And even if you were able to do all of those things to verify your voting system how can you ever be sure that is the software that is actually loaded on to the voting machine unless you do it personally? As you said electronic voting is a solution in search of a problem.
In Oregon you have to sign the outside of the ballot envelope which gets compared to a digitized version of the signature on you voter registration card. That makes it difficult to vote for others without their cooperation. BTW, the ballot itself is in an inner privacy envelope that gets separated from the signature once it is verified.
The solution in the US should be that when you register to vote you should get a registration card that is all the ID you need to vote. Show your card, sign the poll book, your signature gets compared to the one on your registration and you're good to go.
I agree that ballots in the US are much more complex than many places but you don't have to recount all of the races and issues on it, only the one in question so a recount isn't any worse. If more than one ballot item needs a recount they should be separate recounts.
A voting system that produces a hard copy ballot that the voter can personally verify is the gold standard. The problem I have with open source is that how can you know for sure whether or not it is actually what is on the voting machine unless you personally loaded it yourself?
Ah, I didn't realize that. While I pretty much vehemently disagree with you on most subjects I try to make most of my mods on the positive side however it is possible I've given you an Overrated a few times. I find your posts for the most part are neither Trolls nor Flamebait but/. unfortunately doesn't have a Disagree mod that wouldn't affect your karma.
I try to be a pragmatic person and I find most of your posts to be rigidly idealistic with little allowance for pragmatic considerations. I afraid (IIRC) your upbringing in a communist country has poisoned your attitude about government beyond all reason. In the ideals of the founding of the United States government is supposed to be the expression of all of its citizens. I'll admit that government is far from perfect in achieving that goal but I'm not willing to do away with it just because of some shortcomings.
Like it or not we all collectively live on this planet and we have to make accommodations for that fact. Your ideals might work to some extent if the population was significantly under 1 billion but not in the world we live in. As I said your personal freedom ends when it starts impinging on my life and if it takes collective action to prevent that then so be it.
So I guess your solution to global warming is just to live with it and try to adapt. I think that would be very costly in terms of money and lives and that impinges on my life.
If you accept the science but reject the solutions advanced then isn't incumbent on you to come up with another solution? I'm open to anything that will work but doing nothing is not acceptable in my book.
Any addition of CO2 to your experiment will increase the total CO2 in the system. The balance between the amount in the water and the amount in the air will be maintained according to the partial pressure laws so the level will increase in both the water and the air. It may not be exactly the same balance as before because there are other factors but the water won't absorb 100% of the added CO2 under any reasonable scenario.
No global warming does not predict more cold snaps, just that a cold snap alone is not enough to disprove global warming. If you look at the curves in the graph you'll notice that not only has the curve been shifting toward the hot side but it's a bit shorter and wider than it used to be so the chances of heat waves has increased more than the chances of cold snaps had decreased.
Are you saying that Gore personally got that loan or just that a company he is invested in got a loan. If you're referring to the Fisker Automotive loan so far only $193 million has been drawn and the loan has been frozen because milestones were not met. Also I believe all of that money has remained in the US.
But again, what does all of this have to do with the science of global warming? Isn't Gore allowed to invest where he wants to like any other capitalist? Why do so many hate that Al Gore is getting rich but don't care that others do the same thing?
Wow, I never realized that/. limited the number of comments you could make in a day. That's never happened to me but I don't suppose I've ever tried to post more than 20 or 30 comments in a day.
To answer your reply, I realize you are an extreme individualist but as someone once said "Your freedom to swing your fist around ends at my nose." I'm all for individual rights but I also recognize that none of us lives free of the necessity for other people to support our lives, to provide the goods and services that we are unable to provide on our own. There has to be a balance between the needs of the individual and the necessity of having a functioning society to support our needs. If something threatens the functioning of society to the point where it could significantly reduce the quality of life for the individuals in that society then I feel it's reasonable for society to take steps to address that threat even though it may reduce some individuals freedom. Like it or not we're all here together and we have to live with that.
While I'm pretty much with you and the war's on poverty (not a complete failure), drugs, terror and the PATRIOT Act I find nothing abstract with the threat of global warming. So like I said, as an individualist what's your solution if doing nothing is a recipe for disaster?
However, many of the solutions posited are ECONOMIC solutions designed to reduce the amount of CO2 output.
The scientists basic solution is simple. "Stop increasing CO2 in the atmosphere," It's when you try to come up with ways to achieve that goal that you delve into the economic sphere.
As to the global warming, etc., AFAIC this stuff being pushed by various politicians is another way to steal individual freedoms. It's all about taxes, it's all about caps on production, it's all about diminishing personal liberties.
You're putting the cart before the horse. What do proposed solutions have to do with the science behind global warming? If you don't like the proposed solutions then come up with your own but don't deny the science.
I don't get this obsession with Al Gore. He's like a spokesmodel for global warming. Bypass him and go directly to the source. If you're making your decisions about the validity of global warming based on personal animosity you're doing it wrong.
As the Arctic Ocean summer ice declines there is developing evidence it is having an effect on the northern polar jet stream, slowing it down and causing the meanders to get larger. This has the effect of bringing colder weather further south and warmer weather further north and slowing down the speed at which the weather moves through. That would explain why a few years ago when Florida was having freezing weather Greenland was practically balmy.
Aerosols do cause a cooling effect but some of them, in particular carbon black can increase the melting of ice when it settles on it.
Winter extent doesn't change much in the Arctic Ocean because it's constrained by the land around it. The only places it can grow out further is in the Bering Sea and between North America, Greenland and Europe. In contrast the sea ice around Antarctica melts nearly completely every year and reforms the again next year. It doesn't have the opportunity to build up the thick multi-year ice that exists (but not for much longer) in the Arctic Ocean. The difference between an ocean surrounded by land and land surrounded by ocean at the poles.
Of course the Earth is rotating from Alaska toward Greenland, the same way the storm is spinning.
Yup, that's where the natural variability part comes in. The storm broke up some of the ice but it was already set up to be easily broken. That same storm in 1979 wouldn't have had nearly the same effect because the ice was much thicker back then.
No, it's just one more brick in the wall of evidence for global warming. That wall has plenty of bricks in it already.
At the time of the IPCC AR4 report in 2007 the best estimates were that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free sometime after 2040. At the rate we're going it's going to happen before 2020.
There is natural variability but proxy studies of long term sea ice show it's been at least around 8,000 years since sea ice has been this low and more likely over 100,000 years during the last interglacial.
The Sun has been through three 11 year cycles since the first satellite went up in 1979 and there's not much correlation between it and sea ice in the record. Volcanoes would normally have a cooling effect and I'm not aware that there has been a significant increase in volcanic activity anyway.
The sea ice trends have been steadily downwards during the satellite era especially during the past 6 years as shown by the graphs on this page.
Slashdot Mirror
And even if you were able to do all of those things to verify your voting system how can you ever be sure that is the software that is actually loaded on to the voting machine unless you do it personally? As you said electronic voting is a solution in search of a problem.
In Oregon you have to sign the outside of the ballot envelope which gets compared to a digitized version of the signature on you voter registration card. That makes it difficult to vote for others without their cooperation. BTW, the ballot itself is in an inner privacy envelope that gets separated from the signature once it is verified.
The solution in the US should be that when you register to vote you should get a registration card that is all the ID you need to vote. Show your card, sign the poll book, your signature gets compared to the one on your registration and you're good to go.
I agree that ballots in the US are much more complex than many places but you don't have to recount all of the races and issues on it, only the one in question so a recount isn't any worse. If more than one ballot item needs a recount they should be separate recounts.
A voting system that produces a hard copy ballot that the voter can personally verify is the gold standard. The problem I have with open source is that how can you know for sure whether or not it is actually what is on the voting machine unless you personally loaded it yourself?
But the President (and Executive Branch as a whole) does (usually) have considerable leeway in interpreting how to apply those laws.
Churches are people my friend! ;)
Ah, I didn't realize that. While I pretty much vehemently disagree with you on most subjects I try to make most of my mods on the positive side however it is possible I've given you an Overrated a few times. I find your posts for the most part are neither Trolls nor Flamebait but /. unfortunately doesn't have a Disagree mod that wouldn't affect your karma.
I try to be a pragmatic person and I find most of your posts to be rigidly idealistic with little allowance for pragmatic considerations. I afraid (IIRC) your upbringing in a communist country has poisoned your attitude about government beyond all reason. In the ideals of the founding of the United States government is supposed to be the expression of all of its citizens. I'll admit that government is far from perfect in achieving that goal but I'm not willing to do away with it just because of some shortcomings.
Like it or not we all collectively live on this planet and we have to make accommodations for that fact. Your ideals might work to some extent if the population was significantly under 1 billion but not in the world we live in. As I said your personal freedom ends when it starts impinging on my life and if it takes collective action to prevent that then so be it.
So I guess your solution to global warming is just to live with it and try to adapt. I think that would be very costly in terms of money and lives and that impinges on my life.
If you accept the science but reject the solutions advanced then isn't incumbent on you to come up with another solution? I'm open to anything that will work but doing nothing is not acceptable in my book.
Any addition of CO2 to your experiment will increase the total CO2 in the system. The balance between the amount in the water and the amount in the air will be maintained according to the partial pressure laws so the level will increase in both the water and the air. It may not be exactly the same balance as before because there are other factors but the water won't absorb 100% of the added CO2 under any reasonable scenario.
No global warming does not predict more cold snaps, just that a cold snap alone is not enough to disprove global warming. If you look at the curves in the graph you'll notice that not only has the curve been shifting toward the hot side but it's a bit shorter and wider than it used to be so the chances of heat waves has increased more than the chances of cold snaps had decreased.
A masterful example of Poe's Law. I can't tell if you're serious or satirical.
Are you saying that Gore personally got that loan or just that a company he is invested in got a loan. If you're referring to the Fisker Automotive loan so far only $193 million has been drawn and the loan has been frozen because milestones were not met. Also I believe all of that money has remained in the US.
But again, what does all of this have to do with the science of global warming? Isn't Gore allowed to invest where he wants to like any other capitalist? Why do so many hate that Al Gore is getting rich but don't care that others do the same thing?
Wow, I never realized that /. limited the number of comments you could make in a day. That's never happened to me but I don't suppose I've ever tried to post more than 20 or 30 comments in a day.
To answer your reply, I realize you are an extreme individualist but as someone once said "Your freedom to swing your fist around ends at my nose." I'm all for individual rights but I also recognize that none of us lives free of the necessity for other people to support our lives, to provide the goods and services that we are unable to provide on our own. There has to be a balance between the needs of the individual and the necessity of having a functioning society to support our needs. If something threatens the functioning of society to the point where it could significantly reduce the quality of life for the individuals in that society then I feel it's reasonable for society to take steps to address that threat even though it may reduce some individuals freedom. Like it or not we're all here together and we have to live with that.
While I'm pretty much with you and the war's on poverty (not a complete failure), drugs, terror and the PATRIOT Act I find nothing abstract with the threat of global warming. So like I said, as an individualist what's your solution if doing nothing is a recipe for disaster?
However, many of the solutions posited are ECONOMIC solutions designed to reduce the amount of CO2 output.
The scientists basic solution is simple. "Stop increasing CO2 in the atmosphere," It's when you try to come up with ways to achieve that goal that you delve into the economic sphere.
As to the global warming, etc., AFAIC this stuff being pushed by various politicians is another way to steal individual freedoms. It's all about taxes, it's all about caps on production, it's all about diminishing personal liberties.
You're putting the cart before the horse. What do proposed solutions have to do with the science behind global warming? If you don't like the proposed solutions then come up with your own but don't deny the science.
I don't get this obsession with Al Gore. He's like a spokesmodel for global warming. Bypass him and go directly to the source. If you're making your decisions about the validity of global warming based on personal animosity you're doing it wrong.
As the Arctic Ocean summer ice declines there is developing evidence it is having an effect on the northern polar jet stream, slowing it down and causing the meanders to get larger. This has the effect of bringing colder weather further south and warmer weather further north and slowing down the speed at which the weather moves through. That would explain why a few years ago when Florida was having freezing weather Greenland was practically balmy.
Aerosols do cause a cooling effect but some of them, in particular carbon black can increase the melting of ice when it settles on it.
Winter extent doesn't change much in the Arctic Ocean because it's constrained by the land around it. The only places it can grow out further is in the Bering Sea and between North America, Greenland and Europe. In contrast the sea ice around Antarctica melts nearly completely every year and reforms the again next year. It doesn't have the opportunity to build up the thick multi-year ice that exists (but not for much longer) in the Arctic Ocean. The difference between an ocean surrounded by land and land surrounded by ocean at the poles.
Of course the Earth is rotating from Alaska toward Greenland, the same way the storm is spinning.
Yup, that's where the natural variability part comes in. The storm broke up some of the ice but it was already set up to be easily broken. That same storm in 1979 wouldn't have had nearly the same effect because the ice was much thicker back then.
No, it's just one more brick in the wall of evidence for global warming. That wall has plenty of bricks in it already.
At the time of the IPCC AR4 report in 2007 the best estimates were that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free sometime after 2040. At the rate we're going it's going to happen before 2020.
There is natural variability but proxy studies of long term sea ice show it's been at least around 8,000 years since sea ice has been this low and more likely over 100,000 years during the last interglacial.
The Sun has been through three 11 year cycles since the first satellite went up in 1979 and there's not much correlation between it and sea ice in the record. Volcanoes would normally have a cooling effect and I'm not aware that there has been a significant increase in volcanic activity anyway.
The sea ice trends have been steadily downwards during the satellite era especially during the past 6 years as shown by the graphs on this page.
Actually I think that's from Animal Farm.
Increased rainfall isn't helpful if it come at you as 2 months of drought then 5 inches of rain in one day.
The lawsuit is a reactive solution, not proactive. It's a remedy to the problem after it occurs.