Why doesn't apple want 3rd party apps? Because if john doe can write one in a few weeks then so can their dev teams - and then they can sell it.
Hasn't anyone here realized that people pay more for ringtones than MP3s? For phone backgrounds than some actual computer programs?
So yeah, you can bet apple will be selling apps real soon. Probably for jacked up "omg" prices. Then everyone else will follow suit. Well, except me. I'm not buying an iphone, apple, or any of their other junk. I'll keep my compatibility with the world at large TYVM.
>I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could >be used in names to make processors more easily comparable
An admirable idea, but then CPU makers will write micro-code or silicon to enhance the individual benchmark result(s).
You're right though, the numbers are slightly better than nonsense. The bigger issue is that there's SO many different processors. The mfgs are aiming to have the perfect fit for every segment and every pricing tier and every...everything.
The situation today makes it DIFFICULT to EFFECTIVELY coerce votes. It does NOT make it impossible. Your assumption is based on the fact that votes are entirely secret today. If someone has the means and desire to buy votes then they likely can at least build the illusion that they can confirm their bought votes. In addition, on a larger scale - it's been proven that you can sue your way into winning an election. I won't dwell on the legal stature of that debacle.
You continue to ignore the fact that my support of a receipt does not necessarialy include something that provides a plainly discernable vote list to anyone who views it. My suggestion of a new law was in parallel and a secondary measure.
>Yes, but take into consideration that the majority of the RIAA cases where the defendent is innocent (and he doesn't >represent himself) are abandoned eventually by RIAA, since their case is usually very weak, and they don't want to set a >losing precedent.
Not relevant. How does this have anything to do with my statement? How does it even have anything to do with the half sentence you quoted out? In one case the plaintiff is an individual person of limited means. In another case the plaintiff is an enormous corporation with effectively unlimited means for the purpose of an individual lawsuit. David vs. goliath or goliath vs. david. You either don't understand my point or are poorly explaining yours.
>An effective prosecution of voting coercion would almost certainly necessitate the testimony of the person coerced, and >he has already shown that he is coercible by the defendent who now has an interest to coerce him to not testify. Doesn't >sound like an easy case for the state.
Circular logic. Not taking the bait.
So anyhow, i'm done. You're no longer making any relevant points or offering actual debate. Cuting out tiny bits of an argument and then talking about something distantly related at best does not count.
Ok, so I didn't RTFA and mainly read just the headline./trollbait probably
Anyhow...how is this a patentable idea? Does IBM think they're the first company to open a campus somewhere that has cheaper labor than their main campus?
I think this will get thrown out for "obvious" or "prior art"... art...meh.
> Get over your paranoia already. [[ personal attack, non sequitor ]]
*yawn* Because your behavior and comments allude to "everyone is out to defraud me/us" that sounds like paranoia to me. Not a personal attack, an observation of existing comments.
> You're arguing against something because it disallows you to LIE CONVINCINGLY? [[ restatement of obvious ]]> Oh wait, you run for office. Gotcha. [[ non sequitor, possible personal attack ]]
WTS Sarcasm, PST. It's a general observation/attack on politicians. It's also how i think of them.
> As for the law i suggested: You can still apply all the same parallels to discrimination as it > stands. "I really like married (no gays) people who jog daily (no handicapped people)." Now, if you >use that as a basis for making employment decisions, you're guilty of breaking the law. If I'm married >and like to jog and tell you so...so be it. I'm not saying discrimination laws work perfectly either. [[ Discrimination laws are slightly broken, so we should slightly break our safeguards against voting coercion, for some unstated reason (making it easier to implement electronic voting?). You've also missed a big point here, which is that an employer who hasn't hired you yet probably has LESS influence on you than a current employer. This is why I moved your analogy to the STRONGER one of sexual harassment.]]
I'm quite sure any voting laws against coersion and vote buying are not perfectly observed today. Sexual harassment is still illegal, still hugely fined. Yes, it happens anyway...just like every other law is broken sometimes. Refusal to pass a law based outlawing something becase you think it will be done anyway is circular logic.
>Second, sexual harassment is NOT discrimination. [[ Correct. But then, I wasn't confused about it. ]]
>Third, comparing the MAFIAA tactics to a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuits is so far off >base i'm not even going into it. [[ Dismissal of analogy out-of-hand. Why is it any easier to prosecute >a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit than to defend against the MAFIAA? I can only think of >one thing which might justify your dismissal of the analogy, which is that the possible rewards from a >successful discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit would probably be much larger than the "rewards" >from successfully defending oneself from the MAFIAA. This point would seem to me to be largely offset >by the relative difficulties of the two legal actions. Don't forget that the burden of proof is on the >prosecution in a discrimination or sexual harassment case. ]]
ok. Prosecute sexual discrimination: crime, penal code. Civil lawsuit in addition for damages often taken without retainer by lawyers. Single person or DA (paintiff) vs. single person or corporation (defendant) vs. Copyright violation: By MAFIAA tactics, entirely civil suit. Very large corporation vs. single person (no DA, no criminal charge hence no 'right to a lawyer' iirc) .
Criminal vs. civil Individual is plantiff vs. huge corporation is plantiff
Oh, and the burdon of proof is always on the plaintiff. Granted the bar is set substaintally higher in criminal cases.
I suppose instead of RTFA we have RMOP (read my other posts) - i'm not saying there should be receipts that have "i voted for stupid" written on them. I'm saying receipts (done properly, which generally would mean non-identifying, at least to someone other than the voter) could be a useful thing. because while there's the possibility of vote buying and other corruption (like it doesn't happen today) there is also the fact that you can ensure accuracy of the voting. That's impossible today. There is no possible way for me to know that my vote was actually entered, counted, and used for the election.
To address another point about the power of a single vote - maybe in "swing" states in the US. If you're not in one of those your vote is meaningless.
For the fines i mentioned - a politician won't try to repeal a law that clearly is designed to make voting honest. The press would have a field day with it.
Our trial and error with voting has plenty of errors...but they're existing ones and generally don't get any attention or press. Status quo is what politicians want. Voting machiens are not status quo, they could eventually lead to a *gasp* popular vote.
I buy a masarati in europe. Ship it to the USA and figure out how to make it drive on the right side of the road. Masarati updates the car's computer to fix bugs and in the process makes the engine over-rev and blow if found to be driving on the right side of the road.
Ok, mine sucks too but i think it's closer. You're not replacing the gutts of the iphone - you're disabling an inhibitor that prevents the phone from doing something it IS capable of doing.
I think he was referring to sending voice calls over the data band on EDGE.
As for cellular VOIP, been there, done that. It's called the T-Mobile Blackberry Curve and UMA. Any time i'm near a TMO hot spot (eg starbucks) it pops onto UMA mode and calls go over that. So does 'net access...and at a higher speed too.
Thanks, but the Curve does for me everything the iBrick could...with a real keyboard.
Ok, so they are but at least they allow their products to be used as the users wish, not in the single, sole intended purpose designed for.
Apple is going to succeed in driving themselves out of the phone business pretty handily. People live and die (metaphorically, usually) by their cell phone these days. Make the same device include mobile internet, contacts, music/MP3 player...and break it. Watch how quickly they fall out of favor. A cell phone needs to 1) work 2) Work 3) WORK 4) do fun things and let people spend (waste!) money on ring tones, etc.
Honestly, this won't last and they'll just keep replacing phones for people. Apple's business is desperately dependent on their popularity (see price drop + rebate). They will play nice or fail.
1) Again, requiring your voting information can be made illegal. 2) Make a detachable part or a separate receipt to prove you voted or hash the information. For the "abstention crowd"... vote no one. You still get a receipt.
I like #2 - how many people leave early to vote and go home for a beer instead? I know more than one or two. Accountability for your actions is something i'm a big fan of.
And once again, I never argued that we NEED receipts. I'm arguing that it's not going to destroy the voting process. Keep in mind that a "receipt" doesn't have to have Bush vs. kerry with a big check mark. It could be a MD5 (or whatever, encrypt if you'd like) hash of your votes and the database table record number.
Print something that says:
Thank you for voting today. Your confirmation number is:
So now we've jumped from debate to personal attacks. A personal attack isn't relevant to the arguent. To take it a step further, posting an email address a/o website doesn't necessarilay identify me anyway.
And my point about lying still applies. You're designing a system with the requirement that people can be dishonest.
Given that it's the US i'm taking about and it's the US (and our media) that governs what "things mean" I wouldn't worry too much about it. It would be "our" UN observers, right? meh.
(end)
There's also "if you want to stay employed here divulge xyz legally protected information". Your argument could be applied to any of a dozen things totally unrelated to voting. I guess we shouldn't document anyone's medical or mental history, right?
I think you missed your tin foil underpants then. Published source code for the paranoid then.
See, my basic theory behind making elections a touch more legitimate is that we might eventually have a legitimate (read: honest) government with actual accountability to the people.
You're arguing against something because it disallows you to LIE CONVINCINGLY? Oh wait, you run for office. Gotcha.
As for the law i suggested: You can still apply all the same parallels to discrimination as it stands. "I really like married (no gays) people who jog daily (no handicapped people)." Now, if you use that as a basis for making employment decisions, you're guilty of breaking the law. If I'm married and like to jog and tell you so...so be it. I'm not saying discrimination laws work perfectly either.
Second, sexual harassment is NOT discrimination.
Third, comparing the MAFIAA tactics to a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuits is so far off base i'm not even going into it.
So then use an ATM as an example. Regardless, the fact that ATM and slot machines are sucessfully in use with little to no fraud shows that it's possible to create a publicly accessible device that allows secure anonymous or user-identified transactions.
The real problem is that people view money as far more important than elections. In addition, many people don't like the idea of new voting machines ruining their existing scams...so they will poke every hole and blast it across the news even if doesn't actually present a tested, working exploit.
Furthermore, you're saying you can't trust the same people who are voting. What's next, banning cell phone cameras from voting booths? I mean, your "boss" might make you take a cell phone picture of your votes. No matter what you do, there's always potential for abuse.
Again though, I'm not saying paper receipts are necessary. I'm arguing that they're not going to ruin an election.
Good god...you people are paranoid to the point of needing medication. I'm not saying that everyone needs to get a receipt. I'm arguing that it's not the end of the world if they do that you seem to think of it.
Put a big button for "I want a receipt". If the gas station can do it, a voting machine can.
You think couples don't argue NOW about who they're going to vote for? You think some employers dont' try to swing votes? This is NOTHING new. Giving people proof they voted isn't going to bring the world to a conspiracy colapse that you're predicting.
I mean, there's laws against sexual discrimination that are, by and large, followed. When they're not there's a lawsuit and fines. It's really the same as bringing any suit against your employer.
Anything that changes the status quo with voting or politics is a "Bad Thing". They're so used to how they have the system rigged do you really think they want change?
How about just a straight popular vote? I mean, in the US, 200 years ago it was impossible to tally all the individual votes simply because of distance and transportation. Today there's no real reason why everyone can't have one vote and you add them all up. Biggest number wins. For christ's sake, there are TV shows that count more votes than we get in a presidential election. Yes, there are multiple voters but they're usually paying 25-75c per vote.
If more people are willing to PAY TO VOTE for american idol or some nonsense than will vote for free our PRESIDENT...we have a problem.
Do you have any idea how much the voting machines cost? Each? Now multiply that by the number of existing voting machines. Now add in maintenance and support, back end systems, etc.
If you think it's not worth the money you have no clue.
Oh, and there's competition. If you think one problem would invalidate a whole system and make everyone re-buy a few billion in voting machines for the hell of it, you're delusional. Do you think vegas would shut down and replace every slot machine if they found a problem? No, they'd fix it.
Wrong. Every vote needs to be ANONYMOUS. That's different from secret.
You could still make every transaction tracable from start to finish. You just need to put a disconnect between the physical person and the initial transaction.
Yes, easier said than done but certainly not impossible. Off the cuff idea (as example, i'm sure it has holes) - everyone scans their fingerprint and votes. That fingerprint is used as a one-way hash to encrypt the vote. Now you have a record of the hash in the system but it's not tied to a person and you can't reverse it to get the fingerprint back. Next person votes and you compare the hash - have we seen this guy before? No. Ok, allow the vote.
This makes every voter forcible unique without ever identifying them. Now, if i can come up with that in 15 seconds then a couple billion dollars and 1000's of people can easily design something that will life up to what we need.
And hey, why do votes really need to be anonymous? If you voted for bush everyone SHOULD have the right to point at you and laugh or refuse to employ you!
I love people who automatically fail an idea because there's potential to abuse it. Yes, an employer could try to make people show proof they voted. Simply make that a felony with a $1,000,000 individual fine or $1,000,000,000 corporate fine, 10 years in jail and a $50,000 reward for proof and conviction. Want to bet how many people would bother?
Or hell...give the people the benefit of the doubt and start with the assumption that they'd be honest and show integrity. If you assume I'm a liar to start with, why would I care as much if i became one.
You're saying that it's not easy to manipulate an election already? Let's see. In the US presidential candidates only campaign seriously in the few "swing" states. And guess what! Those states are NOT the ones driving the ecconomy. They're not the main population centers of the country.
So tell me, how is the vote not manipulated from the start? You ignore the fact that probably >50% of votes in the country are basically pointless to begin with.
How about this: allow online voting, electronic machines - the whole gamut. Then let the POPULAR vote decide who wins. Yes, you can buy votes. Yes, you might hack some votes. Yes you might have some people double or triple voting. But if you make the pool that much larger it's easier to watch for trending that might indicate hacks. You simply can not afford to BUY votes. If you get voting rates up to 50, 75% of the population you're talking about what, 100 million people? Pay half of them 25$ each and you're spending 1.25 billion to get elected. Hell, if you want it that bad...GO FOR IT.
Are you kidding? If you could skim.01% for a week you could retire and never even think about money for the rest of your life. You assume that a bank is a single entity and there is no indivitual that would want to benefit at the detriment of the bank.
No argument that politicians are the barest step above felons.
Slashdot Mirror
near you.
Why doesn't apple want 3rd party apps? Because if john doe can write one in a few weeks then so can their dev teams - and then they can sell it.
Hasn't anyone here realized that people pay more for ringtones than MP3s? For phone backgrounds than some actual computer programs?
So yeah, you can bet apple will be selling apps real soon. Probably for jacked up "omg" prices. Then everyone else will follow suit. Well, except me. I'm not buying an iphone, apple, or any of their other junk. I'll keep my compatibility with the world at large TYVM.
Hey now, if i *buy* it for $0.00 and then post it on P2P can the MAFIAA still claim a loss?
>I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could >be used in names to make processors more easily comparable
An admirable idea, but then CPU makers will write micro-code or silicon to enhance the individual benchmark result(s).
You're right though, the numbers are slightly better than nonsense. The bigger issue is that there's SO many different processors. The mfgs are aiming to have the perfect fit for every segment and every pricing tier and every...everything.
The situation today makes it DIFFICULT to EFFECTIVELY coerce votes. It does NOT make it impossible. Your assumption is based on the fact that votes are entirely secret today. If someone has the means and desire to buy votes then they likely can at least build the illusion that they can confirm their bought votes. In addition, on a larger scale - it's been proven that you can sue your way into winning an election. I won't dwell on the legal stature of that debacle.
You continue to ignore the fact that my support of a receipt does not necessarialy include something that provides a plainly discernable vote list to anyone who views it. My suggestion of a new law was in parallel and a secondary measure.
>Yes, but take into consideration that the majority of the RIAA cases where the defendent is innocent (and he doesn't >represent himself) are abandoned eventually by RIAA, since their case is usually very weak, and they don't want to set a >losing precedent.
Not relevant. How does this have anything to do with my statement? How does it even have anything to do with the half sentence you quoted out? In one case the plaintiff is an individual person of limited means. In another case the plaintiff is an enormous corporation with effectively unlimited means for the purpose of an individual lawsuit. David vs. goliath or goliath vs. david. You either don't understand my point or are poorly explaining yours.
>An effective prosecution of voting coercion would almost certainly necessitate the testimony of the person coerced, and >he has already shown that he is coercible by the defendent who now has an interest to coerce him to not testify. Doesn't >sound like an easy case for the state.
Circular logic. Not taking the bait.
So anyhow, i'm done. You're no longer making any relevant points or offering actual debate. Cuting out tiny bits of an argument and then talking about something distantly related at best does not count.
Ok, so I didn't RTFA and mainly read just the headline. /trollbait probably
... art...meh.
Anyhow...how is this a patentable idea? Does IBM think they're the first company to open a campus somewhere that has cheaper labor than their main campus?
I think this will get thrown out for "obvious" or "prior art"
> Get over your paranoia already. [[ personal attack, non sequitor ]]
*yawn* Because your behavior and comments allude to "everyone is out to defraud me/us" that sounds like paranoia to me. Not a personal attack, an observation of existing comments.
> You're arguing against something because it disallows you to LIE CONVINCINGLY? [[ restatement of obvious ]]> Oh wait, you run for office. Gotcha. [[ non sequitor, possible personal attack ]]
WTS Sarcasm, PST. It's a general observation/attack on politicians. It's also how i think of them.
> As for the law i suggested: You can still apply all the same parallels to discrimination as it > stands. "I really like married (no gays) people who jog daily (no handicapped people)." Now, if you >use that as a basis for making employment decisions, you're guilty of breaking the law. If I'm married >and like to jog and tell you so...so be it. I'm not saying discrimination laws work perfectly either.
[[ Discrimination laws are slightly broken, so we should slightly break our safeguards against voting coercion, for some unstated reason (making it easier to implement electronic voting?). You've also missed a big point here, which is that an employer who hasn't hired you yet probably has LESS influence on you than a current employer. This is why I moved your analogy to the STRONGER one of sexual harassment.]]
I'm quite sure any voting laws against coersion and vote buying are not perfectly observed today. Sexual harassment is still illegal, still hugely fined. Yes, it happens anyway...just like every other law is broken sometimes. Refusal to pass a law based outlawing something becase you think it will be done anyway is circular logic.
>Second, sexual harassment is NOT discrimination. [[ Correct. But then, I wasn't confused about it. ]]
>Third, comparing the MAFIAA tactics to a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuits is so far off >base i'm not even going into it. [[ Dismissal of analogy out-of-hand. Why is it any easier to prosecute >a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit than to defend against the MAFIAA? I can only think of >one thing which might justify your dismissal of the analogy, which is that the possible rewards from a >successful discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit would probably be much larger than the "rewards" >from successfully defending oneself from the MAFIAA. This point would seem to me to be largely offset >by the relative difficulties of the two legal actions. Don't forget that the burden of proof is on the >prosecution in a discrimination or sexual harassment case. ]]
ok. Prosecute sexual discrimination: crime, penal code. Civil lawsuit in addition for damages often taken without retainer by lawyers. Single person or DA (paintiff) vs. single person or corporation (defendant) vs. Copyright violation: By MAFIAA tactics, entirely civil suit. Very large corporation vs. single person (no DA, no criminal charge hence no 'right to a lawyer' iirc) .
Criminal vs. civil
Individual is plantiff vs. huge corporation is plantiff
Oh, and the burdon of proof is always on the plaintiff. Granted the bar is set substaintally higher in criminal cases.
I suppose instead of RTFA we have RMOP (read my other posts) - i'm not saying there should be receipts that have "i voted for stupid" written on them. I'm saying receipts (done properly, which generally would mean non-identifying, at least to someone other than the voter) could be a useful thing. because while there's the possibility of vote buying and other corruption (like it doesn't happen today) there is also the fact that you can ensure accuracy of the voting. That's impossible today. There is no possible way for me to know that my vote was actually entered, counted, and used for the election.
To address another point about the power of a single vote - maybe in "swing" states in the US. If you're not in one of those your vote is meaningless.
For the fines i mentioned - a politician won't try to repeal a law that clearly is designed to make voting honest. The press would have a field day with it.
Our trial and error with voting has plenty of errors...but they're existing ones and generally don't get any attention or press. Status quo is what politicians want. Voting machiens are not status quo, they could eventually lead to a *gasp* popular vote.
Apple != law
Same way car manufacturers were forced to allow 'equal but non-orig. parts' and maintain a warranty.
Bad analogy.
My version:
I buy a masarati in europe. Ship it to the USA and figure out how to make it drive on the right side of the road. Masarati updates the car's computer to fix bugs and in the process makes the engine over-rev and blow if found to be driving on the right side of the road.
Ok, mine sucks too but i think it's closer. You're not replacing the gutts of the iphone - you're disabling an inhibitor that prevents the phone from doing something it IS capable of doing.
I think he was referring to sending voice calls over the data band on EDGE.
As for cellular VOIP, been there, done that. It's called the T-Mobile Blackberry Curve and UMA. Any time i'm near a TMO hot spot (eg starbucks) it pops onto UMA mode and calls go over that. So does 'net access...and at a higher speed too.
Thanks, but the Curve does for me everything the iBrick could...with a real keyboard.
And how many people claim that MS is evil?
Apple = fail
Ok, so they are but at least they allow their products to be used as the users wish, not in the single, sole intended purpose designed for.
Apple is going to succeed in driving themselves out of the phone business pretty handily. People live and die (metaphorically, usually) by their cell phone these days. Make the same device include mobile internet, contacts, music/MP3 player...and break it. Watch how quickly they fall out of favor. A cell phone needs to 1) work 2) Work 3) WORK 4) do fun things and let people spend (waste!) money on ring tones, etc.
Honestly, this won't last and they'll just keep replacing phones for people. Apple's business is desperately dependent on their popularity (see price drop + rebate). They will play nice or fail.
Two approaches:
... vote no one. You still get a receipt.
1) Again, requiring your voting information can be made illegal.
2) Make a detachable part or a separate receipt to prove you voted or hash the information. For the "abstention crowd"
I like #2 - how many people leave early to vote and go home for a beer instead? I know more than one or two. Accountability for your actions is something i'm a big fan of.
And once again, I never argued that we NEED receipts. I'm arguing that it's not going to destroy the voting process. Keep in mind that a "receipt" doesn't have to have Bush vs. kerry with a big check mark. It could be a MD5 (or whatever, encrypt if you'd like) hash of your votes and the database table record number.
Print something that says:
Thank you for voting today. Your confirmation number is:
JNSDRG9UW4 NG9U324N5G097 34NHP9G38HG935 86NG93086HG P39586NHG3958 6YH3P956H 8NPEW95 68HG356H
Should you wish to confirm your votes were accuratly recorded, go to www.x y z.com and enter this number.
This can verify the integrity of the information against the database - which has NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION.
So now we've jumped from debate to personal attacks. A personal attack isn't relevant to the arguent. To take it a step further, posting an email address a/o website doesn't necessarilay identify me anyway.
And my point about lying still applies. You're designing a system with the requirement that people can be dishonest.
(begin cynicism)
Given that it's the US i'm taking about and it's the US (and our media) that governs what "things mean" I wouldn't worry too much about it. It would be "our" UN observers, right? meh.
(end)
There's also "if you want to stay employed here divulge xyz legally protected information". Your argument could be applied to any of a dozen things totally unrelated to voting. I guess we shouldn't document anyone's medical or mental history, right?
*YAWN*
I think you missed your tin foil underpants then. Published source code for the paranoid then.
See, my basic theory behind making elections a touch more legitimate is that we might eventually have a legitimate (read: honest) government with actual accountability to the people.
Next?
Get over your paranoia already.
You're arguing against something because it disallows you to LIE CONVINCINGLY? Oh wait, you run for office. Gotcha.
As for the law i suggested: You can still apply all the same parallels to discrimination as it stands. "I really like married (no gays) people who jog daily (no handicapped people)." Now, if you use that as a basis for making employment decisions, you're guilty of breaking the law. If I'm married and like to jog and tell you so...so be it. I'm not saying discrimination laws work perfectly either.
Second, sexual harassment is NOT discrimination.
Third, comparing the MAFIAA tactics to a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuits is so far off base i'm not even going into it.
So then use an ATM as an example. Regardless, the fact that ATM and slot machines are sucessfully in use with little to no fraud shows that it's possible to create a publicly accessible device that allows secure anonymous or user-identified transactions.
The real problem is that people view money as far more important than elections. In addition, many people don't like the idea of new voting machines ruining their existing scams...so they will poke every hole and blast it across the news even if doesn't actually present a tested, working exploit.
See? More paranoia.
If the stakes were that high, I'd think more than 50% of the population would show up to vote for our president.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Furthermore, you're saying you can't trust the same people who are voting. What's next, banning cell phone cameras from voting booths? I mean, your "boss" might make you take a cell phone picture of your votes. No matter what you do, there's always potential for abuse.
Again though, I'm not saying paper receipts are necessary. I'm arguing that they're not going to ruin an election.
Good god...you people are paranoid to the point of needing medication. I'm not saying that everyone needs to get a receipt. I'm arguing that it's not the end of the world if they do that you seem to think of it.
Put a big button for "I want a receipt". If the gas station can do it, a voting machine can.
You think couples don't argue NOW about who they're going to vote for? You think some employers dont' try to swing votes? This is NOTHING new. Giving people proof they voted isn't going to bring the world to a conspiracy colapse that you're predicting.
I mean, there's laws against sexual discrimination that are, by and large, followed. When they're not there's a lawsuit and fines. It's really the same as bringing any suit against your employer.
Exit polling...meh. That should be illegal.
Anything that changes the status quo with voting or politics is a "Bad Thing". They're so used to how they have the system rigged do you really think they want change?
How about just a straight popular vote? I mean, in the US, 200 years ago it was impossible to tally all the individual votes simply because of distance and transportation. Today there's no real reason why everyone can't have one vote and you add them all up. Biggest number wins. For christ's sake, there are TV shows that count more votes than we get in a presidential election. Yes, there are multiple voters but they're usually paying 25-75c per vote.
If more people are willing to PAY TO VOTE for american idol or some nonsense than will vote for free our PRESIDENT...we have a problem.
Do you have any idea how much the voting machines cost? Each? Now multiply that by the number of existing voting machines. Now add in maintenance and support, back end systems, etc.
If you think it's not worth the money you have no clue.
Oh, and there's competition. If you think one problem would invalidate a whole system and make everyone re-buy a few billion in voting machines for the hell of it, you're delusional. Do you think vegas would shut down and replace every slot machine if they found a problem? No, they'd fix it.
Wrong. Every vote needs to be ANONYMOUS. That's different from secret.
You could still make every transaction tracable from start to finish. You just need to put a disconnect between the physical person and the initial transaction.
Yes, easier said than done but certainly not impossible. Off the cuff idea (as example, i'm sure it has holes) - everyone scans their fingerprint and votes. That fingerprint is used as a one-way hash to encrypt the vote. Now you have a record of the hash in the system but it's not tied to a person and you can't reverse it to get the fingerprint back. Next person votes and you compare the hash - have we seen this guy before? No. Ok, allow the vote.
This makes every voter forcible unique without ever identifying them. Now, if i can come up with that in 15 seconds then a couple billion dollars and 1000's of people can easily design something that will life up to what we need.
And hey, why do votes really need to be anonymous? If you voted for bush everyone SHOULD have the right to point at you and laugh or refuse to employ you!
I love people who automatically fail an idea because there's potential to abuse it. Yes, an employer could try to make people show proof they voted. Simply make that a felony with a $1,000,000 individual fine or $1,000,000,000 corporate fine, 10 years in jail and a $50,000 reward for proof and conviction. Want to bet how many people would bother?
Or hell...give the people the benefit of the doubt and start with the assumption that they'd be honest and show integrity. If you assume I'm a liar to start with, why would I care as much if i became one.
You're saying that it's not easy to manipulate an election already? Let's see. In the US presidential candidates only campaign seriously in the few "swing" states. And guess what! Those states are NOT the ones driving the ecconomy. They're not the main population centers of the country.
So tell me, how is the vote not manipulated from the start? You ignore the fact that probably >50% of votes in the country are basically pointless to begin with.
How about this: allow online voting, electronic machines - the whole gamut. Then let the POPULAR vote decide who wins. Yes, you can buy votes. Yes, you might hack some votes. Yes you might have some people double or triple voting. But if you make the pool that much larger it's easier to watch for trending that might indicate hacks. You simply can not afford to BUY votes. If you get voting rates up to 50, 75% of the population you're talking about what, 100 million people? Pay half of them 25$ each and you're spending 1.25 billion to get elected. Hell, if you want it that bad...GO FOR IT.
Are you kidding? If you could skim .01% for a week you could retire and never even think about money for the rest of your life. You assume that a bank is a single entity and there is no indivitual that would want to benefit at the detriment of the bank.
No argument that politicians are the barest step above felons.