In Kingston, Ontario (where I am) most pan-handlers are high school students cutting class, so the money would certainly go to partying of some kind. You can tell when pan-handlers from elsewhere come here to try and earn... they're broke as hell. I would think the most money anyone could make pan-handling in Kingston would be about $5/hr, during peak times.
I thought BayStar was in for the same ammt as RBC. Dunno, but the RBC is the largest earner in Canada. One year they made about $4bil profit... and I saw a kid pan-handling in front of one of the RBC branches. *sigh*
> they believe SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits against Linux users and vendors
This should likely only say vendors. Vendors using Linux are ripe for the picking, right Darl? Ah, but potential is never quite the same as reality, and that's the problem with SCO's claims... they are rooted in a fantasy.
> You are claiming most black people are wanted by the police? That's the only reason to mention that voting places also happen to be police stations.
No, I'm claiming that blacks are harrassed by police more frequently than whites, and you'd have a hard time proving otherwise. Therefore, putting a poll at a police station will turn away many blacks who don't wish to be further harrassed.
> Yes, being personable and visible is a big part of politics. Who'd have thunk that?
I'm maintaining that in order to have a true democracy, money can not be a factor, and status can not be a factor. Frequent online debates between candidates and the public, would make a great way for the public to get to know each candidate. A Slashdot style moderation system would work for such a program, too.
> He was a US soldier, invaded another country and killed people in their own country.
I agree with this statement, to a point. I am pretty much against the Iraq war; the US is committed, so the whole thing has pretty much become another Vietnam. I don't look at soldiers to place blame, I look at the Commander in Chief.
> So, how is killing people in Iraq protecting any kind of 'freedom' in the US?
> You're disgusting. It is you who misses the point. To Pat, it wasn't about money. You lessen his sacrifice when you equate it to money.
When someone is selfless, you are correct that money never enters their minds. But the chance to make millions or fight for your country... that is the mark of a selfless hero -- the choice of service over selfishness.
Let me tell you why Pat Tillman is a hero: he was the reluctant hero. He didn't want the press machine behind his decision to serve. These facts all contribute to his hero status, in my mind.
I can't say anything about any other soldier because I don't know each story. I hear about heroes and then I hear stories about Jessica Lynch, which were hype-machine stories. She was nearly killed a few times by Americans. But the press labeled her a hero for surviving the horrible Iraqi treatment (which was a farce because she even said so herself that they saved her life on numerous occasions). Maybe she is a hero for surviving the friendly fire...
> Try sending a open office document to a customer and when they can't read it in Word, see how much switching is really costing you, and how soon you'll be fired for your decision to switch.
> I'm an intelligence analyst in the 19th SF, and our unit has taken several casualties in Afghanistan.
Well first off, let me tip my hat to you and your unit, and your fallen. I think you guys are really doing something special by protecting the free world from evil.
> That Pat Tillman received more publicity than others somewhat unnerves me. He's a hero, no doubt, but no moreso than Sgt. Romero or Sgt. Vance, both from my group.
I do not wish to detract from anyone you know who died fighting for freedom. My mention of Tillman was only because I was moved by his personal sacrifice; first he gave up $3.6 mil/yr., then he gave up his time and blood/sweat/tears to get on the Rangers, then he served in Iraq, and then in Afghanistan, and then he gave his life.
> Tillman would have appreciated being made something special either.
Well that is likely true, and that makes him even more of a hero.
> If your externally available site doesn't work on IE 5, then it is correct to say that you wasted a lot of money on a site that doesn't work properly in all browsers.
Yeah it worked. But IE 5.0 doesn't support CSS, so the site looked very plain. We just plain-texed it for browsers that choke on CSS. It was actually in the dev dox to do it that way, and that just added insult to injury.
> His pre-war job was to play a silly game for millions of dollars; how is that significant?
You missed the point. The reason Tillman is a hero is that he turned down millions to fight for his country, and protect freedom. The fact he played football has nothing to do with the fact he was a selfless person, who died to protect his nation (someone who lead by example, and died to do so). I am Canadian and I can recognize this, and I respect it as much as I would respect Mother Teresa for saving lives performing selfless acts of heroism in her own way, risking her life to save others.
The terrorists killed thousands on 9/11. And they have killed a hero now. They have only made a martyr.
> Your boss calls you in. He asks you to produce your voting reciept.
Fixing elections is a federal crime, and forcing someone to vote your way, or even asking for their voter receipt would be grounds for criminal invesigation, and wrongful dismissal. So essentially, you'd get a big fat settlement and your boss would be fired. So what's wrong with that?
> There is a bit more at stake when selecting (for example) the leader of the free world than when pouring a glass of milk.
Tell that to someone with a disability! They'd still do it themselves and suffer the consequences. It's not a bad thing either, because it's their right as free citizens to vote however they wish, IMHO.
Our absentee ballots are proxy ballots, where someone has to cast your vote for you. Even then, it's hardly a solution to current voting, because your piece of paper could be simply tossed out along the way to the poll.
At least with the online banking model, if you vote, you have a receipt and you know that your vote was counted.
> Okay, so some people live on a bench in the bus terminal. Bet even they can get a voter reg card
Most homeless people do not have proof of citizenship, so it'd be damn hard for them to vote. Plus you need to live somewhere to vote, as your place of residence can't be a park bench or bus stop. Otherwise, the parties would give homeless people a buck for their absentee ballot.
Well if the laser is for ICBMs, yeah I can see why that would be, but to detonate sidewinders or SAMs? You'd not need nearly that much to have these things on fighters. They'll do it in the next few years. Just watch.
> That way there's always the possibility of being harassed/jailed/murdered if my current political party ever goes out of style. Oh, and a nice way of my employer/union leader to blackmail me too.
The day a political party murders voters, is the day that voting is obsolete and we should all just pick up guns and defend our forts from other forts. Take off the tinfoil hat, sirrah. Maybe this happens in the States, but in Canada, even our totally corrupt Liberal Party government would never kill anyone for votes. They might bankrupt them, but kill? Never. CBC would pick up on it and that would be the end of the party.
I've seen some really horrible things at poll stations around the world, and I think it would be better if voting in Canada and elsewhere followed the online banking model. Stations could exist for those without computers, but most high schools and universities could also open their computer labs on e-day, thus furthering the protection of anonymity.
The whole infrastructure is already plugged into the net anyway, so if something bad is going to happen it already has. Plug the holes, arrest criminals and keep on trucking, I say.
When a few people gain %20 support, without spending a dime, then it would prove my point that in a true democracy, everyone should have a right to represent. Eventually someone could win without having spent any money at all. If I want to run for office in Canada, I would need about $50k to win any riding, minimum. But what if signs were abolished? What if telemarketing was abolished? What if one central site was the only legal method for campaigning? I'll tell you; democracy.
> Then you just knock out the stations in areas where your opposition has a substantial majority of the popular vote.
And then you get arrested, because the NSA can track any DDOS attacks without much trouble. Oh, now if you could get your rivals to do it, they would hang themselves and you could point at them saying how evil they are (and mop up all the votes). That happened in Ontario recently when the Liberals used a Buffy quote against themselves, suggesting a Tory (PC) said it; somebody called Dalton McGuinty a kitten eater. Then, in a Wag the Dog scene from hell, Dalton posed with a cute little kitten, and won the election. But the Liberals planned the whole thing.
> We *have* to keep using them though, because all the financials and invetory systems are on these beasts, and no one knows how to get it off.
I am terrified to read this, considering your company makes explosives, and giant lasers (not to mention everything else LM does). I mean, come one man... somebody get a clue down there and figure out the problem, assess the costs and fix it.
If you can figure out how to zap missiles out of the air from airplanes, you can figure out how to replace modems, and perform upgrades.:-)
No. You racist scumbag, you would be at church, or studying for finals, or raising your family, or working hard to make a living.
> Your entire post is without merit... whether or not someone votes on line makes no difference as to who is running. You are a fuck-tard.
Photard, your entire existence is without merit, but thanks to democracy, you have just as many rights as I. And I'd still fight for your rights to post AC flamebaits like this, and miss all the points on Slashdot, until you die from old age.
> Wow. Apparenty this is *no* link between a user's slashdot ID and his or her ability to post a relevant or on-topic comment. =P
Why do people insist on bashing my ultra-cool UID? Please, my UID has nothing to do with my sentiments. It's *you* who have gone off-topic.
Never judge a book by its cover. I am fully capable of posting on-topic and relevant statements, and I can back up anything I say with accurate data. And I'm even willing to debate things with anyone, including you.
> Black people are afraid to vote because some polling booths are located in police stations? WTF?
Racial profiling is a really old trick of the establishment to scare certain races away from the polls, because they would most certainly vote out the corporation-friendly candidates. It's pretty standard first-year university curriculum, actually. Maybe you should look into it. That's why, in Canada, we have laws against that kind of thing.
> Letting anyone/everyone run for office via the internet will clean up politics? WTF?
Sure it will. Anonymity is increased dramatically if you do not have to be present at a voting booth in order to vote. It's better for the environment, too, because not everyone is driving to the pollbooths. Because the people in power tend to influence where booths will be in any giving riding, they can put them in places that will not attract certain types of people. Criminals won't go to the police station, but some criminals are only criminals because they can't afford to live. Blacks are less criminal than whites; but they are harrassed more by the police. (that was my point)
> any candidate is already able to advertise and campaign via the internet for relatively little cost.
You missed the point. If it was all on one server, and systemized so that it didn't favour anyone, add a Google search to it, and you've got one hell of a democratic system.
> Are you suggesting that online voting web-sites should support pop-ups with candidate ads?
No. I don't believe in browser intersitials; I run Mozilla with popups surpressed. What I meant was that candidates could post relevant information about their platform to a central site. It's fair, no?
> And how exactly does "online voting" reduce the need of policy makers to "spend $5mil travelling all over the freaking world, riding in limos and soaking up the cash with big expensive dinners and giant wardrobes"?
Okay since I have to connect *all* the dots for you: Because it's hard to justify spending $5mil campaigning when your rivals spend nothing, because they don't have to if the online voting system was designed correctly. Each party tries to bankrupt the other party and everyone loses a vast sum of money when that happens. The current elections system is archaic and full of dishonesty. Let's pry that money back and put it to good use.
> Election wardens at each polling place are allowed to enter the booth to assist physically-challenged voters
Let me just say that anyone I've known with Parkinson's (and that's at least three people) have all become quite angry when anyone tries to help them. That doesn't stop them from spilling milk all over the floor, but it gives them the dignaty to clean it up after.
> they don't have enough conviction to overcome the miniscule amount of inconvenience involved
Okay, you be black for a second. Imagine you have to go to the police station to vote. The trouble involved in voting is actually quite a bit more than a miniscule amount of inconvenience, for some. For some people, the very aspect of voting for some white fool in a suit who will likely screw you anyway, makes the whole system bogus.
With an online voting system, anyone could run for government, because they could freely advertise on the system without having to pay any money. Users could make smart choices based on information present, and therefore a wider use of democracy becomes possible.
The high costs associated with running for office are only due to the costs of mingling with the people. Let's face it, if policy is all the office is about anyway, why not just let policy makers strive for change in their underwear at home? I mean, really... do they need to spend $5mil travelling all over the freaking world, riding in limos and soaking up the cash with big expensive dinners and giant wardrobes?
Online voting would make the whole system more honest.
Slashdot Mirror
In Kingston, Ontario (where I am) most pan-handlers are high school students cutting class, so the money would certainly go to partying of some kind. You can tell when pan-handlers from elsewhere come here to try and earn... they're broke as hell. I would think the most money anyone could make pan-handling in Kingston would be about $5/hr, during peak times.
I thought BayStar was in for the same ammt as RBC. Dunno, but the RBC is the largest earner in Canada. One year they made about $4bil profit... and I saw a kid pan-handling in front of one of the RBC branches. *sigh*
> they believe SCO's only viable asset is the potential proceeds of lawsuits against Linux users and vendors
This should likely only say vendors. Vendors using Linux are ripe for the picking, right Darl? Ah, but potential is never quite the same as reality, and that's the problem with SCO's claims... they are rooted in a fantasy.
> You are claiming most black people are wanted by the police? That's the only reason to mention that voting places also happen to be police stations.
No, I'm claiming that blacks are harrassed by police more frequently than whites, and you'd have a hard time proving otherwise. Therefore, putting a poll at a police station will turn away many blacks who don't wish to be further harrassed.
> Yes, being personable and visible is a big part of politics. Who'd have thunk that?
I'm maintaining that in order to have a true democracy, money can not be a factor, and status can not be a factor. Frequent online debates between candidates and the public, would make a great way for the public to get to know each candidate. A Slashdot style moderation system would work for such a program, too.
> Why must they be so stubborn!?
Stubbornness empowers, and that can be uplifting to someone with a disability.
> He was a US soldier, invaded another country and killed people in their own country.
I agree with this statement, to a point. I am pretty much against the Iraq war; the US is committed, so the whole thing has pretty much become another Vietnam. I don't look at soldiers to place blame, I look at the Commander in Chief.
> So, how is killing people in Iraq protecting any kind of 'freedom' in the US?
War is hell.
Maybe you are hypersensitive?
> You're disgusting. It is you who misses the point. To Pat, it wasn't about money. You lessen his sacrifice when you equate it to money.
When someone is selfless, you are correct that money never enters their minds. But the chance to make millions or fight for your country... that is the mark of a selfless hero -- the choice of service over selfishness.
Let me tell you why Pat Tillman is a hero: he was the reluctant hero. He didn't want the press machine behind his decision to serve. These facts all contribute to his hero status, in my mind.
I can't say anything about any other soldier because I don't know each story. I hear about heroes and then I hear stories about Jessica Lynch, which were hype-machine stories. She was nearly killed a few times by Americans. But the press labeled her a hero for surviving the horrible Iraqi treatment (which was a farce because she even said so herself that they saved her life on numerous occasions). Maybe she is a hero for surviving the friendly fire...
> Try sending a open office document to a customer and when they can't read it in Word, see how much switching is really costing you, and how soon you'll be fired for your decision to switch.
Whatever you say, Bill.
> I'm an intelligence analyst in the 19th SF, and our unit has taken several casualties in Afghanistan.
Well first off, let me tip my hat to you and your unit, and your fallen. I think you guys are really doing something special by protecting the free world from evil.
> That Pat Tillman received more publicity than others somewhat unnerves me. He's a hero, no doubt, but no moreso than Sgt. Romero or Sgt. Vance, both from my group.
I do not wish to detract from anyone you know who died fighting for freedom. My mention of Tillman was only because I was moved by his personal sacrifice; first he gave up $3.6 mil/yr., then he gave up his time and blood/sweat/tears to get on the Rangers, then he served in Iraq, and then in Afghanistan, and then he gave his life.
> Tillman would have appreciated being made something special either.
Well that is likely true, and that makes him even more of a hero.
> If your externally available site doesn't work on IE 5, then it is correct to say that you wasted a lot of money on a site that doesn't work properly in all browsers.
Yeah it worked. But IE 5.0 doesn't support CSS, so the site looked very plain. We just plain-texed it for browsers that choke on CSS. It was actually in the dev dox to do it that way, and that just added insult to injury.
> His pre-war job was to play a silly game for millions of dollars; how is that significant?
You missed the point. The reason Tillman is a hero is that he turned down millions to fight for his country, and protect freedom. The fact he played football has nothing to do with the fact he was a selfless person, who died to protect his nation (someone who lead by example, and died to do so). I am Canadian and I can recognize this, and I respect it as much as I would respect Mother Teresa for saving lives performing selfless acts of heroism in her own way, risking her life to save others.
The terrorists killed thousands on 9/11. And they have killed a hero now. They have only made a martyr.
Sadly this invention was too late to save Pat Tillman. Armor like this could save lives, and that's what it's all about. I'm all for it.
> Your boss calls you in. He asks you to produce your voting reciept.
Fixing elections is a federal crime, and forcing someone to vote your way, or even asking for their voter receipt would be grounds for criminal invesigation, and wrongful dismissal. So essentially, you'd get a big fat settlement and your boss would be fired. So what's wrong with that?
> There is a bit more at stake when selecting (for example) the leader of the free world than when pouring a glass of milk.
Tell that to someone with a disability! They'd still do it themselves and suffer the consequences. It's not a bad thing either, because it's their right as free citizens to vote however they wish, IMHO.
> absentee ballot
Our absentee ballots are proxy ballots, where someone has to cast your vote for you. Even then, it's hardly a solution to current voting, because your piece of paper could be simply tossed out along the way to the poll.
At least with the online banking model, if you vote, you have a receipt and you know that your vote was counted.
> Okay, so some people live on a bench in the bus terminal. Bet even they can get a voter reg card
Most homeless people do not have proof of citizenship, so it'd be damn hard for them to vote. Plus you need to live somewhere to vote, as your place of residence can't be a park bench or bus stop. Otherwise, the parties would give homeless people a buck for their absentee ballot.
Well if the laser is for ICBMs, yeah I can see why that would be, but to detonate sidewinders or SAMs? You'd not need nearly that much to have these things on fighters. They'll do it in the next few years. Just watch.
> That way there's always the possibility of being harassed/jailed/murdered if my current political party ever goes out of style. Oh, and a nice way of my employer/union leader to blackmail me too.
The day a political party murders voters, is the day that voting is obsolete and we should all just pick up guns and defend our forts from other forts. Take off the tinfoil hat, sirrah. Maybe this happens in the States, but in Canada, even our totally corrupt Liberal Party government would never kill anyone for votes. They might bankrupt them, but kill? Never. CBC would pick up on it and that would be the end of the party.
I've seen some really horrible things at poll stations around the world, and I think it would be better if voting in Canada and elsewhere followed the online banking model. Stations could exist for those without computers, but most high schools and universities could also open their computer labs on e-day, thus furthering the protection of anonymity.
The whole infrastructure is already plugged into the net anyway, so if something bad is going to happen it already has. Plug the holes, arrest criminals and keep on trucking, I say.
> I don't see how this will be "more fair."
When a few people gain %20 support, without spending a dime, then it would prove my point that in a true democracy, everyone should have a right to represent. Eventually someone could win without having spent any money at all. If I want to run for office in Canada, I would need about $50k to win any riding, minimum. But what if signs were abolished? What if telemarketing was abolished? What if one central site was the only legal method for campaigning? I'll tell you; democracy.
> The number should be unique but should not be a function of your name.
Easy as Pi:
$top = md5($UID + rnd(1,100) + microtime());
$bot = md5($UID + rnd(1000,10000) + microtime());
> Then you just knock out the stations in areas where your opposition has a substantial majority of the popular vote.
And then you get arrested, because the NSA can track any DDOS attacks without much trouble. Oh, now if you could get your rivals to do it, they would hang themselves and you could point at them saying how evil they are (and mop up all the votes). That happened in Ontario recently when the Liberals used a Buffy quote against themselves, suggesting a Tory (PC) said it; somebody called Dalton McGuinty a kitten eater. Then, in a Wag the Dog scene from hell, Dalton posed with a cute little kitten, and won the election. But the Liberals planned the whole thing.
> We *have* to keep using them though, because all the financials and invetory systems are on these beasts, and no one knows how to get it off.
:-)
I am terrified to read this, considering your company makes explosives, and giant lasers (not to mention everything else LM does). I mean, come one man... somebody get a clue down there and figure out the problem, assess the costs and fix it.
If you can figure out how to zap missiles out of the air from airplanes, you can figure out how to replace modems, and perform upgrades.
> ummm, wouldn't I already *be* there!?
No. You racist scumbag, you would be at church, or studying for finals, or raising your family, or working hard to make a living.
> Your entire post is without merit... whether or not someone votes on line makes no difference as to who is running. You are a fuck-tard.
Photard, your entire existence is without merit, but thanks to democracy, you have just as many rights as I. And I'd still fight for your rights to post AC flamebaits like this, and miss all the points on Slashdot, until you die from old age.
> Wow. Apparenty this is *no* link between a user's slashdot ID and his or her ability to post a relevant or on-topic comment. =P
Why do people insist on bashing my ultra-cool UID? Please, my UID has nothing to do with my sentiments. It's *you* who have gone off-topic.
Never judge a book by its cover. I am fully capable of posting on-topic and relevant statements, and I can back up anything I say with accurate data. And I'm even willing to debate things with anyone, including you.
> Black people are afraid to vote because some polling booths are located in police stations? WTF?
Racial profiling is a really old trick of the establishment to scare certain races away from the polls, because they would most certainly vote out the corporation-friendly candidates. It's pretty standard first-year university curriculum, actually. Maybe you should look into it. That's why, in Canada, we have laws against that kind of thing.
> Letting anyone/everyone run for office via the internet will clean up politics? WTF?
Sure it will. Anonymity is increased dramatically if you do not have to be present at a voting booth in order to vote. It's better for the environment, too, because not everyone is driving to the pollbooths. Because the people in power tend to influence where booths will be in any giving riding, they can put them in places that will not attract certain types of people. Criminals won't go to the police station, but some criminals are only criminals because they can't afford to live. Blacks are less criminal than whites; but they are harrassed more by the police. (that was my point)
> any candidate is already able to advertise and campaign via the internet for relatively little cost.
You missed the point. If it was all on one server, and systemized so that it didn't favour anyone, add a Google search to it, and you've got one hell of a democratic system.
> Are you suggesting that online voting web-sites should support pop-ups with candidate ads?
No. I don't believe in browser intersitials; I run Mozilla with popups surpressed. What I meant was that candidates could post relevant information about their platform to a central site. It's fair, no?
> And how exactly does "online voting" reduce the need of policy makers to "spend $5mil travelling all over the freaking world, riding in limos and soaking up the cash with big expensive dinners and giant wardrobes"?
Okay since I have to connect *all* the dots for you: Because it's hard to justify spending $5mil campaigning when your rivals spend nothing, because they don't have to if the online voting system was designed correctly. Each party tries to bankrupt the other party and everyone loses a vast sum of money when that happens. The current elections system is archaic and full of dishonesty. Let's pry that money back and put it to good use.
> Election wardens at each polling place are allowed to enter the booth to assist physically-challenged voters
Let me just say that anyone I've known with Parkinson's (and that's at least three people) have all become quite angry when anyone tries to help them. That doesn't stop them from spilling milk all over the floor, but it gives them the dignaty to clean it up after.
> they don't have enough conviction to overcome the miniscule amount of inconvenience involved
Okay, you be black for a second. Imagine you have to go to the police station to vote. The trouble involved in voting is actually quite a bit more than a miniscule amount of inconvenience, for some. For some people, the very aspect of voting for some white fool in a suit who will likely screw you anyway, makes the whole system bogus.
With an online voting system, anyone could run for government, because they could freely advertise on the system without having to pay any money. Users could make smart choices based on information present, and therefore a wider use of democracy becomes possible.
The high costs associated with running for office are only due to the costs of mingling with the people. Let's face it, if policy is all the office is about anyway, why not just let policy makers strive for change in their underwear at home? I mean, really... do they need to spend $5mil travelling all over the freaking world, riding in limos and soaking up the cash with big expensive dinners and giant wardrobes?
Online voting would make the whole system more honest.