That's good that they did catch. The question is, why do we need mail-in ballots? With enough advanced voting days, it shouldn't really be necessary. If you're out of town at the time...well, that's damn unfortunate, but life can be a bitch sometimes.
Not possible with specially crafted chips, or chain of custody that travels hundreds of miles an hour down the road.
What isn't possible? Election fraud?
Even IF election fraud (not to be confused with the negligible voter fraud fake problem to cleanse the vote registration) is detected, they still have no power to stop it, or stop the candidate from being sworn in.
Well, then what's the bloody point of an election? And who's "they" (as in they still have no power...)? If there's a real issue of election fraud, you'd better believe that the people who got shafted are going to call for an inquiry, get the legal system involved, etc...
In short your full of shit.
Am I full of shit? I don't think so, but that's your opinion. It's my opinion that you didn't really give this post too much thought, as is evident by your rambling, incoherent sentences, and blatant error in your last sentence, indicating your inability or unwillingness to proofread.
Excuse me? Where did I mention mail-in ballots? I personally think those are ridiculous. If you can't be bothered to show up, then you don't get a vote. Please note that this applies to anything you send by mail, not just your vote. What am I going to do about it? Not vote by mail.
Also, please stop using excessive capitals. There are bold, italic, em, and various other html tags you can use to emphasize your speech. Remember: caps lock may be cruise control for cool, but you still have to steer.
That's why the counters are usually watched by scrutineers. Obviously, fraud is possible, but it's also possible to minimize opportunities for fraud. Besides, it's still a better system than the e-voting and mechanical methods certain states are using. Try checking out how Canada works: it's simple, and it still gets you most of the results by printing time at the presses.
Not if you do it the way it works in Canada. You get your voter's card in the mail and take that (or certain ID if you want to register at the polling booth) to the polling booth. You then go see one of the volunteers, and they scratch your name off a list and give you one piece of paper for each vote you have to cast (i.e. 1 for your councilor, 1 for your mayor, etc...). You then go behind a cardboard screen, place a check in the box to the right of the person you're voting for (for provincial and federal elections, both the name and the party of the person are on the ballot), then fold it up, walk back to a different table (with a volunteer watching you), and place the ballot (or ballots, for multiple votes) in the box.
When the polling booth is closed, the boxes are then taken to an area to be counted. Each party has a representative to oversee the ballots being counted, and if the vote is close, it's possible to ask for a recount.
To make a long story short, it would be very difficult to stuff the ballot boxes in Canada, which is why we don't worry about electoral fraud, but instead the politicians we're voting for. Did I mention that we currently have 4 political parties in Parliament at the moment?
Were they anything like the ones I received when I applied at Future Shop? Because I seem to remember being asked something along these lines.
Jon was closing the store, and was just about to finish when he realized that he didn't have any bus money. He takes $3.00 (bus fare in Ottawa) from his till to get home, and returns it the next morning. What do you think of what Jon did?
Now, you had to answer this question for the first time online, and they don't give you any gray area, just some black or white "fire him, reprimand him, let him go" kind of answers. In person, they seem to be fishing for you to say that what he did was wrong. Now, it wasn't the best thing (he should've tried to call for a ride, get a ride home with someone, borrow cash from someone, etc...), but if that's his only choice, he should be able to do it. Especially if he lives an hour+ walk from the store.
There is -- or ought to be -- a threshold in everybody's mind.
And there probably is. But I'm going to tell you a secret: the moment that they or someone they know and love gets falsely imprisoned, that threshold disappears like lightning. But to answer your question...right now, I'd say my threshold is very high. In the range of, oh say, 1e6 guilty men to go free. But, if the laws were relaxed with respect to certain things, such as drug use, and tightened with respect to others, such as murder, my number would go down by an order of magnitude or so.
As for changing to subject, I was just pointing out something that was on my mind that completely supersedes that issue of how many guilty men should walk.
There is no number set in stone. The idea isn't to be paranoid and avoid prosecution because it might result in harming an innocent person. The idea is to set up a system with enough checks and balances to ensure that no one is punished unless they're pretty damn sure (supposedly "beyond reasonable doubt" in the American system), and to have a system in place so that if someone innocent gets punished, they get a chance to have that discovered and corrected.
The biggest problem right now is that it's no longer a justice system, it is a legal system. And the legal system is based on who can pay the most.
Umm...lots of people still use CRTs. Old ones (because older = cheaper), and students on a budget who can't afford a better monitor. Just because you don't use a CRT doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who use CRTs.
It would appear that way. That doesn't mean they are superfluous. This needs years of research and long term trials before this will be marketable. When you're fucking with the immune system, you better be goddamn sure you're not fucking with the wrong thing.
Since people are paying the new higher rates, I can only assume that enough people disagree with me that the market is bearing the higher rates.
Ummm...no. The people who are doing the texting are not the people paying the cell phone bills. And if they are, they've had the foresight to pay the $monthly_fee for a large or unlimited number of text messages.
Until Honda realizes that they can make more money if they prevent you from reselling their Honda. Especially when CEOs flit about like moths from company to company.
Seems like a good idea, but there's one issue with it. You can only assign each section once. It'd be a great way to kick start the wiki, but you can't really do it every single year. However, having graduate students release their research into this sort of encyclopedia would be a great idea.
If we were living in a utopian society where everyone has everything they need and people do research on open source software and hardware for fun (and 3D printing machines can build anything very cheaply), then that's fine - but until we develop a new form of society then that's not going to work.
Well, we don't even need a utopian society. You only really need three (maybe you could go so far as to say two or even one) industries to support this.
The first and most essential would be the mining industry. If everyone has a cheap 3D printer, then all you need is feedstock (since we're assuming that we can't easily change carbon to hydrogen). The mining industry will have a subset that deals only with sales of feedstock. This will be where your scarcity economics kicks in.
The second would be the software industry. This will, unless draconian laws are passed, be an open source type industry. This will create the instructions that the 3D printers use to print the relevant items. This isn't an essential industry, and could, in fact, be perpetrated by an open-source style community. Because software will be essential and have no scarcity, this is where a tax funded system would make sense.
The third industry would be the makers of the 3D printers. Though, since 3D printers exist, they only need to sell a certain amount before they hit a Von Neumann probe scenario. Since this is really more of an infrastructure issue, they can simply be funded by private or public money, and then people can easily print their own printers. Look at it the same way that broadband penetration was supposed to work. Once the infrastructure is there, the companies that laid the wire no longer have a job.
Of course, as you said, society would require a huge overhaul, including getting rid of a huge number of ridiculous laws on the books right now.
I don't think he's directly invested in the *AA. In all likelihood, he makes his living off of selling copyrighted works, or has family that does, or else he's been taken in by the propaganda regarding copyright infringement. That is to say, he thinks that copying songs equates to theft. Remember Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Promotion? They're attacking the radio industry for being filthy pirates for not paying royalties. They'll never accept that, and they're going to have to die a painful death, which will change the face of music, and probably leave us in a musical recession for a while.
The only problem with the car analogy is that people would only do that when they learned that they can't resell their car. If they don't know that, it will never enter their decision making process.
Exactly. This is 2008. The average 13 year old has the self-esteem of a slug. Between not being allowed to win (because no one is allowed to lose), having their school fucked with so that only the dumb kids get attention (NCLB, anyone?), and an overly litigious society which forces kids to be so mind numbingly safe (read: boring), that it's no wonder that kids take up smoking. The real problem isn't that they're smoking, the problem is why. And honestly, it comes down to this. They're being brought up in a very schizophrenic society. Their parents and authority figures tell them to behave, do your work, and follow the rules, whereas the rest of society tells them to ignore the official rules, just follow ours instead, and be a rebel. So when they get pissed off at mom and dad for whatever reason, they turn to smoking, because smoking's still cool in some circles.
Slashdot Mirror
That's good that they did catch. The question is, why do we need mail-in ballots? With enough advanced voting days, it shouldn't really be necessary. If you're out of town at the time...well, that's damn unfortunate, but life can be a bitch sometimes.
What isn't possible? Election fraud?
Well, then what's the bloody point of an election? And who's "they" (as in they still have no power...)? If there's a real issue of election fraud, you'd better believe that the people who got shafted are going to call for an inquiry, get the legal system involved, etc...
Am I full of shit? I don't think so, but that's your opinion. It's my opinion that you didn't really give this post too much thought, as is evident by your rambling, incoherent sentences, and blatant error in your last sentence, indicating your inability or unwillingness to proofread.
Excuse me? Where did I mention mail-in ballots? I personally think those are ridiculous. If you can't be bothered to show up, then you don't get a vote. Please note that this applies to anything you send by mail, not just your vote. What am I going to do about it? Not vote by mail.
Also, please stop using excessive capitals. There are bold, italic, em, and various other html tags you can use to emphasize your speech. Remember: caps lock may be cruise control for cool, but you still have to steer.
That's why the counters are usually watched by scrutineers. Obviously, fraud is possible, but it's also possible to minimize opportunities for fraud. Besides, it's still a better system than the e-voting and mechanical methods certain states are using. Try checking out how Canada works: it's simple, and it still gets you most of the results by printing time at the presses.
Not if you do it the way it works in Canada. You get your voter's card in the mail and take that (or certain ID if you want to register at the polling booth) to the polling booth. You then go see one of the volunteers, and they scratch your name off a list and give you one piece of paper for each vote you have to cast (i.e. 1 for your councilor, 1 for your mayor, etc...). You then go behind a cardboard screen, place a check in the box to the right of the person you're voting for (for provincial and federal elections, both the name and the party of the person are on the ballot), then fold it up, walk back to a different table (with a volunteer watching you), and place the ballot (or ballots, for multiple votes) in the box.
When the polling booth is closed, the boxes are then taken to an area to be counted. Each party has a representative to oversee the ballots being counted, and if the vote is close, it's possible to ask for a recount.
To make a long story short, it would be very difficult to stuff the ballot boxes in Canada, which is why we don't worry about electoral fraud, but instead the politicians we're voting for. Did I mention that we currently have 4 political parties in Parliament at the moment?
Go for it. I'd love to see who the fuck will sign up with you.
Were they anything like the ones I received when I applied at Future Shop? Because I seem to remember being asked something along these lines.
Jon was closing the store, and was just about to finish when he realized that he didn't have any bus money. He takes $3.00 (bus fare in Ottawa) from his till to get home, and returns it the next morning. What do you think of what Jon did?
Now, you had to answer this question for the first time online, and they don't give you any gray area, just some black or white "fire him, reprimand him, let him go" kind of answers. In person, they seem to be fishing for you to say that what he did was wrong. Now, it wasn't the best thing (he should've tried to call for a ride, get a ride home with someone, borrow cash from someone, etc...), but if that's his only choice, he should be able to do it. Especially if he lives an hour+ walk from the store.
And there probably is. But I'm going to tell you a secret: the moment that they or someone they know and love gets falsely imprisoned, that threshold disappears like lightning. But to answer your question...right now, I'd say my threshold is very high. In the range of, oh say, 1e6 guilty men to go free. But, if the laws were relaxed with respect to certain things, such as drug use, and tightened with respect to others, such as murder, my number would go down by an order of magnitude or so.
As for changing to subject, I was just pointing out something that was on my mind that completely supersedes that issue of how many guilty men should walk.
Hmm. I managed to screw up the link. I should have a link pointing here
Yeah. Stick to Stephen Lynch songs.
There is no number set in stone. The idea isn't to be paranoid and avoid prosecution because it might result in harming an innocent person. The idea is to set up a system with enough checks and balances to ensure that no one is punished unless they're pretty damn sure (supposedly "beyond reasonable doubt" in the American system), and to have a system in place so that if someone innocent gets punished, they get a chance to have that discovered and corrected.
The biggest problem right now is that it's no longer a justice system, it is a legal system. And the legal system is based on who can pay the most.
That's in a free society. We've been a slow march to "Better 1000 innocent be punished than one guilty man goes free."
Umm...lots of people still use CRTs. Old ones (because older = cheaper), and students on a budget who can't afford a better monitor. Just because you don't use a CRT doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who use CRTs.
It would appear that way. That doesn't mean they are superfluous. This needs years of research and long term trials before this will be marketable. When you're fucking with the immune system, you better be goddamn sure you're not fucking with the wrong thing.
Ummm...no. The people who are doing the texting are not the people paying the cell phone bills. And if they are, they've had the foresight to pay the $monthly_fee for a large or unlimited number of text messages.
Until Honda realizes that they can make more money if they prevent you from reselling their Honda. Especially when CEOs flit about like moths from company to company.
Seems like a good idea, but there's one issue with it. You can only assign each section once. It'd be a great way to kick start the wiki, but you can't really do it every single year. However, having graduate students release their research into this sort of encyclopedia would be a great idea.
Well, we don't even need a utopian society. You only really need three (maybe you could go so far as to say two or even one) industries to support this.
The first and most essential would be the mining industry. If everyone has a cheap 3D printer, then all you need is feedstock (since we're assuming that we can't easily change carbon to hydrogen). The mining industry will have a subset that deals only with sales of feedstock. This will be where your scarcity economics kicks in.
The second would be the software industry. This will, unless draconian laws are passed, be an open source type industry. This will create the instructions that the 3D printers use to print the relevant items. This isn't an essential industry, and could, in fact, be perpetrated by an open-source style community. Because software will be essential and have no scarcity, this is where a tax funded system would make sense.
The third industry would be the makers of the 3D printers. Though, since 3D printers exist, they only need to sell a certain amount before they hit a Von Neumann probe scenario. Since this is really more of an infrastructure issue, they can simply be funded by private or public money, and then people can easily print their own printers. Look at it the same way that broadband penetration was supposed to work. Once the infrastructure is there, the companies that laid the wire no longer have a job.
Of course, as you said, society would require a huge overhaul, including getting rid of a huge number of ridiculous laws on the books right now.
I don't think he's directly invested in the *AA. In all likelihood, he makes his living off of selling copyrighted works, or has family that does, or else he's been taken in by the propaganda regarding copyright infringement. That is to say, he thinks that copying songs equates to theft. Remember Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Promotion? They're attacking the radio industry for being filthy pirates for not paying royalties. They'll never accept that, and they're going to have to die a painful death, which will change the face of music, and probably leave us in a musical recession for a while.
The only problem with the car analogy is that people would only do that when they learned that they can't resell their car. If they don't know that, it will never enter their decision making process.
Piss off, Sealclubber.
Interesting idea, but your deposit is a touch too high. I can't wait to hear about the new rash of smokers getting mugged.
Exactly. This is 2008. The average 13 year old has the self-esteem of a slug. Between not being allowed to win (because no one is allowed to lose), having their school fucked with so that only the dumb kids get attention (NCLB, anyone?), and an overly litigious society which forces kids to be so mind numbingly safe (read: boring), that it's no wonder that kids take up smoking. The real problem isn't that they're smoking, the problem is why. And honestly, it comes down to this. They're being brought up in a very schizophrenic society. Their parents and authority figures tell them to behave, do your work, and follow the rules, whereas the rest of society tells them to ignore the official rules, just follow ours instead, and be a rebel. So when they get pissed off at mom and dad for whatever reason, they turn to smoking, because smoking's still cool in some circles.
tl;dr This is 2008, society's fucked up.
True, but most people look at lists and think of them as exhaustive, not a list of examples.