I have to work with both on my job and I prefer XP. Vista seems to be designed for complete newbies, i.e. many things that a "power user" needs are not where they used to be but hidden somewhere where only a noob would look:). Other features that I grew used to are simply not available at all in Vista. The single network connectivity icon in the system tray for example is nice for ordinary users, but a techie may actually prefer separate icons for LAN, WiFi and VPN. I know that I do at least. And don't get me started on stuff like the copying bug pre SP1.
You can tamper with paper easily, that's why everything except the marking of the ballot has to happen in public (checking that the ballot box is empty in the morning, locked and sealed during the day and that nobody except legitimate voters throw anything into it. The counting also happens in public under the eyes of representatives of all parties. Thus it would be easy to manipulate the election, but it would be just as easy to spot the fraud happening.
But how do you know just what happens inside a computer? Can a voter really be sure that the results where not pre-programmed?
Seriously, how about voting on modified Point of Sales systems? You press a button (no fancy touchscreens, real buttons with labels next to them), the machine spits out a slip of paper with your vote on it. You check the vote, if there should be an error, the friendly shop assistant uses her key to cancel your vote. If everything is OK, you drop the slip of paper (let's call it "ballot") into the usual sealed box.
Once the election is over, the machine spits out the tally.
In a random 10% sample of all voting places, the paper ballots are counted manually. For every polling station where there is a discrepancy between the electronic tally and the manual recount, recounts will be performed in two more polling stations. In cases of doubt, the paper ballot counts overules the electronic tally.
If anybody feels the need, they can organize a manual recount in specific places. Either they count themselves (under supervision) or they pay to have the ballots counted manually.
If you follow the link on the memo "Learn more about the changes on eBay.com.au" You will learn that from 17 June on: All items appearing on eBay.com.au must be paid for using either:
- PayPal
- Visa/Mastercard (with transactions processed
by PayPal)
- Pay on pick up (i.e. paid for when picking up the item) No other payment methods will be accepted.
I fully agree. A while ago, I heard a speech from a lawyer who described such a rubber-stamp case: The police found an unlabeled DVD on a person (never mind how and why). This was taken as a proof that the person was dealing with warez, so his house (actually his parent's house) was searched. This case probably made a few waves, because the father was an important local politician.
Maybe your native speaker should have taken the time to read the text.
"initial suspicion" would not be enough. At the very least, facts have to point to a specific danger to peoples life, the very existence of the state (überragend wichtige Rechtsgüter) and such. I. e. "We are certain he is up to no good" is not enough, but "Here is proof that he bought explosives" would be.
Die heimliche Infiltration eines informationstechnischen Systems ist grundsätzlich unter den Vorbehalt richterlicher Anordnung zu stellen.
This means you need a judges order to secretly infiltrate a computer.
>Give me 5 minutes alone with a ballot box, and I promise you a surprising shift in votes for that precinct.
And why on earth should you ever be alone with the ballot box? Not to mention that the box should be locked and sealed anyway.
After the last voter has voted and the polling station closes, you dump the ballots on a large table and start counting. Everyone is allowed to stay and watch: party representatives, concerned citizens, international observers... You can even add a surveillance camera or three.
The security of paper based voting stems from procedures. If you count behind closed doors, it is of course insecure. Around here, after the polling station is closed for voting, they open the box and count the votes right in the same room where the voting happened. And everyone is free to stay and watch.
When Adam Carson, an associate at Morgan Stanley, first began pushing the use of Web 2.0 tools, he faced a major obstacle in the New York-based investment bank's 10,000-member IT department. "Most of our IT department didn't get it," he said. "This was all new to them. They had just been stuck in the world of enterprise IT."
So, the IT department would have prefered to do their job (enterprise IT) instead of building something just to use the tools.
However, he said he worked closely with IT team members to convince them of the merits of Web 2.0, which led them to implement Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) technologies, a key requirement for building and supporting Web 2.0 tools
He didn't stop nagging until they told an intern to cobble something together and paint the relevant acronyms in two feet letters on it.
Once IT was convinced of the value of Web 2.0, he said, the organization was "really good at making sure that [systems] worked really well and didn't break, but they weren't really good at making sure... people liked using them."
So, people don't use the new-fangled stuff. Obviously this is the fault of IT, and not because they don't see the need.
Carson noted that the company now has about 80 Web 2.0 projects under way, including an effort to create social networks for its clients.
Now we have 80 unused projects. Even our customers refuse to use theirs so far.
During the education process, Carson said he also had to find a manager that would require the use of a Web 2.0 tool for a specific project.
He had an hammer and was looking for a nail. A screw would probably work as well.
That would help spur employees to use the new tools, he noted. The effort also faced cultural resistance from some users clinging to the use of e-mail and other traditional tools rather than switch to new Web 2.0 collaboration tools, he added.
So, with hard work he managed to have something implemented that nobody else thought necessary. Now he is looking for a way to make the users use it.
Okay, let's call it a ballot. Regarding recounts: A "recount on demand" is of course a possibility. Maybe you would have to provide the manpower and/or pay for a judge to observe the recount. Feel free to add your own ideas.
- Vote with a computer interface - the computer stores your vote - you get a receipt how you voted - you check and fold the receipt and drop it into a sealed box.
After the election ends, the computer spits out the results.
In randomly selected polling places, the paper receipts get counted manually. If there are major differences, more polling stations will be selected for a manual count.
I think one could combine the "graveyard" and "plant a tree" ideas. Imagine a traditional graveyard (maybe a bit spacier) with a young oak tree on every grave. After 100 years or so, you cut down the tree, digg out the roots and have a new hole right there for the next burial. And you would never lack wood for coffins.
You know that, and i know it as well. However, some gangsta-wannabe might be ignorant until he tries it with your hand. And no, he won't return the hand to you.
So, in the future fingerprint scanners will check for heat, pulse, whatever. You know that, i know that. The robber who just cut off your finger will learn it soon, but your finger is still cut off.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to work with both on my job and I prefer XP. Vista seems to be designed for complete newbies, i.e. many things that a "power user" needs are not where they used to be but hidden somewhere where only a noob would look :).
Other features that I grew used to are simply not available at all in Vista. The single network connectivity icon in the system tray for example is nice for ordinary users, but a techie may actually prefer separate icons for LAN, WiFi and VPN. I know that I do at least. And don't get me started on stuff like the copying bug pre SP1.
You can tamper with paper easily, that's why everything except the marking of the ballot has to happen in public (checking that the ballot box is empty in the morning, locked and sealed during the day and that nobody except legitimate voters throw anything into it. The counting also happens in public under the eyes of representatives of all parties. Thus it would be easy to manipulate the election, but it would be just as easy to spot the fraud happening.
But how do you know just what happens inside a computer? Can a voter really be sure that the results where not pre-programmed?
Seriously, how about voting on modified Point of Sales systems? You press a button (no fancy touchscreens, real buttons with labels next to them), the machine spits out a slip of paper with your vote on it. You check the vote, if there should be an error, the friendly shop assistant uses her key to cancel your vote. If everything is OK, you drop the slip of paper (let's call it "ballot") into the usual sealed box.
Once the election is over, the machine spits out the tally.
In a random 10% sample of all voting places, the paper ballots are counted manually. For every polling station where there is a discrepancy between the electronic tally and the manual recount, recounts will be performed in two more polling stations. In cases of doubt, the paper ballot counts overules the electronic tally.
If anybody feels the need, they can organize a manual recount in specific places. Either they count themselves (under supervision) or they pay to have the ballots counted manually.
How is a fancy sword in WoW different from a hotel on Broadway in Monopoly?
If you follow the link on the memo "Learn more about the changes on eBay.com.au"
You will learn that from 17 June on:
All items appearing on eBay.com.au must be paid for using either:
- PayPal
- Visa/Mastercard (with transactions processed
by PayPal)
- Pay on pick up (i.e. paid for when picking up the item)
No other payment methods will be accepted.
I fully agree.
A while ago, I heard a speech from a lawyer who described such a rubber-stamp case:
The police found an unlabeled DVD on a person (never mind how and why). This was taken as a proof that the person was dealing with warez, so his house (actually his parent's house) was searched. This case probably made a few waves, because the father was an important local politician.
Maybe your native speaker should have taken the time to read the text. "initial suspicion" would not be enough. At the very least, facts have to point to a specific danger to peoples life, the very existence of the state (überragend wichtige Rechtsgüter) and such. I. e. "We are certain he is up to no good" is not enough, but "Here is proof that he bought explosives" would be. Die heimliche Infiltration eines informationstechnischen Systems ist grundsätzlich unter den Vorbehalt richterlicher Anordnung zu stellen. This means you need a judges order to secretly infiltrate a computer.
>Give me 5 minutes alone with a ballot box, and I promise you a surprising shift in votes for that precinct.
And why on earth should you ever be alone with the ballot box? Not to mention that the box should be locked and sealed anyway.
After the last voter has voted and the polling station closes, you dump the ballots on a large table and start counting. Everyone is allowed to stay and watch: party representatives, concerned citizens, international observers...
You can even add a surveillance camera or three.
The security of paper based voting stems from procedures. If you count behind closed doors, it is of course insecure.
Around here, after the polling station is closed for voting, they open the box and count the votes right in the same room where the voting happened. And everyone is free to stay and watch.
Seriously, why would anybody admit any crime/policy violation just because someone claims it would be anonymous?
When Adam Carson, an associate at Morgan Stanley, first began pushing the use of Web 2.0 tools, he faced a major obstacle in the New York-based investment bank's 10,000-member IT department. "Most of our IT department didn't get it," he said. "This was all new to them. They had just been stuck in the world of enterprise IT."
... people liked using them."
So, the IT department would have prefered to do their job (enterprise IT) instead of building something just to use the tools.
However, he said he worked closely with IT team members to convince them of the merits of Web 2.0, which led them to implement Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) technologies, a key requirement for building and supporting Web 2.0 tools
He didn't stop nagging until they told an intern to cobble something together and paint the relevant acronyms in two feet letters on it.
Once IT was convinced of the value of Web 2.0, he said, the organization was "really good at making sure that [systems] worked really well and didn't break, but they weren't really good at making sure
So, people don't use the new-fangled stuff. Obviously this is the fault of IT, and not because they don't see the need.
Carson noted that the company now has about 80 Web 2.0 projects under way, including an effort to create social networks for its clients.
Now we have 80 unused projects. Even our customers refuse to use theirs so far.
During the education process, Carson said he also had to find a manager that would require the use of a Web 2.0 tool for a specific project.
He had an hammer and was looking for a nail. A screw would probably work as well.
That would help spur employees to use the new tools, he noted. The effort also faced cultural resistance from some users clinging to the use of e-mail and other traditional tools rather than switch to new Web 2.0 collaboration tools, he added.
So, with hard work he managed to have something implemented that nobody else thought necessary. Now he is looking for a way to make the users use it.
"We had a situation where an employee sent a communication via e-mail that was inconsistent with our corporate policy"
Said policy probably states that such communication should never happen over a traceable and archivable medium.
Okay, let's call it a ballot.
Regarding recounts: A "recount on demand" is of course a possibility. Maybe you would have to provide the manpower and/or pay for a judge to observe the recount. Feel free to add your own ideas.
The trick is, it paper receipt IS the vote, at least if there is a manual recount.
So if you take it out, you are literally throwing your vote away.
- Vote with a computer interface
- the computer stores your vote
- you get a receipt how you voted
- you check and fold the receipt and drop it into a sealed box.
After the election ends, the computer spits out the results.
In randomly selected polling places, the paper receipts get counted manually. If there are major differences, more polling stations will be selected for a manual count.
I don't even know if there was ever a study on this subject. I got the number from a pediatrician.
Anyway, I recall a homework session about blood types with a friend, who had a bad case of non-matching paternal blood. Fun times.
Doctors calculate that about 5-10% of all children have a different biological father than they (and their "social" fathers) think.
"The survey found that more than one-third of IT professionals admit..."
I find that hard to believe.
I think one could combine the "graveyard" and "plant a tree" ideas. Imagine a traditional graveyard (maybe a bit spacier) with a young oak tree on every grave. After 100 years or so, you cut down the tree, digg out the roots and have a new hole right there for the next burial.
And you would never lack wood for coffins.
So, i take it you ddid not read the grand-parent post?d =18769185
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231129&ci
Here is a video (speech and presentation) about enhancing conventional senses and adding new ones by implanting magnets.
Can someone enlight me, why one vote out of 5 was deciding and the others who voted the same way are not?
This video (and many more) is also available as a torrent:v ideo/mp4/22C3-videos-incomplete-20050423-torrents/
http://media.ccc.de/filez/congress/2005/lectures/
You know that, and i know it as well. However, some gangsta-wannabe might be ignorant until he tries it with your hand. And no, he won't return the hand to you.
So, in the future fingerprint scanners will check for heat, pulse, whatever. You know that, i know that. The robber who just cut off your finger will learn it soon, but your finger is still cut off.