This needn't be a massive conspiracy. The way the verification system is set up, only one or two people at Diebold need be in on it. How is that massive? Anyway, you're probably right, I just want to point out that it's not as improbable as you make it sound.
I'm not a conspiracist. I know how big, and chaotic and difficult to control the world is. I think most conspiracy theorists are so scared of how uncontrollable the world is that they would rather believe in a secret cabal of evil people in control than admit that there is no possibility of control.
It's free and open source. It's scaleable. It's easy to install and manage. It runs entirely on your own infrastructure so your messages aren't vulnerable to prying eyes and bored sysadmins of some other company. You can set it up to interoperate with any other IM system if you want to. There's a ton of open source clients available. Safe and effective, and keeps people from spending money on crap "solutions" that aren't.
Yes, I saw where you were arguing for a voter verified paper trail. It would really make all the other points moot. But we don't have that now, and we didn't have that for the last elections, and there is a very real possibility that Diebold will hand the election to the Republicans. They have the means, motive and opportunity to do so, I would be surprised if they didn't take it. Never before has one party had such an obvious advantage in the scope and undetectability of their cheating. Don't be surprised by statistically impossible outcomes in the next election.
It's free. Paying for a game with obnoxious ads would turn me off, but this is a free, ad supported game. The only thing I can see wrong with that is that, if it succeeds, it will probably encourage game developers to sell ad space in pay games as well.
I was playing devil's advocate, it seems rather far fetched that they would be designed insecure on purpose, in such a way that anyone could hack into them. However, there are other issues. The main issue is that the machines are not certified and locked down in such a way that the program can't be tampered with. There is no way of verifying that the program that was validated is actually the program that comes on the machine. It would be very easy for Diebold to ship machines designed to favor one candidate or party. Without a paper trail, people have no way of knowing whether their vote has been recorded properly.
From his comments, we know the Diebold president has the motive to ship machines which cheat. Because the code of each machine is not verified and Diebold can send updates to them at any time, they have the means. And because there is no voter verified paper trail, they have the opportunity. Diebold has the means, motive and opportunity to deliver elections to anyone they want. The machines may be insecure, and that is probably incompetance, but the deeper problem remains: there is no way to verify that the program they claim is running on the machine is actually running on the machine. The president of Diebold stated he would deliver the election to Bush. There is no voter verified paper trail. Means, motive and opportunity.
There may be cheating going on on both sides, but never has one side had such an opportunity for undetectable cheating on such a large scale. It would surprise me if that opportunity weren't taken.
Really, do you think so? On the surface, that's a perfectly rational response, I mean, everyone has the same access to these machines, right? What's the point of deliberately making a system everyone can cheat at?
Perhaps not everyone does have the same access. Peerhaps certain voting machine companies favor one party or the other, and provide detailed instructions to their favored candidates. Perhaps something is going on further behind the scenes, giving certain favored groups privileged access to the counting machines themselves, making cheating at the machine level a moot point.
It just seems odd that a company with the skills to make ATM machines nearly impenetrable can't make a voting machine as secure. The track record of ATMs seems to rule out incompetance. Despite your scanty anecdotal evidence to the contrary, ATMs are on the whole very secure. Banks are notoriously picky about that sort of thing, and any company that could not make a secure ATM would find themselves out of the ATM market very quickly, and probably facing massive lawsuits.
What, then, is your explanation of why these machines are so insecure?
Quoted directly from Union Carbide's statement, "The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL), an Indian company in which Union Carbide Corporation held just over half the stock. The other stockholders included Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India."
No mention of government ownership, and a clear statement that UCC owned over half the stock. The site makes no mention of government mismanagement, instead claiming intentional sabotage. If UCC is willing to make a claim that patently ridiculous, don't you think they would have mentioned other factors mitigating their culpability, such as government mismanagement?
Recent documents, obtained through discovery in the course of a lawsuit against Union Carbide for environmental contamination before a New York Federal District Court revealed that Carbide had exported "untested, unproven technology" to the Indian plant. That is partly why the US sister plant did not fail. Also, unlike the US plant, no disaster plans had been prepared for the Bhopal plant. Reports issued months before the incident by scientists within the Union Carbide corporation warned of the possibility of an accident almost identical to that which occurred in Bhopal . The reports were ignored outright and never made it to senior staff .
Due to falling sales, staff had been laid off and safety checks became less and less frequent. Slip-bind plates that prevent water from pipes being cleaned leaking into the MIC tanks via faulty valves were not installed. Their installation had not been included on the cleaning checklist. At the time of the event, the MIC tank refrigeration unit was disabled to save money, and some of its coolant was being used elsewhere. A simple press of a button in the control room would have activated it to at least use the remaining coolant, but this was overlooked by staff.
The gas scrubber was placed on standby, and therefore did not attempt to clean escaping gases with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), which may have brought the concentration down to a safe level. The water curtain that may have reduced the concentration of the gas was only set to ~13 m and did not reach the gas; it was not designed to contain a leak of such magnitude. Though the audible external alarm was activated to warn the residents of Bhopal, it was quickly silenced to avoid causing panic among the residents. Thus, many continued to sleep, unaware of the unfolding drama, and those that had woken assumed any problem had been sorted. The flare tower used to burn off gases before they are allowed to escape into the air was inoperational pending repairs.
The families of the people who died in Bhopal each received about $2,200.
This is all a matter of public record, easy to research online. The BBC has a very good Bhopal resource center for anyone who wishes to learn more about this horrible example of corporate malfeasance. Without proper regulation, corporations behave in completely sociopathic ways.
Do you enjoy lying through your teeth about horrible disasters in order to prop up your failed and murderous ideology? Do you enjoy playing apologist for sociopaths?
My apologies. I went a bit overboard. Having to spend my Sunday in a loud datacenter does that to me sometimes. Whatever I've thought of you in the past, you've certainly redeemed yourself in my eyes with this very sensible reply to what was the worst kind of flamebait. As much as I like to think differently, I'm sometimes guilty of the very things I accuse you of.
Please, I'm not a communist. That wasn't my side that lost. You keep harping on that. Is that straw man the best argument you can come up with? We anarchists have as much reason to hate the communists as anyone. You know why Leon Trotsky got the ice pick through the ear, right? Lumping all left leaning thinkers together with the communists just shows how uneducated you are.
I know that. But solar powered boats can go in any direction with the same efficiency. Sailboats for the most part do best on a broad reach. And solar can power batteries for when there's no sun. I've never seen a wind battery for when there's no wind.
Hey, "master of spin" is a complement. Sort of:-P. You are very good at responding to questions in such a way that it looks as though you have answered them, when in fact you have sidestepped them. Just my opinion, nut I have personally asked you questions before where you have done that. Are you perhaps a lawyer or a politician yourself? Again, it's just my opinion, it sometimes seems as if you care more about appearing to be right than finding out if you are or not.
As for why this story has been trotted out, perhaps it's important that people do something about vote fraud? Your position seems to be "Everyone does it, there's nothing you can do about it, so don't even bother talking about it." That position seems to be designed to encourage feelings of disenfranchisement, which generally swings the vote to the right. Is that what you are trying to do?
You acknowledge that a CEO of the major e-voting machine maufacturer made a comment that could easily be taken to mean "I'm going to help the republicans cheat on elections," but you deny that this is what he meant, based on nothing more than your opinion. But you state it as if it were a fact. Even given this, and no counterexamples on the democratic side, you seem to imply that the cheating cancels out. But you don't actually say that, so that if someone calls you on it, you can deny having said that and claim they misinterpreted you. But of coure, that will be so far down the thread that no one will read it, while everyone reads where you first makes the claim. Then they all walk away thinking you have proved something you not only haven't but would probably deny ever saying. At least, that's the way I've seen you operate in the past.
You may not be a Republican, but you have espoused some very neo-con positions here. Maybe you didn't vote for Bush, maybe you did. I wouldn't put it past you to lie about that to create a more sympathetic climate for yourself. Again, this is all based on your past posts here. Anyone can look them up and see for themselves.
With a trimaran design, one could make a low displacement ship with a huge deck area. Of course, there's always the cloudy day to mess things up, but with enough batteries on cuold get through a day or two. Really though, this isn't about efficiency, it's more of a "Look what we can do." kind of thing, and a good starting point for research into marine solar applications. How much does salt water effect common types of solar panels? What's the most efficient type of motor for this application? What's the best way to mount solar panels onto a rolling and pitching surface? These are all questions that might be answered by a program such as this.
Do you deny that electronic voting and other new technologies make massive vote fraud easier than ever before. I know you, and I know you are a master of spin, so I'd like a yes or no, unqualified answer to that.
I agree that fraud is a problem common to both parties. But historically, it has been worst in the party in power, because they have more power to cover it up. You can argue all you like about the president of Diebold's actual meaning, but the fact is that no one in his position should ever say anything like that, and a company who's president says things like that, and who's machines have been proven to be insecure, should never be allowed anywhere near an election. That's just common sense, and it applies to either side.
Democrats were caught cheating long ago, there haven't been any democratic vote scandals on the same scale for years. If you ca refute this with evidence, I invite you to do so. This story does a good job of showing what the Republicans have done, if you are so sure the Demcrats have operated on the same scale, why don't you provide some references? Otherwise, it's just your opinion, isn't it?
Do the Democrats still cheat? Sure. Do they do it as much as the Republicans? Probably not. Is that why they lost the election? Partly, but their snooze-o-rama candidate probably did far more to lose the election for them than their opponants ever could. As a democrat, I can admit that. Can you, as a Republican admit that perhaps this cheating isn't as bipartisan as you make it out to be? If not, pony up some references or we will all know how much your opinion is really worth.
Hey, I'm a liberal and I agree with you. Kerry sucked, and the Dems have not provided a real alternative. Maybe if they had, Bush couldn't have stolen the election without someone noticing. But these issues are real, and this isn't partisan. The Democrats have done the same kinds of things in the past, but people noticed, and they got angry, and they did somethig about it. Now it's the Republicans turn to face the music and realize that the people of this country will not stand for this kind of thing, no matter their party affiliation. Don't try to make this partisan. I know I'd be just as pissed if the Democrats had done it. Would you be as forgiving? From your tone, I think not.
Look, it may not concern you that Bush stole the election, because you wanted him to win, but I garauntee it will concern you when someone you don't like uses the same techniques to steal it. Wake up. This isn't partisan, the Democrats have done the same thing in the past, and it sucked just as much then. But we did somethign about it.
Just read the friggin article and perhaps you will see some ways that our elections are unfair and should be fixed, ignore the fact that it's your man who did it. Mentally insert "Bill Clinton" in place of GWB if that helps, but read it, and believe it, and get riled up and do something or our country is going to go down the crapper in a big scary way. I gaurantee that if no one does anything about this, someone who you abhor is going to use these tricks. And by then it will probably be too late.
And if you think everyone here is lame and pathetic because they don't agree with you, well, maybe this isn't the place for you? I hear freerepublic.com is nice...
Jeebus cripes! You're reading way too much into what I said. Of course cycling is a net plus for society, for more than just the reasons you mentioned. But if helmets do save lives (which obviously you debate in the first place, but play along for a minute...) and you ride without a helmet, and sustain an injury which no one else can be held accountable for, shouldn't you have to pay for your medical expenses? (Given our current legal/medical system, which sucks. I do support universal medical coverage, and if such a system were enacted my point would be moot.)
I used to ride in Critical Mass when I lived in San Francisco, during which I've been chased up onto the sidewalk and then ticketed for riding on the sidewalk by cops on motorcycles. I've done a fair bit of bike activism myself. I just happen to disagree with you that wearing a helmet is pointless.
Okay, first, I said that I was in no way blaming lilo. What a ridiculous strawman. The fact that you would bring that up shows me you are the type of sophist who will do anythign to win converts to your side of an argument, including disparaging your opponent and outright dishonesty.
Second, although the site you linked to appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site, it is balanced enough to admit that many studies show thatbicycle helmets are effective. Sure, it also presents counter arguments, but it as it appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site put up by bicycle enthusiasts who do not want to see strict helmet laws enacted, I would take the number of studies presented on both sides with a grain of salt. The numbers of pro and con studies listed are problably not representative of the actual number of published studies out there.
In addition, is there any chance you yourself (with a personal web site named bikeboom.com) are biased against the use of helmets? I don't support helmet laws, as long as people are willing to accept the risks themselves and sign something stating they will never impose upon the state for medical care if they are injured doing something foolish. But I certainly advocate for their use.
Many helmets do not meet the high-impact safety standards, but the fact is there are helmets out there that do. Helmets today are lightweight, well ventilated and comfortable. Even if they can protect in only a small fraction of cases, isn't it worth it to wear one?
Thus the loudspeakers. I picture the scenario going something like this:
"Hey you with the ski-mask on, we see you! Stop beating up on that poor old woman. Don't you take her handbag, I mean it. Stop it! Really, we're going to find you, Mr. possibly a 6'-4" possibly male most-likely caucasian. We have software that can recognize you by your walk. Hey, stop that! Stop walking all funny! Okay boys, it's got to be John Cleese, no one else that tall can walk that funny, go get him!"
18:10:08 "was lilo wearing a helmet and was the car driver responsible? if they are responsible will they be charged?" 18:10:33 lilo was not wearing a helmet, we are unsure at this point about what will happen wrt the driver of the car
This is not to blame lilo in any way for not wearing a helmet, but please, let's learn from what happened here. Always wear a helmet when riding a bike. The speed you are going doesn't matter, it's the distance from your head to the ground, which is the same on a bike as it is on a motorcycle. My life was probably saved once because I was wearing a helmet when I hit a pothole after coming off a long hill. Bike helmets nowadays are light-weight and not at all dorky looking.
Again, the driver is to blame for this, not lilo. Doubly so as they fled the scene, when perhaps if they had stayed and summoned help immediately, lilo might have survived.
Rest in peace, lilo. My condolences go out to his family.
Okay, what do you call this? I was honestly seeking your input to help me see where I had gone wrong in my thinking, and you replied with more inflammatory condescension. But whatever. Look, either you want to have a discussion about these issues or you want to fling insults. I'm down with either, but you can't have it both ways. I'm open to changing my ideas if they are proven wrong, are you?
I can see how you might be threatened by the things I am saying. It may sound like I'm saying, "Let's go after jcr and take everything he's worked hard for all his life." I'm not. This is a really hard issue to discuss, because I believe that our current system isn't fair or just, and you probably think the opposite. But unless you are in the wealthiest 10%, I'm not advocating coming after your property. I wasn't clear about that, and maybe I overstated my case. I tend to get a little inflammatory at times, I admit that.
I'll also admit that maybe my answers aren't perfect. That's why I want to discuss them, not to prove my ideas are right, but to find out where they aren't and strengthen them. If you can recognize that, however misguided I am, I have good intentions, I'll be happy. I don't want to screw over anyone who doesn't deserve it. But some people do deserve it. I feel that crazy, power hungry people have risen to positions of power and dominance in our current system, and I would like to see that rectified. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I can hope that you can at least admit that other people do see it that way, and perhaps there is some small sliver of truth in our position.
Hey, I tried being nice with you, you started the bad vibes. Whatever, I apologize, this is obviously a hot button issue with you, and I'm done trying to piss you off purposefully. Shooting fish in a barrel isn't fun. Damn, there I go again.
Come on, I'm just putting out my ideas here, if you don't agree that's fine. I'm not advocating armed insurrection, and it's not like me and my army of anarchist anti-propertarians are going to come and steal your stuff. If enough people agree with my way of thinking, then things will change, and I'm sorry for whatever pain that might cause the minority, but as I have tried to base my philosophy on a moral foundation of "Don't take away the choices of others," I kind of think the pain that the minority would be feeling would be the pain of having their own unfair advantage taken from them, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
But come on, how likely is that? Unless something goes seriously wrong with the system the way it is, there will never be enough people advocating for radical change to make a difference, and if the system does go seriously wrong, then that's a pretty damn good time for radical change, don't you think?
Oh, please. It's income no different from any other. Just because you happen to be related to someone, why should you not have to pay taxes when they give you something? If your employer gives you a bonus, you pay taxes on it, even though he already payed taxes on it when he earned it. When someone related to you gives you a gift, you pay taxes on it (or you should, if you aren't a filthy, selfish tax cheat.) Why should it be any different when someone dies and leaves something to you.
Robbing the dead, that's hilarious. Do you take all your talking points straight from Faux News?
Slashdot Mirror
This needn't be a massive conspiracy. The way the verification system is set up, only one or two people at Diebold need be in on it. How is that massive? Anyway, you're probably right, I just want to point out that it's not as improbable as you make it sound.
I'm not a conspiracist. I know how big, and chaotic and difficult to control the world is. I think most conspiracy theorists are so scared of how uncontrollable the world is that they would rather believe in a secret cabal of evil people in control than admit that there is no possibility of control.
It's free and open source. It's scaleable. It's easy to install and manage. It runs entirely on your own infrastructure so your messages aren't vulnerable to prying eyes and bored sysadmins of some other company. You can set it up to interoperate with any other IM system if you want to. There's a ton of open source clients available. Safe and effective, and keeps people from spending money on crap "solutions" that aren't.
Yes, I saw where you were arguing for a voter verified paper trail. It would really make all the other points moot. But we don't have that now, and we didn't have that for the last elections, and there is a very real possibility that Diebold will hand the election to the Republicans. They have the means, motive and opportunity to do so, I would be surprised if they didn't take it. Never before has one party had such an obvious advantage in the scope and undetectability of their cheating. Don't be surprised by statistically impossible outcomes in the next election.
It's free. Paying for a game with obnoxious ads would turn me off, but this is a free, ad supported game. The only thing I can see wrong with that is that, if it succeeds, it will probably encourage game developers to sell ad space in pay games as well.
I was playing devil's advocate, it seems rather far fetched that they would be designed insecure on purpose, in such a way that anyone could hack into them. However, there are other issues. The main issue is that the machines are not certified and locked down in such a way that the program can't be tampered with. There is no way of verifying that the program that was validated is actually the program that comes on the machine. It would be very easy for Diebold to ship machines designed to favor one candidate or party. Without a paper trail, people have no way of knowing whether their vote has been recorded properly.
From his comments, we know the Diebold president has the motive to ship machines which cheat. Because the code of each machine is not verified and Diebold can send updates to them at any time, they have the means. And because there is no voter verified paper trail, they have the opportunity. Diebold has the means, motive and opportunity to deliver elections to anyone they want. The machines may be insecure, and that is probably incompetance, but the deeper problem remains: there is no way to verify that the program they claim is running on the machine is actually running on the machine. The president of Diebold stated he would deliver the election to Bush. There is no voter verified paper trail. Means, motive and opportunity.
There may be cheating going on on both sides, but never has one side had such an opportunity for undetectable cheating on such a large scale. It would surprise me if that opportunity weren't taken.
That's bullshit, and you know it.
Really, do you think so? On the surface, that's a perfectly rational response, I mean, everyone has the same access to these machines, right? What's the point of deliberately making a system everyone can cheat at?
Perhaps not everyone does have the same access. Peerhaps certain voting machine companies favor one party or the other, and provide detailed instructions to their favored candidates. Perhaps something is going on further behind the scenes, giving certain favored groups privileged access to the counting machines themselves, making cheating at the machine level a moot point.
It just seems odd that a company with the skills to make ATM machines nearly impenetrable can't make a voting machine as secure. The track record of ATMs seems to rule out incompetance. Despite your scanty anecdotal evidence to the contrary, ATMs are on the whole very secure. Banks are notoriously picky about that sort of thing, and any company that could not make a secure ATM would find themselves out of the ATM market very quickly, and probably facing massive lawsuits.
What, then, is your explanation of why these machines are so insecure?
People who say "recursive" are more funner.
Quoted directly from Union Carbide's statement, "The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL), an Indian company in which Union Carbide Corporation held just over half the stock. The other stockholders included Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India."
No mention of government ownership, and a clear statement that UCC owned over half the stock. The site makes no mention of government mismanagement, instead claiming intentional sabotage. If UCC is willing to make a claim that patently ridiculous, don't you think they would have mentioned other factors mitigating their culpability, such as government mismanagement?
Recent documents, obtained through discovery in the course of a lawsuit against Union Carbide for environmental contamination before a New York Federal District Court revealed that Carbide had exported "untested, unproven technology" to the Indian plant. That is partly why the US sister plant did not fail. Also, unlike the US plant, no disaster plans had been prepared for the Bhopal plant. Reports issued months before the incident by scientists within the Union Carbide corporation warned of the possibility of an accident almost identical to that which occurred in Bhopal . The reports were ignored outright and never made it to senior staff .
Due to falling sales, staff had been laid off and safety checks became less and less frequent. Slip-bind plates that prevent water from pipes being cleaned leaking into the MIC tanks via faulty valves were not installed. Their installation had not been included on the cleaning checklist. At the time of the event, the MIC tank refrigeration unit was disabled to save money, and some of its coolant was being used elsewhere. A simple press of a button in the control room would have activated it to at least use the remaining coolant, but this was overlooked by staff.
The gas scrubber was placed on standby, and therefore did not attempt to clean escaping gases with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), which may have brought the concentration down to a safe level. The water curtain that may have reduced the concentration of the gas was only set to ~13 m and did not reach the gas; it was not designed to contain a leak of such magnitude. Though the audible external alarm was activated to warn the residents of Bhopal, it was quickly silenced to avoid causing panic among the residents. Thus, many continued to sleep, unaware of the unfolding drama, and those that had woken assumed any problem had been sorted. The flare tower used to burn off gases before they are allowed to escape into the air was inoperational pending repairs.
The families of the people who died in Bhopal each received about $2,200.
This is all a matter of public record, easy to research online. The BBC has a very good Bhopal resource center for anyone who wishes to learn more about this horrible example of corporate malfeasance. Without proper regulation, corporations behave in completely sociopathic ways.
Do you enjoy lying through your teeth about horrible disasters in order to prop up your failed and murderous ideology? Do you enjoy playing apologist for sociopaths?
My apologies. I went a bit overboard. Having to spend my Sunday in a loud datacenter does that to me sometimes. Whatever I've thought of you in the past, you've certainly redeemed yourself in my eyes with this very sensible reply to what was the worst kind of flamebait. As much as I like to think differently, I'm sometimes guilty of the very things I accuse you of.
Please, I'm not a communist. That wasn't my side that lost. You keep harping on that. Is that straw man the best argument you can come up with? We anarchists have as much reason to hate the communists as anyone. You know why Leon Trotsky got the ice pick through the ear, right? Lumping all left leaning thinkers together with the communists just shows how uneducated you are.
I know that. But solar powered boats can go in any direction with the same efficiency. Sailboats for the most part do best on a broad reach. And solar can power batteries for when there's no sun. I've never seen a wind battery for when there's no wind.
Hey, "master of spin" is a complement. Sort of :-P. You are very good at responding to questions in such a way that it looks as though you have answered them, when in fact you have sidestepped them. Just my opinion, nut I have personally asked you questions before where you have done that. Are you perhaps a lawyer or a politician yourself? Again, it's just my opinion, it sometimes seems as if you care more about appearing to be right than finding out if you are or not.
As for why this story has been trotted out, perhaps it's important that people do something about vote fraud? Your position seems to be "Everyone does it, there's nothing you can do about it, so don't even bother talking about it." That position seems to be designed to encourage feelings of disenfranchisement, which generally swings the vote to the right. Is that what you are trying to do?
You acknowledge that a CEO of the major e-voting machine maufacturer made a comment that could easily be taken to mean "I'm going to help the republicans cheat on elections," but you deny that this is what he meant, based on nothing more than your opinion. But you state it as if it were a fact. Even given this, and no counterexamples on the democratic side, you seem to imply that the cheating cancels out. But you don't actually say that, so that if someone calls you on it, you can deny having said that and claim they misinterpreted you. But of coure, that will be so far down the thread that no one will read it, while everyone reads where you first makes the claim. Then they all walk away thinking you have proved something you not only haven't but would probably deny ever saying. At least, that's the way I've seen you operate in the past.
You may not be a Republican, but you have espoused some very neo-con positions here. Maybe you didn't vote for Bush, maybe you did. I wouldn't put it past you to lie about that to create a more sympathetic climate for yourself. Again, this is all based on your past posts here. Anyone can look them up and see for themselves.
With a trimaran design, one could make a low displacement ship with a huge deck area. Of course, there's always the cloudy day to mess things up, but with enough batteries on cuold get through a day or two. Really though, this isn't about efficiency, it's more of a "Look what we can do." kind of thing, and a good starting point for research into marine solar applications. How much does salt water effect common types of solar panels? What's the most efficient type of motor for this application? What's the best way to mount solar panels onto a rolling and pitching surface? These are all questions that might be answered by a program such as this.
Because wind and currents don't always go in the direction you might want them to?
Do you deny that electronic voting and other new technologies make massive vote fraud easier than ever before. I know you, and I know you are a master of spin, so I'd like a yes or no, unqualified answer to that.
I agree that fraud is a problem common to both parties. But historically, it has been worst in the party in power, because they have more power to cover it up. You can argue all you like about the president of Diebold's actual meaning, but the fact is that no one in his position should ever say anything like that, and a company who's president says things like that, and who's machines have been proven to be insecure, should never be allowed anywhere near an election. That's just common sense, and it applies to either side.
Democrats were caught cheating long ago, there haven't been any democratic vote scandals on the same scale for years. If you ca refute this with evidence, I invite you to do so. This story does a good job of showing what the Republicans have done, if you are so sure the Demcrats have operated on the same scale, why don't you provide some references? Otherwise, it's just your opinion, isn't it?
Do the Democrats still cheat? Sure. Do they do it as much as the Republicans? Probably not. Is that why they lost the election? Partly, but their snooze-o-rama candidate probably did far more to lose the election for them than their opponants ever could. As a democrat, I can admit that. Can you, as a Republican admit that perhaps this cheating isn't as bipartisan as you make it out to be? If not, pony up some references or we will all know how much your opinion is really worth.
Hey, I'm a liberal and I agree with you. Kerry sucked, and the Dems have not provided a real alternative. Maybe if they had, Bush couldn't have stolen the election without someone noticing. But these issues are real, and this isn't partisan. The Democrats have done the same kinds of things in the past, but people noticed, and they got angry, and they did somethig about it. Now it's the Republicans turn to face the music and realize that the people of this country will not stand for this kind of thing, no matter their party affiliation. Don't try to make this partisan. I know I'd be just as pissed if the Democrats had done it. Would you be as forgiving? From your tone, I think not.
Look, it may not concern you that Bush stole the election, because you wanted him to win, but I garauntee it will concern you when someone you don't like uses the same techniques to steal it. Wake up. This isn't partisan, the Democrats have done the same thing in the past, and it sucked just as much then. But we did somethign about it.
Just read the friggin article and perhaps you will see some ways that our elections are unfair and should be fixed, ignore the fact that it's your man who did it. Mentally insert "Bill Clinton" in place of GWB if that helps, but read it, and believe it, and get riled up and do something or our country is going to go down the crapper in a big scary way. I gaurantee that if no one does anything about this, someone who you abhor is going to use these tricks. And by then it will probably be too late.
And if you think everyone here is lame and pathetic because they don't agree with you, well, maybe this isn't the place for you? I hear freerepublic.com is nice...
Starting from the pinkie or index finger, palm facing or away? You should really be more clear...
Jeebus cripes! You're reading way too much into what I said. Of course cycling is a net plus for society, for more than just the reasons you mentioned. But if helmets do save lives (which obviously you debate in the first place, but play along for a minute...) and you ride without a helmet, and sustain an injury which no one else can be held accountable for, shouldn't you have to pay for your medical expenses? (Given our current legal/medical system, which sucks. I do support universal medical coverage, and if such a system were enacted my point would be moot.)
I used to ride in Critical Mass when I lived in San Francisco, during which I've been chased up onto the sidewalk and then ticketed for riding on the sidewalk by cops on motorcycles. I've done a fair bit of bike activism myself. I just happen to disagree with you that wearing a helmet is pointless.
Okay, first, I said that I was in no way blaming lilo. What a ridiculous strawman. The fact that you would bring that up shows me you are the type of sophist who will do anythign to win converts to your side of an argument, including disparaging your opponent and outright dishonesty.
Second, although the site you linked to appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site, it is balanced enough to admit that many studies show thatbicycle helmets are effective. Sure, it also presents counter arguments, but it as it appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site put up by bicycle enthusiasts who do not want to see strict helmet laws enacted, I would take the number of studies presented on both sides with a grain of salt. The numbers of pro and con studies listed are problably not representative of the actual number of published studies out there.
In addition, is there any chance you yourself (with a personal web site named bikeboom.com) are biased against the use of helmets? I don't support helmet laws, as long as people are willing to accept the risks themselves and sign something stating they will never impose upon the state for medical care if they are injured doing something foolish. But I certainly advocate for their use.
Many helmets do not meet the high-impact safety standards, but the fact is there are helmets out there that do. Helmets today are lightweight, well ventilated and comfortable. Even if they can protect in only a small fraction of cases, isn't it worth it to wear one?
Thus the loudspeakers. I picture the scenario going something like this:
"Hey you with the ski-mask on, we see you! Stop beating up on that poor old woman. Don't you take her handbag, I mean it. Stop it! Really, we're going to find you, Mr. possibly a 6'-4" possibly male most-likely caucasian. We have software that can recognize you by your walk. Hey, stop that! Stop walking all funny! Okay boys, it's got to be John Cleese, no one else that tall can walk that funny, go get him!"
This is not to blame lilo in any way for not wearing a helmet, but please, let's learn from what happened here. Always wear a helmet when riding a bike. The speed you are going doesn't matter, it's the distance from your head to the ground, which is the same on a bike as it is on a motorcycle. My life was probably saved once because I was wearing a helmet when I hit a pothole after coming off a long hill. Bike helmets nowadays are light-weight and not at all dorky looking.
Again, the driver is to blame for this, not lilo. Doubly so as they fled the scene, when perhaps if they had stayed and summoned help immediately, lilo might have survived.
Rest in peace, lilo. My condolences go out to his family.
Okay, what do you call this? I was honestly seeking your input to help me see where I had gone wrong in my thinking, and you replied with more inflammatory condescension. But whatever. Look, either you want to have a discussion about these issues or you want to fling insults. I'm down with either, but you can't have it both ways. I'm open to changing my ideas if they are proven wrong, are you?
I can see how you might be threatened by the things I am saying. It may sound like I'm saying, "Let's go after jcr and take everything he's worked hard for all his life." I'm not. This is a really hard issue to discuss, because I believe that our current system isn't fair or just, and you probably think the opposite. But unless you are in the wealthiest 10%, I'm not advocating coming after your property. I wasn't clear about that, and maybe I overstated my case. I tend to get a little inflammatory at times, I admit that.
I'll also admit that maybe my answers aren't perfect. That's why I want to discuss them, not to prove my ideas are right, but to find out where they aren't and strengthen them. If you can recognize that, however misguided I am, I have good intentions, I'll be happy. I don't want to screw over anyone who doesn't deserve it. But some people do deserve it. I feel that crazy, power hungry people have risen to positions of power and dominance in our current system, and I would like to see that rectified. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I can hope that you can at least admit that other people do see it that way, and perhaps there is some small sliver of truth in our position.
Hey, I tried being nice with you, you started the bad vibes. Whatever, I apologize, this is obviously a hot button issue with you, and I'm done trying to piss you off purposefully. Shooting fish in a barrel isn't fun. Damn, there I go again.
Come on, I'm just putting out my ideas here, if you don't agree that's fine. I'm not advocating armed insurrection, and it's not like me and my army of anarchist anti-propertarians are going to come and steal your stuff. If enough people agree with my way of thinking, then things will change, and I'm sorry for whatever pain that might cause the minority, but as I have tried to base my philosophy on a moral foundation of "Don't take away the choices of others," I kind of think the pain that the minority would be feeling would be the pain of having their own unfair advantage taken from them, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
But come on, how likely is that? Unless something goes seriously wrong with the system the way it is, there will never be enough people advocating for radical change to make a difference, and if the system does go seriously wrong, then that's a pretty damn good time for radical change, don't you think?
Oh, please. It's income no different from any other. Just because you happen to be related to someone, why should you not have to pay taxes when they give you something? If your employer gives you a bonus, you pay taxes on it, even though he already payed taxes on it when he earned it. When someone related to you gives you a gift, you pay taxes on it (or you should, if you aren't a filthy, selfish tax cheat.) Why should it be any different when someone dies and leaves something to you.
Robbing the dead, that's hilarious. Do you take all your talking points straight from Faux News?