You have a right to free speech. Your wife has a right to free speech. Your marriage does not have a right to free speech.
As far as campaign law is concerned, you and your wife may both donate money up to the legally allowed limit, however, you can not make a seperate donation under the name of your marriage.
Similarly, there's no reason why a corporation should be allowed to donate money seperately and in addition to it's employees and shareholders.
1) There's likely going to be a newsworthy event every day. 2) The "eggs" should randomly produce upward and downward slopes.
Therefore you just connect the slope to the nearest important event and wow, you've just "proved" the existence of the supernatural...
No, actually you haven't. You've just proved that you are gullible and superstitious.
The "scientists" who are working on this have ignored both the sharp swings where no important global events could be identified and the important global events that had no reasonable corresponding swings. And that is the mark of wishful thinking.
That's all fine and well. And the agency has every right to refuse the recommendations of it's scientists, however, it is an entirely different game when they use the threat of termination to make those scientists alter their conclusions so that the agency can hide the number of the times it's denying recommendations to mark a species as endangered.
I loathe this behaviour for it's craven cowardice and it's willfully reckless ignorance.
The show was aweful for the first three years, the fact that the most recent season is significantly improved will never matter to the majority of Star Trek fans, most will never watch another episode of the show again.
I refuse to listen or watch the opening theme and even though I've liked several of this season's episodes (and I hadn't actually liked any of the episodes up to this year, the stupid plot holes and fundamental continuity errors contantly irritated me), it's not enough to make me care that they are cancelling it.
If they really wanted to save the show this year, they should have changed the intro sequence to something appropriate, and that would have signaled a "real" change in the show to many ST fans who refuse to watch it.
I wonder whether the perceived value of Microsoft as a overall "lowerer" of prices isn't a trick played using the time scale. I mean 1988 to 1995? 1995 was when Microsoft started raising the price on Windows.
Any study of Microsoft and software prices that ignores the last decade is going to be flawed.
No I suppose you could be right, and this could be a sinister agenda to oppress women, but I think it could also be that he was invited to talk about the lack of women in science and engineering programs at the university level at a conference dedicated to discussing "women and minorities in science and engineering".
Now the guy may be wrong and may be an idiot, but his comments seem to be topical, but that could just be me.
I don't think he was citing "evidence", it seems pretty clear he was "illustrating" the point with an example of how boys and girls react differently to identical situations.
Yes, the American government is an rife with idiots. However, Bush is still chief among them, the stated reason for privatizing Social Security isn't to prevent the bankruptcy (even if it were, the stated measures would be obviously insufficient). The problem is the government has been giving itself interest free loans from the social security surplus. Now the justification for privatizing at least part of social security is because... it hasn't been generated much interest on it's massive surpluses. Well that much is obvious, and both major U.S. parties are responsible for that.
However, it more than likely that any attempt by Bush to privatize part of Social Security will end up costing most American's more than they gain. However, on the up side, regardless of how successful the privatized accounts are stock brockers, analysts, and con men all stand to make a killing.
This would be different for at least two reasons: 1) Putting bumper stickers on a car is not a material part of the police officer's job, thus his extra-legal permissions can not be used to justify it.
2) Endorsement of political candidates or parties by the police, while on duty, is a breach of protocol. They're not (or shouldn't be, your country may vary) allowed to use their position to influence the political process.
According to the people at blackboxvoting.org this settlement came as surprise to them and they're parties in the case and should (but did not) have a chance to testify in the settlement proceeding. It certainly seems a little fishy.
Why would terrorists use ICBMs to deliver a payload? It's much easier to smuggle a bomb into a location and simply place it.
If you were going to use a rocket to dispense chemical or biological munitions, you'd probably use a dumb fire rocket, not a GPS guided robotic long range missile.
It's occam's razor folks, the more complex your attack, the more points of failure come up. The highest tech attack ever has been hijacking planes and flying them into buildings to cause more damage. That's not exactly a sophisticated strategy.
While it's probably a good idea to have a way to shut down parts of the GPS system if it's needed in an emergency, I doubt that a terrorist attack that relies on GPS navigation will take longer than it takes to shut down part of the system. They want quick and deadly, not long and easily dealt with.
Maybe he's short on cash, he seems to be rolling Slashdot hating into his Wikipedia hate site. The injustice! Slashdot obviously deserves it's own unique hate site. Of course, www.slashdotsucks.com is already registered...
Did I say the Democrats won? No I did not. I was correcting some on the factual inaccuracies in their statement.
Of course there are questions about whether the election was conducted honestly or not, there is a ton of evidence to indicate it was not. There were 210,000 complaints filed with on organization over election misconduct, there were deliberate attempts to disenfranchise registered democratic voters by misdirecting them to incorrect polling location in swing states, there is blatant evidence of incredibly long lines in many democratic leaning counties.
Even more distubingly some of the machines used in the election leave no audit trail and would make it trivially easy for any individual with an agenda to change the results on that machine given two or three minutes unobserved, with that added level of insecurity and unverifiability, only the integrity of the election officials and the silence of the media is keeping these suspicions in check.
However, regardless of whether you think any votes were changed after they were cast, there is ample evidence of fraudulent attempts to prevent at least part of the electorate from voting, and no matter who is responsible for each and every such attempt they should be tracked down and very publically and harshly punished for attempting to subvert the democratic workings of your republic. Of course, that's just my opinion.
I only helps a little. I don't think the machines actually store individual vote records, so printing the totals is the best they can do (printing individual receipts now, would just waste money, time and paper because it would just print them according to the totals). However, by printing each individual total, they can now check that the accumulator software works correctly by adding the totals by hand. They should come out to the same total that the accumulator software gave them. You think that stuff would be bulletproof but Florida and Ohio have shown that no, the accumulator software can't be trusted to add the numbers up.
It shows opportunity and motive, which is a really good reason to inspect the results very closely. Especially since several Florida counties are stone-walling public records requests.
Here's where you could be wrong. Maybe this whole hoopla over stolen votes and swindled elections needs to happen. If it doesn't happen, your precious paper trail amendment will likely be defeated, why change a system that worked without complaints? It may be that it doesn't actually matter whether anything comes out of this, but a large black eye to the electoral process is going to give a greater incentive to change things for the better, or at least to make things appear more honest the next time around.
Personally, I think Bush won the popular vote, and that's the simple reason Kerry conceded. Fighting for the electoral votes against a huge margin where he wouldn't likely win would just be petty. The fight now is to show that there are serious doubts about the election because of the manner in which it was conducted. In otherwords the people your arguing with are doing the work to justify the amendment you support. Yeah, that's right besides the fact that you have different political affiliations, they're indirectly working to support your cause.
Because the people counting the ballots are supposed to multi-partisan. You have a representative of each party count the ballots immediately at the end of the voting period and they report the totals together to their superiors. This way you have to compromise all parties to hijack the vote.
When using voting machines, at least one representative from each party, then take the votes to the area where they will locked up for safe keeping.
This gives you several extra layers of protection, which is better than none, plus if the counts don't match you know someone has tampered with it, so it's yet another method of determining if the election has been tampered, because it's harder to replace 250,000 votes across 75 counties than it is to switch 250,000 votes on one vote tabulation computer.
I'm afraid you're not correct, the study shows that it is probable that between 130K and 260K votes were swung to Bush because of e-voting alone. That number is partly based on historical trends and they could be off in either direction if those trends don't hold true for this election.
It does not speak to any other sources of error or fraud. Of course, you might want to look at the multiple Florida counties where the people running the election have deliberate concealed and/or altered the official vote records in defiance of public requests for the documentation, and are now being sued to force disclosure.
Also the observers for the U.S. election noted many disturbing problems with the vote, but they didn't witness anything blatant enough to declair the election undemocratic.
Yes, actually, I do think he was responsible for the events that transpired. The plant was designed with many safety systems to prevent a release of toxic chemicals, however, the plant was operating with most of those systems disabled. That's deliberate and criminal negligence on the part of the company officers because they knew the systems were disabled and put their profits ahead of the safety of both their employees and everyone living in the surrounding area.
You be wrong, demonstrating poor reading comprehension, and inability to think independently.
I said the change in the *vote* not the change in the margin of victory. Running the ballots through the machine a second time increased the number of votes by 2428 which is almost 60 times the margin of victory.
All this recount has done is tell us that, ignoring instrument bias, it is statistically probable the correct margin of victory lies between 2297 votes for the currently loosing candidate and 2558 votes for the currently winning candidate. I'd like more precision than that.
As I previously said, even though that value is problematic, it is a still a large underestimate of the inaccuracy of the machine count, because I'm only examining the total change in the reported votes, not the changes in the individual districts. From what I've read, two thirds of those changes cancelled each other out in the final tally. So the actual margin of error for these machines could be as high as 180 times the margin of victory.
Read some pilosophy, try reading up on Social Contract theory, it has nothing to do with religion. It is newer than the Bible, but does not rely on "My God says this therefore it is so".
In particular, an athiest doesn't disagree with everything in the Bible, however they also don't believe that the book is holy or correct by divine right.
Neither Chrisitian nor Muslim religions are compatible with government because they are authoritarian and evangelistic. This gives both religions a strong tendency to corrupt any government they infect into a theocracy unless precautions are taken.
Slashdot Mirror
To point out the real distinction:
You have a right to free speech.
Your wife has a right to free speech.
Your marriage does not have a right to free speech.
As far as campaign law is concerned, you and your wife may both donate money up to the legally allowed limit, however, you can not make a seperate donation under the name of your marriage.
Similarly, there's no reason why a corporation should be allowed to donate money seperately and in addition to it's employees and shareholders.
This is a joke, right?
It seems to be a classic example of subjective validation.
1) There's likely going to be a newsworthy event every day.
2) The "eggs" should randomly produce upward and downward slopes.
Therefore you just connect the slope to the nearest important event and wow, you've just "proved" the existence of the supernatural...
No, actually you haven't. You've just proved that you are gullible and superstitious.
The "scientists" who are working on this have ignored both the sharp swings where no important global events could be identified and the important global events that had no reasonable corresponding swings. And that is the mark of wishful thinking.
That's all fine and well. And the agency has every right to refuse the recommendations of it's scientists, however, it is an entirely different game when they use the threat of termination to make those scientists alter their conclusions so that the agency can hide the number of the times it's denying recommendations to mark a species as endangered.
I loathe this behaviour for it's craven cowardice and it's willfully reckless ignorance.
The show was aweful for the first three years, the fact that the most recent season is significantly improved will never matter to the majority of Star Trek fans, most will never watch another episode of the show again.
I refuse to listen or watch the opening theme and even though I've liked several of this season's episodes (and I hadn't actually liked any of the episodes up to this year, the stupid plot holes and fundamental continuity errors contantly irritated me), it's not enough to make me care that they are cancelling it.
If they really wanted to save the show this year, they should have changed the intro sequence to something appropriate, and that would have signaled a "real" change in the show to many ST fans who refuse to watch it.
I wonder whether the perceived value of Microsoft as a overall "lowerer" of prices isn't a trick played using the time scale. I mean 1988 to 1995?
1995 was when Microsoft started raising the price on Windows.
Any study of Microsoft and software prices that ignores the last decade is going to be flawed.
No I suppose you could be right, and this could be a sinister agenda to oppress women, but I think it could also be that he was invited to talk about the lack of women in science and engineering programs at the university level at a conference dedicated to discussing "women and minorities in science and engineering".
Now the guy may be wrong and may be an idiot, but his comments seem to be topical, but that could just be me.
I don't think he was citing "evidence", it seems pretty clear he was "illustrating" the point with an example of how boys and girls react differently to identical situations.
Yes, the American government is an rife with idiots. However, Bush is still chief among them, the stated reason for privatizing Social Security isn't to prevent the bankruptcy (even if it were, the stated measures would be obviously insufficient). The problem is the government has been giving itself interest free loans from the social security surplus. Now the justification for privatizing at least part of social security is because... it hasn't been generated much interest on it's massive surpluses. Well that much is obvious, and both major U.S. parties are responsible for that.
However, it more than likely that any attempt by Bush to privatize part of Social Security will end up costing most American's more than they gain. However, on the up side, regardless of how successful the privatized accounts are stock brockers, analysts, and con men all stand to make a killing.
It would have to be a pretty big sticker if we're going to put it on Georgia.
This would be different for at least two reasons:
1) Putting bumper stickers on a car is not a material part of the police officer's job, thus his extra-legal permissions can not be used to justify it.
2) Endorsement of political candidates or parties by the police, while on duty, is a breach of protocol. They're not (or shouldn't be, your country may vary) allowed to use their position to influence the political process.
IIRC, isn't Windows XP not HIPAA compliant?
.Net would be crippled by having to be run on Windows 2k or earlier O/S?
(EULA gives MS right to read and change sensitive information)
Doesn't that mean that
According to the people at blackboxvoting.org this settlement came as surprise to them and they're parties in the case and should (but did not) have a chance to testify in the settlement proceeding. It certainly seems a little fishy.
Why would terrorists use ICBMs to deliver a payload? It's much easier to smuggle a bomb into a location and simply place it.
If you were going to use a rocket to dispense chemical or biological munitions, you'd probably use a dumb fire rocket, not a GPS guided robotic long range missile.
It's occam's razor folks, the more complex your attack, the more points of failure come up. The highest tech attack ever has been hijacking planes and flying them into buildings to cause more damage. That's not exactly a sophisticated strategy.
While it's probably a good idea to have a way to shut down parts of the GPS system if it's needed in an emergency, I doubt that a terrorist attack that relies on GPS navigation will take longer than it takes to shut down part of the system. They want quick and deadly, not long and easily dealt with.
Don't forget the other part:
"He hates the U.S. because it's supporting an oppressive dictatorship in his home country, Saudi Arabia"
Maybe he's short on cash, he seems to be rolling Slashdot hating into his Wikipedia hate site. The injustice! Slashdot obviously deserves it's own unique hate site. Of course, www.slashdotsucks.com is already registered...
That's because the "least common denominator" is always 1.
Think about it.
Did I say the Democrats won? No I did not. I was correcting some on the factual inaccuracies in their statement.
Of course there are questions about whether the election was conducted honestly or not, there is a ton of evidence to indicate it was not. There were 210,000 complaints filed with on organization over election misconduct, there were deliberate attempts to disenfranchise registered democratic voters by misdirecting them to incorrect polling location in swing states, there is blatant evidence of incredibly long lines in many democratic leaning counties.
Even more distubingly some of the machines used in the election leave no audit trail and would make it trivially easy for any individual with an agenda to change the results on that machine given two or three minutes unobserved, with that added level of insecurity and unverifiability, only the integrity of the election officials and the silence of the media is keeping these suspicions in check.
However, regardless of whether you think any votes were changed after they were cast, there is ample evidence of fraudulent attempts to prevent at least part of the electorate from voting, and no matter who is responsible for each and every such attempt they should be tracked down and very publically and harshly punished for attempting to subvert the democratic workings of your republic. Of course, that's just my opinion.
I only helps a little. I don't think the machines actually store individual vote records, so printing the totals is the best they can do (printing individual receipts now, would just waste money, time and paper because it would just print them according to the totals). However, by printing each individual total, they can now check that the accumulator software works correctly by adding the totals by hand. They should come out to the same total that the accumulator software gave them. You think that stuff would be bulletproof but Florida and Ohio have shown that no, the accumulator software can't be trusted to add the numbers up.
It's not much, but it is better than nothing.
It shows opportunity and motive, which is a really good reason to inspect the results very closely. Especially since several Florida counties are stone-walling public records requests.
Here's where you could be wrong. Maybe this whole hoopla over stolen votes and swindled elections needs to happen. If it doesn't happen, your precious paper trail amendment will likely be defeated, why change a system that worked without complaints? It may be that it doesn't actually matter whether anything comes out of this, but a large black eye to the electoral process is going to give a greater incentive to change things for the better, or at least to make things appear more honest the next time around.
Personally, I think Bush won the popular vote, and that's the simple reason Kerry conceded. Fighting for the electoral votes against a huge margin where he wouldn't likely win would just be petty. The fight now is to show that there are serious doubts about the election because of the manner in which it was conducted. In otherwords the people your arguing with are doing the work to justify the amendment you support. Yeah, that's right besides the fact that you have different political affiliations, they're indirectly working to support your cause.
Because the people counting the ballots are supposed to multi-partisan. You have a representative of each party count the ballots immediately at the end of the voting period and they report the totals together to their superiors. This way you have to compromise all parties to hijack the vote.
When using voting machines, at least one representative from each party, then take the votes to the area where they will locked up for safe keeping.
This gives you several extra layers of protection, which is better than none, plus if the counts don't match you know someone has tampered with it, so it's yet another method of determining if the election has been tampered, because it's harder to replace 250,000 votes across 75 counties than it is to switch 250,000 votes on one vote tabulation computer.
I'm afraid you're not correct, the study shows that it is probable that between 130K and 260K votes were swung to Bush because of e-voting alone. That number is partly based on historical trends and they could be off in either direction if those trends don't hold true for this election.
It does not speak to any other sources of error or fraud. Of course, you might want to look at the multiple Florida counties where the people running the election have deliberate concealed and/or altered the official vote records in defiance of public requests for the documentation, and are now being sued to force disclosure.
Also the observers for the U.S. election noted many disturbing problems with the vote, but they didn't witness anything blatant enough to declair the election undemocratic.
Yes, actually, I do think he was responsible for the events that transpired. The plant was designed with many safety systems to prevent a release of toxic chemicals, however, the plant was operating with most of those systems disabled. That's deliberate and criminal negligence on the part of the company officers because they knew the systems were disabled and put their profits ahead of the safety of both their employees and everyone living in the surrounding area.
You be wrong, demonstrating poor reading comprehension, and inability to think independently.
I said the change in the *vote* not the change in the margin of victory. Running the ballots through the machine a second time increased the number of votes by 2428 which is almost 60 times the margin of victory.
All this recount has done is tell us that, ignoring instrument bias, it is statistically probable the correct margin of victory lies between 2297 votes for the currently loosing candidate and 2558 votes for the currently winning candidate. I'd like more precision than that.
As I previously said, even though that value is problematic, it is a still a large underestimate of the inaccuracy of the machine count, because I'm only examining the total change in the reported votes, not the changes in the individual districts. From what I've read, two thirds of those changes cancelled each other out in the final tally. So the actual margin of error for these machines could be as high as 180 times the margin of victory.
Read some pilosophy, try reading up on Social Contract theory, it has nothing to do with religion. It is newer than the Bible, but does not rely on "My God says this therefore it is so".
In particular, an athiest doesn't disagree with everything in the Bible, however they also don't believe that the book is holy or correct by divine right.
Neither Chrisitian nor Muslim religions are compatible with government because they are authoritarian and evangelistic. This gives both religions a strong tendency to corrupt any government they infect into a theocracy unless precautions are taken.