Java's basic trade offs are part of the problem. Remember that Java was created for the purpose of running on embeded systems. This makes very simple tradeoffs (for example, optimizing for size in the bytecode instead of performance) that are not real good for large applications.
The Java Virtual Machines from Sun contain Just-in-Time compilers and HotSpot technology and have for quite a while now. Thus the bytecode encoding has minimal impact on run-time and will often have at worst a fixed up-front cost for the entire life of an application.
One: there's no detail in this review. It sounds like the author is suggesting behaviourism (cf. Skinner) as a theory of cognition, an idea that was discarded before I was born. Someone give me some details and prove me wrong.
Braitenberg's vehicles depart from behaviorism quite nicely; in fact it's a topic addressed directly. Chapter 10, Getting Ideas, discusses how the architecture built in preceding chapters, the vehicles break free from simple stimulus->response behavior and develop ideas that can be active without direct support from the environment.
There's even a better method that has been discussed for years.
Discussed for years does not make it legally viable. Can you cite either legislation which says this is sufficient or case law in which this technique was held up?
How about a fax? That's how I make my views known to my senators and representative.
How can you easily determine one of their fax numbers? The following links will likely work, although you may have to call the listed voice number to ask for the fax number.
However, there are a large number in which Digital Equipment is the assignee and that refer to "search engine". If I'm not mistaken, DEC developed AltaVista, Compaq bought DEC and then sold off AltaVista. I suppose the original assignee may have re-assigned the rights as part of a sale, so who knows how many of these are owned by CMGI.
All goals, not met by fully electronic system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Any system for recording votes has a number of goals. Accuracy, robustness, privacy, voters' immunity from coercion, convenience, speed in determining the results all come to mind. Some of the goals might be contradictory. For example, the convenience of voting from home is somewhat offset by the risk of coercion which can more easily takes place in private space. Furthermore, those goals are note equally weighted. Accuracy is far more important than sheer speed of determining the results, provided the speed is reasonable.
When I arrived here in Ann Arbor, MI over a decade ago, they still used those mechanical booths. One would step in, swing a lever which closed the curtain, and then twist a series of small levers indicating one's votes. When finished, one would swing the initial lever back accomplishing three things: registering the votes, returning the voting levers to their neutral positions, opening the curtain. These mechanical booths were really old, and I wondered how the votes were recorded. Was the recording simply a set of odometer like wheels? Was information recorded on a paper tape? I think this system suffered from a number of problems. Because these old mechanical devices were opaque as to their inner workings, there was essentially a separation between the printed ballot information (attached to the front of the machine) and the recording mechanism (inside the machine), and this undermines the goal of robustness. One had to trust that a system that relied so heavily on friction between metal parts wouldn't wear out and mis-record information. Undoubtedly there was a testing regimen to minimize this risk.
The system apparently used in Palm Beach county is a system I've used or seen used in both Los Angeles county and Salt Lake county. Again, robustness is lost due to the separation of the printed ballot information and the recording method. The punch card itself, without the voting device it is inserted into, does not indicate how one voted. One has to correlate people and positions with holes in a given column and row. Re-examining and verifying one's ballot just prior to dropping it into the box is a difficult at best.
The system we now have in Ann Arbor is the best I've seen. The ballots are huge pieces of this paperboard with candidates and issues listed on both sides. To register a vote one simply fills in the missing portion of a line using a marker. One can read the ballot by eye or with a high-speed optical machine. Furthermore, the ballot box is a machine which verifies that the ballot is correct -- that one didn't vote for too many candidates or on multiple sides of a position -- as it is inserted. If there is a problem with a particular ballot, it's spit back out. There's an LED display which I suppose gives an indication of the problem, so the voter can void that particular ballot and fill out a new one. A ballot could be filled out easily from home and sent in by mail. If there is ever a question with a mechanically determined result, the paper ballots can be read and sorted by people. All in all it seems to meet the above-listed criteria very well.
The most "high tech" solution is not always the best. Ann Arbor's system seems to combine high tech, high speed counting with the robustness of an easy-to-read paper ballot that leaves a paper trail.
Slashdot Mirror
Java's basic trade offs are part of the problem. Remember that Java was created for the purpose of running on embeded systems. This makes very simple tradeoffs (for example, optimizing for size in the bytecode instead of performance) that are not real good for large applications.
The Java Virtual Machines from Sun contain Just-in-Time compilers and HotSpot technology and have for quite a while now. Thus the bytecode encoding has minimal impact on run-time and will often have at worst a fixed up-front cost for the entire life of an application.
One: there's no detail in this review. It sounds like the author is suggesting behaviourism (cf. Skinner) as a theory of cognition, an idea that was discarded before I was born. Someone give me some details and prove me wrong.
Braitenberg's vehicles depart from behaviorism quite nicely; in fact it's a topic addressed directly. Chapter 10, Getting Ideas, discusses how the architecture built in preceding chapters, the vehicles break free from simple stimulus->response behavior and develop ideas that can be active without direct support from the environment.
There's even a better method that has been discussed for years.
Discussed for years does not make it legally viable. Can you cite either legislation which says this is sufficient or case law in which this technique was held up?
Or is this just an urban legend?
Are you in Apple marketing?
Say hello to iPhoto.
How about a fax? That's how I make my views known to my senators and representative.
How can you easily determine one of their fax numbers? The following links will likely work, although you may have to call the listed voice number to ask for the fax number.
For the Senate, start at http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cf m.
For the House, start at http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html.
From the US Patent and Trademark Office web patent database, there are only two patents listed where the AltaVista Company is the assignee.
However, there are a large number in which Digital Equipment is the assignee and that refer to "search engine". If I'm not mistaken, DEC developed AltaVista, Compaq bought DEC and then sold off AltaVista. I suppose the original assignee may have re-assigned the rights as part of a sale, so who knows how many of these are owned by CMGI.
Any system for recording votes has a number of goals. Accuracy, robustness, privacy, voters' immunity from coercion, convenience, speed in determining the results all come to mind. Some of the goals might be contradictory. For example, the convenience of voting from home is somewhat offset by the risk of coercion which can more easily takes place in private space. Furthermore, those goals are note equally weighted. Accuracy is far more important than sheer speed of determining the results, provided the speed is reasonable.
When I arrived here in Ann Arbor, MI over a decade ago, they still used those mechanical booths. One would step in, swing a lever which closed the curtain, and then twist a series of small levers indicating one's votes. When finished, one would swing the initial lever back accomplishing three things: registering the votes, returning the voting levers to their neutral positions, opening the curtain. These mechanical booths were really old, and I wondered how the votes were recorded. Was the recording simply a set of odometer like wheels? Was information recorded on a paper tape? I think this system suffered from a number of problems. Because these old mechanical devices were opaque as to their inner workings, there was essentially a separation between the printed ballot information (attached to the front of the machine) and the recording mechanism (inside the machine), and this undermines the goal of robustness. One had to trust that a system that relied so heavily on friction between metal parts wouldn't wear out and mis-record information. Undoubtedly there was a testing regimen to minimize this risk.
The system apparently used in Palm Beach county is a system I've used or seen used in both Los Angeles county and Salt Lake county. Again, robustness is lost due to the separation of the printed ballot information and the recording method. The punch card itself, without the voting device it is inserted into, does not indicate how one voted. One has to correlate people and positions with holes in a given column and row. Re-examining and verifying one's ballot just prior to dropping it into the box is a difficult at best.
The system we now have in Ann Arbor is the best I've seen. The ballots are huge pieces of this paperboard with candidates and issues listed on both sides. To register a vote one simply fills in the missing portion of a line using a marker. One can read the ballot by eye or with a high-speed optical machine. Furthermore, the ballot box is a machine which verifies that the ballot is correct -- that one didn't vote for too many candidates or on multiple sides of a position -- as it is inserted. If there is a problem with a particular ballot, it's spit back out. There's an LED display which I suppose gives an indication of the problem, so the voter can void that particular ballot and fill out a new one. A ballot could be filled out easily from home and sent in by mail. If there is ever a question with a mechanically determined result, the paper ballots can be read and sorted by people. All in all it seems to meet the above-listed criteria very well.
The most "high tech" solution is not always the best. Ann Arbor's system seems to combine high tech, high speed counting with the robustness of an easy-to-read paper ballot that leaves a paper trail.