Very true. But I know many, many people who will proudly say how they've 'forgotten' to put things in their tax return or have created certain constructions that are very improbable to ever be uncovered or punished. Most people here see it as a minor offense. Like speeding, which incidentally is really expensive here and described as a way to 'milk hardworking tax payers' (by said tax payers).
High income inequalities are a very bad idea, they lead to high crime rates. A flat tax does not make as much sense as it sounds as the value of money decreases exponentially. Paying 5 million out of 10 million is very different from paying 500 out of 1000. That is why progressive tax rates make sense.
Continuing, I don't have a problem if everybody gets the deductions they are entitled to. The reality is that people that can afford the time or investment can 'save' a lot of money on their taxes by having an expert doing them and bending the rules here and there. Most uneducated/poor people/people that actually need deductions don't have that luxury.
More importantly, I think people view taxes and the governement as something evil (I'd say calling them 'the tax man' qualifies;-), even though they are in fact an essential part of civilization. Lowering taxes is not the solution to an apparently failing government. Making it not fail is the solution to an apparently failing government.
I seem to hold a minority opinion, but I believe dedicated teachers are hardly necessary. It's not like teachers perform some kind of wizardry when faced with a student who doesn't understand the material. In my experience it all comes down to having access to many proper and extensive examples as well as effective analogies. Both of which are terribly lacking in a lot of the course material I've encountered in my life. For books that makes sense (paper and ink cost money), but in a digital world, pretty much every subject should be larded with tons of examples (after all, our brain is a neural network).
In recognizing which examples and/or analogies would help someone, a few tips from more knowledgeable peers should suffice. I think it is a real stretch to imply that a teacher would come up with some novel personalized explanation of the material that couldn't be available in a digital set of examples and analogies.
It almost does. There is also a tax on car ownership (varying with the ecofriendliness of the car - rated fuel efficiency etc.). If you add these together, they pay for road construction and maintenance quite handily. But to me, the point is moot. I believe everybody should contribute to proper infrastructure: even people who have never driven a single kilometer benefit greatly from the existence of proper roads. I see taxing fuel and car ownership as an efficiency encouraging policy, nothing more.
Anyway, it does not matter regarding reminding people of the virtues of taxes. There are many examples available, it's just one example with commonly experienced tangible differences between countries. Reminding someone they've hardly ever, if ever, seen a single power blackout just doesn't really ring home. People are so used to stuff just working that they don't realize that it works and even exists because of a government that spends tax money making sure that it does. That is the issue: people think "It's supposed to work. Duh." yet forget that high quality public facilities don't materialize out of thin air (or free market fairy dust, for that matter).
I don't know how it is over there, but most people I know are proud of it when they evade paying (some) taxes (in one of the richest countries of the world). Even the righteous ones. I think it's mainly that the way in which paying income taxes is done is experienced too much like a game. You get to fill in some (digital) form with lots of variables and if you find the right values, you get or save a bundle of money. It equates finding a tax loophole or even just being aware of certain deductibles to some kind of glitch in a game one can exploit. Like a trick you've learnt; in this case a trick that pays off quite significantly.
The anguish one should feel when 'stealing from society' is probably suppressed by several things: The complexity of most tax codes probably aids in soothing people's minds by allowing them to think that they probably are or have been overlooking deductibles they are entitled to. And of course, very few people would like to admit that they probably spend their money a lot more frivolous than their government does. They simply recall some ill-advised bit of government spending and convince themselves that it will be better for the country if they get to spend that money.
One of the things that is being done in my country to mitigate the 'game' aspect is to have most if not all of the details already filled in when you download the program to do your tax returns. This doesn't preclude gaming the tax system (and people with lots of money probably still will), but many more people would then simply look over the data and confirm it, not being invited to start playing at all. Some people will refrain from paying an expert to do their tax returns, which also means less gaming.
Simplifying an unnecessarily complex tax code is a no brainer. Improving the opinion of the populace when it comes to the prudence of government spending is something that isn't done enough, however. One of my replies to people bitching about paying taxes is whether they've ever driven a car across our border to one of our neighboring countries and experienced how crappy the roads get almost immediately. After they concur and share some crappy road-experience, I remind them that they can choose between great roads or pay less taxes for them, but not both. Most choose great roads (although some insist that somebody else but them should be paying for them). BTW, I am not arguing that there isn't a lot that can be improved to the spending of most governments, just that public opinion of paying taxes is skewed in the wrong direction and should be improved.
Also, I am not government employed or linked to it in any way. Just trying to be rational.
My vote is to shoot moon rock at it from said moon.
As far as I can see, the only thing that is slightly hard to do, is getting enough energy on the moon (which would have to be produced or transported there).
Of course, we would also have to build a catapult that is able to launch moon rock precisely enough. And a mining facility. Then again, we'd pretty much want to do comparable things anyway (for multiple reasons).
I know that my opinion means nothing to you, but does my reasoning? It is not that I have not supplied any. The only reason I am pursuing this discussion is because you seem like an intelligent person and because you seem to be a proponent of reason (per your sig 'In Reason We Trust'). It always hurts me when not only the general public is misguided (of which I expect such), but also the people that I consider capable of turning that around.
I intentionally misquoted you (in classic Slashdot FTFY-style), because Romania can be substituted for any country in my example. The whole idea is that if no country can have a special status and every country wants to uphold the values of freedom for everyone, international provisions must be made to make sure that they are upheld. If not, you're basically saying that international intervention isn't appropriate at any time (which I doubt you would) - after all, "they'll change it themselves" [paraphrased].
Yes, I willfully ignored your request to consider how to ensure fair elections, because I quite honestly don't give a fuck about fair elections, regardless of your vehement urgings.
FTFY.
Let me be completely direct since you think I'm being obtuse: We don't need any international observers at all. They can just stay home and let us handle our own elections. We don't have to answer to the UN or the OSCE or anyone else for how our system works.
Thank you for proving my point. Next time Iran refuses to let the observers of the IAEA check out their nuclear reactors or Russia refuses international observers in elections (which they don't), remember your own words. And no, you as a country or state are not entitled to special treatment.
You haven't responded to my request and you have willfully ignored my second sentence.
I'll try to make it more concrete: You walk to the voting station, wave to the observers and walk another 100 feet. You ENTER the voting station. A Republican/Democrat aims an AK47 at you and says: 'Vote X or I will fucking kill you and your entire family. Talk to any observers and I will fucking kill you and your entire family.' He escorts you to the booth and confirms that you vote X. You walk out of the voting station, walk 100 feet and wave to the observers again, forcing a smile. They ask you whether everything went ok. "Yeah, just peachy!"
Now you will say that this is hyperbole, and it clearly is. The problem I am trying to illustrate is that international observers are redundant if they have to rely on the accounts of voters (who, for subtle cases may not even realize that they have been influenced). They need to be able to get first-hand evidence and apply their expertise to asserting the fairness of the voting process. That is exactly why the 100ft restrictions are not present for domestic 'watchers' (they are COMPLETELY different from 'pollsters' or 'press').
Now you can continue to be obtuse and pretend that somehow international observers can perform the same task as domestic observers with the 100ft restriction in place or you can wake up and realize that Greg Abbott is a fucking idiot and that refusing international observers says 'corrupt bastard' like nothing else: http://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/261591085996990464 (Belarus is one of the most corrupt nations of Eurasia, if not the world)
If that doesn't convince you I vehemently urge you to put some effort into the thought exercise of 'ensuring fair elections in Romania' (as in my previous reply). It might open your mind.
You are attacking a straw man (of ridicule). It is impossible to confirm that f.i. counting votes is done fairly or that voters aren't influenced or mistreated in the voting station if you have to stand 30 meters away from the voting station.
The only logical conclusion is that you have not given this enough thought. Try explaining how one could realistically ensure fair elections in (f.i.) Romania without resorting to giving any country a special status.
You are purposefully avoiding the question as well as the central issue and should be ashamed for doing so. Let go of your tribalism and embrace rationalism. Prevent ending up like Abbott and comparing Texas to one of the most corrupt nations of the world (Belarus).
First, a question: why should foreign nationals working on behalf of an international organization have more access to proceedings than United States citizens - whether civilian, or state or federal authorities -- are currently allowed by law?
See AC sibling and: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3207823&cid=41763269 Allowing observers ('watchers') is complete no-brainer for any voting station, as fraud would be way too easy otherwise. It's such a no-brainer that you can find info on it on ehow: http://www.ehow.com/list_6384122_duties-poll-watcher_.html Is it _really_ that hard to fathom that it makes sense to extend this to international observers of an internationally controlled and vetted organization? The OCSE observers aren't RPG-wielding Iranians that want to blow up voting stations, you know.
And they are. The extent permitted by Texas State law is "so long as you keep 100' away, just like everyone else doing exit polls, campaigning for specific candidates/propositions/constitutional ammendments, and and anyone else who might influence the election by mere proximity.
You mean do the things that are explicitly excluded from the international agreement?: "Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings."
The United states is endeavoring to the extent they are able.
(1) That doesn't change that disallowing international observers is still a third world country-style anti-democratic dickish thing to do.
As a matter of Constitutional law, there' not much more they can do. Federal election laws do not provide for strong federal oversight of state elections.
I've seen comments saying otherwise, but I do not know enough about the technicalities of the legal relation between the US federation and the states themselves. Nor do I care. See (1).
The issue the OSCE complains of in the linked document amounts to saying, "the United States is not organized like other countries, and that's a nuisance for us from a regulatory perspective."
You lie or have misunderstood. Read it again (hell, try reading TFS). Hint: there are quite a number of people in the US with similar concerns regarding some of the recently instated voting regulations.
The OSCE could always try to sue in federal court if they feel the law is in error.
Yes, I'm sure that's a case that will be dealt with within three weeks. Thank you for suggesting this very effective and realistic option.
So far, they have not done so. So far, this comment from Abbot is little different from the AG pre-emptivly reminding any group to obey the law, and there will be no special treatment. No different that a protestor rally.
A 'protestor rally'? Really?? That's what you compare international observers to? And 'pre-emptivly [sic] reminding'? Have you read his tweet (in TFA)? "UN poll watchers can't interfere w/ Texas elections,” he tweeted. “I'll bring criminal charges if needed. Official letter posted soon. #comeandtakeit"
Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how stupid some of the highly placed officials in the US are. How the fuck does an asshole like this become an Attorney General?
It's sort of a quirky clause, but the spirit of the agreement in general and this specific paragraph is obvious. Therefore, it makes a lot more sense to interpret 'the extent permitted by law' as a clause to prevent legitimizing things like putting cameras in voting booths or using other spy equipment.
It would be absolutely retarded to interpret it as legitimizing preventing access to the voting station altogether. Which is a more realistic paraphrasing of "Admittedly you could argue about how much observation can be done from a distance, but it doesn't appear to be in disagreement to me."
Listen, even if (and I'm not saying it is the case that) it is technically legal for Texas to refuse observers access to the voting stations, it would be an utterly dickish anti-democratic and third world country thing to do.
There is no valid fucking reason to deny international observers access and everybody who claims otherwise knows there isn't. Hell, if any other country were to do something similar, you'd say they were sneaky corrupt bastards. And that would hold for countries that hadn't even agreed to be transparent when it comes to their democratic process in the first place. American exceptionalism indeed.
Repost because of idiotic troll mod: Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements: "Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." ( http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)
"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)
Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements: "Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)
"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)
You missed the part where the video was supposed to refute all criticism on Windows 8 and supposed to show that the kid used Windows 8 'like a champ'.
If you want to give Julian a pat on the head and tell him he's a champ because he can use a mouse, that's fine with me. But please don't transfer your warm fuzzy feelings to your appraisal of the article or whether it belongs on Slashdot or not.
I'm a power user, sysadmin, and many other things. I learned how to use Macs, iOS, Android, many different Linux interfaces. I've used from DOS 5 and up and just about every version of Windows you can imagine. I can't say I refuse to learn anything.
I'd like to second this. In fact, I think I all the power users I know see learning a new interface as a challenge they'll gladly accept. Most will even show off their knowledge by mentioning the more obscure things they have learnt, albeit scoldingly if they dislike the implementation.
They will also, whilst using the new interface, regularly comment on how ridiculous, stupid, counterintuitive or awesome (Eclipse option filtering!) certain features are and how the same action is oppositely so in some of the many other interfaces they have used.
Power users may generally be blind to how confusing complex interfaces are to less able users, but they are certainly not 'just set in their ways' when they comment on the usability of an interface. After all, they have a lot of experience with interfaces.
That fails to explain why a three-year-old has no problems using it
Try watching the video. The kid is absolutely terrible at using Windows 8. If this is the new definition of 'a champ', then the interface of Windows 8 can indeed be called 'a champ of an interface'.
His dad has clearly (over the course of a month) learnt him some of the basics (like 'pin to the side') that work, but generally: - He has difficulties opening the start screen - He has difficulties making a program fullscreen again - He has difficulties in getting the list of open apps to show, erroneously selects the time app and then on second try stumbles upon the actual list of open applications.
And if you think about it, the kid hasn't actually done anything remotely complex. Nobody ever argued that it would be impossible for new users to click on the fucking huge tiles to open an application or to learn a couple of basic gestures. Everybody did and does say that it most of the gestures are counterintuitive, cumbersome and that the interface in general fails when trying to do anything more complex than playing Angry Birds.
You are right in pointing out that there is a distinction between active and passive and in that sense my comparison is flawed.
When it comes to privacy, however, "rummaging around in your house" isn't really any worse than listening to phone conversations. I think some (most?) people would rather allow the police to look through all the stuff in their house than to listen to all their phone conversations. I'm betting most people in the organized crime business would.
The reference to planting a bomb is of course ridiculous (although, again, I agree with you that being allowed to delete data is more far reaching than simply monitoring/breaking in). Bombs can kill people. Removing data from a computer not so much. If anything, it would be comparable to removing all the pamphlets furthering 'the 21st century Endlösung' from your house once you are suspected of murder. Of course the normal issues concerning censorship and free speech apply here. By the way, not completely unsurprising, the main example mentioned in the proposal is removing child porn from servers.
As in all crime prevention versus privacy issues, by far the most important factor is not the power of what is legitimized, but the point at which it is legitimized. Few people consider it a problem that the police (and military!) is armed and legitimized to kill people, given the provisions that they can only do so in very specific cases. Most people are fine with phone taps on organized crime, but are not ok with phone taps on people with speeding tickets.
I guess that what should be discussed here is what would be sufficient evidence for approving intrusion into and/or intervening with the data on electronic computing devices.
Yes, and that has already happened. This is the push to avoid judges post hoc, but attain permission pre hoc.
The nuance: The proposal is to have law enforcement ask a certain type of judge to approve the hacking before it occurs, similar to the way phone taps are approved. It would furthermore only be allowable when somebody is suspect of severe crimes, f.i. a crime for which the maximum sentence is at least 4 years of incarceration (note the wording here, one would assume 'suspected terrorist' is sufficient). Realistically, though, the whole thing should be comparable to phone taps and one should either oppose both or deem both to be acceptable.
The majority of our (recently elected) parliament is supportive of the proposal (including the parties that are most probably going to form a coalition government), although many members of parliament note that when an actual law is proposed, the protection of privacy should be more strictly worded (in the sense that minor 'crimes' should not warrant government hacking).
I think you'd be pleasantly surprised if you were to use a contemporary mid-range or high-end Android device. Especially at the ease with which many things are accomplished. "It just works" is more in the domain of Android than in that of iOS nowadays.
I have to say that the above mainly holds for Android 4.0 (ICS) and up (combined with applications that follow the ICS design recommendations). Older Android versions and applications offer a different experience.
You are both being apologists. Referring to jailbreaking is a cheap cop out and you know it. Typing an email and thinking "Oh hey, I want to attach a file" is not some kind of outlandish situation. Having to then either discard your text or copy it, then discard your draft, initiate a new 'email with attachment' from an application that specifically enables this (no app with 'send this item to email' means you're SOL), then paste your text back into the newly initiated email(s!) is simply terrible. I suppose it depends on your definition of nightmare, but I think we can all agree that it is at least pretty damn bad or something more intense than 'a little less convenient'.
As for the.mkv example. I specifically mentioned the iPad3. With its admittedly awesome display, it seems to me that you would want to see what true 1080p content looks like on it. I know I did and I'd contend that that hardly qualifies as 'serious computing'. I tried doing this with a friend of mine and to try out different applications to play the same file, we had to copy the entire file to the specific application storage for every application using iTunes on a computer. What it comes down to is that you can have a movie on your device that you can only play with one application and have no way of playing it with another application without copying the entire thing to the storage of that other application. I'm not sure that is even possible without an external device! Even worse is that the default way of dropping the.mkv in your Videos-storage using iTunes is not even directly possible without first converting the file to a format iTunes accepts!
Compare that to the completely straightforward way of dealing with these things on an Android device: ( connect via microUSB, mount as USB drive, copy files from any device that understands USB drives ) - Initiate action from any application (e.g. play from disk / attach file) - Select file using any file explorer you've installed (without rooting/jailbreaking!) - Done.
You may or may not have encountered the issues, but can we at least settle on the notion that if you do encounter them, the iOS way is absolutely terrible from a usability perspective? (which was my original point)
P.S. This is my experience and understanding of what is possible in iOS. Feel free (invited even!) to correct me if I'm wrong on what is and isn't possible with regard to the above.
Slashdot Mirror
EXACTLY. Deserves upmodding.
The average Joe can't afford to stash his money. He needs it to pay the bills.
Tax evasion != tax breaks.
Very true. But I know many, many people who will proudly say how they've 'forgotten' to put things in their tax return or have created certain constructions that are very improbable to ever be uncovered or punished. Most people here see it as a minor offense. Like speeding, which incidentally is really expensive here and described as a way to 'milk hardworking tax payers' (by said tax payers).
High income inequalities are a very bad idea, they lead to high crime rates. A flat tax does not make as much sense as it sounds as the value of money decreases exponentially. Paying 5 million out of 10 million is very different from paying 500 out of 1000. That is why progressive tax rates make sense.
Continuing, I don't have a problem if everybody gets the deductions they are entitled to. The reality is that people that can afford the time or investment can 'save' a lot of money on their taxes by having an expert doing them and bending the rules here and there. Most uneducated/poor people/people that actually need deductions don't have that luxury.
More importantly, I think people view taxes and the governement as something evil (I'd say calling them 'the tax man' qualifies ;-), even though they are in fact an essential part of civilization. Lowering taxes is not the solution to an apparently failing government. Making it not fail is the solution to an apparently failing government.
Like a fellow student?
I seem to hold a minority opinion, but I believe dedicated teachers are hardly necessary. It's not like teachers perform some kind of wizardry when faced with a student who doesn't understand the material. In my experience it all comes down to having access to many proper and extensive examples as well as effective analogies. Both of which are terribly lacking in a lot of the course material I've encountered in my life. For books that makes sense (paper and ink cost money), but in a digital world, pretty much every subject should be larded with tons of examples (after all, our brain is a neural network).
In recognizing which examples and/or analogies would help someone, a few tips from more knowledgeable peers should suffice. I think it is a real stretch to imply that a teacher would come up with some novel personalized explanation of the material that couldn't be available in a digital set of examples and analogies.
It almost does. There is also a tax on car ownership (varying with the ecofriendliness of the car - rated fuel efficiency etc.). If you add these together, they pay for road construction and maintenance quite handily.
But to me, the point is moot. I believe everybody should contribute to proper infrastructure: even people who have never driven a single kilometer benefit greatly from the existence of proper roads. I see taxing fuel and car ownership as an efficiency encouraging policy, nothing more.
Anyway, it does not matter regarding reminding people of the virtues of taxes. There are many examples available, it's just one example with commonly experienced tangible differences between countries. Reminding someone they've hardly ever, if ever, seen a single power blackout just doesn't really ring home. People are so used to stuff just working that they don't realize that it works and even exists because of a government that spends tax money making sure that it does.
That is the issue: people think "It's supposed to work. Duh." yet forget that high quality public facilities don't materialize out of thin air (or free market fairy dust, for that matter).
I don't know how it is over there, but most people I know are proud of it when they evade paying (some) taxes (in one of the richest countries of the world). Even the righteous ones.
I think it's mainly that the way in which paying income taxes is done is experienced too much like a game. You get to fill in some (digital) form with lots of variables and if you find the right values, you get or save a bundle of money. It equates finding a tax loophole or even just being aware of certain deductibles to some kind of glitch in a game one can exploit. Like a trick you've learnt; in this case a trick that pays off quite significantly.
The anguish one should feel when 'stealing from society' is probably suppressed by several things:
The complexity of most tax codes probably aids in soothing people's minds by allowing them to think that they probably are or have been overlooking deductibles they are entitled to.
And of course, very few people would like to admit that they probably spend their money a lot more frivolous than their government does. They simply recall some ill-advised bit of government spending and convince themselves that it will be better for the country if they get to spend that money.
One of the things that is being done in my country to mitigate the 'game' aspect is to have most if not all of the details already filled in when you download the program to do your tax returns. This doesn't preclude gaming the tax system (and people with lots of money probably still will), but many more people would then simply look over the data and confirm it, not being invited to start playing at all. Some people will refrain from paying an expert to do their tax returns, which also means less gaming.
Simplifying an unnecessarily complex tax code is a no brainer. Improving the opinion of the populace when it comes to the prudence of government spending is something that isn't done enough, however. One of my replies to people bitching about paying taxes is whether they've ever driven a car across our border to one of our neighboring countries and experienced how crappy the roads get almost immediately. After they concur and share some crappy road-experience, I remind them that they can choose between great roads or pay less taxes for them, but not both. Most choose great roads (although some insist that somebody else but them should be paying for them).
BTW, I am not arguing that there isn't a lot that can be improved to the spending of most governments, just that public opinion of paying taxes is skewed in the wrong direction and should be improved.
Also, I am not government employed or linked to it in any way. Just trying to be rational.
My vote is to shoot moon rock at it from said moon.
As far as I can see, the only thing that is slightly hard to do, is getting enough energy on the moon (which would have to be produced or transported there).
Of course, we would also have to build a catapult that is able to launch moon rock precisely enough.
And a mining facility.
Then again, we'd pretty much want to do comparable things anyway (for multiple reasons).
I know that my opinion means nothing to you, but does my reasoning? It is not that I have not supplied any.
The only reason I am pursuing this discussion is because you seem like an intelligent person and because you seem to be a proponent of reason (per your sig 'In Reason We Trust'). It always hurts me when not only the general public is misguided (of which I expect such), but also the people that I consider capable of turning that around.
I intentionally misquoted you (in classic Slashdot FTFY-style), because Romania can be substituted for any country in my example. The whole idea is that if no country can have a special status and every country wants to uphold the values of freedom for everyone, international provisions must be made to make sure that they are upheld. If not, you're basically saying that international intervention isn't appropriate at any time (which I doubt you would) - after all, "they'll change it themselves" [paraphrased].
Yes, I willfully ignored your request to consider how to ensure fair elections, because I quite honestly don't give a fuck about fair elections, regardless of your vehement urgings.
FTFY.
Let me be completely direct since you think I'm being obtuse: We don't need any international observers at all. They can just stay home and let us handle our own elections. We don't have to answer to the UN or the OSCE or anyone else for how our system works.
Thank you for proving my point. Next time Iran refuses to let the observers of the IAEA check out their nuclear reactors or Russia refuses international observers in elections (which they don't), remember your own words.
And no, you as a country or state are not entitled to special treatment.
You haven't responded to my request and you have willfully ignored my second sentence.
I'll try to make it more concrete:
You walk to the voting station, wave to the observers and walk another 100 feet.
You ENTER the voting station.
A Republican/Democrat aims an AK47 at you and says: 'Vote X or I will fucking kill you and your entire family. Talk to any observers and I will fucking kill you and your entire family.'
He escorts you to the booth and confirms that you vote X.
You walk out of the voting station, walk 100 feet and wave to the observers again, forcing a smile. They ask you whether everything went ok. "Yeah, just peachy!"
Now you will say that this is hyperbole, and it clearly is. The problem I am trying to illustrate is that international observers are redundant if they have to rely on the accounts of voters (who, for subtle cases may not even realize that they have been influenced). They need to be able to get first-hand evidence and apply their expertise to asserting the fairness of the voting process. That is exactly why the 100ft restrictions are not present for domestic 'watchers' (they are COMPLETELY different from 'pollsters' or 'press').
Now you can continue to be obtuse and pretend that somehow international observers can perform the same task as domestic observers with the 100ft restriction in place or you can wake up and realize that Greg Abbott is a fucking idiot and that refusing international observers says 'corrupt bastard' like nothing else:
http://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/261591085996990464
(Belarus is one of the most corrupt nations of Eurasia, if not the world)
If that doesn't convince you I vehemently urge you to put some effort into the thought exercise of 'ensuring fair elections in Romania' (as in my previous reply). It might open your mind.
You are attacking a straw man (of ridicule). It is impossible to confirm that f.i. counting votes is done fairly or that voters aren't influenced or mistreated in the voting station if you have to stand 30 meters away from the voting station.
The only logical conclusion is that you have not given this enough thought. Try explaining how one could realistically ensure fair elections in (f.i.) Romania without resorting to giving any country a special status.
You are purposefully avoiding the question as well as the central issue and should be ashamed for doing so.
Let go of your tribalism and embrace rationalism. Prevent ending up like Abbott and comparing Texas to one of the most corrupt nations of the world (Belarus).
First, a question: why should foreign nationals working on behalf of an international organization have more access to proceedings than United States citizens - whether civilian, or state or federal authorities -- are currently allowed by law?
See AC sibling and: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3207823&cid=41763269
Allowing observers ('watchers') is complete no-brainer for any voting station, as fraud would be way too easy otherwise. It's such a no-brainer that you can find info on it on ehow: http://www.ehow.com/list_6384122_duties-poll-watcher_.html
Is it _really_ that hard to fathom that it makes sense to extend this to international observers of an internationally controlled and vetted organization?
The OCSE observers aren't RPG-wielding Iranians that want to blow up voting stations, you know.
And they are. The extent permitted by Texas State law is "so long as you keep 100' away, just like everyone else doing exit polls, campaigning for specific candidates/propositions/constitutional ammendments, and and anyone else who might influence the election by mere proximity.
You mean do the things that are explicitly excluded from the international agreement?: "Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings."
The United states is endeavoring to the extent they are able.
(1) That doesn't change that disallowing international observers is still a third world country-style anti-democratic dickish thing to do.
As a matter of Constitutional law, there' not much more they can do. Federal election laws do not provide for strong federal oversight of state elections.
I've seen comments saying otherwise, but I do not know enough about the technicalities of the legal relation between the US federation and the states themselves. Nor do I care. See (1).
The issue the OSCE complains of in the linked document amounts to saying, "the United States is not organized like other countries, and that's a nuisance for us from a regulatory perspective."
You lie or have misunderstood. Read it again (hell, try reading TFS). Hint: there are quite a number of people in the US with similar concerns regarding some of the recently instated voting regulations.
The OSCE could always try to sue in federal court if they feel the law is in error.
Yes, I'm sure that's a case that will be dealt with within three weeks. Thank you for suggesting this very effective and realistic option.
So far, they have not done so. So far, this comment from Abbot is little different from the AG pre-emptivly reminding any group to obey the law, and there will be no special treatment. No different that a protestor rally.
A 'protestor rally'? Really?? That's what you compare international observers to?
And 'pre-emptivly [sic] reminding'? Have you read his tweet (in TFA)?
"UN poll watchers can't interfere w/ Texas elections,” he tweeted. “I'll bring criminal charges if needed. Official letter posted soon. #comeandtakeit"
This guy is a fucking joke ( http://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX ):
"Even Belarus denied Visas to European Vote Monitors. Why should they be allowed here? http://www.rferl.org/content/belarus-denies-osce-monitors-visas/24713858.html"
Belarus is one of the most corrupt nations in Eurasia and considered a dictatorship by many - which kind of proves my fucking point - See (1).
Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how stupid some of the highly placed officials in the US are. How the fuck does an asshole like this become an Attorney General?
It's sort of a quirky clause, but the spirit of the agreement in general and this specific paragraph is obvious.
Therefore, it makes a lot more sense to interpret 'the extent permitted by law' as a clause to prevent legitimizing things like putting cameras in voting booths or using other spy equipment.
It would be absolutely retarded to interpret it as legitimizing preventing access to the voting station altogether. Which is a more realistic paraphrasing of "Admittedly you could argue about how much observation can be done from a distance, but it doesn't appear to be in disagreement to me."
Listen, even if (and I'm not saying it is the case that) it is technically legal for Texas to refuse observers access to the voting stations, it would be an utterly dickish anti-democratic and third world country thing to do.
There is no valid fucking reason to deny international observers access and everybody who claims otherwise knows there isn't. Hell, if any other country were to do something similar, you'd say they were sneaky corrupt bastards. And that would hold for countries that hadn't even agreed to be transparent when it comes to their democratic process in the first place. American exceptionalism indeed.
Repost because of idiotic troll mod:
Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." ( http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)
The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304 [osce.org]
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.
"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)
Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)
The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.
"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)
You missed the part where the video was supposed to refute all criticism on Windows 8 and supposed to show that the kid used Windows 8 'like a champ'.
If you want to give Julian a pat on the head and tell him he's a champ because he can use a mouse, that's fine with me. But please don't transfer your warm fuzzy feelings to your appraisal of the article or whether it belongs on Slashdot or not.
I'm a power user, sysadmin, and many other things. I learned how to use Macs, iOS, Android, many different Linux interfaces. I've used from DOS 5 and up and just about every version of Windows you can imagine. I can't say I refuse to learn anything.
I'd like to second this. In fact, I think I all the power users I know see learning a new interface as a challenge they'll gladly accept. Most will even show off their knowledge by mentioning the more obscure things they have learnt, albeit scoldingly if they dislike the implementation.
They will also, whilst using the new interface, regularly comment on how ridiculous, stupid, counterintuitive or awesome (Eclipse option filtering!) certain features are and how the same action is oppositely so in some of the many other interfaces they have used.
Power users may generally be blind to how confusing complex interfaces are to less able users, but they are certainly not 'just set in their ways' when they comment on the usability of an interface. After all, they have a lot of experience with interfaces.
That fails to explain why a three-year-old has no problems using it
Try watching the video. The kid is absolutely terrible at using Windows 8. If this is the new definition of 'a champ', then the interface of Windows 8 can indeed be called 'a champ of an interface'.
His dad has clearly (over the course of a month) learnt him some of the basics (like 'pin to the side') that work, but generally:
- He has difficulties opening the start screen
- He has difficulties making a program fullscreen again
- He has difficulties in getting the list of open apps to show, erroneously selects the time app and then on second try stumbles upon the actual list of open applications.
And if you think about it, the kid hasn't actually done anything remotely complex. Nobody ever argued that it would be impossible for new users to click on the fucking huge tiles to open an application or to learn a couple of basic gestures.
Everybody did and does say that it most of the gestures are counterintuitive, cumbersome and that the interface in general fails when trying to do anything more complex than playing Angry Birds.
This article is fucking bullshit.
I see smoke, but no fire in your source.
I furthermore do not see a relevant point in your posting.
Said differently: you're not (yet?) adding anything useful to this discussion.
You are right in pointing out that there is a distinction between active and passive and in that sense my comparison is flawed.
When it comes to privacy, however, "rummaging around in your house" isn't really any worse than listening to phone conversations. I think some (most?) people would rather allow the police to look through all the stuff in their house than to listen to all their phone conversations. I'm betting most people in the organized crime business would.
The reference to planting a bomb is of course ridiculous (although, again, I agree with you that being allowed to delete data is more far reaching than simply monitoring/breaking in). Bombs can kill people. Removing data from a computer not so much. If anything, it would be comparable to removing all the pamphlets furthering 'the 21st century Endlösung' from your house once you are suspected of murder. Of course the normal issues concerning censorship and free speech apply here.
By the way, not completely unsurprising, the main example mentioned in the proposal is removing child porn from servers.
As in all crime prevention versus privacy issues, by far the most important factor is not the power of what is legitimized, but the point at which it is legitimized. Few people consider it a problem that the police (and military!) is armed and legitimized to kill people, given the provisions that they can only do so in very specific cases.
Most people are fine with phone taps on organized crime, but are not ok with phone taps on people with speeding tickets.
I guess that what should be discussed here is what would be sufficient evidence for approving intrusion into and/or intervening with the data on electronic computing devices.
Yes, and that has already happened. This is the push to avoid judges post hoc, but attain permission pre hoc.
The nuance: The proposal is to have law enforcement ask a certain type of judge to approve the hacking before it occurs, similar to the way phone taps are approved.
It would furthermore only be allowable when somebody is suspect of severe crimes, f.i. a crime for which the maximum sentence is at least 4 years of incarceration (note the wording here, one would assume 'suspected terrorist' is sufficient).
Realistically, though, the whole thing should be comparable to phone taps and one should either oppose both or deem both to be acceptable.
The majority of our (recently elected) parliament is supportive of the proposal (including the parties that are most probably going to form a coalition government), although many members of parliament note that when an actual law is proposed, the protection of privacy should be more strictly worded (in the sense that minor 'crimes' should not warrant government hacking).
I think you'd be pleasantly surprised if you were to use a contemporary mid-range or high-end Android device. Especially at the ease with which many things are accomplished. "It just works" is more in the domain of Android than in that of iOS nowadays.
I have to say that the above mainly holds for Android 4.0 (ICS) and up (combined with applications that follow the ICS design recommendations). Older Android versions and applications offer a different experience.
You are both being apologists. Referring to jailbreaking is a cheap cop out and you know it.
Typing an email and thinking "Oh hey, I want to attach a file" is not some kind of outlandish situation. Having to then either discard your text or copy it, then discard your draft, initiate a new 'email with attachment' from an application that specifically enables this (no app with 'send this item to email' means you're SOL), then paste your text back into the newly initiated email(s!) is simply terrible. I suppose it depends on your definition of nightmare, but I think we can all agree that it is at least pretty damn bad or something more intense than 'a little less convenient'.
As for the .mkv example. I specifically mentioned the iPad3. With its admittedly awesome display, it seems to me that you would want to see what true 1080p content looks like on it. I know I did and I'd contend that that hardly qualifies as 'serious computing'. .mkv in your Videos-storage using iTunes is not even directly possible without first converting the file to a format iTunes accepts!
I tried doing this with a friend of mine and to try out different applications to play the same file, we had to copy the entire file to the specific application storage for every application using iTunes on a computer .
What it comes down to is that you can have a movie on your device that you can only play with one application and have no way of playing it with another application without copying the entire thing to the storage of that other application. I'm not sure that is even possible without an external device!
Even worse is that the default way of dropping the
Compare that to the completely straightforward way of dealing with these things on an Android device:
( connect via microUSB, mount as USB drive, copy files from any device that understands USB drives )
- Initiate action from any application (e.g. play from disk / attach file)
- Select file using any file explorer you've installed (without rooting/jailbreaking!)
- Done.
You may or may not have encountered the issues, but can we at least settle on the notion that if you do encounter them, the iOS way is absolutely terrible from a usability perspective? (which was my original point)
P.S. This is my experience and understanding of what is possible in iOS. Feel free (invited even!) to correct me if I'm wrong on what is and isn't possible with regard to the above.