When I voted, they wrote down the ballot number on both the sheet of paper I filled out and in their log book. Thus, my name was directly tied to the ballot number in 2 locations. However, the ballot number was printed at the top of the ballot on a perforated section, and before I fed it into the scanner the poll worker tore off the top section, thus there was no longer a ballot number attached to my ballot.
Of course, I'm sure they could do some forensic work to match the unique arrangement of paper fibers between the top section and the actual ballots, but I'm not THAT worried about it.
Terrorist: Funny, as McCain has ties to him as well. And there is no video being suppressed.
Socialist: Another key component of socialism is government ownership of industry. Hmm...you mean like the government ownership of AIG that McCain also voted for? You can't just take one aspect of X and then say that X applies as a whole. Have you seen any children lately? Well, the first step in committing pedophilia is looking at the kid, so I guess that makes you a pedophile.
Actually, Joe "The Plumber" Worthlessfucker is from a different family than the Charles Keating relative. They just happened to have the same last name (perhaps they MIGHT have some further back ancestry, but if so, I doubt it's noteworthy).
I don't know, but the ability to have free and total control to do whatever you feel like without any restrictions does kind of fit the term, whether or not that's the correct spelling.
What downtime for servers? This law is just about encrypting data on portable devices, as far as I can tell. And how does encryption reduce a user's productivity? Yeah, it takes time to decrypt files, but not that much time. Especially considering most users will be dealing with relatively small files (for the most part, a couple MB at worst). I really can't see the 50 per month cost
The Massachusetts government estimates that a business with 10 employees will need to spend $3,000 up front, plus an additional $500 a month in order to comply. Security executives at larger firms said they expect to spend a similar amount per employee.
It sounds to me like all you need to do is encrypt the hard drive and require a password, but if so, why so much? It seems $300 per person is probably on the expensive end for the software, but I'll let that one slide. However, $50 per person per month just to maintain the system? What is this cost for? What is there to maintain? The only thing I can think of is dealing with forgotten passwords, which will require restoring the system and losing whatever was on the laptop and not backed up. $600 per employee per year seems high for this.
As punishment for doing something so stupid and irresponsible, I suggest we add both of their names to the sexual offender databases. If they complain that they've never actually been a sexual offender, we'll just defend the action by saying the database offered limited options for classifying entries.
I'd then suggest that a TON of people shouldn't be allowed to vote by that logic. Very rich people have short sighted, self serving of making themselves more rich and act in a way that jeopardizes everything else to achieve that (look at the current situation). Then you've got those people who vote in a way such that the overriding decision for their vote is does the candidate support abortion/gun control/religion/etc. You could go on and on like this.
The problem then becomes, who is the decider of who can vote...what reasoning is sound and allowable? I'm sure there's someone out there who can do it in a "fair" way. There have been many "fair" tyrants in history.
No, it was just a couple PCs. They're just using the RIAA/CD-R theory to say that, since it was a couple really fast computers, it was the equivalent of thousands of 386's.
And what if you feel rejecting the changes leaves you in a worse position than accepting a few downsides? Why is it that you presume no change is always better than a change that has some downsides?
My point is that if you disagree with something strongly enough to vote against it every time the issue is raised, then "how can you, in good conscience, vote for bill which contains it?
That's so simple, I'm surprised you failed to see the answer. In every previous case, that clause's cons outweighed the rest of the bill's pros. This time, for the first time, the balance went the other way.
Exactly. Furthermore, Obama didn't say he would unconditionally accept public financing. He said he would accept it if he could come to an agreement with his opponent that it would be done in a fair way, with no loopholes being exploited. McCain refused to make such an agreement, and as I recall, McCain had already used a loophole to raise over $60 billion before Obama rejected public financing.
I don't get why people don't understand that the public financing is a sham. McCain can continue to raise all the money he wants...it just can't go directly to him. It has to go through the Republican party (as if they won't use it exactly how McCain wishes), or the state committes, or "independent" 527 groups that buy ad time on his behalf. So the only difference it makes is that donors redirect who their donations go to, and that McCain gets an $84 million bonus on top of all of that.
So please tell me in what way the public finance system is better than private financing? Everything stays the same except that the candidate gets an $84 million bonus from the taxpayers' pockets. The only way it makes any sense is if the candidates go above an beyond what the public finance system calls for in terms of restricting donations. That's what Obama tried to do, but McCain would have no part of it.
So let me ask you a question. Do you ever vote in elections? When you do, are the guys you vote for positioned such that you agree with them on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC THEY STAND FOR?
If so, then I can only imagine you are a politician yourself, and the only box you check on the ballot is your own name.
If not, then you either don't vote (in which case, you just lost all ability to criticize how anybody else votes) or you vote for the candidate that overall most closely matches how you believe (which makes you a hypocrite)
Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Board and Commissions DPS Employee Draft DPS Personnel and Budget Issues Court of Appeals Nominations Scheduling - Week of 08.10.08 CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter Informational Meeting with Gov. Palin Next Week
As I said in another of my posts...do THESE subjects look like they are of personal/political nature? A few possibly, but for most, NO:
Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Board and Commissions DPS Employee Draft DPS Personnel and Budget Issues Court of Appeals Nominations Scheduling - Week of 08.10.08 CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter Informational Meeting with Gov. Palin Next Week
Please....we aren't talking about legal technicalities here, as this is not legally admissible evidence (as far as I know). Look at this from a common sense perspective. Do you really believe all of these people are sending emails to her personal account without her cooperation? If you look at the evidence from a common sense perspective, I'd say chances are better than 99% that she was conducting business though her personal email account.
I suppose these could be anything, but I'm inclined to think the following subject lines indicate they are most likely NOT personal in nature.
Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Board and Commissions DPS Employee Draft DPS Personnel and Budget Issues Court of Appeals Nominations Scheduling - Week of 08.10.08 CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter Informational Meeting with Gov. Palin Next Week
Buy hey, who knows. Maybe she's got some really boring hobbies.
Where I work, there are safeguards in place that prevent weak passwords from being set. I'd HOPE that government systems are at least as thorough as my employer.
No...I think the summary (courtesy of uberotto) is that she lied and said she wasn't using her personal email for government business and this "proves" otherwise (assuming you don't question the validity of these email, at least part of which has already been confirmed as valid).
I think you misunderstood him. His private email is private. His work email is also private (as it is a private business). There is no reason anyone should see any of his email.
Palin's personal email is private. As a public servant, her work email is public...at least to some degree. Not that anyone should have immediate access to it, but there are legal procedures in place on how the public can gain access, for example, in the case of a lawsuit. She tried to circumvent that by using a private email address. It's only fitting that everything in that account becomes public. That fact that she was stupid enough to mix private and personal email...well, thats just too bad for her.
This is a really good reason why they should NOT be using their private email. Sure, using the government systems opens them up to having their corruption on record, but having it on something like Yahoo mail opens it up to something like this, potentially exposing WAY more information than that. Not that government email is unhackable, but I'd certainly expect it to be at least a little bit more secure.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the ballot number stay on your ballot?
When I voted, they wrote down the ballot number on both the sheet of paper I filled out and in their log book. Thus, my name was directly tied to the ballot number in 2 locations. However, the ballot number was printed at the top of the ballot on a perforated section, and before I fed it into the scanner the poll worker tore off the top section, thus there was no longer a ballot number attached to my ballot.
Of course, I'm sure they could do some forensic work to match the unique arrangement of paper fibers between the top section and the actual ballots, but I'm not THAT worried about it.
Terrorist: Funny, as McCain has ties to him as well. And there is no video being suppressed.
Socialist: Another key component of socialism is government ownership of industry. Hmm...you mean like the government ownership of AIG that McCain also voted for? You can't just take one aspect of X and then say that X applies as a whole. Have you seen any children lately? Well, the first step in committing pedophilia is looking at the kid, so I guess that makes you a pedophile.
Marxists: See Socialist above
Actually, Joe "The Plumber" Worthlessfucker is from a different family than the Charles Keating relative. They just happened to have the same last name (perhaps they MIGHT have some further back ancestry, but if so, I doubt it's noteworthy).
I don't know, but the ability to have free and total control to do whatever you feel like without any restrictions does kind of fit the term, whether or not that's the correct spelling.
If you look carefully at the top of the flag, you can see a few red dots. Maybe the stripe for Rhode Island was drawn to scale.
What downtime for servers? This law is just about encrypting data on portable devices, as far as I can tell. And how does encryption reduce a user's productivity? Yeah, it takes time to decrypt files, but not that much time. Especially considering most users will be dealing with relatively small files (for the most part, a couple MB at worst). I really can't see the 50 per month cost
It sounds to me like all you need to do is encrypt the hard drive and require a password, but if so, why so much? It seems $300 per person is probably on the expensive end for the software, but I'll let that one slide. However, $50 per person per month just to maintain the system? What is this cost for? What is there to maintain? The only thing I can think of is dealing with forgotten passwords, which will require restoring the system and losing whatever was on the laptop and not backed up. $600 per employee per year seems high for this.
As punishment for doing something so stupid and irresponsible, I suggest we add both of their names to the sexual offender databases. If they complain that they've never actually been a sexual offender, we'll just defend the action by saying the database offered limited options for classifying entries.
I'd then suggest that a TON of people shouldn't be allowed to vote by that logic. Very rich people have short sighted, self serving of making themselves more rich and act in a way that jeopardizes everything else to achieve that (look at the current situation). Then you've got those people who vote in a way such that the overriding decision for their vote is does the candidate support abortion/gun control/religion/etc. You could go on and on like this.
The problem then becomes, who is the decider of who can vote...what reasoning is sound and allowable? I'm sure there's someone out there who can do it in a "fair" way. There have been many "fair" tyrants in history.
No, it was just a couple PCs. They're just using the RIAA/CD-R theory to say that, since it was a couple really fast computers, it was the equivalent of thousands of 386's.
But then you'd still be voting for a candidaite that you don't stand 100% behind on every topic, so my point still stands.
And what if you feel rejecting the changes leaves you in a worse position than accepting a few downsides? Why is it that you presume no change is always better than a change that has some downsides?
That's so simple, I'm surprised you failed to see the answer. In every previous case, that clause's cons outweighed the rest of the bill's pros. This time, for the first time, the balance went the other way.
Exactly. Furthermore, Obama didn't say he would unconditionally accept public financing. He said he would accept it if he could come to an agreement with his opponent that it would be done in a fair way, with no loopholes being exploited. McCain refused to make such an agreement, and as I recall, McCain had already used a loophole to raise over $60 billion before Obama rejected public financing.
I don't get why people don't understand that the public financing is a sham. McCain can continue to raise all the money he wants...it just can't go directly to him. It has to go through the Republican party (as if they won't use it exactly how McCain wishes), or the state committes, or "independent" 527 groups that buy ad time on his behalf. So the only difference it makes is that donors redirect who their donations go to, and that McCain gets an $84 million bonus on top of all of that.
So please tell me in what way the public finance system is better than private financing? Everything stays the same except that the candidate gets an $84 million bonus from the taxpayers' pockets. The only way it makes any sense is if the candidates go above an beyond what the public finance system calls for in terms of restricting donations. That's what Obama tried to do, but McCain would have no part of it.
Nice try, but I think most people would agree that the last thing outweighs the first 2, making it more negative than positive.
So let me ask you a question. Do you ever vote in elections? When you do, are the guys you vote for positioned such that you agree with them on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC THEY STAND FOR?
If so, then I can only imagine you are a politician yourself, and the only box you check on the ballot is your own name.
If not, then you either don't vote (in which case, you just lost all ability to criticize how anybody else votes) or you vote for the candidate that overall most closely matches how you believe (which makes you a hypocrite)
I present you the following subjects:
Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans
Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Board and Commissions
DPS Employee Draft
DPS Personnel and Budget Issues
Court of Appeals Nominations
Scheduling - Week of 08.10.08
CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter
Informational Meeting with Gov. Palin Next Week
As I said in another of my posts...do THESE subjects look like they are of personal/political nature? A few possibly, but for most, NO:
Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans
Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Board and Commissions
DPS Employee Draft
DPS Personnel and Budget Issues
Court of Appeals Nominations
Scheduling - Week of 08.10.08
CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter
Informational Meeting with Gov. Palin Next Week
Please....we aren't talking about legal technicalities here, as this is not legally admissible evidence (as far as I know). Look at this from a common sense perspective. Do you really believe all of these people are sending emails to her personal account without her cooperation? If you look at the evidence from a common sense perspective, I'd say chances are better than 99% that she was conducting business though her personal email account.
I suppose these could be anything, but I'm inclined to think the following subject lines indicate they are most likely NOT personal in nature.
Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans
Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Board and Commissions
DPS Employee Draft
DPS Personnel and Budget Issues
Court of Appeals Nominations
Scheduling - Week of 08.10.08
CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter
Informational Meeting with Gov. Palin Next Week
Buy hey, who knows. Maybe she's got some really boring hobbies.
Where I work, there are safeguards in place that prevent weak passwords from being set. I'd HOPE that government systems are at least as thorough as my employer.
Then she shouldn't have mixed her official business (as a public servant) with her private business.
No...I think the summary (courtesy of uberotto) is that she lied and said she wasn't using her personal email for government business and this "proves" otherwise (assuming you don't question the validity of these email, at least part of which has already been confirmed as valid).
I think you misunderstood him. His private email is private. His work email is also private (as it is a private business). There is no reason anyone should see any of his email.
Palin's personal email is private. As a public servant, her work email is public...at least to some degree. Not that anyone should have immediate access to it, but there are legal procedures in place on how the public can gain access, for example, in the case of a lawsuit. She tried to circumvent that by using a private email address. It's only fitting that everything in that account becomes public. That fact that she was stupid enough to mix private and personal email...well, thats just too bad for her.
This is a really good reason why they should NOT be using their private email. Sure, using the government systems opens them up to having their corruption on record, but having it on something like Yahoo mail opens it up to something like this, potentially exposing WAY more information than that. Not that government email is unhackable, but I'd certainly expect it to be at least a little bit more secure.