I think my problem with her is not that she didn't quit politics, but that she stayed married to the guy to keep his name and moved to NY because it was the place where she felt she had the best chance of getting elected (rather than divorcing the creep and running in Arkansas).
In other words you don't approve of the series of personal decisions she's made in her marriage because they weren't politically suicidal enough.
I don't like her either but at least I try to base such things on her stated policy positions.
I've worked in a recount. I'd much rather have the corrupt count be at least efficiently generated, instead of through the sweat of misinformed, underinstructed, and ultimately ignored temp workers.
What you'd rather have as a recount worker is completely irrelevant to me as a voter. This is not being done for your benefit. And it's not like you have to do this all the time. I couldn't care less how much time or sweat it takes you to get it right. I'd much rather see individual batches of votes corrupted in different random ways by numerous temp workers, than see all the votes be corrupted at once in the same way "efficiently" by a single source of error.
Just because you counted again doesn't mean the same statistical errors and intrinsic problems in vote counting aren't there.
They aren't there. There are now different statistical errors associated with a recount of the deck (along with some fixed errors like voter error). That's because the count errors are random and not systematic (always favoring one outcome). If they were systematic, like a corrupt voting machine or a corrupt recount worker might create, then an efficient recount would only confirm the same error. A "dubious deck of cards" will have to do because I don't trust you to regenerate the deck.
Between Skippy the Boy President, Darth Shooter, Pinched Face Nancy "No Really, I'm not a Communist" Pelosi, Hillary "I'm going to ignore the fact that I've been cuckholded so I can win the Grand Chancellorship...er...Presidency" Clinton, we have lots to ridicule and show contempt for.
I'm certainly no fan of Hillary but I'm trying to figure out why she is singled out for contempt and ridicule here- for being cheated on by a spouse and then having the gall not to retire from politics because of it? No idea WTF your point is with Pelosi.
Well, yeah, because if they allow the technology to mature,
Voting technology is centuries old and is already constrained by game theory to be as mature as it can get- if all players play optimally in a struggle for power within a democracy, they will necessarily have to assume that all other players share the wish to gain an unfair advantage by perverting the election process. Absent any compelling reason for a change voting technology cannot be "improved" upon without eroding confidence in the integrity of elections and shrouding them in suspicion. And no electronic system will ever be able to dispel mutual suspicion as effectively as paper.
When we run out of trees and can't print ballots anymore, perhaps the appearance of a conflict of interest will go away. Until then, the appearance means it is a conflict of interest- without a very good reason for screwing with them, it is simply not safe to assume that the true motive behind any effort to "improve" elections isn't theft. This makes the way we vote now unimprovable unless it becomes well understood by everyone involved that we need to improve it for a good reason. No such reason currently exists.
Bubbleheads on cable TV have sold many of us on the idea that democracy is in crisis somehow if they can't announce a winner within hours of election night- which is totally absurd. Recounts are quite cheap, we have months to get it right, and if we rush, the losing side has a legitimate, reasonable complaint that the election might have been unfairly decided. To put it delicately.
then no longer will one candidate be able to waste tax payer money by suing for another vote count.
As a taxpayer I am quite willing to pay for a vote count. An undisturbed recount in 2000 for example could have saved me a lot of money.
One click of the mouse and voila, there is your recount. Want another? *click*
That makes a lot of sense- optimize for speed when the demand is for accuracy. I weed guys like you out in interviews.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the poor epileptics! BULLSHIT!!! We're under no obligation to coddle people caught in the act of breaking the law.
I have occipital lobe epilepsy. If light reflects, then one of these things could trigger a seizure in a bystander, not just the person arrested.
Some of you have a latent predisposition to these seizures and don't know it. As cops start to find this out for themselves, they'll go back to shooting people.
It would be so much nicer if corrupt oil companies were to do a better job of wiring up unethical politicians' houses for Internet when doing them construction favors. We could have been spared all that tube talk. At least put in a kiddie filter for the guy, he's old.
The Right doesn't like Pelosi or Reid or a whole host of other left-wingers and what they do and say, but they're not called "evil", or compared to Hitler.
And if Hillary wins next year, just how many pro-lifers does she plan to appoint to her cabinet
Why do you think that's not a moronic question?
I don't know how many Italians (for example) she plans to appoint to her cabinet, but even if she turns out not to appoint any, that wouldn't justify someone else's policy of only hiring Italians in his cabinet. Use your head.
I could have posted boilerplate comments in the code explicitly taking credit with a pointer to the original link. But I think it looks prettier without such stuff! Unfortunately every time I post this joke (which is now getting old) someone says I'm plagiarizing myself, which *I* take as a compliment even as I insult the guy. An AC doesn't have any feelings to hurt since he won't get a message about it.
I'm putting together a page of obfuscated Java programs I've written; this one is straightforward but some others have more ingenious clockwork. Maybe I can enter some of these in a contest.
I was going to try a joke like "I don't think anyone could have predicted that the rovers would fail", but that wouldn't have worked if this is a dupe. It would just be an open invitation to all those smartasses who berate you for missing articles that slither down the front page at some point when you were off having a life. Personally, I usually have my Slashdot RSS feed uploaded to my cellphone but I was vacationing on Mars recently (my wife and I especially like the Tharsis region near Nix Olympica- less crowded) and a storm interfered with my reception.
Congratulations on making it to Slashdot's front page.
I'm glad you called it a lame batch file instead of a virus like Slashdot did. The guy who made it... I mean it's so lame... a GameMaker game plus a few registry entries and an uninstaller that breaks the "virus"... it doesn't deserve to be called a virus, even if it DID replicate itself (a necessary component of any virus). At least he could have deleted random registry keys or hard disk files or something. Or at least made the game WORK.
I figured all of this out from the other links from Slashdot, but this is amusing me enough I might install the "virus" inside of a VM just to check it out. I also have a GameMaker decompiler (it's old though) I can try running the EXE through to take a peek at the insides. Dan | 07.19.07 - 11:05 pm | #
And then those danm hippies will say we're overusing the Sun's light.
I'm not a republican, I'm just joking.
When you see this type of logic and it is meant, it's very revealing that they aren't listening to what you say, only what you sound like when you say it. "If you want me to do X, and I do X, you'll just say I should be doing Y because you complain and complain and that's all you do- I have therefore categorized you as an idiot or [member of disliked group] and so anything you say about X must not be true." Anyone who brings it up is automatically an idiot whose opinions can be disregarded. Similar thinking: "If you think X is a problem, you shouldn't be talking about it unless it has affected you personally, otherwise you've either got no idea whether X is really a problem, or you have an ulterior motive and secretly want to make it worse." If the person is affected by X, then aha, that's why. People who think like this drive me crazy. And there are so many of them. They especially fall for "bias"-type arguments. There is no messenger you cannot impeach with an attitude like that, and by impeaching the right messengers you're free to construct any sort of alternate paper-thin reality you want that can exclude any X you choose.
So if this takes off and ends up confusing the bees or something, I think they're pretty much screwed.
These guys should make a hydrophobic liquid that can be poured on top of a large water surface, like a swimming pool, and turn it into a big solar cell. That way you could just pour it on your pool to get a few kilowatts of free power and during an energy crisis we can just go to a large body of water and pour a big photovoltaic slick across the water. Yee hah wouldn't that piss off the hippies! Of course the drawback here is obvious: no swimming pool when the A/C is on.
Slashdot Mirror
The time to be up in arms is when the systems are abused.
When it's too late IOW.
Because it already is ok. They are just doing it more efficiently.
That's a totally vacuous argument. Efficiency is often used to define legal boundaries in court decisions relating to the Fourth Amendment.
Oh, riiight, so they can just delete it when they're not supposed to have it anymore. *Smacks head* Why didn't I think of that?
The information has always been there, and they could have recorded it if they liked. So it's nothing new.
On that point, consider yourself pwned.
I think my problem with her is not that she didn't quit politics, but that she stayed married to the guy to keep his name and moved to NY because it was the place where she felt she had the best chance of getting elected (rather than divorcing the creep and running in Arkansas).
In other words you don't approve of the series of personal decisions she's made in her marriage because they weren't politically suicidal enough.
I don't like her either but at least I try to base such things on her stated policy positions.
What the parent was trying to do is something rarely seen on slashdot: making fun of both sides of the aisle.
That doesn't excuse you from writing nonsense.
I've worked in a recount. I'd much rather have the corrupt count be at least efficiently generated, instead of through the sweat of misinformed, underinstructed, and ultimately ignored temp workers.
What you'd rather have as a recount worker is completely irrelevant to me as a voter. This is not being done for your benefit. And it's not like you have to do this all the time. I couldn't care less how much time or sweat it takes you to get it right. I'd much rather see individual batches of votes corrupted in different random ways by numerous temp workers, than see all the votes be corrupted at once in the same way "efficiently" by a single source of error.
Just because you counted again doesn't mean the same statistical errors and intrinsic problems in vote counting aren't there.
They aren't there. There are now different statistical errors associated with a recount of the deck (along with some fixed errors like voter error). That's because the count errors are random and not systematic (always favoring one outcome). If they were systematic, like a corrupt voting machine or a corrupt recount worker might create, then an efficient recount would only confirm the same error. A "dubious deck of cards" will have to do because I don't trust you to regenerate the deck.
Between Skippy the Boy President, Darth Shooter, Pinched Face Nancy "No Really, I'm not a Communist" Pelosi, Hillary "I'm going to ignore the fact that I've been cuckholded so I can win the Grand Chancellorship...er...Presidency" Clinton, we have lots to ridicule and show contempt for.
I'm certainly no fan of Hillary but I'm trying to figure out why she is singled out for contempt and ridicule here- for being cheated on by a spouse and then having the gall not to retire from politics because of it? No idea WTF your point is with Pelosi.
Well, yeah, because if they allow the technology to mature,
Voting technology is centuries old and is already constrained by game theory to be as mature as it can get- if all players play optimally in a struggle for power within a democracy, they will necessarily have to assume that all other players share the wish to gain an unfair advantage by perverting the election process. Absent any compelling reason for a change voting technology cannot be "improved" upon without eroding confidence in the integrity of elections and shrouding them in suspicion. And no electronic system will ever be able to dispel mutual suspicion as effectively as paper.
When we run out of trees and can't print ballots anymore, perhaps the appearance of a conflict of interest will go away. Until then, the appearance means it is a conflict of interest- without a very good reason for screwing with them, it is simply not safe to assume that the true motive behind any effort to "improve" elections isn't theft. This makes the way we vote now unimprovable unless it becomes well understood by everyone involved that we need to improve it for a good reason. No such reason currently exists.
Bubbleheads on cable TV have sold many of us on the idea that democracy is in crisis somehow if they can't announce a winner within hours of election night- which is totally absurd. Recounts are quite cheap, we have months to get it right, and if we rush, the losing side has a legitimate, reasonable complaint that the election might have been unfairly decided. To put it delicately.
then no longer will one candidate be able to waste tax payer money by suing for another vote count.
As a taxpayer I am quite willing to pay for a vote count. An undisturbed recount in 2000 for example could have saved me a lot of money.
One click of the mouse and voila, there is your recount. Want another? *click*
That makes a lot of sense- optimize for speed when the demand is for accuracy. I weed guys like you out in interviews.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the poor epileptics! BULLSHIT!!! We're under no obligation to coddle people caught in the act of breaking the law.
I have occipital lobe epilepsy. If light reflects, then one of these things could trigger a seizure in a bystander, not just the person arrested.
Some of you have a latent predisposition to these seizures and don't know it. As cops start to find this out for themselves, they'll go back to shooting people.
Vs lbh jnag gb ernq vg V fryy n qrpelcgbe sbe $300 abj fraq zr zl zbarl!
Why is anyone listening to him about this kind of a thing?
Hopefully nobody. But Ted has to keep talking. He's got some interesting things going on right now and it's best for him to keep the topic on children.
It would be so much nicer if corrupt oil companies were to do a better job of wiring up unethical politicians' houses for Internet when doing them construction favors. We could have been spared all that tube talk. At least put in a kiddie filter for the guy, he's old.
The Right doesn't like Pelosi or Reid or a whole host of other left-wingers and what they do and say, but they're not called "evil", or compared to Hitler.
You're obviously not an atheist in this country.
My point is that the Democrats have the exact same test for their appointees, and won't appoint anyone who supports the right to life of a fetus.
Oh what a load of crap. Not everyone has a lizard brain.
And if Hillary wins next year, just how many pro-lifers does she plan to appoint to her cabinet
Why do you think that's not a moronic question?
I don't know how many Italians (for example) she plans to appoint to her cabinet, but even if she turns out not to appoint any, that wouldn't justify someone else's policy of only hiring Italians in his cabinet. Use your head.
I could have posted boilerplate comments in the code explicitly taking credit with a pointer to the original link. But I think it looks prettier without such stuff! Unfortunately every time I post this joke (which is now getting old) someone says I'm plagiarizing myself, which *I* take as a compliment even as I insult the guy. An AC doesn't have any feelings to hurt since he won't get a message about it.
I'm putting together a page of obfuscated Java programs I've written; this one is straightforward but some others have more ingenious clockwork. Maybe I can enter some of these in a contest.
Great plan genius- now we have to find someone who bought Vista! :)
I told you Google was trouble from the very start. This is complete confirmation of that.
Liar! No AC has ever said such a stupid thing.
I was going to try a joke like "I don't think anyone could have predicted that the rovers would fail", but that wouldn't have worked if this is a dupe. It would just be an open invitation to all those smartasses who berate you for missing articles that slither down the front page at some point when you were off having a life. Personally, I usually have my Slashdot RSS feed uploaded to my cellphone but I was vacationing on Mars recently (my wife and I especially like the Tharsis region near Nix Olympica- less crowded) and a storm interfered with my reception.
|)ud3, 5hu7 7h3 fu(k up. 1 h4v3 4 (00| 7h1n6 601n6 0n h3r3.
Yeah but you should see my Hummer H2!
And then those danm hippies will say we're overusing the Sun's light.
I'm not a republican, I'm just joking.
When you see this type of logic and it is meant, it's very revealing that they aren't listening to what you say, only what you sound like when you say it. "If you want me to do X, and I do X, you'll just say I should be doing Y because you complain and complain and that's all you do- I have therefore categorized you as an idiot or [member of disliked group] and so anything you say about X must not be true." Anyone who brings it up is automatically an idiot whose opinions can be disregarded. Similar thinking: "If you think X is a problem, you shouldn't be talking about it unless it has affected you personally, otherwise you've either got no idea whether X is really a problem, or you have an ulterior motive and secretly want to make it worse." If the person is affected by X, then aha, that's why. People who think like this drive me crazy. And there are so many of them. They especially fall for "bias"-type arguments. There is no messenger you cannot impeach with an attitude like that, and by impeaching the right messengers you're free to construct any sort of alternate paper-thin reality you want that can exclude any X you choose.
So if this takes off and ends up confusing the bees or something, I think they're pretty much screwed.
These guys should make a hydrophobic liquid that can be poured on top of a large water surface, like a swimming pool, and turn it into a big solar cell. That way you could just pour it on your pool to get a few kilowatts of free power and during an energy crisis we can just go to a large body of water and pour a big photovoltaic slick across the water. Yee hah wouldn't that piss off the hippies! Of course the drawback here is obvious: no swimming pool when the A/C is on.
1 r3(3n7|y m4d3 4 d15(0v3ry. |\/|0d3r470r5 d0n'7 |1k3 |337 5p34k!
1 r3(06n1z3d 7h47 73rm w45 z3r0 45 500n 45 1 54w 17. 50m3 p30p|3 d0n'7 und3r574nd d3r1v471v35, 50 1 50und m0r3 (0nv1n(1n6 1f 1 p01n7 0u7 7h47 7h3 0r161n4| 73rm 15 z3r0 45 0pp053d 70 51x f0r 3x4mp|3.