How do you have a blind person vote without assistance?
I don't know how it's done in Arizona, but in California, you're allowed to have somebody help you fill out the ballot if you're unable to do it yourself. If nothing else, one of the precinct workers will assist you. Of course, most blind people probably have permanent absentee ballot status and take care of it on their own, but there's already a way to let them vote at the polls if needed.
I spent over ten years working the polls on election day. Generally speaking, it's a long, slow, boring job, but somebody has to do it. However, I always hoped for a small turnout, not a large one because that increased the odds that the people voting knew something about the issues.
You see, the informed voters will turn out for every election because they actually care about the issues. When you have a large turnout, it's because large numbers of ignorant people have been excited by a sound-bite, a slogan or a last-minute piece of mud-slinging and turned out to vote their emotions, even if, as sometimes happens, it's against their own long-term interests. I'm opposed to anything that makes voting easier than it already is, simply because it makes impulse voting more of a factor. Do you really want elections won by the candidate who came up with the most attention grabbing, last minute soundbite? I certainly don't!
Yes, all it takes is two or more people in the car, although I'm not sure how it works with babies. Motorcycles are also allowed to use carpool lanes, btw.
And I'm only risking my own damfool neck, I can at most cause others a dent. Or something.
Has it ever occured to you that the "or something" might include enormous feelings of guilt in a driver who wasn't able to avoid you and ended up killing you? They wouldn't know that you accepted the risk because you'd have no way to tell them. And, even if your next of kin knew, and told the driver of the car that killed you I doubt if it'd do any good. I don't know you, but judging only from what you wrote here you sound like a selfish, inconsiderate clod who cares nothing for anybody else, or anything except their own convenience.
Perhaps people who are rich perceive a smaller consequence for behaving badly.
And as long as the penalty is a fine of a fixed amount, they'll be right. Here in California, the fine for driving in the carpool lane when you're alone is about $275. For the working poor, that's a lot of money, but for the 1%, it's not even petty cash; it's too little to care about.
There's also Talos, a giant made of bronze who was guarding Europa on Crete when Jason and the Argonauts came past. The story takes place before the Trojan War, although I don't know which one is actually older.
Governments have been taxing alcohol for centuries and tobacco for decades and it hasn't stopped people from using either one of them. Anybody who thinks that taxing something that people like is going to make them stop must be suffering from the Bullwinkle Syndrome.
Start with the smallest type you can read without glasses and work your way down.
I think we're talking apples and oranges here. I don't use reading glasses because type is too small for me, I do it because I'm farsighted; my minimum focal distance is about half a yard or so, and anything closer is blurred without them. And, I just checked and neither of my implants is a CrystaLens. Both of them are ACRYSof IQ Toric IOL.
You do understand, don't you, that I wore glasses for over fifty years before the surgery and have needed the readers ever since? And, my opthalmologist doesn't have a problem with my needing them?
How long ago did you get the implants? I have a CrystaLens in my left eye, and need no corrective lenses at all.
I got my right eye done last April and the left one in May. I think my opthamologist was a tad dissapointed that I still need readers, but I haven't got the slightest complaint. And, I'm more of a cyborg than that, although I prefer to refer to myself as a bionic man. For about four years or so, I've had adjustable augmented hearing.
I already have optical implants. They got rid of my astigmatism and changed me from being intensly near sighted to being slightly farsighted. I still need reading glasses for close up work, but it's a lot better than it was before I got them, especially when you take into account the cataracts I used to have.
It assumes that a campaign contribution can be equated with bribery.
The important point here is that Dodd's own words imply that he considers those contributions to be bribes. It's a fine distinction, but there's a well-known precedent: Albert Fall went to prison because he considered a loan from his friend Doheny to be a bribe.
Actually, I doubt that Gnome would have to remove much, if anything from Gnome 3 to get it to run on a tablet. From what I can see of it, it was designed as a tablet UI in the first place, then jammed onto a desktop environment.
...Handwriting recognition or on screen keyboard as a part of the window manager. It will suck unless they built those into the WM.
Why should handwriting recognition or an on screen keyboard be part of the Window Manager, the part of the GUI that controls window positioning, moving and resizing? Yes, it needs to be part of the User Interface, not tacked on later as an afterthought, but the WM isn't the component that should be controlling it.
Most of these "journalists" and "reporters" care more about fame than objectivity so they'd likely welcome the attention.
Personally, I'd go a lot farther: few if any "journalists" or "reporters" give a damn about objectivity or make the slightest attempt to be neutral. Almost all of them think they have a God Given Right to slant the news to fit whatever adjenda tehy happen to have at the moment. In fact, I'd bet that over 90% of them would be surprised to find out that there was a time when they were expected to stick to the truth in reporting and keep their personal opinions for the Editorial Page.
I'm pointing out that we were facing an army that we *knew* were not using the tactics I described.
Actually, AIUI, they were trying to defend every little bit of the border, meaning that they were spread out, static and unable to support each other, which is why our tactics worked so well.
You seem to be very concerned with what works in Theory. I, OTOH, am far more interested in what happens in The Real World. Making all adults part of your active defense forces sounds good, but except in small countries with fairly homogenous populations, it doesn't seem to work very well in practice. And, having civillians with small arms defending every building in a town or village won't help one bit against an invader who's both able and willing to bomb the town into rubble, then send in tanks supported by infantry, especially if they use flame throwers or similar weapons. To give a historical example, the Japanese were very good at using caves as strong points, so the Marines used flamethrowers to clear out the enterances, followed by satchel charges to collapse the cave mouths and leaving any survivors trapped inside to starve.
During the liberation of Kuwait, Hussien didn't even FEED HIS TROOPS.
And what, if anything, does that have to do with the US stratagy, especially when you consider the fact that we didn't learn that until later. We attacked them in a number of places and whoever broke through would become the main thrust. In the event, of course, they all did, but we only needed one, and didn't care which it was.
And, the main reason Switzerland was left alone during WWII wasn't the strength of their defense, good though it was, but the fact that they were more valuable to everybody as a neutral.
"He who defends everything defends nothing." Anybody who really wanted to invade such a country would simply take that into account, probably by attacking several places at once, with whichever thrust broke through becoming the main line of attack. For an excellent Real World example, look at what US forces did during the liberation of Kuawait.
That all depends on where you're fighting. Attacking your enemy's farmland is going to involve far fewer non-combatants than if you wait until he's attacking one of your major cities. And, of course, there's also the fact that all of those non-combatants are enemy non-combatants instead of your own citizens. As far as a "sneak attack on your flank," that possibility's always present, no matter where you fight.
The British Army has roughly 142,000 troops, meaning that they sent about a third of their army. Pretty impressive, I'd say, considering that it wasn't really their fight.
So, the Obama Administration is using unmanned drones instead of expensive manned jets loaded with bombs to take out people they consider a threat. I must admit that that's change I can believe in!
Not so. A war only threatens civillians in the combat zone. As examples, no French civillians were threatened by Napoleon's invasion of Russia and no British civillians were threatened by the Crimean War.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Debian's package manager is only used on distros based on Debian. Distros such as Fedora, which are based on RedHat use rpm and yum.
I don't know how it's done in Arizona, but in California, you're allowed to have somebody help you fill out the ballot if you're unable to do it yourself. If nothing else, one of the precinct workers will assist you. Of course, most blind people probably have permanent absentee ballot status and take care of it on their own, but there's already a way to let them vote at the polls if needed.
I spent over ten years working the polls on election day. Generally speaking, it's a long, slow, boring job, but somebody has to do it. However, I always hoped for a small turnout, not a large one because that increased the odds that the people voting knew something about the issues.
You see, the informed voters will turn out for every election because they actually care about the issues. When you have a large turnout, it's because large numbers of ignorant people have been excited by a sound-bite, a slogan or a last-minute piece of mud-slinging and turned out to vote their emotions, even if, as sometimes happens, it's against their own long-term interests. I'm opposed to anything that makes voting easier than it already is, simply because it makes impulse voting more of a factor. Do you really want elections won by the candidate who came up with the most attention grabbing, last minute soundbite? I certainly don't!
Yes, all it takes is two or more people in the car, although I'm not sure how it works with babies. Motorcycles are also allowed to use carpool lanes, btw.
And I'm only risking my own damfool neck, I can at most cause others a dent. Or something.
Has it ever occured to you that the "or something" might include enormous feelings of guilt in a driver who wasn't able to avoid you and ended up killing you? They wouldn't know that you accepted the risk because you'd have no way to tell them. And, even if your next of kin knew, and told the driver of the car that killed you I doubt if it'd do any good. I don't know you, but judging only from what you wrote here you sound like a selfish, inconsiderate clod who cares nothing for anybody else, or anything except their own convenience.
Perhaps people who are rich perceive a smaller consequence for behaving badly.
And as long as the penalty is a fine of a fixed amount, they'll be right. Here in California, the fine for driving in the carpool lane when you're alone is about $275. For the working poor, that's a lot of money, but for the 1%, it's not even petty cash; it's too little to care about.
There's also Talos, a giant made of bronze who was guarding Europa on Crete when Jason and the Argonauts came past. The story takes place before the Trojan War, although I don't know which one is actually older.
Governments have been taxing alcohol for centuries and tobacco for decades and it hasn't stopped people from using either one of them. Anybody who thinks that taxing something that people like is going to make them stop must be suffering from the Bullwinkle Syndrome.
Start with the smallest type you can read without glasses and work your way down.
I think we're talking apples and oranges here. I don't use reading glasses because type is too small for me, I do it because I'm farsighted; my minimum focal distance is about half a yard or so, and anything closer is blurred without them. And, I just checked and neither of my implants is a CrystaLens. Both of them are ACRYSof IQ Toric IOL.
You do understand, don't you, that I wore glasses for over fifty years before the surgery and have needed the readers ever since? And, my opthalmologist doesn't have a problem with my needing them?
How long ago did you get the implants? I have a CrystaLens in my left eye, and need no corrective lenses at all.
I got my right eye done last April and the left one in May. I think my opthamologist was a tad dissapointed that I still need readers, but I haven't got the slightest complaint. And, I'm more of a cyborg than that, although I prefer to refer to myself as a bionic man. For about four years or so, I've had adjustable augmented hearing.
I already have optical implants. They got rid of my astigmatism and changed me from being intensly near sighted to being slightly farsighted. I still need reading glasses for close up work, but it's a lot better than it was before I got them, especially when you take into account the cataracts I used to have.
It assumes that a campaign contribution can be equated with bribery.
The important point here is that Dodd's own words imply that he considers those contributions to be bribes. It's a fine distinction, but there's a well-known precedent: Albert Fall went to prison because he considered a loan from his friend Doheny to be a bribe.
Actually, I doubt that Gnome would have to remove much, if anything from Gnome 3 to get it to run on a tablet. From what I can see of it, it was designed as a tablet UI in the first place, then jammed onto a desktop environment.
...Handwriting recognition or on screen keyboard as a part of the window manager. It will suck unless they built those into the WM.
Why should handwriting recognition or an on screen keyboard be part of the Window Manager, the part of the GUI that controls window positioning, moving and resizing? Yes, it needs to be part of the User Interface, not tacked on later as an afterthought, but the WM isn't the component that should be controlling it.
Personally, I'd go a lot farther: few if any "journalists" or "reporters" give a damn about objectivity or make the slightest attempt to be neutral. Almost all of them think they have a God Given Right to slant the news to fit whatever adjenda tehy happen to have at the moment. In fact, I'd bet that over 90% of them would be surprised to find out that there was a time when they were expected to stick to the truth in reporting and keep their personal opinions for the Editorial Page.
When you're the owner of a slaughterhouse, turning a river red with blood is pollution. When your name is Moses, it's Divine Judgement.
I just checked, and it's blacked out too.
Actually, AIUI, they were trying to defend every little bit of the border, meaning that they were spread out, static and unable to support each other, which is why our tactics worked so well.
You seem to be very concerned with what works in Theory. I, OTOH, am far more interested in what happens in The Real World. Making all adults part of your active defense forces sounds good, but except in small countries with fairly homogenous populations, it doesn't seem to work very well in practice. And, having civillians with small arms defending every building in a town or village won't help one bit against an invader who's both able and willing to bomb the town into rubble, then send in tanks supported by infantry, especially if they use flame throwers or similar weapons. To give a historical example, the Japanese were very good at using caves as strong points, so the Marines used flamethrowers to clear out the enterances, followed by satchel charges to collapse the cave mouths and leaving any survivors trapped inside to starve.
And what, if anything, does that have to do with the US stratagy, especially when you consider the fact that we didn't learn that until later. We attacked them in a number of places and whoever broke through would become the main thrust. In the event, of course, they all did, but we only needed one, and didn't care which it was.
And, the main reason Switzerland was left alone during WWII wasn't the strength of their defense, good though it was, but the fact that they were more valuable to everybody as a neutral.
"He who defends everything defends nothing." Anybody who really wanted to invade such a country would simply take that into account, probably by attacking several places at once, with whichever thrust broke through becoming the main line of attack. For an excellent Real World example, look at what US forces did during the liberation of Kuawait.
That all depends on where you're fighting. Attacking your enemy's farmland is going to involve far fewer non-combatants than if you wait until he's attacking one of your major cities. And, of course, there's also the fact that all of those non-combatants are enemy non-combatants instead of your own citizens. As far as a "sneak attack on your flank," that possibility's always present, no matter where you fight.
The British Army has roughly 142,000 troops, meaning that they sent about a third of their army. Pretty impressive, I'd say, considering that it wasn't really their fight.
So, the Obama Administration is using unmanned drones instead of expensive manned jets loaded with bombs to take out people they consider a threat. I must admit that that's change I can believe in!
A war threatens civilians on both sides.
Not so. A war only threatens civillians in the combat zone. As examples, no French civillians were threatened by Napoleon's invasion of Russia and no British civillians were threatened by the Crimean War.