you'd need a facility with a total volume of 18,600,000 m^3
No, you'd need to process that much air. The facility could be much smaller, but you'd need to move so much air through it you'd be expending much more energy moving the air than you'd get back from the methanol.
Even if you contain all the air in the one facility, you won't be using 18 million cubic meters of water and catalyst, so you still have to move the air.
But it is a beautiful thought experiment to think about such a CO2 to methanol recovery device on the output of the burner of a hot air balloon. Maybe you could make enough methanol from it that you could replace the tank of propane and burn only methanol. And with thermal electric generation, you could install wireless networking in the balloon and have permanent access points in the sky...
Trust me, it makes no sense... I can guarantee you that it takes a lot more energy input than you can get out of the methanol.
Every energy storage process takes more energy to store it than you get back out. I don't think getting energy back out of the methanol is the goal. Using it for other industrial processes that require methanol would be more useful.
but if you wan to produce methanol, just produce it the normal ways.
This method can be used on the output of current industrial processes that produce carbon dioxide and prevent it from being released in the first place. It's less efficient to loose the dragon and then hope a tree eats him than to just keep the dragon in the dungeon to start with.
e-ink is hugely expensive. This saves them a ton of money. but don't turn it on negative contrast or you'll be replacing toner cartridges like mad.
Doofus. e-ink doesn't use toner, it uses ink. You don't put toner carts into your ink-jet printer, do you?
Turning on negative can cause the e-ink to leak out of the e-book and get all over your hands. Impossible to wash off. And don't get me started on the damage that running an e-ink device through the washing machine with a load of whites can cause.
E-ink is expensive because it is a dead-end technology. There are so many more uses for LCD displays that volume drives prices down. e-ink works for e-book readers, that's about all. You can read your e-books on a full-function tablet device, so why buy something locked to one vendor? (Yes, I know that e-ink is very good for reading things so e-book readers have a niche.)
The article mentions 6mbps, that isn't fast enough to support many modern and common household internet usages
Like what? It's enough for TV-quality streaming video,
No, this must be one of the few times where they actually mean 6 MILLI-bits per second (mbps) and not 6 MEGA-bits per second (Mbps). Six mbps means you get one character every, umm, 27 minutes. Six Mbps would be fast enough for streaming all kinds of things.
"Cloud only hardware". Must remember this phrase, really sums up the current trend.
Yeah. I just bought a Cisco MS220 switch. I get thirty days of free access to the cloud web management to set it up, then I'm supposed to pay for a license on a yearly basis. The local management options are limited, including the wonderful fact that it will not change it's interface from 1.1.1.100 to the IP address I configure it for, nor will it stop reporting details of my internal network to Cisco unless I block it at the router. Which I did.
It's a damn switch -- a piece of hardware. Why does Cisco think they need to know how many other hosts are on my network and on which ports they appear?
You said the street was designed for multi-ton vehicles, I corrected you, the street was designed for horses, and adapted for multi-ton vehicles.
"Adapted" requires design. They didn't just pour a layer of concrete over the horsepath and call it good. There are people who get paid to do this stuff and they don't let it get done without their input.
But I get it, you're one of those assholes who think that ruining someone else's neighborhood for your convenience is okay.
You're one of those assholes who will put words in other people's mouths when you cannot browbeat them into agreeing with you. I did not say anything about ruining someone else's neighborhood and you know it. Other people have the right to use public streets no matter how much you don't like it, and the taxpayers who paid for that street have the right to object to deliberate degradation of the street just to force people to drive below the speed limit.
Streets are neither designed nor intended for children to play in. They are designed (yes, even when a horse path is converted to a street) for cars. Cars and children do not mix. Those streets are also not designed for "block parties".
So, if you think that keeping children from playing in the street or having a "block party" somewhere besides in the middle of a road is "destroying" a neighborhood, then you are one of those self-entitled assholes who thinks that public facilities belong to you instead of the public as a whole.
There, I insulted you using the same terms you thought were appropriate to apply to me because I disagree with you. Wasn't that fun and productive? How about suppressing your urge to resort to such insults next time? Oh, how dare I suggest that.
Many people would consider it odd if your response to people killing other people was: well if you don't like killing people,
I believe this is called "moral equivalency" and it is a logical fallacy. To equate making a joke that might be offensive with what some people consider murder is patently absurd, and patently offensive.
The remainder of your moral equivalence examples involving death and murder, ignored.
Since never. You're still allowed to offend people,
Unless you are scheduled to speak on a college campus and the local vocal potential offendees get your talk cancelled because you might say something they don't like.
College students tend to be inexperienced stubborn idiots. That means they're trying to find their place in the world, and the way an inexperienced idiot would do that is to try to change the world.
You don't change the world by prohibiting parts of it you don't like from speaking where you might hear it. It becomes the task of the experienced non-idiots who run colleges to prevent the inexperienced idiots from squelching speech they don't like, not for them to kowtow to the inexperienced idiots and bend to their every whim.
The street I grew up on was designed for horses, not multi-ton vehicles.
I didn't know you were that old. I am sure that if it is still a street, it has been reworked to handle multi-ton vehicles, otherwise, there is little danger of children being hit by them today. I mean, the horsepath you lived on would be impassible by today's modern conveyances.
Or are you saying kids should have to transverse a mile of crosswalks to play in a park infested with transients simply to avoid commuters looking for "shortcut"?
I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I'm sure they are quite safe from cars when they cross the horse paths that you grew up with.
Since when have we reached the point where you aren't allowed to annoy or offend people?
Well, at least as far back as 1999, as reported here. When a professor cannot use the word "niggardly" in his classroom talking about Chaucer because an ignorant student refuses to be educated as to the meaning of that word, we've gone well past the point.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
The difference is that there are active steps being taken to keep people who are PREDICTED to talk about things that are "offensive" from being able to talk at all. Church ladies protesting outside are fine, until they hinder people who want to attend the Clay show. If they link arms and block access, they've crossed the line.
And even this example I think crosses the line. We recently had a "public forum" with an "open mic" relating to the feelings of minorities on campus. I think it had stemmed from the stuff where a basketball team threatened to strike if the provost of their university didn't resign, or some such.
One poor white sot actually spoke at the "public meeting" with an "open mic". He was branded a racist and was run through the public ringer for daring to speak when only minorities were allowed to. He had at least one apology published in the student newspaper, and I think it made the city paper as well.
I believe what he said was actually supportive of the minorities, but the fact he was white was the only thing they heard. It was offensive for him to speak in support of them.
So -- "the rights and freedoms they grew up enjoying should be curtailed such that they only extend to people who agree with them" doesn't cover it anymore. "Agree with me and be the same minority as I am" is closer to the truth.
Excellent, actually. You're describing the rebirth of student activism.
Activism directed towards squelching the freedoms of others is not "excellent" activism. Would it be "excellent" if a student KKK group started "activisming" to get all the "wrong color" people off campus?
It's high time we began trying to improve again, rather than just mindlessly hoard stuff.
Then it is your opinion that we are "improving" things to get an education in a microcosm of the real world, protected from world views that differ from your own, taught only the appropriate social and political concepts, to wind up graduated out into a world with a veritable plethora of ideas that differ from yours and are a complete mystery because you've been shielded from them?
the road I grew up on, is no longer safe for kids, at anytime.
How about the time when they are standing on the sidewalk and not playing in the middle of a place designed for the transit of multi-ton vehicles? Are they still unsafe then?
What I don't get, is why people feel the need to justify Speeding down Residential streets where kids want to play, simply because they are inconvenienced by normal traffic.
Yeah, that's a problem. But the answer is not to deliberately degrade public streets so you cannot physically drive faster than ten miles an hour less than the speed limit on them. Honest, law abiding citizens get punished for the acts of a few, and that's not a good answer.
It also hinders emergency response, so even people without cars who live on that street are endangered by "traffic calming" devices.
Ultimately of course kids are kids and drivers are selfish.
Why not teach kids not to run into ANY street, to cross at the crosswalks, to look both ways, and that the people who live on that street need to be able to drive away from their homes so they can go to work and earn a living to feed those very same children? Of course, drivers are drivers and kids are selfish...
; resulting for safer public spaces for kids, pedestrians, pets, block parties, pickup soccer, and life in general.
There are other places than the middle of the street for "block parties" and playing soccer; places where cars are absolutely prohibited. So you suggest the selfish attitude that you can run a soccer match anywhere you like instead of in a place devoid of any possible car-player interaction?
And "life in general" is untrue. When fire response is slowed because they cannot navigate the streets safely in a timely way, people die. That's a fact.
I've been through this "traffic calming debate" over my residential street. People who wanted their kids to play in the middle of the street, or were just tired of other people driving by. People drive "too fast", they said.
So I did exactly what this guy did -- fifteen years ago. It's not rocket science. You take a video camera and a digitizer. You write a bit of software that gathers all the pixels that fall on a line from point A to point B on the street and store just those, because those are all you need. You measure the distance from point A to point B on the street. You look in the images for blobs moving along that line and time how long it takes for them to get from A to B. Distance divided by time -- speed. It's good enough for government work, because that is effectively the same way the government measured the speeds on our street. Pneumatic tubes separated by X distance.
I brought my results to the public meeting about the plan to deliberately degrade the road I've been paying taxes to maintain. I talked to the city engineer in charge of such stuff, showed him my numbers. He said yeah, they were the same as what he'd measured, but the city reports the results in a way that artificially inflates the "mean" speed. My numbers showed there was no speed issue.
I also pointed out that there was no speed limit sign on our street until almost a block after the end where people on a higher limit street turned onto it. They turn from a 35MPH zone onto a 25MPH zoned street but aren't told of the change until a block later. If speed is an issue, why isn't the street marked better? The engineer said that wasn't a problem because speeds were lower there anyway due to more cars being parked there on a regular basis.
Eventually the plan was dropped. Thank goodness. And we've had just the same number of gruesome deaths on our street before the plan was proposed as after it was dropped. Zero.
Yeah, someone with too much time on his hands has a web page with the information on it. Thank goodness we have the interwebs so we can all enjoy such an enriching and valuable tidbit of information to make our daily lives just that much more livable.
I think I'll go watch some cute cat videos because I feel a bit depressed right now. And maybe later I'll go look at what all the people instagramming every meal they've had ate for breakfast. But wait, someone just reported the critical detail that he's walking in the park and saw a bird. Gotta go... this could be big!
Delusional winger bullshit. With the right to vote must come the right for your vote to be counted,
They were, twice, in the timeframe allocated to do so, in the manner determined by the Florida legislature, who had the sole authority for making such decisions. The result was certified by the Florida Secretary of State, in the manner prescribed by state law.
It is delusional to pretend that pushing the certification of the Florida results past the date the electoral college meets to cast their votes is NOT an attempt at disenfranchising every voter in Florida. You claim that there is a right for every vote to be counted, and I say "of course." Trying to remove the effect of the votes of all the Florida voters is not "counting every vote". Yeah, the votes would be counted, but the electors from Florida wouldn't get to vote in the electoral college, thus throwing the election to Gore who had the majority otherwise.
As for the "process already agreed to", Gore was following state law,
State law defined the process that Gore was trying to get overridden by SCOTUS. He wasn't following state law, he was trying to get it changed, after the election was over.
In any case, it was the state of Florida recounting the votes, not the Gore campaign.
Who said it was Gore doing the actual recounts? Gore and his lawyers were in court trying to force yet another recount.
Yes, facts remain even when wingnuts try to make stupid stuff up.
With a direct process like in my country, it does not matter how many time you partition and recount
When you recount them to the same standards it does not matter how many times you recount, and that's what I've said. But CHANGING THE PROCESS means you aren't counting them to the same standards, or counting the same ballots.
When you say "the standard is a hole in a piece of paper" and count them the first time, and then change the standard to be "a hole OR any 'dimple' where the hole might be", your answer will be different. When you add in "we're throwing out absentees from certain people/origins that we counted the first time", you get yet another number.
So yes, in ANY system, if you change the system after the election is over you can be pretty sure that the results will come out differently. Even in your perfect country with its perfect system, which you did not identify. And if you are able to target specific kinds of ballots for elimination because they've been counted and you know they favor the other candidate, then yes, it is almost certain you can change the result.
But with a represenative process you have shenanigan like gerrymandering and you can "win" election before the vote and recount can change the results.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the voting process, and it does not occur while the ballots are being counted and therefore cannot change the result of a count.
It appears that you do not understand what gerrymandering is or when it happens. It cannot change the outcome of a vote based on a recount.
Apparently they don't, because they commonly don't count military votes at all, let alone "the valid ones".
Nonsense. People on active duty in the military do not give up their right to vote. They can vote absentee just like anyone else who is unavailable to go to the polls on election day.
Some might even say they have more right to vote on the President than others.
The job was not 'get Gore elected', much as you think it was.
The job of the lawyers filing all the lawsuits and standing in front of judges certainly was to "get Gore elected". The goal of throwing out already counted ballots that favored Bush certainly was "get Gore elected". Pretending it wasn't is just ridiculous.
Out of the past 48 super bowl coin tosses, there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads, two streaks of 4 tails, two streaks of 3 heads, and two streaks of 3 tails.
Someone who keeps track of this kind of statistic has way too much time on his hands. It's way beyond the level of "this player has caught 3 out of 5 passes on a Thursday at night when the rain has just stopped and it is 39 degrees outside..." stuff that the color commentator loves to drop into the discussion.
it could have gone either way depending on the counting standard.
Well, d'oh. If you change the electoral process you can get different results. Like "let's count as votes for Gore ballots that aren't marked in any way as a vote for any presidential candidate" would probably result in a different answer. This isn't much different than the "let's look at every butterfly ballot and see if there is even the slightest dimple or depression or mark on any chad that hasn't been dislodged" standard that was applied in Dade County. "Poke hole in piece of paper which has pre-scored holes you just punch out" is way too hard.
Or the "let's throw out every absentee ballot from someone who registered using a form with a pre-filled-in voter id." Yes, that was one of the legal challenges. The Republican election official for one county had filled in the voter id number for people registering for absentee ballots, the Democrat had not. That should invalidate someone's vote, shouldn't it?
Or "let's throw out every military absentee where the military didn't properly postmark the ballot". People on active duty military service don't deserve to vote, do they?
Yes, changing the counting rules after the ballots are cast is a good way of changing the results. Not very honest, not very ethical, but it works -- if you can get the courts to go along with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love free copies of The Art of Programming by Knuth, or any of the K, R, or P books. Maybe even Bjorne.
you'd need a facility with a total volume of 18,600,000 m^3
No, you'd need to process that much air. The facility could be much smaller, but you'd need to move so much air through it you'd be expending much more energy moving the air than you'd get back from the methanol.
Even if you contain all the air in the one facility, you won't be using 18 million cubic meters of water and catalyst, so you still have to move the air.
But it is a beautiful thought experiment to think about such a CO2 to methanol recovery device on the output of the burner of a hot air balloon. Maybe you could make enough methanol from it that you could replace the tank of propane and burn only methanol. And with thermal electric generation, you could install wireless networking in the balloon and have permanent access points in the sky...
Trust me, it makes no sense... I can guarantee you that it takes a lot more energy input than you can get out of the methanol.
Every energy storage process takes more energy to store it than you get back out. I don't think getting energy back out of the methanol is the goal. Using it for other industrial processes that require methanol would be more useful.
but if you wan to produce methanol, just produce it the normal ways.
This method can be used on the output of current industrial processes that produce carbon dioxide and prevent it from being released in the first place. It's less efficient to loose the dragon and then hope a tree eats him than to just keep the dragon in the dungeon to start with.
e-ink is hugely expensive. This saves them a ton of money. but don't turn it on negative contrast or you'll be replacing toner cartridges like mad.
Doofus. e-ink doesn't use toner, it uses ink. You don't put toner carts into your ink-jet printer, do you?
Turning on negative can cause the e-ink to leak out of the e-book and get all over your hands. Impossible to wash off. And don't get me started on the damage that running an e-ink device through the washing machine with a load of whites can cause.
E-ink is expensive because it is a dead-end technology. There are so many more uses for LCD displays that volume drives prices down. e-ink works for e-book readers, that's about all. You can read your e-books on a full-function tablet device, so why buy something locked to one vendor? (Yes, I know that e-ink is very good for reading things so e-book readers have a niche.)
The article mentions 6mbps, that isn't fast enough to support many modern and common household internet usages
Like what? It's enough for TV-quality streaming video,
No, this must be one of the few times where they actually mean 6 MILLI-bits per second (mbps) and not 6 MEGA-bits per second (Mbps). Six mbps means you get one character every, umm, 27 minutes. Six Mbps would be fast enough for streaming all kinds of things.
I don't get hives, my response to the allergen is to have a palsy. This, of course, creates a positive feedback loop -- until I explode.
Yes, much like Kenny, those bastards with jackhammers kill me every time. Good thing I'm a time lord.
What compels you to keep it?
1. Once it gets over the fact that Momma isn't going to respond to it, it does work as a switch.
2. It has a healthy PoE capability, which is the only reason I bought it instead of another HP managed switch.
"Cloud only hardware". Must remember this phrase, really sums up the current trend.
Yeah. I just bought a Cisco MS220 switch. I get thirty days of free access to the cloud web management to set it up, then I'm supposed to pay for a license on a yearly basis. The local management options are limited, including the wonderful fact that it will not change it's interface from 1.1.1.100 to the IP address I configure it for, nor will it stop reporting details of my internal network to Cisco unless I block it at the router. Which I did.
It's a damn switch -- a piece of hardware. Why does Cisco think they need to know how many other hosts are on my network and on which ports they appear?
I'm pretty sure that I was not equating death to comedy.
Uhh, yeah, when you created the situation where the person talking about comedy was now talking about killing people, you did.
You said the street was designed for multi-ton vehicles, I corrected you, the street was designed for horses, and adapted for multi-ton vehicles.
"Adapted" requires design. They didn't just pour a layer of concrete over the horsepath and call it good. There are people who get paid to do this stuff and they don't let it get done without their input.
But I get it, you're one of those assholes who think that ruining someone else's neighborhood for your convenience is okay.
You're one of those assholes who will put words in other people's mouths when you cannot browbeat them into agreeing with you. I did not say anything about ruining someone else's neighborhood and you know it. Other people have the right to use public streets no matter how much you don't like it, and the taxpayers who paid for that street have the right to object to deliberate degradation of the street just to force people to drive below the speed limit.
Streets are neither designed nor intended for children to play in. They are designed (yes, even when a horse path is converted to a street) for cars. Cars and children do not mix. Those streets are also not designed for "block parties".
So, if you think that keeping children from playing in the street or having a "block party" somewhere besides in the middle of a road is "destroying" a neighborhood, then you are one of those self-entitled assholes who thinks that public facilities belong to you instead of the public as a whole.
There, I insulted you using the same terms you thought were appropriate to apply to me because I disagree with you. Wasn't that fun and productive? How about suppressing your urge to resort to such insults next time? Oh, how dare I suggest that.
I thought the edit button was labelled "preview".
Many people would consider it odd if your response to people killing other people was: well if you don't like killing people,
I believe this is called "moral equivalency" and it is a logical fallacy. To equate making a joke that might be offensive with what some people consider murder is patently absurd, and patently offensive.
The remainder of your moral equivalence examples involving death and murder, ignored.
Since never. You're still allowed to offend people,
Unless you are scheduled to speak on a college campus and the local vocal potential offendees get your talk cancelled because you might say something they don't like.
College students tend to be inexperienced stubborn idiots. That means they're trying to find their place in the world, and the way an inexperienced idiot would do that is to try to change the world.
You don't change the world by prohibiting parts of it you don't like from speaking where you might hear it. It becomes the task of the experienced non-idiots who run colleges to prevent the inexperienced idiots from squelching speech they don't like, not for them to kowtow to the inexperienced idiots and bend to their every whim.
The street I grew up on was designed for horses, not multi-ton vehicles.
I didn't know you were that old. I am sure that if it is still a street, it has been reworked to handle multi-ton vehicles, otherwise, there is little danger of children being hit by them today. I mean, the horsepath you lived on would be impassible by today's modern conveyances.
Or are you saying kids should have to transverse a mile of crosswalks to play in a park infested with transients simply to avoid commuters looking for "shortcut"?
I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I'm sure they are quite safe from cars when they cross the horse paths that you grew up with.
Since when have we reached the point where you aren't allowed to annoy or offend people?
Well, at least as far back as 1999, as reported here. When a professor cannot use the word "niggardly" in his classroom talking about Chaucer because an ignorant student refuses to be educated as to the meaning of that word, we've gone well past the point.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
The difference is that there are active steps being taken to keep people who are PREDICTED to talk about things that are "offensive" from being able to talk at all. Church ladies protesting outside are fine, until they hinder people who want to attend the Clay show. If they link arms and block access, they've crossed the line.
And even this example I think crosses the line. We recently had a "public forum" with an "open mic" relating to the feelings of minorities on campus. I think it had stemmed from the stuff where a basketball team threatened to strike if the provost of their university didn't resign, or some such.
One poor white sot actually spoke at the "public meeting" with an "open mic". He was branded a racist and was run through the public ringer for daring to speak when only minorities were allowed to. He had at least one apology published in the student newspaper, and I think it made the city paper as well.
I believe what he said was actually supportive of the minorities, but the fact he was white was the only thing they heard. It was offensive for him to speak in support of them.
So -- "the rights and freedoms they grew up enjoying should be curtailed such that they only extend to people who agree with them" doesn't cover it anymore. "Agree with me and be the same minority as I am" is closer to the truth.
Excellent, actually. You're describing the rebirth of student activism.
Activism directed towards squelching the freedoms of others is not "excellent" activism. Would it be "excellent" if a student KKK group started "activisming" to get all the "wrong color" people off campus?
It's high time we began trying to improve again, rather than just mindlessly hoard stuff.
Then it is your opinion that we are "improving" things to get an education in a microcosm of the real world, protected from world views that differ from your own, taught only the appropriate social and political concepts, to wind up graduated out into a world with a veritable plethora of ideas that differ from yours and are a complete mystery because you've been shielded from them?
the road I grew up on, is no longer safe for kids, at anytime.
How about the time when they are standing on the sidewalk and not playing in the middle of a place designed for the transit of multi-ton vehicles? Are they still unsafe then?
What I don't get, is why people feel the need to justify Speeding down Residential streets where kids want to play, simply because they are inconvenienced by normal traffic.
Yeah, that's a problem. But the answer is not to deliberately degrade public streets so you cannot physically drive faster than ten miles an hour less than the speed limit on them. Honest, law abiding citizens get punished for the acts of a few, and that's not a good answer.
It also hinders emergency response, so even people without cars who live on that street are endangered by "traffic calming" devices.
Ultimately of course kids are kids and drivers are selfish.
Why not teach kids not to run into ANY street, to cross at the crosswalks, to look both ways, and that the people who live on that street need to be able to drive away from their homes so they can go to work and earn a living to feed those very same children? Of course, drivers are drivers and kids are selfish...
; resulting for safer public spaces for kids, pedestrians, pets, block parties, pickup soccer, and life in general.
There are other places than the middle of the street for "block parties" and playing soccer; places where cars are absolutely prohibited. So you suggest the selfish attitude that you can run a soccer match anywhere you like instead of in a place devoid of any possible car-player interaction?
And "life in general" is untrue. When fire response is slowed because they cannot navigate the streets safely in a timely way, people die. That's a fact.
I've been through this "traffic calming debate" over my residential street. People who wanted their kids to play in the middle of the street, or were just tired of other people driving by. People drive "too fast", they said.
So I did exactly what this guy did -- fifteen years ago. It's not rocket science. You take a video camera and a digitizer. You write a bit of software that gathers all the pixels that fall on a line from point A to point B on the street and store just those, because those are all you need. You measure the distance from point A to point B on the street. You look in the images for blobs moving along that line and time how long it takes for them to get from A to B. Distance divided by time -- speed. It's good enough for government work, because that is effectively the same way the government measured the speeds on our street. Pneumatic tubes separated by X distance.
I brought my results to the public meeting about the plan to deliberately degrade the road I've been paying taxes to maintain. I talked to the city engineer in charge of such stuff, showed him my numbers. He said yeah, they were the same as what he'd measured, but the city reports the results in a way that artificially inflates the "mean" speed. My numbers showed there was no speed issue.
I also pointed out that there was no speed limit sign on our street until almost a block after the end where people on a higher limit street turned onto it. They turn from a 35MPH zone onto a 25MPH zoned street but aren't told of the change until a block later. If speed is an issue, why isn't the street marked better? The engineer said that wasn't a problem because speeds were lower there anyway due to more cars being parked there on a regular basis.
Eventually the plan was dropped. Thank goodness. And we've had just the same number of gruesome deaths on our street before the plan was proposed as after it was dropped. Zero.
It's not exactly hard information to find.
Yeah, someone with too much time on his hands has a web page with the information on it. Thank goodness we have the interwebs so we can all enjoy such an enriching and valuable tidbit of information to make our daily lives just that much more livable.
I think I'll go watch some cute cat videos because I feel a bit depressed right now. And maybe later I'll go look at what all the people instagramming every meal they've had ate for breakfast. But wait, someone just reported the critical detail that he's walking in the park and saw a bird. Gotta go... this could be big!
Delusional winger bullshit. With the right to vote must come the right for your vote to be counted,
They were, twice, in the timeframe allocated to do so, in the manner determined by the Florida legislature, who had the sole authority for making such decisions. The result was certified by the Florida Secretary of State, in the manner prescribed by state law.
It is delusional to pretend that pushing the certification of the Florida results past the date the electoral college meets to cast their votes is NOT an attempt at disenfranchising every voter in Florida. You claim that there is a right for every vote to be counted, and I say "of course." Trying to remove the effect of the votes of all the Florida voters is not "counting every vote". Yeah, the votes would be counted, but the electors from Florida wouldn't get to vote in the electoral college, thus throwing the election to Gore who had the majority otherwise.
As for the "process already agreed to", Gore was following state law,
State law defined the process that Gore was trying to get overridden by SCOTUS. He wasn't following state law, he was trying to get it changed, after the election was over.
In any case, it was the state of Florida recounting the votes, not the Gore campaign.
Who said it was Gore doing the actual recounts? Gore and his lawyers were in court trying to force yet another recount.
Yes, facts remain even when wingnuts try to make stupid stuff up.
Then your electoral process is deeply flawed.
Bullshit.
With a direct process like in my country, it does not matter how many time you partition and recount
When you recount them to the same standards it does not matter how many times you recount, and that's what I've said. But CHANGING THE PROCESS means you aren't counting them to the same standards, or counting the same ballots.
When you say "the standard is a hole in a piece of paper" and count them the first time, and then change the standard to be "a hole OR any 'dimple' where the hole might be", your answer will be different. When you add in "we're throwing out absentees from certain people/origins that we counted the first time", you get yet another number.
So yes, in ANY system, if you change the system after the election is over you can be pretty sure that the results will come out differently. Even in your perfect country with its perfect system, which you did not identify. And if you are able to target specific kinds of ballots for elimination because they've been counted and you know they favor the other candidate, then yes, it is almost certain you can change the result.
But with a represenative process you have shenanigan like gerrymandering and you can "win" election before the vote and recount can change the results.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the voting process, and it does not occur while the ballots are being counted and therefore cannot change the result of a count.
It appears that you do not understand what gerrymandering is or when it happens. It cannot change the outcome of a vote based on a recount.
Apparently they don't, because they commonly don't count military votes at all, let alone "the valid ones".
Nonsense. People on active duty in the military do not give up their right to vote. They can vote absentee just like anyone else who is unavailable to go to the polls on election day.
Some might even say they have more right to vote on the President than others.
The job was not 'get Gore elected', much as you think it was.
The job of the lawyers filing all the lawsuits and standing in front of judges certainly was to "get Gore elected". The goal of throwing out already counted ballots that favored Bush certainly was "get Gore elected". Pretending it wasn't is just ridiculous.
Out of the past 48 super bowl coin tosses, there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads, two streaks of 4 tails, two streaks of 3 heads, and two streaks of 3 tails.
Someone who keeps track of this kind of statistic has way too much time on his hands. It's way beyond the level of "this player has caught 3 out of 5 passes on a Thursday at night when the rain has just stopped and it is 39 degrees outside..." stuff that the color commentator loves to drop into the discussion.
it could have gone either way depending on the counting standard.
Well, d'oh. If you change the electoral process you can get different results. Like "let's count as votes for Gore ballots that aren't marked in any way as a vote for any presidential candidate" would probably result in a different answer. This isn't much different than the "let's look at every butterfly ballot and see if there is even the slightest dimple or depression or mark on any chad that hasn't been dislodged" standard that was applied in Dade County. "Poke hole in piece of paper which has pre-scored holes you just punch out" is way too hard.
Or the "let's throw out every absentee ballot from someone who registered using a form with a pre-filled-in voter id." Yes, that was one of the legal challenges. The Republican election official for one county had filled in the voter id number for people registering for absentee ballots, the Democrat had not. That should invalidate someone's vote, shouldn't it?
Or "let's throw out every military absentee where the military didn't properly postmark the ballot". People on active duty military service don't deserve to vote, do they?
Yes, changing the counting rules after the ballots are cast is a good way of changing the results. Not very honest, not very ethical, but it works -- if you can get the courts to go along with it.