If solar power is the cheapest energy source on earth then there would be no need for this "irrespective of cost" provision. They admitted that solar power is expensive RIGHT ON THE BALLOT for the voters to see.
That phrase was added by AZ Attorney General Mark Brnovich at the request of energy company Arizona Public Service. Quid pro quo.
This conflict of interest is being publicized every day in Arizona. I don't even live there, nor do I have a dog in this fight. How do I know this and you don't?
Please. Try harder next time. Do your research. Or at least be a better troll.
Do not role your own solution. You're effectively crippling your org once you leave. Which will eventually happen.
I've done IT for small non-profits. Used both Access, FileMaker Pro. The third party apps targeting non profits range from okay to terrible. Biggest challenge is customizations and forward porting that crap. No different than orgs which customized bugzilla and then had rework when a new bugzilla comes out.
What we're doing now is moving to SalesForce. It's free for small non-profits.
I'm ambivalent about features and so forth. But hopefully the larger community of SalesForce talent will make future continuity easier.
One big win will be the ecosystem of add-ons. My current org is excited about using the CRM features to improve engagement with clients and donors. The kind of crap I really don't want to write myself, yet again.
Yea? How's a court of law sit with you? The election results in New Mexico 2004 were fraudulent. Here's the link to Voter Action's lawsuit.
Were the machines actually hacked, as in malicious intent? Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Kind of hard to prove when there's no physical evidence. Either way, wrong is wrong. Whether be default or by design. Kerry still got more votes than Bush in New Mexico. Yet Bush was awarded the electoral votes.
it's possible to show that there's examples of superior electronic systems
Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
Our opponents are not interested in reality. Data, facts, logic, reason be damned.
These are the culture wars. The battle lines have been drawn. Long ago. One side wants the best outcome for the most people. The other side wants to win. At all costs.
I don't mean to be catty, but where have you been these last 30 years, especially the 8 years of Bush The Lesser?
As a progressive I used to think that we could all sit down, have a reasonable chat, sort all this shit out. Fail at that enough times, and you'll (hopefully) learn that the only thing the troglodytes respect is power. It's distasteful. But the alternative is plutocracy, theologians, and the continued descent downwards.
Hey. Given your experience, I have an off topic question for you.
What are the prospects for ceramic internal combustion engines?
When I was a kid, I read in Scientific American that future cars will likely have ceramic engine blocks. Being air cooled, they'd be more simple and smaller. Being ceramic, the fuel would be burned hotter and so more efficiently. So these ceramic engines would be 1/3rd the size for the same horsepower and burn cleaner.
Alas. Here we are today.
I went back and found that issue of SciAm in the library. From that and other reading, I gather that the two production methods have serious shortcomings. Sintering hasn't been worked out for forms that large. And drilling would be huge expensive and probably leave defects in the material (e.g. cylinder walls).
I did find one news item where the US Navy was buying ceramic engines for unmanned vehicals. It sounded like a turbine engine, vs internal combustion.
Any news, insights, tips you could offer would be great.
Layers complicate programming and create bugs? Really? As in, "the whole modular programming thing is just a fad"? If these guys can actually honestly claim that they program better in the big ball of mud paradigm, they must be super-geniuses, and trying to collaborate would be impossible for the normal geek anyway.
modules != layers
I'm a huge fan of removing extraneous abstractions, layers, extension points, gratuitous use of design patterns, silly third party libraries, etc.
In my experience, API designers biff the modeling (abstraction) and then try to hide the problems with ever more shims and layers.
Examples of my counterculture designs include DesignGridLayout, flogger, and LOX.
Alas, programmers are unimpressed by simple solutions and persist in using productivity slashing and mind gelling albatrosses.
Re:Software Projects vs. Traditional Projects
on
Why New Systems Fail
·
· Score: 1
A/E/C (architecture, engineering, construction) is nothing like software development.
Software is far more complex than construction. Complex, as in information content, as in how many decisions must be made. Bridges are described with a few 100 construction drawings and some supporting text.
Construction is a far more constrained problem space, compared to software. Physics (engineering), construction materials, site location, application, and building codes pretty much predetermine what any given bridge is going to look like. A civil engineer spends most of their time "finding" the bridge design that satisfies all the constraints (a search problem). They get all excited over green field projects, because there's more room to play (e.g. highways rebuilt after St Helens blew up).
Construction design has regular checkpoints (e.g. 30, 60, 90, 100% submittals) for full client review. Iterative development in software is the exception, not the rule. When things get tough, it always degenerates into the waterfall "model".
The points previously made about transparency (open source) and quality of requirements also apply.
Interesting article. Wouldn't it be neat if we could find the paper in question?
Here's my feedback to editor@sciencedaily.com
Hi!
ScienceDaily.com is a web site. I know it's a novel idea, but you may want to consider provding a WEB LINK to the research paper you're discussing. Failing that -- I know, HTML is HARD -- maybe mention the names of the researchers/authors, their department, the title of the study, or SOME identifying information. These thoughtful "extra credit" measures would enable us lowly readers to use our initiative to do follow-up reading.
With no intentional irony, the foot at the bottom of your stories explain how to cite Science Daily.
If by "HUGE voter turnout", you mean systematically disenfranchises voters and causes a long-term decline in voter turnout, then yea, the Oregon system of force mail voting is terrific.
If someone cannot take the time to devote a minimum amount of effort to fill out a ballot properly, perhaps they should not vote at all.
You have exactly no idea what you're talking about.
A mistake, sometimes by the voter, does not mean you lose the right to vote. Just like you don't lose the right to free speech when you just make things up.
I'd like to hear you explain to my grandmother, or a quadriplegic, why their votes won't be counted because they didn't have the necessary skills to color little circles correctly.
Let me explain some things to you, and all the people who modded you up...
My county, King County WA, was manually duplicating 14% of mail ballots during the elections of 2006. That means the votes are copied from the original ballot to a crisp, fresh new ballot, which is then tabulated. Things improved for while. Then our last general election, the dupe rate was over 10%.
Why are ballots duplicated? Because we're a "voter intent" state.
Yes, but why are the ballots duplicated? Because the op-scans (we currently use Diebold's AccuVote OS) can't correctly scan the votes.
Why can't the votes be scanned? A zillion reasons:
- Write-in candidates can't be op-scanned.
- Diebold, who manufacturers the ballots, messes up the printing, so the timing marks aren't in register.
- Poor card stock could be used to produce the ballots.
- The voter used the wrong color of ink or a pencil.
- The voter changed their mind.
- The ballot got mutilated in the mail.
- Etc.
Disenfranchising the minuscule number of people who cannot fill out a paper ballot pails in comparison with the threat posed by computerized voting systems. The ACLU has their priorities all wrong.
OhMyActingHead. You are so wrong, in so many ways, in just this one sentence, I don't know where to begin. In the interests of my blood pressure, I'll limit myself to just three (3) points.
#1 - Disenfranchising any voter is unconstitutional and a felony.
First, you argue that loosing the right to vote is the voter's fault. Then, you dismiss systematic disenfranchisement (due the method of election administration) as no big deal. Which is it?
Further, with our "first past the post" elections, one vote is all it takes. And this is more common than anyone realizes. In King County, every general election for years has had a mandatory recount because the results were so tight. In about 1/2 of the recounts, the official result gets flipped. You may be familiar with our 2004 Governor's race, Gregoire vs Rossi?
#2 - How do you think ballots at central count are counted? Pixies?
Central count, and mail balloting in particular, is the functional equivalent as using touchscreen voting machines.
- No more voter privacy.
- No more public vote count.
- No more auditability.
- Secret vote counting software on proprietary machines.
- No more election integrity.
- Both systems are huge expensive.
- Both systems are unreliable.
#3 - The single most reliable way available today is to count ballots is to use precinct-based optical scanners.
Central count, either with mail balloting or Ohio's proposed system of counting poll ballots at a central location, disenfranchises voters. The biggest reason is because you loose the "second chance" feature. That's the op-scan feature that was disabled in Florida's predominately Democratic, African-American precincts during the 2000 election.
Why the "second chance" feature disabled? Because not allowing voters to correct their mistakes effectively disenfranchises them. And in Florida, if any part of the ballot is unreadable, the whole ballot is tossed. (I don't know what Ohio's rules are.)
---
So, in summary, your opinions in this matter are a) unfortuna
Exactly. Half, if not more, of the geeks in our local Java user group and design patterns study group carry around Mac laptops. I personally ported some native stuff to the Mac, just so I wouldn't have to develop on the company issued Dell laptop (piece of crap).
Everything old is new again. And may I say to the "Web 2.0" and "social network" people: you didn't invent it.
Ditto. In many (most) ways, the transition from BBS to Web was a huge step backwards. HTML+CSS and HTTP blow. It took a long time, using these hacks, to recreate the functionality we had with BBSes. The ubiquity of TCP/IP (connectivity) won the day, but a lot was lost in the switch over.
Slashdot Mirror
The goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2, not boost profits of Wall Street hedge fund managers.
The cost of solar power generation is falling thru the floor. What costs are you worried about? APS's ridiculous markups?
Medicare / Medicaid does nicely, out performing all the private insurance companies. As measured by medical loss ratio, spending, and outcomes.
Your turn.
If solar power is the cheapest energy source on earth then there would be no need for this "irrespective of cost" provision. They admitted that solar power is expensive RIGHT ON THE BALLOT for the voters to see.
That phrase was added by AZ Attorney General Mark Brnovich at the request of energy company Arizona Public Service. Quid pro quo.
https://www.azcentral.com/stor...
https://www.azcentral.com/stor...
This conflict of interest is being publicized every day in Arizona. I don't even live there, nor do I have a dog in this fight. How do I know this and you don't?
Please. Try harder next time. Do your research. Or at least be a better troll.
Do not role your own solution. You're effectively crippling your org once you leave. Which will eventually happen.
I've done IT for small non-profits. Used both Access, FileMaker Pro. The third party apps targeting non profits range from okay to terrible. Biggest challenge is customizations and forward porting that crap. No different than orgs which customized bugzilla and then had rework when a new bugzilla comes out.
What we're doing now is moving to SalesForce. It's free for small non-profits.
http://www.salesforcefoundatio...
I'll let you know how it works out.
I'm ambivalent about features and so forth. But hopefully the larger community of SalesForce talent will make future continuity easier.
One big win will be the ecosystem of add-ons. My current org is excited about using the CRM features to improve engagement with clients and donors. The kind of crap I really don't want to write myself, yet again.
A software architect would know about Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" paper.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
Yea? How's a court of law sit with you? The election results in New Mexico 2004 were fraudulent. Here's the link to Voter Action's lawsuit.
Were the machines actually hacked, as in malicious intent? Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Kind of hard to prove when there's no physical evidence. Either way, wrong is wrong. Whether be default or by design. Kerry still got more votes than Bush in New Mexico. Yet Bush was awarded the electoral votes.
it's possible to show that there's examples of superior electronic systems
Both incorrect and impossible. As this comment upstream notes:
Electronic voting still can't solve a simple thing: To make each vote proven unique and untrackable at the same time.
It's really very simple.
Private voting and public counting.
Secret ballots and transparent elections.
That is only possible with paper ballots. (The ballot box is the secure one way hash.)
Any electronic voting system eliminates both voter privacy and the ability to inspect the results.
Let us say you have an electronic ballot system...
Let us say you shut your air scoop until you learn something about voting systems.
(Turns out even buying "Fair Trade" doesn't mean it can't be from those.)
Citation please. Thanks.
I only buy Fair Trade chocolate. A lot of it. I'll be bummed if it's still harvested by children.
Please tell us when you publish your thesis.
Please. You're making a stink about someone else's personal choice(s)?
I don't want a female proctologist or a male massage practitioner.
Does that make me a misogynist, a misanthrope, both, or neither?
I can't make a generalization of that scope.
There's definitely been stages in the "maturity" of Microsoft. Early Microsoft was uber geek, for sure.
Now, it's more like Boeing than Google, just a megacorp filled with corporate wage slaves.
The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.
What you did right there is called "projection". It's when you accuse someone else of your own failings. It's a signature trait of the mentally ill.
Pretending for a moment that you have the ability to reason, let's ask a simple question:
How does using less energy make me poorer?
I insulate my house, I drive less, I buy better appliances, I eat locally grown food, and so forth means that -- wait for it -- I save money.
Living more sustainably makes me more wealthy.
I do more with less. But in your world view, being anything less than a glutton is somehow morally wrong.
Okay, lesson time's over.
Please, resume banging those rocks together. And pass the Cheetos. Ook, ook.
Decide there's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.
You are worse than wrong. There are no alternative explanations.
Scientists follow the principles of Popperianism.
Theories must be falsifiable. Each theory must have tests for which if false, disprove the theory.
Further, for a theory to be accepted, it must do a better job of explaining reality.
You can't merely say something is wrong. You have to say how it's wrong AND have a better explanation.
It's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.
Um, no. And this cute belief system of yours disqualifies you from the discussion.
So, please, run back to your cave and resume banging the rocks together. See how far that gets you.
Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
Our opponents are not interested in reality. Data, facts, logic, reason be damned.
These are the culture wars. The battle lines have been drawn. Long ago. One side wants the best outcome for the most people. The other side wants to win. At all costs.
I don't mean to be catty, but where have you been these last 30 years, especially the 8 years of Bush The Lesser?
As a progressive I used to think that we could all sit down, have a reasonable chat, sort all this shit out. Fail at that enough times, and you'll (hopefully) learn that the only thing the troglodytes respect is power. It's distasteful. But the alternative is plutocracy, theologians, and the continued descent downwards.
Hey. Given your experience, I have an off topic question for you.
What are the prospects for ceramic internal combustion engines?
When I was a kid, I read in Scientific American that future cars will likely have ceramic engine blocks. Being air cooled, they'd be more simple and smaller. Being ceramic, the fuel would be burned hotter and so more efficiently. So these ceramic engines would be 1/3rd the size for the same horsepower and burn cleaner.
Alas. Here we are today.
I went back and found that issue of SciAm in the library. From that and other reading, I gather that the two production methods have serious shortcomings. Sintering hasn't been worked out for forms that large. And drilling would be huge expensive and probably leave defects in the material (e.g. cylinder walls).
I did find one news item where the US Navy was buying ceramic engines for unmanned vehicals. It sounded like a turbine engine, vs internal combustion.
Any news, insights, tips you could offer would be great.
Layers complicate programming and create bugs? Really? As in, "the whole modular programming thing is just a fad"? If these guys can actually honestly claim that they program better in the big ball of mud paradigm, they must be super-geniuses, and trying to collaborate would be impossible for the normal geek anyway.
modules != layers
I'm a huge fan of removing extraneous abstractions, layers, extension points, gratuitous use of design patterns, silly third party libraries, etc.
In my experience, API designers biff the modeling (abstraction) and then try to hide the problems with ever more shims and layers.
Examples of my counterculture designs include DesignGridLayout, flogger, and LOX.
Alas, programmers are unimpressed by simple solutions and persist in using productivity slashing and mind gelling albatrosses.
A/E/C (architecture, engineering, construction) is nothing like software development.
Software is far more complex than construction. Complex, as in information content, as in how many decisions must be made. Bridges are described with a few 100 construction drawings and some supporting text.
Construction is a far more constrained problem space, compared to software. Physics (engineering), construction materials, site location, application, and building codes pretty much predetermine what any given bridge is going to look like. A civil engineer spends most of their time "finding" the bridge design that satisfies all the constraints (a search problem). They get all excited over green field projects, because there's more room to play (e.g. highways rebuilt after St Helens blew up).
Construction design has regular checkpoints (e.g. 30, 60, 90, 100% submittals) for full client review. Iterative development in software is the exception, not the rule. When things get tough, it always degenerates into the waterfall "model".
The points previously made about transparency (open source) and quality of requirements also apply.
Here's my feedback to editor@sciencedaily.com
Nice.
If by "HUGE voter turnout", you mean systematically disenfranchises voters and causes a long-term decline in voter turnout, then yea, the Oregon system of force mail voting is terrific.
You have exactly no idea what you're talking about.
A mistake, sometimes by the voter, does not mean you lose the right to vote. Just like you don't lose the right to free speech when you just make things up.
I'd like to hear you explain to my grandmother, or a quadriplegic, why their votes won't be counted because they didn't have the necessary skills to color little circles correctly.
Let me explain some things to you, and all the people who modded you up...
My county, King County WA, was manually duplicating 14% of mail ballots during the elections of 2006. That means the votes are copied from the original ballot to a crisp, fresh new ballot, which is then tabulated. Things improved for while. Then our last general election, the dupe rate was over 10%.
Why are ballots duplicated? Because we're a "voter intent" state.
Yes, but why are the ballots duplicated? Because the op-scans (we currently use Diebold's AccuVote OS) can't correctly scan the votes.
Why can't the votes be scanned? A zillion reasons:
- Write-in candidates can't be op-scanned.
- Diebold, who manufacturers the ballots, messes up the printing, so the timing marks aren't in register.
- Poor card stock could be used to produce the ballots.
- The voter used the wrong color of ink or a pencil.
- The voter changed their mind.
- The ballot got mutilated in the mail.
- Etc.
OhMyActingHead. You are so wrong, in so many ways, in just this one sentence, I don't know where to begin. In the interests of my blood pressure, I'll limit myself to just three (3) points.
#1 - Disenfranchising any voter is unconstitutional and a felony.
First, you argue that loosing the right to vote is the voter's fault. Then, you dismiss systematic disenfranchisement (due the method of election administration) as no big deal. Which is it?
Further, with our "first past the post" elections, one vote is all it takes. And this is more common than anyone realizes. In King County, every general election for years has had a mandatory recount because the results were so tight. In about 1/2 of the recounts, the official result gets flipped. You may be familiar with our 2004 Governor's race, Gregoire vs Rossi?
#2 - How do you think ballots at central count are counted? Pixies?
Central count, and mail balloting in particular, is the functional equivalent as using touchscreen voting machines.
- No more voter privacy.
- No more public vote count.
- No more auditability.
- Secret vote counting software on proprietary machines.
- No more election integrity.
- Both systems are huge expensive.
- Both systems are unreliable.
#3 - The single most reliable way available today is to count ballots is to use precinct-based optical scanners.
Central count, either with mail balloting or Ohio's proposed system of counting poll ballots at a central location, disenfranchises voters. The biggest reason is because you loose the "second chance" feature. That's the op-scan feature that was disabled in Florida's predominately Democratic, African-American precincts during the 2000 election.
Why the "second chance" feature disabled? Because not allowing voters to correct their mistakes effectively disenfranchises them. And in Florida, if any part of the ballot is unreadable, the whole ballot is tossed. (I don't know what Ohio's rules are.)
---
So, in summary, your opinions in this matter are a) unfortuna
Citing habitual liar George Will somewhat diminishes your otherwise compellingly counterfactual argument.
Exactly. Half, if not more, of the geeks in our local Java user group and design patterns study group carry around Mac laptops. I personally ported some native stuff to the Mac, just so I wouldn't have to develop on the company issued Dell laptop (piece of crap).
Cheers, Jason Osgood / Seattle WA
I disagree. Strongly. Despite all the propaganda and state enforced ignorance, Bush lost. Twice. The people choose correctly.
Ditto. In many (most) ways, the transition from BBS to Web was a huge step backwards. HTML+CSS and HTTP blow. It took a long time, using these hacks, to recreate the functionality we had with BBSes. The ubiquity of TCP/IP (connectivity) won the day, but a lot was lost in the switch over.