Except that every study seems to show that actual voter fraud is minimal
I always hear that claim made, yet every so called 'study' I examine has gaping holes in it's methods as more often then not there is simply not enough data to make an accurate measure as to what level of fraud exists because of the lack of ID requirements.
If I show up to your polling place and claim to be a recently deceased person, someone I know to be on vacation, or not likely to vote... unless the election worker actually knows the person I am pretending to be... I'm almost certainly going to be able to cast a vote illegally and the chances of being caught are slim, ditto for me ever showing up on the radar of someone investigating fraud.
Let me fix that for you:
Voter ID laws are (taken at face value) an attempt to reduce a unknown number of people from voting illegitimately while keeping a larger number of people from voting legitimately.
Somehow one needs a photo ID to fly on a plane, buy a six-pack of beer or open a bank account in most places... but only with regards to voting is it suddenly a horrible thing, even when free IDs are usually available.
To go back to my earlier example, a person doing so would only be casting a single extra vote which on it's own isn't much, however it's not too hard to imagine an individual or group being a little more dedicated and spending the morning of election day doing this over and over again.
How many fraudulent votes would they need? Lets look at some recent close races which come to mind:
in Florida in 2000 George Bush beat Al Gore with a margin of 537 votes out of 5,962,657 cast (0.00901%). In South Dakota in 2002 Tim Johnson beat John Thune by a margin of 524 votes out of 33,4438 cast (.001567%). In Washington in 2004 Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by a margin of 133 votes out of 2,810,058 cast (0.00473%). In Minnesota in 2008 Al Franken beat Norm Colman by a margin of 312 votes out of 2,887,646 cast (0.0108%).
We are talking margins not only within the range of error (accidental over votes, identifying marks, etc), but very possibly within the margin of fraud, something the current system makes very difficult to detect.
Most of us don't wait to put locks on or home doors until after we are burgled, we do so because we recognize a potential threat and prefer to take some actions to reduce the risk, why not here as well?
Christians ran the colonies from roughly the 1550s when the Spanish colonized Mexico and the Southwest to about 1785 on the East Coast when the Constitution, guaranteeing that the government could not endorse religion (e.g., "Congress shall make no law regarding an endorsement of religion") to bit less than a hundred years later when the Spanish/Russian governance of the west coast ended.
Partially true, the first amendment and it's prohibition at the time only applied to the federal government, state religions went on for a good bit longer, the last one ending in 1833 if I am not mistaken: https://digital.library.txstat...
Really? So the mentality of the left and radical Islam is no different then as well I guess... as from the left I hear that Climate Change is true, unquestionable and those who disagree must be hounded out of public life or forced to comply with certain beliefs... and from the radical Muslims we hear that if you do not subscribe to their particular interpretation you should be stoned, beheaded or set fire to.
As you said "There is a difference in the end result, but the mindset is the same"
Actually our constitution was written to give both the people and state governments a say in how the national government was running things (making bribery a lot harder)... alas the 17th amendment threw much of that out the window, largely removing the need for a Senate.
More so the framers were also quite clear as to the importance of rotation in & out of office, the idea of a career politician was apocryphal to them, so much so that they didn't end up writing term limits (of any kind) in as they thought that elected officials would continue to have virtue.
They created a grand government which has lasted quite longer than they probably expected, was able to end slavery thanks to a few poison pills, but alas virtue is a rare thing in DC today.
Correct, the more time you spend with a given character/group the more opportunities you have to show them in a more favorable/humanizing light with examination of their motivations & history without explicitly trying to keep them looking evil & unbeatable the whole time.
"ZOMG the Dominion is going to conquer us! Wait... it's founders faced discrimination because of their form and decided to bring order to their part of the galaxy... maybe they aren't so bad?"
"Species 8472 is the greatest threat we've ever faced, how can we stop them? They are only fighting back against the Borg who struck first? Ok, I guess I can understand their anger"
Pick a race on Star Trek which has had more than a few episodes of backstory/examination and you see the same pattern.
It's because while we have a long history of using the death penalty, just enough are squeamish about it that there are efforts to take it out of the public conscious & try to maintain an almost medical like image.
While there are countries today where you can attend a execution in a public square, in the US we have long relegated them to happen at midnight behind tall walls and in a confined room with a limited number of witnesses... including a alcohol swab on the condemns arm to prevent infection just in case they get a last minute reprieve from the needle to be put into their arm.
You're stating it wrong. When someone is dead you can say what you want about them.
No, you are over simplifying it.
The actionability of the utterance usually depends on when it was said... and as the Jesse Ventura vs Chris Kyle case so recently demonstrated, a dead man's estate can still be on the hook for damages. Had Ventura died first the case still could have proceeded provided the claim was made prior to death (and likely the suit as well).
Defamation aside, without a conviction or lengthy civil suit, the rights of the estate to the properties of the deceased/accused/etc does not end as it would with a conviction which goes to the heart of what I said above.
It is pretty clear what happens to the assets of criminals, especially with regard to crimes against humanity and especially when those assets have value derived from the commitment of those crimes.
Sorta... if you go on a killing spree, are convicted then try to sell your story you are going to have some legal problems & prohibitions.
If however while waiting for arrest/trial end up dead (either at the hands of the police or your own), anyone calling you a 'murder' would be at risk of suit a defamation suit from your estate as you were not actually convicted of that crime.
Perverse perhaps, but it follows from the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty. And while it is commonly accepted that Hitler, Goebbels and OJ Simpsons did some rather horrific things... I'm unaware of any criminal case where the Joseph Goebbels estate would have been denied the normal protections afforded to an unconvinced individual.
I'm not defending the practice, I'm just stating what is.
And the damage caused by landing on water with parachutes has got to be less than the explosions from the landings on the barges.
Probably not when they figure out how to land on the barge without exploding... at that point the damage from hitting the water and amount of cleaning & service required to be read for launch will be much more.
I hate to break it to you... but we aren't a democracy, we are a republic.
Lets say we changed that ratio a bit... maybe 1 rep per 50k citizens... that would perhaps bump the number of reps to 4,350... do you think that would be any more workable?
Of course, we do have one noted case of an elected official being illegally detained (per Article I Section 6) by the TSA: http://www.politico.com/news/s...
Even if your company has a strict prohibition against them?
I'd give him a pat on the back and maybe a small bonus, as long as it's suitably hidden and well done... playful,
So you've the ability to give away money at work for such non-work related things? Do please share where you work.
not obnoxious,
By whose/what standard? It's always fun discovering in a widely localized product what seems benign to one culture is horrible to another.
not going to get in anyone's way, etc.
So you can guarantee that for all users and use cases?
Customers like easter eggs.
Which customers are these? Those buying your 99 cent mobile app? Those buying a 50 dollar shrink wrapped or downloaded desktop app? Or those buying multi-thousand dollar enterprise systems?
Assuming the software is generally high quality, they're amusing, minor diversions that add a little fun for the users as well as the programmers.
Again, that depends on who your customer is and what their attitude is to unknown things being discovered in the software that was not documented and was not part of the RFP or compliance documentation.
What you see as a cute dancing frog or "Hello from the developers", some customers see as a sign of shoddy quality control and the possibility of backdoors.
LOL. Which idiot wrote this summary? There were no "graphics on computers" before 1990 then?
There were cars before the Ford Model-T, would you claim that Ford did not user in the era of the horseless carriage?
There were electric cars before the Toyota Prius, but would you claim that Toyota did not user in the era of the electric car?
Ushering in the era doesn't mean you are first, but that you are the most effective/impactful.
By your logic, it should not be said that Apple ushered in the era of the smartphone or tablet, plenty of companies had them before... yet Apple was the first to get it right and establish broad appeal.
Actually they did mention it. They just rolled it out - however it is currently for businesses
Just? Volume enterprise licensing in some form has been around for quite some time, under it you can deploy whatever supported version Windows or Office or other licensed software you like.
Office 365 is the only real new thing as it makes process a little more visible as an individual can sign up for a individual subscription as well.
Contesting it in court assumes it becomes an issue.
Far easier to simply ignore it, not reveal it to a future employer and assume Amazon never finds out that a someone in the bowels of their company ended up in the bowels of another company.
I want to double down upon what you are saying as you know far better than the parent what is going on.
Just today I had sub-sub contractors from Comcast trying to fix the cable from the box across the street to my home for an issue I first reported the issue in mid-December but after a few months of nonsense things finally got worked out.
After first having a visit from a person who appeared to be a Comcast employee declaring the connection between my home and the distribution box across the street bad (I was seeing.1 mbs upload(should have been closer to 10mbs) yet semi-normal downloads), he wrote it up for replacement... and so began a multi-month process.
A week later received a note from a sub-contractor of Comcast (though with the Comcast letterhead on the door hanger and the sub-contractors name in the fine print) which said my cable needed to be replaced. Over the next couple of months I'd call them to check on the status with the work order # on the tag as things slowly worked their way through the Comcast and local city bureaucracies.
Eventually they told me that the work had been issued to a 'sub-contractor' (really a sub-sub-contractor) who took about a month to get things worked out as well between the city and them (which included two paintings of the paths of various utility lines under and around the street (much to the annoyance of the neighbors who didn't like the paint on their property)).
Finally the day of repair arrived (today) and they did their digging... alas they hit a rock when tunneling under the driveway of the neighbor in front of me (and right next to the distribution box) so they had to fill in most of what they did (amazingly professional in this way) and say that another team from the same company would have to come out in a week with a different boring machine to complete the work.
The pathetic thing about this whole process was that as far as Comcast is concerned, my issue has been resolved months ago by virtue of it being sent to an outside vendor... in the close out email even citing the fact that my signal strength had returned to normal (hint: it hadn't fully).
There is a part of me that is considering dropping Comcast service once this whole repair effort is complete (costing them $5-10k)... however they (unfortunately) provide the fastest internet for the price... when it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Up here in Seattle we have both... and come tomorrow I don't think it will be the football fans who will be engaging in their annual riot.
I always hear that claim made, yet every so called 'study' I examine has gaping holes in it's methods as more often then not there is simply not enough data to make an accurate measure as to what level of fraud exists because of the lack of ID requirements.
If I show up to your polling place and claim to be a recently deceased person, someone I know to be on vacation, or not likely to vote... unless the election worker actually knows the person I am pretending to be... I'm almost certainly going to be able to cast a vote illegally and the chances of being caught are slim, ditto for me ever showing up on the radar of someone investigating fraud.
Let me fix that for you:
Somehow one needs a photo ID to fly on a plane, buy a six-pack of beer or open a bank account in most places... but only with regards to voting is it suddenly a horrible thing, even when free IDs are usually available.
To go back to my earlier example, a person doing so would only be casting a single extra vote which on it's own isn't much, however it's not too hard to imagine an individual or group being a little more dedicated and spending the morning of election day doing this over and over again.
How many fraudulent votes would they need? Lets look at some recent close races which come to mind:
in Florida in 2000 George Bush beat Al Gore with a margin of 537 votes out of 5,962,657 cast (0.00901%).
In South Dakota in 2002 Tim Johnson beat John Thune by a margin of 524 votes out of 33,4438 cast (.001567%).
In Washington in 2004 Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by a margin of 133 votes out of 2,810,058 cast (0.00473%).
In Minnesota in 2008 Al Franken beat Norm Colman by a margin of 312 votes out of 2,887,646 cast (0.0108%).
We are talking margins not only within the range of error (accidental over votes, identifying marks, etc), but very possibly within the margin of fraud, something the current system makes very difficult to detect.
Most of us don't wait to put locks on or home doors until after we are burgled, we do so because we recognize a potential threat and prefer to take some actions to reduce the risk, why not here as well?
That tends to be what happens when you make it harder to commit voter fraud.
Partially true, the first amendment and it's prohibition at the time only applied to the federal government, state religions went on for a good bit longer, the last one ending in 1833 if I am not mistaken: https://digital.library.txstat...
Really? So the mentality of the left and radical Islam is no different then as well I guess... as from the left I hear that Climate Change is true, unquestionable and those who disagree must be hounded out of public life or forced to comply with certain beliefs... and from the radical Muslims we hear that if you do not subscribe to their particular interpretation you should be stoned, beheaded or set fire to.
As you said "There is a difference in the end result, but the mindset is the same"
Actually our constitution was written to give both the people and state governments a say in how the national government was running things (making bribery a lot harder)... alas the 17th amendment threw much of that out the window, largely removing the need for a Senate.
More so the framers were also quite clear as to the importance of rotation in & out of office, the idea of a career politician was apocryphal to them, so much so that they didn't end up writing term limits (of any kind) in as they thought that elected officials would continue to have virtue.
They created a grand government which has lasted quite longer than they probably expected, was able to end slavery thanks to a few poison pills, but alas virtue is a rare thing in DC today.
And advocating for such a thing should be taken lightly by the left as in my experience it is those on the right who tend to be a bit more armed.
Legally you are correct, but that doesn't stop the current one from effectively doing so via 'executive actions'.
Correct, the more time you spend with a given character/group the more opportunities you have to show them in a more favorable/humanizing light with examination of their motivations & history without explicitly trying to keep them looking evil & unbeatable the whole time.
"ZOMG the Dominion is going to conquer us! Wait... it's founders faced discrimination because of their form and decided to bring order to their part of the galaxy... maybe they aren't so bad?"
"Species 8472 is the greatest threat we've ever faced, how can we stop them? They are only fighting back against the Borg who struck first? Ok, I guess I can understand their anger"
Pick a race on Star Trek which has had more than a few episodes of backstory/examination and you see the same pattern.
It's because while we have a long history of using the death penalty, just enough are squeamish about it that there are efforts to take it out of the public conscious & try to maintain an almost medical like image.
While there are countries today where you can attend a execution in a public square, in the US we have long relegated them to happen at midnight behind tall walls and in a confined room with a limited number of witnesses... including a alcohol swab on the condemns arm to prevent infection just in case they get a last minute reprieve from the needle to be put into their arm.
No, you are over simplifying it.
The actionability of the utterance usually depends on when it was said... and as the Jesse Ventura vs Chris Kyle case so recently demonstrated, a dead man's estate can still be on the hook for damages. Had Ventura died first the case still could have proceeded provided the claim was made prior to death (and likely the suit as well).
Defamation aside, without a conviction or lengthy civil suit, the rights of the estate to the properties of the deceased/accused/etc does not end as it would with a conviction which goes to the heart of what I said above.
Sorta... if you go on a killing spree, are convicted then try to sell your story you are going to have some legal problems & prohibitions.
If however while waiting for arrest/trial end up dead (either at the hands of the police or your own), anyone calling you a 'murder' would be at risk of suit a defamation suit from your estate as you were not actually convicted of that crime.
Perverse perhaps, but it follows from the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty. And while it is commonly accepted that Hitler, Goebbels and OJ Simpsons did some rather horrific things... I'm unaware of any criminal case where the Joseph Goebbels estate would have been denied the normal protections afforded to an unconvinced individual.
I'm not defending the practice, I'm just stating what is.
Your time would be better spent pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment and ending direct election of senators.
Probably not when they figure out how to land on the barge without exploding... at that point the damage from hitting the water and amount of cleaning & service required to be read for launch will be much more.
I hate to break it to you... but we aren't a democracy, we are a republic.
Lets say we changed that ratio a bit... maybe 1 rep per 50k citizens... that would perhaps bump the number of reps to 4,350... do you think that would be any more workable?
TSA Pre Check allows members of both parties to skip on by quite easily: https://tsatoday.wordpress.com...
Of course, we do have one noted case of an elected official being illegally detained (per Article I Section 6) by the TSA: http://www.politico.com/news/s...
You'd think that... but it doesn't explain why I still get molested every time I fly.
More than you know: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
So many assumptions, so little reality.
Even if your company has a strict prohibition against them?
So you've the ability to give away money at work for such non-work related things? Do please share where you work.
By whose/what standard? It's always fun discovering in a widely localized product what seems benign to one culture is horrible to another.
So you can guarantee that for all users and use cases?
Which customers are these? Those buying your 99 cent mobile app? Those buying a 50 dollar shrink wrapped or downloaded desktop app? Or those buying multi-thousand dollar enterprise systems?
Again, that depends on who your customer is and what their attitude is to unknown things being discovered in the software that was not documented and was not part of the RFP or compliance documentation.
What you see as a cute dancing frog or "Hello from the developers", some customers see as a sign of shoddy quality control and the possibility of backdoors.
A more intelligent person than the AC who said:
There were cars before the Ford Model-T, would you claim that Ford did not user in the era of the horseless carriage?
There were electric cars before the Toyota Prius, but would you claim that Toyota did not user in the era of the electric car?
Ushering in the era doesn't mean you are first, but that you are the most effective/impactful.
By your logic, it should not be said that Apple ushered in the era of the smartphone or tablet, plenty of companies had them before... yet Apple was the first to get it right and establish broad appeal.
Just? Volume enterprise licensing in some form has been around for quite some time, under it you can deploy whatever supported version Windows or Office or other licensed software you like.
Office 365 is the only real new thing as it makes process a little more visible as an individual can sign up for a individual subscription as well.
Given this is the first device to ship (that I'm aware of) with an Atom x7, comparing it to Atoms of old may be premature.
That still assumes the violation is noticed and acted upon.
Seriously, how likely do you think it will be for a former employer to keep track of their ex-employees so closely that this would be a serious issue?
Contesting it in court assumes it becomes an issue.
Far easier to simply ignore it, not reveal it to a future employer and assume Amazon never finds out that a someone in the bowels of their company ended up in the bowels of another company.
I want to double down upon what you are saying as you know far better than the parent what is going on.
Just today I had sub-sub contractors from Comcast trying to fix the cable from the box across the street to my home for an issue I first reported the issue in mid-December but after a few months of nonsense things finally got worked out.
After first having a visit from a person who appeared to be a Comcast employee declaring the connection between my home and the distribution box across the street bad (I was seeing .1 mbs upload(should have been closer to 10mbs) yet semi-normal downloads), he wrote it up for replacement... and so began a multi-month process.
A week later received a note from a sub-contractor of Comcast (though with the Comcast letterhead on the door hanger and the sub-contractors name in the fine print) which said my cable needed to be replaced. Over the next couple of months I'd call them to check on the status with the work order # on the tag as things slowly worked their way through the Comcast and local city bureaucracies.
Eventually they told me that the work had been issued to a 'sub-contractor' (really a sub-sub-contractor) who took about a month to get things worked out as well between the city and them (which included two paintings of the paths of various utility lines under and around the street (much to the annoyance of the neighbors who didn't like the paint on their property)).
Finally the day of repair arrived (today) and they did their digging... alas they hit a rock when tunneling under the driveway of the neighbor in front of me (and right next to the distribution box) so they had to fill in most of what they did (amazingly professional in this way) and say that another team from the same company would have to come out in a week with a different boring machine to complete the work.
The pathetic thing about this whole process was that as far as Comcast is concerned, my issue has been resolved months ago by virtue of it being sent to an outside vendor... in the close out email even citing the fact that my signal strength had returned to normal (hint: it hadn't fully).
There is a part of me that is considering dropping Comcast service once this whole repair effort is complete (costing them $5-10k)... however they (unfortunately) provide the fastest internet for the price... when it works.