If a person is worried that he may be coerced to reveal his vote (a silly concern IMO, but it was listed above), then the user can throw away or even destroy his receipt, thus losing any ability for anyone to reveal it. The entire database of voting results could be put on-line, so anyone could verify that his vote was indeed counted, and that the tallies are correct. "Bob, I need you to vote for Candidate A at the polls tomorrow. Bring your receipt in so we can verify it online, or you're fired."
Congrats, you just implemented the easiest-to-commit vote fraud in history. And if you think it won't happen, you're awfully naive.
That's also against the rules, IIRC. They CAN charge a fee to use a card, but not based on the transaction amount. No, they can't do that either under Visa's terms. Here's exactly what Visa has to say:
Always honor valid Visa cards in your acceptance category, regardless of the dollar amount of the purchase. Imposing minimum or maximum purchase amounts in order to accept a Visa card transaction is a violation of the Visa rules.
Always treat Visa transactions like any other transaction; that is, you may not impose any surcharge on a Visa transaction. You may, however, offer a discount for cash transactions, provided that the offer is clearly disclosed to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the standard price charged for all other forms of payment.
Additionally, a business may only charge a "convenience fee" on non-face-to-face transactions.
"You just said all opinions are equally valid. Lots of people are of the opinion that it is both true, and science."
If I may respond on his behalf...
Opinions can be wrong. We should give equal weight to opinions that cannot be proven wrong. However, when an opinion can be proven wrong, there is no longer reason to consider it. In this specific case, it's very easy to prove that Intelligent Design is not science, because "science" has a rigid and well-known definition which ID does not meet.
Science is defined (roughly) as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Intelligent Design lacks what may be the two most important qualities of a scientific pursuit (though all parts are important). First, there is (and can be) no observation. All processes involved in Intelligent Design are over and done with, and can no longer be observed. Second, it lacks experimental investigation. There is no known way to investigate or experiment on the ideas put forth by Intelligent Design proponents.
Don't mistake this for a value judgement, by the way. I'm not saying that Intelligent Design is incorrect. But there is no way to prove it correct or incorrect through experimentation and observation, and therefore, it is not "science."
Evolution, while not directly observable on the macroevolutionary "origin of species" scale, can be observed on a small scale. Microevolution is observable and predictably repeatable, those observations can be extrapolated out to a larger scale, and the results of that can be compared to a factual record of past species (the fossil record) to determine their validity. It does match up, which lends it credence, however we do not yet have evidence of it actually happening, so macroevolution can't yet be called a real theory.
We may never be able to definitively prove that macroevolution explains where we all come from, but just because we can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't science. We can prove how likely it is (or isn't) through observation of the process on a smaller scale, identification and description of the process and its traits, experimental investigation of its effects on various lifeforms, and theoretical explanation of how it could apply on a larger scale.
So, again, saying that something is "not science" doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means that we can't prove it's right.
"What a great new way to curtail piracy! Charge five times as much as you could reasonably be expected to otherwise..."
WTF are you rambling about?
Portal = $20
TF2 = $30
HL2 Ep2 = $30
All pretty reasonably priced. They total to $80. The Orange Box is $50. So, I'm really confused where you get this "five times as much" BS from. Especially when you add in HL2 ($20) and HL2 Ep1 ($10), so ultimately you pay less than half as much as you could reasonably be expected to, had they chosen not to bundle any of the games.
Hell, even if you think the games are only worth $10-20 each, it's still a good price for the bundle.
If it's common enough for a class-action suit, I'd tend to suspect that they're at the very least strongly encouraging (entirely informally, of course) their employees to do this.
Only in a roundabout way. What these managers did, encouraging (or demanding) the employees to sign up customers without their consent, is and was very much against the written policies of Best Buy. (I worked there from 2000-2005.)
However, there's a combination of factors that ends up rewarding the managers for breaking the rule. First off, part of their bonus is determined based on the number of signups. Second, their own job performance is based on the ranking of their store against other Best Buy stores in the area. And third, Corporate never really cracks down on this sort of thing until it gets noticed by an outside party.
So, managers in store A cheat and get away with it, putting them at the top of the rankings. Stores B, C, D, and E cheat too, to keep themselves in the top 5. Now, you have to cheat just to keep your job.
So no, Best Buy Corporate doesn't directly encourage or condone this behavior. But they created and support an environment and culture which virtually demands it.
The inverse of this is why I hate the word 'motivation'. You've got your noun, 'motive'. You've got your verbified noun, 'motivate'. Then you've got your nounification of the verbified noun, 'motivation'.
Personally, I see 'motive' and 'motivation' as different concepts. For example, if you're investigating a crime, you'll want to interview everyone who had a motive in order to find out which one had the motivation to go through with it. In other words, not everyone with a reason or desire to do something will have the determination to carry it out.
What people buying from them should do, is, upon being told about the disks and the charge for them, DEMAND they be included free, or they will not buy the computer.
If the salesman refuses, raise hell with his manager. Purchaser gets the disks for free, salesman gets reprimanded (or fired).
I hate to break this to you, but that's not the way it works. I worked for Best Buy for four years, at three different locations across two different states, so I say this with some authority.
See, you seem to think we (I don't work for them anymore, but I'm going to call them "we" anyway) make a lot of money off the computer, but we don't. In fact, when you count my wages, electricity and heating, and all the other costs associated, we're breaking even if we're lucky. More likely, the store is losing a few bucks on the purchase. And me personally? I'm not on commission, and I'm not rated on how many computers I sell, so I don't really give a crap.
So, I look at the other stuff you're buying, to see if we're making any sort of profit on you at all. If you're loaded up with stuff that we actually make money on, I'd be happy to do you the favor. Otherwise, I'd be more than happy to sell that computer to someone we'll make a profit on instead.
Go ahead, threaten to take your business elsewhere. We'd much rather you buy the computer somewhere else, and cause a competitor to lose money. Raise hell with my manager if you want. He'll promise you that I'll be "dealt with" just to make you go away, and then he'll come over and say to me, "man, that guy was a total asshole." I can't even tell you how many times I saw that happen.
There are exceptions, of course. If it's a slow day (meaning the techs aren't busy with customers who actually paid them), and if you were nice to us, we might just do it anyway. We're people too, after all. So many people don't treat retail salesmen like people. If you do, they recognize that, and will do you all sorts of favors. If you're a prick, forget about it.
My point was that it annoys me how some people still describe these transactions like they involve checks. Really? When you want to call someone, do you dial the phone?
I will continue to be a subscriber unless they cave in to this recent backlash. If they do, I will then cancel my accounts.
You didn't think one through too hard, did you? This backlash is because fans of O&A were promised that the duo would appear uncensored on XM radio. Now, XM is reneging on that promise and effectively censoring the two. In reaction to this, folks are leaving in droves.
So what you're saying is, "I will continue to be a subscriber unless XM keeps its promises. If they provide what they said they would, I will then cancel my accounts."
Seems a little short-sighted to me. That's why I canceled my subscription a few days ago because of the O&A debacle, despite the fact that I don't like or listen to O&A.
Those advocating the sensible middle ground, of eating as much as you need and listening to what your body craves, tend to have little funding for advertising and are consequently given a damn good ignoring.
Actually, there's at least one that comes pretty close, and I apologize in advance if this sounds like an advertisement.
Weight Watchers, aside from the "points" system they use (which is just glorified calorie counting with a built-in penalty for high fat, and a slight reward for high fiber), also tells people following their plan to have their five servings of fruits and vegetables, two servings of dairy (or equivalent calcium at least), sufficient protein, and a few other rules. And yes, those "points" do get tailored to your personal, specific needs, based not just on age, weight, height, and level of activity, but also on your reaction to the limit as you follow the plan.
It's commercial enough that you probably just immediately file it into the "diet peddlers" slum, but they really do advocate a very sensible approach to weight loss. They're also very up-front about the fact that it's not a get-slim-and-quit approach, but a lifestyle change that you'll have to stick with.
I mention Weight Watchers to give you some background when I say that I disagree that nobody who's advocating a sensible plan has any money to advertise with. Unfortunately, it's a tough thing to advertise effectively. Their best advertising really is word-of-mouth. I know many people who've lost weight with their plan, and even kept most of it off.
I've already looked it up. The money ($1500) that they gave to the ELF was given only for use in specific projects which did not include "arson".
Uh-huh. And I'm sure that the ELF, being the upstanding citizens that they are, honored that request. The ELF firebombs labs, PETA knows the ELF firebombs labs, PETA gave money to the ELF. Additionally, they financially supported the legal defense of a person on trial for said firebombings.
I know the word's overused lately, but to me that translates as "PETA knowingly finances the activities of domestic terrorists." And that's an honest use of the word "terrorist" there.
"For example, when a certain Judge Gary W. Velie got in trouble for [...] telling another lawyer in court that he looked like he had been 'jacking off a bobcat in a phone booth'..."
Ok...wow. I was not previously familiar with this expression, and I'm not even sure how he came up with such a colorful simile, but I think I'm going to have to start using it.
I'm so enamored with it that I actually tried to close my <blockquote> with a </bobcat> tag. Got halfway through the first paragraph before I noticed.
It's really weird for me to see all these stories about Silverlight, because a few years ago, I was the webmaster/administrator of silverlight.org (see the bottom of that page), which MS now owns. Of course back then, it was just personal web and email hosting for a group of friends. My friend who owned the domain sold it to a broker a couple of months ago for...well, to MS it was pocket change, but he had no idea who the buyer was.
I had an email address at that domain for several years, so it's just really, really weird to see "silverlight" everywhere on Slashdot and in the news.
"I also make sure that I have the persons name at the start of the conversation (full name, and if they won't give it I make a note of that)..."
Sorry, but you don't get to have my full name -- make a note of that. The only possible reason you'd need my full name is if you wanted to look me up in the phone book and harass me (or worse) outside of work. To reach me at work, you only need my first name, and either an ID number or extension number. There's too many creepy stalker types and vengeful insane types out there.
And yes, I've experienced this first-hand. I got passed an already-irate customer (in person, not even on the phone) making demands that we just couldn't meet. Am I going to give an angry, ranting, irate man all the information he needs to find me outside of work? No. He got my first name, and nothing else. Being the only person in the store by that name, it's all he needed.
You shouldn't expect last names, in fact, more companies should have policies that strictly prohibit giving out last names. Many companies insist on the use of fake names, which is not only better for security, but it can be used to eliminate the problem of having three people named "Jeff" on the phones. Frankly, I think it's rude of you to demand it.
Maybe you should take a closer look, yourself. The US Constitution is a list of restrictions on what the government can do. Private entities are not bound by it.
The first amendment only prevents the government from restricting speech. As Google is not a government agency, they are free to restrict any speech they want to, on their property.
The guy who modded you "insightful" should go take a look at it, too.
"Well... unless sex-offenders are not allowed to vote (is that the case?)"
In many US states, ex-felons are not allowed to vote, no. And most of the sex offender laws of the class being discussed here are, in fact, felonies.
Say what you will about the source of the quote, but it's true: Governments have no power over law-abiding citizens, only those who break the law. So, to gain power, governments create more and more restrictive laws, until eventually everybody is guilty of something. When that point is reached, the government can do whatever it wants, since it will have the means to lock up and silence anyone who dissents.
Even if you're not overtly guilty of anything, it creates an atmosphere of fear, where people will avoid speaking up against the very government that claims to protect their right to free speech, simply because the government now has the ability to make up laws as it sees fit. If what you're doing isn't illegal, they'll simply make it illegal.
Ruling by fear. There's another word for that, based on a synonym for fear, that's been tossed around a lot lately. Am I saying that the USA is in control of (domestic) terrorists? No...not yet. But I can't help but think it's headed that way.
"Ofcourse this just might be a scandinavian thing as we generally don't think that our governments require any extra effort to keep them in line, they seem to do quite well on their own."
That's interesting to know. Honestly, I'm amazed that it works as well as you say it does, but like I said in the subject line, distrust of the government is rooted in the USA's history.
The country was founded by a group of folks who felt persecuted by their government, after all. Our very Constitution is written to take power away from the leaders, and guarantee rights to the citizens. A look at the Bill of Rights proves that pretty easily. The first amendment prevents the government from silencing its citizens. The second was intended to prevent the government from disarming its citizens. The third prevents it from "unreasonably" searching citizens or taking their property. And the ninth specifies that rights cannot be denied just because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention them.
As they say, "power corrupts." The people who founded our government not only knew this, but they did the best they could to prevent that corruption from harming the citizens. How well they did is, obviously, up for debate, but it's undeniable that they tried.
"I'd rather have the problems associated with receipts with ids on them that I can log online to see who I voted for instead of the current system."
Fine. In the next election, make sure you vote for the party I tell you to. I expect to see your reciept as proof you voted appropriately. If you don't, I'll break your kneecaps with a sledgehammer. And if I can't find you, I'll just have your family killed.
Or we could just, you know, *not* promote vote fraud. That would be OK too. Whichever you and your family would prefer.
"You can check your vote, using the random number, on the web or via a bulletin board at the voting place the next day. [...] Can anyone think of a way to cheat THAT system?"
Not only is it incredibly easy to cheat, but it invites the worst kind of cheating.
"Vote for Candidate X or you're fired. Bring your reciept in and we'll verify it tomorrow." Or...
"Vote for Candidate Y or I break your legs. If you don't show me your reciept, I break your legs slowly."
by kimvette Throw in random prose, and you're not only tricking rules-based filters, but de-training bayesian filters.:(
How is that de-training anything? How much legitimate email do you get using the words: buddhist, sullen, lowhanging, howled, fires, sobbed, unfathomable, chime, trooping, flirt, chant, heavyduty, riotous, graphically, vanquished, merriwether, emissary, alanding, smote, afloat, scarves, blockaders, dissonance, demons, brethren, plaque, gleaming, trembling, galileo, militant, fusty, belle, hysteria, britches, unearthly, deftly, elevation, monks, blasphemies, cataract, oblique, jangled, sparrowhawks?
So at least 43 words (20% of the message) are actually *good* bayes-fodder. There's another 29 words (14%) that I think are unlikely to be used often in ham (tube, suppressed, Aubrey, unspeakable, hideously, etc...). Another 20% (roughly) are words that shouldn't have a lot of effect (the, an, it, of, with, its, etc...), so if you take those out of the total, you get a message where 43% of the words are good indicators of spam.
That sounds like pretty good training to me. Now, if the vocabulary of these spams changes frequently and significantly, then it might not be good training. But unless your ham often contains words like the ones I listed, then I don't think there's much "de-training" going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Congrats, you just implemented the easiest-to-commit vote fraud in history. And if you think it won't happen, you're awfully naive.
Additionally, a business may only charge a "convenience fee" on non-face-to-face transactions.
http://www.usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf
If I may respond on his behalf...
Opinions can be wrong. We should give equal weight to opinions that cannot be proven wrong. However, when an opinion can be proven wrong, there is no longer reason to consider it. In this specific case, it's very easy to prove that Intelligent Design is not science, because "science" has a rigid and well-known definition which ID does not meet.
Science is defined (roughly) as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Intelligent Design lacks what may be the two most important qualities of a scientific pursuit (though all parts are important). First, there is (and can be) no observation. All processes involved in Intelligent Design are over and done with, and can no longer be observed. Second, it lacks experimental investigation. There is no known way to investigate or experiment on the ideas put forth by Intelligent Design proponents.
Don't mistake this for a value judgement, by the way. I'm not saying that Intelligent Design is incorrect. But there is no way to prove it correct or incorrect through experimentation and observation, and therefore, it is not "science."
Evolution, while not directly observable on the macroevolutionary "origin of species" scale, can be observed on a small scale. Microevolution is observable and predictably repeatable, those observations can be extrapolated out to a larger scale, and the results of that can be compared to a factual record of past species (the fossil record) to determine their validity. It does match up, which lends it credence, however we do not yet have evidence of it actually happening, so macroevolution can't yet be called a real theory.
We may never be able to definitively prove that macroevolution explains where we all come from, but just because we can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't science. We can prove how likely it is (or isn't) through observation of the process on a smaller scale, identification and description of the process and its traits, experimental investigation of its effects on various lifeforms, and theoretical explanation of how it could apply on a larger scale.
So, again, saying that something is "not science" doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means that we can't prove it's right.
WTF are you rambling about?
All pretty reasonably priced. They total to $80. The Orange Box is $50. So, I'm really confused where you get this "five times as much" BS from. Especially when you add in HL2 ($20) and HL2 Ep1 ($10), so ultimately you pay less than half as much as you could reasonably be expected to, had they chosen not to bundle any of the games.
Hell, even if you think the games are only worth $10-20 each, it's still a good price for the bundle.
Only in a roundabout way. What these managers did, encouraging (or demanding) the employees to sign up customers without their consent, is and was very much against the written policies of Best Buy. (I worked there from 2000-2005.)
However, there's a combination of factors that ends up rewarding the managers for breaking the rule. First off, part of their bonus is determined based on the number of signups. Second, their own job performance is based on the ranking of their store against other Best Buy stores in the area. And third, Corporate never really cracks down on this sort of thing until it gets noticed by an outside party.
So, managers in store A cheat and get away with it, putting them at the top of the rankings. Stores B, C, D, and E cheat too, to keep themselves in the top 5. Now, you have to cheat just to keep your job.
So no, Best Buy Corporate doesn't directly encourage or condone this behavior. But they created and support an environment and culture which virtually demands it.
Personally, I see 'motive' and 'motivation' as different concepts. For example, if you're investigating a crime, you'll want to interview everyone who had a motive in order to find out which one had the motivation to go through with it. In other words, not everyone with a reason or desire to do something will have the determination to carry it out.
If the salesman refuses, raise hell with his manager. Purchaser gets the disks for free, salesman gets reprimanded (or fired).
I hate to break this to you, but that's not the way it works. I worked for Best Buy for four years, at three different locations across two different states, so I say this with some authority.
See, you seem to think we (I don't work for them anymore, but I'm going to call them "we" anyway) make a lot of money off the computer, but we don't. In fact, when you count my wages, electricity and heating, and all the other costs associated, we're breaking even if we're lucky. More likely, the store is losing a few bucks on the purchase. And me personally? I'm not on commission, and I'm not rated on how many computers I sell, so I don't really give a crap.
So, I look at the other stuff you're buying, to see if we're making any sort of profit on you at all. If you're loaded up with stuff that we actually make money on, I'd be happy to do you the favor. Otherwise, I'd be more than happy to sell that computer to someone we'll make a profit on instead.
Go ahead, threaten to take your business elsewhere. We'd much rather you buy the computer somewhere else, and cause a competitor to lose money. Raise hell with my manager if you want. He'll promise you that I'll be "dealt with" just to make you go away, and then he'll come over and say to me, "man, that guy was a total asshole." I can't even tell you how many times I saw that happen.
There are exceptions, of course. If it's a slow day (meaning the techs aren't busy with customers who actually paid them), and if you were nice to us, we might just do it anyway. We're people too, after all. So many people don't treat retail salesmen like people. If you do, they recognize that, and will do you all sorts of favors. If you're a prick, forget about it.
Wait.. womma? That sounds like an off-balance washing machine.
wommawommawommawommawommawomma...
You didn't think one through too hard, did you? This backlash is because fans of O&A were promised that the duo would appear uncensored on XM radio. Now, XM is reneging on that promise and effectively censoring the two. In reaction to this, folks are leaving in droves.
So what you're saying is, "I will continue to be a subscriber unless XM keeps its promises. If they provide what they said they would, I will then cancel my accounts."
Seems a little short-sighted to me. That's why I canceled my subscription a few days ago because of the O&A debacle, despite the fact that I don't like or listen to O&A.
Actually, there's at least one that comes pretty close, and I apologize in advance if this sounds like an advertisement.
Weight Watchers, aside from the "points" system they use (which is just glorified calorie counting with a built-in penalty for high fat, and a slight reward for high fiber), also tells people following their plan to have their five servings of fruits and vegetables, two servings of dairy (or equivalent calcium at least), sufficient protein, and a few other rules. And yes, those "points" do get tailored to your personal, specific needs, based not just on age, weight, height, and level of activity, but also on your reaction to the limit as you follow the plan.
It's commercial enough that you probably just immediately file it into the "diet peddlers" slum, but they really do advocate a very sensible approach to weight loss. They're also very up-front about the fact that it's not a get-slim-and-quit approach, but a lifestyle change that you'll have to stick with.
I mention Weight Watchers to give you some background when I say that I disagree that nobody who's advocating a sensible plan has any money to advertise with. Unfortunately, it's a tough thing to advertise effectively. Their best advertising really is word-of-mouth. I know many people who've lost weight with their plan, and even kept most of it off.
You're right, I had my acronyms mixed up. My point stands, though. PETA donate(s/d) money to known (to them) domestic terrorists.
Uh-huh. And I'm sure that the ELF, being the upstanding citizens that they are, honored that request. The ELF firebombs labs, PETA knows the ELF firebombs labs, PETA gave money to the ELF. Additionally, they financially supported the legal defense of a person on trial for said firebombings.
I know the word's overused lately, but to me that translates as "PETA knowingly finances the activities of domestic terrorists." And that's an honest use of the word "terrorist" there.
Ok...wow. I was not previously familiar with this expression, and I'm not even sure how he came up with such a colorful simile, but I think I'm going to have to start using it.
I'm so enamored with it that I actually tried to close my <blockquote> with a </bobcat> tag. Got halfway through the first paragraph before I noticed.
It's really weird for me to see all these stories about Silverlight, because a few years ago, I was the webmaster/administrator of silverlight.org (see the bottom of that page), which MS now owns. Of course back then, it was just personal web and email hosting for a group of friends. My friend who owned the domain sold it to a broker a couple of months ago for...well, to MS it was pocket change, but he had no idea who the buyer was.
I had an email address at that domain for several years, so it's just really, really weird to see "silverlight" everywhere on Slashdot and in the news.
Sorry, but you don't get to have my full name -- make a note of that. The only possible reason you'd need my full name is if you wanted to look me up in the phone book and harass me (or worse) outside of work. To reach me at work, you only need my first name, and either an ID number or extension number. There's too many creepy stalker types and vengeful insane types out there.
And yes, I've experienced this first-hand. I got passed an already-irate customer (in person, not even on the phone) making demands that we just couldn't meet. Am I going to give an angry, ranting, irate man all the information he needs to find me outside of work? No. He got my first name, and nothing else. Being the only person in the store by that name, it's all he needed.
You shouldn't expect last names, in fact, more companies should have policies that strictly prohibit giving out last names. Many companies insist on the use of fake names, which is not only better for security, but it can be used to eliminate the problem of having three people named "Jeff" on the phones. Frankly, I think it's rude of you to demand it.
Maybe you should take a closer look, yourself. The US Constitution is a list of restrictions on what the government can do. Private entities are not bound by it.
The first amendment only prevents the government from restricting speech. As Google is not a government agency, they are free to restrict any speech they want to, on their property.
The guy who modded you "insightful" should go take a look at it, too.
Here in New Jersey, I've been seeing gas under $2.00/gallon for the last two weeks. It helps that we have refineries here.
Honda has manufacturing plants in the USA -- in Alabama, Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia, and others.
Companies like Ford and GM are cutting jobs and closing plants across the US, and opening plants in places like Mexico and India.
So, I'm sorry, what was your point again?
In many US states, ex-felons are not allowed to vote, no. And most of the sex offender laws of the class being discussed here are, in fact, felonies.
Say what you will about the source of the quote, but it's true: Governments have no power over law-abiding citizens, only those who break the law. So, to gain power, governments create more and more restrictive laws, until eventually everybody is guilty of something. When that point is reached, the government can do whatever it wants, since it will have the means to lock up and silence anyone who dissents.
Even if you're not overtly guilty of anything, it creates an atmosphere of fear, where people will avoid speaking up against the very government that claims to protect their right to free speech, simply because the government now has the ability to make up laws as it sees fit. If what you're doing isn't illegal, they'll simply make it illegal.
Ruling by fear. There's another word for that, based on a synonym for fear, that's been tossed around a lot lately. Am I saying that the USA is in control of (domestic) terrorists? No...not yet. But I can't help but think it's headed that way.
That's interesting to know. Honestly, I'm amazed that it works as well as you say it does, but like I said in the subject line, distrust of the government is rooted in the USA's history.
The country was founded by a group of folks who felt persecuted by their government, after all. Our very Constitution is written to take power away from the leaders, and guarantee rights to the citizens. A look at the Bill of Rights proves that pretty easily. The first amendment prevents the government from silencing its citizens. The second was intended to prevent the government from disarming its citizens. The third prevents it from "unreasonably" searching citizens or taking their property. And the ninth specifies that rights cannot be denied just because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention them.
As they say, "power corrupts." The people who founded our government not only knew this, but they did the best they could to prevent that corruption from harming the citizens. How well they did is, obviously, up for debate, but it's undeniable that they tried.
Fine. In the next election, make sure you vote for the party I tell you to. I expect to see your reciept as proof you voted appropriately. If you don't, I'll break your kneecaps with a sledgehammer. And if I can't find you, I'll just have your family killed.
Or we could just, you know, *not* promote vote fraud. That would be OK too. Whichever you and your family would prefer.
Not only is it incredibly easy to cheat, but it invites the worst kind of cheating.
"Vote for Candidate X or you're fired. Bring your reciept in and we'll verify it tomorrow."
Or...
"Vote for Candidate Y or I break your legs. If you don't show me your reciept, I break your legs slowly."
How is that de-training anything? How much legitimate email do you get using the words: buddhist, sullen, lowhanging, howled, fires, sobbed, unfathomable, chime, trooping, flirt, chant, heavyduty, riotous, graphically, vanquished, merriwether, emissary, alanding, smote, afloat, scarves, blockaders, dissonance, demons, brethren, plaque, gleaming, trembling, galileo, militant, fusty, belle, hysteria, britches, unearthly, deftly, elevation, monks, blasphemies, cataract, oblique, jangled, sparrowhawks?
So at least 43 words (20% of the message) are actually *good* bayes-fodder. There's another 29 words (14%) that I think are unlikely to be used often in ham (tube, suppressed, Aubrey, unspeakable, hideously, etc...). Another 20% (roughly) are words that shouldn't have a lot of effect (the, an, it, of, with, its, etc...), so if you take those out of the total, you get a message where 43% of the words are good indicators of spam.
That sounds like pretty good training to me. Now, if the vocabulary of these spams changes frequently and significantly, then it might not be good training. But unless your ham often contains words like the ones I listed, then I don't think there's much "de-training" going on.