Count the number of party registrations vs cast ballots. Compare the percentages. They don't add up in some Florida counties.
That doesn't tell you anything, and it certainly isn't evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. In a lot of respects, each election is a unique event unto itself - the state of the world, current events, particular controversies, and the caliber and character of the candidates all come together to influence the eventual outcome. Yes, there are detectable trends some of the time, but it's a wholly unwarranted assumption to think of those trends as being fixed and immutable - nothing is written in stone, and four years is a long time in politics.
It says that Bush got more votes than expected, and that the counties where he got larger-than-expected numbers of votes are the same counties that used electronic voting, to a statistically significant level.
Why assume that 1996/2000 is somehow "correct"? One can equally well explain such a discrepancy by positing that problems with paper/mechanical balloting in 1996/2000 caused "excess" votes for Democrats in those counties, a phenomenon that was corrected by the deployment of electronic balloting.
There's no real control group here, and assuming that one election forms a true baseline which you can use to judge subsequent elections is just that - an assumption, unsupported by any real evidence.
As the previous post suggested, I used that supersecret intelligence gathering tool known as Google, plus some basic common sense. KH-12s cost $1 billion per unit (easily googled), and the entire Chinese military budget is around $40 billion (easily googled). Therefore, they need to average 6-7 launches a year over the next fifteen years to reach their goal of 100 satellites in orbit by 2020, at a cost of $6-7 billion per year. Considering that the Chinese defense budget has been shrinking recently (easily googled) and Chinese budget deficits have been growing (easily googled), it's faintly ludicrous to think that they'll spend nearly 20% of their annual defense budget on a network of such satellites.
Furthermore, the United States maintained global coverage with two KH-11 satellites in orbit throughout the 1980's (google it), and since the mid-'90's has covered the globe with three KH-12 satellites (google it). If the US can monitor the entire world with three satellites, it's pretty obvious that a network of 100 KH-12-type birds is absurd overkill for monitoring a country the approximate size of the United States, even if we ignore the cost. And all this assumes that China even has something comparable to the KH-12 ready to fly starting next year, which is an extremely dubious assumption. So once we've eliminated that proposition, the next level down are your 1m resolution satellites, of the sort now being deployed by western commercial interests, but even those aren't cheap - Space Imaging won't say how much it cost, but we can probably assume that Ikonos, their 1m satellite, cost somewhere in the $100-150 million range (at a minimum) to build and launch, plus however much it cost to develop and design it. Even at $100 million per, that's $10 billion over 15 years for a network of 100 of them, which is not exactly chump change for China either.
With a resolution of 5cm (2 inches) or 10cm (4 inches), the spy satellites can certainly track people.
That's the resolution for a top-of-the-line KH-12 Keyhole-class satellite operated by the United States, which cost approximately $1 billion each. Even if the Chinese had the technical ability to produce such a thing, which they haven't even come close to demonstrating, they barely have the resources to put up one such satellite, let alone 100. Realistically, it's far more likely that in order to create such a network, the resolving power they'll wind up with will be comparable to western commercial satellites, on the order of 1-10 meters at best.
More annoying, Steam has to be run as an administrator.
Not true. You should probably install as administrator, but from that point onward it will be perfectly happy to run with power user privileges. User-level accounts cannot, by default, write to the Program Files folder, but I would guess that if you gave explicit write permissions to the Steam folders, it might very well work.
Sorry, not my job. Did I post the summary claiming things were going to hell in a handbasket over there? Did I claim that seed saving was going to be illegal? Did I submit the articles with no corroboration at all?
No. And yet, simply by pointing out that there's no support for such claims, suddenly the burden of proof is supposed to be on me? I don't think so - if the submitter wants me to believe that things are as he claims they are, he'll need more than just the unsourced opinion of some guy writing on some web page somewhere. You may be satisfied by such minimal evidence, but some of us will expect just a bit more - sorry.
The claim that crops like wheat and barley aren't wind-pollinated is not quite accurate. (A better term might be "disingenuous".) Like all grasses, they are fundamentally wind pollinated. The claim that they're not is based on the fact that seed producers keep the strains sufficiently separated so that they can't cross-pollinate.
No. An even better term might be "you don't know what you're talking about." Spring barley tends to be closed-flowering, which creates an inherent mechanical barrier to anything other than self-pollination. And even if you choose open-flowering varieties of barley, the rate of cross-pollination is exceptionally low even under favorable conditions, and easily controlled through existing means.
Also, it would be easy enough for someone to toss a handfull of GM seed into your field. It would cross-pollinate with your grain, and next year's seed would be contaminated with GM DNA. It's real hard to defend against this.
Hey, the moon might crash into the earth too, and render the whole discussion moot.
It's easy to imagine doomsday scenarios. Whether or not they'll actually happen is a whole other matter, and considering that pre-empting flights of fantasy isn't itself free, I suggest we wait for some hard data before proceeding.
Oh, I'm not upset too much. Just disappointed - apparently I have the choice of either mindlessly agreeing with a blatently false statement made in pursuit of noble goals, or I can be a subhuman corporate lackey fascist. Must be nice to live in a world that black-and-white:(
Anyway, it's not a total loss - I thought of a new.sig;)
What point? An extended, off-topic discussion of fascism? And an incorrect one, o anonymous fool, at that? Gosh, you're right - I saw no reason to bother with it. Go figger.
When one effectively has control of a country, one can... umm... 'persuade' local seed shops (by bribery or threat, if needs be) to sell one's seeds. You don't even have to start on a country-wide scale from the beginning. Arm-twisting small local producers is a habit for some corporations - and is usually quite well swept under the rug.
There's a big difference between asking for some evidence, and simply not giving a fuck. If - IF - such things should turn out to be the case, I will loudly and forcefully condemn them, taking a back seat to no one in terms of outrage. But I refuse to be swept up in this idiotic herd mentality, where all some fool has to do is say the right buzzwords - IP, GM, Monsanto - and we all get out the hounds and the torches and look for someone to hang. Sorry, I refuse to go off half-cocked like that, and I'm rather disappointed that the consensus seems to be that mere allegations are themselves evidence. Lord help these people if they ever find themselves in front of a jury with such low standards.
It's generally a reasonable assumption that people in a war zone have trouble getting food.
Perhaps. It is not, however, even remotely reasonable to jump from there to the assumption - with no evidence whatsoever - that Iraqis are having GM seeds foisted on them against their will. I see lots of people assuming that. I see lots of people asserting that. But there sure as hell aren't any people demonstrating that.
The heading of this discussion, to which you, with your oh so superior UID have posted so many silencing contributions, is "Is it a free market".
A question which will remain unanswered by me, because I am not quite so stupid as to bite at such a red herring, despite the apparent desires of many that I should. Whether it is a free market or not is irrelevant to the question of whether GM seeds are being forced on the Iraqi people, as we have yet to establish that GM seeds even EXIST in Iraq in any sort of meaningful quantities. Which, as you will kindly note, is the actual topic at hand here on this thread, despite repeated attempts to steer the discussion in a less productive direction.
No. Nor can I disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. In fact, most of the time, it's pretty damn near impossible to prove that something's not happening. That's why we generally place the burden of proof on the person making the affirmative claim that something is happening. So no, on balance, it's not square, because someone else failing to disprove your outlandish claims is not the same as you proving them. Or perhaps you're still undecided about Santa - his existence not really being provable one way or the other, after all...
No, it's an *anecdote*, and worse, it's one whose claims are directly contradicted by the *authoritative* source on this matter, the law itself. Call me when you have something more than hysteria from the veggie crew. And don't forget to let me know why you believe them when they're clearly lying to you.
Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations -- including seeds the Iraqis themselves developed over hundreds of years.
Yeah, now go find where the law says that. Find where anyone in the US administration says that. Find anyone anywhere - besides the author of that article - who says that.
Who does that make the moron?
The guy who believes such trash without evidence, merely because it confirms a pre-existing worldview? Just a guess...
What I am doing here - he said, testily - is suggesting that those who wish to attack such concepts should at least avail themselves of the actual facts before proceeding. Marshal facts, and then fire away, in that order, but people who think the first step is optional will neither have nor deserve a respectful audience.
Uh, self-pollination is more than "possible" - it's likely with those crops. It's their usual method of reproduction. Read a book sometime - it'll do you a world of good.
You were just wrong, and the grandparent's fascism comment right on the mark. Fascist.
LOL. Does that term apply to everyone who points out that the emperor is naked?
How do the Iraqi farmers who don't choose to buy GM seed keep their crops GM free?
As I said above, the staple crops there are not wind-borne pollinators, unlike corn and so forth, which is where that Canadian case came from - cross-pollination of corn crops. So it's probably going to turn out that it's easier to avoid there than it may be elsewhere.
That being said, if it comes to pass that Iraqi farmers have no practical choice except to use GM seeds, then we might have something to talk about. But as for right now, I see absolutely no evidence of that, nor has anyone bothered to present evidence of that. Farmers should have a choice - show me they don't, and I might be less likely to chalk this whole damn thing up as a crappy excuse for US-bashing.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't tell you anything, and it certainly isn't evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. In a lot of respects, each election is a unique event unto itself - the state of the world, current events, particular controversies, and the caliber and character of the candidates all come together to influence the eventual outcome. Yes, there are detectable trends some of the time, but it's a wholly unwarranted assumption to think of those trends as being fixed and immutable - nothing is written in stone, and four years is a long time in politics.
Why assume that 1996/2000 is somehow "correct"? One can equally well explain such a discrepancy by positing that problems with paper/mechanical balloting in 1996/2000 caused "excess" votes for Democrats in those counties, a phenomenon that was corrected by the deployment of electronic balloting.
There's no real control group here, and assuming that one election forms a true baseline which you can use to judge subsequent elections is just that - an assumption, unsupported by any real evidence.
Furthermore, the United States maintained global coverage with two KH-11 satellites in orbit throughout the 1980's (google it), and since the mid-'90's has covered the globe with three KH-12 satellites (google it). If the US can monitor the entire world with three satellites, it's pretty obvious that a network of 100 KH-12-type birds is absurd overkill for monitoring a country the approximate size of the United States, even if we ignore the cost. And all this assumes that China even has something comparable to the KH-12 ready to fly starting next year, which is an extremely dubious assumption. So once we've eliminated that proposition, the next level down are your 1m resolution satellites, of the sort now being deployed by western commercial interests, but even those aren't cheap - Space Imaging won't say how much it cost, but we can probably assume that Ikonos, their 1m satellite, cost somewhere in the $100-150 million range (at a minimum) to build and launch, plus however much it cost to develop and design it. Even at $100 million per, that's $10 billion over 15 years for a network of 100 of them, which is not exactly chump change for China either.
That's the resolution for a top-of-the-line KH-12 Keyhole-class satellite operated by the United States, which cost approximately $1 billion each. Even if the Chinese had the technical ability to produce such a thing, which they haven't even come close to demonstrating, they barely have the resources to put up one such satellite, let alone 100. Realistically, it's far more likely that in order to create such a network, the resolving power they'll wind up with will be comparable to western commercial satellites, on the order of 1-10 meters at best.
You didn't create the named pipe, and that hole was closed in SP4 anyway ;)
Not true. You should probably install as administrator, but from that point onward it will be perfectly happy to run with power user privileges. User-level accounts cannot, by default, write to the Program Files folder, but I would guess that if you gave explicit write permissions to the Steam folders, it might very well work.
No. And yet, simply by pointing out that there's no support for such claims, suddenly the burden of proof is supposed to be on me? I don't think so - if the submitter wants me to believe that things are as he claims they are, he'll need more than just the unsourced opinion of some guy writing on some web page somewhere. You may be satisfied by such minimal evidence, but some of us will expect just a bit more - sorry.
No. An even better term might be "you don't know what you're talking about." Spring barley tends to be closed-flowering, which creates an inherent mechanical barrier to anything other than self-pollination. And even if you choose open-flowering varieties of barley, the rate of cross-pollination is exceptionally low even under favorable conditions, and easily controlled through existing means.
Also, it would be easy enough for someone to toss a handfull of GM seed into your field. It would cross-pollinate with your grain, and next year's seed would be contaminated with GM DNA. It's real hard to defend against this.
Hey, the moon might crash into the earth too, and render the whole discussion moot.
It's easy to imagine doomsday scenarios. Whether or not they'll actually happen is a whole other matter, and considering that pre-empting flights of fantasy isn't itself free, I suggest we wait for some hard data before proceeding.
Anyway, it's not a total loss - I thought of a new .sig ;)
The point is not the definition, the point is that it's absurd to apply it to this discussion. I can't believe I actually have to spell this out.
India != Iraq.
What point? An extended, off-topic discussion of fascism? And an incorrect one, o anonymous fool, at that? Gosh, you're right - I saw no reason to bother with it. Go figger.
There's a big difference between asking for some evidence, and simply not giving a fuck. If - IF - such things should turn out to be the case, I will loudly and forcefully condemn them, taking a back seat to no one in terms of outrage. But I refuse to be swept up in this idiotic herd mentality, where all some fool has to do is say the right buzzwords - IP, GM, Monsanto - and we all get out the hounds and the torches and look for someone to hang. Sorry, I refuse to go off half-cocked like that, and I'm rather disappointed that the consensus seems to be that mere allegations are themselves evidence. Lord help these people if they ever find themselves in front of a jury with such low standards.
Perhaps. It is not, however, even remotely reasonable to jump from there to the assumption - with no evidence whatsoever - that Iraqis are having GM seeds foisted on them against their will. I see lots of people assuming that. I see lots of people asserting that. But there sure as hell aren't any people demonstrating that.
A question which will remain unanswered by me, because I am not quite so stupid as to bite at such a red herring, despite the apparent desires of many that I should. Whether it is a free market or not is irrelevant to the question of whether GM seeds are being forced on the Iraqi people, as we have yet to establish that GM seeds even EXIST in Iraq in any sort of meaningful quantities. Which, as you will kindly note, is the actual topic at hand here on this thread, despite repeated attempts to steer the discussion in a less productive direction.
No. Nor can I disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. In fact, most of the time, it's pretty damn near impossible to prove that something's not happening. That's why we generally place the burden of proof on the person making the affirmative claim that something is happening. So no, on balance, it's not square, because someone else failing to disprove your outlandish claims is not the same as you proving them. Or perhaps you're still undecided about Santa - his existence not really being provable one way or the other, after all...
No, it's an *anecdote*, and worse, it's one whose claims are directly contradicted by the *authoritative* source on this matter, the law itself. Call me when you have something more than hysteria from the veggie crew. And don't forget to let me know why you believe them when they're clearly lying to you.
Your serve.
Yeah, now go find where the law says that. Find where anyone in the US administration says that. Find anyone anywhere - besides the author of that article - who says that.
Who does that make the moron?
The guy who believes such trash without evidence, merely because it confirms a pre-existing worldview? Just a guess...
What I am doing here - he said, testily - is suggesting that those who wish to attack such concepts should at least avail themselves of the actual facts before proceeding. Marshal facts, and then fire away, in that order, but people who think the first step is optional will neither have nor deserve a respectful audience.
Blah blah blah. I'll probably take you more seriously when you can at least properly spell your improperly applied terms.
It wasn't always this way. Hope springs eternal, I guess ;)
Uh, self-pollination is more than "possible" - it's likely with those crops. It's their usual method of reproduction. Read a book sometime - it'll do you a world of good.
You were just wrong, and the grandparent's fascism comment right on the mark. Fascist.
LOL. Does that term apply to everyone who points out that the emperor is naked?
Is that, in fact, the situation? Nobody here seems to be able to show that it is...
As I said above, the staple crops there are not wind-borne pollinators, unlike corn and so forth, which is where that Canadian case came from - cross-pollination of corn crops. So it's probably going to turn out that it's easier to avoid there than it may be elsewhere.
That being said, if it comes to pass that Iraqi farmers have no practical choice except to use GM seeds, then we might have something to talk about. But as for right now, I see absolutely no evidence of that, nor has anyone bothered to present evidence of that. Farmers should have a choice - show me they don't, and I might be less likely to chalk this whole damn thing up as a crappy excuse for US-bashing.
Or, since you didn't bother to find a source to support such speculation, it may very well be that you've just invented this scenario.