These are obvious forgeries done with Word and run through a copier 50 times to make them look old.
Which font in Word causes the bottom of the letters to not line up in a perfectly straight line? I looked for a "S" for "stagger" next to B, I, and _U_, but didn't find it.
The document is likely real, but it doesn't mean a damn thing.
P.S. Why does Slashdot not allow <U> tags?
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Let's point out a few more facts. You don't need 50% to win. You need 50% of the populace who bothers to vote, which is about 40-60% of the populace. So let's be charitable and say you need about 30% to win; IN A TWO PARTY ELECTION.
Actually, in the US system, you need less than that. All you need is slightly more than 50% of voters (40-60% of people) in enough states to win the electorial college. That's to win it outright. A special case arises if no one wins an outright majority of the electorial college.
Here is a link to a good summary of the implications. According to his calculations you can win with less than 23% of the popular vote. And that's votes cast. Precent of population is obviously less. Let's say a the unlikely occurs and there is very low voter turn out in enough states to win, and very high turn out in the other states. This number could theoretically get below 10% of the popular vote (and 4% to 6% of the population) to outright win the election - but it would be highly unlikely.
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Realistically, Presidential debates would need to be days long, if you allowed all the candidates.
And this is a problem.... why?
It's about dang time things changed
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
The debates should definately be open to anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to be able to win the election. In other words, if it is possible (not necessarily probable) for them to win enough electorial votes to win, they should be in the debates.
Last I heard (this was around the time Harry Browne ran the first time) the commission uses some vague standard of viability which appears to me designed to eliminate anyone other than democrats and republicans.
1) Hadn't heard that one yet. 2) Nope, I haven't heard that one either. 3) Hadn't heard that either. 4) I've heard the exact opposite of that. 5) That doesn't jive with what I've heard either. 6) Nope. I've heard the doctor on record as having treated him doesn't back Kerry's story.
GWB's father was not CIA Director until his appointment by Pres. Ford in 1976. Google some history before making up your own.
My mistake. Bush Sr. was US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time in question... then CIA director. My timing was wrong, but the net effect is the same - the government isn't going to put his kid in a war zone. Reference here. Before the Ambassador gig, Sr. was in congress. I take it you did google? And chose to ignore the parts you didn't like?
Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?
Probably not. I'm sure there are others.
I, however, do think what someone did 30 years ago does sometimes matter.
I don't see anyone saying "Who cares what Manson did 30 years ago?". Heck, by your logic, anyone serving a life sentence should be set free after 30 years because it shouldn't matter any more.
Who cares if Kerry admitted publically to commiting war crimes 30 years ago? I do. It means he either lied for political purposes, or actually commited war crimes. Either way, I don't want him as commander in chief of the most powerfull armed forces the world has ever seen.
Who cares if the swift boat vets are telling the truth? We all should. Maybe all 254 got together and conspired to discredit Kerry. Maybe not. Either way we should find out. After all, 254 people who knew and served beside Kerry being so anti-Kerry should be raising red flags even if they are making it all up. Why would they do that? Why is there only one person that served with him that is on his side? We should find out. We should care.
But it is true that people can change. Thirty years is a long time. Even twenty years is a long time. Four months is a short time. Yet Kerry never mentions his 20 years in the Senate. Why do you think that is? He mentions his 4 months in Vietnam at every opprotunity, even making opprotunities where not logical connection exists. He implies over and over again that his four months is Veitnam qualifies him to lead this country. Apparently Kerry thinks what happened 30 years ago matters... as long as it's his version.
Was Bush AWOL 30 years ago? Maybe. Does it matter? Sure. It's not on the same level as an admitted war criminal, but it matters. However, there is nothing but a lack of evidence to back those charges up. A lack of evidence is not evidence. This AWOL thing is a handful of people saying "Yes, I too can not prove where Bush was 30 years ago". I couldn't prove where I was at 12:00 AM a week ago. Sure, I'm usually in bed at that time. Sure, not one remembers seeing me leave. Sure, no one remembers seing me anywhere else. But was I really in bed like I say? You can't prove a negative. If someone was watching my bed last week, and documented it at the time that my bed was empty at 12:00 AM last week, that would be evidence that I wasn't in bed. But I could have been on the couch. It doesn't mean I robbed the bank.
Did Bush's connections help him in avoiding Veitnam? That would say something about his character, except for one thing. His father was head of the CIA at the time. He couldn't have gone to Veitnam had he wanted to go. There's no way the US would allow the son of the head of the CIA to be in a war zone.
You must live in a highly populated state. Those of us in less populous areas appreciate the two baseline electoral votes we get -- just like the big states!
Most people have forgotten, or never learned, the reason for the electorial college. In the US, the states select the president, not the people.
Really old, but I happened to be thinking of it earlier today - the Political Compass. Apparently I'm way off to the left, and down a bit.
I started taking that test and gave up on the 3rd page. Almost every question is phrased as a false dilemma and has an obvious left slant. It is apparerently intended to make you believe you are a liberal.
But don't take my word for it. Read this list of logical fallacies and then go look at the quiz.
The real breakthrough happens when the system can decode and parse the file accurately to provide "automagic" meta-data.
Isn't this what Google does? Perhaps this is the root of the reports that MS wanted to buy Google. And prehaps that they didn't buy Google is the root of the delay on WinFS.
This would be par for the course. Microsoft "innovates" buy purchasing the innovation. I suspect WinFS will remain vaporware until some company gets bought.
It's not the cupholder that bothers me, that's just a minor annoyance. The real problem is that every time I put it in reverse it tells me it's out of gas... and it's been in and out of the shop for 10 years and they're still not sure why that happens.
Showing a graph of 3 months is worthless, since this whole thing has been going on for years now. If you look at the 2 year chart, you will see that they still have quite a bit to dip before they even hit the low point.
Yet if you look at the chart on the link you provided you will notice their 52wk low was this morning.
Do they ever? With all this talk about campaign finance reform what I feel is a much more important election reform is entirely ignored. The Democrats and Republicans have all but locked out any other parties from having an effective voice.
I live in MS and get tired of the south bashing myself. And the story was in no way meant to suggest all Alabama troopers are stupid, just that this particular one was geographically challenged. I'm sure he would have been laughed at by the other Alabama officials had the story got back to the station, which is probably why he didn't issue a ticket when he realized his mistake.
As far as I'm concerned Puerto Rico is a seperate country leaching off of us. We should make them start paing federal income taxes. Then watch how fast they will vote for statehood.
There was a push a few years ago to bring them in as a state. It was congress that blocked it. You see, if that happens they get two senators and a representative and the rest of congress looses a little power. The balance of power between the two major parties is too close for either side to want to risk that.
As a Canadian, I've talked to many folks from the states over the Internet and trying to describe to them where I live is sometimes very difficult. One of the ones that I thought would work was saying I live about 80 miles north of the border between North Dakota and Montana. However, a lot of people still had no idea where I was talking about, and these are people who live in the USA!
Maybe if you referred to some place in America we'd understand.:)
Seriously, though, I have a friend who was moving from Wisconsin to Florida about 15 years ago. He got pulled over in Alabama by a state trooper for doing 70 in a 55. The trooper saw Wisconsin on his license plate and drivers license and then asked for his passport.
He did manage to get out of the ticket. I suppose the trooper didn't want that to get back to the station.
That "zealotry" helped build a license (the GNU General Public License) which in turn helped create a movement. It's funny how people are called names when they advocate for their freedom.
The post you responded to mentioned no one by name, only zealots. Yet, you felt compeled to defend these unnammed zealots. You even went so far as to defend their motives as being to advocate for freedom. You must have thought about and were writing about a particular group of people with whom you associate the word "zealot". So, apparently the people who have been "called names" are zealots in your mind.
One would infer that you believe that being a zealot is a bad thing from your comment. It can be, but isn't necessarily bad. And even wack jobs can do useful and good things.
I think we can all agree that when the term "Linux/Open Source/Free Software Zealot" is used, RMS is usually thought about. I think a fairly large number of people would agree he is a wack job. I think most people would agree he is a zealot. I think most people would also agree he has done some very good and worthwhile things which most of us have benefited from.
Read "Strike!," "Which Side are you on?" and "Rivethead"---learn something about history, and stop repeating the Pravda-esque ideology of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the Republican and Democratic parties.
Wow, that's quite an attack on American institutions. It would be absurd in and of itself. However, as this was a story about a French woman upset with the French socialized work place, your comments are even more out in left feild. Did you read and comprehend the article?
i'm running low on thomas mackenzie darby. i couldn't find any at the dollar store. i checked everything's a dollar. radio shack was also out. wolf camera said they'd never heard of it. i may have to order some Online on the Web and have it fedexed.
Slashdot Mirror
Which font in Word causes the bottom of the letters to not line up in a perfectly straight line? I looked for a "S" for "stagger" next to B, I, and _U_, but didn't find it.
The document is likely real, but it doesn't mean a damn thing.
P.S. Why does Slashdot not allow <U> tags?
Actually, in the US system, you need less than that. All you need is slightly more than 50% of voters (40-60% of people) in enough states to win the electorial college. That's to win it outright. A special case arises if no one wins an outright majority of the electorial college.
Here is a link to a good summary of the implications. According to his calculations you can win with less than 23% of the popular vote. And that's votes cast. Precent of population is obviously less. Let's say a the unlikely occurs and there is very low voter turn out in enough states to win, and very high turn out in the other states. This number could theoretically get below 10% of the popular vote (and 4% to 6% of the population) to outright win the election - but it would be highly unlikely.
And this is a problem.... why?
The debates should definately be open to anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to be able to win the election. In other words, if it is possible (not necessarily probable) for them to win enough electorial votes to win, they should be in the debates.
Last I heard (this was around the time Harry Browne ran the first time) the commission uses some vague standard of viability which appears to me designed to eliminate anyone other than democrats and republicans.
Reply by the numbers:
1) Hadn't heard that one yet.
2) Nope, I haven't heard that one either.
3) Hadn't heard that either.
4) I've heard the exact opposite of that.
5) That doesn't jive with what I've heard either.
6) Nope. I've heard the doctor on record as having treated him doesn't back Kerry's story.
Could you site some sources, please?
My mistake. Bush Sr. was US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time in question... then CIA director. My timing was wrong, but the net effect is the same - the government isn't going to put his kid in a war zone. Reference here. Before the Ambassador gig, Sr. was in congress. I take it you did google? And chose to ignore the parts you didn't like?
Probably not. I'm sure there are others.
I, however, do think what someone did 30 years ago does sometimes matter.
I don't see anyone saying "Who cares what Manson did 30 years ago?". Heck, by your logic, anyone serving a life sentence should be set free after 30 years because it shouldn't matter any more.
Who cares if Kerry admitted publically to commiting war crimes 30 years ago? I do. It means he either lied for political purposes, or actually commited war crimes. Either way, I don't want him as commander in chief of the most powerfull armed forces the world has ever seen.
Who cares if the swift boat vets are telling the truth? We all should. Maybe all 254 got together and conspired to discredit Kerry. Maybe not. Either way we should find out. After all, 254 people who knew and served beside Kerry being so anti-Kerry should be raising red flags even if they are making it all up. Why would they do that? Why is there only one person that served with him that is on his side? We should find out. We should care.
But it is true that people can change. Thirty years is a long time. Even twenty years is a long time. Four months is a short time. Yet Kerry never mentions his 20 years in the Senate. Why do you think that is? He mentions his 4 months in Vietnam at every opprotunity, even making opprotunities where not logical connection exists. He implies over and over again that his four months is Veitnam qualifies him to lead this country. Apparently Kerry thinks what happened 30 years ago matters... as long as it's his version.
Was Bush AWOL 30 years ago? Maybe. Does it matter? Sure. It's not on the same level as an admitted war criminal, but it matters. However, there is nothing but a lack of evidence to back those charges up. A lack of evidence is not evidence. This AWOL thing is a handful of people saying "Yes, I too can not prove where Bush was 30 years ago". I couldn't prove where I was at 12:00 AM a week ago. Sure, I'm usually in bed at that time. Sure, not one remembers seeing me leave. Sure, no one remembers seing me anywhere else. But was I really in bed like I say? You can't prove a negative. If someone was watching my bed last week, and documented it at the time that my bed was empty at 12:00 AM last week, that would be evidence that I wasn't in bed. But I could have been on the couch. It doesn't mean I robbed the bank.
Did Bush's connections help him in avoiding Veitnam? That would say something about his character, except for one thing. His father was head of the CIA at the time. He couldn't have gone to Veitnam had he wanted to go. There's no way the US would allow the son of the head of the CIA to be in a war zone.
Most people have forgotten, or never learned, the reason for the electorial college. In the US, the states select the president, not the people.
I started taking that test and gave up on the 3rd page. Almost every question is phrased as a false dilemma and has an obvious left slant. It is apparerently intended to make you believe you are a liberal.
But don't take my word for it. Read this list of logical fallacies and then go look at the quiz.
And the remaining 75.6% don't add up.
I thought it was referring to licking cold metal. Now, that's some cold fusion that needs to stay dead.
We really need a "Bloody evident" moderation.
Yes, and every comment that gets rated "Bloody evident" gets automatically submitted to the US Patent Office.
Isn't this what Google does? Perhaps this is the root of the reports that MS wanted to buy Google. And prehaps that they didn't buy Google is the root of the delay on WinFS.
This would be par for the course. Microsoft "innovates" buy purchasing the innovation. I suspect WinFS will remain vaporware until some company gets bought.
It's not the cupholder that bothers me, that's just a minor annoyance. The real problem is that every time I put it in reverse it tells me it's out of gas... and it's been in and out of the shop for 10 years and they're still not sure why that happens.
Yet if you look at the chart on the link you provided you will notice their 52wk low was this morning.
Do they ever? With all this talk about campaign finance reform what I feel is a much more important election reform is entirely ignored. The Democrats and Republicans have all but locked out any other parties from having an effective voice.
Possible some middle management, who live in fear their lack of knowledge will be discovered.
Well, they claim that TCO for open source is higher than that for Windows. If they open sourced Windows they should make more money, right?
I live in MS and get tired of the south bashing myself. And the story was in no way meant to suggest all Alabama troopers are stupid, just that this particular one was geographically challenged. I'm sure he would have been laughed at by the other Alabama officials had the story got back to the station, which is probably why he didn't issue a ticket when he realized his mistake.
I wasn't there, but I believe my friend.
There was a push a few years ago to bring them in as a state. It was congress that blocked it. You see, if that happens they get two senators and a representative and the rest of congress looses a little power. The balance of power between the two major parties is too close for either side to want to risk that.
Maybe if you referred to some place in America we'd understand.
Seriously, though, I have a friend who was moving from Wisconsin to Florida about 15 years ago. He got pulled over in Alabama by a state trooper for doing 70 in a 55. The trooper saw Wisconsin on his license plate and drivers license and then asked for his passport.
He did manage to get out of the ticket. I suppose the trooper didn't want that to get back to the station.
I couldn't help but notice you didn't dispute my assessment, but instead focused on my technique.
The post you responded to mentioned no one by name, only zealots. Yet, you felt compeled to defend these unnammed zealots. You even went so far as to defend their motives as being to advocate for freedom. You must have thought about and were writing about a particular group of people with whom you associate the word "zealot". So, apparently the people who have been "called names" are zealots in your mind.
One would infer that you believe that being a zealot is a bad thing from your comment. It can be, but isn't necessarily bad. And even wack jobs can do useful and good things.
I think we can all agree that when the term "Linux/Open Source/Free Software Zealot" is used, RMS is usually thought about. I think a fairly large number of people would agree he is a wack job. I think most people would agree he is a zealot. I think most people would also agree he has done some very good and worthwhile things which most of us have benefited from.
Wow, that's quite an attack on American institutions. It would be absurd in and of itself. However, as this was a story about a French woman upset with the French socialized work place, your comments are even more out in left feild. Did you read and comprehend the article?
i'm running low on thomas mackenzie darby. i couldn't find any at the dollar store. i checked everything's a dollar. radio shack was also out. wolf camera said they'd never heard of it. i may have to order some Online on the Web and have it fedexed.