FWIW, newspaper accounts seem to show that this story misrepresented the events of the day. OTOH, it also seems that there is no consistent story of the coin-tossing choices...that there were probably a lot of them, and that some sources report Bernie winning more of them than Hillary.
I'd like better information, but newspaper stories are what I have. And from newspapers you can find a large range of different stories.
Thank you. Do you have a link? I was hoping someone would/had investigated this. The link I found said that there wasn't any actual record of coin flips. (Well, it actually said there were several contradictory records.)
This seems a remarkably silly way to decide presidential candidates, even granted that these are lower level delegates at a party primary rather than governmental election level. OTOH, I've proposed ideas that probably struck other people as quite as silly.
It's highly suspicious, but far from impossible. It also appears to not have affected the result. (Or effected, if you care.) But it should be investigated, because in overlays the election with the appearance of corruption. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.
Unfortunately, I doubt that it will be investigated, and I will end up suspecting that this was one more example of corrupt electoral practices. And I expect this to be true whether it was honest or not.
Actually, low probability things happen all the time. But when anything significant depends on those low probability things, one should check to insure that the probabilities actually are as stated. Often one will find that they aren't.
E.g., every finger motion you make is the result of a summation of lots of low probability events. But the action doesn't depend on any particular one of the events, so you don't need to investigate just why you twitched your finger....until the finger twitch starts happening "randomly" and they you need to investigate whether something is jiggering with your nerves. (Too much caffeine, Parkinson's, nerve gas, etc. You need to check.)
Now in selecting candidates the "random" process has turned up something of rather low probability...not extremely low, but rather low. It's time to investigate whether something is interfering with the probabilities. And if nobody investigates, the appropriate assumption is that the probabilities ARE being interfered with.
FWIW, she didn't send those emails, she received them. Still not good, but not entirely her fault. (And did she know they were, or ought to have been, classified? Did she have any reason to know?)
I consider that a very stupid thing to have done, but it's not really clear that the state department email servers were any better. And seriously, email is equivalent to a post card. What is anyone doing transmitting anything even confidential over unencrypted email.
I can't imagine voting for Hillary because I believe she supports the TPP, even though she waffled on it in the debates. This is enough to cause me to consider seriously voting Green or Libertarian or something. Not because they have a chance of winning, but because I can't stomach supporting someone that I believe supports the TPP.
OTOH, I live in a state that's going to go Democrat anyway, so it doesn't matter what party I support for president. All I'll influence is the popular vote. Perhaps if it might make a difference I'd grind my teeth out of shape and vote for her. She does have a couple of decent planks in the platform that she might try to live up to.
That's not the problem I have with that decision. The problem I have is that the sealed the evidence and said that nobody could look at it for, I think 20 years.
Whether the direction of the decision was correct or not, hiding the evidence removes the appearance of honesty. There was also a lot of question about voting machines being tampered with, etc. But whether it happened, or if so whether both sides were doing it equally, is not knowable with the evidence hidden.
Because of that I'm going to assume it was a matter of "the fix is in", but without much certainty. But it's definite that the appearance of the fix being in is present.
I don't, however, make any assumption that the Democrats are any less likely to fix the votes than are the Republicans. Either party in power is going to have people in office who want it to stay in power, and aren't too picky about how. (I originally wrote "Any party...", but I'm not absolutely certain that that's correct. History provides a couple of counterexamples, not many, but a couple. There would probably more if I knew more history of local groups.)
You can't prove that it was corruption in action. All you can do is estimate the likelihood. But from other considerations I've say that the likelihood was a lot higher than 64 to 1.
IIUC, Ford used to study which parts in his cars failed least frequently, and then change the design to make it cheaper. This *should* be another way to achieve the same end.
I believe that were I to do this, it would have no effect unless I was logged in as root. Obviously, I'm not about to try. But the only things in "/" that have write permission to other than root are: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 Dec 17 2014 initrd.img ->/boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64 drwxrwxrwt 38 root root 4096 Feb 1 13:17 tmp and lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Dec 17 2014 vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64 and two are those are links to a file that itself only has write permission given to root.
Similarly for "/var/log". So if "rm -rf/var/log" would do anything at all I would consider the system broken. Similarly for "rm -rf/*". I'm still trying to wrap my head around what "m -rf/" *should* do even with root permissions, but without it since drwxr-xr-x 25 root root 4096 Sep 28 12:04 . and drwxr-xr-x 25 root root 4096 Sep 28 12:04.. it clearly shouldn't do anything. So if it were to then I would consider the system broken.
If the population of the US is 318 million, and most of the people I know won't be watching the SuperBowl, how much should I believe their 100 million estimate?
For that matter, how could they know even afterwards? I can imagine some way to track the number of TVs that were tuned in, but most of those don't have built-in spy devices yet.
OTOH, if you aren't using Java and are reasonably familiar with the language, then a text editor should be sufficient. I presume that if you use an IDE then you're expecting some benefit over a text editor, and I admit that when I use Java I find that NetBeans gives me substantial benefit. But for something that takes 64GB of RAM I'd expect it to write the code itself from a vague description.
FWIW, there *ARE* (well, were) good IDEs. FoxPro had a good IDE back before they were bought by MS. And in the same period MS Access had a decent IDE. Most, however, aren't generally worth the bother even when free. There are special circumstances where some of them can be helpful, but generally a text editor is easier and faster.
The particular "lunch counter" I was thinking of was a rather famous one in the South that was the subject of a Supreme Court decision about public accommodations. It has been extended by judicial analogy in many different cases. I can't tell whether it should apply here or not. Possibly the TOS would suffice to say that it doesn't, but I'm no lawyer.
The traditional rule was "The freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.", in which case they would definitely have the right to revoke an account arbitrarily, but I'm not certain it still applies. (Again, I'm no lawyer.)
Now as to whether it SHOULD apply, I'd say, no. As to whether the Constitution would justify it applying, I'd say no. But I've no opinion on how the current law is interpreted.
While I agree that those on the left, when in power, tend to unfairly deprive their opponents of the right to be heard, the exact same thing is true of those on the right. They just "censor" based on different grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, newspaper accounts seem to show that this story misrepresented the events of the day. OTOH, it also seems that there is no consistent story of the coin-tossing choices...that there were probably a lot of them, and that some sources report Bernie winning more of them than Hillary.
I'd like better information, but newspaper stories are what I have. And from newspapers you can find a large range of different stories.
Thank you. Do you have a link? I was hoping someone would/had investigated this. The link I found said that there wasn't any actual record of coin flips. (Well, it actually said there were several contradictory records.)
This seems a remarkably silly way to decide presidential candidates, even granted that these are lower level delegates at a party primary rather than governmental election level. OTOH, I've proposed ideas that probably struck other people as quite as silly.
It's highly suspicious, but far from impossible. It also appears to not have affected the result. (Or effected, if you care.) But it should be investigated, because in overlays the election with the appearance of corruption. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.
Unfortunately, I doubt that it will be investigated, and I will end up suspecting that this was one more example of corrupt electoral practices. And I expect this to be true whether it was honest or not.
Actually, low probability things happen all the time. But when anything significant depends on those low probability things, one should check to insure that the probabilities actually are as stated. Often one will find that they aren't.
E.g., every finger motion you make is the result of a summation of lots of low probability events. But the action doesn't depend on any particular one of the events, so you don't need to investigate just why you twitched your finger....until the finger twitch starts happening "randomly" and they you need to investigate whether something is jiggering with your nerves. (Too much caffeine, Parkinson's, nerve gas, etc. You need to check.)
Now in selecting candidates the "random" process has turned up something of rather low probability...not extremely low, but rather low. It's time to investigate whether something is interfering with the probabilities. And if nobody investigates, the appropriate assumption is that the probabilities ARE being interfered with.
FWIW, she didn't send those emails, she received them. Still not good, but not entirely her fault. (And did she know they were, or ought to have been, classified? Did she have any reason to know?)
I consider that a very stupid thing to have done, but it's not really clear that the state department email servers were any better. And seriously, email is equivalent to a post card. What is anyone doing transmitting anything even confidential over unencrypted email.
I can't imagine voting for Hillary because I believe she supports the TPP, even though she waffled on it in the debates. This is enough to cause me to consider seriously voting Green or Libertarian or something. Not because they have a chance of winning, but because I can't stomach supporting someone that I believe supports the TPP.
OTOH, I live in a state that's going to go Democrat anyway, so it doesn't matter what party I support for president. All I'll influence is the popular vote. Perhaps if it might make a difference I'd grind my teeth out of shape and vote for her. She does have a couple of decent planks in the platform that she might try to live up to.
That's not the problem I have with that decision. The problem I have is that the sealed the evidence and said that nobody could look at it for, I think 20 years.
Whether the direction of the decision was correct or not, hiding the evidence removes the appearance of honesty. There was also a lot of question about voting machines being tampered with, etc. But whether it happened, or if so whether both sides were doing it equally, is not knowable with the evidence hidden.
Because of that I'm going to assume it was a matter of "the fix is in", but without much certainty. But it's definite that the appearance of the fix being in is present.
I don't, however, make any assumption that the Democrats are any less likely to fix the votes than are the Republicans. Either party in power is going to have people in office who want it to stay in power, and aren't too picky about how. (I originally wrote "Any party...", but I'm not absolutely certain that that's correct. History provides a couple of counterexamples, not many, but a couple. There would probably more if I knew more history of local groups.)
You can't prove that it was corruption in action. All you can do is estimate the likelihood. But from other considerations I've say that the likelihood was a lot higher than 64 to 1.
And if you read the poem of the Deacon's Marvelous One Horse Shay, you'll see that it all fell apart at exactly the same time. So it fits.
That's number of TVs, not number of viewers. And I've always been quite dubious about Nielson.
IIUC, Ford used to study which parts in his cars failed least frequently, and then change the design to make it cheaper. This *should* be another way to achieve the same end.
Mod parent +6 insightful and +6 informative. Or higher.
I believe that were I to do this, it would have no effect unless I was logged in as root. Obviously, I'm not about to try. But the only things in "/" that have write permission to other than root are: /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 Dec 17 2014 initrd.img ->
drwxrwxrwt 38 root root 4096 Feb 1 13:17 tmp
and
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Dec 17 2014 vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64
and two are those are links to a file that itself only has write permission given to root.
Similarly for "/var/log". So if "rm -rf /var/log" would do anything at all I would consider the system broken. Similarly for "rm -rf /*". I'm still trying to wrap my head around what "m -rf /" *should* do even with root permissions, but without it since ..
drwxr-xr-x 25 root root 4096 Sep 28 12:04 . and
drwxr-xr-x 25 root root 4096 Sep 28 12:04
it clearly shouldn't do anything. So if it were to then I would consider the system broken.
You inserted an extra "r" into that last word.
If the population of the US is 318 million, and most of the people I know won't be watching the SuperBowl, how much should I believe their 100 million estimate?
For that matter, how could they know even afterwards? I can imagine some way to track the number of TVs that were tuned in, but most of those don't have built-in spy devices yet.
OTOH, if you aren't using Java and are reasonably familiar with the language, then a text editor should be sufficient. I presume that if you use an IDE then you're expecting some benefit over a text editor, and I admit that when I use Java I find that NetBeans gives me substantial benefit. But for something that takes 64GB of RAM I'd expect it to write the code itself from a vague description.
FWIW, there *ARE* (well, were) good IDEs. FoxPro had a good IDE back before they were bought by MS. And in the same period MS Access had a decent IDE. Most, however, aren't generally worth the bother even when free. There are special circumstances where some of them can be helpful, but generally a text editor is easier and faster.
He clearly stated those were minimum requirements.
What nobody has said is what the requirements are for decent performance. Somebody said that he had 64GB and was still plagued with swapping.
That may be so, but if you push the cycles, don't expect the battery to last.
Esp. if you're a snail. (Look it up.)
Perhaps some people looked into the alternatives. If you don't speak Icelandic or Norwegian they start getting iffy.
The particular "lunch counter" I was thinking of was a rather famous one in the South that was the subject of a Supreme Court decision about public accommodations. It has been extended by judicial analogy in many different cases. I can't tell whether it should apply here or not. Possibly the TOS would suffice to say that it doesn't, but I'm no lawyer.
The traditional rule was "The freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.", in which case they would definitely have the right to revoke an account arbitrarily, but I'm not certain it still applies. (Again, I'm no lawyer.)
Now as to whether it SHOULD apply, I'd say, no. As to whether the Constitution would justify it applying, I'd say no. But I've no opinion on how the current law is interpreted.
US House UnAmerican Activities Committee.
Joseph McCarthy
Any fundamentalist rally
etc.
When people have power they tend to stifle criticism, even when it is clearly to their own advantage. Often this is called "kill the messenger".
Look up "public accommodations", and try to decide whether it applies as much to twitter as to a lunch counter.
I don't like "hate speech", but I'm quite wary of all attempts to forcibly curtail it. They can so easily be turned around against other targets.
While I agree that those on the left, when in power, tend to unfairly deprive their opponents of the right to be heard, the exact same thing is true of those on the right. They just "censor" based on different grounds.
And I don't approve of either.
I'm not sure that a twitter account is enshrined in the Constitution.
OTOH, perhaps it could be considered a "public accommodation" and thus fall under the same umbrella as lunch counters and buses.