Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Except they’ve coloured in West Virgina wrong. The numbers say Obama is winning it, but they’ve coloured it Romney, and given Romney the Electoral Votes.
West Virginia has got Republican for the last three elections. And Romney is currently up 6% there. Solid republican territory these days.
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Sacha,
I believe (I read a couple of technical articles on them after the last election, so my memory is fading), it's certainly possible for two points a certain distance apart on the touch screen to get reported closer together (which would have the effect of 'vote obama' getting smaller, as well as the whole thing moving in a particular direction but staying relative to each other.
However an area not being reported entirely is suspicious to say the least.
-
From the context, I think they mean they haven’t properly set the touch areas. But “calibration” probably sounds more sciency.
The touch screens, depending on their quality, go out of whack. What is displayed on the screen (names, ticks etc) isn't linked to the touch screen, except by measurement (oh, you want 100 mm down by 80 mm across, let me look that measurement up on my table, that falls within the range of this person, I'll put a tick in their box).
I can't remember why they go out of whack, but I think that some touch screens do, and better ones don't.
So they get regularly recalibrated, I think the process involves the computer putting touch marks on the screen and saying "push here", and then it compares it's results to what it expects and adds plus/minus on x and y axes for all future touches.
It's a mad system and no where near as reliable or as good as our "here's a piece of paper, go tick the names you want' one. Even more stupid when you consider the advantages that could occur through voting via a computer - a printed out receipt that you can take away to confirm who you voted for, isn't available for most of them.
If the touch screen reports the wrong measurements then the computer will display the wrong results. Why it would increase the range where it chose one candidate and decrease the range where it responded to another I have no idea.
-
I haven’t read the full EC report yet to see if they mention this. Too busy today, I have an exam.
I think it's sufficiently impractical that not worth considering. Most of the electorate would punish being manipulated in such a way, it would kill you pretty quickly.
Better to align with a party that has an existing electorate base but not a party vote base. The Maori Party has weight here.
-
There's actually been very few close votes in the electoral college in the past 60+ years. 2000 was incredibly close, 2004 was moderately close. 1960 and 1976 were... not landslides.
Most of the rest of elections after 1948 were ass kickings, and even 1948 which Truman was expected to lose by many wasn't close. You would have had to flip half a dozen states for Clinton to have lost, Reagan and Nixon both spanked the opposition, LBJ cleaned up, Bush senior won convincingly.
Exciting American Presidential elections where it's not clear what's going to happen come election day is a recent phenomena.
-
Imagine a situation like this. For years you have been selling your home grown vegetables and a new law comes into force that not only makes it illegal for you sell them but makes you liable for any perceived damage from (or indeed to) any vegetables you may have sold in the past. Would that be “fair”? of course not. That is why we do not pass retrospective laws (often).
Grooming and sexually abusing children didn't become illegal last week.
-
Jesus wept; I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation.
Yup. Many people here will know people who have been sexually abused as children, or may have been victims of that abuse. Saying that their abusers are also victims because such things used to be swept under the carpet more, and now they're being called on it? Thread is starting to need a trigger warning.
-
I light of the change in attitude it is inevitable that some people who considered themselves to be very proper in all respects were indulging in or just indulging, behaviour which would later prove to be abhorrent to Society as a whole, they should be considered victims also.
If we could keep the label 'victim' for people who were sexually abused, and they can choose whether or not it fits them, not for the people were the abusing them, I'd feel slightly less sickened. Thanks.
-
But if you are trying to find low-level scapegoats for sacking, then I’m sure they would argue that the existence of a document with a statement that “non-separation of networks was an urgent issue” circulated to appropriate levels of management equates to communication. Management would in turn argue that it wasn’t their job to understand low-level project documents.
What's been outlined above, if it's accurate, is that low level people received DD's report, which highlighted the problem. It was not then escalated properly.
If that's accurate...
It will somewhat turn on what 'escalated properly' means. However it it means "not escalated at all" then the guys at the bottom are in trouble. You're going to struggle to blame upper management when they weren't told about the problem.
If it means escalated but not in the correct manner, then you could probably say that it was bad enough that it doesn't matter how it was escalated, anyone that knew about it should have dealt to it.
The existence of the document isn't disputed. It's who had it and what they did with it that will start to cause problems for people up the chain. I struggle to reconcile "not escalated properly" with your "circulated to appropriate levels of management" however Rich.
-
I can still tell them to get off my lawn though right?