If what they say is true then the Indian and Pacific oceans' hurricane activities would have also increased. That is, "global warming" would have to... well be global. The trouble is, those two oceans have seen a decrease in activities.
The sciam article mentions they used a statistical analysis for this conclusion. Samuel Clemmons once stated their are liars, damn liars and statiticians. If you noticed, they only used data from 1970 on. Why not data from 1940 on, it is out there.
This last year we ran out of names for hurricanes. The naming system was based on the maximum number of hurricanes we have had in the past (80+ years ago it seems) in on season. This means that we have indeed had that many hurricanes, when they say it was cooler. So how can that be? I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows.
The reality that I have seen shows that it has far more to do with a new weather pattern than GW. In fact we are seeing that today with more strong winds in America that have set unprecendented fires in Texas and around the country. Even in places like Maryland that has seen a greater than average rainfall. I have seen a direct coorolation between the Sun's activies and the winds here. I'm not a scientist in this field, however there definately seems to be something there to me. A lot of people don't realize that our star called the SUN is a very well behaved star relatively speaking. It could wipe life out on earth in a matter of minutes and hours otherwise.
The "Scientific American" article doesn't seem to take a new weather pattern into consideration. By the way, weather patterns tend to last 20 years. On the other hand, if they are right then we need to convince our elected officials to allow Nuclear Power plants to be built. One of those suckers takes a lot of the greenhouse gasses away. Also, many people have no idea that coal plants emit more radiation than any other American nuke plant ever has. Turns out coal is often located near Uranium deposits. In fact we have been lied to for years about the dangers of nuclear power. Even in Chernobyl, the dire consequences they told us about haven't come about. Same thing with Three Mile Island. These dire consequenes were once published in the Scientific American as well.
VeriSign Naming Services is the largest domain name registry in the world, managing over 50 million digital identities in over 350 languages
--snip----
I don't think it matters though. No matter who got it they would complain because it isn't them. Of course Verisign is known for charging way the heck more for things like SSL certs.
..that we're still arguing about this nonsense. Who cares who the registrar is? The system works, as evidenced by years of operation, and quite frankly, how often do you have a problem with it? Unless you're a competitor who wants to get in on some of this action.
Actually it isn't nonsense. For example a few years ago the base registrar for the.org domain was removed from Network Solutions. Not to repeat look here . Anytime you register or renew a.com domain, the base sponsor gets a cut. What they are saying is that cut will be much more than it is now regardless of who you register your domain from. Register with verisign - they win. Register with another registrar - they win.
Broadband for everyone. Everyone would likely have an idiot Windows box hooked up, infected about 5 seconds after hooking it up. All of those new zombies. What a terrible plan. Think of all the new Nigerian letters we will be getting in its various forms and new phishing sites. Need a new compromised machine? Pick from one of a few million that are not being watched.
Peloesi is recycling an Al Gore idea from 1999 that went no where. He wanted to solve the "digital divide" "problem". The last time they wanted to charge $50/month for modem lines. Gore wanted it included so it looked like the phone company was charging it. The phone company was going to make it a line on the bill showing it was Gore, not them for the huge increase in their bill.
This confirms what I have thought for a long time. The Democrats have no idea what to do. Except being against anything Dubya is for it seems. Will a real leader in the Democratic party please stand up! Sit down Kerry, Liberman, Kennedy, Peleosi, Dean, Edwards. You had your chance. Let a new guy try.
I have used Postgress off and on for about 15 years. At first it was the only serious free relational database alternative out there. Then it went through a number of owners, iterations, updates, going free and even went backwards for a while I'd argue.
From time to time they change the structure of the database. This is toxic waste. If you are not aware of it and upgrade your system and postgre is updated, you will have to move the data to a machine that can still understand the old database, dump it and migrate it back in. This has kicked my ass more than once. It seems like it is always at the most inopportune time as well. Then there is the vacuum nonsense to deal with.
With Mysql, I have never had this problem. The database just works regardless of an upgrade to the way they do things. It takes care of it. I don't recall one time where I had to dump and migrate my data, except from one machine to another. Usually I just move the files, even from platform to platform and they are still fine. In fact I have had mysql applications running for years without any intervention. It just works. I can't say that about Postgres, as well as Oracle.
Not sure if he is going senile or what. Seems like he is doing something to get himself into the news every so often and usually not in a good way. Sometimes he bashes his own party. They may have had enough of him this time. Hey, it could happen. Especially if they had someone else they think could win that position. Spendenning... I mean Glendenning maybe?
I know the concept of Olympians being amateurs is outdated, but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"
In a word - no. We don't want to mix up athletics with other matters. If he violated a law, arrest him of course if that is appropriate for that crime. He should be treated the same as any other person. If we start getting into making judgements on who can compete and who can't because of their actions, then we could find ourselves on that slippery slope. Let those that are in the athletic field deal with winning at their sport (unless it is un-sportsman like conduct) and those in the legal field deal with his conduct and determine if something should be done. Since he is so high profile, I'm willing to say that his case should be considered and acted upon quickly. Get the tar hot and the feathers ready just in case.
I live and vote in Maryland. In the last major election we used paper ballots that were electronicly read.
Where do you live? I don't know of a place in Maryland that used paper ballots in the last election. Not saying you didn't, however I'm very curious if there really was a place that escaped being updated. Sure you really voted? Yea, I live in Maryland, in the sticks. We used the Diebold machines.
Oh, and "Go Ehrlich!" Is that politicaly correct to say here?
Right now it should be. They are about ready to tar and feather 84 year old Bill Shaefer (D - Comptroller) right now over that woman flap. That can be found here
China probably already has all the code to Google and all the other stuff anyhow. The lawmakers are engaging in yet another exercise in futility. "see, we are doing something"
They could take the time for this and do something useful like redo the patent and copyright laws to the way they should be. You know, any music made before 1996 is public domain now.
Maybe it only works if you call a non-verizon customer?
It is likely that the carrier doesn't matter. They all work around the same frequencies. I have a feeling it may have something to do with standing waves between the two antenna. That is, if there is anything to this at all. A normal household microwave oven puts out at least 600 watts, some will do 1200 and I have even seen 1500 watt household ovens. Then there are industrial microwaves that can pump a LOT of energy into something. Your cell phone likely is 1/2 a watt. With two phones that is a watt between them. Not much energy. Someone said that the two phones together gets them to boost the output to compensate for being close together. I don't know if this is true or not. I have a verizon phone as well and I know after 10 minutes that sucker is hot. So hot it is uncomfortable. Kind of makes me wonder what it is doing to me. Note to self: get a headset for the phone.
The Saturn V was, and still is the ultimate in heavy lift. Obviously the one they have left couldnt be used, but I think it would be easy to copy it.
Much to my surprise, I was talking to a guy that works at Goddard and has been there over 40 years and he told me that they don't have the plans for the Saturn V rockets. They were not required to keep them and nobody thought to send them to the archives. What a Homer Simpson moment - 'Doh! I'm sure the plans exist though, the mighty contractors probably still have copies of most if not all of it. Otherwise they would have to look at the ones that still exist and go from there. I'm also a fan of the Kerosene. Much easier to deal with. I understand that vehicle has 1 million parts as fired to go to the moon. Not sure if that included the capsule or not. There is nothing like being there to see it go up. I still remember the time I was there to see it. Then we all got back into our car with AM only radio and no A/C and went home (HOT!).
They could also simplify the vehicle by not launching from sea level. Just think how much fuel is used to lift that sucker up as high as Denver for example.
But what do we know. They seem sold on hydrogen and Florida.
They should bring back the Saturn V rocket. That could lift all the junk the ISS needs in one or two shots. It is the monster truck of rockets - so far at least.
...-People who couldn't do business changed majors to Journalism
And Journalists - the bottom of the barrel are the ones telling us about what is going on in the world, politics and other news. They try though. One journalist - Al Gore is still trying (he was a journalist before he went into politics riding on his father's coattails). I bet he tries again to be President in 2008.
Sounds like a job for a future Mythbusters episode. After all, why should we do it when they can do it and inject some humor. Get Adam to hold the two cell phones on both sides of his head. Tell him it is a stereo myth.
However, how much is that increased security really worth for an average home user, when you break it down? According to me, fairly little"
Do you have a smoke detector? If you do, you should get rid of it. I doubt it has ever gone off so what good is it? I know mine has never gone off while I was at home (except to signal the battery is low or steam got to it) in the 30 years a detector has been in the house. We just keep on feeding it batteries. No fire. Big waste of money.
The point is that weak security is a huge risk to you and your well being. Someone could steal your identity, conduct criminal activity using your machine, many undesireable activities. Some activities could really ruin your day if you get caught holding the bag.
Shouldn't use the tin foil hat trick anymore, they can get by that now. They can read your thoughts now. Yes they can. You thought that they couldn't just now, didn't you. Here is a way to get around it:
Plastic helmet (base)
Tin Foil (blocks out old technology used by the supermarkets)
Aluminum Foil (blocks out newer technology used by the supermarkets)
Iodine (Tincture of iodine will do)
Alum (nope, got to use the real McCoy)
Lead strips (1/8" will do)
Newspaper, corn starch
Paint (spray, white and red)
Procedure:
Mix corn starch with water, mix with newspaper and adhere it to the helmet.
Next put on the layer of Tin Foil, then newspaper, then aluminum foil.
Next put the alum on top of the lead strips and that has to go right on top of
the aluminum foil, then newspaper it off to a smooth surface.
Now use the paint to paint the helmet white, do this a few times to get a nice
glossy smooth covering. Then paint on the side "CNN" or "Inpsector" "/."or even "Brooks Brothers"
Now I know your wondering about the iodine. That goes around your mouth to kill the bad
bacteria generated from all the old radio waves. They congregate there so just go around your mouth
for about 1/2" and your safe.
If you see someone with a funny helmet on and a ring around their mouth, you know they are no fool, they are protected just like you!
If something is not contrary to a written law, it is not illegal. If we can't agree on that simple fact, further discussion is pointless.
Back again? What is the matter, can't you handle winning your point? We already agree, didn't you write: Disagreements are over the interpretation and application of law, not on the text of the law itself.?
You did. What more do you want? You remind me of a young man with something to prove. Can't take yes for an answer without a fight. Now, move on to what else I said. Unless I miss my guess, you still have issues. Try to not let it get to you either. It is not worth loosing sleep over.
Clearly every one of them is literate, very literate.
Except, apparently, when it comes to the Constitution of the United States...
Oh, so now you think you know more than they do. Please do tell, where have you been a judge and what are your credentials. You have a good line of legal thinking in what you wrote, this makes you look bad. It is an easy way for people to dismiss you or think something worse. I can tell you that fighting them won't work.
Again, I stipulate that concenting to such a search - showing papers - may be in some circumstances a wise means of removing suspicion and preventing arrest for some other crime, but that does not mean that choosing to not carry or display such papers is a crime in itself, as you assert.
Maybe you missed the part where I said that law is more than what is written? No, it isn't a crime as far as I know in any of the annotated codes nor the USC with certain exceptions.
Disagreements are over the interpretation and application of law, not on the text of the law itself.
Yea, that is what we have here.
It is a fact that thousands of people in Georgia do not have government-issued identification. And they are hard to get in a state where fewer than 60 of 159 counties have DMV offices. Making someone take a day off to go to the next county over to pay for a photo id is indeed a significant obstacle for many people. It's a 21st century poll tax, a clear attempt by Repubs to disenfranchise poor voters.
I looked at the WP article... That is funny. It is a propanda article that is not typical of the Post. Where did they show these "thousands"? It says thousands voted without an ID, I voted without showing an ID too and I have one. Written to mislead. 17 forms of ID including mail, something to legitimize that individual is hardly a poll tax. Other key words to race bait it - Jim Crow. So they weren't even requiring a photo id. Simply something, anything with your name on it - paycheck, utility bill, etc.. Again, why are you denying me my equal protection under the law from those that want to vote more than once and those that are not even citizens? Are you that concerned that Democrats will be voted out en-masse if the field is level (I'm looking at Hilary and Ted)?
Call it what it is - a clear invitation for fraud. The real funny part is that you think that the ACLU/Democrats actually care about the poor blacks. They even attack blacks that dare to go outside of the Democratic party - like Mr. Steele of Maryland. Racial attacks, ephitets, all kinds of stuff to keep other blacks in line and scared. Used to be a black would never vote for a Democrat because they were the slave masters, Lincoln - a Republican freed them.
While the Hiibel decision was yet another example that literacy and rationality are not prerequisites for sitting on the Supreme Court,
That is the most absurd statement you have made and you have lost a lot of respect as a result. Clearly every one of them is literate, very literate. If they were not literate they obviously would not be there this day in age, they surely would have been voted down on confirmation. Rationality is a more subjective quality. I used to think they weren't rational at times either until I read the cases. Then it became clear that they generally do a very good job and their decisions are very well thought out even if I don't agree with it. The biggest problem right now on the court is O'Connor. Not because she is right, left, center, etc., it is because she tries very hard to answer the minimum question often leaving more questions than she answers. Another problem is that they don't have to take cases if they don't want to and for say the 2nd amendment they haven't heard a case in a very long time.
Again, I ask you to cite a law requiring a United States citizen to carry photo id; or please retract your earlier claim that such laws exist.
Why don't you simply admit I'm right? I showed you. Along with that question of who you are (which you have no choice but to admit such laws exist in those states, because they do), the very next thing that cop will say to you is "Let's see some ID." Otherwise it is meaningless - I could say I'm one of (Benedict Arnold, John Gacy, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Bill Gates), or some other made up name (John Jobs, Jack Sky). No ID, your probably going to end up taking a trip (ala the 1968 law I cited). I think you should conceed that the Terry stop laws are effectively what I said. Here is another scenario - an INS agent stops you and wants to deport you. Good luck if you don't have some form of US photo ID. Maybe we could say it also depends on your ethnicity as well? If not, go ahead and not carry a photo ID then. See if I care. Don't get upset if something bad happens to you. I won't conceed that I'm wrong and you shouldn't expect me to. Even the best lawyers in the country disagree on the law. That is why we have courts. Even courts make wrong legal decisions - the reason for appelate courts and so on. Ever listen to a Supreme Court case? Often I think both sides have a darn good argument and yet they both can't be right.
It's exactly because voting is more important than buying a beer that we cannot restrict it to those possessing driver's licences, or who can take the time and pay the money to go get a non-driver's ID or a passport. These can be substatial hurdles for the rural poor; people who don't have a birth certificate may find it very difficult to obtain such documents.
??? You conceed it is more important than beer and yet you don't require at least that much security? Do you work for the ACLU or something? Stop it already with the propaganda. You don't really believe that, do you? The "poor" is already required to have such documents for assistance - food stamps and the like. I have worked with the poorest of the poor for over 10 years and I have NEVER found one single solitary poor person that didn't have a photo ID. I did come across a rich woman that didn't. It was no big deal to fix it, even though her birth records had been destroyed in a church fire (churches usually held birth records back then). I'm sure there is a sob story with a poor person out there someplace, however I'm sure it is a very uncommon case.
Unless obtaining photo id becomes as easy for everyone as voter registration - and I can't see how that's possible - requiring such id runs smack into the equal protection mandate.
I have yet to see a good argument as to how getting an ID is somehow hard. It is a myth. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc, they all can get and ID, there isn't even a reading test. I don't see how this could possibly have anything to do with the equal protection mandate.
...An FBI investigation turned up no sustaining evidence of significant fraud.
That was in the original article. The Post chose to print what they wanted to, not what was testified to in court. There were plenty of people who really were dead that supposedly voted. Also look at how it was worded - no sustaining evidence - meaning they can't prove it. As I said, the punch card system that they used is extreamly easy to corrupt, so easy ANY idiot could do it. Say you look at the voter register after the fact and see Jane Doe of 123 Any St. is checked off and the cross reference shows she died last year. Ok, who did it and can you show the same person did it more than once or a pattern? Good luck. How about the 100% turnout? Do you believe that one? If you do, I have some swamp land to sell you.
In fact, he said, the only "clear and convincing" evidence he saw...
He also said "Unless an election is clearly invalid" making a very high threashold indeed. Translation - he wants it to be so clear that any idiot would understand the election was stolen. His other statements were there to try to justify it and excuse himself. Otherwise he might find himself featured in Michael Moore's next "documentary" (and he says it with a strait face too) flick.
...A qucik LexisNexis search of Maryland law turns up nothing relevant
Your not typing in the right stuff then. This is where law is a bitch because law can be more than what is written in the annotated code (i.e. why you need a competent lawyer). If you get stopped on a corner by a cop you had better be able to identify yourself positively or they may take you in. There is a lot of case law to back that up. They also stress this to high school students. Do you think I'm a paralegal or something? Well here is some law since you seem to need some help (with no more than free - google):
Current Law: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, a 1968 Supreme Court case, gave police the
right to temporarily detain someone if there are specific facts leading a reasonable police
officer to believe a crime might be occurring (reasonable suspicion). It is not necessary
for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime the officer thinks is being
committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable
officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring.
Police officers are free to ask persons for identification without violating their rights
under the Fourth Amendment.
Background: The Supreme Court has held in several cases that officers may request
identification in Terry stop situations; the Court's most recent decision came in a June
2004 case, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County. Hiibel
was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police
officer during an investigative stop involving an assault. Nevada's "stop and identify"
statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify
himself. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that "[T]he request for
identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a
Terry stop. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid
Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable
searches and seizures."
Twenty states currently have "stop and identify" statutes: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, and
Wisconsin.
My advice as a friend, non-lawyer (after all, I'm not getting paid for any of this)- have some ID on you. By the way, Maryland has a bill for this right now - HB 578. However it seems clear from the 1968 ruling that they can do it right now anyway. As it would apply to voting - they could suspect that voters are comitting fraud and therefore an ID is necessary. Don't wor
Her allegations of fraud proved baseless, and damaged her image enormously. (I'm not saying there weren't irregularities, only that they weren't significant to the final outcome.)
It was dismissed by a Democratic judge who even tried to make himself look better by saying he voted for Saurbrey (He later admitted that he didn't). Indeed they proved that dead people did vote in that election and clearly fraud had been comitted in those heavily Dem areas. Fraud that was so easy to do that ANY idiot could do it under the old punch card system that was used at the time. If the lawsuit had proceeded a lot of people believe Saurbrey would have been declared the winner. Justice denied. Maybe I should have brought up Washington State's clear violation of law - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-06 -washington-governor_x.htm ? They stole that election and everyone knows it. The "late" and felon vote again. Plenty of examples of this throughout the country. Dead people shouldn't vote!
The problem is that a secure system is one that denies access by default. But a democratic (small-d) voting system must allow access to the polls by default.
The whole thrust of the original/. article is that we need more security. Maybe you are criticizing the original article? Elections need to have integrity or what good are they? Allowing someone to win through fraud is a really bad thing and you should be very opposed to that. Do you want people comitting fraud? They will if they think they can get away with it. Feel free to suggest your own method of one man, one vote. Also keep in mind that most states, if not all states, it is illegal to not have a photo identification on your person if you are over 16 years of age. If you get arrested for something, you could spend a long time in jail until they figure out who you are. Thought I would mention it since a lot of people don't know that.
I don't understand your reference to checksums.
A method to authenticate a piece of paper loosely called a checksum. It is not really a checksum, something to ensure it is one vote, authentic and not a copy. Otherwise we could have a situation whereby people are making copies of votes. Just hit 100 copy and viola! 100 more votes the way you want them. The point I wanted to make is that they can absolutely ensure that a receipt or a paper log is authentic. It can also be done inexpensively. Expense is an issue for many jurisdictions. Especially after blowing so much money on the last systems of questionable integrity. Ideally I would like to not hear whining after the next election from the looser, whoever that is. Right now we can discuss that very well since we have no idea on either side who will be running. Just vote for the better man, or woman as the case may be regardless of party.
It's nobody's business but my own (and the poll workers) whether I've been to the polls or not. Marking people who have voted in a manner that is publically accessible is a bad idea.
Funny, this hasn't been an issue even in Iraq or Afghanistan where voting could get you killed. In fact they display it proudly. Maybe you are insecure? Afraid of the man? It doesn't show how you voted, just the fact that you did. Here in the US I have more respect for those who actually do vote. Too many complain a lot and never vote. In fact many people weren't even registered and to fix that they had the motor-voter law in most states. Of course you don't have to vote if you don't want to. I don't understand why you are concerned, they even show people who voted on TV. It is even a matter of public record, along with information on your house, marriage and other information. Maybe you don't know how exposed you already are?
Slashdot Mirror
The sciam article mentions they used a statistical analysis for this conclusion. Samuel Clemmons once stated their are liars, damn liars and statiticians. If you noticed, they only used data from 1970 on. Why not data from 1940 on, it is out there.
This last year we ran out of names for hurricanes. The naming system was based on the maximum number of hurricanes we have had in the past (80+ years ago it seems) in on season. This means that we have indeed had that many hurricanes, when they say it was cooler. So how can that be? I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows.
The reality that I have seen shows that it has far more to do with a new weather pattern than GW. In fact we are seeing that today with more strong winds in America that have set unprecendented fires in Texas and around the country. Even in places like Maryland that has seen a greater than average rainfall. I have seen a direct coorolation between the Sun's activies and the winds here. I'm not a scientist in this field, however there definately seems to be something there to me. A lot of people don't realize that our star called the SUN is a very well behaved star relatively speaking. It could wipe life out on earth in a matter of minutes and hours otherwise.
The "Scientific American" article doesn't seem to take a new weather pattern into consideration. By the way, weather patterns tend to last 20 years. On the other hand, if they are right then we need to convince our elected officials to allow Nuclear Power plants to be built. One of those suckers takes a lot of the greenhouse gasses away. Also, many people have no idea that coal plants emit more radiation than any other American nuke plant ever has. Turns out coal is often located near Uranium deposits. In fact we have been lied to for years about the dangers of nuclear power. Even in Chernobyl, the dire consequences they told us about haven't come about. Same thing with Three Mile Island. These dire consequenes were once published in the Scientific American as well.
'Doh! I read here and believed it.
---snip---
VeriSign Naming Services is the largest domain name registry in the world, managing over 50 million digital identities in over 350 languages
--snip----
I don't think it matters though. No matter who got it they would complain because it isn't them. Of course Verisign is known for charging way the heck more for things like SSL certs.
Actually it isn't nonsense. For example a few years ago the base registrar for the .org domain was removed from Network Solutions. Not to repeat look here . Anytime you register or renew a .com domain, the base sponsor gets a cut. What they are saying is that cut will be much more than it is now regardless of who you register your domain from. Register with verisign - they win. Register with another registrar - they win.
Peloesi is recycling an Al Gore idea from 1999 that went no where. He wanted to solve the "digital divide" "problem". The last time they wanted to charge $50/month for modem lines. Gore wanted it included so it looked like the phone company was charging it. The phone company was going to make it a line on the bill showing it was Gore, not them for the huge increase in their bill.
This confirms what I have thought for a long time. The Democrats have no idea what to do. Except being against anything Dubya is for it seems. Will a real leader in the Democratic party please stand up! Sit down Kerry, Liberman, Kennedy, Peleosi, Dean, Edwards. You had your chance. Let a new guy try.
From time to time they change the structure of the database. This is toxic waste. If you are not aware of it and upgrade your system and postgre is updated, you will have to move the data to a machine that can still understand the old database, dump it and migrate it back in. This has kicked my ass more than once. It seems like it is always at the most inopportune time as well. Then there is the vacuum nonsense to deal with.
With Mysql, I have never had this problem. The database just works regardless of an upgrade to the way they do things. It takes care of it. I don't recall one time where I had to dump and migrate my data, except from one machine to another. Usually I just move the files, even from platform to platform and they are still fine. In fact I have had mysql applications running for years without any intervention. It just works. I can't say that about Postgres, as well as Oracle.
Eat healthy, excersize, do everything right and I can assure you - you will die one day anyway. Nobody gets out of life alive.
Not sure if he is going senile or what. Seems like he is doing something to get himself into the news every so often and usually not in a good way. Sometimes he bashes his own party. They may have had enough of him this time. Hey, it could happen. Especially if they had someone else they think could win that position. Spendenning... I mean Glendenning maybe?
In a word - no. We don't want to mix up athletics with other matters. If he violated a law, arrest him of course if that is appropriate for that crime. He should be treated the same as any other person. If we start getting into making judgements on who can compete and who can't because of their actions, then we could find ourselves on that slippery slope. Let those that are in the athletic field deal with winning at their sport (unless it is un-sportsman like conduct) and those in the legal field deal with his conduct and determine if something should be done. Since he is so high profile, I'm willing to say that his case should be considered and acted upon quickly. Get the tar hot and the feathers ready just in case.
Where do you live? I don't know of a place in Maryland that used paper ballots in the last election. Not saying you didn't, however I'm very curious if there really was a place that escaped being updated. Sure you really voted? Yea, I live in Maryland, in the sticks. We used the Diebold machines.
Oh, and "Go Ehrlich!" Is that politicaly correct to say here?
Right now it should be. They are about ready to tar and feather 84 year old Bill Shaefer (D - Comptroller) right now over that woman flap. That can be found here
They could take the time for this and do something useful like redo the patent and copyright laws to the way they should be. You know, any music made before 1996 is public domain now.
Attorney General name is a great guy, worthy of being re-elected.
Now go out and buy some product and support him.
Are you sure? Yes
Are you really sure? Yes
You are a cruel person... interrupting....
It is likely that the carrier doesn't matter. They all work around the same frequencies. I have a feeling it may have something to do with standing waves between the two antenna. That is, if there is anything to this at all. A normal household microwave oven puts out at least 600 watts, some will do 1200 and I have even seen 1500 watt household ovens. Then there are industrial microwaves that can pump a LOT of energy into something. Your cell phone likely is 1/2 a watt. With two phones that is a watt between them. Not much energy. Someone said that the two phones together gets them to boost the output to compensate for being close together. I don't know if this is true or not. I have a verizon phone as well and I know after 10 minutes that sucker is hot. So hot it is uncomfortable. Kind of makes me wonder what it is doing to me. Note to self: get a headset for the phone.
Much to my surprise, I was talking to a guy that works at Goddard and has been there over 40 years and he told me that they don't have the plans for the Saturn V rockets. They were not required to keep them and nobody thought to send them to the archives. What a Homer Simpson moment - 'Doh! I'm sure the plans exist though, the mighty contractors probably still have copies of most if not all of it. Otherwise they would have to look at the ones that still exist and go from there. I'm also a fan of the Kerosene. Much easier to deal with. I understand that vehicle has 1 million parts as fired to go to the moon. Not sure if that included the capsule or not. There is nothing like being there to see it go up. I still remember the time I was there to see it. Then we all got back into our car with AM only radio and no A/C and went home (HOT!).
They could also simplify the vehicle by not launching from sea level. Just think how much fuel is used to lift that sucker up as high as Denver for example.
But what do we know. They seem sold on hydrogen and Florida.
They should bring back the Saturn V rocket. That could lift all the junk the ISS needs in one or two shots. It is the monster truck of rockets - so far at least.
And Journalists - the bottom of the barrel are the ones telling us about what is going on in the world, politics and other news. They try though. One journalist - Al Gore is still trying (he was a journalist before he went into politics riding on his father's coattails). I bet he tries again to be President in 2008.
Sounds like a job for a future Mythbusters episode. After all, why should we do it when they can do it and inject some humor. Get Adam to hold the two cell phones on both sides of his head. Tell him it is a stereo myth.
Do you have a smoke detector? If you do, you should get rid of it. I doubt it has ever gone off so what good is it? I know mine has never gone off while I was at home (except to signal the battery is low or steam got to it) in the 30 years a detector has been in the house. We just keep on feeding it batteries. No fire. Big waste of money.
The point is that weak security is a huge risk to you and your well being. Someone could steal your identity, conduct criminal activity using your machine, many undesireable activities. Some activities could really ruin your day if you get caught holding the bag.
Since he has admitted he did wrong and is clearly a participant, lets execute him.
Plastic helmet (base)
Tin Foil (blocks out old technology used by the supermarkets)
Aluminum Foil (blocks out newer technology used by the supermarkets)
Iodine (Tincture of iodine will do)
Alum (nope, got to use the real McCoy)
Lead strips (1/8" will do)
Newspaper, corn starch
Paint (spray, white and red)
Procedure:
Mix corn starch with water, mix with newspaper and adhere it to the helmet.
Next put on the layer of Tin Foil, then newspaper, then aluminum foil.
Next put the alum on top of the lead strips and that has to go right on top of
the aluminum foil, then newspaper it off to a smooth surface.
Now use the paint to paint the helmet white, do this a few times to get a nice
glossy smooth covering. Then paint on the side "CNN" or "Inpsector" "/."or even "Brooks Brothers"
Now I know your wondering about the iodine. That goes around your mouth to kill the bad
bacteria generated from all the old radio waves. They congregate there so just go around your mouth
for about 1/2" and your safe.
If you see someone with a funny helmet on and a ring around their mouth, you know they are no fool, they are protected just like you!
Back again? What is the matter, can't you handle winning your point? We already agree, didn't you write: Disagreements are over the interpretation and application of law, not on the text of the law itself.?
You did. What more do you want? You remind me of a young man with something to prove. Can't take yes for an answer without a fight. Now, move on to what else I said. Unless I miss my guess, you still have issues. Try to not let it get to you either. It is not worth loosing sleep over.
Oh, so now you think you know more than they do. Please do tell, where have you been a judge and what are your credentials. You have a good line of legal thinking in what you wrote, this makes you look bad. It is an easy way for people to dismiss you or think something worse. I can tell you that fighting them won't work.
Again, I stipulate that concenting to such a search - showing papers - may be in some circumstances a wise means of removing suspicion and preventing arrest for some other crime, but that does not mean that choosing to not carry or display such papers is a crime in itself, as you assert.
Maybe you missed the part where I said that law is more than what is written? No, it isn't a crime as far as I know in any of the annotated codes nor the USC with certain exceptions.
Disagreements are over the interpretation and application of law, not on the text of the law itself.
Yea, that is what we have here.
It is a fact that thousands of people in Georgia do not have government-issued identification. And they are hard to get in a state where fewer than 60 of 159 counties have DMV offices. Making someone take a day off to go to the next county over to pay for a photo id is indeed a significant obstacle for many people. It's a 21st century poll tax, a clear attempt by Repubs to disenfranchise poor voters.
I looked at the WP article... That is funny. It is a propanda article that is not typical of the Post. Where did they show these "thousands"? It says thousands voted without an ID, I voted without showing an ID too and I have one. Written to mislead. 17 forms of ID including mail, something to legitimize that individual is hardly a poll tax. Other key words to race bait it - Jim Crow. So they weren't even requiring a photo id. Simply something, anything with your name on it - paycheck, utility bill, etc.. Again, why are you denying me my equal protection under the law from those that want to vote more than once and those that are not even citizens? Are you that concerned that Democrats will be voted out en-masse if the field is level (I'm looking at Hilary and Ted)?
Call it what it is - a clear invitation for fraud. The real funny part is that you think that the ACLU/Democrats actually care about the poor blacks. They even attack blacks that dare to go outside of the Democratic party - like Mr. Steele of Maryland. Racial attacks, ephitets, all kinds of stuff to keep other blacks in line and scared. Used to be a black would never vote for a Democrat because they were the slave masters, Lincoln - a Republican freed them.
That is the most absurd statement you have made and you have lost a lot of respect as a result. Clearly every one of them is literate, very literate. If they were not literate they obviously would not be there this day in age, they surely would have been voted down on confirmation. Rationality is a more subjective quality. I used to think they weren't rational at times either until I read the cases. Then it became clear that they generally do a very good job and their decisions are very well thought out even if I don't agree with it. The biggest problem right now on the court is O'Connor. Not because she is right, left, center, etc., it is because she tries very hard to answer the minimum question often leaving more questions than she answers. Another problem is that they don't have to take cases if they don't want to and for say the 2nd amendment they haven't heard a case in a very long time.
Again, I ask you to cite a law requiring a United States citizen to carry photo id; or please retract your earlier claim that such laws exist.
Why don't you simply admit I'm right? I showed you. Along with that question of who you are (which you have no choice but to admit such laws exist in those states, because they do), the very next thing that cop will say to you is "Let's see some ID." Otherwise it is meaningless - I could say I'm one of (Benedict Arnold, John Gacy, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Bill Gates), or some other made up name (John Jobs, Jack Sky). No ID, your probably going to end up taking a trip (ala the 1968 law I cited). I think you should conceed that the Terry stop laws are effectively what I said. Here is another scenario - an INS agent stops you and wants to deport you. Good luck if you don't have some form of US photo ID. Maybe we could say it also depends on your ethnicity as well? If not, go ahead and not carry a photo ID then. See if I care. Don't get upset if something bad happens to you. I won't conceed that I'm wrong and you shouldn't expect me to. Even the best lawyers in the country disagree on the law. That is why we have courts. Even courts make wrong legal decisions - the reason for appelate courts and so on. Ever listen to a Supreme Court case? Often I think both sides have a darn good argument and yet they both can't be right.
It's exactly because voting is more important than buying a beer that we cannot restrict it to those possessing driver's licences, or who can take the time and pay the money to go get a non-driver's ID or a passport. These can be substatial hurdles for the rural poor; people who don't have a birth certificate may find it very difficult to obtain such documents.
??? You conceed it is more important than beer and yet you don't require at least that much security? Do you work for the ACLU or something? Stop it already with the propaganda. You don't really believe that, do you? The "poor" is already required to have such documents for assistance - food stamps and the like. I have worked with the poorest of the poor for over 10 years and I have NEVER found one single solitary poor person that didn't have a photo ID. I did come across a rich woman that didn't. It was no big deal to fix it, even though her birth records had been destroyed in a church fire (churches usually held birth records back then). I'm sure there is a sob story with a poor person out there someplace, however I'm sure it is a very uncommon case.
Unless obtaining photo id becomes as easy for everyone as voter registration - and I can't see how that's possible - requiring such id runs smack into the equal protection mandate.
I have yet to see a good argument as to how getting an ID is somehow hard. It is a myth. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc, they all can get and ID, there isn't even a reading test. I don't see how this could possibly have anything to do with the equal protection mandate.
That was in the original article. The Post chose to print what they wanted to, not what was testified to in court. There were plenty of people who really were dead that supposedly voted. Also look at how it was worded - no sustaining evidence - meaning they can't prove it. As I said, the punch card system that they used is extreamly easy to corrupt, so easy ANY idiot could do it. Say you look at the voter register after the fact and see Jane Doe of 123 Any St. is checked off and the cross reference shows she died last year. Ok, who did it and can you show the same person did it more than once or a pattern? Good luck. How about the 100% turnout? Do you believe that one? If you do, I have some swamp land to sell you.
In fact, he said, the only "clear and convincing" evidence he saw...
He also said "Unless an election is clearly invalid" making a very high threashold indeed. Translation - he wants it to be so clear that any idiot would understand the election was stolen. His other statements were there to try to justify it and excuse himself. Otherwise he might find himself featured in Michael Moore's next "documentary" (and he says it with a strait face too) flick.
Your not typing in the right stuff then. This is where law is a bitch because law can be more than what is written in the annotated code (i.e. why you need a competent lawyer). If you get stopped on a corner by a cop you had better be able to identify yourself positively or they may take you in. There is a lot of case law to back that up. They also stress this to high school students. Do you think I'm a paralegal or something? Well here is some law since you seem to need some help (with no more than free - google):
Current Law: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, a 1968 Supreme Court case, gave police the right to temporarily detain someone if there are specific facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a crime might be occurring (reasonable suspicion). It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime the officer thinks is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring. Police officers are free to ask persons for identification without violating their rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Background: The Supreme Court has held in several cases that officers may request identification in Terry stop situations; the Court's most recent decision came in a June 2004 case, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County. Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving an assault. Nevada's "stop and identify" statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that "[T]he request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures." Twenty states currently have "stop and identify" statutes: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
My advice as a friend, non-lawyer (after all, I'm not getting paid for any of this)- have some ID on you. By the way, Maryland has a bill for this right now - HB 578. However it seems clear from the 1968 ruling that they can do it right now anyway. As it would apply to voting - they could suspect that voters are comitting fraud and therefore an ID is necessary. Don't wor
It was dismissed by a Democratic judge who even tried to make himself look better by saying he voted for Saurbrey (He later admitted that he didn't). Indeed they proved that dead people did vote in that election and clearly fraud had been comitted in those heavily Dem areas. Fraud that was so easy to do that ANY idiot could do it under the old punch card system that was used at the time. If the lawsuit had proceeded a lot of people believe Saurbrey would have been declared the winner. Justice denied. Maybe I should have brought up Washington State's clear violation of law - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-06 -washington-governor_x.htm ? They stole that election and everyone knows it. The "late" and felon vote again. Plenty of examples of this throughout the country. Dead people shouldn't vote!
The problem is that a secure system is one that denies access by default. But a democratic (small-d) voting system must allow access to the polls by default.
The whole thrust of the original /. article is that we need more security. Maybe you are criticizing the original article? Elections need to have integrity or what good are they? Allowing someone to win through fraud is a really bad thing and you should be very opposed to that. Do you want people comitting fraud? They will if they think they can get away with it. Feel free to suggest your own method of one man, one vote. Also keep in mind that most states, if not all states, it is illegal to not have a photo identification on your person if you are over 16 years of age. If you get arrested for something, you could spend a long time in jail until they figure out who you are. Thought I would mention it since a lot of people don't know that.
I don't understand your reference to checksums.
A method to authenticate a piece of paper loosely called a checksum. It is not really a checksum, something to ensure it is one vote, authentic and not a copy. Otherwise we could have a situation whereby people are making copies of votes. Just hit 100 copy and viola! 100 more votes the way you want them. The point I wanted to make is that they can absolutely ensure that a receipt or a paper log is authentic. It can also be done inexpensively. Expense is an issue for many jurisdictions. Especially after blowing so much money on the last systems of questionable integrity. Ideally I would like to not hear whining after the next election from the looser, whoever that is. Right now we can discuss that very well since we have no idea on either side who will be running. Just vote for the better man, or woman as the case may be regardless of party.
It's nobody's business but my own (and the poll workers) whether I've been to the polls or not. Marking people who have voted in a manner that is publically accessible is a bad idea.
Funny, this hasn't been an issue even in Iraq or Afghanistan where voting could get you killed. In fact they display it proudly. Maybe you are insecure? Afraid of the man? It doesn't show how you voted, just the fact that you did. Here in the US I have more respect for those who actually do vote. Too many complain a lot and never vote. In fact many people weren't even registered and to fix that they had the motor-voter law in most states. Of course you don't have to vote if you don't want to. I don't understand why you are concerned, they even show people who voted on TV. It is even a matter of public record, along with information on your house, marriage and other information. Maybe you don't know how exposed you already are?