I'm confused. First, you quoted the pro-Kerry in 'Bush' precincts discrepancies, then the pro-Bush in 'Kerry' precincts. Are you telling me both sides were rigging votes? Or that the counting is so bad that it was failed in both parties' favors? Or what? I'll be honest, when I read that in the article, I put it down as statisticians justifying their findings. Or can you in fact have it both ways...? Second, are you saying that exit polls, when properly designed and executed, are accurate enough to dispense with the ballot count? In other words, are you mad, or just blinded? Just count the ballots. Verify the electronic count. Do the election, stupid. Ohio needs a working election system. I'm glad I don't live there. sheesh. Next thing, you'll be recommending we have a TV show to elect our next President. Oh. Nevermind. That's been tried. rick
What is confusing? The exert I just gave you accounts for any bias pro or anti Kerry/Bush. You don't merely "justify" your findings in a peer-reviewed article. If someone disagrees, you are free to disagree as long as your disagreement makes sense.
Exit polls predicted the outcome of the presidency up until 2000. So yes, up until 2000, the exit polls could have told you who should be president, but mysteriously after that the exit polls weren't accurate.
I agree, let's verify the voting process. Maybe start with a paper trail, let's do something. Right now there is little versight for voting. The only real oversight we have - exit polling - shows that voting is probably fraudulent.
What we need is more definitive proof besides the assessment of hundreds of mathematicians and statisticians.
The analysis shows that even if exit poll response bias is assumed to have occurred:
WPD significance levels for precinct #27 and #25 remain statistically impossible; and although
precinct #4 becomes more believable, precinct #48 then becomes statistically impossible, and
an unexplained WPD pattern, going from significant pro-Kerry discrepancy in Bush partisan
precincts to significant pro-Bush discrepancy in Kerry partisan precincts, remains; and
30% of Ohio exit-polled precincts still have significant unexplained exit poll discrepancy.
Keep in mind that exit polling is used in places around the world like Ukraine to determine election fraud. I assume you think election fraud was used in Ukraine? If so you can thank exit polling. When analyzed correctly, ie by mathematicians, statisticians and people who practically invented the exit poll, like Mitofsky, exit polling is very accurate and you in fact rely on exit polling(Think Ukraine, etc).
Exit polls as a check on election fraud. What a joke! BAHAHAHAHAHA!
If he wants to sell an honest analysis he should give the book an honest title.
You can't judge a book by its cover, but I can't waste my time reading every single book out there just to find out whether or not it's been mistitled either.
The study found counties with e-voting tended to tilt toward Bush, even after controlling for differences between counties including past voting history, income, percentage of Hispanic voters, voter turnout, and county size.
Then there are peer-reviewed studies from statisticians and mathematicians which show "Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount" in Ohio's 2004 elections.
Here's an exerpt:
Ohios exit poll discrepancy pattern includes three precincts with virtually impossible outcomes and an unusually high number of precincts with significant discrepancy.1
"They assume computers are more secure than paper because they don't understand them."
What do you mean they assume. They know damn well they're not secure, why do you think "they"(we all know which party we're referring to) don't want a paper trail?
Yes, let's wake up and give credit where it's due.
My favorite memory of the police was when I was in a small town in PA, chatting softly with a diverse group of friends, Greek, French, Moroccan, German, you name it.. at 1am. A cop pulled up and said, "Go home!" I said, "excuse me?" He then yelled in a voice full of adrenaline, "GO HOME!" Then I had to explain to my guests how we live in a free country while we went home.
I really hate cops. To me they're the fun killers. I've always played by the rules but it seems that when I've stepped out and did something crazy like talk to people at 1am, some pi^h^hcop is there to make sure I don't have a good time. Their pretext "is to keep everyone safe." That's how you lose liberties, "to protect our freedums."
Now I'm married and I don't have to deal with that, but I have no respect for cops. I've also in my pre-married years, managed to live in Europe where I found cops to be kinda cool for the most part and no one bothered you if you did something sinful like try to have a good innocent time.
techniques... I know what they're doing for ad sense. They look for anomolies. You have a campaign c(1) running on sites s(1)...s(n). You are site s(j) where 1=j=n. if the ctr for c(1) across all sites s(1)...s(n) deviates by a certain amount compared to the ctr of c(1) on your site s(j), you are out of there. You can improve this by evaluating more campaigns per site. They also do this in reverse, or if they don't, they should. It's simple but effective. When you complicate it like this paper suggests it will get worse IMO. In fact I think that google makes it more complicated than what I have described hence their problem. The only way around this anti-fraud technique is to inflate impressions to keep CTR reasonable. But you can crack impression inflation since it requires a huge number of impressions thus more opportunities to detect fraud (wow, 10% of the impressions are from the same IP / cookied user).
I went to an evil hippy commune school until middle school. We didn't get grades, called our teachers by their first names and we went on a lot of field trips. And I turned out pretty good. I started my own business and I can't complain. It really depends on the kid, sometimes your typical rigid school structure doesn't quite work well.
But if they are considered alive, I can only imagine what kind of twisted tax evasion or money laundering will occurs
True.. Let's say you freeze yourself to collect interest while you're frozen, becoming rich after 100 yeras. What if that interest is taxed every year and the person you asked to pay your taxes dies during that 100 years? Then the IRS gets upset at these unpaid taxes, how will they handle that? I imagine a company can be established to take care of your estate, but what if that company fails. Can the IRS unfreeze you to demand payment, garnish your earnings?
Just wait until Intellectual Ventures(IV) starts suing. Keep in mind Google and others have 'paid off' this patent troll. We shall see what everyone's truly made of when IV goes on a suing rampage. Worst case, IV sues people for obvious patents they bought, google and others get off scott free, the rest of us must pay bribe money to IV. Best case, IV goes down in flames, but I don't see that as happening, the founder nrrhrnrh or whatver his name is will not go down without a fight. He thinks he's not a patent troll, but others who are against him "hate intellectual property." Reminds me of people who "hate america" because they don't agree with you.
That is laughable at best. How about google's "monopolistic" practice of disallowing ad sense publishers from using competing ad networks which target ads based on the content of your page.
Keep in mind he is the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. He should understand net neutrality better than voters. He represents voters who are too busy with their daily lives to sift through all the laws. He should be working full time to help govern this country, learning about laws, regulations and making educated decisions. He better know how the net works.
Your ignorant words accomplish nothing except make you look like an idiot. Just save your breath, shut up, vote against net neutrality, and take your bribe money like a good little corrupt politician.
IV and their ilk really disgust me. I've been using Hibernate for over a year and I admire their hard work and amazing code. I've been able to architect something and build it a) cheaply and b) timely. Thanks to Hibernate. Then some jerkoffs come along and try to reclaim success they never had. I'm wondering how the plaintiffs and their lawyers can sleep at night, knowing they're pond scum and haven't contributed anything to this world except for crybaby litigation. We should let the plaintiffs know how low we think they are. This happens too often, where is the outcry and action. Let's shame these people, find out who they are, and let everyone know who these trolls are.
Requirements for being in this police force include an aversion to shaving, showering and doing laundry. Punishment will involve rubbing the face of violators with the dirtiest beard in the police force.
Plenty of entrenched players out there are already doing this. CJ for one, plenty of others are doing it. Technology-wise, the tough part is correlating the action pixel w/ the click. You can use 3rd party cookies but good luck with that one, you end up having to jump through some hoops which I'm too familiar with.
Also, real soon Google will learn that they will have to significantly change things regarding publisher and advertiser management and how they currently don't see eachother. The days of getting a blank check and not knowing where the money came from will be gone, it's only a matter of time until they realize this. Then there's the chargebacks, returns. In the meantime google will get stuck with a huge bill, they're basically sheltering all the risk. Kiss that beautiful ad rotation bye bye. I'd give out more info but I don't wanna help an evil corporation.
If they weren't public then they could just not worry about the Chinese market and be happy with their current market and excursions to St Tropez.
And by not working with authoritarian regimes, today's generation of consumer will notice that and Google would be rewarded in the long term.
If a competitor arises from the Chinese market then they would have a hard time penetrating the US market given this hypothetical Google's awesome reputation.
This all assumes that consumers notice these things, and they do. The reson why people think consumers don't care about ethics is because we don't give them the chance. When you buy something at Walmart, the "made in China" label is hard to find if it's even there. Walmart doesn't like to tell you about their overseas operations and where products come from.
Or look at the fight that consumers had to wage against Monsanto et al for food labeling. Now that consumers won that battle, we have better labeling on our food and organic foods are all the rage, creating _more_ markets and furthering ethical capitalism.
Consumers aren't given full information. When consumers have information, then things get scary for big entrenches corporations who want to hide behind the curtains while collecting the profits.
Which is why thanks to the net and ideas, ethical capitalism is the Next Big Thing IMO. People like Craig have already learned this.
Since Google is public and investors expect growth, your only option is to do what Google is currently doing, which is why I have a habit of leaving companies before they go public. I don't see that as sustainable personally.
Public companies must make their shareholders happy, privately owned companies like Craigslist have obligations only to themselves. Does ol' Craig need $500 billion? He can probably deal with a cool million or so a year and the peace of mind knowing that he hasn't contributed to evil and doesn't have to justify / make excuses for contributions to evil.
If Craig's list charged money to advertisers in order to 'fight spam' with annoying ads then I'm sure we would all get upset, but seeing as everyone at Craig's list is making enough money to afford their own lifestyles(vs affording lifestyles of shareholders), I don't see that happening.
This reminds me of my wife's family who is dealing with inheriting a large sum of money to the tune of millions USD. Her crazy uncle has managed to collect all the money for himself by forging signatures, lies and in general being a crazy man. No one wants to associate with him yet he has all this money now. My wife's mother and father refuse to chase after the money and call it 'dirty money'. Sure the uncle can now afford nice boats, college tuition, but what good is all of that if you have no friends, you have to justify yourself 24/7 and you have no peace of mind?
I have never met Craig but I'm sure he's a calm guy, meanwhile Sergey is busy justifying his business in China.
Chinese citizens have their own ways around the filters, and besides, it's filtered no matter what, the question is who does the filtering.
When their revolution happens thanks in part to ethical companies not condoning the Chinese government's authoritarian actions, then you can have pure unfettered access to the Chinese consumer. Of course, with companies like Google collaborating with authoritarian governments like the one in China, the revolution will probably never happen.
It's a tough concept to grasp but sometimes money isn't everything. At least Sergey is now realistic about the old "Do no evil" mantra but it's pretty sad to hear effectively, "Yes, we are filtering content for the Chinese government but... " I and I think many others stop when we hear rationalizations. Yeah it's a lot of money but consumers are waking up and paying attention. Google is helping an authoritarian government control its citizens, I don't want to hear rationalizations. Corporations need to start weighing in "ethical capitalism" costs. Sure the profits might be huge now but when you weigh in the ethical costs, those profits aren't so large.
The key to this consumer awarness is information. We can easily learn about sweatshops thanks to the internet. We can learn about content filtering thanks to the internet. We can learn about AT&T splicing fiber for the NSA thanks to the internet.
You can no longer rationalize and use advertising and PR as effectively as before, consumers are less ignorant./end rant
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. First, you quoted the pro-Kerry in 'Bush' precincts discrepancies, then the pro-Bush in 'Kerry' precincts. Are you telling me both sides were rigging votes? Or that the counting is so bad that it was failed in both parties' favors? Or what? I'll be honest, when I read that in the article, I put it down as statisticians justifying their findings. Or can you in fact have it both ways...? Second, are you saying that exit polls, when properly designed and executed, are accurate enough to dispense with the ballot count? In other words, are you mad, or just blinded? Just count the ballots. Verify the electronic count. Do the election, stupid. Ohio needs a working election system. I'm glad I don't live there. sheesh. Next thing, you'll be recommending we have a TV show to elect our next President. Oh. Nevermind. That's been tried. rick
What is confusing? The exert I just gave you accounts for any bias pro or anti Kerry/Bush. You don't merely "justify" your findings in a peer-reviewed article. If someone disagrees, you are free to disagree as long as your disagreement makes sense.
Exit polls predicted the outcome of the presidency up until 2000. So yes, up until 2000, the exit polls could have told you who should be president, but mysteriously after that the exit polls weren't accurate.
I agree, let's verify the voting process. Maybe start with a paper trail, let's do something. Right now there is little versight for voting. The only real oversight we have - exit polling - shows that voting is probably fraudulent.
What we need is more definitive proof besides the assessment of hundreds of mathematicians and statisticians.
Interesting stuff ... (only on slashdot ;)
This addresses your point:
The analysis shows that even if exit poll response bias is assumed to have occurred:
- WPD significance levels for precinct #27 and #25 remain statistically impossible; and although
precinct #4 becomes more believable, precinct #48 then becomes statistically impossible, and
- an unexplained WPD pattern, going from significant pro-Kerry discrepancy in Bush partisan
precincts to significant pro-Bush discrepancy in Kerry partisan precincts, remains; and
- 30% of Ohio exit-polled precincts still have significant unexplained exit poll discrepancy.
Keep in mind that exit polling is used in places around the world like Ukraine to determine election fraud. I assume you think election fraud was used in Ukraine? If so you can thank exit polling. When analyzed correctly, ie by mathematicians, statisticians and people who practically invented the exit poll, like Mitofsky, exit polling is very accurate and you in fact rely on exit polling(Think Ukraine, etc).Exit polls as a check on election fraud. What a joke! BAHAHAHAHAHA!
Indeed, quite a joke.
Here is the visual basic code in question.
If he wants to sell an honest analysis he should give the book an honest title.
You can't judge a book by its cover, but I can't waste my time reading every single book out there just to find out whether or not it's been mistitled either.
What about studies from social scientists from UC Berkeley?
The study found counties with e-voting tended to tilt toward Bush, even after controlling for differences between counties including past voting history, income, percentage of Hispanic voters, voter turnout, and county size.
Then there are peer-reviewed studies from statisticians and mathematicians which show "Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount" in Ohio's 2004 elections.
Here's an exerpt:
Ohios exit poll discrepancy pattern includes three precincts with virtually impossible outcomes and an
unusually high number of precincts with significant discrepancy.1
"They assume computers are more secure than paper because they don't understand them."
What do you mean they assume. They know damn well they're not secure, why do you think "they"(we all know which party we're referring to) don't want a paper trail?
Yes, let's wake up and give credit where it's due.
My favorite memory of the police was when I was in a small town in PA, chatting softly with a diverse group of friends, Greek, French, Moroccan, German, you name it.. at 1am. A cop pulled up and said, "Go home!" I said, "excuse me?" He then yelled in a voice full of adrenaline, "GO HOME!" Then I had to explain to my guests how we live in a free country while we went home.
I really hate cops. To me they're the fun killers. I've always played by the rules but it seems that when I've stepped out and did something crazy like talk to people at 1am, some pi^h^hcop is there to make sure I don't have a good time. Their pretext "is to keep everyone safe." That's how you lose liberties, "to protect our freedums."
Now I'm married and I don't have to deal with that, but I have no respect for cops. I've also in my pre-married years, managed to live in Europe where I found cops to be kinda cool for the most part and no one bothered you if you did something sinful like try to have a good innocent time.
techniques... I know what they're doing for ad sense. They look for anomolies. You have a campaign c(1) running on sites s(1)...s(n). You are site s(j) where 1=j=n. if the ctr for c(1) across all sites s(1)...s(n) deviates by a certain amount compared to the ctr of c(1) on your site s(j), you are out of there. You can improve this by evaluating more campaigns per site. They also do this in reverse, or if they don't, they should. It's simple but effective. When you complicate it like this paper suggests it will get worse IMO. In fact I think that google makes it more complicated than what I have described hence their problem. The only way around this anti-fraud technique is to inflate impressions to keep CTR reasonable. But you can crack impression inflation since it requires a huge number of impressions thus more opportunities to detect fraud (wow, 10% of the impressions are from the same IP / cookied user).
Looks like I gave out the secret sauce.
I noticed that. I think we need more OCaml tools.. OCaml MVC, hibernate for OCaml, etc. I'll get right on that in my copious free time. ;)
I went to an evil hippy commune school until middle school. We didn't get grades, called our teachers by their first names and we went on a lot of field trips. And I turned out pretty good. I started my own business and I can't complain. It really depends on the kid, sometimes your typical rigid school structure doesn't quite work well.
But if they are considered alive, I can only imagine what kind of twisted tax evasion or money laundering will occurs
True.. Let's say you freeze yourself to collect interest while you're frozen, becoming rich after 100 yeras. What if that interest is taxed every year and the person you asked to pay your taxes dies during that 100 years? Then the IRS gets upset at these unpaid taxes, how will they handle that? I imagine a company can be established to take care of your estate, but what if that company fails. Can the IRS unfreeze you to demand payment, garnish your earnings?
Just wait until Intellectual Ventures(IV) starts suing. Keep in mind Google and others have 'paid off' this patent troll. We shall see what everyone's truly made of when IV goes on a suing rampage. Worst case, IV sues people for obvious patents they bought, google and others get off scott free, the rest of us must pay bribe money to IV. Best case, IV goes down in flames, but I don't see that as happening, the founder nrrhrnrh or whatver his name is will not go down without a fight. He thinks he's not a patent troll, but others who are against him "hate intellectual property." Reminds me of people who "hate america" because they don't agree with you.
I agree with you. Google can also make any policy it wants and totally ban ebay from google's search listings.
That is laughable at best. How about google's "monopolistic" practice of disallowing ad sense publishers from using competing ad networks which target ads based on the content of your page.
Keep in mind he is the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. He should understand net neutrality better than voters. He represents voters who are too busy with their daily lives to sift through all the laws. He should be working full time to help govern this country, learning about laws, regulations and making educated decisions. He better know how the net works.
Senator Ted Stevens,
Your ignorant words accomplish nothing except make you look like an idiot. Just save your breath, shut up, vote against net neutrality, and take your bribe money like a good little corrupt politician.
IV and their ilk really disgust me. I've been using Hibernate for over a year and I admire their hard work and amazing code. I've been able to architect something and build it a) cheaply and b) timely. Thanks to Hibernate. Then some jerkoffs come along and try to reclaim success they never had. I'm wondering how the plaintiffs and their lawyers can sleep at night, knowing they're pond scum and haven't contributed anything to this world except for crybaby litigation. We should let the plaintiffs know how low we think they are. This happens too often, where is the outcry and action. Let's shame these people, find out who they are, and let everyone know who these trolls are.
Requirements for being in this police force include an aversion to shaving, showering and doing laundry. Punishment will involve rubbing the face of violators with the dirtiest beard in the police force.
Plenty of entrenched players out there are already doing this. CJ for one, plenty of others are doing it. Technology-wise, the tough part is correlating the action pixel w/ the click. You can use 3rd party cookies but good luck with that one, you end up having to jump through some hoops which I'm too familiar with.
Also, real soon Google will learn that they will have to significantly change things regarding publisher and advertiser management and how they currently don't see eachother. The days of getting a blank check and not knowing where the money came from will be gone, it's only a matter of time until they realize this. Then there's the chargebacks, returns. In the meantime google will get stuck with a huge bill, they're basically sheltering all the risk. Kiss that beautiful ad rotation bye bye. I'd give out more info but I don't wanna help an evil corporation.
Nowadays when you try to sneak something like this in the rascally public can learn about it in a matter of minutes. :(
If they weren't public then they could just not worry about the Chinese market and be happy with their current market and excursions to St Tropez.
And by not working with authoritarian regimes, today's generation of consumer will notice that and Google would be rewarded in the long term.
If a competitor arises from the Chinese market then they would have a hard time penetrating the US market given this hypothetical Google's awesome reputation.
This all assumes that consumers notice these things, and they do. The reson why people think consumers don't care about ethics is because we don't give them the chance. When you buy something at Walmart, the "made in China" label is hard to find if it's even there. Walmart doesn't like to tell you about their overseas operations and where products come from.
Or look at the fight that consumers had to wage against Monsanto et al for food labeling. Now that consumers won that battle, we have better labeling on our food and organic foods are all the rage, creating _more_ markets and furthering ethical capitalism.
Consumers aren't given full information. When consumers have information, then things get scary for big entrenches corporations who want to hide behind the curtains while collecting the profits.
Which is why thanks to the net and ideas, ethical capitalism is the Next Big Thing IMO. People like Craig have already learned this.
Since Google is public and investors expect growth, your only option is to do what Google is currently doing, which is why I have a habit of leaving companies before they go public. I don't see that as sustainable personally.
Public companies must make their shareholders happy, privately owned companies like Craigslist have obligations only to themselves. Does ol' Craig need $500 billion? He can probably deal with a cool million or so a year and the peace of mind knowing that he hasn't contributed to evil and doesn't have to justify / make excuses for contributions to evil.
If Craig's list charged money to advertisers in order to 'fight spam' with annoying ads then I'm sure we would all get upset, but seeing as everyone at Craig's list is making enough money to afford their own lifestyles(vs affording lifestyles of shareholders), I don't see that happening.
This reminds me of my wife's family who is dealing with inheriting a large sum of money to the tune of millions USD. Her crazy uncle has managed to collect all the money for himself by forging signatures, lies and in general being a crazy man. No one wants to associate with him yet he has all this money now. My wife's mother and father refuse to chase after the money and call it 'dirty money'. Sure the uncle can now afford nice boats, college tuition, but what good is all of that if you have no friends, you have to justify yourself 24/7 and you have no peace of mind?
I have never met Craig but I'm sure he's a calm guy, meanwhile Sergey is busy justifying his business in China.
"minimally censored"
Thanks for hte laugh.
Chinese citizens have their own ways around the filters, and besides, it's filtered no matter what, the question is who does the filtering.
When their revolution happens thanks in part to ethical companies not condoning the Chinese government's authoritarian actions, then you can have pure unfettered access to the Chinese consumer. Of course, with companies like Google collaborating with authoritarian governments like the one in China, the revolution will probably never happen.
You have swallowed the Google pill so you feel better about your stock options in Google. I understand.
It is black and white, they are making money off of censoring Chinese citizens by collaborating with the Chinese government. This isn't complex.
Maybe Sergey Brin can take some notes.
/end rant
It's a tough concept to grasp but sometimes money isn't everything. At least Sergey is now realistic about the old "Do no evil" mantra but it's pretty sad to hear effectively, "Yes, we are filtering content for the Chinese government but... " I and I think many others stop when we hear rationalizations. Yeah it's a lot of money but consumers are waking up and paying attention. Google is helping an authoritarian government control its citizens, I don't want to hear rationalizations. Corporations need to start weighing in "ethical capitalism" costs. Sure the profits might be huge now but when you weigh in the ethical costs, those profits aren't so large.
The key to this consumer awarness is information. We can easily learn about sweatshops thanks to the internet. We can learn about content filtering thanks to the internet. We can learn about AT&T splicing fiber for the NSA thanks to the internet.
You can no longer rationalize and use advertising and PR as effectively as before, consumers are less ignorant.