They are not conflicting statements, so there's no "which is it" - it can just be both.
It's slashdot, so how about a car anology:
By driving my car today I have increased my chance of being involved in a car crash (compared to if I just stayed home all day). That does not necessarily mean I will be involved in a car crash.
Sure in America that's called jail. However, not everywhere is in America and not everywhere else uses that terminology. Sweden happens to be part of the everywhere that isn't America and doesn't use that terminology.
Feel free to ignore that last part in which I mixed up the people being referenced and hence got that entirely wrong. Or don't of course, I don't mind being called out on my numerous errors:)
He's delivering the ballots according to the state rules. By the rules, his only job is to do the delivering (in fact failing to deliver would be illegal and so not delivering one because it wasn't sealed would be breaking the rules). Not to check anything. Now, he very well may have, in addition to delivery services, offered assistance with the signing and sealing step. However, that's a different job and clearly not part of "the picture" and so can not be a component of "what's wrong with the picture".
And if it was 99.9% his fault "entirely" is considerably more accurate than "mostly". Well unless you are apportioning blame over 1000 people with a very even spread.
Right, but one that has a local branch (the local post office) near to you and is unlikely to vanish with overnight (it is the national postal service after all) and isn't based in Russia with a Russian language web site is likely to have a competitive advantage in Australia.
Lots of places won't ship to non-US* addresses. Whether they just can't be bothered with the extra hassle, or have agreements with their suppliers not to (for example: http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/...), or just don't like foreigners is really none of the customers concern - the business is allowed to choose what sort of shipping it will offer.
You don't need to have prior profits of $X (or even revenue of $X) in order to borrow $X. You just need to be convince the lender that you will have enough to meet the repayment terms (which will end up being more than $X of course, but could be over the next 10 years...)
Given the actual details were well known long before your post and the (rather terrible) video contradicts the guy who witnesses it you'd have to be trying to mislead about the details to drum up some FUD about fraud - hence the use of the phrase "stuff into the box" to associate with "ballot stuffing".
That the link ends up at a site where the discussion includes things like "A wetback. Deport the a**hole." as the response to a video of someone delivering absentee votes according to the law makes it pretty clear what the actual issue is.
Because paper ballots are drop dead simple to do well. Backwater third world shit holes like Australia manage.
Whereas apparently electronic voting is next to impossible to do well. The greatest nation the world has ever seen, leader of the free world and shining light of bravery and freedom, with seemingly limitless wealth can't get it right.
Because putting ballots into the box that ballots are supposed to be put into is such a terrible thing. I get it, you don't like it when brown people vote and the people who gave him their absentee ballots to deliver were probably brown like him.
Pencils are move convenient when the usage is "use them for a day, then put them in storage for a few years to use them again for a day, then put them in storage for a few years, and so on". Pens have a higher rate of not working after being in storage and are harder to check during the day (a poll worker can glance at the pencils and see if any need sharpening much easier than seeing if any pens are running out of ink or whatever.
Sure, there's the "someone could use an eraser and change my vote", but someone could also replace your vote with a entirely different filled out ballot paper - the security measures surrounding the ballots are meant to stop both of those.
I also need to try and read sentences that I rewrite to remove words that were part of the old version. But given there's an example of that in basically every post I make success seems unlikely.
OK that's a reasonable, if obtuse way of saying it, argument.
I guess I was applying my standard filter of "muslims" being short hand for "the crazy muslims who actually have a tiny impact on other people, say by forcing their religion on others, and hence matter" as opposed to including my mother in law.. Just like when people are complaining about "christians" I'm assuming they mean "the crazy christians who actually have an impact on other people, say by demanding creationism be taught in science class, and hence matter." as opposed to including my neighbor.
And yes that's because I'm selfish prick who think cares more about things that might affect me than things that won't.
Of course I'm a shitty mind reader, I don't have magic powers after all, that would be why I didn't try to read ay minds. The clue to that would the part where I asked for an explanation of what you were trying to say and show with that link rather that just reading your mind, and provided some details about my impressions of the state of the conversation at the time since I didn't assume you could read my mind either.
Of course now I'm more confused since I don't see what someone being a hypocrite has to do with the relative validity of a couple of conflicting claims.
So what were you saying. The exchange seems to have been (with different people involved in each step of course):
1. A claim that muslims exhibit the behaviour of "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like". 2. A claim that being a muslim has nothing to do with "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like". 3. A source showing some muslims setting an embassy on fire, rioting, and demanding death to some people, because said people expressed a view the muslims didn't like. 4. A source showing some christians killing people and blowing things up.
3. is clearly supposed to be evidence for the claim in 1. - you don't have to think it's good evidence, but it is at least clearly about the claim in 1.
4. On the other hand has nothing to do with either of the claims in 1. or 2. So what were you trying to show by that link?
One of those options would require ludicrous amounts of delta-V, and the other would require large amounts of delta-V. The resulting increase in mass making for even more delta-V requirements to get it to where it was originally. And more mass to launch and so on.
It's not magic. They can't just click their fingers and have a magic rocket and fuel appear attacked the space craft in lunar orbit.
It shows a peak followed by a fall. More heart attacks on the Monday than usual, less during the rest of the week. Which is probably being nice to those about to have a heart attack - must better to be in hospital on Monday when the doctors actually care rather than on Friday when they are focused on their golf plans for the weekend.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not conflicting statements, so there's no "which is it" - it can just be both.
It's slashdot, so how about a car anology:
By driving my car today I have increased my chance of being involved in a car crash (compared to if I just stayed home all day). That does not necessarily mean I will be involved in a car crash.
Why did you add the word "clinical"? Was that, perhaps, because what was said was in fact absolutely correct for "depression".
Of course when you just completely change what people say it does make arguing with them easier.
Sure in America that's called jail. However, not everywhere is in America and not everywhere else uses that terminology. Sweden happens to be part of the everywhere that isn't America and doesn't use that terminology.
Feel free to ignore that last part in which I mixed up the people being referenced and hence got that entirely wrong. Or don't of course, I don't mind being called out on my numerous errors :)
He's delivering the ballots according to the state rules. By the rules, his only job is to do the delivering (in fact failing to deliver would be illegal and so not delivering one because it wasn't sealed would be breaking the rules). Not to check anything. Now, he very well may have, in addition to delivery services, offered assistance with the signing and sealing step. However, that's a different job and clearly not part of "the picture" and so can not be a component of "what's wrong with the picture".
And if it was 99.9% his fault "entirely" is considerably more accurate than "mostly". Well unless you are apportioning blame over 1000 people with a very even spread.
Yes I did realize those things.
And by "mostly" you mean "entirely".
Right, but one that has a local branch (the local post office) near to you and is unlikely to vanish with overnight (it is the national postal service after all) and isn't based in Russia with a Russian language web site is likely to have a competitive advantage in Australia.
Lots of places won't ship to non-US* addresses. Whether they just can't be bothered with the extra hassle, or have agreements with their suppliers not to (for example: http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/...), or just don't like foreigners is really none of the customers concern - the business is allowed to choose what sort of shipping it will offer.
* Often with Canada as an exception.
Sure Australia Post, a government owned entity, gets money from it when people pay them for the service.
From a snooping perspective it makes no difference. The government can search any package it wants that is being imported into the country.
You don't need to have prior profits of $X (or even revenue of $X) in order to borrow $X. You just need to be convince the lender that you will have enough to meet the repayment terms (which will end up being more than $X of course, but could be over the next 10 years...)
I'm extrapolating from the source.
Given the actual details were well known long before your post and the (rather terrible) video contradicts the guy who witnesses it you'd have to be trying to mislead about the details to drum up some FUD about fraud - hence the use of the phrase "stuff into the box" to associate with "ballot stuffing".
That the link ends up at a site where the discussion includes things like "A wetback. Deport the a**hole." as the response to a video of someone delivering absentee votes according to the law makes it pretty clear what the actual issue is.
Yes putting absentee ballots into the official receptacle for absentee ballots it such a terrible thing to have done.
Because paper ballots are drop dead simple to do well. Backwater third world shit holes like Australia manage.
Whereas apparently electronic voting is next to impossible to do well. The greatest nation the world has ever seen, leader of the free world and shining light of bravery and freedom, with seemingly limitless wealth can't get it right.
Because putting ballots into the box that ballots are supposed to be put into is such a terrible thing. I get it, you don't like it when brown people vote and the people who gave him their absentee ballots to deliver were probably brown like him.
Pencils are move convenient when the usage is "use them for a day, then put them in storage for a few years to use them again for a day, then put them in storage for a few years, and so on". Pens have a higher rate of not working after being in storage and are harder to check during the day (a poll worker can glance at the pencils and see if any need sharpening much easier than seeing if any pens are running out of ink or whatever.
Sure, there's the "someone could use an eraser and change my vote", but someone could also replace your vote with a entirely different filled out ballot paper - the security measures surrounding the ballots are meant to stop both of those.
It gets rid of a handful of psychopaths.
Maybe you should invest in a dictionary.
Start with the word "if". Amazingly it has a meaning.
I also need to try and read sentences that I rewrite to remove words that were part of the old version. But given there's an example of that in basically every post I make success seems unlikely.
OK that's a reasonable, if obtuse way of saying it, argument.
I guess I was applying my standard filter of "muslims" being short hand for "the crazy muslims who actually have a tiny impact on other people, say by forcing their religion on others, and hence matter" as opposed to including my mother in law.. Just like when people are complaining about "christians" I'm assuming they mean "the crazy christians who actually have an impact on other people, say by demanding creationism be taught in science class, and hence matter." as opposed to including my neighbor.
And yes that's because I'm selfish prick who think cares more about things that might affect me than things that won't.
Of course I'm a shitty mind reader, I don't have magic powers after all, that would be why I didn't try to read ay minds. The clue to that would the part where I asked for an explanation of what you were trying to say and show with that link rather that just reading your mind, and provided some details about my impressions of the state of the conversation at the time since I didn't assume you could read my mind either.
Of course now I'm more confused since I don't see what someone being a hypocrite has to do with the relative validity of a couple of conflicting claims.
Sure, as I said you don't have to think it's good evidence.
But that has nothing to do with my actual question: what does christians killing people and blowing things up has to do with the claims?
So what were you saying. The exchange seems to have been (with different people involved in each step of course):
1. A claim that muslims exhibit the behaviour of "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like".
2. A claim that being a muslim has nothing to do with "screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like".
3. A source showing some muslims setting an embassy on fire, rioting, and demanding death to some people, because said people expressed a view the muslims didn't like.
4. A source showing some christians killing people and blowing things up.
3. is clearly supposed to be evidence for the claim in 1. - you don't have to think it's good evidence, but it is at least clearly about the claim in 1.
4. On the other hand has nothing to do with either of the claims in 1. or 2. So what were you trying to show by that link?
No you can't.
One of those options would require ludicrous amounts of delta-V, and the other would require large amounts of delta-V. The resulting increase in mass making for even more delta-V requirements to get it to where it was originally. And more mass to launch and so on.
It's not magic. They can't just click their fingers and have a magic rocket and fuel appear attacked the space craft in lunar orbit.
It shows a peak followed by a fall. More heart attacks on the Monday than usual, less during the rest of the week. Which is probably being nice to those about to have a heart attack - must better to be in hospital on Monday when the doctors actually care rather than on Friday when they are focused on their golf plans for the weekend.
Your argument/analogy is for crashing it into the moon, rather than leaving it as orbit of the moon as space junk.