You're requested to turn off all electronics during takeoff and landing,
Not anymore, not in the US.
but you can still use this app while you're in the air.
Does Delta provide WiFi or cellular for data while airborne?
If it were "Station" based like you suggest, then the entire passenger list would be calling Delta to report lost luggage even though their luggage is 4 feet below them!
Ummm, if it is "station" based, it would say "onboard", just like they are. And nobody is going to be calling Delta about a lost bag before they arrive.
It would be smart for the app to provide the actual plane's location while you are in flight.
And this is how people are, they don't care that they are a danger to the whole internet and them being knocked off is a service to the world. What they care about is their stupid little gimmicky toy.
How people really are is that they don't know what the Internet is so they don't know that their "stupid little gimmicky toy" could possibly be a problem because of some distant and unknown infrastructure issue. It's not a deliberate decision to cause harm, and it's not selfish.
What you think is a "gimmicky toy" may be a security cam they use to keep track of the house while they're gone because they've had issues before. It certainly is NOT something that was sold with a big warning notice that attaching it to the network in their house, behind a cable router that stops everything else from getting in, will cause death and destruction, or problems of any kind to anyone. They certainly did NOT say "fuck you" to any idea of trouble and forge ahead maliciously.
And I'd hate to think that maybe they are thinking that YOUR use of the Internet is for "gimmicky toys" like "why do you need to run your own mail server when Gmail does it for free"?
So, maybe notch the venom down a bit and accept that the problem is not the fault of the people who buy the devices and use them as instructed. People don't need to be, and shouldn't have to be, leet haxor neckbeards with in-depth knowledge of the Internet to use a network-connected device. This is why the idea of having white-hat hackers brick the devices is so tragically wrong. As soon as they start doing that to protect their turf they lose any ethical high ground because they are hurting innocent people and not the ones who produced the faulty devices.
But they'll all call the manufacturer and complain, right? Probably not. They'll take the thing back to the store they bought it from (also not network experts) and get a new one. When it stops working again, they'll get their money back. They won't search out the manufacturer, and are unlikely to find who actually built and programmed it anyway considering it is probably a Chinese company to start with. For example, I have some internet power switches that I caught sending data off to China. Don't know who, and I have no idea who built them. I know the store I bought them from. That's where the trail to the culprits ends.
A year ago, my Comcast service would often drop out dozens of times a day (confirmed by my modem logs). Calls to Comcast service got me nowhere.
Did you call your local franchise authority to complain and ask for their help?
When I was fighting Comcast about a cableCard and what they wanted to charge (after saying it would be free), I called my local franchise specialist. HE called Comcast, and in about half an hour I got a call from Comcast Customer Resolution (or whatever it is they call the office where this kind of thing gets resolved) with a solution. (It's free.)
They expected legal action, and they still overwhelmingly told the Metro Council that they wanted Google Fiber.
If Comcast fails to meet the terms of their existing contract, sue them. The correct answer is not to unilaterally change the rules out from under the contract. Letting "other guys" just move your stuff because they want to put their's on the pole, too, is also not the right answer. Do you WANT service to drop out on a regular basis caused by people who move Comcast's stuff, or do you want to be able to keep pointing the finger at Comcast when it does? Be careful -- this finger pointing exercise was a major downside to telecom divestiture. It was no longer "call the phone company" to come fix your broken phone service. It became "that's a long distance problem, call your long distance carrier", or "that's a local loop problem, call them". Getting a bad line fixed was a major nightmare.
"The driver, who has to be there to help the truck get on and off the interstate exit ramps, moved to the backseat alongside a crowd of transportation officials to watch the historic ride."
What struck me most about this is not that there was a driver in this autonomous vehicle. That's normal. It's that he got in back with a CROWD of officials. In a truck like that, a "crowd" is what, ONE or TWO?
If you are having font size problems due to readability, in general, a site-wide font size increase is recommended.
Thank you for your unsolicited recommendation. Given that most pages, and most sites, do not have font size settings, using a general solution such as the one I already spoke of is the best course of action.
If a specific article chose very small fonts, most sites have A symbols with a +/- font size increase/decrease that applies to the page.
No, most pages do not have such an option. Your experience with the sites you visit is not universal.
Or you can increase font sizes in general on Chrome and Opera and Firefox.
I think I already said that. Not for Chrome or Opera which I do not use, but for Firefox. Perhaps you remember seeing that somewhere and thought you needed to recommend that to me?
Now go Read The Fine Manual. I'm not here to solve your problems, grandpa.
I didn't ask you to solve a problem. I don't know what made you thing I had. I corrected your claim that most pages have such a setting by using/. itself as a counter example.
You managed to be civil for so much of that post, it is a shame that you couldn't manage 100%.
No, I didn't turn off the menu bar. Had I somehow turned off the menu bar, 1. that's a browser operation which has nothing to do with/. "name at the top right", and 2. were it/. specific, I wouldn't have gotten a "name->options" button to click on at all.
What you are telling me about is a setting for the site, not a setting on a page. Yeah, some sites (still not "most") have saved settings for users with accounts. And a few have the per-page font option. That's not a setting on "most pages". It may be "most pages you access", but that's not a valid extrapolation to the rest of us.
click on your name upper right - options - ta da! there it is on slashdot
Not on the page I'm looking at right now, not on the page where I read your reply, and not on the page I get when I click on my name->options. Zero for three.
On most web sites there is a font size (usually an A) and +/- next to it. Click on that.
Seriously, there's even a setting on most pages to change the default font size, so the text renders in a larger font size.
Look on/.... long pause... no, it's not here. I've never seen one on any page, much less most pages.
Now, what there IS is a setting in Firefox (and I assume others) where you can set not only the minimum font size but what fonts are used for various kinds of text. Preferences->Content, Fonts&Colors->Advanced. And a small checkbox that says "allow pages to use their own fonts instead of the selections above" which should be unchecked.
I long ago had to set a minimum because of morons who thought that I should be able to read their fancy 3 point font. Where it doesn't always work, I think, is because "size=-1" gets around the limit -- a bug. It's sometimes interesting to undo those setting for a page just to see how awful it looks based on the designer's "vision".
This problem is not limited to web pages. "Art" has taken over the technology world, including many technical magazines and journals. Sidebars that are dark blue text with light blue background, for example, which means you cannot xerox the article even if it was readable. Or background images that have the same lack of contrast for the text.
And while Wired did just fine with the circus layout they adopted, this format does not fit well with all kinds of magazines. "Eye catching" does not equate to "useful" or "readable."
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
That's what I said.
I never said it would.
What is the purpose of more gun control laws, if not to take guns out of the hands of true criminals? Your goal is to take them out of the hands of everyone?
Well you could've used this space to give us a reason,
You made the extraordinary claim, the onus is upon you to support it when challenged. If you can't imagine any use other than "killing lots of people", then that's your limitation (either deliberate or not). All I need to do is point to our constitution which tells me that I don't need to provide any reason at all to keep and bear arms.
Ah, good. You do know there's also no evidence of any "actual attacks" by Bill Clinton, right?
No, I know exactly the opposite.
Lewinsky was consensual, by her own testimony.
Lewinsky wasn't claiming there was an attack upon her, nor is anyone else. Sexual harassment is a non-consensual situation, even if the victim claims she agreed to every second of the activity. Coercion doesn't have to be at the point of a knife. The fact that everyone agrees the acts took place is evidence, which you are denying exists.
Now we're finally getting down to business. Either we believe women or we don't.
Not in the criminal justice system. There it takes evidence. People keep claiming that Trump has committed rape and is a pedophile, without so much as a single day in court. It takes more than a she-said to convict someone.
The hypocrisy is not that anyone is excusing actual attacks for one side but not the other. The hypocrisy is that we were told that the women who came forward regarding Bill Clinton's alleged attacks were "bimbo eruptions" and "that's what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park". (And in the same kind of respect for women we got that it was "putting lipstick on a pig" regarding Sarah Palin.) When it is Trump being accused, the same people are saying "we must listen to every woman".
If you want to take sexual assault off the table for both candidates,
Who said anything about doing that? I think it needs to be proven before it becomes accepted as a fact. And I'm sorry, but one person telling 6 or 600 people that "Trump did this bad thing to me" doesn't make it any more true, and it doesn't mean that there are 6 or 600 people who can corroborate that bad thing. I can tell 6000 people today that you held me up at gunpoint last night; exactly zero of them can corroborate your action or lack thereof. People who think People Magazine is a source of legal advice and knowledge are naive at best.
You miss something. Stoynoff told them Trump attacked her, at the time Trump attacked her.
No, I didn't miss anything. It was't at the time he attacked her, it was after, and all it was was her telling them. They have no independent knowledge of the incident and can therefore not corroborate it. All they can corroborate is that she told them something happened, which isn't a fact that is in question. We know what she is saying. What we don't have any evidence of is the actual attack.
If you read that People Magazine story carefully, there are actually NO people who can corroborate the attack. The people that are mentioned in regard to the attack all report only what they were told by the reporter. They have no independent knowledge of their own to provide. The most they can corroborate is that "Stoynoff said Trump attacked her", and I think that's a fact that isn't in question.
The only true corroboration in that article is that the reporter and Trump "chatted in a friendly way" during a meeting between Stoynoff, Donald, and Melania. The "corroborating" witness comments that what struck her most about that meeting was that Melania was carrying a child and wearing high heels. I think "Donald slammed her up against a wall and stuck his tongue down her throat" would have ranked a bit higher than the sartorial attire of Trump's wife had it been observed.
Even Stoynoff claims that she and Trump were alone when the alleged attack happened. At that point it becomes a he-said she-said (or zie-said zie-said, if you will). If allegation is all it takes to prove guilt these days, then we've a plethora of allegations we can consider about both candidates, some of which have a lot more evidence than "she told me that..."
Please cite the court verdict that proves this accusation. All I know of is one woman who filed a civil suit using a fake address for something that happened twenty two years ago. There is no evidence to back up that claim, and no lawyer or civil rights group bothering to help her.
Do you have the facts that could effect the outcome of this lawsuit?
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
The idea that "just one more law" will take guns out of the hands of true criminals (and not just people who are suddenly criminals only because of that "one more law") is foolish. "Just One More Law" is never intended to impact the true criminal, because "normal people" understand that the true criminal element won't obey that law, either. What other purpose than removing guns from law abiding citizens can ANY law that does nothing but remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens have?
By the way, your claim that automatic weapons have no use other than "killing lots of people" kinda gives away your anti-gun bias. The fact that you do not want to admit to any other use doesn't mean they don't actually have any.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
I'm pretty sure 13 yr olds can't give consent to a 59 yr old.
I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump has never been convicted of this crime.
I'm pretty sure that 22 years has elapsed since it allegedly took place, which would make it difficult to present an affirmative alibi. (Do you know what you were doing on an evening 22 years ago? Be specific, and provide corroborating witnesses.)
I'm pretty sure that were there some supporting evidence at all, there would be plenty of lawyers willing to represent the plaintiff, either pro bono or for a contingency, and at least one group that would foot the court costs.
I'm pretty sure that a $100 million lawsuit that had any validity at all would not have used a false address when it was first filed.
And
I'm pretty sure if the defendant was differently connected there would be women's and human rights activists stepping forward to defend him by saying things like "drag a $20 through a trailerpark...".
All of that said, it doesn't prove anything, just put a lot of doubt on the allegation. The fact that this came up in a discussion originally about Peter Thiel, who has been accused of trying to use frivolous lawsuits to accomplish his goals, is ironic at least.
A lot of people have spouses or parents coming into their homes
The "in their homes" meme is a smoke screen by someone who wants simple, easy vote fraud to become the norm. He thinks if he keeps repeating the claim that is impossible and would never happen that everyone else will decide to stop talking about the obvious lack of security.
Some people get their mail "in their homes". Some people get their mail "at the post office". Some people get their mail at a small box located up to a half a mile or more from their homes. Where I grew up our mailbox was 1/4 mile away. But this is all irrelevant. Where you get your mail doesn't matter.
The ballots do not have a GPS tracker that invalidate them if the ballot leaves "their home". Ballots are not some huge, heavy object that are hard to transport. They are small, easily carried objects that can be taken anywhere that the recipient wishes them to go -- whether that is from the mailbox to the living room, or to the union office, or to work, or where ever. Trying to claim that people only vote "in their homes" and since nobody can violate the sanctity of this castle there is no possible issue is just stupid. Dumbass.
I've personally received a call from the office because I started using a different signature after college, and was told to come down to the office to verify my signature before it would be counted.
Nice that they did this, and had your phone number so they could do that. That's not done in Oregon. My phone number is not part of the driver's license data that is used to register voters.
After verification, The outer envelope is opened, and your ballot secured in the inner envelope is removed, and placed with all other ballots to be counted, ensuring anonymity.
So, pray tell, your first, coerced ballot comes in and goes into this anonymous box. You walk into the office and say "I was coerced, I want to change my vote." How do they know which of the thousands of anonymous ballots in the box to pull back out to cancel your first vote?
You might say that the wrong people in charge of your ballot could throw an election, but that is true whether it is paper or electronic.
Vote-by-mail does not solve any of the problems of ballot handling that take place after the ballots enter that anonymous box, but it creates an entire new class of problems involving how that ballot gets to the box in the first place. The fact that election officials can still cause fraudulent results does not mean we should overlook the gaping security issues of vote-by-mail.
When people go to a polling place and are watched entering and exiting the booth, and their ballot is tracked from the time it is handed to them until it enters the anonymous box, you cannot have a situation where one spouse takes a ballot that the other spouse has thrown away, votes it, and sends it in. (And if I hear "but but but it has to have a SIGNATURE" from someone who thinks that one spouse can never forge the other's signature, I'm going to scream.)
once you remove the ballot from the envelope used ot send it to you, its no longer connected to you. this is not a difficult concept.
It is apparently difficult enough that you don't seem to understand this at all. The ballot is not connected to you, but the ENVELOPE YOU SEND IT BACK IN IS. And it's irrelevant, since a coerced vote will be returned in the proper envelope with the voter's id on the outside, but it proves nothing about who actually filled out that ballot.
and they don't have these issues you keep creating in your head.
Of course they have these issues. You just don't understand what the issue is or how it works.
just because you are too ignorant to understand how its done, doesn't mean it cant be done.
How ironic that these are the exact words I would use regarding your inability to think of any ways of defrauding vote-by-mail.
Really? You think people are going to be extorting whole neighborhoods for an extended period for their ballots,
I think the example I used was for a union, and yes, I think that some unions will quite happily try to adjust the voting patterns of their members.
it would be far more efficient, safer, and faster to just extort the ballot officials
Oh, ok then. We can rest assured that people who want to influence an election will choose only the most efficient and safest method of trying to bribe one official instead of influencing hundreds of people whose jobs may depend on voting the right way.
Vote parent up. Mail-in ballots have a unique ID printed on the ballot. The ID is correlated with the voter's request for a mail-in ballot.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
I've never seen an ID on the ballots I've gotten. All the identifying information is on the envelope(s).
I've never sent in a mail-in ballot request, so there is no "voter's request" to correlate an ID to.
but it's impossible to do this on a significant scale without having several inside men in the Post Office.
When "inside man" can be as simple as "someone who goes into post offices and looks in the trash cans for discarded ballots", the difficulty level goes way down.
still doesn't solve the matching signature requirement, so its still a made up non-existent problem, a hypothetical that you don't need to worry about..
Your inability to think of a solution to the "signature requirement" isn't a limitation to those who have done so.
Why shouldn't we worry about obvious issues in voting security? Just because you can't imagine anyone trying to commit vote fraud or how they might get around trivial verification methods?
Slashdot Mirror
Eveway isway away oofusday.
You're requested to turn off all electronics during takeoff and landing,
Not anymore, not in the US.
but you can still use this app while you're in the air.
Does Delta provide WiFi or cellular for data while airborne?
If it were "Station" based like you suggest, then the entire passenger list would be calling Delta to report lost luggage even though their luggage is 4 feet below them!
Ummm, if it is "station" based, it would say "onboard", just like they are. And nobody is going to be calling Delta about a lost bag before they arrive.
It would be smart for the app to provide the actual plane's location while you are in flight.
Uhhh, what? Why?
And this is how people are, they don't care that they are a danger to the whole internet and them being knocked off is a service to the world. What they care about is their stupid little gimmicky toy.
How people really are is that they don't know what the Internet is so they don't know that their "stupid little gimmicky toy" could possibly be a problem because of some distant and unknown infrastructure issue. It's not a deliberate decision to cause harm, and it's not selfish.
What you think is a "gimmicky toy" may be a security cam they use to keep track of the house while they're gone because they've had issues before. It certainly is NOT something that was sold with a big warning notice that attaching it to the network in their house, behind a cable router that stops everything else from getting in, will cause death and destruction, or problems of any kind to anyone. They certainly did NOT say "fuck you" to any idea of trouble and forge ahead maliciously.
And I'd hate to think that maybe they are thinking that YOUR use of the Internet is for "gimmicky toys" like "why do you need to run your own mail server when Gmail does it for free"?
So, maybe notch the venom down a bit and accept that the problem is not the fault of the people who buy the devices and use them as instructed. People don't need to be, and shouldn't have to be, leet haxor neckbeards with in-depth knowledge of the Internet to use a network-connected device. This is why the idea of having white-hat hackers brick the devices is so tragically wrong. As soon as they start doing that to protect their turf they lose any ethical high ground because they are hurting innocent people and not the ones who produced the faulty devices.
But they'll all call the manufacturer and complain, right? Probably not. They'll take the thing back to the store they bought it from (also not network experts) and get a new one. When it stops working again, they'll get their money back. They won't search out the manufacturer, and are unlikely to find who actually built and programmed it anyway considering it is probably a Chinese company to start with. For example, I have some internet power switches that I caught sending data off to China. Don't know who, and I have no idea who built them. I know the store I bought them from. That's where the trail to the culprits ends.
A year ago, my Comcast service would often drop out dozens of times a day (confirmed by my modem logs). Calls to Comcast service got me nowhere.
Did you call your local franchise authority to complain and ask for their help?
When I was fighting Comcast about a cableCard and what they wanted to charge (after saying it would be free), I called my local franchise specialist. HE called Comcast, and in about half an hour I got a call from Comcast Customer Resolution (or whatever it is they call the office where this kind of thing gets resolved) with a solution. (It's free.)
They expected legal action, and they still overwhelmingly told the Metro Council that they wanted Google Fiber.
If Comcast fails to meet the terms of their existing contract, sue them. The correct answer is not to unilaterally change the rules out from under the contract. Letting "other guys" just move your stuff because they want to put their's on the pole, too, is also not the right answer. Do you WANT service to drop out on a regular basis caused by people who move Comcast's stuff, or do you want to be able to keep pointing the finger at Comcast when it does? Be careful -- this finger pointing exercise was a major downside to telecom divestiture. It was no longer "call the phone company" to come fix your broken phone service. It became "that's a long distance problem, call your long distance carrier", or "that's a local loop problem, call them". Getting a bad line fixed was a major nightmare.
"The driver, who has to be there to help the truck get on and off the interstate exit ramps, moved to the backseat alongside a crowd of transportation officials to watch the historic ride."
What struck me most about this is not that there was a driver in this autonomous vehicle. That's normal. It's that he got in back with a CROWD of officials. In a truck like that, a "crowd" is what, ONE or TWO?
If you are having font size problems due to readability, in general, a site-wide font size increase is recommended.
Thank you for your unsolicited recommendation. Given that most pages, and most sites, do not have font size settings, using a general solution such as the one I already spoke of is the best course of action.
If a specific article chose very small fonts, most sites have A symbols with a +/- font size increase/decrease that applies to the page.
No, most pages do not have such an option. Your experience with the sites you visit is not universal.
Or you can increase font sizes in general on Chrome and Opera and Firefox.
I think I already said that. Not for Chrome or Opera which I do not use, but for Firefox. Perhaps you remember seeing that somewhere and thought you needed to recommend that to me?
Now go Read The Fine Manual. I'm not here to solve your problems, grandpa.
I didn't ask you to solve a problem. I don't know what made you thing I had. I corrected your claim that most pages have such a setting by using /. itself as a counter example.
You managed to be civil for so much of that post, it is a shame that you couldn't manage 100%.
What you are telling me about is a setting for the site, not a setting on a page. Yeah, some sites (still not "most") have saved settings for users with accounts. And a few have the per-page font option. That's not a setting on "most pages". It may be "most pages you access", but that's not a valid extrapolation to the rest of us.
click on your name upper right - options - ta da! there it is on slashdot
Not on the page I'm looking at right now, not on the page where I read your reply, and not on the page I get when I click on my name->options. Zero for three.
On most web sites there is a font size (usually an A) and +/- next to it. Click on that.
Not on most pages. Some, maybe. Most, no.
Seriously, there's even a setting on most pages to change the default font size, so the text renders in a larger font size.
Look on /. ... long pause ... no, it's not here. I've never seen one on any page, much less most pages.
Now, what there IS is a setting in Firefox (and I assume others) where you can set not only the minimum font size but what fonts are used for various kinds of text. Preferences->Content, Fonts&Colors->Advanced. And a small checkbox that says "allow pages to use their own fonts instead of the selections above" which should be unchecked.
I long ago had to set a minimum because of morons who thought that I should be able to read their fancy 3 point font. Where it doesn't always work, I think, is because "size=-1" gets around the limit -- a bug. It's sometimes interesting to undo those setting for a page just to see how awful it looks based on the designer's "vision".
This problem is not limited to web pages. "Art" has taken over the technology world, including many technical magazines and journals. Sidebars that are dark blue text with light blue background, for example, which means you cannot xerox the article even if it was readable. Or background images that have the same lack of contrast for the text. And while Wired did just fine with the circus layout they adopted, this format does not fit well with all kinds of magazines. "Eye catching" does not equate to "useful" or "readable."
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
That's what I said.
I never said it would.
What is the purpose of more gun control laws, if not to take guns out of the hands of true criminals? Your goal is to take them out of the hands of everyone?
Well you could've used this space to give us a reason,
You made the extraordinary claim, the onus is upon you to support it when challenged. If you can't imagine any use other than "killing lots of people", then that's your limitation (either deliberate or not). All I need to do is point to our constitution which tells me that I don't need to provide any reason at all to keep and bear arms.
Ah, good. You do know there's also no evidence of any "actual attacks" by Bill Clinton, right?
No, I know exactly the opposite.
Lewinsky was consensual, by her own testimony.
Lewinsky wasn't claiming there was an attack upon her, nor is anyone else. Sexual harassment is a non-consensual situation, even if the victim claims she agreed to every second of the activity. Coercion doesn't have to be at the point of a knife. The fact that everyone agrees the acts took place is evidence, which you are denying exists.
Now we're finally getting down to business. Either we believe women or we don't.
Not in the criminal justice system. There it takes evidence. People keep claiming that Trump has committed rape and is a pedophile, without so much as a single day in court. It takes more than a she-said to convict someone.
The hypocrisy is not that anyone is excusing actual attacks for one side but not the other. The hypocrisy is that we were told that the women who came forward regarding Bill Clinton's alleged attacks were "bimbo eruptions" and "that's what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park". (And in the same kind of respect for women we got that it was "putting lipstick on a pig" regarding Sarah Palin.) When it is Trump being accused, the same people are saying "we must listen to every woman".
If you want to take sexual assault off the table for both candidates,
Who said anything about doing that? I think it needs to be proven before it becomes accepted as a fact. And I'm sorry, but one person telling 6 or 600 people that "Trump did this bad thing to me" doesn't make it any more true, and it doesn't mean that there are 6 or 600 people who can corroborate that bad thing. I can tell 6000 people today that you held me up at gunpoint last night; exactly zero of them can corroborate your action or lack thereof. People who think People Magazine is a source of legal advice and knowledge are naive at best.
You miss something. Stoynoff told them Trump attacked her, at the time Trump attacked her.
No, I didn't miss anything. It was't at the time he attacked her, it was after, and all it was was her telling them. They have no independent knowledge of the incident and can therefore not corroborate it. All they can corroborate is that she told them something happened, which isn't a fact that is in question. We know what she is saying. What we don't have any evidence of is the actual attack.
The only true corroboration in that article is that the reporter and Trump "chatted in a friendly way" during a meeting between Stoynoff, Donald, and Melania. The "corroborating" witness comments that what struck her most about that meeting was that Melania was carrying a child and wearing high heels. I think "Donald slammed her up against a wall and stuck his tongue down her throat" would have ranked a bit higher than the sartorial attire of Trump's wife had it been observed.
Even Stoynoff claims that she and Trump were alone when the alleged attack happened. At that point it becomes a he-said she-said (or zie-said zie-said, if you will). If allegation is all it takes to prove guilt these days, then we've a plethora of allegations we can consider about both candidates, some of which have a lot more evidence than "she told me that..."
but Trump actually raped an underage girl
Please cite the court verdict that proves this accusation. All I know of is one woman who filed a civil suit using a fake address for something that happened twenty two years ago. There is no evidence to back up that claim, and no lawyer or civil rights group bothering to help her.
Do you have the facts that could effect the outcome of this lawsuit?
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
The idea that "just one more law" will take guns out of the hands of true criminals (and not just people who are suddenly criminals only because of that "one more law") is foolish. "Just One More Law" is never intended to impact the true criminal, because "normal people" understand that the true criminal element won't obey that law, either. What other purpose than removing guns from law abiding citizens can ANY law that does nothing but remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens have?
By the way, your claim that automatic weapons have no use other than "killing lots of people" kinda gives away your anti-gun bias. The fact that you do not want to admit to any other use doesn't mean they don't actually have any.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
FTFY.
I'm pretty sure 13 yr olds can't give consent to a 59 yr old.
I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump has never been convicted of this crime.
I'm pretty sure that 22 years has elapsed since it allegedly took place, which would make it difficult to present an affirmative alibi. (Do you know what you were doing on an evening 22 years ago? Be specific, and provide corroborating witnesses.)
I'm pretty sure that were there some supporting evidence at all, there would be plenty of lawyers willing to represent the plaintiff, either pro bono or for a contingency, and at least one group that would foot the court costs.
I'm pretty sure that a $100 million lawsuit that had any validity at all would not have used a false address when it was first filed.
And I'm pretty sure if the defendant was differently connected there would be women's and human rights activists stepping forward to defend him by saying things like "drag a $20 through a trailerpark...".
All of that said, it doesn't prove anything, just put a lot of doubt on the allegation. The fact that this came up in a discussion originally about Peter Thiel, who has been accused of trying to use frivolous lawsuits to accomplish his goals, is ironic at least.
Are you confusing dynamic IP addresses with private netblocks?
Doesn't the back of your drivers license have a magnetic stripe on it?
No. Oregon has an optical PDF_417 text data block and a CODE_128 barcode on the back.
A lot of people have spouses or parents coming into their homes
The "in their homes" meme is a smoke screen by someone who wants simple, easy vote fraud to become the norm. He thinks if he keeps repeating the claim that is impossible and would never happen that everyone else will decide to stop talking about the obvious lack of security.
Some people get their mail "in their homes". Some people get their mail "at the post office". Some people get their mail at a small box located up to a half a mile or more from their homes. Where I grew up our mailbox was 1/4 mile away. But this is all irrelevant. Where you get your mail doesn't matter.
The ballots do not have a GPS tracker that invalidate them if the ballot leaves "their home". Ballots are not some huge, heavy object that are hard to transport. They are small, easily carried objects that can be taken anywhere that the recipient wishes them to go -- whether that is from the mailbox to the living room, or to the union office, or to work, or where ever. Trying to claim that people only vote "in their homes" and since nobody can violate the sanctity of this castle there is no possible issue is just stupid. Dumbass.
I've personally received a call from the office because I started using a different signature after college, and was told to come down to the office to verify my signature before it would be counted.
Nice that they did this, and had your phone number so they could do that. That's not done in Oregon. My phone number is not part of the driver's license data that is used to register voters.
After verification, The outer envelope is opened, and your ballot secured in the inner envelope is removed, and placed with all other ballots to be counted, ensuring anonymity.
So, pray tell, your first, coerced ballot comes in and goes into this anonymous box. You walk into the office and say "I was coerced, I want to change my vote." How do they know which of the thousands of anonymous ballots in the box to pull back out to cancel your first vote?
You might say that the wrong people in charge of your ballot could throw an election, but that is true whether it is paper or electronic.
Vote-by-mail does not solve any of the problems of ballot handling that take place after the ballots enter that anonymous box, but it creates an entire new class of problems involving how that ballot gets to the box in the first place. The fact that election officials can still cause fraudulent results does not mean we should overlook the gaping security issues of vote-by-mail.
When people go to a polling place and are watched entering and exiting the booth, and their ballot is tracked from the time it is handed to them until it enters the anonymous box, you cannot have a situation where one spouse takes a ballot that the other spouse has thrown away, votes it, and sends it in. (And if I hear "but but but it has to have a SIGNATURE" from someone who thinks that one spouse can never forge the other's signature, I'm going to scream.)
once you remove the ballot from the envelope used ot send it to you, its no longer connected to you. this is not a difficult concept.
It is apparently difficult enough that you don't seem to understand this at all. The ballot is not connected to you, but the ENVELOPE YOU SEND IT BACK IN IS. And it's irrelevant, since a coerced vote will be returned in the proper envelope with the voter's id on the outside, but it proves nothing about who actually filled out that ballot.
and they don't have these issues you keep creating in your head.
Of course they have these issues. You just don't understand what the issue is or how it works.
just because you are too ignorant to understand how its done, doesn't mean it cant be done.
How ironic that these are the exact words I would use regarding your inability to think of any ways of defrauding vote-by-mail.
Really? You think people are going to be extorting whole neighborhoods for an extended period for their ballots,
I think the example I used was for a union, and yes, I think that some unions will quite happily try to adjust the voting patterns of their members.
it would be far more efficient, safer, and faster to just extort the ballot officials
Oh, ok then. We can rest assured that people who want to influence an election will choose only the most efficient and safest method of trying to bribe one official instead of influencing hundreds of people whose jobs may depend on voting the right way.
Vote parent up. Mail-in ballots have a unique ID printed on the ballot. The ID is correlated with the voter's request for a mail-in ballot.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
I've never seen an ID on the ballots I've gotten. All the identifying information is on the envelope(s).
I've never sent in a mail-in ballot request, so there is no "voter's request" to correlate an ID to.
but it's impossible to do this on a significant scale without having several inside men in the Post Office.
When "inside man" can be as simple as "someone who goes into post offices and looks in the trash cans for discarded ballots", the difficulty level goes way down.
still doesn't solve the matching signature requirement, so its still a made up non-existent problem, a hypothetical that you don't need to worry about..
Your inability to think of a solution to the "signature requirement" isn't a limitation to those who have done so.
Why shouldn't we worry about obvious issues in voting security? Just because you can't imagine anyone trying to commit vote fraud or how they might get around trivial verification methods?