12 months 30 days, and then a 5 day rest period, when there's a leap year, it's a 6 day rest period. During the rest period only essential personnel would work, and money would earn no interest.
Both legally and ethically. If Napster starts taking on the role of editing(censoring) what is on their service, their liability changes. The reason is when they remove "offensive" material, they are creating a presumption that the remaining material is not offensive. So if a kid gets something off of Napster that slipped through their editorial process, and the song "makes" the kid do something racist, Napster could be more easily blamed. The parents defense would be, "We thhought Napster was a safe way for our child to download music, but now he's a Nazi!"
Forgetting the legal issues, ethically, it's better to let the "offensive" material be. After all, it's the Nazi's of the world who think it's ok to censor, removing their material only validates their pro-censorship position.
By censoring stuff it thinks may be advertising, isn't this program interfering with the free flow of ideas that makes the internet so great. Occasionally I find interesting stuff in ads I see on the web.
Creating content is not free. Some content creators fund their enterprise with advertising(which I prefer to paying a subscription) Shouldn't people who advertise on the web have a reasonable expectation that their ad is being viewed by people who visit the site they sponsored.
Yeah and how many of you have changed your default font on MS Word?
Re:Do you know who you voted for
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
At each voting station there would be a ballot checker, which would accept a ballot, and show you for whom you voted.
A lot of people who punched two holes thought they had to vote for the president and vice president(based on news reports). They would not realize their error until it was to late.
I think the argument that people who don't know how to vote, shouldn't is elitist. I think about half of the country doesn't know how to vote(they voted for the wrong guy), but it is their right as citizens for their voices to be heard.
Clearly there was something wrong with the ballot in Palm Beach county. Too many ballots were invalidated to draw any other conclusion. The fact that a Democrat designed the ballot and the Democratic and Republican parties approved it is irrelevant, they were not injured by the error, the voters were.
Any remedy will be for the benefit of the voters, not for the benfit of the candidates. Voters deserve to have the candidate they support in office. Any other conclusion is an attack on the foundation of our democracy, and should be viewed as treasonous.
Do you know who you voted for
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Let's take fraud out of the equation for a moment, and answer this question, do you know whom you voted for this year. If you voted, the answer is no. What you do know is whom you think you voted for.
After you fill in your ballot, the only person who checks your work is you. If you don't fully realize the potential for error, you are not likely to realize you made a mistake. If there had been some way for people in Palm Beach County to verify their ballots before they put them in the ballot box, there probably wouldn't be 19,000 invalid ballots for president.
Just as an analogy, when writing if you misspell a word that you are certain you know how to spell, do you look the word up in the dictionary? Of course not, which is one reason we have spell-checkers.
Given that a misspelled word is generally much more trivial than a miscast vote. Doesn't it make sense to have some sort of vote checker?
Actually, that's not true, just as the state cannot bind you to vote in a particular way(except maybe with a confusing ballot), the states cannot make Electors vote for a particular candidate. What the states can do is penalize electors who vote for the "wrong" candidate. The term for such an elector is a "faithless elector"
If a faithless elector's vote changed the outcome of the election, the actions of the state could only punish the elector, not reverse the outcome.
There is a serious question as to whether it is legal to punish a faithless elector.
Basically electors are making a campaign promise to vote for the candidate they represent, as we all know campaign promises are broken all of the time, and no one goes to jail for it. Why should it be different for Electors.
Consider this scenario, what if one of the candidates dies before the electors cast their votes? Penalizing electors for voting for a living candidate (presumably someone from their party) seems ridiculous!
Would the Electoral College outcome be different if this election were held in 2001?
The number of electoral college votes each state receives is based on the 1990 census; would the result be different if we used the 2000 census? Does this explain how Gore could win the popular vote but (possibly)lose the election.
Another interesting point, Washington DC only gets 3 votes in the Electoral College(The most votes it can have is the same number as the least populated state). DC gets underrepresented in the EC, probably not enough to sway this election, but interesting...
I don't live in a battleground state, but is there any evidence that Buchanan made any attempt to win the Presidency? What happened to the $12 million?
Given his recent defection from the Republican Party, and his tenuous identification with Reform Party Ideals (He's against NAFTA, but that's about it), it seems more likely that he was trying to diffuse the influence of the Reform Party, which arguably cost the Republicans the White House in 1992. Imagine what the outcome of this race would have been if the Reform Party had just racked up numbers like they did in 1996...
Until today, I had a lot of respect for Nader. I was not thrilled he was running for president, but I agreed with him on a lot of issues. Now I'm forced to question his commitment to these issues, since his campaign may have cost Gore the election.
I've said it before, there is a difference between Gore and Bush, and anyone who voted for Nader over Gore didn't help Nader become president, they helped Bush(it's inconceivable to me that Bush was the second choice of many Nader voters).
Nader's candidacy was irresponsible, he couldn't win, he could only help Bush win. In so doing, he
helped his issues lose.
If you think about it, the whole process seems flawed. If you live in a state with 3 representatives, and your state is fairly homogenous, more than likely all 3 seats will go to the majority party in the state, even if the majority is slim. The reason for this is that districting breaks up potential voter blocks. So unless the members of the minority party all live in one area, their votes are dilluted. A worse example would be if the minority party won two of the three seats, due to the way the districts were drawn. Here's one scenario, 55,000 Party A, 45,000 Party B; District 1 30,000 Party A, 3,333 Party B; District 2 12,000 Party A, 21,333 Party B; District 3 13,000 Party A, 20,334 Party B. Party B has a 10% deficit state wide, but wins twice as many seats!
I think the solution is at-large elections, allow voters to vote for any candidate, also, allow voters to cast multiple votes for a single candidate. So if your state has three seats in the House of Representatives, and 6 people are running, you could cast three votes for your favorite candidate, or one vote each for your top three, etc. This would take power away from the state assembly, because the way that the districts were drawn would not determine the outcome of the election.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, you take the honor, I am not worthy!
Forgetting the legal issues, ethically, it's better to let the "offensive" material be. After all, it's the Nazi's of the world who think it's ok to censor, removing their material only validates their pro-censorship position.
By censoring stuff it thinks may be advertising, isn't this program interfering with the free flow of ideas that makes the internet so great. Occasionally I find interesting stuff in ads I see on the web.
Creating content is not free. Some content creators fund their enterprise with advertising(which I prefer to paying a subscription) Shouldn't people who advertise on the web have a reasonable expectation that their ad is being viewed by people who visit the site they sponsored.
Please enter the code at the bottom of page 317 of the liner notes.
Maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't you just want to use Virtual PC(assuming it gets Carbonized)
Yeah and how many of you have changed your default font on MS Word?
A lot of people who punched two holes thought they had to vote for the president and vice president(based on news reports). They would not realize their error until it was to late.
I think the argument that people who don't know how to vote, shouldn't is elitist. I think about half of the country doesn't know how to vote(they voted for the wrong guy), but it is their right as citizens for their voices to be heard.
Clearly there was something wrong with the ballot in Palm Beach county. Too many ballots were invalidated to draw any other conclusion. The fact that a Democrat designed the ballot and the Democratic and Republican parties approved it is irrelevant, they were not injured by the error, the voters were.
Any remedy will be for the benefit of the voters, not for the benfit of the candidates. Voters deserve to have the candidate they support in office. Any other conclusion is an attack on the foundation of our democracy, and should be viewed as treasonous.
Let's take fraud out of the equation for a moment, and answer this question, do you know whom you voted for this year. If you voted, the answer is no. What you do know is whom you think you voted for.
After you fill in your ballot, the only person who checks your work is you. If you don't fully realize the potential for error, you are not likely to realize you made a mistake. If there had been some way for people in Palm Beach County to verify their ballots before they put them in the ballot box, there probably wouldn't be 19,000 invalid ballots for president.
Just as an analogy, when writing if you misspell a word that you are certain you know how to spell, do you look the word up in the dictionary? Of course not, which is one reason we have spell-checkers.
Given that a misspelled word is generally much more trivial than a miscast vote. Doesn't it make sense to have some sort of vote checker?
Actually, that's not true, just as the state cannot bind you to vote in a particular way(except maybe with a confusing ballot), the states cannot make Electors vote for a particular candidate. What the states can do is penalize electors who vote for the "wrong" candidate. The term for such an elector is a "faithless elector"
If a faithless elector's vote changed the outcome of the election, the actions of the state could only punish the elector, not reverse the outcome.
There is a serious question as to whether it is legal to punish a faithless elector.
Basically electors are making a campaign promise to vote for the candidate they represent, as we all know campaign promises are broken all of the time, and no one goes to jail for it. Why should it be different for Electors.
Consider this scenario, what if one of the candidates dies before the electors cast their votes? Penalizing electors for voting for a living candidate (presumably someone from their party) seems ridiculous!
The number of electoral college votes each state receives is based on the 1990 census; would the result be different if we used the 2000 census? Does this explain how Gore could win the popular vote but (possibly)lose the election.
Another interesting point, Washington DC only gets 3 votes in the Electoral College(The most votes it can have is the same number as the least populated state). DC gets underrepresented in the EC, probably not enough to sway this election, but interesting...
The Ballot in Question
I don't live in a battleground state, but is there any evidence that Buchanan made any attempt to win the Presidency? What happened to the $12 million?
Given his recent defection from the Republican Party, and his tenuous identification with Reform Party Ideals (He's against NAFTA, but that's about it), it seems more likely that he was trying to diffuse the influence of the Reform Party, which arguably cost the Republicans the White House in 1992. Imagine what the outcome of this race would have been if the Reform Party had just racked up numbers like they did in 1996...
Actually I'm right
I've said it before, there is a difference between Gore and Bush, and anyone who voted for Nader over Gore didn't help Nader become president, they helped Bush(it's inconceivable to me that Bush was the second choice of many Nader voters). Nader's candidacy was irresponsible, he couldn't win, he could only help Bush win. In so doing, he helped his issues lose.
James Watt != Bruce Babbit,
Clarence Thomas != Thurgood Marshall.
Look here to see what a Nader vote may get you.
If you think about it, the whole process seems flawed. If you live in a state with 3 representatives, and your state is fairly homogenous, more than likely all 3 seats will go to the majority party in the state, even if the majority is slim. The reason for this is that districting breaks up potential voter blocks. So unless the members of the minority party all live in one area, their votes are dilluted. A worse example would be if the minority party won two of the three seats, due to the way the districts were drawn. Here's one scenario, 55,000 Party A, 45,000 Party B; District 1 30,000 Party A, 3,333 Party B; District 2 12,000 Party A, 21,333 Party B; District 3 13,000 Party A, 20,334 Party B. Party B has a 10% deficit state wide, but wins twice as many seats!
I think the solution is at-large elections, allow voters to vote for any candidate, also, allow voters to cast multiple votes for a single candidate. So if your state has three seats in the House of Representatives, and 6 people are running, you could cast three votes for your favorite candidate, or one vote each for your top three, etc. This would take power away from the state assembly, because the way that the districts were drawn would not determine the outcome of the election.