so why don't we make banks a place to do voting instead of old timers at a vfw somewhere where lines are long, and buildings are never adequate to do business.
maybe if you used an atm, or a special series of AVM's (automatic voting machines) to place your votes (with a reciept similar to the atm's), maybe two at each bank, wouldn't this be a viable solution?
besides the obvious that banks are notoriously cheap, even with their secutiry systems... having a voting machine at the banks would be a way we could verify that a person voted legally (as in, not using someone elses I.D. or card to vote.
I realize the problems with identifying who voted for who, but you could do it in a way where someone swipes their card in... let's them vote once and gives them a reciept. Votes get registered in one db, records of people who voted in another so no duplicates are allowed. AND write the software accordingly so people can't be tagged as for who voted for who.
Kind of like... only after a certian time can the voting process be ended and votes tallied, otherwise the machine locks down until the end of the voting time period. Thus preventing identifying voters with votes.
As for screen, mouse, keyboard access... my solution. Touch screen only with maybe a 10 key on the side. That can be used to access the system ONLY after the voting period is over.
-sorry, it's late and I can't concentrate. --what do you think of this idea?
Are you asking for a yes or no question, or is your answer being ended with a questionmark an effect of technology having to make your choices for you?
rules to war? what the fuck? you're kidding right? war is about winning, regardless of what side you're on or if it's right or not.
make the other guy die for his country while we stay alive. wipe them out or put them into submission with our power. rules to war? that's something conjured up by tear invoking emotional in-DUH-viduals. war is about death, destruction, submission, devistation and forcing political, social and cultural motives. If they're for the right reason or not... war is hell.
Don't get it confused with the sandbox in the back yard where you play.
"Rules to war" makes about as much sense as telling a cook he can't kill anything.
dear ignoramus, forcing snut cafe's or porn shops to reside within a certian area of a city or a certian distance away from schools or neighborhoods is preventing people from selling them openly in their homes or in otherwise non-pornographic areas.
oh darn. for shame. I don't want some porn peddler or shop passing off their stuff in my neighborhood. this is why there are zoning laws, for this kind fo thing.
it's high time there were "zoning-laws" for the internet, just like there are in the real world.
how in the world did religion come into this? Your inferring of my past and any indoctrination based on those assumptions are foolish and presumptuous at best with no real grounding in facts.
I came to that conclusion on my own. There was no religious basis for my reasoning or decision. I took the sum of numerous parts and came up with a conclusion. Though my final answer is similar to that of some religious rules you claim I have been influenced by, it is in fact not so - not one bit. Regardless of any similarity.
Your lack of understanding how offensive things can be to a person is deplorable. Offenses aren't just merely what the percieved cognitive mind reacts to when presented with object A. An offense or something that's offensive to a person is harmful.
When someone views such materials, it skewes their perception of sex and sexual relationships with members of the opposite (or same) sex and can place unfounded fantasys into the relationship which quite obviously are not based in reality. Dehumanizing relationships between couples and the lack of sensitivity between indivuduals is a part, not the whole, but a part of the problem with society.
I won't go ranting and tell you what you should do. You and society can go on doing whatever it is the hell you want, but you and society will pay for it in the long run in the event such observations are right.
Once again, these are observations I have made on my own and without any kind of religious indoctrination
Forcing pornography to reside onto a TLD of.xxx is not obstruction of freedom of speech. How would it be? It would be accessible via your web browser or any other retrieval method capable of entering a www.sexwebsite.xxx wouldn't it?
Besides... how is photographing nudity or sexual intercourse (in any of it's forms) considered a value of speech? Speech? What are you on, crack? Don't get me going on it's value as art either, because filming it definitely is NOT. I don't care what techniques are involved on the production, filming or actual sexual acts/positions are used, there's no way that filming sex can be considered an art or speech.
That's like saying filming lions in Africa and selling it at www.hotlionaction.xxx or whatever TLD you choose is calling that art or freedom of speech. It's not right or proper in any civilized social structure and to say otherwise would be an excuse for an addiction the CDC and FDA has already confirmed to continue with out proper help in the form of therapy or relief.
Oh, one more thing. Selling pornography without a rating doesn't mean it's not pornography. That's like trying to sell porn on a LAN where the address is http://somelancomp/ instead of a tld where everyone can access it.
I see what you meant by people marking you as a foe in the "friends" list whenever the topic of deity (or closely related in this instance) comes to slashdot. (see my journal entry about "friends list" for the uninformed)
But that aside, I'll have to disagree with your origional post regarding how scientists should be non-religious in order to be real scientists. And I'll get this out of the way now, yes I'm religious and have been a good chunk of my life. I believe in creationism and evolution with one exception, that man did not evolve from simpler primates.
(for those mods who don't read the whole argument or diss because of spelling errors, I'm at work taking time to argue what I believe is a misconception about true scientists. Don't mod it down simply because you disagree with my post. I've modded up for things I didn't agree with, but coincidentally were insightful or interesting)
Now let's begin!
What I believe you're arguing, are two opposites of the extreme. Religous fanatics who almost possess and use 'jihad' style of arguements to radically defend what they believe in through incoherent and nonsensical arguements to justify their position. Then there are the atheist type which use the same style of arguement the religous fanatic used, but only to irrationally argue his methods for there being no such being as a God or Deity who created everything in our universe, life within the universe and then us. (let me know if I'm wrong in that assumption, but that's what's being percieved)
I have known a few good scientists who are very religous with their beliefs yet are in no way close minded. They're extremely educated (as opposed to what many peoples suppositions regarding a person of faith's education must be like), talented and also gifted. Do they believe in evolution? Yes. Do they believe in creationism? Yes, but with the same caveat I mentioned earlier in my own beliefs. Then why are they scientists and how are they effective in proving or disproving their own theories or those of others?
I can't answer the various reasons for people wanting to, or being a scientist. But I can explain in a simple fasion of what makes a successfull one, even through what people call the cloud of faith.
A successfull scientists will not skew, alter, forge, change or make any submition in any way which is illicit and purposely fraudulent to forward his own beliefs, agenda, political alliances, finances or social popularity.
This is what a good scientist does regardless of wether or not he believes in Deity or not and I know there are good scientists out there with just such integrity and honor in their work. I know a few of them personally in biological (geneticists, some in the camp of cloning and pharmacutical), others in earth sciences which revolve around archeology of ancient animals and civilizations. These people do routenely disprove even their own theories and hypothesis' without regard to their religion.
But I have a key point to make regarding the association of scientists and religionists (is that a word?) and their ability to co-exzist; is the person of faith who has his beliefs founded in truth, will not be thrown off, let down, dismayed or in any way do things listed in my 6th paragraph with what he finds because it won't conflict with what he believs. And if it does, it doesn't mean his religion is wrong, but the suppositions of certian aspects may be wrong. To clarify, the scientists grounded in religious truth will not be swayed with what his scientific findings reveal. It may change his outlook, and I hope enlighten his mind into many things of this planet.
Just as an example, when darwin first started teaching that evolution was a method this planet had used to form life from simple protiens into complex life, even human beings, religions went nuts. Some quieter than others but they had a hard time with this. Certian religions now believe darwin may have been right in many of this theories except one, and that of man b
Let's just say that any real counterfitting is done by people in print shops that use real printing presses with the available skills and resources to do such a thing. Where you can keep everything in house and do it yourself in the off hours after your three employees go home for the night, lock the counterfitting plates or rolls into a safe under the machine itself (and those things are fuggin heavy!) - the real threat is from there and that's the only way to do and order counterfit money. Small bills, denominations that would make money to cover the printing costs and leave you with enough (possibly several thousand) dolllars to get around to gas stations where you knew the attendant or know they don't check much when you come in and order a slurpee (think 7-11) or the local walmart with a friend who works there.
You know, cameras in many places if you have contacts aren't hard to "pause" recording or make malfunction. Especially for organized crime. It's all it really takes is knowing and having trustworthy people to commit fraud and various other crimes.
that would be very interesting indeed. better yet. make it read-only with a physical switch. I know you can do this with linux) but since when can't you do this with windows? is it just because no one has done it? or is it prohibitively a pain in the rear?
I would use a RO 4 gig flash drive for windows/office, and use my other sata drives for the installation of other software (supposing they keep the changable registry on the other hdd).
you create a planet, all life in plant and animal form, insects and microscopic too and then you can talk.
until you can create on such a fundamental level such as dna, and create entire ecosystems which are still unnumberd on this planet - don't complain and try to prove intelligent design.
a being infinitely superior to you and I created these things and until we become just like him, we can not understand why certian species were made to see better than us, or hear better than us, or feel better than us.
I'd like to venture a guess, but the anti-religous / deity sentiment on/. would mod this into oblivion. And doing such would prove my point further.
Headlines in papers don't use punctuation. Neither does the YRO.. where correctly it would be "Your Rights, Online" Where "Your Rights" are being discussed "Online".
Good grief! Stop over-analyzing things and get to the story!
Slashdot Mirror
How would I change the appearances in Opear 8.5. I've looked all over, but obviously not everywhere. Can anyone help?
apparently no one got the joke from South Park (TM)
get back in the kitchen, Bitch, and bake me my pie!
so why don't we make banks a place to do voting instead of old timers at a vfw somewhere where lines are long, and buildings are never adequate to do business.
maybe if you used an atm, or a special series of AVM's (automatic voting machines) to place your votes (with a reciept similar to the atm's), maybe two at each bank, wouldn't this be a viable solution?
besides the obvious that banks are notoriously cheap, even with their secutiry systems... having a voting machine at the banks would be a way we could verify that a person voted legally (as in, not using someone elses I.D. or card to vote.
I realize the problems with identifying who voted for who, but you could do it in a way where someone swipes their card in... let's them vote once and gives them a reciept. Votes get registered in one db, records of people who voted in another so no duplicates are allowed. AND write the software accordingly so people can't be tagged as for who voted for who.
Kind of like... only after a certian time can the voting process be ended and votes tallied, otherwise the machine locks down until the end of the voting time period. Thus preventing identifying voters with votes.
As for screen, mouse, keyboard access... my solution. Touch screen only with maybe a 10 key on the side. That can be used to access the system ONLY after the voting period is over.
-sorry, it's late and I can't concentrate.
--what do you think of this idea?
They already have, but they're doing such a good job and raking in a ton of money - so sneakily that they aren't being noticed yet.
Just wait, I'm sure the NYT will have an article about it in the future.
Are you asking for a yes or no question, or is your answer being ended with a questionmark an effect of technology having to make your choices for you?
I'm confused...
rules to war? what the fuck? you're kidding right? war is about winning, regardless of what side you're on or if it's right or not.
make the other guy die for his country while we stay alive. wipe them out or put them into submission with our power. rules to war? that's something conjured up by tear invoking emotional in-DUH-viduals. war is about death, destruction, submission, devistation and forcing political, social and cultural motives. If they're for the right reason or not... war is hell.
Don't get it confused with the sandbox in the back yard where you play.
"Rules to war" makes about as much sense as telling a cook he can't kill anything.
for a second there, I thought you meant frequency scanner. Not image scanner :P
Not on topic, but I can't be the only one!
180.iq
I find this rather difficult to believe, since so little of the South's wealth was in mobile, taxable assets
That's because trailer park tennants aren't known for their riches, ya know.
Simon
True, but you didn't say "Simon Says"
dear ignoramus, forcing snut cafe's or porn shops to reside within a certian area of a city or a certian distance away from schools or neighborhoods is preventing people from selling them openly in their homes or in otherwise non-pornographic areas.
oh darn. for shame. I don't want some porn peddler or shop passing off their stuff in my neighborhood. this is why there are zoning laws, for this kind fo thing.
it's high time there were "zoning-laws" for the internet, just like there are in the real world.
how in the world did religion come into this? Your inferring of my past and any indoctrination based on those assumptions are foolish and presumptuous at best with no real grounding in facts.
I came to that conclusion on my own. There was no religious basis for my reasoning or decision. I took the sum of numerous parts and came up with a conclusion. Though my final answer is similar to that of some religious rules you claim I have been influenced by, it is in fact not so - not one bit. Regardless of any similarity.
Your lack of understanding how offensive things can be to a person is deplorable. Offenses aren't just merely what the percieved cognitive mind reacts to when presented with object A. An offense or something that's offensive to a person is harmful.
When someone views such materials, it skewes their perception of sex and sexual relationships with members of the opposite (or same) sex and can place unfounded fantasys into the relationship which quite obviously are not based in reality. Dehumanizing relationships between couples and the lack of sensitivity between indivuduals is a part, not the whole, but a part of the problem with society.
I won't go ranting and tell you what you should do. You and society can go on doing whatever it is the hell you want, but you and society will pay for it in the long run in the event such observations are right.
Once again, these are observations I have made on my own and without any kind of religious indoctrination
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornograp hy
next
Forcing pornography to reside onto a TLD of .xxx is not obstruction of freedom of speech. How would it be? It would be accessible via your web browser or any other retrieval method capable of entering a www.sexwebsite.xxx wouldn't it?
Besides... how is photographing nudity or sexual intercourse (in any of it's forms) considered a value of speech? Speech? What are you on, crack? Don't get me going on it's value as art either, because filming it definitely is NOT. I don't care what techniques are involved on the production, filming or actual sexual acts/positions are used, there's no way that filming sex can be considered an art or speech.
That's like saying filming lions in Africa and selling it at www.hotlionaction.xxx or whatever TLD you choose is calling that art or freedom of speech. It's not right or proper in any civilized social structure and to say otherwise would be an excuse for an addiction the CDC and FDA has already confirmed to continue with out proper help in the form of therapy or relief.
Oh, one more thing. Selling pornography without a rating doesn't mean it's not pornography. That's like trying to sell porn on a LAN where the address is http://somelancomp/ instead of a tld where everyone can access it.
There is no tasteful nudity in my opinion. It's offensive to all parties involved
He is
Really, you need to quit trolling or get an education.
Don't you mean Setec Astronomy?
For those reading this arguement, read the following:
4 &cid=13240881
:D
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=15805
and read the posts preceeding it as well
But that aside, I'll have to disagree with your origional post regarding how scientists should be non-religious in order to be real scientists. And I'll get this out of the way now, yes I'm religious and have been a good chunk of my life. I believe in creationism and evolution with one exception, that man did not evolve from simpler primates.
(for those mods who don't read the whole argument or diss because of spelling errors, I'm at work taking time to argue what I believe is a misconception about true scientists. Don't mod it down simply because you disagree with my post. I've modded up for things I didn't agree with, but coincidentally were insightful or interesting)
Now let's begin!
What I believe you're arguing, are two opposites of the extreme. Religous fanatics who almost possess and use 'jihad' style of arguements to radically defend what they believe in through incoherent and nonsensical arguements to justify their position. Then there are the atheist type which use the same style of arguement the religous fanatic used, but only to irrationally argue his methods for there being no such being as a God or Deity who created everything in our universe, life within the universe and then us. (let me know if I'm wrong in that assumption, but that's what's being percieved)
I have known a few good scientists who are very religous with their beliefs yet are in no way close minded. They're extremely educated (as opposed to what many peoples suppositions regarding a person of faith's education must be like), talented and also gifted. Do they believe in evolution? Yes. Do they believe in creationism? Yes, but with the same caveat I mentioned earlier in my own beliefs. Then why are they scientists and how are they effective in proving or disproving their own theories or those of others?
I can't answer the various reasons for people wanting to, or being a scientist. But I can explain in a simple fasion of what makes a successfull one, even through what people call the cloud of faith.
A successfull scientists will not skew, alter, forge, change or make any submition in any way which is illicit and purposely fraudulent to forward his own beliefs, agenda, political alliances, finances or social popularity.
This is what a good scientist does regardless of wether or not he believes in Deity or not and I know there are good scientists out there with just such integrity and honor in their work. I know a few of them personally in biological (geneticists, some in the camp of cloning and pharmacutical), others in earth sciences which revolve around archeology of ancient animals and civilizations. These people do routenely disprove even their own theories and hypothesis' without regard to their religion.
But I have a key point to make regarding the association of scientists and religionists (is that a word?) and their ability to co-exzist; is the person of faith who has his beliefs founded in truth, will not be thrown off, let down, dismayed or in any way do things listed in my 6th paragraph with what he finds because it won't conflict with what he believs. And if it does, it doesn't mean his religion is wrong, but the suppositions of certian aspects may be wrong. To clarify, the scientists grounded in religious truth will not be swayed with what his scientific findings reveal. It may change his outlook, and I hope enlighten his mind into many things of this planet.
Just as an example, when darwin first started teaching that evolution was a method this planet had used to form life from simple protiens into complex life, even human beings, religions went nuts. Some quieter than others but they had a hard time with this. Certian religions now believe darwin may have been right in many of this theories except one, and that of man b
Let's just say that any real counterfitting is done by people in print shops that use real printing presses with the available skills and resources to do such a thing. Where you can keep everything in house and do it yourself in the off hours after your three employees go home for the night, lock the counterfitting plates or rolls into a safe under the machine itself (and those things are fuggin heavy!) - the real threat is from there and that's the only way to do and order counterfit money. Small bills, denominations that would make money to cover the printing costs and leave you with enough (possibly several thousand) dolllars to get around to gas stations where you knew the attendant or know they don't check much when you come in and order a slurpee (think 7-11) or the local walmart with a friend who works there.
You know, cameras in many places if you have contacts aren't hard to "pause" recording or make malfunction. Especially for organized crime. It's all it really takes is knowing and having trustworthy people to commit fraud and various other crimes.
that would be very interesting indeed. better yet. make it read-only with a physical switch. I know you can do this with linux) but since when can't you do this with windows? is it just because no one has done it? or is it prohibitively a pain in the rear?
I would use a RO 4 gig flash drive for windows/office, and use my other sata drives for the installation of other software (supposing they keep the changable registry on the other hdd).
How possible is this?
how's this for size...
/. would mod this into oblivion. And doing such would prove my point further.
you create a planet, all life in plant and animal form, insects and microscopic too and then you can talk.
until you can create on such a fundamental level such as dna, and create entire ecosystems which are still unnumberd on this planet - don't complain and try to prove intelligent design.
a being infinitely superior to you and I created these things and until we become just like him, we can not understand why certian species were made to see better than us, or hear better than us, or feel better than us.
I'd like to venture a guess, but the anti-religous / deity sentiment on
but that's just my 2 pence.
This could be just explained in this way.
Headlines in papers don't use punctuation. Neither does the YRO.. where correctly it would be "Your Rights, Online" Where "Your Rights" are being discussed "Online".
Good grief! Stop over-analyzing things and get to the story!
Your name doesn't happen to be Bruce Wayne does it?