No one is required to cast a vote for everything on the ballot. Not voting for a certain office/question/proposition/etc is called an "undervote". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
> OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:
Scratch that. Looks like most states have restrictions.
OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:
Note that there are seven states which do not allow write-ins for president at all.
> In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.
YMMV. In many jurisdictions (if not most) there is a list of pre-qualified write in candidates. I shit you not. Google "qualified write-in list" (with the quotes) for a bunch of examples. Sure, you can write in anyone you want, but if they are not on the list, it will not get counted.
Here is one example, from San Francisco: (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/05/18725142.php)
For voters who wish to cast their vote for candidates other than the ones printed on the ballot in San Francisco-- they need to know that they are still limited to a few official write-in candidate names if their vote is to be counted.
> you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
I have no doubt you actually believe that horseshit. That statement makes some of the more hilarious proclaimations Christians are so fond of saying seem rational and reasonable in comparison.
Link to Original Source
I hear that. I have 1mb/s myself, although it is not shared. If I see one more nimrod here bitching about "ridiclously absurd upload speeds of 25mbs" or some such, I think I'm going to have to shoot somebody.
TFA article says nothing of the sort, actually. It's TF submitter. Slashdot, of course, simply copy-pastes anything Hugh says.
Beyond the fact that I was obviously referring to Slashdot calling it a "mini-internet", the article said no such thing. They said that they can't keep it secret. Not that they "do not wish" to keep it secret.
AP Headline: "Cuban youth build secret computer network despite Wi-Fi ban "
Slashdot: "Young Cubans Set Up Mini-Internet".
"Mini-Internet" huh, Slashdot. My how far this site has degraded, when the mass media's headline are more accurate and less pandering.
You're right. From now on I'll refer to them using terms more appropriate for them. "Fags".
How do you think a cop infiltrating a gang like, for example, the Hells Angels, gains their trust?
Also, and undercover cop can smoke a bowl with you and still arrest your ass for having/selling/using.
No need to bring Miranda into it. Before you are arrested, anything you say can be used against you, even if you have not been Mirandized. It is only after arrest that Miranda is an issue.
> And then the public defender you're assigned because you can't afford a decent lawyer
Hold on just a second. There are many fine public defenders who happen to be far better than just "decent". They will not, however, be able to dedicate much time to your case. THAT is the issue with many PD's. Not that they suck or are not "decent" but that they are over worked.