I kind of doubt that 'murder' is going to become legal anytime soon, at least I hope not.
Personally, my general thoughts: 1. Prison needs to be much more about reform. 2. If your'e not going to reform, you might as well execute 3. In general, the DP should be 'reserved' for those who have murdered 3 or more, or committed deliberate torture along with the murder.
You know, I don't think I've ever suggested a 'cheap' way of actually doing the execution? I've suggested nitrogen asphixiation as a method that's painless and doesn't mess the body up, require somebody with medical training(and thus Hippocratic Oath to deal with), or restricted, hard to obtain chemicals. You just need a reasonably airtight room and some tanks of nitrogen(available from the local welding supply).
I've mostly suggested streamlining the appeals process, eliminating some of the duplication of effort, and restricting the death penalty to the 'worst offenders'. We're not just talking 1st degree murder. My general standard is '3 or more killed, or deliberate torture in addition to the murder'. You don't try to sentence a 60 year old doctor who killed his wife by poison after catching her cheating to death. You go for the under 25 year old gangbanger 'executioner' who killed 6 people with his bare hands with that sentence. The second isn't containable in a minimum security prison, the first is.
Plus, one thing to realize is that prison costs can vary wildly. A Life in prison without possible parole sentence is the normal replacement for death, but those who receive it are often not 'average' convicts. You might be able to warehouse them cheaper than maintaining them on a death row, but I will call 'foul' when anti-DP groups cite costs and use average incarceration figures, incuding minimum security prisons*, when most of those being convicted of murder are going straight for max, which costs 3-10 times as much as minimum. Even then, you have the problem that when they hit 60 and start needing medical care provided by the prison system... In the end, I conclude that any savings are 'it depends on the specific case', and shouldn't really be considered that much. The decision should be on the basis of 'the dudes just that dangerous', or 'what they did was just that wrong'.
None of that shit is good for you by a long shot. And yes it's really fucking scary that Roundup is one of the safer ones.
To be fair, it's a bit like hydrogen peroxide. With the 6% solutions available from drug stores, it's a topical disinfectant. At higher purities, it can be used as rocket fuel and can set shoes on fire(video available on yt).
Industrial farm chemicals are often highly concentrated, making them far more dangerous at the factory or farm equipment than when it's been spread/diluted for actual use.
Though I'll agree; it IS scary that Roundup is one of the safer ones. I just felt the need to point it out because of a general perception of how dangerous it is.
Except you're talking about the USA and I was referring to the World throughout. Global Economy and all that; Monsanto sells seed and roundup prettymuch throughout the world. Yes, the USA has a farm policy that encourages some overproduction. It also trys to encourage preservation, stability, etc... Most of which aren't bad things. Even on a world scale, generally speaking there's plenty of food for everybody. NOBODY has to starve because there's not enough. The problems are ones of politics, transportation, and efficiency.
So the solution to feeding the burgeoning world population isn't to maximize yield per acre. It's to assist those third world countries in developing their economies so they too can become post-industrialized nations.
Toomato Tohmato. Part of becoming a post-industrialized nation is revolutionalizing food production into an industry, not a peasant thing. The vast reduction in labor necessary per acre allows people to move into the cities and become productive in other ways. You need a certain population density to support a first world lifestyle(the one that discourages excessive breeding). Industrialization means doing things that reduce the manpower necessary per acre(automation) while increasing yields per acre(farmland under cultivation in the USA has decreased over the decades), both of which increases the food per man hour, allowing the USA to be one of the largest producers of food in the USA while having a truly low number of people actually dedicated to growing it.
Under a global market, my points still stand: 1. If the price of food increases over a point(said point is fairly vague) you get riots and unreast due to poor people not being able to afford it. 2. Due to substitution effects, the price of corn in the USA affects the price of rice in China. 3. In many cases, Monsanto 'roundup ready' crops provide the most food per dollar. 4. Going organic would require more acres to be cultivated, worldwide. This would increase the price of food, as you're decreasing the efficiency. 5. Simply banning roundup will either result in more toxic chemicals being used, or decrease yields/increase expenses. Probably less effect than #4, but still there. 6. As seen in the last year, we're awfully close to the price point in #1 that causes unrest/rioting. We'd like to avoid that. 7. If the cancer problem is bad enough(not enough proof), it would constitute a hidden cost, and might justify a shift away from roundup - more expensive food in exchange for fewer hospital visits.
It's only a matter of time until the resources required to create meat get stressed to the point of pricing it out of most peoples diet.
It's already happened for me. I look at $5/pound(I live in an expensive area) for the *cheap* steak and relegate it to a very occasional treat. Don't eat much ground either.
I don't think we'll ever reach true vegetarianism, but a lot less meat I can see. Unfortuantly; I don't believe that it's the meat that's the true problem when it comes to health(though it doesn't help), it's the cheap industrial corn sugars and grains that are truly fueling our obesity epidemic.
I have to disagree. You have to remember that we're a morass of federal laws, 50 different sets of state law, who knows how many city/county laws, etc... That's before you consider that the police can arrest you for pretty much whatever they want, mistakes in the specifics of law themselves. There's a difference between being arrested for something, being charged for it, much less being convicted of it.
That being said, I figure that there has to be more to the story about the indecent exposure charge. Perhaps there were allegations/suspicion that the guy deliberately dropped his pants?
You don't need to be a sociopath to not open the door, even if there are 200 people being killed. It's a simple calculation today. The assumption now is that they want to be able to control the plane in order to turn it into an improvised guided missile. The 200 people are dead anyways if that happens, and the potential casualties on the ground are in the thousands. This is despite the odds being rather against 5 terrorists armed only with knives being able to kill 200. It would be difficult even with guns. Remember, even today a good percentage of commercial airplane pilots come from a military background, and we're talking about people who, during 9/11, were prepared to ram the plane with their unarmed fighter to prevent it from going into another occupied building.
Attitudes changed on 9/11. It's been our biggest defense against a repeat. Today, passangers have gotten so enthusiastic about defending the plane that they've killed people who tried to get through the flight door.
Funny, but while I agree there's a lot of evil at Monsanto, there's the problem that in many cases Roundup is LESS toxic than the alternatives if you want to get the crop yeild per acre/dollar that you can with Roundup & Roundup ready crops. It's sad, but we have limited amounts of fields and only so many resources(in dollar equivalents).
Theoretically speaking, we could feed pretty much everybody on the planet with 10% of the current planted crop areas if we switched to high density greenhouse hydroponics/aquaculture. We also wouldn't need anywhere near as much fresh water from the environment, but it would come at horrendous cost.
We could shift to non-greenhouse organic or non-roundup, but then we'd need more acres under cultivation, and it'd ultimately cost more for food. People have already rioted over food prices around the world. Actually heard on the news that they've spotted the price point at which 'global unrest' occurs. Didn't say what that price point is, but said they figured it out.
Food is serious business; we can only attempt to make food as safe as possible while still producing enough.
The land is already 'clear', though you're right it might take a few years, especially if irrigation is required. Of course, just like the cost for paying workers a living wage doesn't increase the cost of food much, so can't you switch to less water intensive methods for not too much increased cost.
Heck, it's economically feasible to grow ALL of our food in greenhouses, if necessary, recycling most of the water. Yes, the cost to do so would suck. Part of the reason I'd support even more massive construction of non-co2 releasing power sources.
Also, there's this little-known fact that latitudes near the Equator are much bigger around than extreme latitudes.
Also little known is the fact that the land masses aren't evenly distributed. Canada and Russia are amongst the largest land area countries, but have much lower populations for a reason - there's a huge amount of land up north that's been uneconomical due to the permafrost, glaciers, and such.
Though in checking up on the studies, I did see that farmers would have to shift crop types all over - switching to more heat/drought resistant varieties.
I'm not convinced there's enough benefit from a warming arctic to offset a scorching equator.
To be honest, neither am I. There's reasons why I'd support a massive building program for nuclear power, I hate coal power for numerous reasons(but wind/solar isn't there yet).
Not that you will understand what I am saying, if you were capable of reasoned discussion you would not link to such a ridiculous site in your signature.
Congratulations! It's been like 3 years since somebody last insulted my sig. It at least used to be great for detecting people incapable of reasoned discussion.
Of course, this line does a good job anyways:
I'm sure that Canada will be eager to welcome a hundred million immigrants from Bangladesh then. After all, Canada caused it to happen and benefited, whereas Bangladesh didn't cause it but did get harmed.
1. Lots of immigration into Canada right now 2. Even worst case wouldn't render 100m worth of India unoccupiable. 3. Yeah, India with it's 1.7B tons of CO2 a year vs Canada's 544M is totally not responsible for any global warming.
It 'depends'. In any case it'd be highly expensive, but so wouldn't doing the things necessary to stop Global Warming. As a matter of fact, I think it's an open question as to which would be cheaper/better.
That being said, I support less pollution in general. I don't like the way many countries have gone about reducing their pollution, those that actually have, but then, I don't agree with most politicians.
When the harvests fail, you can be the test subject to see how well you can adapt to no food.
Right now they're predicting that huge amounts of land would become economical to farm on in Canada and Siberia and such, far more than what will be lost by rising sea levels. A few degrees can mean weeks more growing season in areas like North Dakota, allowing the the planting of more productive plants that need that time to mature.
Soo you propose...throwing out a working system, rigging up a mechanical "fill in the dots" system and...why is this better exactly? It seems like you are simply reinventing the wheel since both systems hand you a finished paper ballot no matter which you choose?
Okay, maybe I should ask how your system works more in depth - does it print on pre-finished/coded ballots so people can't just insert their own paper? Do you have some sort of activation system so it won't print a ballot until something is done? Is the receipt/ballot human readable?
As for the machines breaking...its two big hard plastic buttons, we've been able to make big hard plastic buttons in vending machines that survive all kinds of hell in all kinds of weather, why would this be any different?
There's a whole hell of a lot more to it than the two buttons, and you know that. While every individual part is probably extremely tough, there are still things that can go wrong. The printer, for example. Voting machines generally aren't used often enough in large enough quantities to get the bugs worked out, at least without making them too expensive.
I seriously doubt even with markup these machines would be that expensive to manufacture so just say screw it and have a couple of spares, they probably should have a couple of spares regardless in case they have a higher voter turnout than expected.
My Grandmother(other side of the family) works at a voting station in NY. If I remember our recent conversation right, each of her machines costs $120k. They might not be expensive to make, but if so they've got a crazy markup(lack of extensive market to recoup development costs, likely; plus crazy support requirements). Per her they break quite often, so yes, they have spares.
When dealing with computers though, I don't just worry about hardware faults, I worry about software faults - a software fault can sideline every machine if it's bad enough.
Seems logical to me but seeing as how the machines were in nice climate controlled buildings (they use the break rooms of the local volunteer fire depts here, big and roomy with plenty of seating) short of a full city wide power blackout I don't see a problem, and if the city is plunged into total blackout? Kinda doubt voting gonna be the thing people worry about.
I've voted in schools, churches, fire departments, and the mall. In case of blackout not being worried about voting? I'll tell you what - I'd still be concerned; with ND's voting system, all I need to vote is a little light and a pen. Then I can be on my way, I have other things to do. I don't want to wait, potentially for hours, for the power to come back on to vote.
In any case i think we can both agree manual ballots are pointless at this stage, any kind of close race at all and it turns into a guessing game.
1. 99% of people should be able to fill out a bubble sheet by hand just fine. 2. Automatic scanners for 'spoiled ballets' should catch the vast majority of questionable acts. 3. The rules should be phrased and the scanner programmed such that if the scanner says it's spoiled; it's spoiled. But the voter is informed right there.
I simply propose that since the system i saw was already operational, uses paper ballots as the final product, is easy to use for the elderly and disabled, and took what had previously been a long and frankly painful voting process and actually made it quick and painless that it would probably be wise to use a similar system elsewhere.
To be fair, you only have a vague description of the systems I've seen and felt were adequate, and what I think the ideal system would be. I only have your vague descriptions of the system you've experienced and liked. In the end I'm an IA professional, as long as security and reliability concerns are met in a realistic fashion
Uhhh...all the problems is solved by simply handing the printed ballot to the person before they stick it in the box (or a helper if they are blind) which is EXACTLY what was done in my area. it took me less than 2 minutes to scan over it and see it was what I had put in, easy peasy.
Uhhh... What part of what you mention is different from 'a fancy printer for the ballot, not the primary vote system'? You get your ballot, completely human-fillable(in case the machine breaks). You feed it into the voting machine, make your choices. It prints/fills the ovals for you. You double check that it did it correctly, then using procedures insert it into the ballot box through a scanner that also verifies that it's not a spoiled ballot.
And you want to eliminate helpers for the old and handicapped as much as possible because studies have shown time and time again that even changes in body language can help "steer" a person's choice, and we are talking about the frail and elderly here which have always been more easy to influence than most.
True. Which is why I mentioned machines later on. I don't object to machines to help people vote; I object to them being the primary holder of the votes. Sadly, Grandpa also suffers from Alzheimer's. I don't trust him to remember the candidates at this point.:(
Hardware can last decades, true, but 'most' of it should be gone within a decade. Not breaking support will slow down adoption a touch, true. But it'll also reduce disruption, and the answer of some companies if MS DID break support would be to stop upgrading(IE no more $ for MS) or switch to an alternative for that function. It's about balance.
Reading up, it's like 8.4M CPU years to break a 1024 bit key. A touch high for expiring data of low marginal worth like your forum logon. You know the military and banking systems have darn well moved on though.
Have you ever seen what one of those looks like after a 60 year old has filled in one? Or someone with damaged nerves in their dominant hand?
Like my grandfather who has spinal nerve damage from polio AND an industrial accident? There's a reason I specified giving Handicapped voters additional assistance, and I was generic about what form it takes because it can take many forms - sometimes you have to get creative. Further down in the thread I mention using the machines for handicapped people - but it's only a fancy printer for the ballot, not the primary vote system.
You have to remember Firethorn that thanks to tech we have more and more people living with problems that frankly wouldn't even be survivable 20 years ago.
Actually, with modern technology we're also prevent the creation of a lot of cripples. Despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of disabled is dropping. Still, like I said earlier, my goal IS NOT to disenfranchise anybody. Any voter should get any and all help necessary to vote. Touchscreens don't work very well without eyes, the woman born without arms might be better off with a ballot on the floor(she can write with her foot), the machines had better be height adjustable, etc...
With something as important and voting one shouldn't be disenfranchised for ANY reason if we can help it, and with the system I saw not only did the computer printout make computer counts flawless and quick but it didn't leave you guessing WTF the person was trying to pick.
Oh yes, the computer counts are flawless - it spits out what I tell it to spit out, because I've compromised the machine.
From reading on the issue, the problem isn't fresh keys, it's older programs and hardware that can't handle anything greater than 1024. Not all of them have the option to handle 2048+. So we have to wait until those are replaced before breaking support for them.
I hope everyone realizes that running a paper ballot through an optical scanner is exactly the same as using a voting machine.
Incorrect. If you read the thread, the problem isn't necessarily the accuracy of any one count. The problem is ensuring that somebody hasn't managed to hack the machine to change vote counts in a way that can't be discovered through audit. With a margin that hit 1k votes(Florida), If I can hit 100 machines and introduce a 10% swing, I just changed the election.
In fact, it's worse, because transferring data via hand-markings is many times less reliable than using a machine user interface. Optical scanning is a step backwards, IMHO.
I'd suggest taking the accuracy of computer scanning up with the agencies that run/ran the SAT, ACT tests using scanotron sheets for decades.
Go to your bank sometime, and ask them to show you their hand-written ledger books with your bank transactions written on it so a human can personally recount them each month to make sure your account balance is correct.
And here's the other difference. I can audit my bank account online anytime I darn well want to. I reconcile my accounts monthly, matching up my known expenses with what they list. Any discrepancies means I investigate, and on no less than 2 occasions, call up my credit card company* and tell them there have been unauthorized charges(backed up by a letter sent out the next day).
Due to the anonymity requirement for the vote, I can't just check to make sure that my vote was tallied for my candidates. Thus the need for a system that's easy to audit. Given my position as a computer security specialist, that means that I don't trust results stored in a computer. Banking isn't a good example, seeing as how fraud occurs there all the time. I don't want my elections being decided by the most clever computer hacker, personally.
A voting system should try to handle less-than-civilized times though, because it is important that democracy survives them.
Indeed. My thoughts: 1. Vote Selling. Not much you can do about this. Worst case the buyer simply has to trust the seller; an individual vote generally isn't worth that much anyways, and somebody is unlikely to sell their vote unless they're either going to vote for the candidate anyways or apathetic. 1. Vote Coercion: Personally, I think what I'd simply do is make any attempts cost about 1000x what the vote would be worth - 5 years in prison or something. Offer a bounty for anybody reporting attempted Coercion.
I agree. My thought: 1. Still use professionally printed ballots. That allows you to practice stock control, anti-fraud measures, etc... 2. User gets his/her ballot and has an option - use the machines or a pen on paper on a desk(with curtains for privacy). 3. Machine only acts as an assistant - bigger font, reading out loud, printing, etc... Once the voter is done, the machine prints on the ballot provided by the voter, who can then READ the votes the machine placed. Any issues the voter gets a new ballot, and if the machine mismarked(vs the voter hitting the wrong button or changing his mind) it's removed from service. 4. Spoiled ballots(whether by hand or machine) are stamped/marked SPOILED and stored in a separate secure container. 5. Good ballots are fed into the ballot box through a scanner that verifies a good ballot and tallies the votes up. 6. After the election, the results are pulled from the scanners, then all the boxes are fed through the scanners AGAIN, to verify the results. A random sample of boxes are pulled for hand verification - the contents of Box X should match up between Scanner A, B, and hand. Mismatch triggers additional counting (A can't be trusted? Rescan everything that went through A: A&B can't be trusted? Check EVERY machine; hand count of all votes for election).
Heck, before I saw the miniaturized scanners I suggested using the school scanners - you know they work(from scanning through the school year), people have practice using them(important when you only hold an election every two years or so), you already own the machines(assuming public schools), etc... Scanners today can have a lower error rate than hand counting. You simply set the rules such that a 'spoiled ballot' is something not machine readable.
Personally, I believe that for elections, the surety of being able to audit/recount is more important than ease of use. I would have never bought the diebold machines without printers. Worst case, I'll buy more expensive printing voting machines, and only supply a few to each station for the handicapped to use - using cheap pens for everybody else.
You mark your ballot with an X in the proper bubble
You know, this makes me wonder, why an X? Aren't most bubble sheets designed for you to 'fill in the bubble' for easy electronic scanning? In ND that's what I did, just like for standardized tests in school.
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of doubt that 'murder' is going to become legal anytime soon, at least I hope not.
Personally, my general thoughts:
1. Prison needs to be much more about reform.
2. If your'e not going to reform, you might as well execute
3. In general, the DP should be 'reserved' for those who have murdered 3 or more, or committed deliberate torture along with the murder.
You know, I don't think I've ever suggested a 'cheap' way of actually doing the execution? I've suggested nitrogen asphixiation as a method that's painless and doesn't mess the body up, require somebody with medical training(and thus Hippocratic Oath to deal with), or restricted, hard to obtain chemicals. You just need a reasonably airtight room and some tanks of nitrogen(available from the local welding supply).
I've mostly suggested streamlining the appeals process, eliminating some of the duplication of effort, and restricting the death penalty to the 'worst offenders'. We're not just talking 1st degree murder. My general standard is '3 or more killed, or deliberate torture in addition to the murder'. You don't try to sentence a 60 year old doctor who killed his wife by poison after catching her cheating to death. You go for the under 25 year old gangbanger 'executioner' who killed 6 people with his bare hands with that sentence. The second isn't containable in a minimum security prison, the first is.
Plus, one thing to realize is that prison costs can vary wildly. A Life in prison without possible parole sentence is the normal replacement for death, but those who receive it are often not 'average' convicts. You might be able to warehouse them cheaper than maintaining them on a death row, but I will call 'foul' when anti-DP groups cite costs and use average incarceration figures, incuding minimum security prisons*, when most of those being convicted of murder are going straight for max, which costs 3-10 times as much as minimum. Even then, you have the problem that when they hit 60 and start needing medical care provided by the prison system... In the end, I conclude that any savings are 'it depends on the specific case', and shouldn't really be considered that much. The decision should be on the basis of 'the dudes just that dangerous', or 'what they did was just that wrong'.
*Though I'll admit that not all do.
None of that shit is good for you by a long shot. And yes it's really fucking scary that Roundup is one of the safer ones.
To be fair, it's a bit like hydrogen peroxide. With the 6% solutions available from drug stores, it's a topical disinfectant. At higher purities, it can be used as rocket fuel and can set shoes on fire(video available on yt).
Industrial farm chemicals are often highly concentrated, making them far more dangerous at the factory or farm equipment than when it's been spread/diluted for actual use.
Though I'll agree; it IS scary that Roundup is one of the safer ones. I just felt the need to point it out because of a general perception of how dangerous it is.
We have plenty of fields.
Except you're talking about the USA and I was referring to the World throughout. Global Economy and all that; Monsanto sells seed and roundup prettymuch throughout the world. Yes, the USA has a farm policy that encourages some overproduction. It also trys to encourage preservation, stability, etc... Most of which aren't bad things. Even on a world scale, generally speaking there's plenty of food for everybody. NOBODY has to starve because there's not enough. The problems are ones of politics, transportation, and efficiency.
So the solution to feeding the burgeoning world population isn't to maximize yield per acre. It's to assist those third world countries in developing their economies so they too can become post-industrialized nations.
Toomato Tohmato. Part of becoming a post-industrialized nation is revolutionalizing food production into an industry, not a peasant thing. The vast reduction in labor necessary per acre allows people to move into the cities and become productive in other ways. You need a certain population density to support a first world lifestyle(the one that discourages excessive breeding). Industrialization means doing things that reduce the manpower necessary per acre(automation) while increasing yields per acre(farmland under cultivation in the USA has decreased over the decades), both of which increases the food per man hour, allowing the USA to be one of the largest producers of food in the USA while having a truly low number of people actually dedicated to growing it.
Under a global market, my points still stand:
1. If the price of food increases over a point(said point is fairly vague) you get riots and unreast due to poor people not being able to afford it.
2. Due to substitution effects, the price of corn in the USA affects the price of rice in China.
3. In many cases, Monsanto 'roundup ready' crops provide the most food per dollar.
4. Going organic would require more acres to be cultivated, worldwide. This would increase the price of food, as you're decreasing the efficiency.
5. Simply banning roundup will either result in more toxic chemicals being used, or decrease yields/increase expenses. Probably less effect than #4, but still there.
6. As seen in the last year, we're awfully close to the price point in #1 that causes unrest/rioting. We'd like to avoid that.
7. If the cancer problem is bad enough(not enough proof), it would constitute a hidden cost, and might justify a shift away from roundup - more expensive food in exchange for fewer hospital visits.
It's only a matter of time until the resources required to create meat get stressed to the point of pricing it out of most peoples diet.
It's already happened for me. I look at $5/pound(I live in an expensive area) for the *cheap* steak and relegate it to a very occasional treat. Don't eat much ground either.
I don't think we'll ever reach true vegetarianism, but a lot less meat I can see. Unfortuantly; I don't believe that it's the meat that's the true problem when it comes to health(though it doesn't help), it's the cheap industrial corn sugars and grains that are truly fueling our obesity epidemic.
I have to disagree. You have to remember that we're a morass of federal laws, 50 different sets of state law, who knows how many city/county laws, etc... That's before you consider that the police can arrest you for pretty much whatever they want, mistakes in the specifics of law themselves. There's a difference between being arrested for something, being charged for it, much less being convicted of it.
That being said, I figure that there has to be more to the story about the indecent exposure charge. Perhaps there were allegations/suspicion that the guy deliberately dropped his pants?
You don't need to be a sociopath to not open the door, even if there are 200 people being killed. It's a simple calculation today. The assumption now is that they want to be able to control the plane in order to turn it into an improvised guided missile. The 200 people are dead anyways if that happens, and the potential casualties on the ground are in the thousands. This is despite the odds being rather against 5 terrorists armed only with knives being able to kill 200. It would be difficult even with guns. Remember, even today a good percentage of commercial airplane pilots come from a military background, and we're talking about people who, during 9/11, were prepared to ram the plane with their unarmed fighter to prevent it from going into another occupied building.
Attitudes changed on 9/11. It's been our biggest defense against a repeat. Today, passangers have gotten so enthusiastic about defending the plane that they've killed people who tried to get through the flight door.
In other news, Monsanto has patented cancer.
Funny, but while I agree there's a lot of evil at Monsanto, there's the problem that in many cases Roundup is LESS toxic than the alternatives if you want to get the crop yeild per acre/dollar that you can with Roundup & Roundup ready crops. It's sad, but we have limited amounts of fields and only so many resources(in dollar equivalents).
Theoretically speaking, we could feed pretty much everybody on the planet with 10% of the current planted crop areas if we switched to high density greenhouse hydroponics/aquaculture. We also wouldn't need anywhere near as much fresh water from the environment, but it would come at horrendous cost.
We could shift to non-greenhouse organic or non-roundup, but then we'd need more acres under cultivation, and it'd ultimately cost more for food. People have already rioted over food prices around the world. Actually heard on the news that they've spotted the price point at which 'global unrest' occurs. Didn't say what that price point is, but said they figured it out.
Food is serious business; we can only attempt to make food as safe as possible while still producing enough.
The land is already 'clear', though you're right it might take a few years, especially if irrigation is required. Of course, just like the cost for paying workers a living wage doesn't increase the cost of food much, so can't you switch to less water intensive methods for not too much increased cost.
Heck, it's economically feasible to grow ALL of our food in greenhouses, if necessary, recycling most of the water. Yes, the cost to do so would suck. Part of the reason I'd support even more massive construction of non-co2 releasing power sources.
Oops, it's been way too long since I've studied geography.
Sure thing
Also, there's this little-known fact that latitudes near the Equator are much bigger around than extreme latitudes.
Also little known is the fact that the land masses aren't evenly distributed. Canada and Russia are amongst the largest land area countries, but have much lower populations for a reason - there's a huge amount of land up north that's been uneconomical due to the permafrost, glaciers, and such.
Though in checking up on the studies, I did see that farmers would have to shift crop types all over - switching to more heat/drought resistant varieties.
I'm not convinced there's enough benefit from a warming arctic to offset a scorching equator.
To be honest, neither am I. There's reasons why I'd support a massive building program for nuclear power, I hate coal power for numerous reasons(but wind/solar isn't there yet).
Oh, and on Netherlands - A lot of the country was built on land claimed from the ocean via the building seawalls.
Not that you will understand what I am saying, if you were capable of reasoned discussion you would not link to such a ridiculous site in your signature.
Congratulations! It's been like 3 years since somebody last insulted my sig. It at least used to be great for detecting people incapable of reasoned discussion.
Of course, this line does a good job anyways:
I'm sure that Canada will be eager to welcome a hundred million immigrants from Bangladesh then. After all, Canada caused it to happen and benefited, whereas Bangladesh didn't cause it but did get harmed.
1. Lots of immigration into Canada right now
2. Even worst case wouldn't render 100m worth of India unoccupiable.
3. Yeah, India with it's 1.7B tons of CO2 a year vs Canada's 544M is totally not responsible for any global warming.
It 'depends'. In any case it'd be highly expensive, but so wouldn't doing the things necessary to stop Global Warming. As a matter of fact, I think it's an open question as to which would be cheaper/better.
That being said, I support less pollution in general. I don't like the way many countries have gone about reducing their pollution, those that actually have, but then, I don't agree with most politicians.
When the harvests fail, you can be the test subject to see how well you can adapt to no food.
Right now they're predicting that huge amounts of land would become economical to farm on in Canada and Siberia and such, far more than what will be lost by rising sea levels. A few degrees can mean weeks more growing season in areas like North Dakota, allowing the the planting of more productive plants that need that time to mature.
Soo you propose...throwing out a working system, rigging up a mechanical "fill in the dots" system and...why is this better exactly? It seems like you are simply reinventing the wheel since both systems hand you a finished paper ballot no matter which you choose?
Okay, maybe I should ask how your system works more in depth - does it print on pre-finished/coded ballots so people can't just insert their own paper?
Do you have some sort of activation system so it won't print a ballot until something is done?
Is the receipt/ballot human readable?
As for the machines breaking...its two big hard plastic buttons, we've been able to make big hard plastic buttons in vending machines that survive all kinds of hell in all kinds of weather, why would this be any different?
There's a whole hell of a lot more to it than the two buttons, and you know that. While every individual part is probably extremely tough, there are still things that can go wrong. The printer, for example. Voting machines generally aren't used often enough in large enough quantities to get the bugs worked out, at least without making them too expensive.
I seriously doubt even with markup these machines would be that expensive to manufacture so just say screw it and have a couple of spares, they probably should have a couple of spares regardless in case they have a higher voter turnout than expected.
My Grandmother(other side of the family) works at a voting station in NY. If I remember our recent conversation right, each of her machines costs $120k. They might not be expensive to make, but if so they've got a crazy markup(lack of extensive market to recoup development costs, likely; plus crazy support requirements). Per her they break quite often, so yes, they have spares.
When dealing with computers though, I don't just worry about hardware faults, I worry about software faults - a software fault can sideline every machine if it's bad enough.
Seems logical to me but seeing as how the machines were in nice climate controlled buildings (they use the break rooms of the local volunteer fire depts here, big and roomy with plenty of seating) short of a full city wide power blackout I don't see a problem, and if the city is plunged into total blackout? Kinda doubt voting gonna be the thing people worry about.
I've voted in schools, churches, fire departments, and the mall. In case of blackout not being worried about voting? I'll tell you what - I'd still be concerned; with ND's voting system, all I need to vote is a little light and a pen. Then I can be on my way, I have other things to do. I don't want to wait, potentially for hours, for the power to come back on to vote.
In any case i think we can both agree manual ballots are pointless at this stage, any kind of close race at all and it turns into a guessing game.
1. 99% of people should be able to fill out a bubble sheet by hand just fine.
2. Automatic scanners for 'spoiled ballets' should catch the vast majority of questionable acts.
3. The rules should be phrased and the scanner programmed such that if the scanner says it's spoiled; it's spoiled. But the voter is informed right there.
I simply propose that since the system i saw was already operational, uses paper ballots as the final product, is easy to use for the elderly and disabled, and took what had previously been a long and frankly painful voting process and actually made it quick and painless that it would probably be wise to use a similar system elsewhere.
To be fair, you only have a vague description of the systems I've seen and felt were adequate, and what I think the ideal system would be. I only have your vague descriptions of the system you've experienced and liked. In the end I'm an IA professional, as long as security and reliability concerns are met in a realistic fashion
Uhhh...all the problems is solved by simply handing the printed ballot to the person before they stick it in the box (or a helper if they are blind) which is EXACTLY what was done in my area. it took me less than 2 minutes to scan over it and see it was what I had put in, easy peasy.
Uhhh... What part of what you mention is different from 'a fancy printer for the ballot, not the primary vote system'? You get your ballot, completely human-fillable(in case the machine breaks). You feed it into the voting machine, make your choices. It prints/fills the ovals for you. You double check that it did it correctly, then using procedures insert it into the ballot box through a scanner that also verifies that it's not a spoiled ballot.
And you want to eliminate helpers for the old and handicapped as much as possible because studies have shown time and time again that even changes in body language can help "steer" a person's choice, and we are talking about the frail and elderly here which have always been more easy to influence than most.
True. Which is why I mentioned machines later on. I don't object to machines to help people vote; I object to them being the primary holder of the votes. Sadly, Grandpa also suffers from Alzheimer's. I don't trust him to remember the candidates at this point. :(
Hardware can last decades, true, but 'most' of it should be gone within a decade. Not breaking support will slow down adoption a touch, true. But it'll also reduce disruption, and the answer of some companies if MS DID break support would be to stop upgrading(IE no more $ for MS) or switch to an alternative for that function. It's about balance.
Reading up, it's like 8.4M CPU years to break a 1024 bit key. A touch high for expiring data of low marginal worth like your forum logon. You know the military and banking systems have darn well moved on though.
Oh yeah, and remember my mentioning the scanner spitting out invalid/spoiled ballots? That way a certain amount of QC is done.
Have you ever seen what one of those looks like after a 60 year old has filled in one? Or someone with damaged nerves in their dominant hand?
Like my grandfather who has spinal nerve damage from polio AND an industrial accident? There's a reason I specified giving Handicapped voters additional assistance, and I was generic about what form it takes because it can take many forms - sometimes you have to get creative. Further down in the thread I mention using the machines for handicapped people - but it's only a fancy printer for the ballot, not the primary vote system.
You have to remember Firethorn that thanks to tech we have more and more people living with problems that frankly wouldn't even be survivable 20 years ago.
Actually, with modern technology we're also prevent the creation of a lot of cripples. Despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of disabled is dropping. Still, like I said earlier, my goal IS NOT to disenfranchise anybody. Any voter should get any and all help necessary to vote. Touchscreens don't work very well without eyes, the woman born without arms might be better off with a ballot on the floor(she can write with her foot), the machines had better be height adjustable, etc...
With something as important and voting one shouldn't be disenfranchised for ANY reason if we can help it, and with the system I saw not only did the computer printout make computer counts flawless and quick but it didn't leave you guessing WTF the person was trying to pick.
Oh yes, the computer counts are flawless - it spits out what I tell it to spit out, because I've compromised the machine.
From reading on the issue, the problem isn't fresh keys, it's older programs and hardware that can't handle anything greater than 1024. Not all of them have the option to handle 2048+. So we have to wait until those are replaced before breaking support for them.
I hope everyone realizes that running a paper ballot through an optical scanner is exactly the same as using a voting machine.
Incorrect. If you read the thread, the problem isn't necessarily the accuracy of any one count. The problem is ensuring that somebody hasn't managed to hack the machine to change vote counts in a way that can't be discovered through audit. With a margin that hit 1k votes(Florida), If I can hit 100 machines and introduce a 10% swing, I just changed the election.
In fact, it's worse, because transferring data via hand-markings is many times less reliable than using a machine user interface. Optical scanning is a step backwards, IMHO.
I'd suggest taking the accuracy of computer scanning up with the agencies that run/ran the SAT, ACT tests using scanotron sheets for decades.
Go to your bank sometime, and ask them to show you their hand-written ledger books with your bank transactions written on it so a human can personally recount them each month to make sure your account balance is correct.
And here's the other difference. I can audit my bank account online anytime I darn well want to. I reconcile my accounts monthly, matching up my known expenses with what they list. Any discrepancies means I investigate, and on no less than 2 occasions, call up my credit card company* and tell them there have been unauthorized charges(backed up by a letter sent out the next day).
Due to the anonymity requirement for the vote, I can't just check to make sure that my vote was tallied for my candidates. Thus the need for a system that's easy to audit. Given my position as a computer security specialist, that means that I don't trust results stored in a computer. Banking isn't a good example, seeing as how fraud occurs there all the time. I don't want my elections being decided by the most clever computer hacker, personally.
*Bank account has thus far been unscathed.
A voting system should try to handle less-than-civilized times though, because it is important that democracy survives them.
Indeed. My thoughts:
1. Vote Selling. Not much you can do about this. Worst case the buyer simply has to trust the seller; an individual vote generally isn't worth that much anyways, and somebody is unlikely to sell their vote unless they're either going to vote for the candidate anyways or apathetic.
1. Vote Coercion: Personally, I think what I'd simply do is make any attempts cost about 1000x what the vote would be worth - 5 years in prison or something. Offer a bounty for anybody reporting attempted Coercion.
I agree. My thought:
1. Still use professionally printed ballots. That allows you to practice stock control, anti-fraud measures, etc...
2. User gets his/her ballot and has an option - use the machines or a pen on paper on a desk(with curtains for privacy).
3. Machine only acts as an assistant - bigger font, reading out loud, printing, etc... Once the voter is done, the machine prints on the ballot provided by the voter, who can then READ the votes the machine placed. Any issues the voter gets a new ballot, and if the machine mismarked(vs the voter hitting the wrong button or changing his mind) it's removed from service.
4. Spoiled ballots(whether by hand or machine) are stamped/marked SPOILED and stored in a separate secure container.
5. Good ballots are fed into the ballot box through a scanner that verifies a good ballot and tallies the votes up.
6. After the election, the results are pulled from the scanners, then all the boxes are fed through the scanners AGAIN, to verify the results. A random sample of boxes are pulled for hand verification - the contents of Box X should match up between Scanner A, B, and hand. Mismatch triggers additional counting (A can't be trusted? Rescan everything that went through A: A&B can't be trusted? Check EVERY machine; hand count of all votes for election).
Heck, before I saw the miniaturized scanners I suggested using the school scanners - you know they work(from scanning through the school year), people have practice using them(important when you only hold an election every two years or so), you already own the machines(assuming public schools), etc... Scanners today can have a lower error rate than hand counting. You simply set the rules such that a 'spoiled ballot' is something not machine readable.
Personally, I believe that for elections, the surety of being able to audit/recount is more important than ease of use. I would have never bought the diebold machines without printers. Worst case, I'll buy more expensive printing voting machines, and only supply a few to each station for the handicapped to use - using cheap pens for everybody else.
You mark your ballot with an X in the proper bubble
You know, this makes me wonder, why an X? Aren't most bubble sheets designed for you to 'fill in the bubble' for easy electronic scanning? In ND that's what I did, just like for standardized tests in school.