In America, we cast our ballot in secret, if we wish, but our vote is recorded next to our name. Look at the recent Republican caused fiasco in Washington State. They were able to look up voters and who they voted for.
I call bullshit. They were able to look at the precinct roster and see whether or not a voter had signed his name and thus received a ballot. They were not able to see how he voted. Go back and read the archived stories in the news if you don't believe me.
The only legal way to find out how a person voted is to ask him. The other methods involve removing a ballot from a sealed envelope, or watching over someone's shoulder as they vote. Both of which are crimes.
In the case of Al Qaeda, they've made their wishes pretty clear even before 9/11: foreign (i.e. US) troops out of Saudi Arabia, and an end to US support of Israel. They blow a lot of smoke about other things, but those two are the key objectives. Funny thing is, no one seems to listen to what they say.
This business about them "hating freedom" is pure propaganda. They don't give a rat's ass about freedom, they just want to remove Western influence from the Middle East.
You can get up to 80% of your pay in retirement benefits. Sittin' on that ass, watchin' the big screen while $100,000 worth of paychecks roll in for the rest of your life. Not too shabby.
Another possibility is to extend the same law that many jurisdictions have for dealing with actual tie votes, that is to decide the election by chance, usually by flipping a coin. The difficulty with this approach (and in general with having a revote) is that whether you are discovering whether the threshold has been achieved or simply trying to decide a winner, the process of qualifying votes is the same. For instance, if you define it as being within 100 votes statewide, well then you still have to count votes to know if the difference is under the threshold, and then you are back to fighting over what is a valid vote, whether to count miscast provisional ballots, etc, etc.
A recount is more sensible, if it can be done in a uniform and fair manner, which unfortunately did not seem to be the case in Washington. If the laws were more clear about how what types of votes were valid, a recount could be performed at a much lower cost than holding a new election.
We should have seen this coming. It all started when Steve Jobs started wearing a goatee.
Hey, is he holding up a trans-dimensional gateway in that picture? Sheesh, how much more obvious can you get? We must have slipped through while we were drooling over the iPod Photo.
You are the first person to reply to my sig. Congratulations. When writing it, I could think of a grand total of zero (0) situations where a sudden cold beer would be a drawback. Now I know of one.
I suppose it would be even worse if you walked into an AA meeting holding a cold beer in your hand. That would be awkward.
You know they won't stop there. Racing fans now hear something like this when a car comes screaming past them down a straightaway:
"eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuwwww!"
Combining the new "artificial noisemakers" with corporate sponsorship will spawn a whole new breed of advertising. Fans of the new electric racing cars will hear this:
Forced by whom? The only country that seems interested in militarizing space is the U.S., and that is more a fulfillment of the wet dreams of defense contractors than any real threat.
Maybe other countries would be less likely to follow our lead in the arms race if we didn't always jump before the first signs of danger.
Some interesting discussion on the relevant international treaties. Not that the current administration shows any interest in that sort of thing...
If you are implying that the ACLU is no longer relevant, I couldn't disagree more. Take a look at their website sometime and see the scope and breadth of their work. They are one of the few effective forces fighting for the freedoms we all take for granted, and which are under attack on many fronts.
It's great to contribute to the EFF, but we shouldn't forget that civil liberties are a bigger issue, affecting aspects of life outside their limited sphere of interest.
Check the Bill of Rights. Corporations are made up of individuals, each one of which retains these rights. Corporations cannot do a thing without these individuals acting.
You are equating corporations with their employees, which is invalid IMHO. It means nothing that an person acting as an agent of a corporation has his own rights. The law regards the corporation as a separate entity, and it is the rights (or lack of same) of that entity which is the issue.
The rights accorded to corporations as "persons" are common law, not constitutional. They stem from a series of court decisions made during the 19th century, a time when corporations were just starting to become the very powerful entities they are today.
There are very good arguments for denying corporations the rights of individuals. They cannot be equated with natural persons - they cannot die a natural death, they cannot be put in prison, they cannot experience emotion, or have any sense of morality. Their aims are not our aims. Ballmer put it best in his soul-searching letter:
It's appropriate to invoke the company's name on issues of public policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but it's much less clear when it's appropriate to invoke the company's name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry -- and on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost to a broad group of shareholders.
The first duty of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. When the chips are down, the company will do what it must to further that goal, "social issues" be damned.
We give corporations the legal rights of individuals at our peril. When inviting a tiger to a dinner party, which should not be surprised at its poor table manners.
Re:Investment in superconducting vs. alt. fuel...
on
Quantum Wires
·
· Score: 1
The big win is in conservation and increasing efficiency of energy production and utilization. This chart of energy flows shows how much energy is wasted by inefficiency.
As energy prices rise, consumers will naturally cut back on usage, and will seek ways to improve efficiency. There is plenty of waste, and much of it can be recovered. "Quantum wires" could be a real boon if they help in that area.
Maybe capitalism wasn't the best choice of words, but something is seriously wrong. There truly is little competition in the broadband marketplace, and wherever competition is lacking, the entrenched companies are free to collude (even if only by "gentlemen's agreement") to set prices.
Building a broadband system is very expensive, so there is a natural limit on the number of potential investors. But the entrenched providers actively work to exclude newcomers, which makes it even worse. When companies have that kind of power over the marketplace, the consumer suffers. Cable and phone companies should be required to lease access to their networks. That would still allow them to pay off their investments while making the marketplace more competitive.
Many people seem to think that we can simply hand over the economy to the private sector and let the "invisible hand" work it all out. In some cases that works to the benefit of society. In others it doesn't. Infrastructure is one area where public investment generally works better than private investment (there is still room for capitalism - most public works are financed by bonds sold to private investors). Wi-fi buildouts are a natural infrastructure project, like roads or sewers, though I do worry whether the technology might be orphaned in a few years.
I'm just picturing NBC making a Doctor Who series.
It would some retooling, to wit:
1. The Doctor would have muscles.
2. The Doctor's companion would have breasts. Yes, the British version has breasts, but they are incidental to the character. The American version would feature the breasts as co-stars. They might even get their own spinoff series.
3. The platonic relationship between the Doctor and his companion would change to one of sexual innuendo, at which the Doctor would occasionally express vague feelings of shame and guilt.
4. The Tardis would have weapons, and the Doctor would carry a gun.
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit. They were able to look at the precinct roster and see whether or not a voter had signed his name and thus received a ballot. They were not able to see how he voted. Go back and read the archived stories in the news if you don't believe me.
The only legal way to find out how a person voted is to ask him. The other methods involve removing a ballot from a sealed envelope, or watching over someone's shoulder as they vote. Both of which are crimes.
In the case of Al Qaeda, they've made their wishes pretty clear even before 9/11: foreign (i.e. US) troops out of Saudi Arabia, and an end to US support of Israel. They blow a lot of smoke about other things, but those two are the key objectives. Funny thing is, no one seems to listen to what they say.
This business about them "hating freedom" is pure propaganda. They don't give a rat's ass about freedom, they just want to remove Western influence from the Middle East.
Darth Gates: Linus, I am your father!
Linus Skywalker: Nooooo! That's impossible!
Darth Gates: Search your feelings - you know it to be true!
You can get up to 80% of your pay in retirement benefits. Sittin' on that ass, watchin' the big screen while $100,000 worth of paychecks roll in for the rest of your life. Not too shabby.
Another possibility is to extend the same law that many jurisdictions have for dealing with actual tie votes, that is to decide the election by chance, usually by flipping a coin. The difficulty with this approach (and in general with having a revote) is that whether you are discovering whether the threshold has been achieved or simply trying to decide a winner, the process of qualifying votes is the same. For instance, if you define it as being within 100 votes statewide, well then you still have to count votes to know if the difference is under the threshold, and then you are back to fighting over what is a valid vote, whether to count miscast provisional ballots, etc, etc.
A recount is more sensible, if it can be done in a uniform and fair manner, which unfortunately did not seem to be the case in Washington. If the laws were more clear about how what types of votes were valid, a recount could be performed at a much lower cost than holding a new election.
We should have seen this coming. It all started when Steve Jobs started wearing a goatee.
Hey, is he holding up a trans-dimensional gateway in that picture? Sheesh, how much more obvious can you get? We must have slipped through while we were drooling over the iPod Photo.
I suppose it would be even worse if you walked into an AA meeting holding a cold beer in your hand. That would be awkward.
"eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuwwww!"
Combining the new "artificial noisemakers" with corporate sponsorship will spawn a whole new breed of advertising. Fans of the new electric racing cars will hear this:
"eeeeeeeeeeeaskyourdoctorifafreesampleofviagrais rightforyouuuuuuuuuuuuuuwwwww!"
Forced by whom? The only country that seems interested in militarizing space is the U.S., and that is more a fulfillment of the wet dreams of defense contractors than any real threat.
Maybe other countries would be less likely to follow our lead in the arms race if we didn't always jump before the first signs of danger.
Some interesting discussion on the relevant international treaties. Not that the current administration shows any interest in that sort of thing...
Hey, that works too! :)
It's great to contribute to the EFF, but we shouldn't forget that civil liberties are a bigger issue, affecting aspects of life outside their limited sphere of interest.
I've tried getting through, but he's always on the phone with President Bush.
I guess you'd have to call it war-diving.
Check the Bill of Rights. Corporations are made up of individuals, each one of which retains these rights. Corporations cannot do a thing without these individuals acting.
You are equating corporations with their employees, which is invalid IMHO. It means nothing that an person acting as an agent of a corporation has his own rights. The law regards the corporation as a separate entity, and it is the rights (or lack of same) of that entity which is the issue.
The rights accorded to corporations as "persons" are common law, not constitutional. They stem from a series of court decisions made during the 19th century, a time when corporations were just starting to become the very powerful entities they are today.
There are very good arguments for denying corporations the rights of individuals. They cannot be equated with natural persons - they cannot die a natural death, they cannot be put in prison, they cannot experience emotion, or have any sense of morality. Their aims are not our aims. Ballmer put it best in his soul-searching letter:
The first duty of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. When the chips are down, the company will do what it must to further that goal, "social issues" be damned.
We give corporations the legal rights of individuals at our peril. When inviting a tiger to a dinner party, which should not be surprised at its poor table manners.
Do herding Nintendogs dream of electric sheep?
So, did you vote Republican in the last election?
Arr! We be coding on the high seas!
She put on some weight, so they won't let her represent the thin-client product line anymore.
I hear she's going to sue ...
Hobbits??
With tanks? and cruise missiles?!
...
(nasty hobbitses!)
As energy prices rise, consumers will naturally cut back on usage, and will seek ways to improve efficiency. There is plenty of waste, and much of it can be recovered. "Quantum wires" could be a real boon if they help in that area.
That argument is specious, meretricious, and risible. :)
Building a broadband system is very expensive, so there is a natural limit on the number of potential investors. But the entrenched providers actively work to exclude newcomers, which makes it even worse. When companies have that kind of power over the marketplace, the consumer suffers. Cable and phone companies should be required to lease access to their networks. That would still allow them to pay off their investments while making the marketplace more competitive.
Many people seem to think that we can simply hand over the economy to the private sector and let the "invisible hand" work it all out. In some cases that works to the benefit of society. In others it doesn't. Infrastructure is one area where public investment generally works better than private investment (there is still room for capitalism - most public works are financed by bonds sold to private investors). Wi-fi buildouts are a natural infrastructure project, like roads or sewers, though I do worry whether the technology might be orphaned in a few years.
Well for one thing the author is called "Johnny Long". I figure he used to work in porn and just brought his lexicon with him to his new profession.
Probably coined the phrase "back door exploit" too...
It would some retooling, to wit:
1. The Doctor would have muscles.
2. The Doctor's companion would have breasts. Yes, the British version has breasts, but they are incidental to the character. The American version would feature the breasts as co-stars. They might even get their own spinoff series.
3. The platonic relationship between the Doctor and his companion would change to one of sexual innuendo, at which the Doctor would occasionally express vague feelings of shame and guilt.
4. The Tardis would have weapons, and the Doctor would carry a gun.
SMACK!
Oh honey, remember how we talked about getting that 21" flatscreen?? Well ...