You mean to print ballots that are pre-filled out? I could print about one a second. Not that this matters as I could do it at my leisure. A ballot-counter should be able to identify printed ink against pen ink. If not, I think the consistency of hand-writing would be a little bit of a giveaway. Moreover, you shouldn't have access the ballot paper before the election. If you do, you would need to construct the correct images, trim papers to the right size, etc. in a short period of time previous to the election.
If I pre-stuff the box with my pre-printed ballots before the polls even open... Zero. If you swap the ballot box out after the polling and dispose of the original, then you need a replica of the box... Sorry to say it but any retard can stuff a paper ballot box. It takes an experienced hacker to hack an electronic election. What, you have your own ballot box at home? There should be enough security so that there isn't just one person watching a ballot box at any one time. The whole point of physical ballot-counting is that the records exist in perpetuity AFTER an election, and can't be retrospectively altered without difficulty and physical access.
Moreover, so what if you can swap a single ballot box? A hacker that can hack an entire election is far more dangerous than a loony who has access to a several (at most) ballot boxes. Even assuming some wide-spread fraud, there are enough individuals and ballot-counters involved in the process to identify any such problems, and the physical ballots are kept such that fraud can be retrospectively identified, even if the sources of such fraud cannot.
Yes lol, totally agree. Why is this relevant? I am disheartened that something like this could be accepted as news, considering that something as much larger (than a.0.0.1 change to a firefox version) as Australia changing leadership is noticeably absent from/.... interesting =)
... [the DNA] is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome. So... he creates the 'living' DNA and then transplants it into something living... and thus it is alive?
Imagine a priceless, moving work of art that nobody knows about, or ever has known about. What is this work of art's purpose? Why does it exist? Don't you feel a sense of loss that something so moving and complex cannot be appreciated?
Similarly, the writer of the article argues that, although not sentient, the universe begets appreciation. I don't think he means that we are the most important, amazing etc. creatures to ever gift this universe with our presence, but rather the loss of any conscious life to appreciate the universe in its intricacies. Could the T-Rex or ants ever appreciate just how insignificant and rare their existence is? Could they appreciate life in all its complexities and rareness?
I don't think they could. Far from it being from our perspective, I think that it is very outwardly-focused to suggest that if we were to be lost, the universe could not be created, and would be purposeless. There is no intrinsic meaning to the universe's "lifespan", and we can only hope to define it in terms of ourselves.
this is not a blind alley... we emerge from this alley into a place called INSIGHT... of course people who aren't criminals have guns, but a higher gun / owner ratio evidently leads to more gun related violence (well obviously... it's not like owning weapons makes people more placid)
Does it really matter if you can get an uzi in germany? Such a weapon has a greater capacity to harm, but in providing any weapon/gun you provide the means to a motive. Relative to other weapons, guns offer an easy way to harm people and hence nutcases etc. are more inclined to use guns (if there weren't guns, would such people act? In using other weapons, such people would be more easily overpowered i.e. less injury/harm to others)
The issue of privacy in such a context is (largely) irrelevant - what you are trying to do is stymie a relatively high gun violence trend.
more gun control =D
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, so what if you can swap a single ballot box? A hacker that can hack an entire election is far more dangerous than a loony who has access to a several (at most) ballot boxes. Even assuming some wide-spread fraud, there are enough individuals and ballot-counters involved in the process to identify any such problems, and the physical ballots are kept such that fraud can be retrospectively identified, even if the sources of such fraud cannot.
Yes lol, totally agree. Why is this relevant? I am disheartened that something like this could be accepted as news, considering that something as much larger (than a .0.0.1 change to a firefox version) as Australia changing leadership is noticeably absent from /. ... interesting =)
Yeh, sounds good... I think we should vote to eliminate summer as well... (never liked that season)
Yeesh... enough said.
... [the DNA] is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome. So... he creates the 'living' DNA and then transplants it into something living... and thus it is alive?shouldn't they be sharing with other government agencies? concerning...
I disagree.
Imagine a priceless, moving work of art that nobody knows about, or ever has known about. What is this work of art's purpose? Why does it exist? Don't you feel a sense of loss that something so moving and complex cannot be appreciated?
Similarly, the writer of the article argues that, although not sentient, the universe begets appreciation. I don't think he means that we are the most important, amazing etc. creatures to ever gift this universe with our presence, but rather the loss of any conscious life to appreciate the universe in its intricacies. Could the T-Rex or ants ever appreciate just how insignificant and rare their existence is? Could they appreciate life in all its complexities and rareness?
I don't think they could. Far from it being from our perspective, I think that it is very outwardly-focused to suggest that if we were to be lost, the universe could not be created, and would be purposeless. There is no intrinsic meaning to the universe's "lifespan", and we can only hope to define it in terms of ourselves.
this is not a blind alley... we emerge from this alley into a place called INSIGHT... of course people who aren't criminals have guns, but a higher gun / owner ratio evidently leads to more gun related violence (well obviously... it's not like owning weapons makes people more placid) Does it really matter if you can get an uzi in germany? Such a weapon has a greater capacity to harm, but in providing any weapon/gun you provide the means to a motive. Relative to other weapons, guns offer an easy way to harm people and hence nutcases etc. are more inclined to use guns (if there weren't guns, would such people act? In using other weapons, such people would be more easily overpowered i.e. less injury/harm to others) The issue of privacy in such a context is (largely) irrelevant - what you are trying to do is stymie a relatively high gun violence trend. more gun control =D