comment listing type:
Top New Politics Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
comment listing type: Top New Politics Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Abstinence is the Only Way!
CNN loses their mind over Obama VP txt
I Don't Like Greens
E-Voting Machine Maker Admits Miscounts
True, BUT until there is a nearly foolproof implementation that has the bugs worked out of its system and has been through an open peer review (including the ENTIRE source code down to the BIOS level), go back to paper ballots. It's a lot harder to manipulate than electronics.
The only reason it has not already been done, and fully reviewed, is that everybody knows that the government has no (political) interest in using a good open standard for elections.
The sketchy preliminary '04 re-count held in Ohio was done with paper ballots, if you can't trust the people in charge the method matters very little. The only defense against organizational corruption is third party review, which a good public key based voting system would make possible, in real time, and at absurdly little cost.
We have already reached the point where a well structured (even if imperfectly implemented) e-voting system would be more transparent and fault tolerant then the old standby of paper, the gov just isn't interested in being that transparent.
Reverse Graffiti Project, San Francisco, California
E-Voting Machine Maker Admits Miscounts
Go back to paper ballots you fucking retards.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. The problem is not electronic voting, it's the implementation.
When the army wants a whistle, they submit a 12 page spec with technical drawings, and specifications on materials used etc, if the manufacturer fails to deliver exactly what is in the spec they are in breach of contract with the government and will never get another contract again.
When the gov hands out "kinda like this" corporate welfare funding like they did to diebold, then you get this kind of crap. The government knows how to get what they want at a good price, that was just not the point of the "help america vote act".
Let me be blunt. I could set up a sourceforge project to develop the software/hardware spec for an e-voting system, using existing free software, I could get help from volunteers, and we could have a secure, working system in a couple of months.
In fact anybody worth their salt at programming/crypto could have a proof of concept mocked up in python, or bash shell script by tomorrow.
These people failed for one of three reasons:
1) they are flagrantly incompetent. (their ATM products suggest otherwise)
2) they didn't even try. (seems plausible, just take free money and run)
3) they intentionally made the system weak to allow fraud. (unfortunately also plausible)
Man Gets "Autopsy Scar" modification while AWAKE!!!
How much did he pay them to do this to him?
Kurt Vonnegut: Addicted to oil
Obama at Saddleback Church - Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion
dgandhi:
I always find it femur when people say pro-lifers ONLY want abstinence-only sex ed, but never offer up any citations whatsosever to back their claim up.
I have not claimed that. The social-conservatives in US play anti-sex and abortion to the hilt, the same people(political party) who work for one work for the other.
A very vocal section of the population, who have an anti-sex-ed position on the basis of a religious understanding of sex as a sin, have set the discourse for abortion-re-criminalization. I am not a pro-lifer, so I have no obligation to that community to make sure their position is articulated accurately. If some significant subset of the pro-life community is not anti-sex-ed, then they need to speak up and counter the hijacking of their own movement. Until then I will respond to the position presented, and point out it's failings, even if only a small minority actually believe what the movement espouses.
I'm all for an informed debate of the whole gamut of possibilities, but that seems to be what Obama is doing with this answer, finding a common ground where the standard political discourse offers none.
As for the bone ref, that's what I get for trusting spell check, which has been well established as the only method by which I am remotely intelligible.
Obama at Saddleback Church - Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion
As for "brain waves", there is debate on what really counts as such.
That is analogous to arguing that Evolution by natural selection is debatable. Sure if people who are lying, or simply don't know what they are talking about argue against something you could say there is "debate", but their disagreement with the body of evidence and the understanding of people who work in relevant fields of study in no way undermines the validity of the general scientific consensus.
If your going to make a "brain waves" argument, taking whatever unsupported claim on when that happens you feel like, seriously weakens your argument.
If we agree to use brain-waves as the criteria, and it's well established among non-propagandists that this starts at about 20 weeks, then will you change your time-frame preference, or will you re-define "brain waves" to meet your already established preference?
CNN: 'Is Obama the antichrist?'
If more than 144k people accepted that argument would it become false, because too many people would think McCain is the anti-christ?
Obama at Saddleback Church - Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion
Waiting 3 months to take care of an unwanted pregnancy smacks of sloth.
While this would be true in a perfect world, the same folks who champion criminalizing abortion have also eviscerated sex-ed, through their absurd "abstinence only" campaign, and as a result an alarming number of people are not aware ( or are intentionally mis-informed) of their options, and can not, in their ignorance, act responsibly.
The anti-sex/pro-baby position is working at cross purposes, they want things that either defeat each other, or require fascism to keep in check. Obama, for all his faults, does synthesize a coherent third path, which is to do what works to reduce unwanted pregnancies, while providing realistic options to abortion. He says "let's have a little socialism, instead of a little fascism", I find it humerus that Christians who have a long history of socialism, and a long history of problems with fascism would prefer the fascist route.
cp420: nice downvote rampage on the comments, is that because you somehow think we are all trolling, or are you just offended that somebody might make a coherent point with which you disagree?
Obama at Saddleback Church - Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion
I have a solution, outlaw abortions, make vasectomies mandatory, for all males over 12.
No more unwanted pregnancies. Problem solved. Try to dispute it.
isn't outlawing abortions redundant at that point?
Obama at Saddleback Church - Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion
ditto on 46 chromosome parasites my friend.
Obama at Saddleback Church - Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion
I put the start of human rights at the start of brain waves, about 40 to 43 days after conception.
I think you are mis-informed, the medical data suggests that brain waves don't start until about week 20 of gestation, and are not even constant at that point, more like test-runs then a functioning brain. I'm fine with drawing a hard line there in cases which do not imperil the mother.
I'm a vegan with a vasectomy, so I could spend all day screaming "murderer" at people who breed/eat meat/have pets/wear leather, but it's a very pointless stance to take. I don't agree with what most people do, but practically speaking if some living thing can't stand up for itself, no amount of whining on my part is going to get most people to acknowledge their "moral" responsibility to do something which they do not feel is in their interest.
So if we are going to play "it's murder" poker, I see your 20 week fetuses, and I raise you running shoes and hamburgers.