As far as the taxman is concerned he can call it whatever the hell he likes but without official charity status it will be treated as income and taxed. So no, he is not dodging taxes by calling it a donation.
If they can seal an ATM, they can seal a voting machine. This truly isn't rocket science.
No it's not rocket science, nor is it ATM science. Learn how and why the traditional paper systems work and one day you may understand why the quote above is 'not even wrong'.
This method is used in Sweden for example, and conducted as follows. The voter casts three ballots, one for each of the three elections (national, regional, and local), each in a sealed envelope. The party and candidate names are pre-printed on the ballot, or the voter can write them in on a blank ballot. When voting has finished, all envelopes are opened on the counting table, for one election at a time. They are sorted in piles according to party, inspecting them for validity. The piles are then counted manually, while witnesses around the table observe. The count is recorded, and the same pile is counted again. If the results do not agree, it is counted a third time. When all piles are counted and the results agree, the result is certified and transmitted for central tabulation. The count as received is made public, to allow anyone to double-check the tabulation and audit the raw data. There appears to be a high level of confidence in this system among the population, as evidenced by the lack of criticism of it." - Shamelessly C&P from WP.
The last sentance in the quote hits the nail on the head, elections are about trust, anyone who thinks electronic voting is a good idea should be asking themselves what "problem" are they "solving"?
With manual fraud one man can effect one polling place, with computerised fraud the same man can effect the entire election, and with less risk of being caught.
Trust is not a technical problem and slot machines are not transparent to all parties. The speed of a manual count is also not a problem. Basically electronic voting is fixing a problem that doesn't exist, like an electronic mouse trap it's expensive, unreliable, and pointless.
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, were progressives? Is the US educational system really that fucked up that it equates totalitarian dictators with what are basically "social democrats"?
Progressivism: "Is not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic" - Center for American Progress.
Yes it's a fact that nobody has a good ice cap model. Simarly nobody has a solution to the N-body problem, so does that mean the theory of gravity is wrong?
Heh, I'm in my 50's, my phone company calls me up on the landline to try and sell me the mobile they know I don't have. Thankfully they have some manners and stopped calling when I asked them to stop.
I'm an 'environmentalist', I believe deep sea drillers are responsible in that they will comply with regulations, the drillers themselves want a spill even less than I do (albeit for different reasons). However I'm also a realist and know for a fact that oil spills will eventually occur even with the most stringent regulations, so when people suggest drilling in the polar regions, or the coral sea, the great barrier reef, etc, no amount of "we will be careful" is enough to convince me that the risk is worth the gain. Compared to the Artic, the Gulf was already an environmental wasteland when the BP spill occured.
Uhu., and what speculations are they making to determine the price, future supply/demand perchance? I remeber reading a SciAM article back in the day you had to go to a news stand (~1990). It investigated sources of oil and projected prices, they suggested that by 2010 oil would be $100/b and oil companies would be digging up tar sands.
Great post, I agree wholeheartedly. Yet as a species I don't think we have been acting a great deal more intellegently than fermenting yeast in a sealed container.
"ability to self-limit" - Kangaroos sort of self limit, they can freeze the development of their embryo for up to a year if conditions are too dry. Such temporary limiting adaptations are common here in Oz because the environment is unpredictable wrt drought vs flood (ie: boom and bust is a feature of the Aussie environment, not a bug).
More of a hallucination than an observation, along the same lines as "god won't allow man to destroy the environment". Anyone who knows anything about beer should be aware of what yeast does in a sealed container with a plentiful supply of sugar. The self destructive behaviour is very similar to what humans are doing with our plentiful suply of fossil fuels, except the sealed container we are in is the entire planet. So far as "shitting in our own nest" goes, we humans have shown ourself to be barely more intelligent than the yeast.
Almost eveything is more dense as a solid than it is as a gas or liquid, solid water is weird, it expands under pressure, if it has nowhere to expand into it melts (since water is most dense as a liquid at ~1degC).
The Earth's gravitational field is in constant flux, the exact shape of the field drives the ocean currents. This is where GRACE comes in. Since it's basic data about a basic force that controls so much of what happens on the surface lots of other interesting (and possibly useful) things can be messured, eg: changes in groundwater during a drought, the mass of winter snowfalls, seasonal vs non-seasonal changes in parmenant ice caps.
I know it's you're constitutional right to firebomb anything you don't understand, but please settle down and google "prussic acid poisoning in cattle". Also realise you're going to need something more powerfull than firebombs to get rid of the entire family of sorghum grasses which do exactly the same thing under the right conditions. I think you would basically have to sterilise the top 3 feet of the Earth's crust but I'm sure there are places near the Mexican border where you can get that sort of weaponry.
Once you open Pandora's box, you can't shut it again
So let's nail it shut with a few facts from a random but reputable source on the subject of prussic acid poisioning,....
1. Sudangrass, forage sorghum, and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids are often used for summer pasture, green
chop, hay, or silage. Under certain conditions, livestock consuming these feedstuffs may be poisoned by
prussic acid (HCN).
2. Exposure to excessive prussic acid--also called hydrocyanic acid, hydrogen cyanide, or cyanide--can be
fatal. However, producers can manage and feed their livestock to avoid problems with prussic acid.
3. Grazing stunted plants during drought is the most common cause of poisoning of livestock
by prussic acid-producing plants.
Sounds to me that the farmer simply neglected to check his cattle for problems after he moved them. The GM angle has no basis in fact, it is a literary device to attract eyeballs.
Disclaimer: I've labeled myself an environmentalist for nearly 40yrs, I have no problem with GM food because the accusations against it have no basis in reality. I do have a problem with a economic system where it makes commercial sense to rip up mature orange orchards in Australia because we can import them cheaper from California. Unfortunately I don't have an answer and neither do the 'invisible hand' crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as the taxman is concerned he can call it whatever the hell he likes but without official charity status it will be treated as income and taxed. So no, he is not dodging taxes by calling it a donation.
If they can seal an ATM, they can seal a voting machine. This truly isn't rocket science.
No it's not rocket science, nor is it ATM science. Learn how and why the traditional paper systems work and one day you may understand why the quote above is 'not even wrong'.
This method is used in Sweden for example, and conducted as follows. The voter casts three ballots, one for each of the three elections (national, regional, and local), each in a sealed envelope. The party and candidate names are pre-printed on the ballot, or the voter can write them in on a blank ballot. When voting has finished, all envelopes are opened on the counting table, for one election at a time. They are sorted in piles according to party, inspecting them for validity. The piles are then counted manually, while witnesses around the table observe. The count is recorded, and the same pile is counted again. If the results do not agree, it is counted a third time. When all piles are counted and the results agree, the result is certified and transmitted for central tabulation. The count as received is made public, to allow anyone to double-check the tabulation and audit the raw data. There appears to be a high level of confidence in this system among the population, as evidenced by the lack of criticism of it." - Shamelessly C&P from WP.
The last sentance in the quote hits the nail on the head, elections are about trust, anyone who thinks electronic voting is a good idea should be asking themselves what "problem" are they "solving"?
With manual fraud one man can effect one polling place, with computerised fraud the same man can effect the entire election, and with less risk of being caught.
Trust is not a technical problem and slot machines are not transparent to all parties. The speed of a manual count is also not a problem. Basically electronic voting is fixing a problem that doesn't exist, like an electronic mouse trap it's expensive, unreliable, and pointless.
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, were progressives? Is the US educational system really that fucked up that it equates totalitarian dictators with what are basically "social democrats"?
Progressivism: "Is not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic" - Center for American Progress.
I've been a "greenie" for more than 3 decades. You do not have the faintest idea how or what I think, so please stop pretending you do.
I like the bit about manafacturing fear, that's cute coming from a company that was politely asked to stop funding climate FUD by the Royal Society.
Yes it's a fact that nobody has a good ice cap model. Simarly nobody has a solution to the N-body problem, so does that mean the theory of gravity is wrong?
Heh, I'm in my 50's, my phone company calls me up on the landline to try and sell me the mobile they know I don't have. Thankfully they have some manners and stopped calling when I asked them to stop.
Unfortunately for you (and everyone else, actually), reasonable conservatives are a dying breed in many places
From a non-american POV, Obama walks and talks like a "reasonable conservative".
article I've read on Slashdot
Noob alert!
Yes, they heard his "with us or against us" speech and decided "against" would be fun.
Russia under Putin is clearly a threat, we appease them. Remember Georgia? I do.
No you don't. You remember the half-truths that were force fed to Americans via a complacent media.
I'm an 'environmentalist', I believe deep sea drillers are responsible in that they will comply with regulations, the drillers themselves want a spill even less than I do (albeit for different reasons). However I'm also a realist and know for a fact that oil spills will eventually occur even with the most stringent regulations, so when people suggest drilling in the polar regions, or the coral sea, the great barrier reef, etc, no amount of "we will be careful" is enough to convince me that the risk is worth the gain. Compared to the Artic, the Gulf was already an environmental wasteland when the BP spill occured.
Uhu., and what speculations are they making to determine the price, future supply/demand perchance? I remeber reading a SciAM article back in the day you had to go to a news stand (~1990). It investigated sources of oil and projected prices, they suggested that by 2010 oil would be $100/b and oil companies would be digging up tar sands.
portmanteau bastardized
Is that something one would do with hot grits?
You don't seem to understand the difference.
Any lack of understanding in the above thread, is all yours.
Great post, I agree wholeheartedly. Yet as a species I don't think we have been acting a great deal more intellegently than fermenting yeast in a sealed container.
"ability to self-limit" - Kangaroos sort of self limit, they can freeze the development of their embryo for up to a year if conditions are too dry. Such temporary limiting adaptations are common here in Oz because the environment is unpredictable wrt drought vs flood (ie: boom and bust is a feature of the Aussie environment, not a bug).
This is an older observation that piece of fluff.
More of a hallucination than an observation, along the same lines as "god won't allow man to destroy the environment". Anyone who knows anything about beer should be aware of what yeast does in a sealed container with a plentiful supply of sugar. The self destructive behaviour is very similar to what humans are doing with our plentiful suply of fossil fuels, except the sealed container we are in is the entire planet. So far as "shitting in our own nest" goes, we humans have shown ourself to be barely more intelligent than the yeast.
Humans, OTOH, invent new ways to grow crops to increase yields or find some other way of allowing an ever-increasing population.
Efficientcy gains can only go so far, while we are confined to our own solar system there are limits to our growth.
Almost eveything is more dense as a solid than it is as a gas or liquid, solid water is weird, it expands under pressure, if it has nowhere to expand into it melts (since water is most dense as a liquid at ~1degC).
The Earth's gravitational field is in constant flux, the exact shape of the field drives the ocean currents. This is where GRACE comes in. Since it's basic data about a basic force that controls so much of what happens on the surface lots of other interesting (and possibly useful) things can be messured, eg: changes in groundwater during a drought, the mass of winter snowfalls, seasonal vs non-seasonal changes in parmenant ice caps.
On average, cars were more fuel efficient 30 years ago.
As a driver for 35yrs, I call bullshit. OTOH if you're american your idea of a 1980's family sedan is probably closer to my idea of a small truck.
I know it's you're constitutional right to firebomb anything you don't understand, but please settle down and google "prussic acid poisoning in cattle". Also realise you're going to need something more powerfull than firebombs to get rid of the entire family of sorghum grasses which do exactly the same thing under the right conditions. I think you would basically have to sterilise the top 3 feet of the Earth's crust but I'm sure there are places near the Mexican border where you can get that sort of weaponry.
Once you open Pandora's box, you can't shut it again
So let's nail it shut with a few facts from a random but reputable source on the subject of prussic acid poisioning, ....
1. Sudangrass, forage sorghum, and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids are often used for summer pasture, green chop, hay, or silage. Under certain conditions, livestock consuming these feedstuffs may be poisoned by prussic acid (HCN).
2. Exposure to excessive prussic acid--also called hydrocyanic acid, hydrogen cyanide, or cyanide--can be fatal. However, producers can manage and feed their livestock to avoid problems with prussic acid.
3. Grazing stunted plants during drought is the most common cause of poisoning of livestock by prussic acid-producing plants.
Sounds to me that the farmer simply neglected to check his cattle for problems after he moved them. The GM angle has no basis in fact, it is a literary device to attract eyeballs.
Disclaimer: I've labeled myself an environmentalist for nearly 40yrs, I have no problem with GM food because the accusations against it have no basis in reality. I do have a problem with a economic system where it makes commercial sense to rip up mature orange orchards in Australia because we can import them cheaper from California. Unfortunately I don't have an answer and neither do the 'invisible hand' crowd.