Our shop (which is a pretty big shop) is almost exclusively ELO. They're hammered pretty hard daily across thousands of locations all around the US and I've never seen a solid uniform calibration slippage -- they'll go in any direction. Of the odds and ends (non ELO - various lab equipment screens from various manufacturers -- maybe a few hundred in my state alone) calibration issues have been minimal -- they either "work" or they do not.
"So it certainly is possible that with the touchscreen voting machines, all of the panels that have calibration issues are doing so in the same or a very similar manner."
Based on your assessment I would agree with you but you've only listed a single manufacturer in your experience. While mine is mostly ELO, I can list off probably 10 off the top of my head that we also see in significant numbers. So I'm very hesitant to accept your assessment.
Note: ELO calibration can be deliberately "miscalibrated" to make the touch offset in any particular direction.
"They looked like pretty typical cases of a broken touch screen to me"
Were it a single machine I'd say you would likely be right without argument.
However, it was more than a single machine. I work with touch screens daily and if they "break" it's usually no touch at all or a segment of the screen is non-responsive. If it's a calibration issue then where you touch may not reflect where the computer THINKS you touch. And those are not uniform -- one maybe a bit above, one maybe a bit to the left and a third machine maybe a lot to the right and down. That more than a single touch screen had the same 'defect' in calibration should toss up some flags.
Wasn't there election day reports from Pennsylvania of straight Republican votes magically changing to Democratic votes? With cell phone video of it happening?
That recession was going to happen no matter what. And guess what -- It was predicted by the Anderson Forecast in 2000. Guess who's administration that was under? Wasn't Bush.
The UCLA Anderson Forecasters first raised eyebrows with a recession forecast one year ago (December 2000), at a time when such a pessimistic view was deemed at best, premature and at worse, wrong, by other national forecasters.
The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later. That was a HUGE blow to our economy.
" and now that economic growth is going well, unemployment is down, inflation is nil, people vote to go back to that"
What's the rate of underemployed? What's the number of people who are no longer being COUNTED as unemployed? They didn't vote to go back to that -- they voted because they are hurting and the last 8 years did nothing to fix their hurt.
I'm not saying Trump is the answer -- I honestly don't know who was worse -- Trump or Clinton (I voted for neither) but your blinders are not really helping you see reality. You might want to lift them off a bit and take a peek.
"..former friend who wrote he had once been "very liberal" and added, "he was left wing when I knew him in his & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows."
"I'm guessing all those abortion clinic bombings in the 1990's were left wing nuts. The sooner you realize your high horse is a mole hill, the better."
I really don't consider those attacks on political views. The abortion issue is an irreconcilable issue -- either they are pro-file and abortion is murder or they are pro-choice and it's freedom and "right to choose". Those bombings weren't because they disagreed with their targets politics -- they were bombed because they believed their targets were killing children. And about this -- their targets weren't those voting for pro-abortion candidates -- they were the ones committing the murders in their eyes.
All my examples were specific to targeting someone or a group who voted in a particular way or to flag some crazy guy as being "republican" or "right wing" until the news came out that they were in fact left wing nuts.
That said -- you need to look at those who were arrested. I'm not going to go through them all but I'll point you to Jared Lee Loughner. He shot Gabby Giffords. He was flagged as being part of an anti-abortion group. He was painted as a right-wing nut or tea-party nut. Until it started to come out that he was a left wing nut. Democrats as well as republicans can be very opposed to abortion. Lastly, Loughner really was a total and complete nut. Left/right leaning really doesn't matter. He was flipping crazy.
I didn't vote for Trump. I think he's a functional psychopath with poor impulse control. I didn't vote for Clinton either. They were both horrible candidates and are so utterly hated (and I mean HATED) by their opposition that it would be virtually impossible for them to lead effectively. Never mind the doubts about each candidate (and no reasonable person should have accepted either as a choice).
"You're very good at only picking and choosing articles that back up your prejudices."
Way to provide a list of actual violence against others for their beliefs. Oh wait. You provided a single link that includes just one physical attack. The rest talk about burning Obama in effigy -- something that protesters have been doing in the US since before we were the US.
Come back and try again when you have a bakers dozen. I only listed the highlights.
How about the crazy Colorado guy who shot up a theater? He was a nut but the left had a crazy hissy fit about this Colorado right-wing gun freak.. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/... Oh wait... he wasn't from CO -- he was from Berkeley. Yes, he was a nut, but the left wanted to paint him as a right wing gun nut rather than from one of the most liberal locations in the US.
Or how about those silly republicans who slashed the tires of helpless democrats? http://articles.chicagotribune... Oh wait... it was DEMOCRATS slashing the tires of republicans to prevent them getting to the polls!
So you're just completely ignoring the Obama shooting targets that suddenly got popular both times he got elected, not to mention the people who actually hanged and burned his likeness hundreds of times, during the widespread protests?
A few 'interesting' news clips over the last two election cycles about violence targeted at people for their opinions:
A Thousand Oaks man got his finger bitten off by someone who didn't like the Anti-Obamacare Protesters. http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...
Left wing nut flies plain in to building. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02... (interesting to note that he was 'originally' reported as a right-wing nut because... Texas. After his "note" was found, it was clear he was a left wing nut)
Muslim women in CA and LA attacked by Trump supporters. http://bigstory.ap.org/article... Oh wait... no witnesses or injuries -- and one admits to lying about it entirely and is going to be charged for filing a false police report.
Trump supporters paint "Die Blacks Die" during protest: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016... (foxnews, but associated press provided). Oh wait... it said "Die whites die". So silly of me.
How quickly people forget.
Yes... and how willingly they ignore what's under their nose...
"Presumably for as many generations as possible (at least those that share the family name.)"
Be that as it may -- there are countless examples of of people wanting to leave a legacy that had nothing to do with their children.
Given that Trump has named almost everything TRUMP X (Trump Tower, Trump Casino, Trump Hollywood, Trump whatever) I think it's safe to assume he wants a non-biologic legacy to go along with someone running the business with his name.
What was the name of your Great Great Grandfather on your mother's side? Virtually everyone has no idea who is beyond their grand parents. And a some don't even know that.
Now, in NY, for example, we can spend a nice day at the Guggenheim then take in a concert at Carnegie Hall. Then maybe see The Tonight Show taped at Rockefeller Center the following day. Name almost any town and there's countless examples that can be listed of people wanting to leave a legacy that had nothing to do with their children.
The GP wasn't being delusional -- he was being insightful.
If by "didn't involve Clinton at all" you mean "did not originate from her" or "was sent to her", then yes. However, she might have been part of relevant chains -- or topics were being discussed by others ABOUT her or what she was told. Those are much harder to sift through automagically.
Of course -- such emails may not exist in this new batch.
Whoever wins this election is going to be so damaged that governing is going to be very difficult dipping in to impossible.
Why work 36 hours straight? An employer can get 4 free employees for free instead of 1. Don't assume 1 human = 1 robot. There's a bunch of holes in my suggestion that need to be filled, but what you point out isn't one of them.
"Just pass laws that ban progress and you are done."
Close. Pass laws that allow people to work for "free". And by "free" I mean to get your UBI check. Example, why pay the cost of an restaurant's "order taking robot" and all its upkeep' when a business can get 2 or 3 "free" workers? Maybe two levels of UBI - UBI employeed (get an extra 10% or 20% over UBI unemployed).
There's a bunch of holes in my suggestion that I can see easily -- probably a bunch I haven't considered, too. But it's at least worth being part of the conversation.
"Actually, modern policies are to let it burn as much as possible"
You forgot to add in "recently updated" between that comma and "modern". You also forgot to mention that a lot of this is regional (for state controlled land vs. federally controlled land -- rules aren't necessarily the same).
There's still a HUGE build up of old growth that needs to either be cleared manually (not going to happen) or burn off in a blaze of glory.
Slashdot Mirror
And called an RSS feed?
Smart move posting anonymous. You must be really embarrassed to post that.
Hey -- I never said it was a BAD thing to change a vote from Trump to something else. That's a GOOD thing. But to change it to Clinton???
May as well been changing from arsenic to strychnine.
"Dude, just quote the actual prediction"
Dude, just read what I typed:
"That's not a prediction about the "Big R" during Dubya's presidency."
No, you are correct. Because they didn't see 9/11 coming. Yeesh.
Our shop (which is a pretty big shop) is almost exclusively ELO. They're hammered pretty hard daily across thousands of locations all around the US and I've never seen a solid uniform calibration slippage -- they'll go in any direction. Of the odds and ends (non ELO - various lab equipment screens from various manufacturers -- maybe a few hundred in my state alone) calibration issues have been minimal -- they either "work" or they do not.
"So it certainly is possible that with the touchscreen voting machines, all of the panels that have calibration issues are doing so in the same or a very similar manner."
Based on your assessment I would agree with you but you've only listed a single manufacturer in your experience. While mine is mostly ELO, I can list off probably 10 off the top of my head that we also see in significant numbers. So I'm very hesitant to accept your assessment.
Note: ELO calibration can be deliberately "miscalibrated" to make the touch offset in any particular direction.
"They looked like pretty typical cases of a broken touch screen to me"
Were it a single machine I'd say you would likely be right without argument.
However, it was more than a single machine. I work with touch screens daily and if they "break" it's usually no touch at all or a segment of the screen is non-responsive. If it's a calibration issue then where you touch may not reflect where the computer THINKS you touch. And those are not uniform -- one maybe a bit above, one maybe a bit to the left and a third machine maybe a lot to the right and down. That more than a single touch screen had the same 'defect' in calibration should toss up some flags.
Wasn't there election day reports from Pennsylvania of straight Republican votes magically changing to Democratic votes? With cell phone video of it happening?
"Yeah, funny how that works out... it was all just a coincidence that it happened on Bush's watch. Boy, that's convenient."
Think about this. Bush was in office for less than 8 months. 9/11 most certainly wasn't planned in 7.5 months.
Now that you mention it... lets look at successful radical islamic terrorist attacks on US soil:
under Bush: 1 (9-11)
Under Obama: 7 (so far).
It was all just a coincidence that all the rest happened after Bush left office and Obama took office.
You've no idea what you are talking about.
"uh... remember the Great Recession under Bush?"
That recession was going to happen no matter what. And guess what -- It was predicted by the Anderson Forecast in 2000. Guess who's administration that was under? Wasn't Bush.
http://www.uclaforecast.com/co...
The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later. That was a HUGE blow to our economy.
" and now that economic growth is going well, unemployment is down, inflation is nil, people vote to go back to that"
What's the rate of underemployed? What's the number of people who are no longer being COUNTED as unemployed? They didn't vote to go back to that -- they voted because they are hurting and the last 8 years did nothing to fix their hurt.
I'm not saying Trump is the answer -- I honestly don't know who was worse -- Trump or Clinton (I voted for neither) but your blinders are not really helping you see reality. You might want to lift them off a bit and take a peek.
"he was liberal when he was young, and grew conservative as he was older."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh...
"..former friend who wrote he had once been "very liberal" and added, "he was left wing when I knew him in his & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows."
And I think you are missing my point entirely.
"Wow, you're assuming a person is automatically a liberal because they come from Berkeley?"
No. I'm illustrating how silly it was to assume he was a gun nut because they THOUGHT he was from Colorado.
And you are right. he's crazy.
"I'm guessing all those abortion clinic bombings in the 1990's were left wing nuts. The sooner you realize your high horse is a mole hill, the better."
I really don't consider those attacks on political views. The abortion issue is an irreconcilable issue -- either they are pro-file and abortion is murder or they are pro-choice and it's freedom and "right to choose". Those bombings weren't because they disagreed with their targets politics -- they were bombed because they believed their targets were killing children. And about this -- their targets weren't those voting for pro-abortion candidates -- they were the ones committing the murders in their eyes.
All my examples were specific to targeting someone or a group who voted in a particular way or to flag some crazy guy as being "republican" or "right wing" until the news came out that they were in fact left wing nuts.
That said -- you need to look at those who were arrested. I'm not going to go through them all but I'll point you to Jared Lee Loughner. He shot Gabby Giffords. He was flagged as being part of an anti-abortion group. He was painted as a right-wing nut or tea-party nut. Until it started to come out that he was a left wing nut. Democrats as well as republicans can be very opposed to abortion. Lastly, Loughner really was a total and complete nut. Left/right leaning really doesn't matter. He was flipping crazy.
I didn't vote for Trump. I think he's a functional psychopath with poor impulse control. I didn't vote for Clinton either. They were both horrible candidates and are so utterly hated (and I mean HATED) by their opposition that it would be virtually impossible for them to lead effectively. Never mind the doubts about each candidate (and no reasonable person should have accepted either as a choice).
"You're very good at only picking and choosing articles that back up your prejudices."
Way to provide a list of actual violence against others for their beliefs. Oh wait. You provided a single link that includes just one physical attack. The rest talk about burning Obama in effigy -- something that protesters have been doing in the US since before we were the US.
Come back and try again when you have a bakers dozen. I only listed the highlights.
How about the crazy Colorado guy who shot up a theater? He was a nut but the left had a crazy hissy fit about this Colorado right-wing gun freak..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/...
Oh wait... he wasn't from CO -- he was from Berkeley. Yes, he was a nut, but the left wanted to paint him as a right wing gun nut rather than from one of the most liberal locations in the US.
Or how about those silly republicans who slashed the tires of helpless democrats?
http://articles.chicagotribune...
Oh wait... it was DEMOCRATS slashing the tires of republicans to prevent them getting to the polls!
Want some more?
A few 'interesting' news clips over the last two election cycles about violence targeted at people for their opinions:
A Thousand Oaks man got his finger bitten off by someone who didn't like the Anti-Obamacare Protesters.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...
Democrat tried to run down Republican with his car.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...
Left wing nut flies plain in to building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02...
(interesting to note that he was 'originally' reported as a right-wing nut because... Texas. After his "note" was found, it was clear he was a left wing nut)
Man beaten and robbed by democrat thugs because he supports Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
High school girl attacked for supporting Trump:
http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/11/vi...
To be fair, there were also these bits:
Muslim women in CA and LA attacked by Trump supporters.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article...
Oh wait... no witnesses or injuries -- and one admits to lying about it entirely and is going to be charged for filing a false police report.
Trump supporters paint "Die Blacks Die" during protest:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016... (foxnews, but associated press provided).
Oh wait... it said "Die whites die". So silly of me.
Yes... and how willingly they ignore what's under their nose...
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
Wait for it...
"President Obama"
"Presumably for as many generations as possible (at least those that share the family name.)"
Be that as it may -- there are countless examples of of people wanting to leave a legacy that had nothing to do with their children.
Given that Trump has named almost everything TRUMP X (Trump Tower, Trump Casino, Trump Hollywood, Trump whatever) I think it's safe to assume he wants a non-biologic legacy to go along with someone running the business with his name.
"Stop being delusional."
What was the name of your Great Great Grandfather on your mother's side? Virtually everyone has no idea who is beyond their grand parents. And a some don't even know that.
Now, in NY, for example, we can spend a nice day at the Guggenheim then take in a concert at Carnegie Hall. Then maybe see The Tonight Show taped at Rockefeller Center the following day. Name almost any town and there's countless examples that can be listed of people wanting to leave a legacy that had nothing to do with their children.
The GP wasn't being delusional -- he was being insightful.
If by "didn't involve Clinton at all" you mean "did not originate from her" or "was sent to her", then yes. However, she might have been part of relevant chains -- or topics were being discussed by others ABOUT her or what she was told. Those are much harder to sift through automagically.
Of course -- such emails may not exist in this new batch.
Whoever wins this election is going to be so damaged that governing is going to be very difficult dipping in to impossible.
Why work 36 hours straight? An employer can get 4 free employees for free instead of 1. Don't assume 1 human = 1 robot. There's a bunch of holes in my suggestion that need to be filled, but what you point out isn't one of them.
"Just pass laws that ban progress and you are done."
Close. Pass laws that allow people to work for "free". And by "free" I mean to get your UBI check. Example, why pay the cost of an restaurant's "order taking robot" and all its upkeep' when a business can get 2 or 3 "free" workers? Maybe two levels of UBI - UBI employeed (get an extra 10% or 20% over UBI unemployed).
There's a bunch of holes in my suggestion that I can see easily -- probably a bunch I haven't considered, too. But it's at least worth being part of the conversation.
...just wow.
The only "criminal act" with regards to your post is your misrepresentation of facts and documented history.
"Actually, modern policies are to let it burn as much as possible"
You forgot to add in "recently updated" between that comma and "modern". You also forgot to mention that a lot of this is regional (for state controlled land vs. federally controlled land -- rules aren't necessarily the same).
There's still a HUGE build up of old growth that needs to either be cleared manually (not going to happen) or burn off in a blaze of glory.
I saw some guy wearing a red shirt say "Arch" and a door just APPEARED! He walked out and the door vanished!
If he can do it, why cant we???