happen, but *doesn't* happen. We are lucky to be so well protected by our nature. The police, TSA, your dad, or your God will have little impact on your safety.
Lol. A coward troll.
"..reply to someone..."
You should learn how "to" and "from" are used.
That is unless you are trolling in my defense. If so, then thanks for noticing the B.S. the guy was babbling.
When did I say I was glad the law isn't enforced?
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm glad the police don't have the right to breathalyze everyone all the time; that they must supect intoxication from the overt before subjecting people to tests.
You are talking about different people as if they are the same. You are not worth my time.
Which opinions did you say I had?
By the way, I think the legal limit for drink driving should be so strict that one pint would breach. That's public safety.
Fortunately, the police don't screen everyone in public. Rather they observe the bad behavior, inquire, then arrest/test as necessary. And now that point should be clearly irrelevant compared to employee drug screens.
What purpose does that standard serve? Do you, irrationally, expect the screen to prove anything?
The screen will turn your honest employee into a liar; you will select for drug users that are good at passing screens.
Reality is reality. Sorry to squash the dream.
Let me make my point another way.
If none of your employees right now are using drugs, you can put the "stupid" sticker right on your forehead right next to your negative drug tests. Some actually are.
If none of your friends or family use drugs... guess what... you are, again, too confident in what you don't know. You lack the oversight to actually know. Some of them actually do.
Did you think your litle fantasy of work and life would escape the reality of drugs? It won't. Reality is real, with or without your acknowledgement or permission.
Fire the stoned guy because you noticed. Fire the forklift driver for being reckless.
As far as you know, he is on meth right now and you're not legally empowered to test every day to catch it.... and you can't tell the difference.
Can you tell the diff? If you can, fire them. No drug test necessary... dangerous use of the forklift. If you can't, welcome to reality.
The best way is to decide if they are worth what you're paying or not, and then decide based on that.
No need to meddle in private lives.
What if the hypothetical drunk you wanted to fire, instead of the mildly slow person, was an alcoholic due to bad parents and genetic propensity? Are you now judging one natural outcome against another while lacking the informed compassion to understand that the drunk never had a choice?
Better yet, avoid being judged as an ignorant or incompassionate employer with one simple foundation: judge the employee as worth/not-worth their pay and leave their life alone.
As an employer that is realistic and wants good efficiency, you have no business trying to find out if employee x is on drugs unless the intox is blatant and/or dangerous.
Measure your employees by their ability to produce desired output; leave alone their human private lives and personal choices.
'Screening' employees for drugs only makes liars out of the honest people you hire. Drug tests should follow a workplace accident where intox is suspected. Otherwise you should fire them for honest reasons, like low productivity or focus or whatever real issue you observe.
Someone should tell all the peaople waiting for others to save them that they should quit wating and put the politicians supporting this crap in the street, eviscerated, en route to a morgue. Or keep waiting around for the Americans. To save the day (we won't for we have the ssame apathy and complicit losers pretending to care). Watch our 99% use facebook after the IO and wonder why they are censored.... lol. Feeding the lions while complaining about lions.
Not only will they lead from the back, they won't learn from the frontrunners and will fuck it up like everthing else microsoft.
Microsoft, still, has no idea what a "good user experience" should feel like.
Hint: clarity, stability, simple implementation.
M$ has none of those. OneNote is the only microsoft product I vouch for. I don't eve vouch for the windows 7 OS it runs on
Since you're on Slashdot I assume you might be into Linux.
As of late, Linus Torvalds and my Boss just shared a prize together!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iQ1KdxYp6hhmkeOKwcripY54iC-A?docId=CNG.a1b878f71ac27feae178698ffd633dd4.291
I thought about making a Slashdot thread suggestion... but then I realized I don't care to come up with some savvy abstract and just sent you the link right here.... haha.
Anyway, rockon.
... the one about a month ago where someone stole lots of bitcoins or spoofed or whatever...
Yeh... sure... mod me vague, or offtopic for bringing it up, but if you know what link I'm too lazy andon-a-phone to dig up, you're probably right with me on the disbelief of bitcoin as a smart idea.
The gist of the article, IIRC, was that an exploit to the system existed that produced undeserved wealth for one guy and everyone else got devalued....
Who has the link???
I reprogram cells to become other cell types. Its a lot of fun.
The telomere issue is underway since 2 years ago. I'd love to live forever, but imagine a world where the new cannot own the world.... where the old persist and never let go of their influence. For example, today's politics largely votes the interests of 50-60 year olds. 30 years ago, the same people voted, but the politics followed their parents who were 50-60 at the time. Since people still die, I expect in 20-30 years for cannabis to be legal (something our generation at 30 already fully wants), for medicine to be socialized, and for green energy to be not a priority, but an expectation. But what if people don't die? When will the new gen get to own it? What happenes to generations and the balance that is established through expected life cycles..... some would argue we *need* to die to keep things balanced.
The basis for speciation is quite complex, still theoretical, and always under debate.
What we are talking about is percentages of variance in the ribosomal subunit called "16S" rRNA sequence. In eukaryotes its 18S.
I'm on. Phone typing this, so I just realized how annoying it will be to spell out the scientific history.... so I will just be frank.
The truth is that species in all cases are a man made idea. The genetic variance among organisms on earth is large, even among same 'species', especially considering new findings in epigenetics. Some call the capacity to reproduce "same species", though bacteria don't reproduce sexually... strangely, some have sex-like interactions and share genetic materials.
The history in microbial species being so widely included was probably from the phenotypic analysis whereby people may have derived larger genetic variance among microbes that looked, acted, lived, etc the same as each other.
What has been clearly shown in science, but has not become the mainstay, yet, is that every organism is quite unique and that there are far more differences we can now see despite the traditiona elements showing "sameness".
Regarding humans, once DNA and genetics were somewhat understood, it was hypothesized that at leasr a million different genes should exist to give us the dynamic expression complexity to make human life. But when the genes were identified, it was more like 30k.... how can that be? But the "million" gene idea was derived from a callous assumption not recognizing the capacity of a single gene to have variable impact at different levels of expression..... and we now know this to be absolutely true.... the "epigenetics" or "above/beyond the genes" controls in the cells are very much involved in the control of each expressed gene.... microRNA, RNAi, CpG methylation, acetyl/methyl transferase activity, etc.... they all can modify how much of a gene is expressed.... this means that 20k genes, each having their own variability, and then variable interactions with other genes, can give rise to thecomplexity of the human.
We still know less than we know.
Each human has its own custom stock of bacteria living in their gut. They are different enough to actually provide microbial fingerprints for forensic scientists.... we can't literally set the threshold so low that your E.coli are called something diff than mine.... yet yours are more different from mine than you are from an ape.... probaly...
Gotcha. I sometimes forget how broadly some terms are more commonly applied. I work with biomdcal research docs all day.