Gore and Bush had a statistical tie. The differences in all the recounts were less than the margin of error for the voting machines and the margin of error for hand counting. There may have been problems with the voting style, debates over hanging chad and what not, but ultimately it was a tie. Except that American politics doesn't allow ties even in cases where mathematics disagrees. The logical solution, and humans are not logical, would have been to have a runoff.
The fault there was NOT Nader's fault. The fault was very clearly that of Gore for ignoring and dismissing that segment of the voting base, probably with the assumption that they'd eventually vote for him anyway. Gore could have won a large chunk of them back. The "follow the party line" is pretty evil I think, speaking as a decline-to-state, and candidates would do better to try to appeal to the voters rather than rely on partisanship.
Don't forget, a lot of those voters sat the election out as well, it wasn't just a choice between Nader or Gore or Bush or Buchanan, there was also the choice to just forget it all because none of them seem good. The problem comes from focusing only on the "undecided" voters in the center while ignoring those on left or right who may be uncertain.
And for heaven's sake, it's 2015 already. Are people still sucking on those sour grapes, re Nader?
That's what he calls himself, a democratic socialist. Ie, european style. But never mind all that, just having the word "socialist" there causes the far right to freak out over fear of communists.
With governments you have the theoretical possibility to vote the bastards out. With corporations you are always at the mercy of the bastards.
No chance. But that's not the point. Bringing in several voices into a primary means that more issues can be discussed, even ones that the sure-to-win candidate would rather avoid. That's also why third party candidates are good as well even though they have no hope of winning. Case in point, candidate G ignores issues from third party candidate N, assuming all all of G's fan base will eventually vote for G anyway so why worry; except that losing these voters actually cost candidate G the election.
In senate and congressional races, quite a lot of candidates have lost by incorrectly assuming that support from a faction of the voters was a sure thing.
The problem perhaps comes from googling for the name and ending up with links to Playboy instead of image analysis sites.
Yup, and people complain. I worked at an artificial intelligence lab one time and one researcher complained smutty images even though the most you saw was her shoulder. I didn't even know it was a centerfold image for several years after that.
Now on that note, if someone said "go google for Lena Soderberg", innocently thinking it was just a picture of a head, I could understand the problems that would come up...
Sometimes the change is difficult though. Ie, the only reason my mother finally switched was because AT&T told her that she could keep her email address. Which was utterly false of course. But keeping her email address was the primary reason she didn't want to switch. For awhile she was taking wifi from a neighbor, with permission, and so it wasn't as big a deal.
Then when you do go and get involved with the ISP, they screw around with you. Up selling you on products you don't need, misrepresenting the actual service you will get, etc. Competitors will screw with you, claiming to fix your poor satellite service and then you end up at a completely different company. The smart elderly person has learned not to trust all of this stuff.
And the price sucks, let's face it. Dialup is maybe $15 a month, 1Mbps was $30-40+ I think (fastest she could get). Sounds like peanuts to people who buy $10 cups of overpriced coffee but for people who still clip coupons it's a big fee.
No, the collections are probably automatic. Even if humans are involved somewhere in the billing, they don't have the power to easily fix things. Collectors have been sent out before to try to collect unreasonable fees in the past from other goofups from other companies.
Well, for one AT&T did not waive the fee when it was pointed out. They waited a few months until a news reporter got on the case. Now imagine it was something smaller, like merely getting billed double. Not a big enough issue for a reporter to blow the whistle on, and AT&T won't fix things because they're clueless.
Am I too old that I remember when "game developer" meant actually developing the game engine too?
Bribes have sort of an expiration date. It's hard to negotiate a new bribe too soon after getting the previous one. The OHA got their concessions in 2009, they feel they can score some more today.
``IF THE JOB DOES NOT CONSIST MOSTLY OF DOING MATH AND REQUIRE THE WORKER TO BE LICENSED BY THE STATE, IT IS WRONG TO TITLE IT "ENGINEER!"''
You forgot the people who actually drive trains. An old friend of mine is that kind of engineer.
The argument over who should be called an "engineer" has been going on since the '70s. At least. It's only gotten worse over those 40+ years. Lately, it seems to be the job-title-enhancer of choice by employers who aren't willing to offer a higher salary. "Maybe they'll like a fancier title... We'll call them an engineer."
I'm really surprised that fast food and other low-skill, low-wage work hasn't been replaced by robots already. Companies that sell these products have already figured out exactly how hot the grille and deep-fry oil needs to be, how long the meat needs to be in each and when to flip or remove, and given the crap job that the no-skill worker does of stacking the condiments, a machine probably could apply a slice of lettuce, two slices of tomato, meat, and cheese between two slices of bread to make a hamburger before wrapping it in paper.
Fast food isn't a skill. It doesn't even come close to coffee shop barista, where the customer is already paying a luxury price for a human's touch when making a product that could come out of a machine just about as well. If it costs $200,000 per year to pay employees to work a fast food restaurant, and that cost can be reduced to $60,000 per year by the introduction of a half a million dollars of machinery that will last for a decade, these companies would be nuts to not replace workers with robots.