Aww, c'mon. That was totally the most obvious thing that could have been implied from the article. I mean, it's on Slashdot of all places. All everyone talks about is how Georgia's new set of Diebold machines gave them the first Republican to beat a Democratic incumbant, and how the ex-CEO of one voter machine companies is now a Senator, and how the last election depended on all those Florida voters who were disenfranchised and so obviously this season would require new tactics to keep Bush in office.
I look forward to Kerry winning just so I don't have to deal with this shit anymore. I'd be best if Badnarik, Cobb, or Nadar got some large percentages but so long as that side is trying to undermine this side with evil tactics people aren't going to risk their votes anywhere else, cause that side is evil so everyone needs to join this side.
We were fighting for OUR OWN VOTE way back then. In Iraq, we were forcing the vote on them. They didn't want it, but we shoved it down their throats.
Who is this "we" you keep talking about? Nobody cared about the Revolutionary war when it started. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Washington, and their lot saw that they could play the lower class of off the British, get the British kicked out, and assume control themselves. Most of the people who signed the Declaration of Independance and who ratified the Constitution had been upper crust land owners and lawyer since before the British were ousted.
In 1770 on of the biggest complaints among the working class was impressment into the British military. The British had forced so many colonists into the military that people were having trouble finding work what with all the British soldiers parked in town and taking their jobs (soldiering didn't pay well). A group of angry ropemakers who had lost their jobs scared the hell out of a group of British soldiers when they started pelting them with snowballs full of rocks. Crispus Attucks was at the head of the group, a 6 and a half foot tall milato worker who was scary by his own self. The Brits panicked, fired, and created what we call the Boston Massacre.
So the people of the United States (read: upper crust types who wanted more of the crust) saw that tensions were high between the British and the colonists. Controlling the people was difficult because it required more impressment to get more people into the military to stop and ever increasing number of mad people from rioting. Our "founding fathers" knew a new way of governing was needed that made it look less like the people were being taken advantage of and yet would still keep everyone in line. Besides, why let the Brits have all their imperialistic fun when they could oust the Brits and reopen the west to settlement so that maybe some of the rabble will wander off and take care of that Indian problem. (the Indians fought for the French in the 7 years war) So they wrote up the Declaration of Independance.
George Washingtion, the richest man in the U.S. before and after the war, started up his little army to defend the colonies from British imperialism. Pay was $6.6 for a soldier, except officers who got $57. $6.6 wasn't very much, especially when mid-war inflation kicked in (because it *always* does), so it was hard to get men in the military. The fact was, the colonists didn't really care. All they really wanted was food and maybe those rich people to stop taxing their lives away. This is when the U.S. started impressment for the war.
It turned out that all you really had to do to get an American colonist who didn't give a rip about politics to believe in the us vs. them battle was to get them into the military. They never really stayed very long though, since they didn't really like fighting, but they did come away with the nationalism the founding father were counting on. It's alot easier to violate in the name of your country when the person on the receiving end believes it's for good. The war was thankfully ended when the U.S. got the French involved, because let me tell you, if the French hadn't cut off British supplies the Brits would have kicked the tar out of us. You can thank the Indians for helping the French out. Thank them all the way up to when we started wiping us out. Don't forget to love your French too. General Lafayette literally won the war for us.
So if it's so important to you how the country tried so hard to get this silly right to vote for someone no one will trust anyway, something that happened 200 years ago anyway, remember to thank our French neighbors across the sea, and go find an Indian somewhere to thank, we keep them locked up with Casinos nowadays.
Pick up a book on the way too, but not one of our Texas printed schoolbooks.
Also, Saddam Hussain joined his party as a torturer, stayed in his party as a torturer, and was a torturer as well as genocidal maniac up until we invaded. Giving the Iraqi people the chance to vote will be just as much an accident as it was for us.
Read between the lines in the article. The only people they interviewer were voting Kerry. The only person defending the machines was also the only one saying it affected both sides. The article either:
1) Couldn't find any Bush voters (which is interesting since New Mexico has just as many Republicans as Democrats)
or
2) Let the only comments about Republicans come from the woman who is already in suspicion of tampering with the votes, so that you'll make mental associations between the concepts of "tampered votes" and "Republicans". Subtle propaganda, I love it.
Destroy the fucking things. They're a blatant means for whoever, Republicans in this case, to disenfranchise millions of voters and skew the election. Break them. Make them not work. Refuse to use them, kick out the plug, tip it over. Take a big magnet to them, sledgehammer, shotgun, whatever.
1) Destruction of public property. 2) Blatant doesn't happen when both parties are already tiptoeing around it. Blatant only happens when someone is getting framed. In the real world those votes would switch without anyone being able to tell.
Untold numbers of our ancestors have DIED to bring us the right to vote. Such measures as I am suggesting here are no more out of bounds than is locking away a violent criminal.
1) The U.S. total population back then was, what, 1 million? How many fought? More people died getting Iraq the vote and yet everyone's pissed about it. 2) The U.S. didn't fight for direct election. Most states kept the requirement that only landowners could vote. Women, slaves, and Indians couldn't. Nobody wanted mob rule. Mod rule liked to do things like destroy public property. The U.S. approved of having a President assigned by electors chosen by state legislatures elected by people. If we still did that people would be spending much more time paying attention to elected officials that actually affect them. The federal government would be much smaller to boot.
Who hasn't seen this happen for touchscreen machines. More often than not the sensor plate thingy is offset downward of the screen so that when you press the screen the cursor will appear half an inch above it. There are two issues here.
1) Someone should fix the screen/driver so that it is aligned.
They keep saying in the article that they click on one candidate but then it gets "switched" to a vote for another candidate, as if the machine sees a Kerry vote and decides half a second later to change it to one for Bush. It's propaganda, for those of you who didn't look hard enough. Just another piece of that "There are evil people out there who want to rob you of your vote. If you see anything funny at the polls you'll know who's evil."
They were having problems with too many people learning how to cluster linux. Mentions in various forums about "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" had reached epidemic proportions so they decided something had to be done.
Thanks to this book the learning curve has been flattened down to something more appreciable and amenable to those who have complained about the problem. The curve has been flattened far enough that it takes two years to learn that clustering "will likely require more than one computer to operate correctly" (Chapter 403 pg. 8729). I count this as a big win for society.
Ignore the anonymous coward who replied before me.
it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.
It's pretty inacurate to characterize so many deaths though. To quote the study, "We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period." That means that there is a 95% chance that somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 Iraqis have died because of Americans. 98,000 just happens to be the middle point in this horribly imprecise study. Read more.
Numbers: Finding 300,000israthereasy. Tony Blair once mentioned 400,000 but that was bad info so ignore that one. Saddam joined the Ba'ath party back in 1963 as a torturer which should be worry enough. He attacked Iran in 1980 with biological and chemical weapons. He tried to annex Kuwait in 1990. Throughout history every country has had a hands off policy about dictators who kill their own people. So long as the don't invade another country no one cared. Pol Pot for example. Pinoche, Stalin, Hitler until he invaded Poland. We often do this simply because no one believes these dictators could possibly be killing as many people as is reported. The Libertarian solution is to not respond unless we or our allies are attacked, and then come down with the heaviest of hands. Besides, all these discontented Iraqis should have been able to terrorize Saddam's regime just as easily as they could ours.
When both Presidential nominees, Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich, support the war what the hell is "make sure you vote next week" supposed to mean? If you're really against the war you'll be voting Nadar or Badnarik, but I'd be off my rocker to think that's what michael was implying by letting the article through.
Article points: +100,000 flamebait (for every dead Iraqi by US) +1,000,000 overrated (for every dead Iraqi by Saddam) +5 insightful (for accidentally pointing out that the 3rd parties are the only ones against it all)
Thanks. I tend to believe the same thing but don't really have any proof to back it up. Monogamy itself is easily arguable given all the polygamous cultures in history. That the numbers of polyandrous cultures is so dwarfed by the polygynous ones it would seem that the majority of the people going for a single person to have a committed relationship with have been women. Naturally or socially though...? That's still debatable, though my girlfriend is convinced it's natural. I like her.
The new testament also leaves out four of the commandments. To get to the ones about having no more important gods, not worshipping idols, not using "god" as a swear word, and going to church on Sunday you'd have to go back to the Old Testament, which is where we also conviently find those ownership rules you were wondering about. Pick and choose.
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
that's convnenient. Now please name the religion that first started marriage. I'll wait.
It was still considered ownership up until the early twentieth century in america; america was not "government by religion"; so try again.
The point I was making wasn't that religion created marriage, it was that marriage as a form of ownership of one person over another was created by religion. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband....in the religion of the people who started this country. It was religion that made marriage more than a spiritual union and made it a civil union as well. That the United States adopted this means that the U.S. was accepting marriage as it was used by a religious government.
The tie between marriage and civil union was bound by religious government. Many religious governments did not do this. The Aztec and Inca for example. The Ashanti, Zulu, and Ghana before colonization.
Since our government is not religious or spiritual and it's supposed to be separated from religion there's no reason why a ceremony such as marriage, which is spiritual in nature, should still be considered the same thing as a civil union. It was convenient at first, but when marriage in a religion was given special benefits that marriage by the state (civil union) did not provide we created a need to make them distinct and to remove the civil benefits of the religious union and apply them to the civil union. If the government wants to throw civil union in with marriage that's ok, but if people want a union fully recognized and appreciated by a non-religious government they shouldn't need a union spiritual in nature.
it is impossible to call marriage religious or secular at this point. It's been blended and pulled around in both directions for a very long time. ...which is why it needs to change now. If government needed to be pulled apart after being both religious and secular then marriage does too.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
You almost make me wonder if the "gay gene" is some society-wide self defense mechanism to prevent overpopulation. L. Ron Hubbard wrote a book covering this.
Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.
Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
Finding a lifelong partner seems to be a human characteristic. It was religion that formalized it into some union beyond mankind. It was government by religion that made it ownership of one person by another.
They have a similarity matrix that pairs Senators and measures how close their votes were to other Senators. It's arranged in order of the clustered blocks in the Senate and if you look at Kerry's data on the vertical you'll notice that he, Edwards, and Lieberman are the Democrats who most agreed with Republicans on matters. This is interesting because two are running for President and Vice President while many thought the third would be Kerry's running mate.
Furthermore, there is a decent sized band of midwestern Republicans who are faintly in agreement with the Democrats. It's the midwest that's usually depicted as a big red blob of Bush voters.
Also worth noting is the middle pack of Democrats and Republicans who nearly never agreed with any Democrats.
It looks as though Kerry got on better with both parties of the house than anyone else, despite all the reports we hear of him being the most liberal voter. Very interesting.
Do you realize that you just affirmed the comment grandparent to yours?
You're correct that your parent comment did not check to see if their claims were true. You pointed out that Kerry did indeed have several bills make it out of Senate with his name attached to them. The evidence you provided also pointed out that Kerry did not introduce any bills that support or are supported by his current election platform.
You've done John Kerry a great disservice by revealing the details of his bill production in Senate.
They're the ones who did that funny trick with DVDs so the screen brightness would flicker which prevented anyone from running the television signal through any device that adhered to a standard.
They're the asshats who slipped that little "suprise" in with Turbo Tax that one year. Appliance rape, I called it.
TiVo should take the moral high road and at least supply some screwdriver-accessible switch which forces the machine to ignore these things they talk of in the article. The lawyer said they weren't expecting Macrovision to Trojan horse TiVo with this, but I don't think he's ever watched his computer sit in the corner and cry while a baby C_DILLA grows inside of it.
Look people before everyone gets pissed off at me for writing some of the software for these machines let me just tell you I didn't really intend it to be like this. It was originally just some DMV model I wrote in CompSci 212. How it got into the voting system I'm required by NDA to not disclose, but let me just say it was worth the full ride into grad school.
As far as i got it, the ADSL lines had low upload because of technical limitations. But why would these lines come in 5Mb/2Mb and not just 5/5 ?
Perhaps they too have limits on bandwidth into and out of their area. If they have a suitable array of caching proxies most of your web requests can be fullfilled within the Verizon system. Uploaded content wouldn't be cached on the Verizon corner of the internet nearly as often as what you download.
In essence, with a very large caching proxy, the whole Verizon system gets a 1/1 download/upload rate and the individual nodes in it will be pulling 3/5ths of their data from within the Verizon system.
That's the party that spent $50+ million dollars of taxpayer money to expose the fact that Clinton got a blowjob.
This is the United States. If it were put to a general vote the people would have allowed any amount less than the defense budget to be spent learning about blowjobs in the Whitehouse.
The exact opposite happened in Florida last time around. The result was called in favor of Gore before half of the state's polls had closed. The people still left to vote, seeing that the news was saying Gore was the winner, either went out and voted against them as soon as they saw they needed to, or stayed home thinking they're vote for him was no longer needed. Ignore Michael Moore's take on it.
I need more details! It says in the article that they applied the current for 20 minutes prior to the test and she speculated that cells could fire off more easily after the current had gone by. How did they think *during*???
Will it be alright to pulse this through my head for a millisecond every second? Doesn't that sound like it would give you a longer, more continuous effect? I mean, I've got a AA battery sitting here in front of me that's good for 2010mAh. If I ran a constant 2mA through my head I could do that for 1005 hours off of this thing. If I pulsed it though at a millisecond every second I could be getting 1005000 hours out! Granted, the battery will likely run out of juice all on it's own in that time, but doesn't this sound exciting?!!
I imagine that in 5 years or so we'll see some wire with a small battery attached to it that we can run along the surface of our scalp under our hair. In 6 years the SAT's will include metal detectors.
Yes, you can. But these may not be the kind of computer everyone will want. Regardless, they work, are at or below $100 (or were when link was made, boo for future-proofing), and don't have to be bought in bulk.
Slashdot Mirror
Aww, c'mon. That was totally the most obvious thing that could have been implied from the article. I mean, it's on Slashdot of all places. All everyone talks about is how Georgia's new set of Diebold machines gave them the first Republican to beat a Democratic incumbant, and how the ex-CEO of one voter machine companies is now a Senator, and how the last election depended on all those Florida voters who were disenfranchised and so obviously this season would require new tactics to keep Bush in office.
I look forward to Kerry winning just so I don't have to deal with this shit anymore. I'd be best if Badnarik, Cobb, or Nadar got some large percentages but so long as that side is trying to undermine this side with evil tactics people aren't going to risk their votes anywhere else, cause that side is evil so everyone needs to join this side.
I'm totally lost on the "lizard-like mind" thing.
We were fighting for OUR OWN VOTE way back then. In Iraq, we were forcing the vote on them. They didn't want it, but we shoved it down their throats.
Who is this "we" you keep talking about? Nobody cared about the Revolutionary war when it started. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Washington, and their lot saw that they could play the lower class of off the British, get the British kicked out, and assume control themselves. Most of the people who signed the Declaration of Independance and who ratified the Constitution had been upper crust land owners and lawyer since before the British were ousted.
In 1770 on of the biggest complaints among the working class was impressment into the British military. The British had forced so many colonists into the military that people were having trouble finding work what with all the British soldiers parked in town and taking their jobs (soldiering didn't pay well). A group of angry ropemakers who had lost their jobs scared the hell out of a group of British soldiers when they started pelting them with snowballs full of rocks. Crispus Attucks was at the head of the group, a 6 and a half foot tall milato worker who was scary by his own self. The Brits panicked, fired, and created what we call the Boston Massacre.
So the people of the United States (read: upper crust types who wanted more of the crust) saw that tensions were high between the British and the colonists. Controlling the people was difficult because it required more impressment to get more people into the military to stop and ever increasing number of mad people from rioting. Our "founding fathers" knew a new way of governing was needed that made it look less like the people were being taken advantage of and yet would still keep everyone in line. Besides, why let the Brits have all their imperialistic fun when they could oust the Brits and reopen the west to settlement so that maybe some of the rabble will wander off and take care of that Indian problem. (the Indians fought for the French in the 7 years war) So they wrote up the Declaration of Independance.
George Washingtion, the richest man in the U.S. before and after the war, started up his little army to defend the colonies from British imperialism. Pay was $6.6 for a soldier, except officers who got $57. $6.6 wasn't very much, especially when mid-war inflation kicked in (because it *always* does), so it was hard to get men in the military. The fact was, the colonists didn't really care. All they really wanted was food and maybe those rich people to stop taxing their lives away. This is when the U.S. started impressment for the war.
It turned out that all you really had to do to get an American colonist who didn't give a rip about politics to believe in the us vs. them battle was to get them into the military. They never really stayed very long though, since they didn't really like fighting, but they did come away with the nationalism the founding father were counting on. It's alot easier to violate in the name of your country when the person on the receiving end believes it's for good. The war was thankfully ended when the U.S. got the French involved, because let me tell you, if the French hadn't cut off British supplies the Brits would have kicked the tar out of us. You can thank the Indians for helping the French out. Thank them all the way up to when we started wiping us out. Don't forget to love your French too. General Lafayette literally won the war for us.
So if it's so important to you how the country tried so hard to get this silly right to vote for someone no one will trust anyway, something that happened 200 years ago anyway, remember to thank our French neighbors across the sea, and go find an Indian somewhere to thank, we keep them locked up with Casinos nowadays.
Pick up a book on the way too, but not one of our Texas printed schoolbooks.
Also, Saddam Hussain joined his party as a torturer, stayed in his party as a torturer, and was a torturer as well as genocidal maniac up until we invaded. Giving the Iraqi people the chance to vote will be just as much an accident as it was for us.
I left that out to see if someone else would think of it and get modded up beyond me. I like my karma earned against adversity.
Vote Badnarik!
Read between the lines in the article. The only people they interviewer were voting Kerry. The only person defending the machines was also the only one saying it affected both sides. The article either:
1) Couldn't find any Bush voters (which is interesting since New Mexico has just as many Republicans as Democrats)
or
2) Let the only comments about Republicans come from the woman who is already in suspicion of tampering with the votes, so that you'll make mental associations between the concepts of "tampered votes" and "Republicans". Subtle propaganda, I love it.
Destroy the fucking things. They're a blatant means for whoever, Republicans in this case, to disenfranchise millions of voters and skew the election. Break them. Make them not work. Refuse to use them, kick out the plug, tip it over. Take a big magnet to them, sledgehammer, shotgun, whatever.
1) Destruction of public property.
2) Blatant doesn't happen when both parties are already tiptoeing around it. Blatant only happens when someone is getting framed. In the real world those votes would switch without anyone being able to tell.
Untold numbers of our ancestors have DIED to bring us the right to vote. Such measures as I am suggesting here are no more out of bounds than is locking away a violent criminal.
1) The U.S. total population back then was, what, 1 million? How many fought? More people died getting Iraq the vote and yet everyone's pissed about it.
2) The U.S. didn't fight for direct election. Most states kept the requirement that only landowners could vote. Women, slaves, and Indians couldn't. Nobody wanted mob rule. Mod rule liked to do things like destroy public property. The U.S. approved of having a President assigned by electors chosen by state legislatures elected by people. If we still did that people would be spending much more time paying attention to elected officials that actually affect them. The federal government would be much smaller to boot.
Who hasn't seen this happen for touchscreen machines. More often than not the sensor plate thingy is offset downward of the screen so that when you press the screen the cursor will appear half an inch above it. There are two issues here.
1) Someone should fix the screen/driver so that it is aligned.
2) The woman is insane.
They keep saying in the article that they click on one candidate but then it gets "switched" to a vote for another candidate, as if the machine sees a Kerry vote and decides half a second later to change it to one for Bush. It's propaganda, for those of you who didn't look hard enough. Just another piece of that "There are evil people out there who want to rob you of your vote. If you see anything funny at the polls you'll know who's evil."
They were having problems with too many people learning how to cluster linux. Mentions in various forums about "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" had reached epidemic proportions so they decided something had to be done.
Thanks to this book the learning curve has been flattened down to something more appreciable and amenable to those who have complained about the problem. The curve has been flattened far enough that it takes two years to learn that clustering "will likely require more than one computer to operate correctly" (Chapter 403 pg. 8729). I count this as a big win for society.
Ignore the anonymous coward who replied before me.
it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.
It's pretty inacurate to characterize so many deaths though. To quote the study, "We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period." That means that there is a 95% chance that somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 Iraqis have died because of Americans. 98,000 just happens to be the middle point in this horribly imprecise study. Read more.
Numbers:
Finding 300,000 is rather easy. Tony Blair once mentioned 400,000 but that was bad info so ignore that one. Saddam joined the Ba'ath party back in 1963 as a torturer which should be worry enough. He attacked Iran in 1980 with biological and chemical weapons. He tried to annex Kuwait in 1990. Throughout history every country has had a hands off policy about dictators who kill their own people. So long as the don't invade another country no one cared. Pol Pot for example. Pinoche, Stalin, Hitler until he invaded Poland. We often do this simply because no one believes these dictators could possibly be killing as many people as is reported. The Libertarian solution is to not respond unless we or our allies are attacked, and then come down with the heaviest of hands. Besides, all these discontented Iraqis should have been able to terrorize Saddam's regime just as easily as they could ours.
1,000,000 was an estimation given the 300,000 people already found in mass graves and the number of areas still remaining to be excavated.
Then there are the people who will live now that Saddam is not in power. Look up the Kurds specifically.
When both Presidential nominees, Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich, support the war what the hell is "make sure you vote next week" supposed to mean? If you're really against the war you'll be voting Nadar or Badnarik, but I'd be off my rocker to think that's what michael was implying by letting the article through.
Article points:
+100,000 flamebait (for every dead Iraqi by US)
+1,000,000 overrated (for every dead Iraqi by Saddam)
+5 insightful (for accidentally pointing out that the 3rd parties are the only ones against it all)
Thanks. I tend to believe the same thing but don't really have any proof to back it up. Monogamy itself is easily arguable given all the polygamous cultures in history. That the numbers of polyandrous cultures is so dwarfed by the polygynous ones it would seem that the majority of the people going for a single person to have a committed relationship with have been women. Naturally or socially though...? That's still debatable, though my girlfriend is convinced it's natural. I like her.
that's convnenient. Now please name the religion that first started marriage. I'll wait.
...in the religion of the people who started this country. It was religion that made marriage more than a spiritual union and made it a civil union as well. That the United States adopted this means that the U.S. was accepting marriage as it was used by a religious government.
...which is why it needs to change now. If government needed to be pulled apart after being both religious and secular then marriage does too.
It was still considered ownership up until the early twentieth century in america; america was not "government by religion"; so try again.
The point I was making wasn't that religion created marriage, it was that marriage as a form of ownership of one person over another was created by religion. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.
The tie between marriage and civil union was bound by religious government. Many religious governments did not do this. The Aztec and Inca for example. The Ashanti, Zulu, and Ghana before colonization.
Since our government is not religious or spiritual and it's supposed to be separated from religion there's no reason why a ceremony such as marriage, which is spiritual in nature, should still be considered the same thing as a civil union. It was convenient at first, but when marriage in a religion was given special benefits that marriage by the state (civil union) did not provide we created a need to make them distinct and to remove the civil benefits of the religious union and apply them to the civil union. If the government wants to throw civil union in with marriage that's ok, but if people want a union fully recognized and appreciated by a non-religious government they shouldn't need a union spiritual in nature.
it is impossible to call marriage religious or secular at this point. It's been blended and pulled around in both directions for a very long time.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
You almost make me wonder if the "gay gene" is some society-wide self defense mechanism to prevent overpopulation. L. Ron Hubbard wrote a book covering this.
Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.
Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
Finding a lifelong partner seems to be a human characteristic. It was religion that formalized it into some union beyond mankind. It was government by religion that made it ownership of one person by another.
They have a similarity matrix that pairs Senators and measures how close their votes were to other Senators. It's arranged in order of the clustered blocks in the Senate and if you look at Kerry's data on the vertical you'll notice that he, Edwards, and Lieberman are the Democrats who most agreed with Republicans on matters. This is interesting because two are running for President and Vice President while many thought the third would be Kerry's running mate.
Furthermore, there is a decent sized band of midwestern Republicans who are faintly in agreement with the Democrats. It's the midwest that's usually depicted as a big red blob of Bush voters.
Also worth noting is the middle pack of Democrats and Republicans who nearly never agreed with any Democrats.
It looks as though Kerry got on better with both parties of the house than anyone else, despite all the reports we hear of him being the most liberal voter. Very interesting.
Do you realize that you just affirmed the comment grandparent to yours?
You're correct that your parent comment did not check to see if their claims were true. You pointed out that Kerry did indeed have several bills make it out of Senate with his name attached to them. The evidence you provided also pointed out that Kerry did not introduce any bills that support or are supported by his current election platform.
You've done John Kerry a great disservice by revealing the details of his bill production in Senate.
I remember Macrovision.
They're the ones who did that funny trick with DVDs so the screen brightness would flicker which prevented anyone from running the television signal through any device that adhered to a standard.
They're the asshats who slipped that little "suprise" in with Turbo Tax that one year. Appliance rape, I called it.
TiVo should take the moral high road and at least supply some screwdriver-accessible switch which forces the machine to ignore these things they talk of in the article. The lawyer said they weren't expecting Macrovision to Trojan horse TiVo with this, but I don't think he's ever watched his computer sit in the corner and cry while a baby C_DILLA grows inside of it.
Look people before everyone gets pissed off at me for writing some of the software for these machines let me just tell you I didn't really intend it to be like this. It was originally just some DMV model I wrote in CompSci 212. How it got into the voting system I'm required by NDA to not disclose, but let me just say it was worth the full ride into grad school.
As far as i got it, the ADSL lines had low upload because of technical limitations.
But why would these lines come in 5Mb/2Mb and not just 5/5 ?
Perhaps they too have limits on bandwidth into and out of their area. If they have a suitable array of caching proxies most of your web requests can be fullfilled within the Verizon system. Uploaded content wouldn't be cached on the Verizon corner of the internet nearly as often as what you download.
In essence, with a very large caching proxy, the whole Verizon system gets a 1/1 download/upload rate and the individual nodes in it will be pulling 3/5ths of their data from within the Verizon system.
That's the party that spent $50+ million dollars of taxpayer money to expose the fact that Clinton got a blowjob.
This is the United States. If it were put to a general vote the people would have allowed any amount less than the defense budget to be spent learning about blowjobs in the Whitehouse.
The exact opposite happened in Florida last time around. The result was called in favor of Gore before half of the state's polls had closed. The people still left to vote, seeing that the news was saying Gore was the winner, either went out and voted against them as soon as they saw they needed to, or stayed home thinking they're vote for him was no longer needed. Ignore Michael Moore's take on it.
I need more details! It says in the article that they applied the current for 20 minutes prior to the test and she speculated that cells could fire off more easily after the current had gone by. How did they think *during*???
Will it be alright to pulse this through my head for a millisecond every second? Doesn't that sound like it would give you a longer, more continuous effect? I mean, I've got a AA battery sitting here in front of me that's good for 2010mAh. If I ran a constant 2mA through my head I could do that for 1005 hours off of this thing. If I pulsed it though at a millisecond every second I could be getting 1005000 hours out! Granted, the battery will likely run out of juice all on it's own in that time, but doesn't this sound exciting?!!
I imagine that in 5 years or so we'll see some wire with a small battery attached to it that we can run along the surface of our scalp under our hair. In 6 years the SAT's will include metal detectors.
Yes, you can. But these may not be the kind of computer everyone will want. Regardless, they work, are at or below $100 (or were when link was made, boo for future-proofing), and don't have to be bought in bulk.