Yes a lie is a lie. And an exaggeration is not a lie. Gore spoke in traditional Politician speak, which is designed to avoid having to lie by being unclear. He was definitely Pro science/Internet, did have a high end governement position, and did participate in internet related policy-making. At worst what he said was an exaggeration, not a lie. One of the ways we know that is that Republicans did NOT quote him directly. If he had lied, like Bill Clinton did, they would have quoted him directly. ("I did not have sex with that woman.")
Which brings us to the one TRUE lie in the entire fiasco: the republicans did lie about what he said. Why did they lie? Because they knew his statement was not at worst misleadin, specifically that some intelligent people that knew the facts would agree with what he said even if the republicans considered it an exaggeration.
If the Rich would hire private militia, than that cost proves that they benefit MORE than the poor people do. They are saving that money. Taxes are not just a single thing, they do lots of functions.
We are NOT stating they are a way to appease thugs. We are stating that one of the ways the rich benefit from taxes is that it allows poor people to live without committing crimes. If you give a man a choice of starve to death or kill a rich man, they will kill the rich man. This does not make them a thug.
Finally, you ended with my favorite indicator of stupidity: "Let it go". Let it go means you do not care if I am right or wrong, you just want me to shut up about it. Yes it is more polite than "shut up", but it is still never used by people that know what they are talking about.
Or rather it WOULD have been polite if you had just stated "It's a stupid argument, let it go."
But instead you gave your own argument, THEN told me to let it go, indicating that you yourself just wanted the last word.
The RICH have the most to lose if medicare and social security go down. Because if they did, the riots in the streets would have people hunting and killing the rich.
You can spread all the lies you want to, but Al Gore never said he "invented the internet".
If you actually had the brains to check your sources, you would find that out rather quickly, mainly by the fact that you can't find any actual quotes with a time and date, no matter how many mud slinging articles you look through.
Al Gore said that he was "instrumental in pushing for the internet to be opened up to the public." Whether or not he was really instrumental is beside the point, that statement is not a ridicilous egotisitcal claim, that you are tying to convince people Al Gore said.
A bunch of Republicans saw this statement as an opportunity to insult Al Gore. So they stated that he was claiming to have "invented the internet.". Republicans used that phrase, NOT Al gore.
But you don't care about the actual truth of what a man said, all you want to do is make an insulting joke.
People either like or hate A.I., usually because of the length.
He really pushed the 'The robot was always real/alive, the mom was always fake/soul dead because being true to love makes us real.'
The real problem was that the editors did not 'get the movie'. So they kept trying to cut the ending, totally reversing the meaning of the movie as the director/author saw it.
If they were smart they would have cut the middle part significantly and otherwise reduce time through out the rest of the movie without cutting any full scenes.
But the story itself reads very well, even if they did make it too long.
You need a better license, more inspections, a better driving record.
And the legal requirements for making a semi-truck require it to be built far safer.
One of the problems with Hummers, unlike Semi-trucks, is that they have high bumpers. These bumpers sometimes start ABOVE the bumber/hood of a small vehicle.
Semi-trucks are legally required to have lower bumpers that alway make contact with the small car bumpers.
And I can tell you that good OCR is WORTH the money.
And people WOULD pay more for better accuracy. My company pays huge amounts for OCR work, usually getting in boxes of CD's each week.
Lawyers consume OCR capacity like it was Wine the night before Prohibition starts up.
Yes we use the low end junk they put out now, but we would love to pay much more money for stuff that was even 10% better. Right now, even OCR of Typed documents SUCKS!!!. Yes it is 99+% accurate, but one letter off in one hundred means we have to pay people to read all 3 million documents we subphoened to find any dirty words letting us sue the company for sexual harassement instead of just telling the computer to find them.
The problem is OCR is an incredibally difficult task, even for typed stuff. Different fonts, poor photocopying, different colored inks/papers, all contribute to making it a very difficult job. And the use of special characters such as $ which looks an awfull lot like S, makes it harder.
We often get crap that looks like this:
"1+ is 1MP0$$18!E" instead of "It is IMPOSSIBLE"
You should complete that sentence. "Oh wait... it would fail - just like the 4th plane failed."
4 planes were hijacked, only 3 buildings were hit.
The last plane failed not they forgot to bring box cutters, but because the passengers realized what was really going on and took action. The presence of the horribly dangerous box-cutters did NOT help the terrorists in any way shape or form. They could have taken the first 3 planes just by claiming they had a bomb and that they would blow up the plane unless the pilots left the cockpit and let them fly it.
They succeeded in the first 3 only because we were complacent and they had surprise on there side, not because they took tiny sharp instruments to threaten us with.
The second they lost element of surprise than the heroes of that flight LAUGHED at their puny box cutters, fought them, and WON.
If they try it again, this time with 4 ft long, razor sharp titanium alloy long swords on a plane, they would STILL be unable to crash that plane into a building because they lost the surprise.
The current anti-blade regulations are ridiculous, do not in any way increase security. I personally have seen people sneak pocket knives past them.
In fact, if the airlines were to issue everyone on board a 1 ft short sword, I think it would do more towards preventing terrorist attacks than attempting to block "box cutters". If it wern't for drunk people and children, this probably would already be a rule.
I of course realize there are physical differences. The question is are there mental differences.
And for that, your argument fails.
Mentally, the so called "differences" between men and women are practically none existent, except for the cultural ones, at least as compared to the mental differences between say a white jewish guy and a black atheist guy.
The question here was what can we tell men about how women think differently from men, and the answer is basically, they think the same way men would if men were in the position of growing up worrying about getting pregnant, trying to convince a woman to pursue them, and trying to get the women to support them and/or any children they might have.
The basics are fairly obvious, the complex stuff varies so much it is not helpful to print:
1)There is little if any difference between women and men, except that generated by cultural differences.
2)The major cultural differences are: a)Women are expected to take care of any children they have so b)they have a more reasonable fear of sex, c)men persue the women, d) the women make them self more attractive pursuits via make up, etc., e) the women insist on cash for taking care of the child, f) they insist that there are huge cultural differences between men and women (because everything above is to their advantage now that Abortion is legal) in order to maintain the current status quo, and g) some men subconciously/conciously understand the situation, so some of them act to preserve the few benefits men have (pay inequalities for example) or develop criminal rage (rape, etc.) towards the women.
Cynical? maybe. But lets face it if men had the kind of cultural power that women had we would abuse it the same way women do. If I could get a date simply by losing weight and dressing skimpily, I would probably insist that she buy me dinner too.
You said 2) that the termination must be mutual
and then you said "They decided they would rather loose your business".
If as you claim, the termination must be mutual, than that means they do not have the right to loose your business, they must keep their original contract.
I am not going to refute most of your arguments - none of them refuted a single one of my, instead you countered OTHER arguements that I did NOT make while ignoring what I said.
I will state that most people like the conveinence of knowning immediately who won the ellection.
But I do want to ask you where you live.
You claim to live in a place that has used electronic voting for many years? Where? The first "electronic voting" in the United States happened exactly 3 years ago. Previous to that, the most advanced machines legally allowed to be used in national elections were called "optical machines". While they used electricity and sometimes had touch screens, all the machines did were punch holes in special voting cards which were run through optical scanners.
When people are talking about electronic voting, they are specifically talking about machines that do not make a physical record.
That makes no sense whatsoever, and worse I think you are smart enough to KNOW it doesn't make sense. The electronic counting method is fast, which at the very least allow us to get an instant official preliminary number.
But more important than that, my entire reply is trying to speak about the importance of double checking your work
If you think we should use the paper copy, I STILL WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK YOUR WORK
I repeat again, we need to check the numbers, not just assume that one method is correct. Using paper copies to double check electronic results is 1000 times better than using another electronic method. Why?
#1 To intentionally cheat without getting caught you now need to have skills in both electronic cheating and in paper cheating, two distinctly unrelated fields.
#2 You have to cheat twice, not just once, giving us twice the chances to catch you. The difference in the cheating methods also means that chances are you will not be the most knowledgable person in both fields, so even the single best cheater at electronics would have serious problems cheating on the paper.
#3 If there is an error in the counting process not related to cheating, chances are it will not affect both paper counts and electronic coutns the same, givign us evidence of a problem and allowing us to investigate and discover what happened and to make it "right".
#4 We get the benefits of both electroinc counting and paper, so a power failure (as happened recently in Florida) will not destroy all the evidence unless a fire ALSO occures.
Re:Good luck enforcing Earth law against space
on
Lawyers In Space...
·
· Score: 1
Not really, both sides can still kill the other fairly easily.
The vacuum people can easily drop junk/asteroids down the gravity well, but just a little damage destroys the space habitat.
The truth is the US already has enough bombs with low radiation outputs to destroy every living thing in Russia/China without permanetly damaging the environment.
But either of those countries would have the time to return the attack.
It is the return attack that is most terrifying, not the envirionmental consequences.
They probably asked for a quote and were told it would cost $2 million to develop it in house. So they thought "let put a bounty on it.".
Depending on how poor there in house design methodology is, this could be a fair deal. Of course it assumes can't (too bureacratic? too much middle management?) upgrade there business model to allow for a more cost effetive methodology.
I.E. If they are like most businesses, they are ineffecient and know they are ineffecient. Unlike most companies they said, "Hey, let's pay some effecient people to do this" instead of starting a project with 1/3 the funding it needs due to their bad practices.
Which is right there the actual problem with Canada. It lets the extreme fringes divide the majority's opinion, allowing extremists to have power. I don't know much about Canad's political parties, so I will instead talk about what would happen in the US.
I can just see the Repuiblican party with 25% cow-towing to a blatantly racist White Supremeist that got 51 percent of the vote in a small county. As it is now, the religious right has more power than a lot of republicans want them to have.
In my opinion NEITHER system is better than the other. They both have there advantages and disadvantages.
The US system creates a strong centralist tendency empowering the moderates a lot, but dis-empowering the extremes. As a result only moderate ideas are really considered, i.e. which shade of gray do you want? (or in this case which Ivy league, white millionaire who served in the military do you want). The minorites have to be pretty big to get any vote (religion, color, gun, abortion, gays, etc.).
Canada's system allows for a greater variety of ideas, empowering vocal minorities, but that includes the lunatic fringes.
The error checking means they can't just say "Our machines gave us 10 billion votes for Bush and 1 billion votes for Gore." Esepecially cause there are not 10 billion americans.
They do things like this:
x votes on this machine every hour total, y votes for candidate A, z votes for Candidate B, w votes for none of the above.
And Diebold does all of this error checking in INCREDIBALLY BAD WAYS.
For example, they do error checking on original data, but make copies of the data. If the original is verified as accurate they approve the COPY, even if the copy is different from the original.
ANd of course there is all the security, which Diebold ignores. They put in back doors, use standard keys/passwords that apply to all the machines they make instead of unique ones (Would you buy a house that had a key that matched every other one on your street???
The simple truth is there is NO excuse for not using paper copy to double check any electronic voting machines except that the republicans are afraid of re-count votes.
They would rather risk election fraud then risk a recount.
The machines are NOT safer or in any way less likely to have bad counts, they have in fact been tested and found to in some cases generate MORE bad votes then optical machines.
You think that was bad? I had a friend tell me about his "Guru" was describing his great new power generation idea. I listened to it for 10 minutes, then realized the guy had re-invented the standard Stirling Engine, and thought it was a perpetual motion machine.
My friend is not a moron, and when I showed him the stirling engine on the internet he quit attending the "Guru".
You have some points, but they are easily handled by the article itself.
You personally would set the limits on when the utility could drain your battery and for what price. It would be EASY to have the pc calculate how much the utility would have to pay to make it worth your while.
The end solution should have the price so high that utilities would only buy the power from you for emergencies lasting less than 1/2 hour. Basically, they would end up using the distributed battery back up to delay black out situations when the main generator goes down and they have to start up a back up generators.
It would probably not be used to for "brown outs" where they would have to make due for hours of power shortages.
Your information is FALSE. Just plain wrong. At least for the United States. Particularly for the West coast of California.
If you do ANY research into energy use you will find that we are [b]DON'T[/b] have enough generators. We are currently experiencing a large boom in generator building that is not expected to end for at least 10 years.
And you also ignore the fact that even with enough generators, we would still need extra generators to act as emergency back up generators, and peak only generators.
Most importantly, the main idea behind the 2nd article is NOT to act as primary generators. Instead they act as an emergency Black Out prevention device. I.E. When a generator fails, we drain the vehicle batteries while they start up their official back up generators, a process that can take as long as an hour to do in certain locations.
If you knew anythign about the Western United States Power generation you would realize that your "non-problem" is a real problem and that the solution in the second article is an interesting idea that should solve it.
While in general it is not profitable, you miss several issues:
1)The batteries already have to be the expesnive kind that can charge and release, to make the car work as intended.
2) Power companies themselves DO charge batteries off hours and use them on peak hours. This is not a big thing, but it does in fact happen.
3) The main pointis NOT really to feed the energy during the entire peak demand, to to handle short duration peak surges. A good example would be the power company using this battery drain for 10 minutes, when a main generator failed, before they got a back up up and running. This could easily prevent a cascading power blackout of the type that affected the North East not that long ago.
The idea as presented in the 2nd article makes a lot of sense, and would be profitable, if there was a LARGE number of the expesnive batteries available for use scattered around the area. Until we get this set up it is not worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
Which brings us to the one TRUE lie in the entire fiasco: the republicans did lie about what he said. Why did they lie? Because they knew his statement was not at worst misleadin, specifically that some intelligent people that knew the facts would agree with what he said even if the republicans considered it an exaggeration.
We are NOT stating they are a way to appease thugs. We are stating that one of the ways the rich benefit from taxes is that it allows poor people to live without committing crimes. If you give a man a choice of starve to death or kill a rich man, they will kill the rich man. This does not make them a thug.
Finally, you ended with my favorite indicator of stupidity: "Let it go". Let it go means you do not care if I am right or wrong, you just want me to shut up about it. Yes it is more polite than "shut up", but it is still never used by people that know what they are talking about.
Or rather it WOULD have been polite if you had just stated "It's a stupid argument, let it go."
But instead you gave your own argument, THEN told me to let it go, indicating that you yourself just wanted the last word.
The RICH have the most to lose if medicare and social security go down. Because if they did, the riots in the streets would have people hunting and killing the rich.
A bunch of Republicans saw this statement as an opportunity to insult Al Gore. So they stated that he was claiming to have "invented the internet.". Republicans used that phrase, NOT Al gore.
But you don't care about the actual truth of what a man said, all you want to do is make an insulting joke.
He really pushed the 'The robot was always real/alive, the mom was always fake/soul dead because being true to love makes us real.'
The real problem was that the editors did not 'get the movie'. So they kept trying to cut the ending, totally reversing the meaning of the movie as the director/author saw it.
If they were smart they would have cut the middle part significantly and otherwise reduce time through out the rest of the movie without cutting any full scenes.
But the story itself reads very well, even if they did make it too long.
You need a better license, more inspections, a better driving record.
And the legal requirements for making a semi-truck require it to be built far safer.
One of the problems with Hummers, unlike Semi-trucks, is that they have high bumpers. These bumpers sometimes start ABOVE the bumber/hood of a small vehicle.
Semi-trucks are legally required to have lower bumpers that alway make contact with the small car bumpers.
And people WOULD pay more for better accuracy. My company pays huge amounts for OCR work, usually getting in boxes of CD's each week.
Lawyers consume OCR capacity like it was Wine the night before Prohibition starts up.
Yes we use the low end junk they put out now, but we would love to pay much more money for stuff that was even 10% better. Right now, even OCR of Typed documents SUCKS!!!. Yes it is 99+% accurate, but one letter off in one hundred means we have to pay people to read all 3 million documents we subphoened to find any dirty words letting us sue the company for sexual harassement instead of just telling the computer to find them.
The problem is OCR is an incredibally difficult task, even for typed stuff. Different fonts, poor photocopying, different colored inks/papers, all contribute to making it a very difficult job. And the use of special characters such as $ which looks an awfull lot like S, makes it harder.
We often get crap that looks like this: "1+ is 1MP0$$18!E" instead of "It is IMPOSSIBLE"
4 planes were hijacked, only 3 buildings were hit. The last plane failed not they forgot to bring box cutters, but because the passengers realized what was really going on and took action. The presence of the horribly dangerous box-cutters did NOT help the terrorists in any way shape or form. They could have taken the first 3 planes just by claiming they had a bomb and that they would blow up the plane unless the pilots left the cockpit and let them fly it.
They succeeded in the first 3 only because we were complacent and they had surprise on there side, not because they took tiny sharp instruments to threaten us with.
The second they lost element of surprise than the heroes of that flight LAUGHED at their puny box cutters, fought them, and WON.
If they try it again, this time with 4 ft long, razor sharp titanium alloy long swords on a plane, they would STILL be unable to crash that plane into a building because they lost the surprise.
The current anti-blade regulations are ridiculous, do not in any way increase security. I personally have seen people sneak pocket knives past them. In fact, if the airlines were to issue everyone on board a 1 ft short sword, I think it would do more towards preventing terrorist attacks than attempting to block "box cutters". If it wern't for drunk people and children, this probably would already be a rule.
Yes this is the same system. Buried towards the end of the article is the fact that the same system is also used by them.
Getting my fingerprint is definitely a privacy issue, even if some think it is an reasonable one.
And for that, your argument fails.
Mentally, the so called "differences" between men and women are practically none existent, except for the cultural ones, at least as compared to the mental differences between say a white jewish guy and a black atheist guy.
The question here was what can we tell men about how women think differently from men, and the answer is basically, they think the same way men would if men were in the position of growing up worrying about getting pregnant, trying to convince a woman to pursue them, and trying to get the women to support them and/or any children they might have.
The basics are fairly obvious, the complex stuff varies so much it is not helpful to print:
1)There is little if any difference between women and men, except that generated by cultural differences.
2)The major cultural differences are: a)Women are expected to take care of any children they have so b)they have a more reasonable fear of sex, c)men persue the women, d) the women make them self more attractive pursuits via make up, etc., e) the women insist on cash for taking care of the child, f) they insist that there are huge cultural differences between men and women (because everything above is to their advantage now that Abortion is legal) in order to maintain the current status quo, and g) some men subconciously /conciously understand the situation, so some of them act to preserve the few benefits men have (pay inequalities for example) or develop criminal rage (rape, etc.) towards the women.
Cynical? maybe. But lets face it if men had the kind of cultural power that women had we would abuse it the same way women do. If I could get a date simply by losing weight and dressing skimpily, I would probably insist that she buy me dinner too.
You said 2) that the termination must be mutual and then you said "They decided they would rather loose your business".
If as you claim, the termination must be mutual, than that means they do not have the right to loose your business, they must keep their original contract.
I will state that most people like the conveinence of knowning immediately who won the ellection.
But I do want to ask you where you live. You claim to live in a place that has used electronic voting for many years? Where? The first "electronic voting" in the United States happened exactly 3 years ago. Previous to that, the most advanced machines legally allowed to be used in national elections were called "optical machines". While they used electricity and sometimes had touch screens, all the machines did were punch holes in special voting cards which were run through optical scanners.
When people are talking about electronic voting, they are specifically talking about machines that do not make a physical record.
The powertools, cars, hand tools that were made when they came out originally died were junk in 5 years too.
PC's are basically a 20 year old peice of technology, that is still growing at a huge rate.
Give it another 30 years to mature and PC's will start lasting 10, 30, 50+ years.
But more important than that, my entire reply is trying to speak about the importance of double checking your work
If you think we should use the paper copy, I STILL WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK YOUR WORK
I repeat again, we need to check the numbers, not just assume that one method is correct. Using paper copies to double check electronic results is 1000 times better than using another electronic method. Why?
#1 To intentionally cheat without getting caught you now need to have skills in both electronic cheating and in paper cheating, two distinctly unrelated fields.
#2 You have to cheat twice, not just once, giving us twice the chances to catch you. The difference in the cheating methods also means that chances are you will not be the most knowledgable person in both fields, so even the single best cheater at electronics would have serious problems cheating on the paper.
#3 If there is an error in the counting process not related to cheating, chances are it will not affect both paper counts and electronic coutns the same, givign us evidence of a problem and allowing us to investigate and discover what happened and to make it "right".
#4 We get the benefits of both electroinc counting and paper, so a power failure (as happened recently in Florida) will not destroy all the evidence unless a fire ALSO occures.
The vacuum people can easily drop junk/asteroids down the gravity well, but just a little damage destroys the space habitat.
The truth is the US already has enough bombs with low radiation outputs to destroy every living thing in Russia/China without permanetly damaging the environment.
But either of those countries would have the time to return the attack. It is the return attack that is most terrifying, not the envirionmental consequences.
Depending on how poor there in house design methodology is, this could be a fair deal. Of course it assumes can't (too bureacratic? too much middle management?) upgrade there business model to allow for a more cost effetive methodology.
I.E. If they are like most businesses, they are ineffecient and know they are ineffecient. Unlike most companies they said, "Hey, let's pay some effecient people to do this" instead of starting a project with 1/3 the funding it needs due to their bad practices.
I can just see the Repuiblican party with 25% cow-towing to a blatantly racist White Supremeist that got 51 percent of the vote in a small county. As it is now, the religious right has more power than a lot of republicans want them to have.
In my opinion NEITHER system is better than the other. They both have there advantages and disadvantages.
The US system creates a strong centralist tendency empowering the moderates a lot, but dis-empowering the extremes. As a result only moderate ideas are really considered, i.e. which shade of gray do you want? (or in this case which Ivy league, white millionaire who served in the military do you want). The minorites have to be pretty big to get any vote (religion, color, gun, abortion, gays, etc.).
Canada's system allows for a greater variety of ideas, empowering vocal minorities, but that includes the lunatic fringes.
The error checking means they can't just say "Our machines gave us 10 billion votes for Bush and 1 billion votes for Gore." Esepecially cause there are not 10 billion americans.
They do things like this:
x votes on this machine every hour total, y votes for candidate A, z votes for Candidate B, w votes for none of the above.
And Diebold does all of this error checking in INCREDIBALLY BAD WAYS.
For example, they do error checking on original data, but make copies of the data. If the original is verified as accurate they approve the COPY, even if the copy is different from the original.
ANd of course there is all the security, which Diebold ignores. They put in back doors, use standard keys/passwords that apply to all the machines they make instead of unique ones (Would you buy a house that had a key that matched every other one on your street???
The simple truth is there is NO excuse for not using paper copy to double check any electronic voting machines except that the republicans are afraid of re-count votes.
They would rather risk election fraud then risk a recount.
The machines are NOT safer or in any way less likely to have bad counts, they have in fact been tested and found to in some cases generate MORE bad votes then optical machines.
It helps the soldiers occupy the territory, preventing the 900+ dead we got from "insurgent" attacks in our latest war.
My friend is not a moron, and when I showed him the stirling engine on the internet he quit attending the "Guru".
You personally would set the limits on when the utility could drain your battery and for what price. It would be EASY to have the pc calculate how much the utility would have to pay to make it worth your while.
The end solution should have the price so high that utilities would only buy the power from you for emergencies lasting less than 1/2 hour. Basically, they would end up using the distributed battery back up to delay black out situations when the main generator goes down and they have to start up a back up generators.
It would probably not be used to for "brown outs" where they would have to make due for hours of power shortages.
If you do ANY research into energy use you will find that we are [b]DON'T[/b] have enough generators. We are currently experiencing a large boom in generator building that is not expected to end for at least 10 years.
And you also ignore the fact that even with enough generators, we would still need extra generators to act as emergency back up generators, and peak only generators.
Most importantly, the main idea behind the 2nd article is NOT to act as primary generators. Instead they act as an emergency Black Out prevention device. I.E. When a generator fails, we drain the vehicle batteries while they start up their official back up generators, a process that can take as long as an hour to do in certain locations.
If you knew anythign about the Western United States Power generation you would realize that your "non-problem" is a real problem and that the solution in the second article is an interesting idea that should solve it.
1)The batteries already have to be the expesnive kind that can charge and release, to make the car work as intended.
2) Power companies themselves DO charge batteries off hours and use them on peak hours. This is not a big thing, but it does in fact happen.
3) The main pointis NOT really to feed the energy during the entire peak demand, to to handle short duration peak surges. A good example would be the power company using this battery drain for 10 minutes, when a main generator failed, before they got a back up up and running. This could easily prevent a cascading power blackout of the type that affected the North East not that long ago.
The idea as presented in the 2nd article makes a lot of sense, and would be profitable, if there was a LARGE number of the expesnive batteries available for use scattered around the area. Until we get this set up it is not worthwhile.