Or the good guy can just stop somebody who looks bad. And if the good guy is wrong then he just turned into a bad guy, and another good guy will have to stop him. Unless of course that's all a misunderstanding in which case the bad guy was really good and the other good guy is really the bad guy and we're going to need a third good guy who probably isn't really a bad guy yet, a lot more guns, and the assistance of one or more skilled trauma surgeons.
Ideally every school will look like the third act of a Tarantino film, with everybody pointing at least one gun at everybody else all day long.
every mass killer in the past 30 years has been prescribed some sort of psychotropic SSRI.
That story keeps growing every time it's repeated. By next week, it will be up to "everyone who has ever killed anybody was on two different types of SSRI".
It's the "other connection" anti-gun folks never seem to want to talk about.
Well, don't let me stop you. Talk about it. Share with us the wealth of peer-reviewed medical studies which support your hypothesis and disprove mine. And talking heads from CNN don't count.
Once you have an algorithm that is provably fair, all you need to do is prove that the algorithm itself was chosen in a provably fair manner.
By another algorithm which is provably fair. With values which were chosen in a provably fair way. And so on. And so on.
As long as that chain of logic doesn't end with "BECAUSE I SAID SO NOW SHUT UP AND PAY YOUR SHARE!" then everybody should be satisfied by how fair everything is.
The best electronic system you can think of is a Rube Goldberg compilation of spread sheets and Access databases.
Actually, I was thinking of the Diebold AccuVote TsX and its GEMS and BallotStation software, although that was a pretty good description of how it works under the hood. You've probably voted on it, and it has been used to elect congressmen, senators and presidents, so maybe you should knowhowitworks.
You are either an idiot or a liar. Either way, you've proven you are incapable of discussion, intelligent or otherwise.
Ah, the classic "Well, you're a poo-poo head and I don't wanna debate wif yoo no more" defense. I bow to your superior intellect and will trouble you no more.
Yeah, I can pre-mark 1,000,000 ballots, and stuff them without a trace. Much easier to manipulate elections with untraceable paper ballots.
"And in a shocking upset the tiny town of Barrow, with a population of 4,212, voted 2752 against and 1,000,460 in favour of appointing the current mayor to the position of 'King for Life'."
You walk into the polling station, check in at the desk with the voter registration card you received in the mail and your government issued ID. If you didn't receive the card then you just need to go through a more thorough ID check, but the result is still the same. Your name is crossed off of the list and you are handed the appropriate ballot and shown to a nearby booth. Once in the booth you pick up a pen and mark next to the correct names, fold it up and walk over to another group of volunteers near the exit. Your ballot is then run through a scanner which verifies that it is readable and the correct number of boxes in the correct sections have been marked. If they aren't then you have the opportunity to go back to the booth and correct it. Once you are satisfied that the ballot is accurate it is scanned again and placed in the sealed ballot box and you go home.
At the end of the evening a group of elections officials including volunteer observers from each party count the ballots by hand and compare that to the counts produced electronically and then you're done.
So, not a problem, not a problem, not a problem, and not a problem. All you need is to do it right. The only people with an interest in complicated computerized voting systems are the ones who sell the machines and the ones who buy the votes.
So a big, unguarded box in the middle of town square where people write their vote on paper and drop it in, then the previous mayor counts the votes in private and declares the winner is a better system than any electronic voting system you can conceive of?
Yes, it is.
A child of six could look at that system and say "I don't believe that the votes will be counted correctly".
With an electronic system there is no such transparency, and people might mistakenly believe that a complex arrangement of touch screens, spread sheets and Access databases was somehow secure and accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
This from the same company that released "Dot Nyet".
But there can still be in-book purchases.
Pay $1.99 at the end of chapter 10 or the author kills off your favourite character.
it just weights 4 times as much, and it's extremely dangerous.
That sounds more like an RTG based on Americans.
But the shooting was really about ethics in games journalism.
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Oops. Looks like the human ordering it didn't make that decision either.
The behaviour of that instruction is undefined, so when a processor encounters HCF it is legal for it to make demons fly out of your nose.
Because most of them will have grown up and found other jobs by then.
Only if one of those links goes to TV Tropes.
My apologies. In the future I will always remember that the only productive discussion is one in which I agree with everything you say.
That would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable.
Or the good guy can just stop somebody who looks bad. And if the good guy is wrong then he just turned into a bad guy, and another good guy will have to stop him. Unless of course that's all a misunderstanding in which case the bad guy was really good and the other good guy is really the bad guy and we're going to need a third good guy who probably isn't really a bad guy yet, a lot more guns, and the assistance of one or more skilled trauma surgeons.
Ideally every school will look like the third act of a Tarantino film, with everybody pointing at least one gun at everybody else all day long.
And then we will all be safe.
every mass killer in the past 30 years has been prescribed some sort of psychotropic SSRI.
That story keeps growing every time it's repeated. By next week, it will be up to "everyone who has ever killed anybody was on two different types of SSRI".
Here's a different hypothesis: People with mental disorders are more likely to commit violent crimes. They are also more likely to have been treated with drugs such as fluoxetine, particularly in the USA.
For your hypothesis to be supported, you will need to show a correlation between between violent crime and people who are taking SSRIs but have not been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder, and also show that people who suffer from mental disorders but have not been treated are less likely to commit violent crimes than people who have been treated but do not suffer from a disorder.
It's the "other connection" anti-gun folks never seem to want to talk about.
Well, don't let me stop you. Talk about it. Share with us the wealth of peer-reviewed medical studies which support your hypothesis and disprove mine. And talking heads from CNN don't count.
I'll wait.
Just remember, whatever you do, don't ever drop your books in the hallway.
Trust me. Don't do it.
Let me know when fossils of this creature turn up. There's someone I really want to show it to.
"How A Mom Found A Secret Bit That Improves Her Video Driver Performance By Twenty Percent! Intel Hates Her!"
Once you have an algorithm that is provably fair, all you need to do is prove that the algorithm itself was chosen in a provably fair manner.
By another algorithm which is provably fair. With values which were chosen in a provably fair way. And so on. And so on.
As long as that chain of logic doesn't end with "BECAUSE I SAID SO NOW SHUT UP AND PAY YOUR SHARE!" then everybody should be satisfied by how fair everything is.
Why don't these people just put a gun to their head and end their misery instead of inflicting it on the rest of us?
Cause they don't got the sand to do it.
It's not just sand, they may live in a world without zinc, too.
Sure there is. You just sue everybody who "catches" the patented cold virus for stealing it. It works for seeds, why not viruses too?
The best electronic system you can think of is a Rube Goldberg compilation of spread sheets and Access databases.
Actually, I was thinking of the Diebold AccuVote TsX and its GEMS and BallotStation software, although that was a pretty good description of how it works under the hood. You've probably voted on it, and it has been used to elect congressmen, senators and presidents, so maybe you should know how it works.
You are either an idiot or a liar. Either way, you've proven you are incapable of discussion, intelligent or otherwise.
Ah, the classic "Well, you're a poo-poo head and I don't wanna debate wif yoo no more" defense. I bow to your superior intellect and will trouble you no more.
Perhaps the meter went over 32768% and wrapped around.
If only there was some kind of phone operating system that did that. We could call it "Symbian". Or maybe "Blackberry".
And then drive it into the ground and never use it again. That sounds like a good idea.
Yeah, I can pre-mark 1,000,000 ballots, and stuff them without a trace. Much easier to manipulate elections with untraceable paper ballots.
"And in a shocking upset the tiny town of Barrow, with a population of 4,212, voted 2752 against and 1,000,460 in favour of appointing the current mayor to the position of 'King for Life'."
You walk into the polling station, check in at the desk with the voter registration card you received in the mail and your government issued ID. If you didn't receive the card then you just need to go through a more thorough ID check, but the result is still the same. Your name is crossed off of the list and you are handed the appropriate ballot and shown to a nearby booth. Once in the booth you pick up a pen and mark next to the correct names, fold it up and walk over to another group of volunteers near the exit. Your ballot is then run through a scanner which verifies that it is readable and the correct number of boxes in the correct sections have been marked. If they aren't then you have the opportunity to go back to the booth and correct it. Once you are satisfied that the ballot is accurate it is scanned again and placed in the sealed ballot box and you go home.
At the end of the evening a group of elections officials including volunteer observers from each party count the ballots by hand and compare that to the counts produced electronically and then you're done.
So, not a problem, not a problem, not a problem, and not a problem. All you need is to do it right. The only people with an interest in complicated computerized voting systems are the ones who sell the machines and the ones who buy the votes.
So a big, unguarded box in the middle of town square where people write their vote on paper and drop it in, then the previous mayor counts the votes in private and declares the winner is a better system than any electronic voting system you can conceive of?
Yes, it is.
A child of six could look at that system and say "I don't believe that the votes will be counted correctly".
With an electronic system there is no such transparency, and people might mistakenly believe that a complex arrangement of touch screens, spread sheets and Access databases was somehow secure and accurate.
The ballots would have to be counted by people who graduated from schools in the USA, and they may be called upon to count higher than ten.