Just go to the election office and watch the vote! And write everything down!
If you fear voting fraud, it's your own responsibility to watch it and make sure, that no one tampers with the votes. That's the next big advantage in pen-and-paper-voting. You don't need to trust anyone else to work correctly. You can just get there and make sure they actually do.
Paper voting, by itself sucks. Without adding security measures, it offers even less verifiability than machines -- at least machines will reproduce the same tally every time you press the button.
No. Paper voting by itself is the most secure voting system ever invented, because it can be watched and controlled by everyone. You don't need specially trained voting officials solely for control, each untrained person can just stay as long as he wishes in the voting office and watch the procedere. And because everyone can keep private notes of each counting result, and can compare his results with everyone else, it is completely verifiable. You don't need special measures for security, you just have to perform every voting act in public except for the actual casting of the vote, which has to be verifiably in secrecy (which the voting booth guarantees).
(Pen and paper voting was the reason why the former East German voting authorities could be prosecuted for voting fraud, because citizens were keeping track with each part of the voting and made personal notes on each result, thus were able to prove the fraud. Pen and paper voting was the reason why the former mayor of Dachau, Bavaria, Germany and the chief election officer of Dachau could pe persecuted for vote tampering, because they switched sealed ballot boxes to shift votes to preferred voting precincts and thus manipulated majorities. Each other voting system could have been manipulated in a way to leave no tracks.)
Pen-and-Paper-voting is the one system that can be made secure quite simple, and that can be verified by about everyone without actually tampering with voting secrecy. There are (at least) three conditions which are not easy to align: equality and secrecy of votes.
Equality (each vote counts the same) is only possible if one guarantees that the counting process is open and verifiable. Secrecy (no one except the voter knows how he voted) is only possible if no one else can watch the actual act of voting. Integrity (no one can tamper with the vote once the voter cast the vote) is only possible if the votes can be watched without actually knowing the votes.
And here pen-and-paper-voting shines, and no other voting system comes close. Nearly each part of the voting process can be in the open: the ballot box can be opened to the public, controlled by everyone to be completely empty, sealed and be watched all the time by everyone who likes to watch. The breaking of the seal and the counting can (and should) be performed in public, and again everyone who wants to can watch it. The result for the local election office is announced publicly, and publicly written down into the forms and sealed, the votes are put back in the controlledly empty ballot box and sealed again, and the ballot box is then transported (and accompagnied by whoever wants) to the central election office, where the votes according to the sealed forms are tallied and the complete result is announced. And the actual act of voting can be performed in the voting booth, no one else can watch it, the ballot is folded by the voter, which preserves secrecy and personally put in the ballot box, which preserves integrity. So all three: Intregrity, Equality and Secrecy are preserved.
No electronic or mechanic voting system can come close to this. Each of them has at least one element which should be open closed (for instance counting with a computer is actually a closed process, because it is much faster than anyone can control count, so you have to trust the system to count correctly), or one element which should be closed in the open (the paper record which allows backtracking to the ballot).
tl;dr
Each voting system which performes at least one act of the voting process faster than the human eye can watch it can be tampered with and should not be trusted.
With your argumentation "lost sale" = "theft", you could also argue, that a negative critic in the newspaper is "theft", because it causes lost sales.
So for your information: Not every act that diminishes the perceived value of a good is theft. Write that 100 times. And then try to grasp the concept.
Yes, but as they say here: You don't need to buy a cow if you want milk.
And I especially talked about buying a house on loan and then paying it off for the next quarter of a century. Imagine 25 years of interest on your investment money, even if it's only $100 per month you are saving!
For me, it's completely the reverse. I never bought much music, I never was on Napster, I don't use P2P except for downloading Linux distributions and similar stuff, I don't listen to music radio stations (and I only listen to radio anyway if I am driving, and then it's mostly news radio), I was never much of a customer to musicians. I couldn't care less about their copyrights, their means to generate income or whatever their business model is. The same goes for movies, my children own many more DVDs than I ever had, and it's still somewhere at the less-than-100-level, and many of them are already scratched and unplayable (children, ey?).
But nevertheless, the music and movie industries always try to press the matter of copyright onto me, trying to limit what I can do, wanting to monitor every step I do online and applying for new laws and regulations all the way. So lets say to them: Go away! I don't care for your income. I am not interested in your business model, and everything is fine to me as long as you stop infringing on my life! Stop talking about poor artists dying, I am not interested in their works. Just go away and fight your little wars somewhere else where they don't affect me!
In this case over Berlin, Kiel and Sarrebruck, in all three state parliaments, the Pirates gained between 8 and 9% of the vote. The latest win were the six seats in the Schleswig-Holstein State Parliament in Kiel.
I did some experimental runs with a real estate administration software which was the main result of a project I worked with and I compared it with alternate investments or none at all for different income, taxation and interest levels.
There was a clear picture: A very narrow band of income actually profits from investing in a house, because they can then save on rent, and the savings on rent and the investment in real estate in sum trumped the possible income of paying rent and investing the surplus into mutual funds or other means of relatively safe investments. It was at the lower bound of income. If someone can barely pay for the rent, it doesn't pay to invest in real estate. If, after paying the rent, the income surplus is above a certain amount, it does pay to invest it into a mutual fund instead of paying off a debt for a house.
The higher interest on a loan together with the necessary maintenance for a house makes it unattractive in most cases to use a house bought on a loan as an investment. The case is different if you can buy the house with money you already have, then the savings on rent might offset the cost of maintenance for your property and thus yield some interest on the not payed rent.
No, he probably meant that the laws and orders, that came with the reforms according to the Hartz IV report, are far from being just, respecting the dignity of the people or being balanced. But they fulfill at least the minimal task of keeping most people from living on the streets and using criminal means to gather food.
The information are free, and Mrs. Schavan was free to cite them. But plagiarism means something completely different: claiming free information as the own effort.
There is a whole world between citing other sources and outright plagiarism. The first one attributes the intellectual effort to the people who actually made it, and the last one just claims other people's work as its own.
Cynism is realism. Kynismos (greek: ) in the tradition of Aristhenes and Diogenes of Sinope is an attempt to avoid the daily lies and moralisms which distort reality to gain some artificial and superficial cohesion between people. Instead the cynics abolish personal property and rank and try to get back to a natural, real and frugal life style and at the same time try to lift the veil of conventionalism by being provocatively and brutally honest against everyone.
As this language will be a derivative work of every book, song, movie etc., it will require you to first obtain the copyright of every book, song, movie etc...
No, because the product in question is only protected by copyright. Everyone who acquired a copy of the program by legal means has all the rights to the program except those withheld by copyright.
It would be sufficient to legally download and install a single instance of the JRE to obtain a license according to the court. The defendant in the case didn't buy a license to the API either, just installed a single instance of SAS' program which he obtained legally.
But why have polygamous monkeys penisses shaped quite different from a human one, while the penisses of males of more monogamous monkeys are more similar to ours? Wouldn't that be completely wrong from a "penis shaped to throw out concurrent's semen" point of view?
(And why, o why, are half of the offspring in a orang-utan harem with one dominant male, the silverback, not related to said dominant male? Maybe those simplicistic world views that can't imagine something quite far from a one-man-one-woman situation are not very imaginative at all? And maybe conclusions drawn with that little imagination stray somewhat from the observed reality?)
No, by definition, a good scientist is good at science. There were deeply religious scientists (Max Planck), there were pathologically paranoid scientists (Kurt Gödel), there were confessedly agnostic scientists (Albert Einstein), there were esoterics (Isaac Newton), pantheists (Gottfried Leibniz) and atheist zealots (Bertrand Russell).
To believe that a scientist has to have a certain worldview to become a good scientist is a religion in itself.
No. CISPA requires (in its current reincarnation), that a U.S. company allows access to all its servers on a request based on CISPA, may they be domestic or overseas. As such, CISPA collides with european requirements.
I'm starting to believe the Mayans about what's supposed to happen in December.
Completely offtopic, but you actually wouldn't believe the Mayans, because no single Mayan ever claimed that the world would come to an end, if a Long Period ends. This is just made up by some guys in other countries wanting to make a quick buck by selling "old myths of the navite people" books which predict dire doom to everyone. If anything, the Mayan Calendar Doom is just intellectual colonialism - stealing some cultural artefacts and reselling them out of context to others.
On the other hand, Microsoft plans to sell their Cloud Services to Europeans too, and if they want to do that they have to make sure that their services follow European Law, and that means that they can't at the same time follow CISPA. If anyone of their european customers ever notices that their data is copied from the Microsoft Cloud, be sure that a big shitstorm of legal action will arise and deplete Microsoft of some serious money as a compensation.
Why? How should a bank discover the fraud, if everything is authenticated correctly? Is a bank also responsible for your losses if a guy comes to your front door, poses as a bank clerk and you cut him a cheque?
In one company I worked for, local admin laptops were not used for networking gear once it was up and running. Only if something failed, then there was the occasional factory reset and reuploading the last known good config.
If possible and if the systems in question allow for it, you could still authenticate the admin with RADIUS+, and have the access to the RADIUS+ server done with two factor authentication or biometrics.
Slashdot Mirror
Stuffing the ballot box can be detected by watching the sealing of the ballot box or using a transparent one.
Just go to the election office and watch the vote! And write everything down!
If you fear voting fraud, it's your own responsibility to watch it and make sure, that no one tampers with the votes.
That's the next big advantage in pen-and-paper-voting. You don't need to trust anyone else to work correctly. You can just get there and make sure they actually do.
Paper voting, by itself sucks. Without adding security measures, it offers even less verifiability than machines -- at least machines will reproduce the same tally every time you press the button.
No. Paper voting by itself is the most secure voting system ever invented, because it can be watched and controlled by everyone. You don't need specially trained voting officials solely for control, each untrained person can just stay as long as he wishes in the voting office and watch the procedere. And because everyone can keep private notes of each counting result, and can compare his results with everyone else, it is completely verifiable. You don't need special measures for security, you just have to perform every voting act in public except for the actual casting of the vote, which has to be verifiably in secrecy (which the voting booth guarantees).
(Pen and paper voting was the reason why the former East German voting authorities could be prosecuted for voting fraud, because citizens were keeping track with each part of the voting and made personal notes on each result, thus were able to prove the fraud. Pen and paper voting was the reason why the former mayor of Dachau, Bavaria, Germany and the chief election officer of Dachau could pe persecuted for vote tampering, because they switched sealed ballot boxes to shift votes to preferred voting precincts and thus manipulated majorities. Each other voting system could have been manipulated in a way to leave no tracks.)
Pen-and-Paper-voting is the one system that can be made secure quite simple, and that can be verified by about everyone without actually tampering with voting secrecy.
There are (at least) three conditions which are not easy to align: equality and secrecy of votes.
Equality (each vote counts the same) is only possible if one guarantees that the counting process is open and verifiable.
Secrecy (no one except the voter knows how he voted) is only possible if no one else can watch the actual act of voting.
Integrity (no one can tamper with the vote once the voter cast the vote) is only possible if the votes can be watched without actually knowing the votes.
And here pen-and-paper-voting shines, and no other voting system comes close. Nearly each part of the voting process can be in the open: the ballot box can be opened to the public, controlled by everyone to be completely empty, sealed and be watched all the time by everyone who likes to watch. The breaking of the seal and the counting can (and should) be performed in public, and again everyone who wants to can watch it. The result for the local election office is announced publicly, and publicly written down into the forms and sealed, the votes are put back in the controlledly empty ballot box and sealed again, and the ballot box is then transported (and accompagnied by whoever wants) to the central election office, where the votes according to the sealed forms are tallied and the complete result is announced.
And the actual act of voting can be performed in the voting booth, no one else can watch it, the ballot is folded by the voter, which preserves secrecy and personally put in the ballot box, which preserves integrity. So all three: Intregrity, Equality and Secrecy are preserved.
No electronic or mechanic voting system can come close to this. Each of them has at least one element which should be open closed (for instance counting with a computer is actually a closed process, because it is much faster than anyone can control count, so you have to trust the system to count correctly), or one element which should be closed in the open (the paper record which allows backtracking to the ballot).
tl;dr
Each voting system which performes at least one act of the voting process faster than the human eye can watch it can be tampered with and should not be trusted.
With your argumentation "lost sale" = "theft", you could also argue, that a negative critic in the newspaper is "theft", because it causes lost sales.
So for your information: Not every act that diminishes the perceived value of a good is theft.
Write that 100 times.
And then try to grasp the concept.
Well. someone has to own the house.
Yes, but as they say here: You don't need to buy a cow if you want milk.
And I especially talked about buying a house on loan and then paying it off for the next quarter of a century. Imagine 25 years of interest on your investment money, even if it's only $100 per month you are saving!
For me, it's completely the reverse. I never bought much music, I never was on Napster, I don't use P2P except for downloading Linux distributions and similar stuff, I don't listen to music radio stations (and I only listen to radio anyway if I am driving, and then it's mostly news radio), I was never much of a customer to musicians. I couldn't care less about their copyrights, their means to generate income or whatever their business model is. The same goes for movies, my children own many more DVDs than I ever had, and it's still somewhere at the less-than-100-level, and many of them are already scratched and unplayable (children, ey?).
But nevertheless, the music and movie industries always try to press the matter of copyright onto me, trying to limit what I can do, wanting to monitor every step I do online and applying for new laws and regulations all the way. So lets say to them: Go away! I don't care for your income. I am not interested in your business model, and everything is fine to me as long as you stop infringing on my life! Stop talking about poor artists dying, I am not interested in their works. Just go away and fight your little wars somewhere else where they don't affect me!
In this case over Berlin, Kiel and Sarrebruck, in all three state parliaments, the Pirates gained between 8 and 9% of the vote. The latest win were the six seats in the Schleswig-Holstein State Parliament in Kiel.
I did some experimental runs with a real estate administration software which was the main result of a project I worked with and I compared it with alternate investments or none at all for different income, taxation and interest levels.
There was a clear picture: A very narrow band of income actually profits from investing in a house, because they can then save on rent, and the savings on rent and the investment in real estate in sum trumped the possible income of paying rent and investing the surplus into mutual funds or other means of relatively safe investments. It was at the lower bound of income. If someone can barely pay for the rent, it doesn't pay to invest in real estate. If, after paying the rent, the income surplus is above a certain amount, it does pay to invest it into a mutual fund instead of paying off a debt for a house.
The higher interest on a loan together with the necessary maintenance for a house makes it unattractive in most cases to use a house bought on a loan as an investment. The case is different if you can buy the house with money you already have, then the savings on rent might offset the cost of maintenance for your property and thus yield some interest on the not payed rent.
No, he probably meant that the laws and orders, that came with the reforms according to the Hartz IV report, are far from being just, respecting the dignity of the people or being balanced. But they fulfill at least the minimal task of keeping most people from living on the streets and using criminal means to gather food.
The information are free, and Mrs. Schavan was free to cite them. But plagiarism means something completely different: claiming free information as the own effort.
There is a whole world between citing other sources and outright plagiarism. The first one attributes the intellectual effort to the people who actually made it, and the last one just claims other people's work as its own.
Cynism is realism. Kynismos (greek: ) in the tradition of Aristhenes and Diogenes of Sinope is an attempt to avoid the daily lies and moralisms which distort reality to gain some artificial and superficial cohesion between people. Instead the cynics abolish personal property and rank and try to get back to a natural, real and frugal life style and at the same time try to lift the veil of conventionalism by being provocatively and brutally honest against everyone.
As this language will be a derivative work of every book, song, movie etc., it will require you to first obtain the copyright of every book, song, movie etc...
No, because the product in question is only protected by copyright. Everyone who acquired a copy of the program by legal means has all the rights to the program except those withheld by copyright.
It would be sufficient to legally download and install a single instance of the JRE to obtain a license according to the court. The defendant in the case didn't buy a license to the API either, just installed a single instance of SAS' program which he obtained legally.
Oh, that's why so many people are living on the streets in Germany and are known to storm an plunder supermarkets for food.
But why have polygamous monkeys penisses shaped quite different from a human one, while the penisses of males of more monogamous monkeys are more similar to ours? Wouldn't that be completely wrong from a "penis shaped to throw out concurrent's semen" point of view?
(And why, o why, are half of the offspring in a orang-utan harem with one dominant male, the silverback, not related to said dominant male? Maybe those simplicistic world views that can't imagine something quite far from a one-man-one-woman situation are not very imaginative at all? And maybe conclusions drawn with that little imagination stray somewhat from the observed reality?)
No, by definition, a good scientist is good at science. There were deeply religious scientists (Max Planck), there were pathologically paranoid scientists (Kurt Gödel), there were confessedly agnostic scientists (Albert Einstein), there were esoterics (Isaac Newton), pantheists (Gottfried Leibniz) and atheist zealots (Bertrand Russell).
To believe that a scientist has to have a certain worldview to become a good scientist is a religion in itself.
No. CISPA requires (in its current reincarnation), that a U.S. company allows access to all its servers on a request based on CISPA, may they be domestic or overseas.
As such, CISPA collides with european requirements.
I'm starting to believe the Mayans about what's supposed to happen in December.
Completely offtopic, but you actually wouldn't believe the Mayans, because no single Mayan ever claimed that the world would come to an end, if a Long Period ends. This is just made up by some guys in other countries wanting to make a quick buck by selling "old myths of the navite people" books which predict dire doom to everyone.
If anything, the Mayan Calendar Doom is just intellectual colonialism - stealing some cultural artefacts and reselling them out of context to others.
On the other hand, Microsoft plans to sell their Cloud Services to Europeans too, and if they want to do that they have to make sure that their services follow European Law, and that means that they can't at the same time follow CISPA. If anyone of their european customers ever notices that their data is copied from the Microsoft Cloud, be sure that a big shitstorm of legal action will arise and deplete Microsoft of some serious money as a compensation.
Why? How should a bank discover the fraud, if everything is authenticated correctly?
Is a bank also responsible for your losses if a guy comes to your front door, poses as a bank clerk and you cut him a cheque?
In one company I worked for, local admin laptops were not used for networking gear once it was up and running. Only if something failed, then there was the occasional factory reset and reuploading the last known good config.
If possible and if the systems in question allow for it, you could still authenticate the admin with RADIUS+, and have the access to the RADIUS+ server done with two factor authentication or biometrics.
The PR dept of PR?