These machines are not "switching votes". They're just not.
If the machines were "switching votes", they'd do it internally and secretly, and not make it look like they're putting checkmarks next to the wrong boxes.
You're right about that. There wouldn't be any point in changing the vote displayed on the screen if one wanted to cheat the system. It would be akin to leaving a business card after committing burglary.
The problem sounds like touch-screen calibration problems. I understand that the machines in question are ES&S iVotronic units. The touch screen must be calibrated before use to line up properly with the pixels on the LCD. If there are a lot issues/candidates per screen, then calibration problems are exacerbated.
Time to paint "FU Bushtard!" on the roof of yer house...
They coulda read that from satellite. Time to paint it on your car roof and embroider it on your hat. Me, I'll just take a sharpie to my poor bald head.
Shit dude... the other day I did something for someone. Where's my 40 acres and a mule? Why the fuck should you pay less in taxes because you help write foss?
And yet, Congress writes tax law, and the IRS implements it, and they allow you to deduct some of your expenses (but not time) in performing a service for a qualified "someone". Your problem --tax wise-- is you picked the wrong guy. It may not make any sense to you, but Congress must have wanted to do a little something to encourage charitable behavior. I guess if you don't like that, you can write your representative and ask that this deduction be removed, but I won't like you if you do.
Your charity work may be a hobby, but that's not where you need to look in the IRS publications to find what's deductible. If your charitable hobby benefits a legitimate charity, then you'll want to keep track of things like your cash and in-kind donations, mileage, parking fees, tolls, etc. Unfortunately, time contributed for a charitable cause is not deductible. I've put a lot of time into serving such organizations, and I wondered if my time was possibly deductible (as something "in-kind"). The IRS has a publication addressing this very issue. To use the IRS's own words (pub 526):
Although you cannot deduct the value of your services given to a qualified organization, you may be able to deduct some amounts you pay in giving services to a qualified organization.
Of course, this could change every year, so check back often.
This week ONLY terrorist attacks. Since monday (sic) muslims (sic) murdered 70 people "for allah (sic)".
I don't mean to minimize the impact of anyone's death on their friends, family and colleagues, because losing someone is almost always very painful. But in the grand scheme of things, 70 people in a week really isn't an epidemic. There are more than 6 billion people in the world, of whom between 1 and 2 billion are Muslims. Your dreaded "terrorist death rate" probably only exceeds hangnails in severity. The amount of anxiety summoned up over this issue is massively out of proportion.
What in the FUCK is this guy going on about? His post looks like damn script automated it and linked to a random picture, and yet some douche bags modded him informative and insightful?
If you wish to troll this thread you must first complete form 27B stoke 6.
Many people may be surprised to find the term "Album" pre-dates the both 33rpm LP and the strategy of releasing a collection of pop singles on one disk. The first "Albums" really were "blank books", as the name implies, sold empty to hold multiple single disks and also sold with prepackaged collections of larger works. The disks slid into envelope-like pages bound into the book. A symphony recorded on 78s might appear in disks as sides A(n):B(n) as 1:((N/2)+1) . . . (N/2):N, to be played on an automatic turntable with just one stack flip.
approach to create infinite/cheap energy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.
( ) You made a math error
(X) You have made a faulty assumption
(X) You don't understand physics
( ) You keep saying "greater than unity"
(X) You're relying on self-reported data
(X) You're relying on an uncontrolled experiment
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Mechanical Friction
(X) Physical constants
( ) Laws of motion
(X) Laws of thermodynamics
( ) Asshats
( ) Gravity
(X) Turbulence
( ) Division by zero yielding undefined result
( ) Unit conversions
( ) Unavailability of infinately strong materials
( ) Unavailability of a perfect vacuum
( ) Solar heating
( ) Stuff that's lighter than air still having mass
( ) Translation losses
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(X) Smarter people than you have tried to do this before
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
No. What we need is a truly free economy that means A) No minimum wage, B) Copyright law where unless you are making money on the product you can pirate all you want C) Little to no patents D) The government stays out except to 1) Protect us 2) create general law and order 3) give a basic education and 4) maintain roads. If all those were followed, we would have no economic crisis.
Roads? Education? If people want education for their kids, they can buy it. And don't get me started on roads. Want to get somewhere, you take a helicopter. Don't see what's so hard about that. Law and Order? That's a TV show. You don't want someone stealing your stuff, you hire a security guard.
I'm fine with it as long as this sort of thing stays in the USA.
It'll just make other countries relatively more competitive.
You wish. Every time any nation ups the ante with a more restrictive and draconian copyright law, everyone else (except China) jumps on the bandwagon to "harmonize". Nothing brings out the spirit of "international cooperation" like Disney Dollars.
Sorry, eh? For what? At least it makes it easier for me to know who to disagree with: they start out by apologizing. The Constitution give Congress the power to legislate copyright and patent laws to encourage useful arts and sciences. I can't see how this law will result in increased artistic and technological production and innovation. So I guess you don't get much respect from me either -- oh, and "sorry". Now go cry like a toddler yourself.
Their device, their toolkit. They can decide what you can and cant do.
If they wanted to keep it "their device", they shouldn't have taken anyone's money for it. Is my car really Nissan's car? Well this is Slashdot, so I think it's fair to ask: Why don't automakers try bullshit restrictions on their products like some computing device makers do? I'm pretty sure they know that guys who would "create applications" for cars -- stereos, shifter knobs, pimpin' body lighting, etc. -- aren't pussies like developers. They know if they tried it, car guys would ignore them and do what they wanted. They know if they take them to court, a lawyer would demand a jury trial. And a jury knows what a car is. If you tried to get a panel of citizens to enforce a EULA on Jetta they'd blow you off faster than you could spellcheck "jury nullification".
I would never agree to an NDA like this, but if I was in this situation I would just tell Apple my e-mail was compromised and the "crucial trade secrets" were leaked.
Now there's an interesting idea: PK has been around for decades now. If someone fails to encrypt, they aren't exercising even the faintest due dilligence in keeping confidentiality, so for them to claim it's confidential, is silly.
Good point, would your lawyer choose to communicate with you by postcard? Would he be your lawyer long?
Having obnoxious sound clips attached to every event you can think of was the epitome of the early 90s.
"Game over man, game over!"
Having them come out of the crappy PC speaker, driven by the fully-blocking beep sound driver, cause this is work -- you want sound, go play with your Amiga -- was the epitome of the early 90s to me.
"I'm completely operational, and all my circuits are functioning per-per-perfectly"
Good luck trying to figure out what this law (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-597.html) means!
For that matter -- if you're in a business like lawnmowing that only uses its "web presence" as a virtual billboard or PO Box -- good luck knowing this law even exists!
Let's ask this question: what would happen to a school kid if he/she directed the same kind of provocative language at the principal or a school teacher, IN PERSON, either in the hallway or in a classroom?
Now let's ask the same question, except let's make the location Chuck E. Cheese, which is sort of the real-world equivalent to MySpace. OK, now do you "slap down a suspension" for the good of order and discipline?
There is no issue here, she committed no crime.
It's called libel/slander. She's lucky the principle(sic) isn't suing her. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom to do anything you want.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who believed that the page she created was in fact an actual confession of pedophilia and depravity on the part of the principal.
You see, those are the consequences of your free speech.
For some reason, I really hate it when people bring this up. "Say anything you like, and if those thugs like it too, you won't get beat up." I'm aware of consequences. It's not like action and reaction were invented yesterday.
That's why, when someone starts spouting off on "consequences" around me, I stomp on their foot. Then I say, "Sorry, that's just a consequence of hearing you say that." But, like I say, I'm aware of consequences, and I try only to do this to smaller men -- or women, and only then when there are no witnesses. Since the corollary of "there are consequences is: "only if you get caught." Of course, all of these rules -- including my policy of only picking on weaker people -- are just special cases of the "Might makes right" law.
Do you think that the same people who want to spy on you with wiretaps will suddenly change their tune because someone, somewhere, hacked the yahoo email account of one of their political allies? I think it's much more likely that the privacy invasions just escalate until we have no more.
I do not believe that they will ever stop until they are dead or in jail. You may call me a hypocrite if you wish. I call it schadenfreude when I see one of them getting it back, even if just a little. Just like how I oppose torture, but would be glad to see Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Ashcroft, et al waterboarded and more. How can I have it both ways? Executive privilege.
If I felt I were on the same "team" as any of these Rethugs, then calling for retribution in kind for what they had done would certainly be hypocritical. But I view these people are my enemies, and traitors to my country, not just abstract political opponents. And it is not hypocrisy to seek revenge on your enemies. It may not be forgiving, or tender-hearted, or Ghandi-like or even very Christian either. I'm a human with my own failings, one of which is slowness to forgive.
I admire the fact that you can still believe in constitutional rule-of-law despite what's happened in recent history. That is commendable. On the other hand, I just want to see the current administration get the Ceausescu treatment.
Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law.
Even if that's true, it's unrelated to the matter at hand.
I'd say it's relationship would be described as "identity"
It's hypocritical of you to stand for privacy rights when it suits your needs, but then act as an apologist for people who violate the privacy laws already on the books.
Yes, yes it is. Tit for tat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. Etc. Etc. Etc. Republicons can violate any constitutional protections they wish on their own say-so, but pry just a little into one of their lives and suddenly they're the champions of liberty. Wellsir, how did you know -- before it was cracked -- that Sarah Palin's Yahoo account didn't contain useful information for the "War on Terror"? She could have been planning to smuggle a suitcase bomb into the Blair House. How could we afford, as a nation, for this kid not to have hacked her account?
Someone violated her privacy, broke the law, and distracted from other issues during the presidential election.
I might cut someone a little slack for the first two, but "distracted from the issues" is indeed a serious crime that any political candidate or even average citizen would find shocking to the core.
Slashdot Mirror
These machines are not "switching votes". They're just not.
If the machines were "switching votes", they'd do it internally and secretly, and not make it look like they're putting checkmarks next to the wrong boxes.
You're right about that. There wouldn't be any point in changing the vote displayed on the screen if one wanted to cheat the system. It would be akin to leaving a business card after committing burglary.
The problem sounds like touch-screen calibration problems. I understand that the machines in question are ES&S iVotronic units. The touch screen must be calibrated before use to line up properly with the pixels on the LCD. If there are a lot issues/candidates per screen, then calibration problems are exacerbated.
Disco Stu spins his disco disks to Internet Time, so should you, baby.
Time to paint "FU Bushtard!" on the roof of yer house...
They coulda read that from satellite. Time to paint it on your car roof and embroider it on your hat. Me, I'll just take a sharpie to my poor bald head.
Shit dude... the other day I did something for someone. Where's my 40 acres and a mule? Why the fuck should you pay less in taxes because you help write foss?
And yet, Congress writes tax law, and the IRS implements it, and they allow you to deduct some of your expenses (but not time) in performing a service for a qualified "someone". Your problem --tax wise-- is you picked the wrong guy. It may not make any sense to you, but Congress must have wanted to do a little something to encourage charitable behavior. I guess if you don't like that, you can write your representative and ask that this deduction be removed, but I won't like you if you do.
Although you cannot deduct the value of your services given to a qualified organization, you may be able to deduct some amounts you pay in giving services to a qualified organization.
Of course, this could change every year, so check back often.
This week ONLY terrorist attacks. Since monday (sic) muslims (sic) murdered 70 people "for allah (sic)".
I don't mean to minimize the impact of anyone's death on their friends, family and colleagues, because losing someone is almost always very painful. But in the grand scheme of things, 70 people in a week really isn't an epidemic. There are more than 6 billion people in the world, of whom between 1 and 2 billion are Muslims. Your dreaded "terrorist death rate" probably only exceeds hangnails in severity. The amount of anxiety summoned up over this issue is massively out of proportion.
What in the FUCK is this guy going on about? His post looks like damn script automated it and linked to a random picture, and yet some douche bags modded him informative and insightful?
If you wish to troll this thread you must first complete form 27B stoke 6.
Many people may be surprised to find the term "Album" pre-dates the both 33rpm LP and the strategy of releasing a collection of pop singles on one disk. The first "Albums" really were "blank books", as the name implies, sold empty to hold multiple single disks and also sold with prepackaged collections of larger works. The disks slid into envelope-like pages bound into the book. A symphony recorded on 78s might appear in disks as sides A(n):B(n) as 1:((N/2)+1) . . . (N/2):N, to be played on an automatic turntable with just one stack flip.
Your post proposes a
( ) mechanical (X) thermal ( ) gravitational (X) electrical (X) voodoo
approach to create infinite/cheap energy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.
( ) You made a math error
(X) You have made a faulty assumption
(X) You don't understand physics
( ) You keep saying "greater than unity"
(X) You're relying on self-reported data
(X) You're relying on an uncontrolled experiment
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Mechanical Friction
(X) Physical constants
( ) Laws of motion
(X) Laws of thermodynamics
( ) Asshats
( ) Gravity
(X) Turbulence
( ) Division by zero yielding undefined result
( ) Unit conversions
( ) Unavailability of infinately strong materials
( ) Unavailability of a perfect vacuum
( ) Solar heating
( ) Stuff that's lighter than air still having mass
( ) Translation losses
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(X) Smarter people than you have tried to do this before
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
No. What we need is a truly free economy that means A) No minimum wage, B) Copyright law where unless you are making money on the product you can pirate all you want C) Little to no patents D) The government stays out except to 1) Protect us 2) create general law and order 3) give a basic education and 4) maintain roads. If all those were followed, we would have no economic crisis.
Roads? Education? If people want education for their kids, they can buy it. And don't get me started on roads. Want to get somewhere, you take a helicopter. Don't see what's so hard about that. Law and Order? That's a TV show. You don't want someone stealing your stuff, you hire a security guard.
I'm fine with it as long as this sort of thing stays in the USA. It'll just make other countries relatively more competitive.
You wish. Every time any nation ups the ante with a more restrictive and draconian copyright law, everyone else (except China) jumps on the bandwagon to "harmonize". Nothing brings out the spirit of "international cooperation" like Disney Dollars.
Sorry...
Sorry, eh? For what? At least it makes it easier for me to know who to disagree with: they start out by apologizing. The Constitution give Congress the power to legislate copyright and patent laws to encourage useful arts and sciences. I can't see how this law will result in increased artistic and technological production and innovation. So I guess you don't get much respect from me either -- oh, and "sorry". Now go cry like a toddler yourself.
Their device, their toolkit. They can decide what you can and cant do.
If they wanted to keep it "their device", they shouldn't have taken anyone's money for it. Is my car really Nissan's car? Well this is Slashdot, so I think it's fair to ask: Why don't automakers try bullshit restrictions on their products like some computing device makers do? I'm pretty sure they know that guys who would "create applications" for cars -- stereos, shifter knobs, pimpin' body lighting, etc. -- aren't pussies like developers. They know if they tried it, car guys would ignore them and do what they wanted. They know if they take them to court, a lawyer would demand a jury trial. And a jury knows what a car is. If you tried to get a panel of citizens to enforce a EULA on Jetta they'd blow you off faster than you could spellcheck "jury nullification".
Now there's an interesting idea: PK has been around for decades now. If someone fails to encrypt, they aren't exercising even the faintest due dilligence in keeping confidentiality, so for them to claim it's confidential, is silly.
Good point, would your lawyer choose to communicate with you by postcard? Would he be your lawyer long?
Having obnoxious sound clips attached to every event you can think of was the epitome of the early 90s.
"Game over man, game over!"
Having them come out of the crappy PC speaker, driven by the fully-blocking beep sound driver, cause this is work -- you want sound, go play with your Amiga -- was the epitome of the early 90s to me.
"I'm completely operational, and all my circuits are functioning per-per-perfectly"
Good luck trying to figure out what this law (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-597.html) means!
For that matter -- if you're in a business like lawnmowing that only uses its "web presence" as a virtual billboard or PO Box -- good luck knowing this law even exists!
Let's ask this question: what would happen to a school kid if he/she directed the same kind of provocative language at the principal or a school teacher, IN PERSON, either in the hallway or in a classroom?
Now let's ask the same question, except let's make the location Chuck E. Cheese, which is sort of the real-world equivalent to MySpace. OK, now do you "slap down a suspension" for the good of order and discipline?
There is no issue here, she committed no crime. It's called libel/slander. She's lucky the principle(sic) isn't suing her. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom to do anything you want.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who believed that the page she created was in fact an actual confession of pedophilia and depravity on the part of the principal.
Minors don't have rights.
That's clearly false, established many times, including "Tinker". From the majority opinion:
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
You see, those are the consequences of your free speech.
For some reason, I really hate it when people bring this up. "Say anything you like, and if those thugs like it too, you won't get beat up." I'm aware of consequences. It's not like action and reaction were invented yesterday.
That's why, when someone starts spouting off on "consequences" around me, I stomp on their foot. Then I say, "Sorry, that's just a consequence of hearing you say that." But, like I say, I'm aware of consequences, and I try only to do this to smaller men -- or women, and only then when there are no witnesses. Since the corollary of "there are consequences is: "only if you get caught." Of course, all of these rules -- including my policy of only picking on weaker people -- are just special cases of the "Might makes right" law.
Do you think that the same people who want to spy on you with wiretaps will suddenly change their tune because someone, somewhere, hacked the yahoo email account of one of their political allies? I think it's much more likely that the privacy invasions just escalate until we have no more.
I do not believe that they will ever stop until they are dead or in jail. You may call me a hypocrite if you wish. I call it schadenfreude when I see one of them getting it back, even if just a little. Just like how I oppose torture, but would be glad to see Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Ashcroft, et al waterboarded and more. How can I have it both ways? Executive privilege.
If I felt I were on the same "team" as any of these Rethugs, then calling for retribution in kind for what they had done would certainly be hypocritical. But I view these people are my enemies, and traitors to my country, not just abstract political opponents. And it is not hypocrisy to seek revenge on your enemies. It may not be forgiving, or tender-hearted, or Ghandi-like or even very Christian either. I'm a human with my own failings, one of which is slowness to forgive.
I admire the fact that you can still believe in constitutional rule-of-law despite what's happened in recent history. That is commendable. On the other hand, I just want to see the current administration get the Ceausescu treatment.
Not nice to call him an idiot by the way, I don't think he's an idiot - just unethical.
WTF?
Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law.
Even if that's true, it's unrelated to the matter at hand.
I'd say it's relationship would be described as "identity"
It's hypocritical of you to stand for privacy rights when it suits your needs, but then act as an apologist for people who violate the privacy laws already on the books.
Yes, yes it is. Tit for tat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. Etc. Etc. Etc. Republicons can violate any constitutional protections they wish on their own say-so, but pry just a little into one of their lives and suddenly they're the champions of liberty. Wellsir, how did you know -- before it was cracked -- that Sarah Palin's Yahoo account didn't contain useful information for the "War on Terror"? She could have been planning to smuggle a suitcase bomb into the Blair House. How could we afford, as a nation, for this kid not to have hacked her account?
Someone violated her privacy, broke the law, and distracted from other issues during the presidential election.
I might cut someone a little slack for the first two, but "distracted from the issues" is indeed a serious crime that any political candidate or even average citizen would find shocking to the core.
. . . the ACTUAL GUY WHO READ THE EMAILS said there was nothing incriminating.
And if you can't trust the legal opinion of the guy who cracked her account, who can you trust?