I am continuously confused by the focus on electronic voting. The issue of secret code in the computer itself is fairly well understood on/. But other issues also argue against involving computers at any point, or at least at the point of the act of voting.
With electronic voting, you need to invest in hundreds or thousands of computers, monitors, etc. nationwide. These shouldn't be used for regular purposes (i.e. you shouldn't be using a election computer for office work and then haul it out to the polling station for the election) because they would need to be kept secure to prevent tampering. That's a significant cost, far more than paying for paper ballots and pens.
In my county (Multnomah County in Oregon) we use paper ballots. We fill in a little bubble on the scantron sheet with a pen, and seal it in an envelope. If you vote at a polling station you then drop it in a box; if you vote by mail (more than 99% of Oregon voters) you put it in another envelope that is provided and mail it in.
The votes are counted using scantron style machines, and we get them all counted within a few hours on election night.
Adding paper receipts is problematic and comparitively less beneficial not only because of reasons stated above (e.g. the reciept might not match the vote recorded, and you don't count the receipts unless there is a recount demanded (so that under non-recount situations the computer is effectively the only vote) - but also because it adds an additional level of complexity for the voter!
As a voter, I have to use the machine, get a receipt, and make sure it matches up - many people are not going to check that carefully, any more than they carefully check their ATM receipts (people leave those behind all the time, and hardly ever check them carefully.
With paper ballots, even counted electronically, the act of marking the paper is the act of voting; no need to compare a receipt with my intentions.
I think you're interpreting a bit too literally. The point of the quotation is that we all hurt each other at times, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Sometimes it's physical harm, and sometimes emotional, economic, etc. If those who are hurt demand the right to vengeance, then the cycle of hurting goes on; conversely, if we understand that both we and our neighbors are imperfect, we can take the first step towards apology and reconciliation.
I'm an assistant editor on a small academic journal, so while my experience is limited, I have some knowledge of what it takes to put out a journal.
You're right, it's not really the publishing that's expensive. But neither are the high costs of journals due to the proofreading/editing/peer review stages. Almost every respectable peer reviewed journal (whether for-profit or non-profit) uses volunteer peer reviewers. The editors are also usually volunteers (certainly with any non-profit or association journal). And publishing costs are no higher than for printing any other type of work.
The high costs are due to the increasing consolidation of academic journals under a few journal corporations. Academics of all fields need access to journals, so their schools have to pay. So costs have soared several hundred percent in the last few years. Additionally, for-profit publishers often require schools to buy bundles of lower-quality journals if they want to gain any access to the higher-quality journals. And researchers have to publish, because failure to publish reduces chances for jobs, as well as destroys the open exchange and criticism of ideas that characterizes science.
However, for the journal to remain peer-reviewed, it depends on volunteer, unpaid articles and peer-reviewers.
I'm beginning to think that the only really effective solution is to do away with music copyrights almost altogether. Traditionally (before recording technology), artists made money off of live performances (if at all). I think eventually we'll see recorded musci (CDs, mp3s, etc.) all seen as simply the marketing for live performances. Artists may have to take out a loan to get a CD cut, but small, independent studios and CD production companies will do the work as contractors. You won't be signing with them, but hiring them to use their equipment.
The effect will be that making a CD will be seen a (possible necessary or not, depending on the situation) marketing tool, similar to flyers, posters and newspaper ads now, to draw audiences to your live performance. You won't expect to ever recoup the cost of the CD from actual sales, but every download of an mp3 equals greater visibility and name recognition.
The argument for government regulation isn't really just that it's persvasive. It's first that the radio and television is public, and leased to broadcasters, so the public can put some restrictions on what the broadcasters say and do (including, for example, requiring public service announcements to be aired). Secondly, and I think more of what you're getting at, is that radio and television are sort of "push" technologies. You make the choice to turn on the TV, but you don't necessarily know what the channel will be broadcasting, so you (or an unsupervised child) could walk into something you don't like (or is inappropriate for children). Wireless internet just means you can get your internet in more places; you still have to seek out a website with offensive material. While there might be problems of unsupervised children, that's not unique to wireless access.
There is a Constitutionally-supported right to privacy. (Note: IANAL, so please correct me if I am mistaken in my facts.)
not trying to sound like a troll, but to all the people saying that privacy is a right, i ask you this: a right granted by whom?
By the Supreme Court, which traditionally has the power to interpret the Constitution and identify/interpret rights that may not be explicitly enumerated.
fyi, the united states bill of rights says absolutely nothing about privacy. neither does the constitution. a bit scary, but its true. look it up.
the 4th amendment to the bill of rights sorta hints at privacy, but its obvious that our forefathers could not even begin forsee the type of privacy issues we deal with today.
The Constitution is a living document, and its meaning is interpreted by those reading it at any given moment. In 1965, in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy - essentially, they said that if you look at the rights that are spelled out in the Constitution, many of them hint at and rely upon another right that is not specifically stated - and that right is privacy. In Griswold, Connecticut had outlawed the sale and use of condoms and other contraceptive devices, even for married couples, because they were judged immoral; the Court said that without a compelling interest (i.e. someone is being hurt), the state has no power to control what two consenting adults use in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
The reasoning behind recognition of privacy as a right is that the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right against self-incrimination, the right to free speech, freedom of religion and free assembly and other enumerated rights all rely upon an unstated right - privacy. They all assume that you have, or ought to have, a certain zone around your mind, body and possessions that is free from intrusion by others, especially the government. (i.e. you can't effectively practice free assembly unless you believe you can get together privately without government monitoring, etc.) The recognition of the right to privacy was upheld and built upon in successive cases, most notably Roe v. Wade, where the Court said that the right to privacy meant that the government could not outlaw a medical procedure that was no one's business but that of the woman involved and her doctor.
In other words, the Court did not create a right to privacy - they ruled that a right to privacy had always existed in the Constitution, as a necessary precursor to the existence of other, enumerated rights, and was evident when you looked at those rights collectively and noticed the common underlying logic - the government should leave you alone unless there is a compelling reason. (The language the Court used was that privacy was evident in the "penumbra" created by the enumerated rights.)
Slashdot Mirror
I am continuously confused by the focus on electronic voting. The issue of secret code in the computer itself is fairly well understood on /. But other issues also argue against involving computers at any point, or at least at the point of the act of voting.
With electronic voting, you need to invest in hundreds or thousands of computers, monitors, etc. nationwide. These shouldn't be used for regular purposes (i.e. you shouldn't be using a election computer for office work and then haul it out to the polling station for the election) because they would need to be kept secure to prevent tampering. That's a significant cost, far more than paying for paper ballots and pens.
In my county (Multnomah County in Oregon) we use paper ballots. We fill in a little bubble on the scantron sheet with a pen, and seal it in an envelope. If you vote at a polling station you then drop it in a box; if you vote by mail (more than 99% of Oregon voters) you put it in another envelope that is provided and mail it in.
The votes are counted using scantron style machines, and we get them all counted within a few hours on election night.
Adding paper receipts is problematic and comparitively less beneficial not only because of reasons stated above (e.g. the reciept might not match the vote recorded, and you don't count the receipts unless there is a recount demanded (so that under non-recount situations the computer is effectively the only vote) - but also because it adds an additional level of complexity for the voter!
As a voter, I have to use the machine, get a receipt, and make sure it matches up - many people are not going to check that carefully, any more than they carefully check their ATM receipts (people leave those behind all the time, and hardly ever check them carefully.
With paper ballots, even counted electronically, the act of marking the paper is the act of voting; no need to compare a receipt with my intentions.
I think you're interpreting a bit too literally. The point of the quotation is that we all hurt each other at times, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Sometimes it's physical harm, and sometimes emotional, economic, etc. If those who are hurt demand the right to vengeance, then the cycle of hurting goes on; conversely, if we understand that both we and our neighbors are imperfect, we can take the first step towards apology and reconciliation.
I'm an assistant editor on a small academic journal, so while my experience is limited, I have some knowledge of what it takes to put out a journal.
You're right, it's not really the publishing that's expensive. But neither are the high costs of journals due to the proofreading/editing/peer review stages. Almost every respectable peer reviewed journal (whether for-profit or non-profit) uses volunteer peer reviewers. The editors are also usually volunteers (certainly with any non-profit or association journal). And publishing costs are no higher than for printing any other type of work.
The high costs are due to the increasing consolidation of academic journals under a few journal corporations. Academics of all fields need access to journals, so their schools have to pay. So costs have soared several hundred percent in the last few years. Additionally, for-profit publishers often require schools to buy bundles of lower-quality journals if they want to gain any access to the higher-quality journals. And researchers have to publish, because failure to publish reduces chances for jobs, as well as destroys the open exchange and criticism of ideas that characterizes science.
However, for the journal to remain peer-reviewed, it depends on volunteer, unpaid articles and peer-reviewers.
I'm beginning to think that the only really effective solution is to do away with music copyrights almost altogether. Traditionally (before recording technology), artists made money off of live performances (if at all). I think eventually we'll see recorded musci (CDs, mp3s, etc.) all seen as simply the marketing for live performances. Artists may have to take out a loan to get a CD cut, but small, independent studios and CD production companies will do the work as contractors. You won't be signing with them, but hiring them to use their equipment.
The effect will be that making a CD will be seen a (possible necessary or not, depending on the situation) marketing tool, similar to flyers, posters and newspaper ads now, to draw audiences to your live performance. You won't expect to ever recoup the cost of the CD from actual sales, but every download of an mp3 equals greater visibility and name recognition.
The argument for government regulation isn't really just that it's persvasive. It's first that the radio and television is public, and leased to broadcasters, so the public can put some restrictions on what the broadcasters say and do (including, for example, requiring public service announcements to be aired). Secondly, and I think more of what you're getting at, is that radio and television are sort of "push" technologies. You make the choice to turn on the TV, but you don't necessarily know what the channel will be broadcasting, so you (or an unsupervised child) could walk into something you don't like (or is inappropriate for children). Wireless internet just means you can get your internet in more places; you still have to seek out a website with offensive material. While there might be problems of unsupervised children, that's not unique to wireless access.
The reasoning behind recognition of privacy as a right is that the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right against self-incrimination, the right to free speech, freedom of religion and free assembly and other enumerated rights all rely upon an unstated right - privacy. They all assume that you have, or ought to have, a certain zone around your mind, body and possessions that is free from intrusion by others, especially the government. (i.e. you can't effectively practice free assembly unless you believe you can get together privately without government monitoring, etc.) The recognition of the right to privacy was upheld and built upon in successive cases, most notably Roe v. Wade, where the Court said that the right to privacy meant that the government could not outlaw a medical procedure that was no one's business but that of the woman involved and her doctor.
In other words, the Court did not create a right to privacy - they ruled that a right to privacy had always existed in the Constitution, as a necessary precursor to the existence of other, enumerated rights, and was evident when you looked at those rights collectively and noticed the common underlying logic - the government should leave you alone unless there is a compelling reason. (The language the Court used was that privacy was evident in the "penumbra" created by the enumerated rights.)