Your reasoning is false because the criminals also have "a powerful bazooka like weapon capable of destroying a whole neighbourhood" and they are willing to use it. You act like they do not have and/or are not willing to use nuclear weapons, and that is patently false.
I notice that the first article you mention refers to the extra votes, as well as other issues, as a "glitch" and that there has been no evidence that the votes were intentionally "altered or outright made up".
The from the second article:
Prosecutors accused Maiden and Dreamer of secretly reviewing preselected ballots before a public recount on Dec. 16, 2004. They worked behind closed doors for three days to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, prosecutors said ...
Special prosecutor Kevin Baxter did not claim the workers' actions affected the outcome of the election _ Kerry gained 17 votes and Bush lost six in the county's recount.
That does not sound like votes were "altered or outright made up".
The GPP stated that votes were altered or made up, which implies intent, that someone did it intentionally. I want to see evidence of someone intentionally altering the vote. Neither of your links support that.
He said there was "Documented proof exists that thousands of votes were either altered or outright made up", and I would like him to post the documents that provide that proof. That is all I am asking for, that he provide that which he says exists.
And, the judge is not required to offer anyone probation. Probation is a means of avoiding part of one's sentence. One receives probation in lieu of actually going to jail. When one violates one's probation, one, in theory, is sent to jail to serve one's sentence. In actuality, people who violate their probation often are allowed to remain on probation.
The 30 minute timeline is based on the ability of ICBMs to reach target in that time frame. Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock you car? Do you protect your identity and banking information? Why? Because of "fear of something that might never happen, but which you have presumed might happen".
So, you contention is that because Iran hasn't done it yet, it won't ever do it? You really want to stick with that? Maybe you should take a look at world history, and American history for that matter.
You were still wrong about Pakistan and India. They were at war in 1999, just one year after both had nuclear weapons.
The "football" was the launch authentication system. The reason for allowing the president to launch a nuclear strike is because there will not be time for a "thorough discussion among other Government officials" because in the event of a nuclear launch against the United States, there will be less 30 minutes to gathers said officials, brief them, get them to come to a consensus, provide notification their decision, and then actually implement said decision.
Your idea of how nuclear war would occur are ignorant of the real-world facts.
Or, the USSR could have just surrendered. That makes about as much sense as what you suggest and had about as much chance of happening.
Also, if the U.S. was not willing to counterstrike, then there would be no deterrent. A weapon based deterrent is only as strong as one's will to use the weapon. If one has no will to use the weapon(s), then there is no deterrent.
The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition
Please support that statement with evidence.
...yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased
Actually, no they didn't. Both countries developed nuclear weapons in 1998. In 1999, there was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan called "The Kargil War". Both still angle to have Kashmir as part of their respective countries and there are militant groups, some of which are believed to be backed by different governments, working in the region.
Please support your contentions, because right now, all I see are uninformed opinion.
Don't you mean that I will look at the source and see which are biased and point it out, like I did in a different post?
Just because you like a source, it does not follow that the source is not biased. In fact, the more one likes a source, the greater a chance the source is biased because there is a greater chance the source is just feeding back your own opinions and beliefs.
But, it is not cruel and unusual punishment. Probation is purely optional and voluntary.
Probation is not punishment, is is actually a chance to avoid part of the punishment in exchange for following specific rules and for allowing government oversight of one's life.
One other thing, HTTPS may not be covered under the encryption software part of the agreement. Such things are often defined in state as well as federal law. One would need to see how "encryption software" is defined by California law before stating he could not use HTTPS. The same goes for other terms in the order. The legal definition of something is often quite different than common and/or technical usage.
No, he was sentenced to punishment A,which includes jail time, and offered a chance to not serve the time in jail if he is willing to comply with the rules put forth by the court. Probation is not punishment, it is a chance to avoid part of the punishment in exchange for government oversight one one's life.
Yes, it is a choice. Probation and the conditions of it are completely voluntary. Complying with the conditions is the price of not being behind bars. It is a choice of being behind bars, which is the actual sentence, and not being behind bars and complying with rules imposed.
Unless this guy communicates with his criminal friends via the computer.
Unless this guy had information about his crimes on his computer in the past or present.
I know a person who was arrested for drugs and a part of her parole as that she could not go to bars or get drunk.
The items in question are terms of probation. If J.J., the person who was convicted and sentenced, does not want to abide by the terms of the probation, he can always serve his time in jail.
You do not understand the order. The order is part of his probation agreement, which he is free to reject and take the actual punishment, which would be a fine and/or jail time. Basically, the judge is saying "You don't have to spend time in jail if you agree to abide by these rules."
It is not a punishment. It is a condition of his probation. His probation is what he received in lieu of his punishment, which would have been jail time. He does not have to take probation. He can always elect to do the time in jail or prison.
While on probation, one and one's property is subject to search. However, one is not required to give encryption keys. By banning him from using encryption while on probation, they prevent him from encrypting any records of any crimes he may commit.
At the time he was arrested, he was already on probation for drug related offenses. It is quite possible that there were encrypted files on his computer which would have resulted in a request for prohibiting encryption software.
How is it cruel and unusual? And, it is not part of his punishment, it is a part of his probation agreement. If he does not want to agree to it, he can always serve his time in jail.
Do you mean the part where moveon.org was intimidating republican voters?
Or, the union assault on republican campaign offices in Orlando that resulted in a campaign volunteer getting his arm broken?
Upon reading the article, it looks to me like there were accusation of dirty tricks on both sides but nothing ever panned out. Oh, and most of those sources have nothing to do with the Ohio election as specified in the GP.
Slashdot Mirror
Your reasoning is false because the criminals also have "a powerful bazooka like weapon capable of destroying a whole neighbourhood" and they are willing to use it. You act like they do not have and/or are not willing to use nuclear weapons, and that is patently false.
The from the second article:
That does not sound like votes were "altered or outright made up".
The GPP stated that votes were altered or made up, which implies intent, that someone did it intentionally. I want to see evidence of someone intentionally altering the vote. Neither of your links support that.
He said there was "Documented proof exists that thousands of votes were either altered or outright made up", and I would like him to post the documents that provide that proof. That is all I am asking for, that he provide that which he says exists.
And, the judge is not required to offer anyone probation. Probation is a means of avoiding part of one's sentence. One receives probation in lieu of actually going to jail. When one violates one's probation, one, in theory, is sent to jail to serve one's sentence. In actuality, people who violate their probation often are allowed to remain on probation.
The 30 minute timeline is based on the ability of ICBMs to reach target in that time frame. Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock you car? Do you protect your identity and banking information? Why? Because of "fear of something that might never happen, but which you have presumed might happen".
So, you contention is that because Iran hasn't done it yet, it won't ever do it? You really want to stick with that? Maybe you should take a look at world history, and American history for that matter.
You were still wrong about Pakistan and India. They were at war in 1999, just one year after both had nuclear weapons.
The "football" was the launch authentication system. The reason for allowing the president to launch a nuclear strike is because there will not be time for a "thorough discussion among other Government officials" because in the event of a nuclear launch against the United States, there will be less 30 minutes to gathers said officials, brief them, get them to come to a consensus, provide notification their decision, and then actually implement said decision.
Your idea of how nuclear war would occur are ignorant of the real-world facts.
Or, the USSR could have just surrendered. That makes about as much sense as what you suggest and had about as much chance of happening.
Also, if the U.S. was not willing to counterstrike, then there would be no deterrent. A weapon based deterrent is only as strong as one's will to use the weapon. If one has no will to use the weapon(s), then there is no deterrent.
Please support that statement with evidence.
Actually, no they didn't. Both countries developed nuclear weapons in 1998. In 1999, there was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan called "The Kargil War". Both still angle to have Kashmir as part of their respective countries and there are militant groups, some of which are believed to be backed by different governments, working in the region.
Please support your contentions, because right now, all I see are uninformed opinion.
Don't you mean that I will look at the source and see which are biased and point it out, like I did in a different post?
Just because you like a source, it does not follow that the source is not biased. In fact, the more one likes a source, the greater a chance the source is biased because there is a greater chance the source is just feeding back your own opinions and beliefs.
It is called a marketing tie-in and is making money for the makers of COD and Jeep is hoping it will increase the sales of the Wrangler.
But, it is not cruel and unusual punishment. Probation is purely optional and voluntary.
Probation is not punishment, is is actually a chance to avoid part of the punishment in exchange for following specific rules and for allowing government oversight of one's life.
One other thing, HTTPS may not be covered under the encryption software part of the agreement. Such things are often defined in state as well as federal law. One would need to see how "encryption software" is defined by California law before stating he could not use HTTPS. The same goes for other terms in the order. The legal definition of something is often quite different than common and/or technical usage.
No, he was sentenced to punishment A,which includes jail time, and offered a chance to not serve the time in jail if he is willing to comply with the rules put forth by the court. Probation is not punishment, it is a chance to avoid part of the punishment in exchange for government oversight one one's life.
Yes, it is a choice. Probation and the conditions of it are completely voluntary. Complying with the conditions is the price of not being behind bars. It is a choice of being behind bars, which is the actual sentence, and not being behind bars and complying with rules imposed.
Mugging is not voluntary. Probation is. Your analogy fails.
While on probation, one is required to submit to searches on one's person and possessions. They can look at his computer any time they want.
Remember, this is probation. If he doesn't like the terms he can always do the jail time.
Unless this guy communicates with his criminal friends via the computer. Unless this guy had information about his crimes on his computer in the past or present. I know a person who was arrested for drugs and a part of her parole as that she could not go to bars or get drunk.
The items in question are terms of probation. If J.J., the person who was convicted and sentenced, does not want to abide by the terms of the probation, he can always serve his time in jail.
You do not understand the order. The order is part of his probation agreement, which he is free to reject and take the actual punishment, which would be a fine and/or jail time. Basically, the judge is saying "You don't have to spend time in jail if you agree to abide by these rules."
It is not a punishment. It is a condition of his probation. His probation is what he received in lieu of his punishment, which would have been jail time. He does not have to take probation. He can always elect to do the time in jail or prison.
While on probation, one and one's property is subject to search. However, one is not required to give encryption keys. By banning him from using encryption while on probation, they prevent him from encrypting any records of any crimes he may commit.
At the time he was arrested, he was already on probation for drug related offenses. It is quite possible that there were encrypted files on his computer which would have resulted in a request for prohibiting encryption software.
How is it cruel and unusual? And, it is not part of his punishment, it is a part of his probation agreement. If he does not want to agree to it, he can always serve his time in jail.
Kid? I wouldn't doubt that I am at least old enough to have taught you in school.
Your ad hominem ad homenym dismissal of the evidence of bias in your listed sources does nothing to refute said evidence.
I can just imagine trying to change THOSE.
The NYT is interesting. But, it speaks of only one machine in Ohio and offers no other instances.
The Harpers article looks like most screeds I have read and plugs the book of the author's parents. Less than unbiased.
In the "About" section of MakeThemAccountable.com shows it to be biased to the left.
The same goes for the FreePress.org. It is obviously biased.
Did you actually take a look at WhatReallyHappened.com?The front page screams bias. "Israel's whores in Congress? Really?
JQJacobs.net appears to be a personal blog with no real explanation of the qualifications of the author.
Do you mean the part where moveon.org was intimidating republican voters?
Or, the union assault on republican campaign offices in Orlando that resulted in a campaign volunteer getting his arm broken?
Upon reading the article, it looks to me like there were accusation of dirty tricks on both sides but nothing ever panned out. Oh, and most of those sources have nothing to do with the Ohio election as specified in the GP.