It looks to me like instead a complicated legal maneuver designed to get around a clear hole in the fairness of the legal system.
I would not consider failing to countersue or failing to move the court to be a legal mistake, using the definition of mistake as failure to engage in proper actions.
You eliminate something that most people don't do and want a massive reduction? Sounds like you are giving an inch and asking for a mile. You want a real massive reduction in car insurance? Do all of the below and driving will have a 90% reduction in fatal crashes:
Require that anyone with less than 4 years of driving experience not drive from 8 PM to 6 AM.
Require that anyone over the age of 60 be tested yearly for driving capacity.
Put breathalyzers in all cars, causing them to cease to slow down to 10 mph if the car detects alchol in the air. (No breathing into a tube required - but also no drunken passengers.)
Eliminate all car phones
Require the car to be stopped and out of gear for the radio station to be changed.
Set speed controllers that only allow speeds above 65 mph for 30 consecutive seconds. If you exceed that time limit, it slowly lowers you down to 55 mph for 30 seconds.
If we are willing to do all of that, THEN we would be entitled to a large insurance reduction, because fatal traffic accidents would all but dissapear.
So called Hands-Free telephone devices are not legal everywhere.
While most politicians are no smarter than the average person, SOME of them are smart enough to realize that the Hands-Free Telephone devices do not reduce the accident rate of driving while talking
It is the act of driving while thinking about something else, not the act of driving with one less hand, that causes the problem. Otherwise people driving a manual shift instead of an automatic would have a similar accident rate.
Similarly, some of the other ideas you wrote, while often legal, are just as distracting and likely to cause an accident,
Ways some fool could fuck up an ink elections:
1. Oops, The pens they bought run out of ink.
2. Oops,After the pens run out of ink, they go buy PENCILS.
3. Oops, They fire the fool that bought pencils and go buy eraseable ink pens.
4. Oops, the paper they bought - It is cheap (they had to buy a lot of it) and rips.
5. Oops the printing on the ballots has a candidate for assistant governor that died - as such it is invalid. We have to print out new ones. By tomorrow noon.
6. Oops, they don't have enough ballots in spanish. Here, use this english one. You can read some english, right? Now, which Bush is running for president again? George or Jed?
7. Oops, they sent District 9's ballots to District 6.
------
Yes I should apply to my local state election administration. I would be pretty good at foreseeing and SOLVING these issues which are extremely likely to come up.
You on the other hand would be left blind-sided by them, cause you thought "it is so easy, there will be no problems."
So you think the people that could not clan chad are smart enough to provide pens with INK?
No. The same fools that let the Chad build up will be handing out PENCILS to people in florida's "Ink Election".
I have in fact served as a poll worker. I admit I have not observed audits.
There are two questions:
1. Is it POSSIBLE (not have they already built), to make a computerized voting machine that is more accurate than an ink one.
2. Can such a machine be more idiot proof than paper.
The answer to both of these questions is YES. Now all it takes is to build one. While I will admit that no one has yet, I firmly believe if we require them to, they will build it. Yes, they may make it over-priced, but hey, we did get a man on the moon.
So other than being a cynical grumpy, disgruntled worker, not willing to try...
Thank you for posting.
We had paper ballots. True, they were punch out instead of ink. That is what the word CHAD meant. It referred to punches that were not fully punched out. And it does not solve the issue of ballot design, which in all truth probably was why Bush got elected in the first place (Democratic fools in Florida accepted the illegal butterfly ballot proposed by Republicans instead of demanding they obey the law.)
I can not see ink as a solution. So we argue about whether that ink mark is dark enough or actually in the box, etc.
Your proposed 'solution' returns us to something we have already tried and found lacking.
Electronic ballots, with paper confirmation, using an open sourced software, is just as verifiable as your old fashinoned paper + ink, but is cheaper, quicker, and harder to 'stuff'. When you have a paper + ink ballot box, all you need do is throw out 1/2 the real ballots and stuff it full of fake ones. Electronics voting with paper ballots, means there are two records, so BOTH must be modified, and they must be modified 'synchronosly', giving us three times the chance to catch you (both records must show the winner you desire and they must match up exactly, including any time, location or other coded stamps placed on the paper and electronic records.)
If you tax the fuel, then you have the power to say "Hey, this particular fuel is BETTER for the environment so we will charge a reduced tax for using it."
That is what SHOULD be done in this particular case - using used vegetable oil is FAR better for the environment than throwing out the vegetable oil and buying diesel.
The current system has the potential to be far better than the 'level playing field' you desire.
90 days works fine if you are a big firm. It is TOTALLY unfair if you are a tiny little firm, working in say New York city and some other too bit firm starts violating it in Hawii, and you don't even hear about it for one year.
Your method just invites people to QUIETLY violate the patent for 90 days, then publicise that "hey, we have been doing this for 3 months in the small townin alabama and you did nothing".
Depends on who you ask. Jews have a solid calendar going back 5000 plus years to Abraham.
Similarly, there is a strong archeological record of another couple of thousand years of human civiliztaion before that. 6,000 is so obviously wrong that few creationists use it anymore.
There is a lot of evidence for Mankind to be around 0-30,000 years old (as a species), so some creationists use 40k as the age of the world.
I did read the article. The article is nuetral. It says some scientists claim it is a black hole, but others say they are returning and flourishing. It made NO conclusion at all about which set of scientists were correct.
Honestly, the ones claiming it is flourishing gave a much better argument. Among other things, the black hole people did not do a comparison to normal habitats, nor did they find more deaths. They just found some odd mutations (us non-creationists call that evolution at work), and some animals (not all) were hungry. Wow. some animals living in the wild don't get enough food. Bummer.
Of course, you Shouting Capitals, cursing, post insisting that everyone else had not read the article, despite the clear proof that you read it was far worse of an argument than either of the two groups of scientists made.
One of the problems creationism has is that animal/dinosaur bones are found buried MUCH deeper than any reasonable man can claim to have happened in just 40,000 years, without some kind of natural dissater that dumped a lot of dirt on them. And it happens consistently over the ENTIRE world.
As such, they need a natural/unnatural dissater that affects the entire world.
Hence they calim that Noah's flood moved tons of dirt, buring lots and lots of bones much deaper than happens normally.
This is supposedly why we find animals buried with millions and millions years worth of dirt on top of them, instead of just the 40,000 thosand years of dirt that one would think.
Nicoli Tesla, who claimed to be able to do this. Now, he might have been insane, but he was a genius. I fully believe he did the exact same thing, although probably wasted a lot more energy than they did, and for a much higher cost to create.
The idea that a human could design a living organic creature that could out-compete the entire rest of the evolutionary biomasses' capacity to compete/eat is laughable.
Particularly one that would work in all environments.
The worst case scenario is making a certain specific bio-culture wierd. (i.e. a creature might be able to rule the -10 to 80 degree life zone, but could not stand temperatures under -30, or over 90, so we just move to canada/florida and kill it during the winter/summer.
Patent official (I hope they are at least this intelligent): What type of life do you wish to patent.
Fool: NO. I want to patent ALL life.
Patent Official: Why, there might be prior art.
Fool: NO, everyone else made "natural life", I am going to patent life that anyone makes, i.e. SYTNETHETIC life.
Patent Official: Have you heard of God? He is this big, super-powerfull creature that some people think may have created life. That means that all life is synthetic, and priror art exists.
Fool: I am atheistic, I don't belive in God.
Patent Official: Regardless, the jewish bible is supposed to be 5000 years old, and we definitely have copies of it that are more than 1,000 years old, and even if you personally don't believe in god, it accurately describes life as being artificially created by a creature, and therefore prior art to your moronic synthetic life idea exists. It does not matter if the prior art was in a work of fiction or not. Now get out of hear before we stone you to death for being an obnoxios Patent abusing athiestic piece of crap.
While it is possible to say we 'went to war over oil", your twisted idea is not the reason. Not to get cheap oil, not to get oil to sell to US citizens. most of US oil came from and still comes from CANADA.
We went to war to stop certain evil SOB's from making obscene amounts of profit from selling oil and funding their military, which they used for things like genocide, oppresion, and wars of expansion (attacking kuwait...)
Pretty much the same reason why we went to war against Japan in WWII. They needed oil, they attacked other nations to get it, they made some nasty allies (Germany/Italy), then to stop the US from interefering with their oil expansion plans, they attacked the US's closest navy base (Pearl Harbor). Too bad it pissed us off more than inconvienced us.
There is no law that prevents customers from watching the game in a 'forbidden area'. Instead there is a contract (that the customers did not sign) forbidding certain people from broadcasting it.
Next thing you know they will try to arrest someone for video taping a game in a legal location then taking that tape to a blocked location and viewing it there.
You misunderstand the point. Basically, the author is saying what you describe is a BAD BAD IDEA.
The writers know about the issue you are talking about and believe that all the crap that they have a modern computer load is NOT neccessary.
Me personally, I know that EVERYTIME I install software, no matter how rarely I wish to use it, I have to check and remove all this GARBAGE that they put into my start up.
You gave a list of things such as scanners, DVD burners. I use those rarely.
For 99 out of 100 people there is NO good reason to put those things in the startup.
Those are great examples, proving my point.
It makes far more sense to 'start' those processes once a month when you actually use them instead of taking 1 second every single day.
If you personally use them every day instead of 1/month, then fine YOU can put them in your startup. Wasting my time (and worse, using vile, hard to understand names making it dificult to realize what your PC is doing and therefore hard/dangerous to remove) placing all that CRAPWARE into startup is obnoxious, rude, and bad business
Remove your mailbox. Declare to everyone that you have no legal mailing address, living out of hotels. Tell them you do accept Fed Ex packages, currently at X address.
Get most of your mail online.
If someone wants to write to you badly enough, they will pony up the Fed Ex fee.
Also, if you want to really make it more dificult, you can actually move to a location not served by the US mail, or really live out of hotels.
P.S. To the rest of the world this may seem a bit extreme, but to your (conclusions drawn from what you wrote) paranoid, government hating mind, it should sound pretty reasonable.
She was not complainging about being told no she can't use My Space.
She was quite clear that she was concerned about them telling other people she was a sex offender, as they had already told her she was one.
Such an event, if it happened, is a crime, called SLANDER.
Such an event is in fact what certain states are attempting to do (i.e. get MySpace to report 'sex offenders to them)
So you entirely missed the "real questions", which are in fact:
Did MySpace commit a vicious crime, violating the rights of the innocent women? How much should they be punished for doing so? Should the states be stopped in their attempt to sue MySpace to get them to commit these crime? How much money should MySpace and the states involved pay the VICTIM here?
Slashdot Mirror
It looks to me like instead a complicated legal maneuver designed to get around a clear hole in the fairness of the legal system.
I would not consider failing to countersue or failing to move the court to be a legal mistake, using the definition of mistake as failure to engage in proper actions.
Require that anyone with less than 4 years of driving experience not drive from 8 PM to 6 AM.
Require that anyone over the age of 60 be tested yearly for driving capacity.
Put breathalyzers in all cars, causing them to cease to slow down to 10 mph if the car detects alchol in the air. (No breathing into a tube required - but also no drunken passengers.)
Eliminate all car phones
Require the car to be stopped and out of gear for the radio station to be changed.
Set speed controllers that only allow speeds above 65 mph for 30 consecutive seconds. If you exceed that time limit, it slowly lowers you down to 55 mph for 30 seconds.
If we are willing to do all of that, THEN we would be entitled to a large insurance reduction, because fatal traffic accidents would all but dissapear.
While most politicians are no smarter than the average person, SOME of them are smart enough to realize that the Hands-Free Telephone devices do not reduce the accident rate of driving while talking
It is the act of driving while thinking about something else, not the act of driving with one less hand, that causes the problem. Otherwise people driving a manual shift instead of an automatic would have a similar accident rate.
Similarly, some of the other ideas you wrote, while often legal, are just as distracting and likely to cause an accident,
Yes I should apply to my local state election administration. I would be pretty good at foreseeing and SOLVING these issues which are extremely likely to come up.
You on the other hand would be left blind-sided by them, cause you thought "it is so easy, there will be no problems."
No. The same fools that let the Chad build up will be handing out PENCILS to people in florida's "Ink Election".
I have in fact served as a poll worker. I admit I have not observed audits.
There are two questions:
1. Is it POSSIBLE (not have they already built), to make a computerized voting machine that is more accurate than an ink one.
2. Can such a machine be more idiot proof than paper.
The answer to both of these questions is YES. Now all it takes is to build one. While I will admit that no one has yet, I firmly believe if we require them to, they will build it. Yes, they may make it over-priced, but hey, we did get a man on the moon.
So other than being a cynical grumpy, disgruntled worker, not willing to try... Thank you for posting.
I can not see ink as a solution. So we argue about whether that ink mark is dark enough or actually in the box, etc.
Your proposed 'solution' returns us to something we have already tried and found lacking.
Electronic ballots, with paper confirmation, using an open sourced software, is just as verifiable as your old fashinoned paper + ink, but is cheaper, quicker, and harder to 'stuff'. When you have a paper + ink ballot box, all you need do is throw out 1/2 the real ballots and stuff it full of fake ones. Electronics voting with paper ballots, means there are two records, so BOTH must be modified, and they must be modified 'synchronosly', giving us three times the chance to catch you (both records must show the winner you desire and they must match up exactly, including any time, location or other coded stamps placed on the paper and electronic records.)
If you tax the fuel, then you have the power to say "Hey, this particular fuel is BETTER for the environment so we will charge a reduced tax for using it."
That is what SHOULD be done in this particular case - using used vegetable oil is FAR better for the environment than throwing out the vegetable oil and buying diesel.
The current system has the potential to be far better than the 'level playing field' you desire.
The level playing field is a fool's choice
Your method just invites people to QUIETLY violate the patent for 90 days, then publicise that "hey, we have been doing this for 3 months in the small townin alabama and you did nothing".
Try again.
There is a lot of evidence for Mankind to be around 0-30,000 years old (as a species), so some creationists use 40k as the age of the world.
Honestly, the ones claiming it is flourishing gave a much better argument. Among other things, the black hole people did not do a comparison to normal habitats, nor did they find more deaths. They just found some odd mutations (us non-creationists call that evolution at work), and some animals (not all) were hungry. Wow. some animals living in the wild don't get enough food. Bummer.
Of course, you Shouting Capitals, cursing, post insisting that everyone else had not read the article, despite the clear proof that you read it was far worse of an argument than either of the two groups of scientists made.
As such, they need a natural/unnatural dissater that affects the entire world.
Hence they calim that Noah's flood moved tons of dirt, buring lots and lots of bones much deaper than happens normally.
This is supposedly why we find animals buried with millions and millions years worth of dirt on top of them, instead of just the 40,000 thosand years of dirt that one would think.
Mainly Range. Induction wont make the two feet without so much power/huge induceres that it is ridiculous. Cube squared law.
Nicoli Tesla, who claimed to be able to do this. Now, he might have been insane, but he was a genius. I fully believe he did the exact same thing, although probably wasted a lot more energy than they did, and for a much higher cost to create.
Particularly one that would work in all environments. The worst case scenario is making a certain specific bio-culture wierd. (i.e. a creature might be able to rule the -10 to 80 degree life zone, but could not stand temperatures under -30, or over 90, so we just move to canada/florida and kill it during the winter/summer.
Patent official (I hope they are at least this intelligent): What type of life do you wish to patent.
Fool: NO. I want to patent ALL life.
Patent Official: Why, there might be prior art.
Fool: NO, everyone else made "natural life", I am going to patent life that anyone makes, i.e. SYTNETHETIC life.
Patent Official: Have you heard of God? He is this big, super-powerfull creature that some people think may have created life. That means that all life is synthetic, and priror art exists.
Fool: I am atheistic, I don't belive in God.
Patent Official: Regardless, the jewish bible is supposed to be 5000 years old, and we definitely have copies of it that are more than 1,000 years old, and even if you personally don't believe in god, it accurately describes life as being artificially created by a creature, and therefore prior art to your moronic synthetic life idea exists. It does not matter if the prior art was in a work of fiction or not. Now get out of hear before we stone you to death for being an obnoxios Patent abusing athiestic piece of crap.
One is both illegal espionage on a POPULAR group and ALSO an attempt to disrupt the basic running of your own government.
The other is an is an illegal espionage on a totally unpopular group for the legal purpose of supporting the basic running of our country.
While popularity may not be a reasonable counterargument, the disruption vs. support is a good one.
Then I realized that if your privacy 'gets broken' for batteries, you are likely to get catalogues about batteries in the snailmail.
But if you privacy is 'broken' for the sex toys, you get catalouges about sex toys.
Cleary, people WANT to get sex toy catalogues in the mail.
While it is possible to say we 'went to war over oil", your twisted idea is not the reason. Not to get cheap oil, not to get oil to sell to US citizens. most of US oil came from and still comes from CANADA.
We went to war to stop certain evil SOB's from making obscene amounts of profit from selling oil and funding their military, which they used for things like genocide, oppresion, and wars of expansion (attacking kuwait...)
Pretty much the same reason why we went to war against Japan in WWII. They needed oil, they attacked other nations to get it, they made some nasty allies (Germany/Italy), then to stop the US from interefering with their oil expansion plans, they attacked the US's closest navy base (Pearl Harbor). Too bad it pissed us off more than inconvienced us.
Next thing you know they will try to arrest someone for video taping a game in a legal location then taking that tape to a blocked location and viewing it there.
If your employees are still being poached, then hey, you deserve it for underpaying them.
More likely, the recruiters will stop calling your employees. (But they might ask for a job themselves.)
The writers know about the issue you are talking about and believe that all the crap that they have a modern computer load is NOT neccessary.
Me personally, I know that EVERYTIME I install software, no matter how rarely I wish to use it, I have to check and remove all this GARBAGE that they put into my start up. You gave a list of things such as scanners, DVD burners. I use those rarely.
For 99 out of 100 people there is NO good reason to put those things in the startup. Those are great examples, proving my point. It makes far more sense to 'start' those processes once a month when you actually use them instead of taking 1 second every single day.
If you personally use them every day instead of 1/month, then fine YOU can put them in your startup. Wasting my time (and worse, using vile, hard to understand names making it dificult to realize what your PC is doing and therefore hard/dangerous to remove) placing all that CRAPWARE into startup is obnoxious, rude, and bad business
Get most of your mail online.
If someone wants to write to you badly enough, they will pony up the Fed Ex fee. Also, if you want to really make it more dificult, you can actually move to a location not served by the US mail, or really live out of hotels.
P.S. To the rest of the world this may seem a bit extreme, but to your (conclusions drawn from what you wrote) paranoid, government hating mind, it should sound pretty reasonable.
She was quite clear that she was concerned about them telling other people she was a sex offender, as they had already told her she was one.
Such an event, if it happened, is a crime, called SLANDER.
Such an event is in fact what certain states are attempting to do (i.e. get MySpace to report 'sex offenders to them)
So you entirely missed the "real questions", which are in fact: Did MySpace commit a vicious crime, violating the rights of the innocent women? How much should they be punished for doing so? Should the states be stopped in their attempt to sue MySpace to get them to commit these crime? How much money should MySpace and the states involved pay the VICTIM here?
If not for the participants.
I could see not waiting till your next regular patch, so as to avoid bringing it to the attention of the hackers.
But the rest of his arguments are pretty crappy.