These things happen in primaries. Often a lot of independents swing the same way, or last-minute campaigning changes people's minds.
This is true, but it still doesn't explain the discrepancy between the Obama vote in Diebold districts vs hand counted districts. See for yourself.
The Ron Paul situation was inexcusable as well. How does someone receive 31 votes in a small town, but get called in to state headquarters as 0? This indicates one of three things:
1. Whoever was calling in was horribly incompetent.
2. Whoever was calling in was paid off to throw the numbers.
3. Whoever was calling in was personally biased, and decided to ignore the 0.
I tend to think it was #1 or maybe #3, because putting down a 0 would be downright retarded if you're trying to rig an election. Had the number for Paul been 10 rather than 31, nobody would have known. It just became obvious when one Ron Paul supporter said "Hey, I'm from that town and I voted!".
This sort of thing can't happen in elections.
Even if our elections are not being fixed one way or another, the fact that they can be fixed should convince us to change (god I'm sick of the word change...).
Since this is News for Nerds, does anyone have good ideas for a computer based voting system that allows people to keep the anonymity of their vote while still providing proof the vote wasn't fixed?
It's important to note that in all these precincts the exit polls agreed with the actual results. So unless the machines made error s_and_ the voters lied at exit polling this is just sour grapes.
Got a link? Because somehow I'm doubting the exit polls were right in the precinct where Paul got 31 votes (in a small town), but was marked as 0.
Then read "The Pragmatic Programmer," especially "GOALS" on pages 14-15.
I second the suggestion to read the Pragmatic programmer. Really though, if you want to be ready for the 'real' world, make crappy web apps that do CRUD stuff on a database via Java or.net , because that is what 80% of 'real' programming jobs are nowadays.
These attacks have to be stopped in your front-end development and not in the database engine.
Just so you know, by front-end, he doesn't mean javascript only (or at least I hope not). Check for SQL injection in whatever language your programming in too. Use prepared statements if you're using Java.
If I could only choose between the 2 of them, I'd go with the cheaper one. If I could choose anything else, I'd never get an all-in-one computer. I just hate having to part with a good LCD monitor every time I want to upgrade or switch computers.
How long does a computer last you? I typically find myself looking for a new monitor when I want a new computer too (which is about every 4 years).
As for the iMac vs the Dell One, I'd go with the iMac. The iMac runs OS X and Windows XP out of the box, The Dell would probably require some hacking around to get OS X running.
I wasn't referring to Libertarians in general, I was referring to Ron Paul, who obviously didn't get the Libertarian memo on not restricting rights.
It's not really hard to figure out where he's coming from on that, if he believes that life starts at conception, he isn't restricting rights, he's protecting them. That is consistent with the rest of his platform.
The fittest specimens will still get the best mates, and the losers will get to bonk only other losers. Someone with one or two serious defects might get to shag someone else with only one or two serious defects, but their offspring, with a cluster-fuck of defects, will be increasingly less likely to reproduce.
That depends on what you think 'serious defects' are. The fittest specimens, especially from the female side of the coin, won't be having children at least until their out of college (and graduate school?) which probably cuts down on the number of children they can have.
The unfit female, of course can start at 13.
We can still ensure they have a good quality of life, however, their patent genetic crappiness will make "being allowed to reproduce" moot. Fuck authoritarianism, we don't need it.
I don't support authoritarianism, especially when it comes down to reproduction. Of course, as a society, we could do more to encourage our smarter girls to reproduce earlier if we thought there was a problem. It does seem like having a system where our smartest women spend their first 25 years in school, then another 10 in the workforce to establish themselves before reproducing is a bad idea.
There is an interesting book by Richard Lynn called "dysgenics". He shows that in modern societies, we are actually selecting backwards in that the least smart people are having more children on average. I think it comes to about one IQ point per generation that we are losing.
I think I read about the book, but if we're losing one IQ point per generation, then the world will be on average, retarded in 20-30 generations?
Actually, my anecdotal evidence says that most men generally don't want children, and most of the women are looking for someone who does. Granted, most of them are looking for someone "who will make a good father", but they aren't that fussy, and will pass on the stud muffin (or the brain surgeon) in exchange for someone who also wants children.
Women are still marrying 'up' in society, despite a large increase in their wages in the past 20-30 years.
Almost every country is experiencing lower birth rates. Ethiopia has gone from 7 kids/woman to 5 kids/woman between 2000 and 2007. Between 1990 and 2000 it was more dramatic (maybe not for Ethiopia but for the world as a whole, I don't have the statistics immediately on hand). Of course, one might argue that the whole world is getting richer, but I don't think that is the cause.
Birth control? Or maybe men or women the world over are becoming less fertile.
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Agreed. And that's why I pointed out that the jock will likely "win" the one night stand at the bar, but the geek will likely "win" the marriage and the right to reproduce.
Yes and no, it depends on the Jock, and how likely the Jock's cum sponges are to use birth control. Of course, some jocks can support a family, one NFL player (Travis Henry) has like 9 kids with 8 different women if I recall correctly.
Also the geek is more likely to realize the expense of kids, and possibly have less children based on that. Perhaps some less thoughtful people will have many children because they see the 'cost of children' as being lower.
I think sexual selection nowadays is a lot more complex than smart guy/dumb guy or good looking/bad looking.
Getting laid isn't what matters from an evolution standpoint, having children is. So one would think while fat/skinny matters, being able to make enough money to actually make a woman realize you could care for a family is probably more important nowadays.
Nowdays everybody can have an offspring no matter what diseases, diets or social changes he is subjected to.
Actually, between birth control, abortion many modern countries have very low birth rates over the past 30ish years. Not everyone can have children...or perhaps not everyone is choosing having children. They are voluntarily removing themselves out of the gene pool
The article mentions that having a population explosion is what led to the quicker evolution, so one has to wonder if the low birth rates in western countries could end up having a dysgenic effect.
go to the Delta areas of MS and some counties in AL. Poverty, STDs, teen pregnancy, HS graduation/college acceptance rates, life expectancies are among the worst in the nation. Do you think it's right to just ignore these areas for any sort of advancement?
I'd bet you can find similar rates in Newark, NJ which isn't far from me and is very urban.
Although people like to generalize about the southern states having substandard schooling, I'm sure there are communities in every state that could use some help.
Unfortunately, there's one little hitch. Changing policy requires that many other people agree with you. Perhaps you've had your head in the sand the last few years, but it's a huge effort just to find a lot of people who don't agree that it's a sweet deal to trade some of their liberties and freedoms for perceived security.
I think what needs to be done on that front is an improvement in rhetoric. For Bush-ites who support such things in the war on terror, I usually gently point out that another president could abuse such laws even if Bush did not. I usually follow that up by asking them how they'd feel if Hillary had the right as president to check out their library records or conduct a warrantless search because they were deemed a "terroristic threat" for being part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
That usually makes them think a bit. Then I start to talk about Ron Paul.
.It's still going to be a long time before a geneticist can sit you down and having all the data make any sort of prediction, and even then these predictions will only be about biases and what sort of prevention you can do...... While hopefully understanding will happen one day, theres not much point in rushing out for one of these babies right now.
23andMe Claims they can tell you if you are predisposed to have a heart attack. That seems like it would be worth it, just so someone who is could take the threat more seriously (ie, exercise, diet, etc).
It's one thing to tell someone they should eat right, and exercise. It's another to tell them, you've got a 4 out of 100 chance of dying from a heart attack, so you'd better take care of yourself. Or am I missing something here?
You need to read about Learned Helplessness . You can prevent your government from enacting policy, that is if you can get over your perceived inability to do so.
The weird thing is that you mention how beholden the US is to China, as if it's a good thing
We're both beholden to each other, China needs the US market to continue their economic growth, and American needs China to keep buying dollars (which they've stopped).
I wish I had mod points for this but I don't so I will have to just repost it with a higher score (until some pro-us looneys mod this down as a troll or whatever).
The one thing that history has taught us is that power corrupts. If we in the west had the ability to make communism go away with one button and no chance of any reprisals we may have done it (or our policians may have done it for us without asking).
Nonsense. The US foreign policy up until and in WW2 was for the most part isolationist when it came to Europe. The idea that the US would nuke Russia "just to get rid of them" is absurd.
If we knew they had no chance of retaliating except with a conventional attack I could see us in the west having taken things a lot further.
There is nothing in our history, long ago, or recent that suggests that.
Very unlikely, since the citizens were pretty anti-war back then. You might have noticed how long it took us to get into WW2, and what circumstance it took?
Slashdot Mirror
These things happen in primaries. Often a lot of independents swing the same way, or last-minute campaigning changes people's minds.
This is true, but it still doesn't explain the discrepancy between the Obama vote in Diebold districts vs hand counted districts. See for yourself.
The Ron Paul situation was inexcusable as well. How does someone receive 31 votes in a small town, but get called in to state headquarters as 0? This indicates one of three things:
1. Whoever was calling in was horribly incompetent.
2. Whoever was calling in was paid off to throw the numbers.
3. Whoever was calling in was personally biased, and decided to ignore the 0.
I tend to think it was #1 or maybe #3, because putting down a 0 would be downright retarded if you're trying to rig an election. Had the number for Paul been 10 rather than 31, nobody would have known. It just became obvious when one Ron Paul supporter said "Hey, I'm from that town and I voted!".
This sort of thing can't happen in elections.
Even if our elections are not being fixed one way or another, the fact that they can be fixed should convince us to change (god I'm sick of the word change...).
Since this is News for Nerds, does anyone have good ideas for a computer based voting system that allows people to keep the anonymity of their vote while still providing proof the vote wasn't fixed?
It's important to note that in all these precincts the exit polls agreed with the actual results. So unless the machines made error s_and_ the voters lied at exit polling this is just sour grapes.
Got a link? Because somehow I'm doubting the exit polls were right in the precinct where Paul got 31 votes (in a small town), but was marked as 0.
Then read "The Pragmatic Programmer," especially "GOALS" on pages 14-15.
.net , because that is what 80% of 'real' programming jobs are nowadays.
I second the suggestion to read the Pragmatic programmer. Really though, if you want to be ready for the 'real' world, make crappy web apps that do CRUD stuff on a database via Java or
These attacks have to be stopped in your front-end development and not in the database engine.
Just so you know, by front-end, he doesn't mean javascript only (or at least I hope not). Check for SQL injection in whatever language your programming in too. Use prepared statements if you're using Java.
If I could only choose between the 2 of them, I'd go with the cheaper one. If I could choose anything else, I'd never get an all-in-one computer. I just hate having to part with a good LCD monitor every time I want to upgrade or switch computers.
How long does a computer last you? I typically find myself looking for a new monitor when I want a new computer too (which is about every 4 years).
As for the iMac vs the Dell One, I'd go with the iMac. The iMac runs OS X and Windows XP out of the box, The Dell would probably require some hacking around to get OS X running.
I wasn't referring to Libertarians in general, I was referring to Ron Paul, who obviously didn't get the Libertarian memo on not restricting rights.
It's not really hard to figure out where he's coming from on that, if he believes that life starts at conception, he isn't restricting rights, he's protecting them. That is consistent with the rest of his platform.
Does anybody still care about that game?
Yes, I've already started a book about it, called "From Vaporware to Vistaware"
The fittest specimens will still get the best mates, and the losers will get to bonk only other losers. Someone with one or two serious defects might get to shag someone else with only one or two serious defects, but their offspring, with a cluster-fuck of defects, will be increasingly less likely to reproduce.
That depends on what you think 'serious defects' are. The fittest specimens, especially from the female side of the coin, won't be having children at least until their out of college (and graduate school?) which probably cuts down on the number of children they can have.
The unfit female, of course can start at 13.
We can still ensure they have a good quality of life, however, their patent genetic crappiness will make "being allowed to reproduce" moot. Fuck authoritarianism, we don't need it.
I don't support authoritarianism, especially when it comes down to reproduction. Of course, as a society, we could do more to encourage our smarter girls to reproduce earlier if we thought there was a problem. It does seem like having a system where our smartest women spend their first 25 years in school, then another 10 in the workforce to establish themselves before reproducing is a bad idea.
There is an interesting book by Richard Lynn called "dysgenics". He shows that in modern societies, we are actually selecting backwards in that the least smart people are having more children on average. I think it comes to about one IQ point per generation that we are losing.
I think I read about the book, but if we're losing one IQ point per generation, then the world will be on average, retarded in 20-30 generations?
Actually, my anecdotal evidence says that most men generally don't want children, and most of the women are looking for someone who does. Granted, most of them are looking for someone "who will make a good father", but they aren't that fussy, and will pass on the stud muffin (or the brain surgeon) in exchange for someone who also wants children.
Women are still marrying 'up' in society, despite a large increase in their wages in the past 20-30 years. Almost every country is experiencing lower birth rates. Ethiopia has gone from 7 kids/woman to 5 kids/woman between 2000 and 2007. Between 1990 and 2000 it was more dramatic (maybe not for Ethiopia but for the world as a whole, I don't have the statistics immediately on hand). Of course, one might argue that the whole world is getting richer, but I don't think that is the cause.
Birth control? Or maybe men or women the world over are becoming less fertile.
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Man, I have to start going to church again.
Agreed. And that's why I pointed out that the jock will likely "win" the one night stand at the bar, but the geek will likely "win" the marriage and the right to reproduce.
Yes and no, it depends on the Jock, and how likely the Jock's cum sponges are to use birth control. Of course, some jocks can support a family, one NFL player (Travis Henry) has like 9 kids with 8 different women if I recall correctly.
Also the geek is more likely to realize the expense of kids, and possibly have less children based on that. Perhaps some less thoughtful people will have many children because they see the 'cost of children' as being lower.
I think sexual selection nowadays is a lot more complex than smart guy/dumb guy or good looking/bad looking.
Yeah, some politician who shares your ideas wrote a book about that. Oh, wait, it's Adolf Hitler, guess you already read it...
Actually, Eugenics was very popular with scientists around the world before WW2. When Hitler took it to the extreme, it became taboo.
Getting laid isn't what matters from an evolution standpoint, having children is. So one would think while fat/skinny matters, being able to make enough money to actually make a woman realize you could care for a family is probably more important nowadays.
Nowdays everybody can have an offspring no matter what diseases, diets or social changes he is subjected to.
Actually, between birth control, abortion many modern countries have very low birth rates over the past 30ish years. Not everyone can have children...or perhaps not everyone is choosing having children. They are voluntarily removing themselves out of the gene pool
The article mentions that having a population explosion is what led to the quicker evolution, so one has to wonder if the low birth rates in western countries could end up having a dysgenic effect.
Yet he still gladly published racist material.
He had about as much to do with publishing 'racist material' as commander taco did with personally publishing your post.
go to the Delta areas of MS and some counties in AL. Poverty, STDs, teen pregnancy, HS graduation/college acceptance rates, life expectancies are among the worst in the nation. Do you think it's right to just ignore these areas for any sort of advancement?
I'd bet you can find similar rates in Newark, NJ which isn't far from me and is very urban.
Although people like to generalize about the southern states having substandard schooling, I'm sure there are communities in every state that could use some help.
Unfortunately, there's one little hitch. Changing policy requires that many other people agree with you. Perhaps you've had your head in the sand the last few years, but it's a huge effort just to find a lot of people who don't agree that it's a sweet deal to trade some of their liberties and freedoms for perceived security.
I think what needs to be done on that front is an improvement in rhetoric. For Bush-ites who support such things in the war on terror, I usually gently point out that another president could abuse such laws even if Bush did not. I usually follow that up by asking them how they'd feel if Hillary had the right as president to check out their library records or conduct a warrantless search because they were deemed a "terroristic threat" for being part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
That usually makes them think a bit. Then I start to talk about Ron Paul.
.It's still going to be a long time before a geneticist can sit you down and having all the data make any sort of prediction, and even then these predictions will only be about biases and what sort of prevention you can do...... While hopefully understanding will happen one day, theres not much point in rushing out for one of these babies right now.
23andMe Claims they can tell you if you are predisposed to have a heart attack. That seems like it would be worth it, just so someone who is could take the threat more seriously (ie, exercise, diet, etc). It's one thing to tell someone they should eat right, and exercise. It's another to tell them, you've got a 4 out of 100 chance of dying from a heart attack, so you'd better take care of yourself. Or am I missing something here?
Midichlorians live, as far as I know, in your cells and blood. 23andMe analyzes a cheek swab. Unless your spit is blood, no, it won't tell you.
Does 23andMe tell you where the 'can detect humor' gene is?
You need to read about Learned Helplessness . You can prevent your government from enacting policy, that is if you can get over your perceived inability to do so.
The weird thing is that you mention how beholden the US is to China, as if it's a good thing
We're both beholden to each other, China needs the US market to continue their economic growth, and American needs China to keep buying dollars (which they've stopped).
I wish I had mod points for this but I don't so I will have to just repost it with a higher score (until some pro-us looneys mod this down as a troll or whatever). The one thing that history has taught us is that power corrupts. If we in the west had the ability to make communism go away with one button and no chance of any reprisals we may have done it (or our policians may have done it for us without asking).
Nonsense. The US foreign policy up until and in WW2 was for the most part isolationist when it came to Europe. The idea that the US would nuke Russia "just to get rid of them" is absurd. If we knew they had no chance of retaliating except with a conventional attack I could see us in the west having taken things a lot further.
There is nothing in our history, long ago, or recent that suggests that.
I am saying that the the whole end to the WWII was senseless is absolutley insane./..?..
Here's a hint, don't attack American first and stuff like that won't happen.
USA may have probably stated WW3 by that time.
Very unlikely, since the citizens were pretty anti-war back then. You might have noticed how long it took us to get into WW2, and what circumstance it took?
=