Do people really have an expecation of privacy while in a public area? Should I expect to be able to walk down the street with my dick hanging out of my pants screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" at the top of my lungs and not expect any repercussions?
Selling 6 million consoles would mean selling a good 20-40 million games, which would more than compensate for the losses incurred by console sales. Which, you know, is sort of their plan.
Would you be defending this situation in the exact same manner as you just did if it the Republican and Democratic tables in this situation were turned?
If you could find a sitation where Democrats have attempted to systematically disenranchise voters, sure. Good luck with that.
So in other words, electronic voting and Diebold are always evil, except when Democrats support it?
I get it now.
No, you apparently don't get it. Electronic voting is generally stupid, yes; however, trying to completely change the way people will vote a month and a half before the election is bound to cause tremendous amounts of confusion and keep people away from the polls. And when you include the fact that the person calling for this action was trying to prevent it less than a year ago, you should be able to see how it is a thinly-veiled and cynical attempt to keep a mostly-Democratic electorate away from the polls to help the governor cling to power. Whether or not electronic balloting is a good idea is not the core issue here: the timing of the governor's proposal and his historical view on balloting procedures is.
In Maryland, Deocrats outnumber Republicans 2:1. The Republican governor is in an extremely tight race where turnout could be the deciding factor. Current trends indicate Democrats across the country are set to turn out in large numbers, which would hurt the governor's chances for reelection. So he has called into question the election process, and has been actively telling people to stay away from the polls and instead fill out absentee ballots - despite the fact that he recently vetoed a bill that would make it easier for people to do just that. (The Democrat-controlled legislature overruled his veto.)
This isn't just a matter of whether it's a good idea to use electronic voting machines; it's a matter of a seasoned politician trying to exploit the political machine a matter of weeks before an election. Please remember to keep all of that in mind.
Corporations do shitty things to increase their profit margins! Shocking, I know!
Come on, do people honestly believe that Google is some sort of sintly organization? Their goal - no, their legal responsibility - is to maximize the profit of their shareholders. Same as any other company. Get over them already.
Refundable micropayments.
Seriously.
Require people pay $1 to post a comment, payable via paypal or whatever. Once you have checked their comment, you can add them to a whitelist that will never be charged again and refund them their $1. Spammers don't get their dollar back, don't get added to the whitelist, and have their comment removed. The result over the course of a large number of blog entries would be to significantly increase the cost of doing business for spammers, while providing only a very minor inconvenience for legitimate users.
Slashdot Mirror
Do people really have an expecation of privacy while in a public area? Should I expect to be able to walk down the street with my dick hanging out of my pants screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" at the top of my lungs and not expect any repercussions?
Selling 6 million consoles would mean selling a good 20-40 million games, which would more than compensate for the losses incurred by console sales. Which, you know, is sort of their plan.
Would you be defending this situation in the exact same manner as you just did if it the Republican and Democratic tables in this situation were turned?
If you could find a sitation where Democrats have attempted to systematically disenranchise voters, sure. Good luck with that.
The electoral commission is a bipartisan organization.
Also, in Florida, the issue was not e-voting, it was how votes were counted. But nice try to stretch the analogy there, slim.
So in other words, electronic voting and Diebold are always evil, except when Democrats support it?
I get it now.
No, you apparently don't get it. Electronic voting is generally stupid, yes; however, trying to completely change the way people will vote a month and a half before the election is bound to cause tremendous amounts of confusion and keep people away from the polls. And when you include the fact that the person calling for this action was trying to prevent it less than a year ago, you should be able to see how it is a thinly-veiled and cynical attempt to keep a mostly-Democratic electorate away from the polls to help the governor cling to power. Whether or not electronic balloting is a good idea is not the core issue here: the timing of the governor's proposal and his historical view on balloting procedures is.
In Maryland, Deocrats outnumber Republicans 2:1. The Republican governor is in an extremely tight race where turnout could be the deciding factor. Current trends indicate Democrats across the country are set to turn out in large numbers, which would hurt the governor's chances for reelection. So he has called into question the election process, and has been actively telling people to stay away from the polls and instead fill out absentee ballots - despite the fact that he recently vetoed a bill that would make it easier for people to do just that. (The Democrat-controlled legislature overruled his veto.) This isn't just a matter of whether it's a good idea to use electronic voting machines; it's a matter of a seasoned politician trying to exploit the political machine a matter of weeks before an election. Please remember to keep all of that in mind.
Corporations do shitty things to increase their profit margins! Shocking, I know! Come on, do people honestly believe that Google is some sort of sintly organization? Their goal - no, their legal responsibility - is to maximize the profit of their shareholders. Same as any other company. Get over them already.
not when blogging sites catch on that this will help attract more users, and begin offering it as a general service.
Refundable micropayments. Seriously. Require people pay $1 to post a comment, payable via paypal or whatever. Once you have checked their comment, you can add them to a whitelist that will never be charged again and refund them their $1. Spammers don't get their dollar back, don't get added to the whitelist, and have their comment removed. The result over the course of a large number of blog entries would be to significantly increase the cost of doing business for spammers, while providing only a very minor inconvenience for legitimate users.