Out of curiosity, to avoid excessive weight gain and diabetes risk, do the people who rationalize like this prefer to sweeten their massive amounts of Kool Aid with Splenda or Equal?
Agreed, especially considering his allure is strongest on the far left and the independent democrats. If Obama wins the nomination, I'd think - and, I have to admit, hope - that Obama would not lose many votes, considering his allure is so strong among those same voters. Hillary as well would probably not lose many votes.
I think it's a damned shame our political system does mean a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for the Republican party. I also think it's a shame Nader's got to run for president just to further his causes. Having survived a head on car collision earlier in my life, I have to wonder if I'd still be alive if it weren't for his efforts. I don't tend to think the automotive industry would have up and improved themselves on their own. That said, I'd really rather not see the democratic vote split again.
Most of us know jack about the algorithms that allow us to catch a baseball in flight, yet we can still do it. Furthermore, a person from 10000 BC with no math at all by today's standards could do it just as well as we can.
What a coincidence!
A site I also administer has a great introduction to DKIM for those interested: http://what-is-what.com/what_is/domainkeys_identified_mail.html
(disclaimer: I am not affiliated with that site, but I did pwn it and use it as a spam bot)
So you're the idiot who wrote the specs which caused me to waste an hour googling last week before I realized there is no such thing as a 12" hard drive.
Much more interesting was the point a few minutes ago, when the researchers watched the AI somehow manage to change the game to Missile Command, at the same time that they noticed outside a massive rocket laun
Your definition of fair is the problem. This is sport. Sport is not, I repeat, not supposed to give everyone an equal chance to win, just a chance to compete under equal rules. The best man wins on any given day. If you start letting people use equipment to overcome their disadvantages, not matter how "unfair" life was to them to saddle them with said disadvantage, the winner will by definition always be the one who got helped a little more proportionally to his disadvantage than everyone else was helped to theirs. That's not competition. At best, that's "luck," and at worst, that's "cheating."
For this race to be fair, every runner should be able to use these appendages, whether or not they have their full legs. Given enough training, I'd be surprised if someone without the disability didn't beat him, given the added strength in fully formed legs. Then again, I could be wrong. But frankly, I don't care. If you want to host a race like that, be my guest. But don't compare it with the traditional race wherein people "run." That would be more like "sequential, horizontal pole vaulting."
I love watching these stories and the threads that ensue.
How telling is it that the overwhelming majority of/. users seem to despise the idea of technology in the ballot box? We're the group that one would think would be the first to welcome the modernization of voting, the elimination of the "arcane" technology of scribbles on paper as a way for millions of people to vote?
Surely, we all recognize the benefits electronic voting could offer... With proper UI, disabled voters are given a voice undiminished by their physical limitations. Language barriers dissolve. Costs could be reduced. The environment is saved from literally truckloads of paper per state per election consumed. In theory, we could make voting easier via the internet or some other remote casting of ballots. The ease could even lead to a more democratic society, with voting happening more frequently - wouldn't it be nice if more people in local towns voted in town meetings than the vocal minority so directly benefited by the decisions made? The accuracy and speed of vote tallying would surpass anything we could do manually.
And yet, the cries against anything more than optical scanning of ballots is so loud here.
It seems an outside observer - or an insider observer trying to glean some wisdom from the group mentality - could infer one of two things from this behavior. Either this group of knowledgeable technophiles has managed to collectively do a 180 on this one topic, or the wisdom/. members collectively have regarding technology and the way soceity implements it leads us to the inevitable conclusion that while the theory of electronic voting is promising, its practice is doomed.
So how could such fans of all things technology reach such a seemingly self-contradictory conclusion? Do we really despise the technology behind electronic voting? Or is it just that we realize there are two components when people employ technology: people and technology. And we do seem to like technology. Or would respect be a better word, that "we respect the power technology can give?" We fear the power the abuse of technology can win, and we know enough about this technology to see how easy it is to abuse.
Disclaimer: I share what I seem to see as the majority opinion. I have counted ballots manually in the distant past, and I'm now employed at a company that prints paper ballots.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't seen two girls, one cup yet, have you?
Actually, I was wondering what organization the old admin works for now, and whether or not their data is of any interest to the Russian Mafia.
Oh, wait. Found him.
Personally I just stop breathing until I get red, blue, green, and yellow in the face. There, fixed.
Sex Sex Sex Got an itch Sex Nurse's cleavage What do I want for lunch? Sex Sex... There, I fixed that for you.
NEXT!
I was going to mod you up, but you talked me out of it.
4:24PM EST and so far the tag hasn't shown up. What's the over/under time on when this story will be tagged whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
Out of curiosity, to avoid excessive weight gain and diabetes risk, do the people who rationalize like this prefer to sweeten their massive amounts of Kool Aid with Splenda or Equal?
Nah, just the only one who's never heard of Wikipedia
Agreed, especially considering his allure is strongest on the far left and the independent democrats. If Obama wins the nomination, I'd think - and, I have to admit, hope - that Obama would not lose many votes, considering his allure is so strong among those same voters. Hillary as well would probably not lose many votes.
I think it's a damned shame our political system does mean a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for the Republican party. I also think it's a shame Nader's got to run for president just to further his causes. Having survived a head on car collision earlier in my life, I have to wonder if I'd still be alive if it weren't for his efforts. I don't tend to think the automotive industry would have up and improved themselves on their own. That said, I'd really rather not see the democratic vote split again.
And you must not be very familiar with the space opera that is Star Trek, from which the GP was quoting quite humorously.
A site I also administer has a great introduction to DKIM for those interested:
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/domainkeys_identified_mail.html
(disclaimer: I am not affiliated with that site, but I did pwn it and use it as a spam bot)
Teacher: Timmy, you've put the apostrophe in the wrong place again... It's Mother's Day, not Mothers' Day...
Timmy: But Miss Jones...
Or how about...
Timmy: Mr. Therapist, I think I have an Oedipal urge to sleep with my mothers...
Therapist: Your libido is fine, Timmy... That'll be $150.
Well, we had outsourced that article to them, but they haven't been reachable via email lately.
Never heard of this what is it?
So you're the idiot who wrote the specs which caused me to waste an hour googling last week before I realized there is no such thing as a 12" hard drive.
Not only that, but with a /. UID of 88804 versus 849919, he was a hell of a bunch quicker onto the site, too.
Much more interesting was the point a few minutes ago, when the researchers watched the AI somehow manage to change the game to Missile Command, at the same time that they noticed outside a massive rocket laun
For this race to be fair, every runner should be able to use these appendages, whether or not they have their full legs. Given enough training, I'd be surprised if someone without the disability didn't beat him, given the added strength in fully formed legs. Then again, I could be wrong. But frankly, I don't care. If you want to host a race like that, be my guest. But don't compare it with the traditional race wherein people "run." That would be more like "sequential, horizontal pole vaulting."
Fox News?
White, Christian, adult (but not old) males are the only group that isn't a minority. Which makes us a minority, too, I guess.
How telling is it that the overwhelming majority of
Surely, we all recognize the benefits electronic voting could offer... With proper UI, disabled voters are given a voice undiminished by their physical limitations. Language barriers dissolve. Costs could be reduced. The environment is saved from literally truckloads of paper per state per election consumed. In theory, we could make voting easier via the internet or some other remote casting of ballots. The ease could even lead to a more democratic society, with voting happening more frequently - wouldn't it be nice if more people in local towns voted in town meetings than the vocal minority so directly benefited by the decisions made? The accuracy and speed of vote tallying would surpass anything we could do manually.
And yet, the cries against anything more than optical scanning of ballots is so loud here.
It seems an outside observer - or an insider observer trying to glean some wisdom from the group mentality - could infer one of two things from this behavior. Either this group of knowledgeable technophiles has managed to collectively do a 180 on this one topic, or the wisdom /. members collectively have regarding technology and the way soceity implements it leads us to the inevitable conclusion that while the theory of electronic voting is promising, its practice is doomed.
So how could such fans of all things technology reach such a seemingly self-contradictory conclusion? Do we really despise the technology behind electronic voting? Or is it just that we realize there are two components when people employ technology: people and technology. And we do seem to like technology. Or would respect be a better word, that "we respect the power technology can give?" We fear the power the abuse of technology can win, and we know enough about this technology to see how easy it is to abuse.
Disclaimer: I share what I seem to see as the majority opinion. I have counted ballots manually in the distant past, and I'm now employed at a company that prints paper ballots.
You posted anonymously, but you do realize your anonymity will be gone the moment video of your death hits YouTube, don't you?