"Any random voter could go home and make a fake receipt to claim the results were tampered with."
TFA explains how that would be pointless, since the pairing of letters with names is different on each form. The receipt doesn't tell you anything about who you voted for, only what letters you chose. And if their point was to try to change an election, they would need a large group of people to be in on it to guarantee their desired outcome, and the larger the group, the more likely their fraud would be to be exposed.
The only problem I see with this system, as it was with the hanging chads, is that people with poor vision or low brain power will be easily confused by the way the choices are out-of-order. Maybe they could use colored letters to make it easier to match them up, or even use pictures, e.g. a dog for Clinton, a snake for Giuliani.
And, I was right about the reelection. The sponsor, John Rockefeller (D-WV) is up for reelection in 2008, as are cosponsors Mark Pryor (D-AR) and of course Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Well, "thinkofthechildren" definitely applies here, since the act is named "Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act ". It doesn't get any more obvious than that that these politicians are desperate for reelection.
Internet News has more details and analysis of the act, including comments from Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who voted for the bill but expressed reservations:
"I worry that the provisions addressing broadband speeds and smaller geographic areas in this bill could inadvertently paint a picture of an America without broadband that is not accurate," he said in a statement... I am not sure that Congress, rather than the FCC, should be getting into this level of detail, particularly given technological changes, such as compression technologies that could make these standards a moving target."
I'm not sure I agree with him that the "America with broadband" picture is inaccurate. By most other modern countries' standards, we are far behind.
Well, you have to start somewhere. I doubt this will get anywhere, but if it does, maybe other sectors will be encouraged to do the Right Thing. Again, not likely...
1. That evolution is "advancing" toward a goal.
2. That people in Africa didn't continue evolving while remaining in Africa.
3. That skin color can be used to differentiate between individuals based on geographic origin.
Hehehe. Actually I was reading up on the story and found the alternate analysis from the multi-source evolutionist, but it was already too late because I submitted the comment, so I figured I'd just post the additional information I found ASAP.
It looks like my OP is going to be modded -1 Troll anyways, since some people seem to think that there are only 2 theories: Evolution and Creationism, and that if I'm saying "Not so fast", I must be spouting creationist nonsense.
It looks like this research is already being torn to pieces:
"John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison says the paper is mistaken. A major flaw is that the current research is largely based on skull variability. "You can't find the origin of people by measuring the variability of their skulls," Hawks said.
"Differences in skull features are related to genetics, and genetic variation depends on how much mixing occurs with other populations. "The main problem with the paper is that it takes some assumptions from genetics papers of 10 to 15 years ago that we now know are wrong," Hawks said.
"Other scenarios, besides the single-origin theory, could account for the link between distance and skull variability. "Africa is ecologically diverse, and cranial variation is a function of environments," he said. In environments supporting hardy foods such as roots, people would need bigger jaw muscles, and thus larger areas for muscle attachments.
"Also, correcting for climate is not a good idea, according to Hawks. "The most important feature that is related to climate is skull size. So by correcting for climate, they are subtracting a major component of variability," he said.
"In his own research, Hawks is finding that natural selection has led to changes in thousands of genes during only the past few thousand years.
"I'm really thinking just the opposite of this paper," Hawks said. "There are differences in the skull between populations, including their variability, but it is mostly due to very recent effects and not the origin of modern humans."
"At the end of the day, a resolution to the "Out of Africa" debate may be impossible, he said. Most of the evidence can be interpreted as supporting both human-origins theories. "It's really hard to find observations that distinguish the two," Hawks said.
"The multiregional idea is identical to the recent African origin idea, except for its prediction that Europeans and Asians were part of the single population of origin and didn't become extinct."
"Of course, the moving parts and the monitor will still use as much power as they do in any other system, but this machine could easily consume over 100 W less than is typical nowadays."
If they truly wanted to make it power efficient compared to other computers, it would as simple as forcing the monitor (which would be LCD of course) to go into standby if the computer hasn't been in use for 15 minutes. I shudder to think how much power was being wasted when I used to work at a national lab, where everyone left their computer running overnight with various ridiculous "screen savers" running on CRTs.
I noticed that the manufacturer's product manager threw in the word "eco-friendly" to describe the computer. Did they really have efficiency in mind when they developed the computer, or is this just part of the recent trend (a la "no carbs/trans fats") to label anything and everything as being good for the environment?
I guess a computer that has little or nothing to it also doesn't use much power either. But then, my Game Boy is more eco-friendly.
See, hackers get a bad rap. These folks were kind enough to encrypt the sensitive data they found, so that no outside parties could get a look at personal records.
Slashdot Mirror
"Any random voter could go home and make a fake receipt to claim the results were tampered with."
TFA explains how that would be pointless, since the pairing of letters with names is different on each form. The receipt doesn't tell you anything about who you voted for, only what letters you chose. And if their point was to try to change an election, they would need a large group of people to be in on it to guarantee their desired outcome, and the larger the group, the more likely their fraud would be to be exposed.
The only problem I see with this system, as it was with the hanging chads, is that people with poor vision or low brain power will be easily confused by the way the choices are out-of-order. Maybe they could use colored letters to make it easier to match them up, or even use pictures, e.g. a dog for Clinton, a snake for Giuliani.
Three days ago: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/20/125 2215
And, I was right about the reelection. The sponsor, John Rockefeller (D-WV) is up for reelection in 2008, as are cosponsors Mark Pryor (D-AR) and of course Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Well, "thinkofthechildren" definitely applies here, since the act is named "Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act ". It doesn't get any more obvious than that that these politicians are desperate for reelection.
Internet News has more details and analysis of the act, including comments from Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who voted for the bill but expressed reservations:
"I worry that the provisions addressing broadband speeds and smaller geographic areas in this bill could inadvertently paint a picture of an America without broadband that is not accurate," he said in a statement... I am not sure that Congress, rather than the FCC, should be getting into this level of detail, particularly given technological changes, such as compression technologies that could make these standards a moving target."
I'm not sure I agree with him that the "America with broadband" picture is inaccurate. By most other modern countries' standards, we are far behind.
"Why single out broadband alone?"
Well, you have to start somewhere. I doubt this will get anywhere, but if it does, maybe other sectors will be encouraged to do the Right Thing. Again, not likely...
Among your misconceptions:
1. That evolution is "advancing" toward a goal.
2. That people in Africa didn't continue evolving while remaining in Africa.
3. That skin color can be used to differentiate between individuals based on geographic origin.
Damn Slashdot formatting made it look like you replied to my original post.
What does that have to do with anything I said in the original submission or my OP?
See my explanation here. My submission was accepted and posted in record time.
Hehehe. Actually I was reading up on the story and found the alternate analysis from the multi-source evolutionist, but it was already too late because I submitted the comment, so I figured I'd just post the additional information I found ASAP.
It looks like my OP is going to be modded -1 Troll anyways, since some people seem to think that there are only 2 theories: Evolution and Creationism, and that if I'm saying "Not so fast", I must be spouting creationist nonsense.
Hilarity ensues.
It looks like this research is already being torn to pieces:
"John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison says the paper is mistaken. A major flaw is that the current research is largely based on skull variability. "You can't find the origin of people by measuring the variability of their skulls," Hawks said.
"Differences in skull features are related to genetics, and genetic variation depends on how much mixing occurs with other populations. "The main problem with the paper is that it takes some assumptions from genetics papers of 10 to 15 years ago that we now know are wrong," Hawks said.
"Other scenarios, besides the single-origin theory, could account for the link between distance and skull variability. "Africa is ecologically diverse, and cranial variation is a function of environments," he said. In environments supporting hardy foods such as roots, people would need bigger jaw muscles, and thus larger areas for muscle attachments.
"Also, correcting for climate is not a good idea, according to Hawks. "The most important feature that is related to climate is skull size. So by correcting for climate, they are subtracting a major component of variability," he said.
"In his own research, Hawks is finding that natural selection has led to changes in thousands of genes during only the past few thousand years.
"I'm really thinking just the opposite of this paper," Hawks said. "There are differences in the skull between populations, including their variability, but it is mostly due to very recent effects and not the origin of modern humans."
"At the end of the day, a resolution to the "Out of Africa" debate may be impossible, he said. Most of the evidence can be interpreted as supporting both human-origins theories. "It's really hard to find observations that distinguish the two," Hawks said.
"The multiregional idea is identical to the recent African origin idea, except for its prediction that Europeans and Asians were part of the single population of origin and didn't become extinct."
Is there any more data on how browser usage breaks down by country worldwide, or by other demographics?
"Of course, the moving parts and the monitor will still use as much power as they do in any other system, but this machine could easily consume over 100 W less than is typical nowadays."
If they truly wanted to make it power efficient compared to other computers, it would as simple as forcing the monitor (which would be LCD of course) to go into standby if the computer hasn't been in use for 15 minutes. I shudder to think how much power was being wasted when I used to work at a national lab, where everyone left their computer running overnight with various ridiculous "screen savers" running on CRTs.
I found this on the processor they're using:
"With a maximum power consumption of just 20 watts (2 watts average), the VIA C7®-D processor sets new standards..."
How much do 1.5GHz processors normally consume?
I noticed that the manufacturer's product manager threw in the word "eco-friendly" to describe the computer. Did they really have efficiency in mind when they developed the computer, or is this just part of the recent trend (a la "no carbs/trans fats") to label anything and everything as being good for the environment?
I guess a computer that has little or nothing to it also doesn't use much power either. But then, my Game Boy is more eco-friendly.
How many algae ponds does it take to cover an area the size of Indiana?
And more importantly, would hoosiers be willing to convert their state into one big algae pond?
"...Pilot, Rygel, and Beaker."
:)
"Bravo!"
Sorry, I meant to say "Browder"
Several main characters in the show were "muppets", including Pilot, Rygel, and Beaker.
Err, wait, that doesn't look right...
They can use that time to explain how/why they edited a season of story down to a couple hectic hours.
Is there any reason to use Miro rather than VLC or BS Player? These seem to handle everything I've encountered.
Now if only they could build a little bridge out of matchsticks so those poor ants can get off that damn endless path.
See, hackers get a bad rap. These folks were kind enough to encrypt the sensitive data they found, so that no outside parties could get a look at personal records.
"involving your ass with some ascii: Microsoft -> you (pre-patent) ( o ) microsoft -> you (post-patent) ( O ) any questions?"
Are you saying my fluffy bunny tail will get even fluffier after the patent? Woohoo!!!