The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State must accept vote counts from county Canvassing board after the deadline set by the Law. (See See 102.166(5), Fla. Stat. (2000)). It demands that the intent of the voter be determined...this precedent was never established by the Legislature
It was not an invention or imposition of the court! This assertation is simply not correct.
As far as the deadline, IIRC the law held that the Secretary may accept late counts; the Florida courts requirement that she do so was reasonable and serving the legitimate interests of the people.
If a State has not selected its electors, it forfeits its votes. The US Supreme Court found, like the Florida Supreme Court, that the Florida Legislature has a bigger interest in ensuring that its votes as a state are recognized.
There was no danger of that. The legislature had the power to select electors directly. This would have been legally valid, and put Bush into office legitimately, but politically it would have been disasterous for both the legislature and Bush.
I have looked long and hard, as have others. The name of one person denied his/her legitimate vote has never been presented.
I find that hard to beleive, as five minutes with Google found these.
You someone how hold the Republicans responsible for having more up to date voting equipment.
No, merely noting the existance of a condition of equal protection. It's a nationwaide problem. It makes no difference whether the counties in question were run by Democrats; a condtion where one citizen's vote is 95% likely to be registered while another's is 99.9% likely is a serious problem.
Again with the ballots. Who approved the design of the ballot? Theresa LePore, Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor. An elected Democrat.
Irrelevant. The incompetence of a state offical of the same party as a candidate you wish to vote for doesn't change your right to vote.
Answer me this honestly. If everything had of happened the same except that Bush had lost by ~500 votes instead of Gore losing by a few votes, would you still be pissed off about Florida?...Elsewise, you are just yet another partisian pissed off your guy lost.
If you asked that in December 2000, I would have said I would have been about 75% as pissed off; I had a visceral dislike of Bush that accounted for about an extra 25% piss-off factor, but otherwise found little difference between them. Certainly that would be higher today, given his record. But yes, I would still be pissed off about Republican votes not being counted.
And Gore wasn't "my guy", as I voted Nader. Over the years I have voted for Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and even Republicans. I simply want every vote to count.
Despite the "appointed" crack, he was in fact elected by THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, which is the vote that really counts in presidential elections
Florida never sent a legitimate set of electors - that is, a set of electors selected according to Florida law - to the Electoral College.
And, as others have repeatedly pointed out here before, every single credible attempt to count those so-called lost votes STILL ended up with Bush winning. Every-Single-Time.
Gore played bad politics by not demanding such a recount (in keeping with the Democratic party's generally poor play over the past few decades), and SCOTUS's decision wouldn't have allowed one (because, you know, it's not like the will of the people is supposed to count for anything), but that doesn't change the fact that more people in Florida cast ballots for Gore than Bush. (Not even counting the illegal disenfrachisment of thousands, or the tampering with absentee ballots, or the illegal "butterly" ballots).
And an impossible law at that, given the different (and biased) balloting systems in use in different counties. (Biased in that rich counties used systems less likely to fail to register a ballot - fewer Republicans had to deal with the chance of "hanging chad" blocking their vote.)
This of course not considering the illegal disenfranchisement of thousands of voters, or the illegal "butterfly" ballots, or the failure of Scalia to recuse himself, or Cheney claiming to be a Wyoming resident depite living in Texas (electors can't vote for both a president and a vice president from their own state).
C'mon, they should be learning the fundamentals (three r') at that age. Adding in "IT" will only muddle things for them.
I learned to read punched cards when I was around 8. My dad was a programmer, back in the days when "IT" was "DP" ("data processing", for you kids). It was fun! And it taught me about binary codes.
I've also found that the easiest way to make them betray their nature is to ask them something which totally does not make sense, in a gramatically correct way.
Among its entertainments, GNU Emacs has an ELIZA program. It also has a Zippy the Pinhead quote generator. M-x psychoanalize-pinhead hooks them together....
I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you
are finished talking, type RET twice.
Gee, I feel kind of LIGHT in the head now, knowing I can't make
my satellite dish PAYMENTS!
Why do you say that?
With this weapon I can expose fictional characters and bring about
sweeping reforms!!
I don't understand.
America!! I saw it all!! Vomiting! Waving! JERRY FALWELLING into
your void tube of UHF oblivion!! SAFEWAY of the mind --
Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
UH-OH!! I put on ``GREAT HEAD-ON TRAIN COLLISIONS of the 50's''
by mistake!!!
Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
Psychoanalysis?? I thought this was a nude rap session!!!
What makes you believe you thought this was a nude rap session?
I'LL get it!! It's probably a FEW of my ITALIAN GIRL-FRIENDS!!
You're not. This is just newspeak used by the envirowacko crowd to guilt you into letting them run your life.
Horseshit. External costs are a basic economic concept; ignoring them is a fallacy used by greedheads to encourage you to overconsume. Seems to be working in your case.
Ah, the great environmental battle cry: How dare you want comfort, ease and prosperity, you lazy good for nothing slob.
I love comfort, ease and prosperity. I'm not entitled to get them by theft, including externalizing my costs.
Driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle means dumping crap in the air and water that other people have to breathe and drink; use of irreplacable petroleum resources (passing a heavy cost on to furture generations); increased CO2 emissions and the climate change implications thereof; excess wear and tear on the roads, that others have to pay for (large SUVs are technically over road weight limits in many areas, but the laws are not enforced); and a blood-drenched foreign policy to keep cheap oil flowing.
that could explain all the sold out performances of Barry Manilow.
Scary thing is, Manilow wouldn't need the help. You think Deadheads are fanatics? You haven't seen anything. Middle aged ladies will camp out on the streets to get tickets. My mom's been all over the country to see him perform. She has Manilow fan-club pen pals from England and Japan.
The only resources worth expending at this point are towards getting more resources - and last time I looked, the moon, Mars, asteroids and everywhere else in space is where they are.
There is no arable land, or significant amounts of clean fresh water, on any of those bodies. Putting resources into space exploration does fuck-all to deal with the immediate problems of overpopulation.
That means you could fit every man, woman and child on earth in Texas while giving EACH of them 127.272727 square meters of land.
It's estimated that it takes about 1/4 of an acre - over 1000 square meters - of arable land to sustainably produce a bare minimum of food for one human being. (If you want to eat like Americans do now, you need about five times that, not even considering sustainability.) It takes a lot more to process waste. It take a metric fuckload more to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Oh yes, and you wanted somewhere to live, right? And a place to work, and some roads to get places?
Add it all up and the average American's "ecological footprint" is about 25 acres, about 100,000 square meters. The fact that if you stack us like cordword you can fit us in a small space is irrevelvant.
Under current conditions, not only is population increasing, but arable land is decreasing. (As is clean fresh water.) It doesn't take a genius to see that this is not a sustainable trend.
The airplane was actually developed for civilian uses first, and only became a military technology after entrepreneurs worked out the fundimental problems of control surfaces, navigation, range, and cargo capacity.
I'm talking about shipping a few thousand people to maintain a viable genetic stock to repopulate a devastated planet from.
How about we put those resources into helping making sure Earth doesn't get devastated (either by big rocks, or by us ignorantly shitting all over the biosphere) instead?
And I'm not sure what the definition of those tools is - a very small screwdriver? A dentist's pick?
I once picked a lock with a bobby pin. Really. Broke it in two and bent with my multitool to made a rake and a tension tool. This with knowing nothing about lock picking except for a brief description in Feynman's story "Safecracker Meet Safecracker" in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"
You're correct, unless said agreement is made under unlawful pressure on other parties....I am entitled to call on or use lawful force and pressure to break said strike.
Problem is, what is "lawful" depends of which side the state favors - unless the law is neutral and just (and we know the odds of that!), it's another form of state intervention.
Historically, it's been an intervention against unions, allowing violence against striking workers or union organizers either as direct state action or by looking the other way when private armies of Pinkertons were used, and overreacting when violence came from the labor side (e.g., hanging four innocent men after the Haymarket riots).
I'm inclined to think that the whole point of science is to construct a reductionist set of explanations that branches from the lowest levels of physics upwards to explaining everything else that needs explaining.
In our physics-heavy culture, that's a common viewpoint. It's also a problematic one, what Dennet calls Greedy reductionism.
I would say rather that the point of science is to construct models that sucessfully organize and predict our observations of the world. Reductionist models are useful, but (like any other type of model) they emphasize some aspects at the expense of others.
We say "x is y and z", and we think that if we can explain "y" and explain "z" we're done - foregetting that we have also to explain "and", and also that x, y, and z only have meaning in relation to a, b, c, etcetera.
when you follow the scientific chain of causality, it leads back to physics, every time
It would be more accurate to say that following the reductionist chain of causality, it leads back to physics. Science (the method of testing hypothesis by experiment and observation) != reductionism (trying to explain things by explaining their parts).
Physicists are great reductionists and are often blind to the difference, a sort of "physics hubris".
Why do we always have so much sympathy for criminal scum in this society, and none for the victims?
Oh, please. The US has the highest percentage of people incarcerated in the world, and is one of the few industrialized nations whose governement claims the right to kill citizens. Conditions in our overcrowded prisons have degenerated to the point where prisoner-on-prisoner sexual assault is considered a normal part of the sentence and a basis for jokes.
Many of them are young men who can still grow up to be fine citizens, if placed in a decent environment.
Allegations of "coddled criminals" don't withstand the lightest scrutiny. But it makes for damn fine politics..."My opponent is a wuss! I will be tough on crime!" Yeah, that's working really well.
Every politician makes noise about the rights of victims; no one talks about the right of the accused except in the abstract, and any talk about the rights of a convict brings out the "tough on crime" blowhards, who seem to think that criminal acts indicate some kind of demonic possession that must be beaten out of a perpitrator.
I'm all for the right to self-defense; I'm a gun owner and a martial arts instructor. But that right does not include killing or maiming another human being over a piece of property.
The way to deal with them is to use programming languages that detect them reliably. In different words, we need to retire C or fix C.
The best check for such errors is other eyeballs.
It's not the language. It's development procedures. Code reviews will catch these things, and other bugs besides (as well as making people write neater, more easily understandable code, and giving coders and opportunity to learn from each other), but reviews take development time - never mind all the time they save in debugging and maintenance, management cares only about that ship date.
Slashdot Mirror
The demand that the intent of the voter be determined comes straight out of Florida law: No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board. (The law has been changed since then.)
It was not an invention or imposition of the court! This assertation is simply not correct.
As far as the deadline, IIRC the law held that the Secretary may accept late counts; the Florida courts requirement that she do so was reasonable and serving the legitimate interests of the people.
There was no danger of that. The legislature had the power to select electors directly. This would have been legally valid, and put Bush into office legitimately, but politically it would have been disasterous for both the legislature and Bush.
I find that hard to beleive, as five minutes with Google found these.
No, merely noting the existance of a condition of equal protection. It's a nationwaide problem. It makes no difference whether the counties in question were run by Democrats; a condtion where one citizen's vote is 95% likely to be registered while another's is 99.9% likely is a serious problem.
Irrelevant. The incompetence of a state offical of the same party as a candidate you wish to vote for doesn't change your right to vote.
If you asked that in December 2000, I would have said I would have been about 75% as pissed off; I had a visceral dislike of Bush that accounted for about an extra 25% piss-off factor, but otherwise found little difference between them. Certainly that would be higher today, given his record. But yes, I would still be pissed off about Republican votes not being counted.
And Gore wasn't "my guy", as I voted Nader. Over the years I have voted for Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and even Republicans. I simply want every vote to count.
Getting fashion advice from /., now that's out of style...
Florida never sent a legitimate set of electors - that is, a set of electors selected according to Florida law - to the Electoral College.
Statewide recounts show that Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida.
Gore played bad politics by not demanding such a recount (in keeping with the Democratic party's generally poor play over the past few decades), and SCOTUS's decision wouldn't have allowed one (because, you know, it's not like the will of the people is supposed to count for anything), but that doesn't change the fact that more people in Florida cast ballots for Gore than Bush. (Not even counting the illegal disenfrachisment of thousands, or the tampering with absentee ballots, or the illegal "butterly" ballots).
No. The Florida Supreme Court followed Florida law that the "clear intent of the voter" must be followed. SCOTUS said the Florida Supreme Court should have adopted "statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote" - they claimed that they wanted the Florida court to create law.
And an impossible law at that, given the different (and biased) balloting systems in use in different counties. (Biased in that rich counties used systems less likely to fail to register a ballot - fewer Republicans had to deal with the chance of "hanging chad" blocking their vote.)
This of course not considering the illegal disenfranchisement of thousands of voters, or the illegal "butterfly" ballots, or the failure of Scalia to recuse himself, or Cheney claiming to be a Wyoming resident depite living in Texas (electors can't vote for both a president and a vice president from their own state).
What socialists were these, exactly?
Alan Shepard didn't... Here is an interesting page about "creature comforts" in space.
Pretty sure it was "Death Blossom".
I learned to read punched cards when I was around 8. My dad was a programmer, back in the days when "IT" was "DP" ("data processing", for you kids). It was fun! And it taught me about binary codes.
Among its entertainments, GNU Emacs has an ELIZA program. It also has a Zippy the Pinhead quote generator. M-x psychoanalize-pinhead hooks them together....
This may be a troll, however there was an instance of manipulation of cover photos of news magazines during the O.J. Simpson debacle^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htrial that may have helped shape public opinion.
Horseshit. External costs are a basic economic concept; ignoring them is a fallacy used by greedheads to encourage you to overconsume. Seems to be working in your case.
I love comfort, ease and prosperity. I'm not entitled to get them by theft, including externalizing my costs.
Driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle means dumping crap in the air and water that other people have to breathe and drink; use of irreplacable petroleum resources (passing a heavy cost on to furture generations); increased CO2 emissions and the climate change implications thereof; excess wear and tear on the roads, that others have to pay for (large SUVs are technically over road weight limits in many areas, but the laws are not enforced); and a blood-drenched foreign policy to keep cheap oil flowing.
Scary thing is, Manilow wouldn't need the help. You think Deadheads are fanatics? You haven't seen anything. Middle aged ladies will camp out on the streets to get tickets. My mom's been all over the country to see him perform. She has Manilow fan-club pen pals from England and Japan.
There is no arable land, or significant amounts of clean fresh water, on any of those bodies. Putting resources into space exploration does fuck-all to deal with the immediate problems of overpopulation.
It's estimated that it takes about 1/4 of an acre - over 1000 square meters - of arable land to sustainably produce a bare minimum of food for one human being. (If you want to eat like Americans do now, you need about five times that, not even considering sustainability.) It takes a lot more to process waste. It take a metric fuckload more to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Oh yes, and you wanted somewhere to live, right? And a place to work, and some roads to get places?
Add it all up and the average American's "ecological footprint" is about 25 acres, about 100,000 square meters. The fact that if you stack us like cordword you can fit us in a small space is irrevelvant.
Under current conditions, not only is population increasing, but arable land is decreasing. (As is clean fresh water.) It doesn't take a genius to see that this is not a sustainable trend.
Actually the first military airplane predates the commercial transport flight. Commercial flight didn't become economically viable until well after WWI.
I once picked a lock with a bobby pin. Really. Broke it in two and bent with my multitool to made a rake and a tension tool. This with knowing nothing about lock picking except for a brief description in Feynman's story "Safecracker Meet Safecracker" in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"
Problem is, what is "lawful" depends of which side the state favors - unless the law is neutral and just (and we know the odds of that!), it's another form of state intervention.
Historically, it's been an intervention against unions, allowing violence against striking workers or union organizers either as direct state action or by looking the other way when private armies of Pinkertons were used, and overreacting when violence came from the labor side (e.g., hanging four innocent men after the Haymarket riots).
In our physics-heavy culture, that's a common viewpoint. It's also a problematic one, what Dennet calls Greedy reductionism.
I would say rather that the point of science is to construct models that sucessfully organize and predict our observations of the world. Reductionist models are useful, but (like any other type of model) they emphasize some aspects at the expense of others.
We say "x is y and z", and we think that if we can explain "y" and explain "z" we're done - foregetting that we have also to explain "and", and also that x, y, and z only have meaning in relation to a, b, c, etcetera.
It would be more accurate to say that following the reductionist chain of causality, it leads back to physics. Science (the method of testing hypothesis by experiment and observation) != reductionism (trying to explain things by explaining their parts). Physicists are great reductionists and are often blind to the difference, a sort of "physics hubris".
She's not a guy. (See The Books of Magic to see her putting the chairs up on the tables at the end of time.)
And she treats everyone pretty much the same...
If it blows up because you booby-trapped it, yes. In fact, you would be subject to criminal prosecution.
Anyway, copying isn't theft.
Oh, please. The US has the highest percentage of people incarcerated in the world, and is one of the few industrialized nations whose governement claims the right to kill citizens. Conditions in our overcrowded prisons have degenerated to the point where prisoner-on-prisoner sexual assault is considered a normal part of the sentence and a basis for jokes.
Many of them are young men who can still grow up to be fine citizens, if placed in a decent environment.
Allegations of "coddled criminals" don't withstand the lightest scrutiny. But it makes for damn fine politics..."My opponent is a wuss! I will be tough on crime!" Yeah, that's working really well.
Every politician makes noise about the rights of victims; no one talks about the right of the accused except in the abstract, and any talk about the rights of a convict brings out the "tough on crime" blowhards, who seem to think that criminal acts indicate some kind of demonic possession that must be beaten out of a perpitrator.
I'm all for the right to self-defense; I'm a gun owner and a martial arts instructor. But that right does not include killing or maiming another human being over a piece of property.
The best check for such errors is other eyeballs.
It's not the language. It's development procedures. Code reviews will catch these things, and other bugs besides (as well as making people write neater, more easily understandable code, and giving coders and opportunity to learn from each other), but reviews take development time - never mind all the time they save in debugging and maintenance, management cares only about that ship date.