They only need a warrant for searches a hypothetical "reasonable man" would describe as "unreasonable," and reasonable men tend to frown on dragging chicks around by their hair.
You are, by the 4th amendment, to be COMPLETELY free of unreasonable searches. Any searches must be deemed reasonable through the issuance of a warrant for the search, by a judge.
That being said, if a cop comes to you and goes 'Dude, I need the location of X's car, he just kidnapped a woman, here's the footage', there's nothing stopping the dealer from handing the information over voluntarily without requiring a warrant.
Either way, they can't fast forward through them like they can on a DVR.
Only a matter of time before users go through a revolt like they did with pop-ups and 'punch the monkey' type advertising if the advertisers get as crazy as they did with the web.
My response to the 'please allow our advertising' is to send them a question 'I have the allow non-intrusive ads box checked in ad-block. Why are your ads not on that list?'.
He's delivering the ballots according to the state rules.
The site I read it on said that only household members are supposed to hand deliver absentee ballots outside of election officials. This may be correct or incorrect, but I can see the point.
Indeed, the only thing 'wrong' with the picture that we can see is that we have ONE person putting a large number of ballots into the box. Unsealed envelopes wouldn't be good, but unless some weird fraud is going on like steaming open ballots to check/change them, the fault of the voter. If state law is that only household members can deliver ballots outside of the USPS, that's state law, and I'm certainly not familiar with 100% of state law for all 50 states.
Yeah, I phrased my fault statement poorly. I should have used 'the voter' instead of a generic his.
If they're coming from multiple sources, then that does suggest that the availability of experimental animals is a real resource constraint, which again strengthens the case for using that resource as carefully as possible.
The supplies of experimental use primates is indeed extremely rare. Humans are actually the cheapest primate to use except for ethical limitations.;)
As a result, I'm not even sure about them using a 'proper' control group. Rereading your initial post I see that you figured that 9 control monkeys, matching the experimental group, was necessary. For a proper experiment that would mean exposing the 9 to ebola - and probably losing all 9. Incredibly expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if they only used 1-2 monkeys for that, just enough to confirm that their ebola source was live and functional. Or even just didn't bother and depend on blood antigen tests to confirm infection and track disease course.
As for the other monkeys - it can get complicated. Primarily you always try to obtain more than you need because odds are something will happen to rule out at least some of them from the experiment. Sickness, injury, etc... Second would be things like companionship, they do better if there's more of them around. Etc...
Oh, I can harden the shit out of them. It's just that by the time I'm done it's cheaper to stick with paper ballots. Doing things right, as opposed to coming out with abominations that do stuff like use excel spreadsheets as databases costs money.
I think I'd start with a base of the NSA hardened linux install and a tamper-evident case. Each vote would be signed by a cryptographic key on a token provided to the voter, that is changed each voter. A log is kept of the keys used and matched up against keys issued. Etc...
Not that I've heard of. To make this even more complicated, I think the odds that it will cause adaptive changes are high, but whether those changes are 'harm' is up for interpretation.
I remember reading somewhere that when the original star trek series aired, significant numbers of people couldn't do the vulcan greeting. However, the percentage is nearly 100% today due to changes in how we use our hands training our brains differently. Secondly, modern humans tend to be more able to independently move our hands due to using keyboards with mice.
A young child exposed to 3D viewing early may instead develop a vision mode that's 'used' to it, causing no noticeable harm otherwise, but not suffering from the headaches and eye strain current adults often have.
I'm a programming/math guy. 99.9% his fault is still not 'entirely', and if he was some sort of assistant pointing out flaws with the ballot like it not being properly sealed would be part of his job.
The paper mentions twenty were "secured" - from suppliers? or by wild capture? - and taken to the BSL-4 laboratory in Winnipeg. What happened to the other two?
In this context 'secured' means 'made available for their use'. It was probably a mix of buying, leasing, and renting* the monkeys from their owners who were acting as suppliers.
*With a penalty to be paid if the monkeys are killed/harmed.
You do realize that I'm not the source, right? Heck, I didn't even post a link to the video. I encountered the video around a week ago on a different forum.
You still need to work on your extrapolation skills. 'Rather terrible video' means that the man who witnessed it in person(and got the video by FOIA request) could have seen more detail.
For another, you're reading too deep with the stuff comment. The first sentence is 'what's wrong with the picture', where I did indeed try to point out the 'wrong'. But in the second I tried to soften it into 'not really a problem' because they were absentee ballots. Though if some were really unsealed that's a 'slight' issue that's mostly the fault of the voter.
Like I answered before, most blind people can read.
Doesn't mean that some can't, which means you still need to service them.
That's why e-vote was pushed through. You don't have to vote by "trouchscreen" for e-vote, as you wrongly assert. You can vote by sound as well. Speak all the names, hit the "vote now" button when you hear the one you want. No sight needed, and easier than braille
There's a myrid number of different systems, many of which are so badly designed that voice isn't an option and the touch screen is the only way.
When the lever is pulled, it "saves" your vote in an unambiguous manner. People thought paper ballots were unambiguous, until Florida 2000.
I'm a computer security professional. I want paper ballots because I've seen too many ways to compromise the e-vote machines, including on the back end. 'unambiguous' is only unambiguous until I exploit a buffer overflow and overwrite that integer.
Heck, one of the systems was using excel spreadsheets and copying the data into different databases, and it pulled from one for precinct level reports, and the other for master counts. So I could theoretically jigger things so that the precinct reports it's data correct, but when I go to see who won over all the numbers wouldn't add up the same.
I support maximum auditability more than maximum accuracy, if that sounds weird. I'm fine with e-voting so long as a physical ballot is still produced for recounts if necessary.
Florida 2000 involved funky designs and punch machines. It takes some work and experience, but it's not hard to design good ballots.
Interesting. Thank you for answering the question. Despite living in 6 different states during my youth I managed to only ever encounter bubble sheets.
'Rather large bubbles' would indeed be annoying, though with bubbles the standard is 'fill the thing up'. Marks outside the bubble are generally disregarded unless they're impacting the stripes on the side that tell the scanner where it is on the page, determines alignment, etc...
Amazing. One explanation of a picture and you come to the amazing insight that I don't like it when 'brown people' vote. I recommend you start working on solving mysterious murders. They might get pissed about the 0% clear rate though.
I encountered the video online somewhere where they were 'OMFG BALLOT BOX STUFFING!!!'. I reasoned that the only ballot box that would be that unsecured would be an absentee one, and finding the comments about unsealed envelopes pretty much confirms it.
I DO have some concern that he, or associates of his, might of collected up a number of unfilled absentee ballots and voted multiple times that way(serious felony), especially considering the reported unsealed envelopes(violating privacy of voting), and that he refused to give his name or explain what he was doing ('Turning in the ballots I collected from the residents of an apartment/hospital/rest home/etc....'). But I believe the latter is more likely than the felony. Besides,
You do it by making the penalties for tampering with a ballot box high enough that tampering with any given one not worth it. By the time you screw with enough of them to matter, your conspiracy is large enough that it'd take a special miracle for it to remain secret.
As for the box, it depends on the systems. A good system won't be able to associate the ballot with the voter, but you should be able to tell who voted that box.
If shenanigans occur with a specific box, you have to make a decision - was a significant number of ballots in the box spoiled? If not, don't worry about it. If nearly all votes were bad*, discard the box. If it's significant but not 'most', track down the voters marked for that box and have them redo it.
If you can figure out the bad ballots - all at the beginning, all at the end, marked somehow - such as fraudulently printed ballots that can be told from the real ones somehow like counterfeit detection pens on money or even shit like a misspelled word, remove them, count the rest.
*One trick is to INSERT completely fraudulent boxes.
Yeah, you should go talk to a guy named "chad" down in Florida about how paper just "works"...he used to hang around a lot...
As said elsewhere, punches aren't the 'marks' people are talking about with 'marked paper ballots'. They're generally talking about a version of 'fill in the bubble' that most should be familiar with from school.
Like said before, how does a blind person vote using a touch screen? Provide at least some braille ballots, like foreign language ones. Since we have to worry about myriad variations of disabilities, we just have to face the idea that some voters will need human assistance.
As for the 'large number' who can't follow simple instructions that should have been drilled into them during grade school, some of that spoilage is indecision and deliberate spoilage. Somebody puts the pencil/pen on the mark then decides against it. The solution there is to publish clear guidelines on what's a mark and what is not.
The next step is to feed the ballots into a scanner that does an initial check for spoilage and rejects it if something bad is found. Incomplete marks, stray marks, etc... If it's good, it records the votes in it's memory while dumping the ballot into the box.
Alternatively, you load the ballots into a printer and use the software to print the ballots, where the voter can read the ballot before submitting it. Widespread computer failure, more voters than expected? You hand out pens and people do it manually.
As for stuffing the ballot box, that's why you have voting officials, representatives from ALL parties, and even a neutral voting rights representative. The box is locked in a couple ways, and sealed in even more(tamper-obvious). Think of the way banks handle large sums of money.
In the video you see that the carton is basically full of ballots that he proceeds to stuff into the box. Presumably absentee ballots, the guy who witnessed him putting them in saw that at least some weren't even sealed.
Every state I've been in have used the 'scanotron' fill in the bubble method that we become familiarized with in school with standardized testing.
I've seen the 'draw the line' ballots, but have a question: Have you ever done the 'connect the points' for anything BUT a ballot? Because I've seen it argued that 'connect the points' is 'simpler' than 'fill in the bubble', but against the idea that most people have done bubble sheets in their lives (for SATs, ACTs, and such if nothing else), it seems that doing things a way most people have never done them to be more complicated.
Hell, I filled in bubble sheets where the teacher still manually graded things via an answer key with holes punched for the correct answers. No black in hole = wrong answer.
If they're asking for experience from before when it was out, then you need to have worked for the company that produced it. It's a way to disguise poaching.
A lot of the time it's just being stupid though. They want somebody with experience in 'windows', which you can easily have over a decade of today, but they also want it 'up to date', so they specify 8.1, which you can't have that much experience with outside of MS. Then HR gets ahold of it and 'simplifies' it.
Yeah, generally speaking if it doesn't knock you down for around a week it was at most a bad cold, not the flu. But over two weeks is a really bad one.
Well, obviously English isn't his first language, and second, I didn't see anything "defamatory" from an American standpoint in the review, which takes more than stating your opinion.
Especially when it comes to reviews, actually. There are known reviewers out there who have a thing against giving a 'perfect' review, they feel the need to come up with something negative.
Slashdot Mirror
They only need a warrant for searches a hypothetical "reasonable man" would describe as "unreasonable," and reasonable men tend to frown on dragging chicks around by their hair.
You are, by the 4th amendment, to be COMPLETELY free of unreasonable searches. Any searches must be deemed reasonable through the issuance of a warrant for the search, by a judge.
That being said, if a cop comes to you and goes 'Dude, I need the location of X's car, he just kidnapped a woman, here's the footage', there's nothing stopping the dealer from handing the information over voluntarily without requiring a warrant.
Either way, they can't fast forward through them like they can on a DVR.
Only a matter of time before users go through a revolt like they did with pop-ups and 'punch the monkey' type advertising if the advertisers get as crazy as they did with the web.
My response to the 'please allow our advertising' is to send them a question 'I have the allow non-intrusive ads box checked in ad-block. Why are your ads not on that list?'.
He's delivering the ballots according to the state rules.
The site I read it on said that only household members are supposed to hand deliver absentee ballots outside of election officials. This may be correct or incorrect, but I can see the point.
Indeed, the only thing 'wrong' with the picture that we can see is that we have ONE person putting a large number of ballots into the box. Unsealed envelopes wouldn't be good, but unless some weird fraud is going on like steaming open ballots to check/change them, the fault of the voter. If state law is that only household members can deliver ballots outside of the USPS, that's state law, and I'm certainly not familiar with 100% of state law for all 50 states.
Yeah, I phrased my fault statement poorly. I should have used 'the voter' instead of a generic his.
If they're coming from multiple sources, then that does suggest that the availability of experimental animals is a real resource constraint, which again strengthens the case for using that resource as carefully as possible.
The supplies of experimental use primates is indeed extremely rare. Humans are actually the cheapest primate to use except for ethical limitations. ;)
As a result, I'm not even sure about them using a 'proper' control group. Rereading your initial post I see that you figured that 9 control monkeys, matching the experimental group, was necessary. For a proper experiment that would mean exposing the 9 to ebola - and probably losing all 9. Incredibly expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if they only used 1-2 monkeys for that, just enough to confirm that their ebola source was live and functional. Or even just didn't bother and depend on blood antigen tests to confirm infection and track disease course.
As for the other monkeys - it can get complicated. Primarily you always try to obtain more than you need because odds are something will happen to rule out at least some of them from the experiment. Sickness, injury, etc... Second would be things like companionship, they do better if there's more of them around. Etc...
Oh, I can harden the shit out of them. It's just that by the time I'm done it's cheaper to stick with paper ballots. Doing things right, as opposed to coming out with abominations that do stuff like use excel spreadsheets as databases costs money.
I think I'd start with a base of the NSA hardened linux install and a tamper-evident case. Each vote would be signed by a cryptographic key on a token provided to the voter, that is changed each voter. A log is kept of the keys used and matched up against keys issued. Etc...
Not that I've heard of. To make this even more complicated, I think the odds that it will cause adaptive changes are high, but whether those changes are 'harm' is up for interpretation.
I remember reading somewhere that when the original star trek series aired, significant numbers of people couldn't do the vulcan greeting. However, the percentage is nearly 100% today due to changes in how we use our hands training our brains differently. Secondly, modern humans tend to be more able to independently move our hands due to using keyboards with mice.
A young child exposed to 3D viewing early may instead develop a vision mode that's 'used' to it, causing no noticeable harm otherwise, but not suffering from the headaches and eye strain current adults often have.
And by "mostly" you mean "entirely".
I'm a programming/math guy. 99.9% his fault is still not 'entirely', and if he was some sort of assistant pointing out flaws with the ballot like it not being properly sealed would be part of his job.
The paper mentions twenty were "secured" - from suppliers? or by wild capture? - and taken to the BSL-4 laboratory in Winnipeg. What happened to the other two?
In this context 'secured' means 'made available for their use'. It was probably a mix of buying, leasing, and renting* the monkeys from their owners who were acting as suppliers.
*With a penalty to be paid if the monkeys are killed/harmed.
however when I lived in the liberal northeast my town did not allow ANY alcohol sales.
Yeah, both sides can be real nannies, the only real difference often being the justification.
A bunch of statists, the lot of them.
I'm extrapolating from the source.
You do realize that I'm not the source, right? Heck, I didn't even post a link to the video. I encountered the video around a week ago on a different forum.
You still need to work on your extrapolation skills. 'Rather terrible video' means that the man who witnessed it in person(and got the video by FOIA request) could have seen more detail.
For another, you're reading too deep with the stuff comment. The first sentence is 'what's wrong with the picture', where I did indeed try to point out the 'wrong'. But in the second I tried to soften it into 'not really a problem' because they were absentee ballots. Though if some were really unsealed that's a 'slight' issue that's mostly the fault of the voter.
Like I answered before, most blind people can read.
Doesn't mean that some can't, which means you still need to service them.
That's why e-vote was pushed through. You don't have to vote by "trouchscreen" for e-vote, as you wrongly assert. You can vote by sound as well. Speak all the names, hit the "vote now" button when you hear the one you want. No sight needed, and easier than braille
There's a myrid number of different systems, many of which are so badly designed that voice isn't an option and the touch screen is the only way.
When the lever is pulled, it "saves" your vote in an unambiguous manner. People thought paper ballots were unambiguous, until Florida 2000.
I'm a computer security professional. I want paper ballots because I've seen too many ways to compromise the e-vote machines, including on the back end. 'unambiguous' is only unambiguous until I exploit a buffer overflow and overwrite that integer.
Heck, one of the systems was using excel spreadsheets and copying the data into different databases, and it pulled from one for precinct level reports, and the other for master counts. So I could theoretically jigger things so that the precinct reports it's data correct, but when I go to see who won over all the numbers wouldn't add up the same.
I support maximum auditability more than maximum accuracy, if that sounds weird. I'm fine with e-voting so long as a physical ballot is still produced for recounts if necessary.
Florida 2000 involved funky designs and punch machines. It takes some work and experience, but it's not hard to design good ballots.
Interesting. Thank you for answering the question. Despite living in 6 different states during my youth I managed to only ever encounter bubble sheets.
'Rather large bubbles' would indeed be annoying, though with bubbles the standard is 'fill the thing up'. Marks outside the bubble are generally disregarded unless they're impacting the stripes on the side that tell the scanner where it is on the page, determines alignment, etc...
Amazing. One explanation of a picture and you come to the amazing insight that I don't like it when 'brown people' vote. I recommend you start working on solving mysterious murders. They might get pissed about the 0% clear rate though.
I encountered the video online somewhere where they were 'OMFG BALLOT BOX STUFFING!!!'. I reasoned that the only ballot box that would be that unsecured would be an absentee one, and finding the comments about unsealed envelopes pretty much confirms it.
I DO have some concern that he, or associates of his, might of collected up a number of unfilled absentee ballots and voted multiple times that way(serious felony), especially considering the reported unsealed envelopes(violating privacy of voting), and that he refused to give his name or explain what he was doing ('Turning in the ballots I collected from the residents of an apartment/hospital/rest home/etc....'). But I believe the latter is more likely than the felony. Besides,
Yeah, but do you feel that it's more obvious than filling in the bubble?
And my areas have machines that work pretty much the same for the bubble ballots as well.
I like paper ballots perhaps not because they're ultra-accurate, but because they're ultra-auditable.
You do it by making the penalties for tampering with a ballot box high enough that tampering with any given one not worth it. By the time you screw with enough of them to matter, your conspiracy is large enough that it'd take a special miracle for it to remain secret.
As for the box, it depends on the systems. A good system won't be able to associate the ballot with the voter, but you should be able to tell who voted that box.
If shenanigans occur with a specific box, you have to make a decision - was a significant number of ballots in the box spoiled? If not, don't worry about it. If nearly all votes were bad*, discard the box. If it's significant but not 'most', track down the voters marked for that box and have them redo it.
If you can figure out the bad ballots - all at the beginning, all at the end, marked somehow - such as fraudulently printed ballots that can be told from the real ones somehow like counterfeit detection pens on money or even shit like a misspelled word, remove them, count the rest.
*One trick is to INSERT completely fraudulent boxes.
Yeah, you should go talk to a guy named "chad" down in Florida about how paper just "works"...he used to hang around a lot...
As said elsewhere, punches aren't the 'marks' people are talking about with 'marked paper ballots'. They're generally talking about a version of 'fill in the bubble' that most should be familiar with from school.
Too bad.they've just OK'd development of a touch screen system [latimes.com]
May it go the way of so many other government computer initiatives(ie down in flames).
Like said before, how does a blind person vote using a touch screen? Provide at least some braille ballots, like foreign language ones. Since we have to worry about myriad variations of disabilities, we just have to face the idea that some voters will need human assistance.
As for the 'large number' who can't follow simple instructions that should have been drilled into them during grade school, some of that spoilage is indecision and deliberate spoilage. Somebody puts the pencil/pen on the mark then decides against it. The solution there is to publish clear guidelines on what's a mark and what is not.
The next step is to feed the ballots into a scanner that does an initial check for spoilage and rejects it if something bad is found. Incomplete marks, stray marks, etc... If it's good, it records the votes in it's memory while dumping the ballot into the box.
Alternatively, you load the ballots into a printer and use the software to print the ballots, where the voter can read the ballot before submitting it. Widespread computer failure, more voters than expected? You hand out pens and people do it manually.
As for stuffing the ballot box, that's why you have voting officials, representatives from ALL parties, and even a neutral voting rights representative. The box is locked in a couple ways, and sealed in even more(tamper-obvious). Think of the way banks handle large sums of money.
In the video you see that the carton is basically full of ballots that he proceeds to stuff into the box. Presumably absentee ballots, the guy who witnessed him putting them in saw that at least some weren't even sealed.
Every state I've been in have used the 'scanotron' fill in the bubble method that we become familiarized with in school with standardized testing.
I've seen the 'draw the line' ballots, but have a question: Have you ever done the 'connect the points' for anything BUT a ballot? Because I've seen it argued that 'connect the points' is 'simpler' than 'fill in the bubble', but against the idea that most people have done bubble sheets in their lives (for SATs, ACTs, and such if nothing else), it seems that doing things a way most people have never done them to be more complicated.
Hell, I filled in bubble sheets where the teacher still manually graded things via an answer key with holes punched for the correct answers. No black in hole = wrong answer.
If they're asking for experience from before when it was out, then you need to have worked for the company that produced it. It's a way to disguise poaching.
A lot of the time it's just being stupid though. They want somebody with experience in 'windows', which you can easily have over a decade of today, but they also want it 'up to date', so they specify 8.1, which you can't have that much experience with outside of MS. Then HR gets ahold of it and 'simplifies' it.
Yeah, generally speaking if it doesn't knock you down for around a week it was at most a bad cold, not the flu. But over two weeks is a really bad one.
That wasn't even proper British English.
Well, obviously English isn't his first language, and second, I didn't see anything "defamatory" from an American standpoint in the review, which takes more than stating your opinion.
Especially when it comes to reviews, actually. There are known reviewers out there who have a thing against giving a 'perfect' review, they feel the need to come up with something negative.
The other problem I have with the AC's post is that he describes a bad cold, not a case of the flue, which lasts at least 72 hours...
Per the CDC you're infectious a day before the symptoms hit, and remain infectious for 5-7 days after that.
So if you really have the flue, you should stay home a couple days longer even if you're feeling better after 3...