My concern is more for professionalism. Teachers really shouldn't casually interacting with their students outside of class.
The problem is... they all have lives. I had a math teacher who led a math club, and it wasn't restricted to a single high school. A Psychology prof. also worked at the public library. The Econ. prof. also worked as an accountant for a few ONGs. Keep adding teachers and, if your city is small enough, it's inevitable you'll cross them. Professionalism doesn't mean pretending you don't exist; it means failing you if you don't study hard enough (as it was my case). Instead of ostracizing you, a cunning professor would leverage those few interactions: essentially, manipulate you into studying, passing their tests with a high grade looks more like a favor you do for them.
By the way, Lybia had 6,378 million dollars of external debt... at the beginning of this year. Finally, the National Transitional Council is led by Mahmoud Jibril, who as far as I looked wasn't affiliated to those factions.
I'm living in Argentina. The blogs were blocked by the CNC (like the FCC) because of a court order (no specifics, just that). The site itself contains links to RapidShare with a huge tar.gz of emails to/from the former president Néstor Kirchner, among other Argentinian politicians.
Even though there's a clear element of censorship, I still can't decide about the ISPs. Maybe it was stupidity from the people involved in the blocking. One of the three domain names that were banned was up again. Hooray for IP banning:P . An alternative explanation is that, like the people in Iran, they did a sloppy work on purpose as a "private" way to protest.
Consider this scenario: let's say that, due to whatever correlation (e.g. exposure to testosterone/finger length), those measurements indeed mapped to greater brain weight, less cancer risk, you name it. What happens next? Shall we drop those scientific findings because they are politically incorrect?
Heh, as a friend of mine told me, beauty and ugliness are relative concepts, not intrinsic. C's syntax is beautiful... compared to some other crap I read through my life. I liked Pascal's begin/end and the "for" construct, but eventually I grew tired of writing so much text. COBOL took verbosity to the extreme. C offered instead small yet functional constructs. The braces were part of that simplicity. The "=" and "==" issue is idiotic, agreed. As to my preference, that's the eternal question... Is stuff beautiful because you like it? Or do you like stuff because it's beautiful?:)
I always quit learning Objective C because I think the syntax is ugly as hell. Smalltalk was also disgusting (especially those If constructs), and Erlang is one yucky language too (Erlangers acknowledge this and even tell you to suck it up on the homepage). One of the best thing C and C++ had is a somewhat aesthetical syntax (although there are messups like "=" and "=="). Pascal is really pleasant to read, and so is ALGOL (I've never programmed in it and I can understand it, although the "OD" is awkward). Python is pure bliss.
I expect a lot of bashing because of this "form over function" stuff I'm saying (in Slashdot, no less!), but I think that programming languages are languages nonetheless, and therefore can be beautiful or ugly. We have moved from "anything goes" into "if I don't like reading it, I don't like using it". Why should we use a language that causes eye bleeding?
Really? I thought it was much more likely that a few stocks will rise really high, while the rest fluctuate randomly, so, in order to beat the market, one would have to pick those few that "drive the economy".
Nice thought, the one about being homogeneous nullifying your chances:).
Pretty neat, it's a shame that in this country is not as you said. That's the whole reason I wrote "If you have to put a paper...", and therefore my DoS description still applies (it's really common here, by the way). Also, you can still "miscount".
the paper ballots work really well (and are much harder to hack then a website)
Mmm, they are so easily hacked that even an analphabet could do it. If you have to put a paper with your choice in an envelope, just take all the papers of the candidate you don't like: the next person that tries to vote for that candidate won't be able and will have to wait for more papers. Just pay a two-zero sum to the one or two verifying the counting and "miscount".
When people started to think paper voting is incorruptible and completely verifiable, I wonder...
Wouldn't be easier to make the people in the Atlantic provinces vote earlier and the people next to the Pacific vote later? IIRC the difference is 4 or 5 hours, but just three hours will suffice.
There were primaries in Argentina last week, and I checked the count telegrams (one per booth) that someone from the gov', incredibly and marvelously, published to the public. It was a complete disaster, around 60% of the ones I checked have numbers that didn't match. Errors ranged from 1% to 12% of the total people who used that booth. I hadn't expected humans to be so failure-prone/corruptible.
The main argument against e-voting is the trust ladder. Conversations are usually like this: How can you trust X (e.g. the code is the same in all booths)? Because of Y. But how do you trust Y? Because of Z. And how..., endlessly. Now, instead, I'll just respond with "How can you trust people to count correctly?" or, better yet, "How can you trust people??". That's also the problem of having validation through both electronic and human means: there will be a *lot* of differences, who are you going to trust, the machine or the human? As soon as you pick a favorite, the other one is unnecessary. Clue: you can't trust people over machines on counting.
To go electronic or mixed, we just need full transparency and verification. Access to the source code for everyone. A VM to test the source code for ourselves. The SHA-1 of everything. During the election, the motherboard must be in an acrylic case. The ROMs/PICs must have a display that shows the SHA-1 of the current binary content. The candidates must be randomly distributed. Related to that, the vote and the issuer must be unmarried. Post-election verification of the vote. These are a few things that makes the process transparent. They'll leave out all the corporations, and it's a good thing: we wouldn't want to privatize an activity so vital for democracies.
Slashdot Mirror
My concern is more for professionalism. Teachers really shouldn't casually interacting with their students outside of class.
The problem is... they all have lives. I had a math teacher who led a math club, and it wasn't restricted to a single high school. A Psychology prof. also worked at the public library. The Econ. prof. also worked as an accountant for a few ONGs. Keep adding teachers and, if your city is small enough, it's inevitable you'll cross them. Professionalism doesn't mean pretending you don't exist; it means failing you if you don't study hard enough (as it was my case). Instead of ostracizing you, a cunning professor would leverage those few interactions: essentially, manipulate you into studying, passing their tests with a high grade looks more like a favor you do for them.
Bold assertions. Care to show some sources?
By the way, Lybia had 6,378 million dollars of external debt... at the beginning of this year. Finally, the National Transitional Council is led by Mahmoud Jibril, who as far as I looked wasn't affiliated to those factions.
There are a few. You can browse the website using Google's cache. But I'm not touching the stuff unless I use something to remain truly anonymous.
I'm living in Argentina. The blogs were blocked by the CNC (like the FCC) because of a court order (no specifics, just that). The site itself contains links to RapidShare with a huge tar.gz of emails to/from the former president Néstor Kirchner, among other Argentinian politicians.
Even though there's a clear element of censorship, I still can't decide about the ISPs. Maybe it was stupidity from the people involved in the blocking. One of the three domain names that were banned was up again. Hooray for IP banning :P . An alternative explanation is that, like the people in Iran, they did a sloppy work on purpose as a "private" way to protest.
Consider this scenario: let's say that, due to whatever correlation (e.g. exposure to testosterone/finger length), those measurements indeed mapped to greater brain weight, less cancer risk, you name it. What happens next? Shall we drop those scientific findings because they are politically incorrect?
Mod parent up.
Clearly and obviously Adam and Eve never existed...
Actually, they did. Meet Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. They are the ancestors of every human being alive today.
That's right. My Windows 95 desktop was full of icons well before the iPhone arrived.
But shouldn't this protection require massive amounts of energy to maintain?
browse in Lynx.
When was the last time you saw malware for it?
When was the last time you saw anything other than text in a BIG font? ;)
Yours sincerely,
A Lynx user.
We have free will.
There are a number of phylosophical currents that say free will is an illusion and everything is determined. Even the fact that you would say that.
If this works out, I can hope that the price will go down in time so I can make this trip one day :)
You should read "The Rocket", a short story by Ray Bradbury. It's about the same thing!
Heh, as a friend of mine told me, beauty and ugliness are relative concepts, not intrinsic. C's syntax is beautiful... compared to some other crap I read through my life. I liked Pascal's begin/end and the "for" construct, but eventually I grew tired of writing so much text. COBOL took verbosity to the extreme. C offered instead small yet functional constructs. The braces were part of that simplicity. The "=" and "==" issue is idiotic, agreed. As to my preference, that's the eternal question... Is stuff beautiful because you like it? Or do you like stuff because it's beautiful? :)
...when mankini was added? I never believed language-rape was possible, until now.
...it is a plain good engineering in response to market's demands. Not something I would call an invention or an innovation.
I would say the opposite, actually :) .
I always quit learning Objective C because I think the syntax is ugly as hell. Smalltalk was also disgusting (especially those If constructs), and Erlang is one yucky language too (Erlangers acknowledge this and even tell you to suck it up on the homepage). One of the best thing C and C++ had is a somewhat aesthetical syntax (although there are messups like "=" and "=="). Pascal is really pleasant to read, and so is ALGOL (I've never programmed in it and I can understand it, although the "OD" is awkward). Python is pure bliss.
I expect a lot of bashing because of this "form over function" stuff I'm saying (in Slashdot, no less!), but I think that programming languages are languages nonetheless, and therefore can be beautiful or ugly. We have moved from "anything goes" into "if I don't like reading it, I don't like using it". Why should we use a language that causes eye bleeding?
What happens when they don't match?
Really? I thought it was much more likely that a few stocks will rise really high, while the rest fluctuate randomly, so, in order to beat the market, one would have to pick those few that "drive the economy".
Nice thought, the one about being homogeneous nullifying your chances :) .
Pretty neat, it's a shame that in this country is not as you said. That's the whole reason I wrote "If you have to put a paper...", and therefore my DoS description still applies (it's really common here, by the way). Also, you can still "miscount".
I could buy a random subset of stocks, and still have a 50% chance of beating the average.
Heh, good luck with that! Actually, chances are lower because the increases in stock value are not homogeneous.
+1
the paper ballots work really well (and are much harder to hack then a website)
Mmm, they are so easily hacked that even an analphabet could do it. If you have to put a paper with your choice in an envelope, just take all the papers of the candidate you don't like: the next person that tries to vote for that candidate won't be able and will have to wait for more papers. Just pay a two-zero sum to the one or two verifying the counting and "miscount".
When people started to think paper voting is incorruptible and completely verifiable, I wonder...
Wouldn't be easier to make the people in the Atlantic provinces vote earlier and the people next to the Pacific vote later? IIRC the difference is 4 or 5 hours, but just three hours will suffice.
That worked really well with George W. Bush.
There were primaries in Argentina last week, and I checked the count telegrams (one per booth) that someone from the gov', incredibly and marvelously, published to the public. It was a complete disaster, around 60% of the ones I checked have numbers that didn't match. Errors ranged from 1% to 12% of the total people who used that booth. I hadn't expected humans to be so failure-prone/corruptible.
The main argument against e-voting is the trust ladder. Conversations are usually like this: How can you trust X (e.g. the code is the same in all booths)? Because of Y. But how do you trust Y? Because of Z. And how..., endlessly. Now, instead, I'll just respond with "How can you trust people to count correctly?" or, better yet, "How can you trust people??". That's also the problem of having validation through both electronic and human means: there will be a *lot* of differences, who are you going to trust, the machine or the human? As soon as you pick a favorite, the other one is unnecessary. Clue: you can't trust people over machines on counting.
To go electronic or mixed, we just need full transparency and verification. Access to the source code for everyone. A VM to test the source code for ourselves. The SHA-1 of everything. During the election, the motherboard must be in an acrylic case. The ROMs/PICs must have a display that shows the SHA-1 of the current binary content. The candidates must be randomly distributed. Related to that, the vote and the issuer must be unmarried. Post-election verification of the vote. These are a few things that makes the process transparent. They'll leave out all the corporations, and it's a good thing: we wouldn't want to privatize an activity so vital for democracies.