Better question, is it possible to be racist against the "race" that society perceives you to be as?
Of course it is. A self loathing racist is still a racist.
Sorry to go Godwin, and I am not trying to say you are a Nazi, but consider... If the rumors of Hitler's father being Jewish are true, would that mean that he wasn't a racist?
I accept I probably have internalized some negative thoughts about people who look different to me. But I'm working on getting rid of these thoughts.
Sounds like you have internalized some negative thoughts about people who look similar to you as well. Thinking badly of someone because of their race is bad. It is bad irrelevant of their race. It is bad irrelevant of your race.
This article and the fact that it is at best a half truth, like so many others feeds both ends. Those that are convinced of AGW will latch on to it as proof that the end of the world is coming and anyone denying it is a 'Denialist'. While on the other side, those that are convinced that there is no AGW will latch on to it as proof that those 'experts' issuing studies are dishonest and you can't trust them and those claiming AGW are 'Alarmists'.
It is sad that people think finishing a contest makes you look bad. I taught my child that when you play a game, you finish it. It is clear that Obama will win, but his second term won't start until January 20th. There is no reason to rush to declare the winner. If the official count ends on December 7th when the mail in votes are required to be counted by, what harm does it do? The good it would do is to maintain the legitimacy of the process. If Romney lets the counting finish, Obama will not lose a single day of his presidency. If Romeny were in the lead, he would not have lost a day of his presidency if Obama let the actual vote counting finish.
My conspiracy is that there is a conspiracy to convince us that there are conspiracies. After all, since people regularly get convicted of conspiracy, and only nutters believe that conspiracies exist, then it must be a conspiracy by our elected officials to have enacted laws against these imaginary conspiracies as well as judges and juries to convince us that conspiracies actually do exist.
Organizing a task that is divided amongst 360k people is just asking for problems. By that logic, we could just have everyone count their own vote, and each person only has to count one vote. That doesn't solve the problem.
Good thing there isn't anyone who needs to count 90 million ballots.
There are ~90 million ballots that are supposed to be counted. The fact that this gets divided up between thousands of different people doesn't change the fact that 90 million need to be counted.
by simple scanning machines.
This is part of making a properly designed electronic voting machine.
It isn't poor design, it's poor solutions to a problem that is well known and can already be dealt with. Every electronic voting system comes with inherrent problems, even the best designed ones. Those problems are often worse than the problems they're trying to solve.
Of course it is poor design. Every problem that we have with electronic voting machines is a direct result of poor design that could trivially be avoided. Miss calibrated screens. Trivial to solve. Hacked voting equipment. Trivial to solve. Lack of auditability. Trivial to solve. Hand counting has shown time and again to be terribly flawed. It has been used because it was the best we had at the time.
The fact that it scales linearly doesn't mean that it is the right solution, or that what is a good idea at 100 ballots still works at 90 million. I would argue that it doesn't scale linearly though. An election has 100 ballots, every one of the voters can personally count all of the ballots. That becomes impossible when you start reaching ~1000.
Voting machines are an easy fix. After voting, the machine should spit out a printed ballot that is on the same card stock that many states use for paper ballots. The paper (mail in) ballots can easily be scanned in. This way, whether the ballot was submitted electronically or by paper, there is both a computer record for fast easy reporting AND a paper ballot that is both human and machine readable.
Any third party auditors should be able to go to the place that the printed ballots are stored and run the printed ballots through their own scanning equipment. This would quickly verify whether the count was accurate or not. If the third party scanning doesn't match, it would be trivial to rerun ballots through the official counting equipment. If a match still cannot be made, batches could be run to narrow down the discrepancy to a small enough pile that having humans read them by hand makes sense.
The problem with hand counting paper ballots is that there is no reliable way to hand count 90 million ballots. The problem with electronic voting is that the government is allowing systems to be used that have no real audit trail. Electronic voting is failing not because the basic premise is bad. It is failing because the machines are poorly designed and those with a say don't feel it is important to fix.
Yep, we used to see the same thing posted about switching away from PowerPC. Until it happened. Apple has never been afraid to switch processors if it suited them. Any future architecture changes are likely to be easier than past ones since there is so much more spare processing power in modern processors to handle their emulation layers.
If he isn't capable, he should sell to avoid losing what value he currently has. If he is capable, he should sell so that he doesn't have to worry about making a living while he starts his next big thing.
If he is smart enough to ask her opinion in the first place AND actually listen, perhaps his daughter isn't so quick to call him an idiot. It seems to me that he is asking the right people at the right questions.
This is the correct answer. He would likely walk away with enough money that he would never HAVE to work again as long as he is prudent with his money. This as you say leaves him with plenty of time and resources to start a new company that he doesn't need to count on for survival. If he is completely convinced that he is a one trick pony, he should sell because his company likely won't last. If he is not, then he is in a better position to implement his new ideas if he can run the new startup without having to worry about profit in the short run.
Virtually anything that the car cannot stop for is going to happen fast enough that most humans would not respond in time even if they were actively driving.
I think you are vastly over estimating the "mom" goal in raising humans. We are are decades into the "MY happiness is important, so don't bother me." era.
I agree, but I would add one more stipulation. The human readable receipt should be printed on stiff paper and be machine readable as well. This way, third party auditors could recount electronically extremely quickly. A group like the ACLU should be able to walk in with a small card reader, and under official supervision, they should be able to recount all of the votes by just putting the cards in their reader and letting them run through.
If the votes don't come out the same, it would make it much easier to track down legitimate technical errors, or shenanigans. Since they are human readable, anyone wanting a hand vote could still do it.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to send away for the casting. http://www.adameve.com/sexy-extras/novelties-fun-stuff/sp-clone-a-willy-kit-7805.aspx Apparently they even have a glow in the dark kit.
Better question, is it possible to be racist against the "race" that society perceives you to be as?
Of course it is. A self loathing racist is still a racist.
Sorry to go Godwin, and I am not trying to say you are a Nazi, but consider... If the rumors of Hitler's father being Jewish are true, would that mean that he wasn't a racist?
I accept I probably have internalized some negative thoughts about people who look different to me. But I'm working on getting rid of these thoughts.
Sounds like you have internalized some negative thoughts about people who look similar to you as well. Thinking badly of someone because of their race is bad. It is bad irrelevant of their race. It is bad irrelevant of your race.
Yes. You are a racist. You rationalize why it doesn't count when you do it, but that doesn't change the fact that you are a racist.
That is an incredibly racist statement. Of course, racists always rationalize why their particular brand of racism is ok.
This article and the fact that it is at best a half truth, like so many others feeds both ends. Those that are convinced of AGW will latch on to it as proof that the end of the world is coming and anyone denying it is a 'Denialist'. While on the other side, those that are convinced that there is no AGW will latch on to it as proof that those 'experts' issuing studies are dishonest and you can't trust them and those claiming AGW are 'Alarmists'.
The malware will work if you run Wine.
It is sad that people think finishing a contest makes you look bad. I taught my child that when you play a game, you finish it. It is clear that Obama will win, but his second term won't start until January 20th. There is no reason to rush to declare the winner. If the official count ends on December 7th when the mail in votes are required to be counted by, what harm does it do? The good it would do is to maintain the legitimacy of the process. If Romney lets the counting finish, Obama will not lose a single day of his presidency. If Romeny were in the lead, he would not have lost a day of his presidency if Obama let the actual vote counting finish.
My conspiracy is that there is a conspiracy to convince us that there are conspiracies. After all, since people regularly get convicted of conspiracy, and only nutters believe that conspiracies exist, then it must be a conspiracy by our elected officials to have enacted laws against these imaginary conspiracies as well as judges and juries to convince us that conspiracies actually do exist.
You WANT me not to understand that big numbers can be divided into smaller ones. You WANT it to be that I am annoyed that I am wrong.
Your strawman WANTS do not change reality.
Organizing a task that is divided amongst 360k people is just asking for problems. By that logic, we could just have everyone count their own vote, and each person only has to count one vote. That doesn't solve the problem.
Good thing there isn't anyone who needs to count 90 million ballots.
There are ~90 million ballots that are supposed to be counted. The fact that this gets divided up between thousands of different people doesn't change the fact that 90 million need to be counted.
by simple scanning machines.
This is part of making a properly designed electronic voting machine.
It isn't poor design, it's poor solutions to a problem that is well known and can already be dealt with. Every electronic voting system comes with inherrent problems, even the best designed ones. Those problems are often worse than the problems they're trying to solve.
Of course it is poor design. Every problem that we have with electronic voting machines is a direct result of poor design that could trivially be avoided. Miss calibrated screens. Trivial to solve. Hacked voting equipment. Trivial to solve. Lack of auditability. Trivial to solve. Hand counting has shown time and again to be terribly flawed. It has been used because it was the best we had at the time.
The fact that it scales linearly doesn't mean that it is the right solution, or that what is a good idea at 100 ballots still works at 90 million. I would argue that it doesn't scale linearly though. An election has 100 ballots, every one of the voters can personally count all of the ballots. That becomes impossible when you start reaching ~1000.
Voting machines are an easy fix. After voting, the machine should spit out a printed ballot that is on the same card stock that many states use for paper ballots. The paper (mail in) ballots can easily be scanned in. This way, whether the ballot was submitted electronically or by paper, there is both a computer record for fast easy reporting AND a paper ballot that is both human and machine readable.
Any third party auditors should be able to go to the place that the printed ballots are stored and run the printed ballots through their own scanning equipment. This would quickly verify whether the count was accurate or not. If the third party scanning doesn't match, it would be trivial to rerun ballots through the official counting equipment. If a match still cannot be made, batches could be run to narrow down the discrepancy to a small enough pile that having humans read them by hand makes sense.
The problem with hand counting paper ballots is that there is no reliable way to hand count 90 million ballots. The problem with electronic voting is that the government is allowing systems to be used that have no real audit trail. Electronic voting is failing not because the basic premise is bad. It is failing because the machines are poorly designed and those with a say don't feel it is important to fix.
What you (don't) see as a reasonable compromise, most people don't see at all.
Yep, we used to see the same thing posted about switching away from PowerPC. Until it happened. Apple has never been afraid to switch processors if it suited them. Any future architecture changes are likely to be easier than past ones since there is so much more spare processing power in modern processors to handle their emulation layers.
Where you see a zombie-proof enclave, I see a prison that is only 1 bi(y)te away from being overrun.
Agreed. That leaves the question... Is the market for software/computers that need x86 big enough that it makes sense for Apple to worry about it?
Something being evil, and the only way to get your work done are not mutually exclusive.
If he isn't capable, he should sell to avoid losing what value he currently has. If he is capable, he should sell so that he doesn't have to worry about making a living while he starts his next big thing.
I sure hope that people don't look at Apple as an indicator of the industries economic health. Apple has all ways been a boom and bust company.
If he is smart enough to ask her opinion in the first place AND actually listen, perhaps his daughter isn't so quick to call him an idiot. It seems to me that he is asking the right people at the right questions.
This is the correct answer. He would likely walk away with enough money that he would never HAVE to work again as long as he is prudent with his money. This as you say leaves him with plenty of time and resources to start a new company that he doesn't need to count on for survival. If he is completely convinced that he is a one trick pony, he should sell because his company likely won't last. If he is not, then he is in a better position to implement his new ideas if he can run the new startup without having to worry about profit in the short run.
Virtually anything that the car cannot stop for is going to happen fast enough that most humans would not respond in time even if they were actively driving.
I think you are vastly over estimating the "mom" goal in raising humans. We are are decades into the "MY happiness is important, so don't bother me." era.
I agree, but I would add one more stipulation. The human readable receipt should be printed on stiff paper and be machine readable as well. This way, third party auditors could recount electronically extremely quickly. A group like the ACLU should be able to walk in with a small card reader, and under official supervision, they should be able to recount all of the votes by just putting the cards in their reader and letting them run through.
If the votes don't come out the same, it would make it much easier to track down legitimate technical errors, or shenanigans. Since they are human readable, anyone wanting a hand vote could still do it.