The real problem with nuclear energy is not the actual energy production and waste management as most people seem to believe. We can make safe reactors, and we can make safe waste-storage systems. The real proplem, from an ecological perspective is the mining of uranium. You have the proportions of fissionable Uranium to inert Uranium backwards. Fissionable Uranium is the much less common isotope, and must be concentrated, through gas-diffusion, or other methods to achieve the concentration necessary to be considered "enriched." Mass quantities of ore must be mined in order to accumulate the requisite amount of Uranium, and the tailings are the real environmental problem, as is abandoned mines. Uranium mine tailings are saturated with radon, and heavy metals in such concentrations as to poison entire watersheds for several thousand years. We have this fear mentality about nuclear power stemming from 3-mile island and chernobyl that focuses all of our concern for the safety of nuclear power on activities pertaining to the reactors, at the expense of the totality of the process, beginning with the mining of the ore and ending with the storage of the waste.
Nuclear reactors can and are made perfectly safe. WAste storage systems can be made perfectly safe. However as long as uranium ore is mined in an unsound manner, the process as a whole will fail to be environmentally sound.
I'm definitely feeling crotchety at the moment. Why can't i just have a number of devices, each of which does 1 thing, and does it better than anything else? i mean, this moto only has the OPTION of 544 megs of memory, with only 32 built in... Why should I buy this phone instead of a shuffle and a RAZR? I suppose I would definitely want 1 ugly device rather than 2 beautifully designed devices, if nothing else...
one of the nice things about our judicial system (tho there are of course many bad aspects as well...) is that it likes to protect its right to judicial review. Its coming around on guantanamo, and I'm sure if someone tried to contest somethign under this law, that the courts would find it unconstitutional, if not for violating the people's rights, at the very least for trammeling the right of judicial review.
now this is not, of course, to say that one shouldnt be sketched out by the law in the first place
this is a little OT, but you should really keep the full ammendment in you sig...cause otherwise you're just engaging in polemics. Without the part about a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, you ignore that implicit in the right to bear arms is the duty of those bearing them to be well-regulated. just a thought
I think you're the only person I've noticed so far to point out the key to understanding the disjoint between penlaties for infringement and theft.
In the case of intellectual property violation, you're dealing with a very powerful industry that has not been subject to largescale "theft" of their product before a few years ago. They suddenly see their profits dropping and believe it to be the result of "theft" through filesharing. Their lobbyists go to work, and we get regressive penalties for filesharing.
In the case of theft of the physical DVD, the retailer has already bought the DVD, so the financial burden falls Not on the production house, but on the retailer... and here's the key... WHO DEALS WITH THEFT ALREADY AND HAS DEALT WITH IT FOREVER, AND WILL DEAL WITH IT INTO THE FUTURE. Shoplifting is a part of the overhead, particularly for large retailers, and while they act to decrease it (cameras, security tags, etc) they know that real steps to ERADICATE it would be silly and drive away patrons. (I'm imagining a wal-mart associate following each and every customer around to make sure that they dont steal... or locking ALL wares behind cases.... attack ferrets to chase and ravage children toying with the locks... etc)
Sorry, that was an extended parenthetical, but i think my point is clear. If store were as fanatical in preventing the shoplifting of CD's and DVD's as the RIAA and MPAA are trying to be regarding their intellectual property rights, nobody would shop there, cause nobody likes being treated like a criminal from the off.
This post seems indicative of a whole bunch I've been reading regarding DIY modding lately. There seem to be the type of folks with the time and inclination to do something interesting, though not so interesting that the rest of us are going to do it... and then there seems to be the sort of people who assume that if it doesnt make perfect sense to mod in that fashion than it was a stupid idea.
wasnt a stupid idea, just not what you would choose to spend your time and resources on, we get the picture
whole thing seemed pretty bubble-gum to me... unless someone noticed something revolutionary i didnt.
Tho I did like the part where he said that the audio market today was people getting ipods and the bose ipod speakers instead of a real shelf system... Dont know about the rest of you, but i like my ipod hooked up to my Technics receiver/floor speakers just fine. Though it is just crushing to know that I dont have an apple-styled bose gizmo the size of a shoebox in which to stick my ipod...
Been past him a couple times now walking from downtown to belltown and back, and the whole things just smacks of stupid stunt, even more than it comes off in the article. Its not like for episode 1, when there were all these idealistic star-wars fans either too young to have had the true theater experience on eps. 4-6, or convinced that eps. 1-3 would actually carry on the earlier tradition. This guy just seems pretty pleased with himself for being THE camper at Cinerama.
"So they are not both proceeding according to the rules?"
ummmm... yes, they are, and you know I know that because I said that... in the quote you used.
"Maybe you shouldn't lie."
K well, I have asked you a number of times to ACTUALLY show why what I have said is, in fact false, which you have not done. You have cited a news story which proves neither of our points, least of which yours, and have generally shown yourelf to be a dick. Stop. If you're going to call me a liar, you have to do two things A) show, not just rhetorically that I have misrepresented the facts. you havent done that, instead you've just said liar liar pants on fire. B) show that I WILLFULLY misrepresented the facts, ie. that I knowingly spoke falsehood. If you want to show me rather than telling me, that what I have said is in fact false, I will gladly recant. But until then, *shrug* dont be such a dick.
--
"whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent"
Ludvig Wittgenstein
"Right, and the opportunity for Rossi to contest the election is mandatory. I have never contended that it is Rossi's right to get a revote. I've contended it is his right to contest, and that it is ludicrous to ask him to concede.
Rossi is not forcing a revote, he's asking for one, and if it is granted, then that is only because the law mandates that the people who do make that decision are allowed to do so."
I never said that it wasnt. I'm saying that your characterization of Rossi contesting the election, and Gregoire asking for the hand recount as basically the same thing because they're both 'proceeding in accordance with the rules' is false. Though the issue was adjudicated in part, the issue of the recount is legally a judgement free issue. One need not allege, prove, or otherwise rely on any wrong-doing on the part of the vote-counters in order to have the recounts, providing the votes are close enough. Contesting an election on the other hand, relies on provable negligence or fraud on the part of election officials/vote counters. This, i think is reflected in the rhetoric each candidate has used at various stages of the election. during the recounts, Gregoire's position was "count all legitimate ballots" whether or not you think she has since made a hypocrite of herself is irrelvent on this point. Rossi and Vance, in discussing contesting the election have accused king county of criminal negligence and implied numerous times that the tally in King County was probably the result of fraud writ large. I think that to conflate the two actions as merely "following the rules" is misleading, and I think you know that.
"But then again, both Paul Berendt (WA Dem chair) and Chris Vance (WA Rep chair) have said incredibly stupid things in the last two months."
if they were good for anything but being bags of hot air, they might be real politicians instead of petty party hacks.
"Shrug. What would you prefer I call it when to make the people you don't like look bad, you assert as fact something that is clearly false?"
*shrugs back*, maybe you shouldnt call it anything. maybe you should just show them to be wrong. I think you're doing the exact same thing, but I'm not calling you a liar. Maybe you should try actually putting forth an argument, I mean it only took you what, till the 3rd post to kindof reply to the issues I was asking about.
"Don't be so sensitive"
I'm not being sensitive, I'm being idealistic. Nobody cares how sarcistic and witty you can be. Iv you're not going to address an issue in a substantive form, why say anything at all?
"So now you're saying the second recount was mandatory? Huh"
No. I'm saying the opportunity for Gregoire to, without making a case one way or the other regarding the validity of the election itself, or the law governing the process, pay for the hand recount of as many of the ballots cast in the election as she wanted, was, in fact mandatory. What I was trying to get at is the way in which building a case to contest and overturn an election is an entirely different type of action than a simple "I'm opting to take the hand recount option 'cause it was so close." It is i finicky point, I admit, but whatever.
"Obviously you would like to know, but you cannot know until the contest proceeding really takes place, because they are not going to tell you everything they have until then."
So, what, you're just goint to sarcast at anyone that wants to discuss what possible future action a political figure might take? WTF? Obviously we wont know what's going to happen until its happened, but that's never stopped/.ers from talking about what MIGHT happen. If I wanted to know without any conjecture what WAS going to happen, I would have asked Rossi. But I didnt. I asked/. get a grip.
"When Gregoire was down by a hundred votes, she said that the counts were flawed; when she was up by a hundred votes, she said that Rossi should concede. She has been just as hypocritical, at least. BFD."
yes, that would be rather hypocritical. could you toss a link to quotes? I hadnt read that.
"When you lie to me, saying the Democrats want to make sure every vote is counted, then yeah, I'll respond a bit negatively in return. BFD."
ummm... Lie to you? a bit melodramatic, dont you think? but, I guess since you seem to have appointed yourself the arbitor of/. knowledge regarding the gov. election, I guess disagreeing with you to your face is tantamount to lieing...
Again, you didn't "respond a bit negatively" you flamebaited, just like you did everyone in this entire thread who disagreed with you. maybe you're just a dick, i dunno
hrm, that does seem like they wanted it accessible. on the other hand, from the outside, it doesnt look like the top case has obvious de-coupling mechanisms... maybe its just like that so the factory techs can do the memory install last minute for custom orders w/ more. but then again they thought it was a good idea to have the memory slot in the old ibooks under teh airport card and a plate held in by 4 small screws... which they called "easily accessible" so who knows.
Yes, I do. You seemed to conceive of actions mandated by state code to be the same as actions possible under state code. the two are different, and I disagree with what I saw to be your understanding of the issue. I was thinking in terms of location of agency, not of one being legal and one not. If I misunderstood your point many apologies.
"Who cares? The law doesn't say "you can only contest it if you convince AdmiralWeirdbeard that your grounds are sufficient." You can contest, period. Then a court decides whether your grounds are sufficient. If they do, then that is as per the law, so the law is being followed. If not, that is still as per the law, and the contest will end, and the law is still being followed.
In no way does a contest represent anyone trying to change or violate the rules, despite your implication to the contrary."
I care. I do this idiot thing called thinking. Simply because any citizen in the state of Washington CAN contest an election does not mean that it will do any good. Yes, obviously I am not the arbiter of whether or not claimant has grounds, but I'd like to know anyway, cause I like being informed.
I would also like to state that my contention was not that by contesting the election, Rossi would be trying to change the RULES, but rather he HAS changed his rhetoric. Before the conclusion of the hand recount, The rhetoric was basically "rossi won the election, he's going to win the recounts, Gregoire should accede to the will of the people and concede the election." after losing the hand recount, Rossi has changed his tune to blasting the ENTIRE process as fraudulent. I'm sorry you so completely misunderstood what I wrote in plain english before.
"That you actually believe this is sad. All through the first count and the first recount, and most of the second recount, the Democrats were saying the most important thing is to count every vote, even if the letter of the law in regard to that vote was not followed, and even if the county had already certified its results. But as soon as Gregoire went ahead, they changed their tune, arguing that it was too late to add more ballots, even though state certification was a week away."
I believe it was actually the county auditors of each and every county that the Republicans wanted to re-hand count who refused to keep counting...because they'd already completed their recounts...and they decided that they had, in fact, ALREADY followed what Vance called the "new rules" as dictated by the Supreme Court.
"...(Also note that any argument you wish to make about the Republicans wanting to change the rules, about whining, etc. applies even moreso to the Democrats in the House and Senate in DC, who this week tried to block certification of Ohio's votes on far less grounds than what the Republicans in WA have.)"
I would like to make it clear that I support fully Rossi taking whatever avenue the law leaves open. OF COURSE he should contest it if he thinks he has grounds. OF COURSE he shouldnt just concede if he actually thinks he's been wronged. My problem is that when HE was up by a hundred votes, he said gregoire should concede. When Gregoire is up a hundred votes, the election was the result of fraud, and there needs to be a new one. Thats just a little too much for me. thats all.
on a final note, is there really need for the flame baiting? and dont tell me thats not what it was, you belittled me throughout your entire sarcastic refutation. so I guess you can just keep on trying, maybe someone will bite
I disagree with your conception of "the rules." The recount process was started not by Gregoire contesting the original count, but rather by state election law that MANDATED a recount given the margin between the two candidates. The second recount stemmed from another clause in that same law that allowed one of the candidates to request and pay for a limited hand recount. The Dem party was nice enough to foot the bill, so the whole state was recounted.
Now... state election law does indeed state that any citizen can contest any election... the question at hand is on what grounds could Rossi contest it? Here is the mystery. People not having been sent their absentee ballots is one, and certainly an understandable one... but you seem to be under the impression that Counties besides King did not add votes after signature mix-ups such as in king county. This is quite simply not true. The contested ballots in King County were quite unique. They werent just rejected, they were rejected, and then not double checked like the rest of the rejections. Other counties added votes all over the place during the hand recount. And even after the Supreme Court decision, the county auditors of all the other counties in the states revused to re-open their counts because despite Mr. Vance's whining to the contrary, the rules had been the same the entire time.
So, yes, the rules were followed, and the rules are still being followed. The difference between the democratic and republican take on what following the rules means, is that the Democrats wanted to make sure that as many votes were counted as possible, whereas the republicans acted at every possible step to prevent new votes from being added.
The thought occurs that perhaps Apple is not quite as obsessed with the secrecy of their product launches as they want us to think.
perhaps they gave a very specific list of things thinksecret could say, and they said more, so apple's pissed. perhaps we werent supposed to know the purported processor speed, perhaps its actually going to have an older-run non slotloading superdrive...
it just seems a little silly that it wouldnt occur to apple that creating a little mystery around their products would take a bit more than simply keeping them a secret until launch.
A margin of error is tolerated because of the costs that would be necessary to produce a system without one.
Pudge: be really careful saying things like 'its more accurate because the law says so.' The law was written as such for a number of reasons, all of which point to the recounts being more accurate as the result of a process of reasoning, not merely by governmental fiat.
Why are the recounts more accurate?
The machine recount is not more accurate in terms of the actually physical process of counting the ballots. obviously the same machines are used to scan the same paper slips with the same inked dots on them. The higher accuracy is implied through the greater opportunity for review of what should be counted, and higher level of review of results, such as in Island County during the first recount, several thousand votes that had been counted twice in the first count were only counted once. Its just an opportunity for a do-over.
The hand Recount is the most accurate way to count votes, period. There was an article on the seattle times last monday, or tuesday, by one of the staff writers who volunteered for a day as the county official in one of the counter teams and wrote about the process and his impressions, and he was blown away at the level of integrity of the process. there are three people in each counting team. A republican appointee, a democratic appointee, and a county official. the Dem and Rep each count the same stack of ballots, giving their tally to the county official, if the tallies do not match, they do it over. until they match. Manual recounts take into consideration voter intent, like in the case of the many ballots where the name of the candidate was circled, rather than the dot being filled in. toward this end, so-called "smudges" ballots with marks in dots for more than one candidate, the two partisan appointees discussed the ballot and agreed on the intent of the voter. Groups that could not agree on the stack were dismissed.
All of this took place under the watchful glare of up to 10 independent observers, journalists, etc, PER GROUP.
This was the process mandated by state law, and I'm pretty confidant in the results, even if the results imply that we, as a state are too stupid to confidently choose between two... distinctive ( to say the least) candidates...
Another important thing to realize is that it doesn't really matter who "wins" what county. There is no winning a county, at least the way we do it here in washington. It is a general election, and every vote counts (supposedly) toward the grand total of Candidate A vs Candidate B. Thats why we care about the ridiculosity of a 3 million vote race being decided by less than a thousand votes instead of the utter destruction of Gregoire's hopes after losing all but one county in the state.
People like to talk about King county vs the rest of the state, and forget that King county only has 30% of the states population (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53033. html) People also like to talk about the inordinate amount of influence King County has, forgetting, of course, that king county has more votes than say, Ferry county, because 1.7 million people live in King County as opposed to 7,000 in Ferry County.
While there is a decided east/west political divide, to say that King County is a giant donkey overpowering the miniature elephant of central and eastern washington is pretty reductionist, even if superficially true.
Just because they are not buying an outright controlling interest does not mean it is not the beginnings of a take-over attempt. Dont forget that the founders/directors of the company only own 22.4% of shares. Buying enough shares of a rival company to edge up to the founders/directors isnt hostile right now... its preparing for a take-over bid a few years down the line.
just my.02
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem with nuclear energy is not the actual energy production and waste management as most people seem to believe. We can make safe reactors, and we can make safe waste-storage systems. The real proplem, from an ecological perspective is the mining of uranium.
You have the proportions of fissionable Uranium to inert Uranium backwards. Fissionable Uranium is the much less common isotope, and must be concentrated, through gas-diffusion, or other methods to achieve the concentration necessary to be considered "enriched." Mass quantities of ore must be mined in order to accumulate the requisite amount of Uranium, and the tailings are the real environmental problem, as is abandoned mines. Uranium mine tailings are saturated with radon, and heavy metals in such concentrations as to poison entire watersheds for several thousand years. We have this fear mentality about nuclear power stemming from 3-mile island and chernobyl that focuses all of our concern for the safety of nuclear power on activities pertaining to the reactors, at the expense of the totality of the process, beginning with the mining of the ore and ending with the storage of the waste.
Nuclear reactors can and are made perfectly safe. WAste storage systems can be made perfectly safe. However as long as uranium ore is mined in an unsound manner, the process as a whole will fail to be environmentally sound.
I'm definitely feeling crotchety at the moment. Why can't i just have a number of devices, each of which does 1 thing, and does it better than anything else? i mean, this moto only has the OPTION of 544 megs of memory, with only 32 built in...
Why should I buy this phone instead of a shuffle and a RAZR?
I suppose I would definitely want 1 ugly device rather than 2 beautifully designed devices, if nothing else...
Step 1: build integrated ugly cellphone/ugly mp3 player
Step 2: ?
Step 3: PROFIT!!!!
one of the nice things about our judicial system (tho there are of course many bad aspects as well...) is that it likes to protect its right to judicial review. Its coming around on guantanamo, and I'm sure if someone tried to contest somethign under this law, that the courts would find it unconstitutional, if not for violating the people's rights, at the very least for trammeling the right of judicial review. now this is not, of course, to say that one shouldnt be sketched out by the law in the first place
this is a little OT, but you should really keep the full ammendment in you sig...cause otherwise you're just engaging in polemics. Without the part about a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, you ignore that implicit in the right to bear arms is the duty of those bearing them to be well-regulated. just a thought
I think you're the only person I've noticed so far to point out the key to understanding the disjoint between penlaties for infringement and theft.
In the case of intellectual property violation, you're dealing with a very powerful industry that has not been subject to largescale "theft" of their product before a few years ago. They suddenly see their profits dropping and believe it to be the result of "theft" through filesharing. Their lobbyists go to work, and we get regressive penalties for filesharing.
In the case of theft of the physical DVD, the retailer has already bought the DVD, so the financial burden falls Not on the production house, but on the retailer... and here's the key... WHO DEALS WITH THEFT ALREADY AND HAS DEALT WITH IT FOREVER, AND WILL DEAL WITH IT INTO THE FUTURE. Shoplifting is a part of the overhead, particularly for large retailers, and while they act to decrease it (cameras, security tags, etc) they know that real steps to ERADICATE it would be silly and drive away patrons. (I'm imagining a wal-mart associate following each and every customer around to make sure that they dont steal... or locking ALL wares behind cases.... attack ferrets to chase and ravage children toying with the locks... etc)
Sorry, that was an extended parenthetical, but i think my point is clear. If store were as fanatical in preventing the shoplifting of CD's and DVD's as the RIAA and MPAA are trying to be regarding their intellectual property rights, nobody would shop there, cause nobody likes being treated like a criminal from the off.
This post seems indicative of a whole bunch I've been reading regarding DIY modding lately. There seem to be the type of folks with the time and inclination to do something interesting, though not so interesting that the rest of us are going to do it... and then there seems to be the sort of people who assume that if it doesnt make perfect sense to mod in that fashion than it was a stupid idea. wasnt a stupid idea, just not what you would choose to spend your time and resources on, we get the picture
whole thing seemed pretty bubble-gum to me... unless someone noticed something revolutionary i didnt.
Tho I did like the part where he said that the audio market today was people getting ipods and the bose ipod speakers instead of a real shelf system... Dont know about the rest of you, but i like my ipod hooked up to my Technics receiver/floor speakers just fine. Though it is just crushing to know that I dont have an apple-styled bose gizmo the size of a shoebox in which to stick my ipod...
...
Actually, a single elipsis really isnt long enough to contain the sarcasm and bitterness this idea engenders.
but I'm too lazy to make more.
--
Whereof one cannot speak,
thereof one must remain silent.
Been past him a couple times now walking from downtown to belltown and back, and the whole things just smacks of stupid stunt, even more than it comes off in the article. Its not like for episode 1, when there were all these idealistic star-wars fans either too young to have had the true theater experience on eps. 4-6, or convinced that eps. 1-3 would actually carry on the earlier tradition. This guy just seems pretty pleased with himself for being THE camper at Cinerama.
"So they are not both proceeding according to the rules?" ummmm... yes, they are, and you know I know that because I said that... in the quote you used. "Maybe you shouldn't lie." K well, I have asked you a number of times to ACTUALLY show why what I have said is, in fact false, which you have not done. You have cited a news story which proves neither of our points, least of which yours, and have generally shown yourelf to be a dick. Stop. If you're going to call me a liar, you have to do two things A) show, not just rhetorically that I have misrepresented the facts. you havent done that, instead you've just said liar liar pants on fire. B) show that I WILLFULLY misrepresented the facts, ie. that I knowingly spoke falsehood. If you want to show me rather than telling me, that what I have said is in fact false, I will gladly recant. But until then, *shrug* dont be such a dick. -- "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent" Ludvig Wittgenstein
"Right, and the opportunity for Rossi to contest the election is mandatory. I have never contended that it is Rossi's right to get a revote. I've contended it is his right to contest, and that it is ludicrous to ask him to concede.
Rossi is not forcing a revote, he's asking for one, and if it is granted, then that is only because the law mandates that the people who do make that decision are allowed to do so."
I never said that it wasnt. I'm saying that your characterization of Rossi contesting the election, and Gregoire asking for the hand recount as basically the same thing because they're both 'proceeding in accordance with the rules' is false. Though the issue was adjudicated in part, the issue of the recount is legally a judgement free issue. One need not allege, prove, or otherwise rely on any wrong-doing on the part of the vote-counters in order to have the recounts, providing the votes are close enough. Contesting an election on the other hand, relies on provable negligence or fraud on the part of election officials/vote counters. This, i think is reflected in the rhetoric each candidate has used at various stages of the election. during the recounts, Gregoire's position was "count all legitimate ballots" whether or not you think she has since made a hypocrite of herself is irrelvent on this point. Rossi and Vance, in discussing contesting the election have accused king county of criminal negligence and implied numerous times that the tally in King County was probably the result of fraud writ large. I think that to conflate the two actions as merely "following the rules" is misleading, and I think you know that.
"But then again, both Paul Berendt (WA Dem chair) and Chris Vance (WA Rep chair) have said incredibly stupid things in the last two months."
if they were good for anything but being bags of hot air, they might be real politicians instead of petty party hacks.
"Shrug. What would you prefer I call it when to make the people you don't like look bad, you assert as fact something that is clearly false?"
*shrugs back*, maybe you shouldnt call it anything. maybe you should just show them to be wrong. I think you're doing the exact same thing, but I'm not calling you a liar. Maybe you should try actually putting forth an argument, I mean it only took you what, till the 3rd post to kindof reply to the issues I was asking about.
"Don't be so sensitive"
I'm not being sensitive, I'm being idealistic. Nobody cares how sarcistic and witty you can be. Iv you're not going to address an issue in a substantive form, why say anything at all?
"So now you're saying the second recount was mandatory? Huh"
/.ers from talking about what MIGHT happen. If I wanted to know without any conjecture what WAS going to happen, I would have asked Rossi. But I didnt. I asked /. get a grip.
/. knowledge regarding the gov. election, I guess disagreeing with you to your face is tantamount to lieing...
No. I'm saying the opportunity for Gregoire to, without making a case one way or the other regarding the validity of the election itself, or the law governing the process, pay for the hand recount of as many of the ballots cast in the election as she wanted, was, in fact mandatory. What I was trying to get at is the way in which building a case to contest and overturn an election is an entirely different type of action than a simple "I'm opting to take the hand recount option 'cause it was so close." It is i finicky point, I admit, but whatever.
"Obviously you would like to know, but you cannot know until the contest proceeding really takes place, because they are not going to tell you everything they have until then."
So, what, you're just goint to sarcast at anyone that wants to discuss what possible future action a political figure might take? WTF? Obviously we wont know what's going to happen until its happened, but that's never stopped
"When Gregoire was down by a hundred votes, she said that the counts were flawed; when she was up by a hundred votes, she said that Rossi should concede. She has been just as hypocritical, at least. BFD."
yes, that would be rather hypocritical. could you toss a link to quotes? I hadnt read that.
"When you lie to me, saying the Democrats want to make sure every vote is counted, then yeah, I'll respond a bit negatively in return. BFD."
ummm... Lie to you? a bit melodramatic, dont you think? but, I guess since you seem to have appointed yourself the arbitor of
Again, you didn't "respond a bit negatively" you flamebaited, just like you did everyone in this entire thread who disagreed with you. maybe you're just a dick, i dunno
hrm, that does seem like they wanted it accessible. on the other hand, from the outside, it doesnt look like the top case has obvious de-coupling mechanisms... maybe its just like that so the factory techs can do the memory install last minute for custom orders w/ more. but then again they thought it was a good idea to have the memory slot in the old ibooks under teh airport card and a plate held in by 4 small screws... which they called "easily accessible" so who knows.
"I disagree with your conception of "the rules."
I don't think you do."
Yes, I do. You seemed to conceive of actions mandated by state code to be the same as actions possible under state code. the two are different, and I disagree with what I saw to be your understanding of the issue. I was thinking in terms of location of agency, not of one being legal and one not. If I misunderstood your point many apologies.
"Who cares? The law doesn't say "you can only contest it if you convince AdmiralWeirdbeard that your grounds are sufficient." You can contest, period. Then a court decides whether your grounds are sufficient. If they do, then that is as per the law, so the law is being followed. If not, that is still as per the law, and the contest will end, and the law is still being followed.
In no way does a contest represent anyone trying to change or violate the rules, despite your implication to the contrary."
I care. I do this idiot thing called thinking. Simply because any citizen in the state of Washington CAN contest an election does not mean that it will do any good. Yes, obviously I am not the arbiter of whether or not claimant has grounds, but I'd like to know anyway, cause I like being informed.
I would also like to state that my contention was not that by contesting the election, Rossi would be trying to change the RULES, but rather he HAS changed his rhetoric. Before the conclusion of the hand recount, The rhetoric was basically "rossi won the election, he's going to win the recounts, Gregoire should accede to the will of the people and concede the election." after losing the hand recount, Rossi has changed his tune to blasting the ENTIRE process as fraudulent.
I'm sorry you so completely misunderstood what I wrote in plain english before.
"That you actually believe this is sad. All through the first count and the first recount, and most of the second recount, the Democrats were saying the most important thing is to count every vote, even if the letter of the law in regard to that vote was not followed, and even if the county had already certified its results. But as soon as Gregoire went ahead, they changed their tune, arguing that it was too late to add more ballots, even though state certification was a week away."
I believe it was actually the county auditors of each and every county that the Republicans wanted to re-hand count who refused to keep counting...because they'd already completed their recounts...and they decided that they had, in fact, ALREADY followed what Vance called the "new rules" as dictated by the Supreme Court.
"...(Also note that any argument you wish to make about the Republicans wanting to change the rules, about whining, etc. applies even moreso to the Democrats in the House and Senate in DC, who this week tried to block certification of Ohio's votes on far less grounds than what the Republicans in WA have.)"
I would like to make it clear that I support fully Rossi taking whatever avenue the law leaves open. OF COURSE he should contest it if he thinks he has grounds. OF COURSE he shouldnt just concede if he actually thinks he's been wronged. My problem is that when HE was up by a hundred votes, he said gregoire should concede. When Gregoire is up a hundred votes, the election was the result of fraud, and there needs to be a new one. Thats just a little too much for me. thats all.
on a final note, is there really need for the flame baiting? and dont tell me thats not what it was, you belittled me throughout your entire sarcastic refutation. so I guess you can just keep on trying, maybe someone will bite
I disagree with your conception of "the rules." The recount process was started not by Gregoire contesting the original count, but rather by state election law that MANDATED a recount given the margin between the two candidates. The second recount stemmed from another clause in that same law that allowed one of the candidates to request and pay for a limited hand recount. The Dem party was nice enough to foot the bill, so the whole state was recounted. Now... state election law does indeed state that any citizen can contest any election... the question at hand is on what grounds could Rossi contest it? Here is the mystery. People not having been sent their absentee ballots is one, and certainly an understandable one... but you seem to be under the impression that Counties besides King did not add votes after signature mix-ups such as in king county. This is quite simply not true. The contested ballots in King County were quite unique. They werent just rejected, they were rejected, and then not double checked like the rest of the rejections. Other counties added votes all over the place during the hand recount. And even after the Supreme Court decision, the county auditors of all the other counties in the states revused to re-open their counts because despite Mr. Vance's whining to the contrary, the rules had been the same the entire time. So, yes, the rules were followed, and the rules are still being followed. The difference between the democratic and republican take on what following the rules means, is that the Democrats wanted to make sure that as many votes were counted as possible, whereas the republicans acted at every possible step to prevent new votes from being added.
The thought occurs that perhaps Apple is not quite as obsessed with the secrecy of their product launches as they want us to think. perhaps they gave a very specific list of things thinksecret could say, and they said more, so apple's pissed. perhaps we werent supposed to know the purported processor speed, perhaps its actually going to have an older-run non slotloading superdrive... it just seems a little silly that it wouldnt occur to apple that creating a little mystery around their products would take a bit more than simply keeping them a secret until launch.
A margin of error is tolerated because of the costs that would be necessary to produce a system without one.
Pudge: be really careful saying things like 'its more accurate because the law says so.' The law was written as such for a number of reasons, all of which point to the recounts being more accurate as the result of a process of reasoning, not merely by governmental fiat.
Why are the recounts more accurate?
The machine recount is not more accurate in terms of the actually physical process of counting the ballots. obviously the same machines are used to scan the same paper slips with the same inked dots on them. The higher accuracy is implied through the greater opportunity for review of what should be counted, and higher level of review of results, such as in Island County during the first recount, several thousand votes that had been counted twice in the first count were only counted once. Its just an opportunity for a do-over.
The hand Recount is the most accurate way to count votes, period. There was an article on the seattle times last monday, or tuesday, by one of the staff writers who volunteered for a day as the county official in one of the counter teams and wrote about the process and his impressions, and he was blown away at the level of integrity of the process.
there are three people in each counting team. A republican appointee, a democratic appointee, and a county official. the Dem and Rep each count the same stack of ballots, giving their tally to the county official, if the tallies do not match, they do it over. until they match.
Manual recounts take into consideration voter intent, like in the case of the many ballots where the name of the candidate was circled, rather than the dot being filled in. toward this end, so-called "smudges" ballots with marks in dots for more than one candidate, the two partisan appointees discussed the ballot and agreed on the intent of the voter.
Groups that could not agree on the stack were dismissed.
All of this took place under the watchful glare of up to 10 independent observers, journalists, etc, PER GROUP.
This was the process mandated by state law, and I'm pretty confidant in the results, even if the results imply that we, as a state are too stupid to confidently choose between two... distinctive ( to say the least) candidates...
Another important thing to realize is that it doesn't really matter who "wins" what county. There is no winning a county, at least the way we do it here in washington. It is a general election, and every vote counts (supposedly) toward the grand total of Candidate A vs Candidate B. Thats why we care about the ridiculosity of a 3 million vote race being decided by less than a thousand votes instead of the utter destruction of Gregoire's hopes after losing all but one county in the state. People like to talk about King county vs the rest of the state, and forget that King county only has 30% of the states population (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53033. html) People also like to talk about the inordinate amount of influence King County has, forgetting, of course, that king county has more votes than say, Ferry county, because 1.7 million people live in King County as opposed to 7,000 in Ferry County.
While there is a decided east/west political divide, to say that King County is a giant donkey overpowering the miniature elephant of central and eastern washington is pretty reductionist, even if superficially true.
Just because they are not buying an outright controlling interest does not mean it is not the beginnings of a take-over attempt. Dont forget that the founders/directors of the company only own 22.4% of shares. Buying enough shares of a rival company to edge up to the founders/directors isnt hostile right now... its preparing for a take-over bid a few years down the line. just my .02