I see this "will of the people" phrase pop up a LOT among people who think the popular vote matters. It's used so often that I wonder what they're parroting it from.
The popular vote means nothing. It's all about the delegates. People who show up and taking a few minutes to vote in a booth are often uninformed and unmotivated. If you want to support your candidate, SHOW UP AT THE CONVENTIONS and vote on delegates! It's that simple. There's nobody stopping "the people" from showing up except the requirement of a greater commitment. Such people tend to be far more enthusiastic and informed about their candidates.
The problem is that voting machines are related to election fraud but not voter fraud. There doesn't seem to be a huge problem with voters hacking the machines to give more votes. It's the people who control the machines you have to worry about. Even if someone votes only a single time and there's no craziness like dead people voting, your approach of showing that someone's already voted won't solve the problem of election fraud.
Once those ballots are filled out and stored, SOMEONE has to count them. Remember, it's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes.
That said, I'd still much rather have a person counting votes instead of a machine. (I would have multiple people who don't all lean toward the same candidates\issues counting, while everything is recorded on video.) These voting machines have been proven in COURT to be easily hackable and can change thousands of votes in an instant. See here: Computer Programmer tells how voting process can be rigged.
It's hard to find a news source that doesn't twist things to fit an overall narrative. One of the best sources I've been able to find is Ben Swann on his show "Reality Check". It's a local Fox station in Cincinnati. (Yes, I know that we hate Fox, but this is an exception.) He reveals things that nobody else is even talking about, things that people are lying about, etc. The man seems to be one of the few great reporters left in the country. Check him out here. http://www.youtube.com/user/benswannrealitycheck/
And the NDAA, and the Patriot Act, and that anti-protest law, and the ability to drone-kill Americans without trial, and many other shitty things that have been going on. His policies may not be perfect, but he's far ahead of anyone else where it counts.
Obama continued Bush's policies. Romney would continue Obama's policies. Right now we're swapping out team red with team blue, not realizing that they're the same. That said, there IS someone you can vote for who is against the kind of crap you mention. There is someone who wants to bring the troops home and stop these invasions of privacy.
That man is Dr. Ron Paul, and despite what the mainstream media has been saying, he's not only still in the race, but he's doing incredibly well. It's likely that we're going to see a brokered convention. He has thousands of people at his rallies, and he's getting a majority of delegates in several states. (Here's a tip: Don't look at the delegate counts you see in the newspaper or on your TV. They're way off and are just educated guesses based on the popular vote.) He's picked up 20 out of 24 delegates in Minnesota so far with more to come. He swept several districts in Iowa and Oklahoma. These are just examples of what is taking place around the country.
Re:They have lost all trust, but they retain distr
on
In Nothing We Trust
·
· Score: 1
I don't believe that Ron Paul is a racist, because he sees people as individuals and not as groups. People often bring up the newsletters (which he did not write) but you'll never hear a racist remark come out of his mouth.
As for policies, you aren't likely to find a person who agrees with you 100%, but it might be a good idea to take a look at a man who had foresight into the problems that we've been having.
This speech was made 10 years ago. It shows that many of Ron Paul's predictions have come true. Whatever you think of the man, I encourage you at least check this out:
Couple of hundred, maybe a thousand people tops in each.
You're kidding, right? At UCLA alone they had 5800+ people. The stadium was at capacity and people were climbing trees just to try and get a look. The fire marshal stopped letting people in, and hundreds were outside. Other crowds have been of similar sizes. In 2 consecutive days he got over 10,000 people at his rallies.
Also, only partly related: Tonight Ron Paul swept up all the delegates at the caucus St. Charles County Missouri. Check #mocaucus on Twitter if you don't believe me. The others tried combining forces against Ron Paul and yet he still won by an amazing amount. This type of thing has been happening in multiple states. He has the support where it counts. I'd much rather have a candidate with support that's an inch wide and a mile deep than a candidate with support that is a mile wide but only an inch deep.
Right on. Just when you think you can support him he says somethingthat makes you wonder what looney bin he escaped from.
I'm curious why so many people say this. Is it because the mainstream media is always saying "he's crazy"? A lot of people will parrot what they hear from the talking heads on TV. Could you be more specific about which of his policies you disagree with and why? Instead, people who have arguments against Ron Paul rarely seem to get beyond "He's nuts." They usually can't say WHY they think that way.
IMO he's a plutocrat just like every other Republican and Libertarian politician these days. I'm glad he isn't a warmonger, but that just puts him in the company of the "paleocons" rather than the company of sensible people.
If you believe that Ron Paul is a plutocrat (rule by the wealthy\power from wealth) then you haven't been paying much attention to the man. He's been very concerned about the poor as well as the disappearing middle class. He believes that the Constitution is our most important document, and beyond that he believes that the states should have the right to decide things for themselves.
He's strongly for civil liberties and was the only one running who spoke out against the NDAA. He also wants to repeal the Patriot Act. When H.R. 347 (the anti-protest bill) passed and suddenly Romney and Santorum got Secret Service protection, Ron Paul was offered that protection as well and refused because it would have been done with taxpayer money, and he believed that it would be stealing from the people.
He wants to audit and end the Federal Reserve, stop things like bailing out big companies, etc. He certainly doesn't seem like a plutocrat to me.
Why is nobody ever specific on what they find so frightening about his policies? Is the Constitution frightening? His positions are basically the positions of the founding fathers.
I'm going to assume that the 20% that scares you is foreign policy, since most people don't understand his views on that. We bring the troops home and defend our country's borders instead of those of another country. If someone attacks us, go to the Congress and get a declaration of war, identify a specific enemy (not just "terrorists" or some other vague concept), and then attack with overwhelming power and then COME HOME instead of occupying. Some politicians are doves and some are hawks. Ron Paul is a porcupine. They generally want to just be left alone, but if you mess with them you're in for a world of hurt.
Ron Paul is misunderstood on many issues because the media tends to distort his positions. Look at what the man himself has said and done and then decide.
Of course politicians claim a lot of things, which is why you look at their records. Ron Paul has been consistently for small government and Constitutional principles for decades. I encourage people to look into his voting records! You'll find that no lobbyists have been able to touch him and that Ron Paul really is what he says he is.
Dr. Paul is also the only true conservative running now, and if you look into things you'll find that he's actually got a real chance of winning. The media is practically crowning Romney as the victor, but Ron Paul is winning a majority of delegates in several states. (Don't believe the delegate counts the Associated Press gives. They have little basis in reality since they're guesses based on the popular vote.)
The problems arise when they tell every precinct not to do a public vote count on site, to immediately take the ballots to a secret location to be counted, and then throw them out\shred them when they're done.
Don't worry, they'll be sure to have even stronger DRM this time! I hear that the new kind makes you set up an appointment with an Ubisoft representative who will not only helpfully install the game for you using a secret code, but they will watch over your shoulder as you play to make sure that you don't copy their stuff! In fact, you would probably do that when you're NOT playing (Even though with AC2, they must think that if you lose connection for a few seconds, you're obviously pirating.) so they'll install monitoring software and set up cameras to watch your activity. Expect the cost of the games to double, but it'll be worth it to stop those dirty pirates, right?
It'll be nothing like the shit DRM the last game had, but if they keep doing things like this, it's going to BE their last game.
Yes, I think that upgradeable consoles would be great! We could even come up with a special name for them... Since you could customize them as you choose, that makes it more personal to the owner. They also perform various computations that allow you to play games. Let's call them personal computers! Perhaps we could even shorten that to "PC" if people prefer.
Just imagine one of these PCs and all of the parts you could put in it. You could even attach different types of input devices! I can even see them used for applications outside of gaming.
While the video looks impressive at first, since this is an unusual way of displaying video and tracking user input, I didn't see them doing anything that you couldn't do with a touchscreen.
The video shows a lot of sliding and manipulating images (rotating, zooming, pinching, etc) but I noticed that they were only controlling the X and Y axes. I kept hoping that they would rotate something in the Z axis or perhaps place a 3D object behind another, but it was just one of the typical "sort through a bunch of photos" demos that we've seen many times before.
I know that this isn't the final version, but I don't see how something like this would be useful until it can actually track and utilize that third dimension. Right now it looks flashy and may lead to a true 3D display, but this seems to be a 2D screen suspended in mist with motion tracking. It certainly isn't going to be portable like a tablet, and the wavering display isn't going to be as good as a proper screen. The 200ms of input lag is rather unimpressive as well.
I would absolutely love to have a good 3D display with true 3D motion tracking, even if it led to me having gorilla arms. We've come a long way, but we've still got a long way to go as well.
It's good to know that some people in government are unhappy with this. I didn't know Paul's stance on internet issues before, but now I know that he's against crap like this.
Of course something nifty is coming out! I hear that the upcoming Osborne system is going to be pretty good! I've already cancelled my order for their existing computer...
It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article, but does anyone know which "Open Source software" was removed? They claim that the software sped up infringing downloads, so I wondered if it was a file sharing program or download accelerator or something along those lines. This company would happily claim that the entire internet in general is bad because it helps people download infringing content.
Slashdot Mirror
I see this "will of the people" phrase pop up a LOT among people who think the popular vote matters. It's used so often that I wonder what they're parroting it from.
The popular vote means nothing. It's all about the delegates. People who show up and taking a few minutes to vote in a booth are often uninformed and unmotivated. If you want to support your candidate, SHOW UP AT THE CONVENTIONS and vote on delegates! It's that simple. There's nobody stopping "the people" from showing up except the requirement of a greater commitment. Such people tend to be far more enthusiastic and informed about their candidates.
You think that CSPAN is trustworthy? This happened yesterday. Take a look. It's only 18 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pots7T4vOT8
The problem is that voting machines are related to election fraud but not voter fraud. There doesn't seem to be a huge problem with voters hacking the machines to give more votes. It's the people who control the machines you have to worry about. Even if someone votes only a single time and there's no craziness like dead people voting, your approach of showing that someone's already voted won't solve the problem of election fraud.
Once those ballots are filled out and stored, SOMEONE has to count them. Remember, it's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes.
That said, I'd still much rather have a person counting votes instead of a machine. (I would have multiple people who don't all lean toward the same candidates\issues counting, while everything is recorded on video.) These voting machines have been proven in COURT to be easily hackable and can change thousands of votes in an instant. See here: Computer Programmer tells how voting process can be rigged.
Most of the US media is owned by only 6 companies, and the news isn't so much reported on these days but instead is created. http://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infographic/
It's hard to find a news source that doesn't twist things to fit an overall narrative. One of the best sources I've been able to find is Ben Swann on his show "Reality Check". It's a local Fox station in Cincinnati. (Yes, I know that we hate Fox, but this is an exception.) He reveals things that nobody else is even talking about, things that people are lying about, etc. The man seems to be one of the few great reporters left in the country. Check him out here. http://www.youtube.com/user/benswannrealitycheck/
And the NDAA, and the Patriot Act, and that anti-protest law, and the ability to drone-kill Americans without trial, and many other shitty things that have been going on. His policies may not be perfect, but he's far ahead of anyone else where it counts.
Obama continued Bush's policies. Romney would continue Obama's policies. Right now we're swapping out team red with team blue, not realizing that they're the same. That said, there IS someone you can vote for who is against the kind of crap you mention. There is someone who wants to bring the troops home and stop these invasions of privacy.
That man is Dr. Ron Paul, and despite what the mainstream media has been saying, he's not only still in the race, but he's doing incredibly well. It's likely that we're going to see a brokered convention. He has thousands of people at his rallies, and he's getting a majority of delegates in several states. (Here's a tip: Don't look at the delegate counts you see in the newspaper or on your TV. They're way off and are just educated guesses based on the popular vote.) He's picked up 20 out of 24 delegates in Minnesota so far with more to come. He swept several districts in Iowa and Oklahoma. These are just examples of what is taking place around the country.
Since you're from a military family, please check out what a Marine Major has to say on the subject.
I don't believe that Ron Paul is a racist, because he sees people as individuals and not as groups. People often bring up the newsletters (which he did not write) but you'll never hear a racist remark come out of his mouth.
22 Reasons Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism
As for policies, you aren't likely to find a person who agrees with you 100%, but it might be a good idea to take a look at a man who had foresight into the problems that we've been having.
This speech was made 10 years ago. It shows that many of Ron Paul's predictions have come true. Whatever you think of the man, I encourage you at least check this out:
Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original)
You're kidding, right? At UCLA alone they had 5800+ people. The stadium was at capacity and people were climbing trees just to try and get a look. The fire marshal stopped letting people in, and hundreds were outside. Other crowds have been of similar sizes. In 2 consecutive days he got over 10,000 people at his rallies.
Here's a page with links to more better shots at UCLA. If you think that's only a thousand people, I certainly hope you don't have a job where you have to count very high. http://www.dailypaul.com/224747/msm-predicts-huge-ucla-crowd
Also, only partly related: Tonight Ron Paul swept up all the delegates at the caucus St. Charles County Missouri. Check #mocaucus on Twitter if you don't believe me. The others tried combining forces against Ron Paul and yet he still won by an amazing amount. This type of thing has been happening in multiple states. He has the support where it counts. I'd much rather have a candidate with support that's an inch wide and a mile deep than a candidate with support that is a mile wide but only an inch deep.
Perhaps you can explain it to these crowds that he doesn't have much real support: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150666962588207&set=a.128332363206.108799.79085878206&type=1&theater
I'm curious why so many people say this. Is it because the mainstream media is always saying "he's crazy"? A lot of people will parrot what they hear from the talking heads on TV. Could you be more specific about which of his policies you disagree with and why? Instead, people who have arguments against Ron Paul rarely seem to get beyond "He's nuts." They usually can't say WHY they think that way.
If you believe that Ron Paul is a plutocrat (rule by the wealthy\power from wealth) then you haven't been paying much attention to the man. He's been very concerned about the poor as well as the disappearing middle class. He believes that the Constitution is our most important document, and beyond that he believes that the states should have the right to decide things for themselves.
He's strongly for civil liberties and was the only one running who spoke out against the NDAA. He also wants to repeal the Patriot Act. When H.R. 347 (the anti-protest bill) passed and suddenly Romney and Santorum got Secret Service protection, Ron Paul was offered that protection as well and refused because it would have been done with taxpayer money, and he believed that it would be stealing from the people.
He wants to audit and end the Federal Reserve, stop things like bailing out big companies, etc. He certainly doesn't seem like a plutocrat to me.
Why is nobody ever specific on what they find so frightening about his policies? Is the Constitution frightening? His positions are basically the positions of the founding fathers.
I'm going to assume that the 20% that scares you is foreign policy, since most people don't understand his views on that. We bring the troops home and defend our country's borders instead of those of another country. If someone attacks us, go to the Congress and get a declaration of war, identify a specific enemy (not just "terrorists" or some other vague concept), and then attack with overwhelming power and then COME HOME instead of occupying. Some politicians are doves and some are hawks. Ron Paul is a porcupine. They generally want to just be left alone, but if you mess with them you're in for a world of hurt.
Ron Paul is misunderstood on many issues because the media tends to distort his positions. Look at what the man himself has said and done and then decide.
Of course politicians claim a lot of things, which is why you look at their records. Ron Paul has been consistently for small government and Constitutional principles for decades. I encourage people to look into his voting records! You'll find that no lobbyists have been able to touch him and that Ron Paul really is what he says he is. Dr. Paul is also the only true conservative running now, and if you look into things you'll find that he's actually got a real chance of winning. The media is practically crowning Romney as the victor, but Ron Paul is winning a majority of delegates in several states. (Don't believe the delegate counts the Associated Press gives. They have little basis in reality since they're guesses based on the popular vote.)
The problems arise when they tell every precinct not to do a public vote count on site, to immediately take the ballots to a secret location to be counted, and then throw them out\shred them when they're done.
And to think that we used to believe people like you just suffered from paranoia. Soon we'll ALL be wearing foil hats!
Don't worry, they'll be sure to have even stronger DRM this time! I hear that the new kind makes you set up an appointment with an Ubisoft representative who will not only helpfully install the game for you using a secret code, but they will watch over your shoulder as you play to make sure that you don't copy their stuff! In fact, you would probably do that when you're NOT playing (Even though with AC2, they must think that if you lose connection for a few seconds, you're obviously pirating.) so they'll install monitoring software and set up cameras to watch your activity. Expect the cost of the games to double, but it'll be worth it to stop those dirty pirates, right?
It'll be nothing like the shit DRM the last game had, but if they keep doing things like this, it's going to BE their last game.
Yes, I think that upgradeable consoles would be great! We could even come up with a special name for them... Since you could customize them as you choose, that makes it more personal to the owner. They also perform various computations that allow you to play games. Let's call them personal computers! Perhaps we could even shorten that to "PC" if people prefer.
Just imagine one of these PCs and all of the parts you could put in it. You could even attach different types of input devices! I can even see them used for applications outside of gaming.
Here's a picture of the drone!
Just because there is something worse in comparison doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't still bad.
Instead of settling for the lesser of two evils, we should be condemning ALL evils.
Think of what powerful and expensive hardware will be required to run a monitor set at native resolution with pixels in this scale.
A lot of us DO want to jump out, but they've put a lid on the pot.
While the video looks impressive at first, since this is an unusual way of displaying video and tracking user input, I didn't see them doing anything that you couldn't do with a touchscreen.
The video shows a lot of sliding and manipulating images (rotating, zooming, pinching, etc) but I noticed that they were only controlling the X and Y axes. I kept hoping that they would rotate something in the Z axis or perhaps place a 3D object behind another, but it was just one of the typical "sort through a bunch of photos" demos that we've seen many times before.
I know that this isn't the final version, but I don't see how something like this would be useful until it can actually track and utilize that third dimension. Right now it looks flashy and may lead to a true 3D display, but this seems to be a 2D screen suspended in mist with motion tracking. It certainly isn't going to be portable like a tablet, and the wavering display isn't going to be as good as a proper screen. The 200ms of input lag is rather unimpressive as well.
I would absolutely love to have a good 3D display with true 3D motion tracking, even if it led to me having gorilla arms. We've come a long way, but we've still got a long way to go as well.
Ron Paul Comes Out Against SOPA; Joins Other Elected Officials Saying No To The Great Firewall Of America
It's good to know that some people in government are unhappy with this. I didn't know Paul's stance on internet issues before, but now I know that he's against crap like this.
Of course something nifty is coming out! I hear that the upcoming Osborne system is going to be pretty good! I've already cancelled my order for their existing computer...
It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article, but does anyone know which "Open Source software" was removed? They claim that the software sped up infringing downloads, so I wondered if it was a file sharing program or download accelerator or something along those lines. This company would happily claim that the entire internet in general is bad because it helps people download infringing content.