The Ethics you propose misses an important aspect of what is peculiar about the West as a civilization. Unlike other civilizations, the West has never met a power increasing technology it didn't like. That is why neither China nor Islam rule the world today. Both were at different times the frontrunners, but their leaders were scared of uncontrollable power and backed off.
Frankenstein's inability to back off is thus a very apt metaphore.
Can we change course now? I don't know and the odds seem against it.
Is it worth it? I am not sure. I am sure that sooner or later the West will meet the tragic end that awaits all positive feedback loop. But the opposite of tragedy is not necessarily a happy ending, it may well be just a slow fade out.
Re:Just how hard CAN it be??
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
I think the whole point of armchair evaluation of user interface ( conputer or non, off/online) is wrongheaded. Any user interface will confuse the odd person. When designing a user interface, to say "anyone who fails to get it is a moron" is counterproductive. What should be done is take a preliminary decision about what percentage of user mistakes is acceptable relative to the cost of prevention. Then you test your design by measuring actual users in action. IMHO, a ballot that confuses 4% of the voters is way unacceptable, even though it may look to you or me that anyone who got confused is totally dumb.
This is the right way and I concur that concerns about security seems more and more like a whitewash considering the poor reliability of the present system in the US. The UI problems of Palm beach are amazing considering how much computer science has been invested in the methodical study of UI. If Bill Gates can get it, so should the election system.
However. the real problem is not technical but social. Elections are carried by conties with county budgets. This is a reflection of the low priority that the democratic process is accorded in the US and is the / of all evil.
First, there needs to be a Federal Election Oversight agency that will set standards ( like emission standards) For example: Maximum acceptable spoilt ballots. Maximum time to wait for vote. Maximum distance/time to get from home to vote. etc.. There should also be a federal coordinating agency with a budget that will allow the modernization of election technology that you suggest.
Second, I would ask for some consideration of using a more sophisticated encryption system that will protect ballot secrecy while allowing to cancel fraudulent votes ( e.g. dead people) post facto.
Sorry to be partisan, but this isn't about Al Gore at all. The Republican attitude towards the current crisis ( the voters screwed? tough luck) sends the wrong message and exemplifies the kind of attitude that make the US voting system archaic. It would be nice and surprising if Bush pledged to modernize the election system in a fair and comprehensive system. Absent that, the GOP position today is committed to not seeing the evil of the present system. That is very unfortunate.
The real power is not in the ability to pass big controversial issues. Few presidents has done that anyway. Appointing a do nothing anti-trust head, and do nothing FDA head for example, requires no legislation. likewise, not vetoing the republican congress pork is good enough for the GOP.
A lot of people appreciate John McCain because he preffered pain and discomfort to a dishonorable easy way out. You may think that some voters prefer eating shit from Bush Hands, than having to eat a little less shit from Gore's hands and say 'thank you' afterwards. Some people call this 'dignity' , 'self respect', 'narcissism', etc.,You may have differoent values, and that is just fine.
Mother Earth to Nader Cursers, I feel your pain, now get a life. No Candidate owns the voters. So Nader cannot steal any. Gore lost because he sucks. Face it, Jimmy Carter would have won this election despite Nader's participation, and he too wasn't a total charmer. I deeply regret the comming Bush term. And I would have probably voted Bush had I lived in Florida. But I find this Nader bashing playing the wrong note. What, just because a party has lost its mind and compass, everybody else has a moral obligation to protect its hold on power? If Gore wants a secure job he can join a labor union.
"He would have one today, had he been a winner." Julius Caesar ( re: Pompey)
I voted for Nader in a non swing state. If Gore loses because enough people prefered Nader, I will be sorry, but I will also be glad. Why I will be sorry is obvious. Why I will be glad i less.
The democratic party can go about forever being a nicer version of the GOP. As such, it can smooth snome rough edges in our life. But this is a loosing battle. The new democratic party has no new ideas except polling people to death. It has no meaning except that decadence can be smooth and not too painful. It doesn't have a direction because it's constantly walking back, since it's only vision is to push back the right wing tide.
Yes, we we will be better off if with a little less right wing control of our life, but the democratic party cannot carry the message and convince anybody because it smells like a dead fish. And nobody buys new ideas from dead fish.
Nader helps put this in perspective. He shows that an unapologetic lefty can get people to pay to hear him talk. I hope the few undead people in the democratic party take this to heart, and understand that their job is to set the progressive agenda, not to be commanders of the great retreat. And costing them the white house is probably the best way to pass that message to them.
In this election, I loose and I win anyway.
the only clear win, BTW is Hillary Clinton. I am just bursting with pleasure at the thought of all those male chavinist hysterics to whom a women who doesn't apologize for loving power is the devil incarnate. Go hillary, castrate them all!!!
Nil, but this is offset by the many unconvicted felons who vote Republican all the times.
There is a war in America that is going on for three hundred years. It is not a war against drugs. It is a war against poor people. It is fought with savagry, imagination, and every trick in the book. The "Land of the Free" has more people behind bars proportionally than Stalin's Russia. According to recent research, the US had record high incarceration rates since before independence. Early American new towns often built their dungeon before they built their churches and hospitals. This is a national trait--the French enjoy wine and flirtation, Americans enjoy hearing the hammer hit the table and the stern voice announcing "Guilty". It is a confirmation of the social divide between us ( the white, the diligent, the respectable,the good, the upright ) and them ( colored, dirty, lazy, trecherous, immoral, etc.). This is the poison that runs very deep in American society, the only place where people believe that the poor exploit the rich.
No, it means that Gore wins 270 votes at the electoral college and Nader wins 5% of the popular vote, in which case Gore gets to be Prez and Nader gets Federal funds for the next campaign. the two can exist in harmony because winning by more than a single vote in each state adds nothing to the number of electors. Winning a state by 1000 votes or a million votes gives Gore the same number of electors. Likewise, loosing a state is just the same if you lose by one vote or by one million. Therefore, Gore supporters in a solid Bush state like Texas ( or a solid Gore state like New York) can Vote Nader without hurting Gore's chances to win one bit.
Indeed, winnig is dangerous for everyone. This is a very apropriate warning that the green party must heed, but to suggest that greens should prefer loosing because of that is a bit over the top, isn't it?
There will be more to come either way. There is large bipartisan support for giving Bacon to the IP industry in return for money. Can you give a reason to prefer Bush that is not an exercise in disinformation.
I don't know who moderated my up and I promise that we don't swap mod points. But let me suggest an explanation or two. If you have another one, I am listening.
Moderators get to moderate because they visit often, post good comments and have Karma. So maybe Bush has significantly less support in this group than among general slashdotters.
Or Maybe, Bush supporters suffer from the same inability to express themselves as their hero ( present company excluded)
Finally, maybe there is a left wing conspiracy to put down bush by hacking slashdot's mod system. After all, if Gore invented the internet, hacking slashdot should be a piece of cake for him.
PS. I believe the first hypothesis is probably the right one. And you?
It gives you the power to choose, because presumably you are very wealthy. To most American parents, it gives the power to go hang themselves, which power they already have, unless all trees are also privatized.
Easy. First the default for censoreware will be to block everything. Then, the American Association of Robotic Censors will create a B2B site on which corporations/non-profits will post bids for the inclusion of whichever site they want. There will be different categories with different thresholds set up by the Federal And State Bureau of Free Speech. For example, a commercial site will be de-censored for $10000, satire will require about 1M and political speech that actually makes sense will have a 1B threshold.
Fair, equitable, profitable, and safe for our children, our politicians, and especially their children.
Wroooong!! If Bush get's elected , I am afraid you should put your fire department in red alert, because when the next recession hits, we will need you Canadians to put out the fire at the White House.
Odds are, it is going to go away either way because there is probably an anti-anti-trust majority at the supreme court. Bush can spoil but not much, because,
the moving spirit behind the case, Klein, is out.
The states Autorney Generals are in regardless of the Feds.
Bush will most certainly appoint a non-entity to head the antitrust department ( as well as most other federal regulantory bodies), and this will affect future cases. But we will not notice probably because it is difficult to notice what doesn't happen ( until it is much too late;-}).
You may read about exactly what freaks out so many people about scientology at xenu.net. It is downright scary.
ps. a lot of this has to do with abuse the internet, which earned them a lot of infamity in the internet culture, and pretty much explains why a scientology software CEO is seen by German authorities as a particular threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankenstein's inability to back off is thus a very apt metaphore.
Can we change course now? I don't know and the odds seem against it.
Is it worth it? I am not sure. I am sure that sooner or later the West will meet the tragic end that awaits all positive feedback loop. But the opposite of tragedy is not necessarily a happy ending, it may well be just a slow fade out.
I think the whole point of armchair evaluation of user interface ( conputer or non, off/online) is wrongheaded. Any user interface will confuse the odd person. When designing a user interface, to say "anyone who fails to get it is a moron" is counterproductive. What should be done is take a preliminary decision about what percentage of user mistakes is acceptable relative to the cost of prevention. Then you test your design by measuring actual users in action. IMHO, a ballot that confuses 4% of the voters is way unacceptable, even though it may look to you or me that anyone who got confused is totally dumb.
However. the real problem is not technical but social. Elections are carried by conties with county budgets. This is a reflection of the low priority that the democratic process is accorded in the US and is the / of all evil.
First, there needs to be a Federal Election Oversight agency that will set standards ( like emission standards) For example: Maximum acceptable spoilt ballots. Maximum time to wait for vote. Maximum distance/time to get from home to vote. etc.. There should also be a federal coordinating agency with a budget that will allow the modernization of election technology that you suggest.
Second, I would ask for some consideration of using a more sophisticated encryption system that will protect ballot secrecy while allowing to cancel fraudulent votes ( e.g. dead people) post facto.
Sorry to be partisan, but this isn't about Al Gore at all. The Republican attitude towards the current crisis ( the voters screwed? tough luck) sends the wrong message and exemplifies the kind of attitude that make the US voting system archaic. It would be nice and surprising if Bush pledged to modernize the election system in a fair and comprehensive system. Absent that, the GOP position today is committed to not seeing the evil of the present system. That is very unfortunate.
Maybe, but frankly, this is none of your business, and it will be a very sad day when someone divorces in order to appeal to nosy voters.
The real power is not in the ability to pass big controversial issues. Few presidents has done that anyway. Appointing a do nothing anti-trust head, and do nothing FDA head for example, requires no legislation. likewise, not vetoing the republican congress pork is good enough for the GOP.
not everyone is obssessed with sex. Remember, when Miterand died, his official mistress came to the official funeral.
According to the latest wire from AP, announced at 2.19, Bush has been elected to be the last US President.
OOps.
Yes, Hillary will run for president!!!
A lot of people appreciate John McCain because he preffered pain and discomfort to a dishonorable easy way out. You may think that some voters prefer eating shit from Bush Hands, than having to eat a little less shit from Gore's hands and say 'thank you' afterwards. Some people call this 'dignity' , 'self respect', 'narcissism', etc. ,You may have differoent values, and that is just fine.
Seeing all my mistakes and slips, I should probably go to bed now.
"He would have one today, had he been a winner." Julius Caesar ( re: Pompey)
The democratic party can go about forever being a nicer version of the GOP. As such, it can smooth snome rough edges in our life. But this is a loosing battle. The new democratic party has no new ideas except polling people to death. It has no meaning except that decadence can be smooth and not too painful. It doesn't have a direction because it's constantly walking back, since it's only vision is to push back the right wing tide.
Yes, we we will be better off if with a little less right wing control of our life, but the democratic party cannot carry the message and convince anybody because it smells like a dead fish. And nobody buys new ideas from dead fish.
Nader helps put this in perspective. He shows that an unapologetic lefty can get people to pay to hear him talk. I hope the few undead people in the democratic party take this to heart, and understand that their job is to set the progressive agenda, not to be commanders of the great retreat. And costing them the white house is probably the best way to pass that message to them.
In this election, I loose and I win anyway.
the only clear win, BTW is Hillary Clinton. I am just bursting with pleasure at the thought of all those male chavinist hysterics to whom a women who doesn't apologize for loving power is the devil incarnate. Go hillary, castrate them all!!!
There is a war in America that is going on for three hundred years. It is not a war against drugs. It is a war against poor people. It is fought with savagry, imagination, and every trick in the book. The "Land of the Free" has more people behind bars proportionally than Stalin's Russia. According to recent research, the US had record high incarceration rates since before independence. Early American new towns often built their dungeon before they built their churches and hospitals. This is a national trait--the French enjoy wine and flirtation, Americans enjoy hearing the hammer hit the table and the stern voice announcing "Guilty". It is a confirmation of the social divide between us ( the white, the diligent, the respectable,the good, the upright ) and them ( colored, dirty, lazy, trecherous, immoral, etc.). This is the poison that runs very deep in American society, the only place where people believe that the poor exploit the rich.
No, it means that Gore wins 270 votes at the electoral college and Nader wins 5% of the popular vote, in which case Gore gets to be Prez and Nader gets Federal funds for the next campaign. the two can exist in harmony because winning by more than a single vote in each state adds nothing to the number of electors. Winning a state by 1000 votes or a million votes gives Gore the same number of electors. Likewise, loosing a state is just the same if you lose by one vote or by one million. Therefore, Gore supporters in a solid Bush state like Texas ( or a solid Gore state like New York) can Vote Nader without hurting Gore's chances to win one bit.
Indeed, winnig is dangerous for everyone. This is a very apropriate warning that the green party must heed, but to suggest that greens should prefer loosing because of that is a bit over the top, isn't it?
There will be more to come either way. There is large bipartisan support for giving Bacon to the IP industry in return for money. Can you give a reason to prefer Bush that is not an exercise in disinformation.
Moderators get to moderate because they visit often, post good comments and have Karma. So maybe Bush has significantly less support in this group than among general slashdotters.
Or Maybe, Bush supporters suffer from the same inability to express themselves as their hero ( present company excluded)
Finally, maybe there is a left wing conspiracy to put down bush by hacking slashdot's mod system. After all, if Gore invented the internet, hacking slashdot should be a piece of cake for him.
PS. I believe the first hypothesis is probably the right one. And you?
This has no chance because it is a classical prisoner's dillema. Aaronson's analysis shows why
nadertrading isn't.
Fair, equitable, profitable, and safe for our children, our politicians, and especially their children.
Patent Pending #6780944367687909
Bush will most certainly appoint a non-entity to head the antitrust department ( as well as most other federal regulantory bodies), and this will affect future cases. But we will not notice probably because it is difficult to notice what doesn't happen ( until it is much too late;-}).
Yes, that is the definition of more than one religion.
<p>
ps. a lot of this has to do with abuse the internet, which earned them a lot of infamity in the internet culture, and pretty much explains why a scientology software CEO is seen by German authorities as a particular threat.