"with 1% accuracy" is perfectly acceptable. If you have a meter stick that you can measure the length of something "with 1 mm accuracy," that's what you're interested in. The statement you quote means Gravity Probe B will be able to measure with an accuracy of 1% of the predicted value.
You can't just go by what is on the device remote. My TV remote has a single "Power" button, but it also understands discrete codes. Also, from my own experience, the quality of the equipment doesn't necessarily correlate with having or not having discreet codes.
I voted in a federal election two weeks ago - doubling back after putting the ballot papers into the two ballot boxes under the eye of the official to feed in more ballot papers would have been noticed by dozens of bored people standing in line, as would have dodging out of line before registration to head for the ballot box. The system has been set up on the assumption that fraud will be attempted, so appropriate precautions have been taken. With the Diebold machines it does not appear to be the case.
I'm not worried about your fraud. When you have people, over the course of a couple of weeks, handling the ballots, the possibilities for fraud and error go up. You have people charged with handling, counting, and guarding the votes; a moment of inattention or a simple mistake (marking the wrong column, etc) can change someone's vote or allow someone to tamper with the ballots. And you ignored my point about the voter making mistakes or not making his/her intentions clear.
[me] Optical machines are being replaced by computers, because again, they are (or at least can be) more accurate.
[you]
In this case they obviously are not
Are you sure? If you use an optical ballot, what is the chances your vote is not read correctly or you make a mistake and don't convey your intention. What is the chance an electronic machine will not record or tally your vote?
and cannot be checked properly.
This is, indeed a problem. But, there are checks that can be done. You know how many voters cast ballots (from paper and other cross-checks). You can see how many were cast on the machine. Could it record them incorrectly? Yes. On the other hand, the old, big, mechanical machines did this quite (relatively) often.
Regarding your comment about "prototypes" (which they aren't, really) is true. We do have to do the best we can. But, electronic machines *are* the future. Attention has to be paid to how to make them the best they can be, better than the other alternatives. Trying to revert to paper ballots isn't in anyone's interest.
Look, every election expert will tell you a few things: 1) Computer based voting has the potential to be more accurate than anything before it. 2) There will always be problems with any method. 3) A lot of the problems we're seeing now, will be worked out. 4) They should have been worked out to a larger degree before now. 5) Your chance of being disenfranchised are almost certainly higher if you choose to use a paper ballot (they are still available).
Replying to myself, let me point out that no independant expert I've ever heard has advocated ditching computer based systems for some older form of technology, just that we have to work to make the computer based systems better.
First, when the article talks about laptops connected to the internet, I would bet you 10:1 odds that that is *not* the machine you vote on. Typically when you come in to vote, someone looks you up in a book to see if you are eligible. If you're not in the book, they can make a phone call. It appears these people have stupidly supplied a computer with no paper-book backup. If the computer works, its more accurate, but if it doesn't you are in trouble. In any case, it's not the machine you vote on.
On write-in ballots, you really show your misunderstanding. Write-in ballots were replaced by the big machines and punch-cards because the voter has a higher chance of making a mistake with a write-in ballot. Not to mention the possibilities for fraud and the fact that it would take forever to count these ballots. (Look at Afghanistan, they will count ballots for 2 weeks. Lots of possibility for abuse during that time.)
Mechanical machines are/were replaced by optical scan machines because they are more accurate. Optical machines are being replaced by computers, because again, they are (or at least can be) more accurate. They also don't allow the voter to make certain mistakes, like voting twice in the same race.
Look, every election expert will tell you a few things: 1) Computer based voting has the potential to be more accurate than anything before it. 2) There will always be problems with any method. 3) A lot of the problems we're seeing now, will be worked out. 4) They should have been worked out to a larger degree before now. 5) Your chance of being disenfranchised are almost certainly higher if you choose to use a paper ballot (they are still available).
As per your original comment, companies are not contracted to conduct elections, just to supply the machines.
As per your later comment, you can have an opinion on how elections in the U.S.A. are conducted, but if you don't have the facts first, you're opinion is of limited value.
Paper lists are supplied by the election commission and used by the poll workers. Neither are employees of a company and have nothing to do with the machines.
I agree that not having paper lists is bizarre. But, I know that in my state (TN) 10% of all registered voters are registered since the last election (August). You can register up to 30 days before an election. So, people were able to register up until a week or so before early voting. Put in time to process the registration and verify the info there, and it's hard to have an up-to-date paper list ready for the start of early voting. Easier to have it ready on election day. Keep in mind, lots of registrations are done at driver's license offices, on the street, etc. and you can understand how complex this can get.
But, they should have paper lists for what they've got and then deal with the rest via computer lookup.
I shows that they are not competant enough to do the job as contracted, and if that company is not replaced investigations should be carried out into which pockets the "lobby" money went.
And this shows that you don't understand how the validity of your vote is ensured. The people working at the polls are not employees of a company, they are citizens like you. Well, not like you. They are doing something instead of just carping about it. For more info, see my other comment, especially the last line.
Second, the article references the general apathy of workers running the poll stations. It seems that democracy may end in this country, or at least in Florida, from this more than from any of our elected leaders.
All right, I've had it with these comments.
Look, the job of running a precinct is pretty complex. I do it. Once, twice, maybe three times a year. That's not often enough to feel completely confident about what you're doing, especially when law makers change the rules once or twice a year and you have to adjust.
Most poll officials are very civic minded and try to do the best they can. Most are also over 65. They are not apathetic, they are overwhelmed. Quit yer bitchin' and do it yourself. Our democratic process needs younger people doing this job. Take a day off of work. Trust me, the world will be better off if you skip writing a few hundred lines of code and insure the accuracy of a few hundred or a few thousand votes instead.
Just to give you an idea what's required, I go to 2-3 hrs of training before elections. That covers maybe 20% of what I need to know about how you handle all the different types of voters who show up in the wrong place to vote. I get a 50 page manual that covers maybe 90% of it. It is a lot of work; I have about 20-30 different pieces of paper that each have to end up in a designated folder, etc. in order to ensure everything is done "correctly."
Local election officials (the ones paid fulltime) work day and night to try to assure that everything goes well. They manage a team of (up to) thousands of near-volunteers (I get $125 for the day, which sure isn't why I do it) and have to try to figure out who the 2% who don't do their job are. They also have to provide clear instructions, in plain English, to their workers based on election law (not in plain English) that constantly changes.
I have to deal with failsafe voters, provisional voters, write in ballots, paper ballots, voter assistance forms, challenges to the right to vote. The list goes on. I'm 33, have umpteen years of education, and run a small precinct. I still find this a challenge.
Think this is an easy job, let me quote myself: Quit yer bitchin' and do it yourself.
Exactly. And, the added scenes are usually intended for the readers of the book more than for the general public. Maybe the best example of this is Galadriel's gift giving scene in the first movie. It was abbreviated in the theatrical release since the whole "Gimli hates elves and turns around to almost worship Galadriel" sub-plot adds nothing to the real plot. But, any fan of the books would be really upset to see this left out.
Well, at least it's not the aliens and psychics channel anymore (at least not as much). I guess the only things I've watched there are "American Chopper" (which I enjoy, but it's not "discovering" anything) and Myth Busters (which others have brought up).
Nope, locate, or at least the version I have (slocate), doesn't return the names of files you don't have access too. The db may be out there and readable, but if I type "locate messages" as a normal user, I don't get/var/log/messages since I can't read it.
The other thing is that locate doesn't let you search within files. Normally, the name of a file is not that important, what is inside is. There are exceptions, of course.
Yeah, because money and technology are what it takes to make a great movie, right?
That's why Episode I and II are *so* much better than the original trilogy </sarcasm>
Lucas seems to believe this, which is why I shudder when I hear him speculate about the day when a CGI character can fill in for a completely non-existant actor.
A little history - sex ed in schools was first sold in the 60's, when there were teen pregnancy rates and vd rates that we would kill for now. The very things it was supposedly going to help with rose in tandem with the growth of sex ed.
You have to be very careful sorting out cause and effect, especially in sociology where control groups can be hard to come by.
I didn't see the original poster claim condoms are safe sex. To the contrary:
all of their options, the risks associated with each
I went to a private school and sufficiently long ago to say that I never really had any decent sex ed, but I've looked at what abstinence only sex-ed teaches, and it is scary. The basic point is, if you don't abstain, you will get a deadly sexually transmitted disease* and there is no mention at all of what you can do to minimize this should you choose not to abstain. In my opinion, that's kind of like telling teenagers not to speed and not telling them that if they do, it's a good idea to wear a seat-belt. (OK, I know this isn't a good example since you can still be killed driving safely.)
* The deadly disease they are talking about is HPV, some forms of which cause cervical cancer which is deadly in some cases, essentially where women don't get regular pap smears. Condoms don't offer particularly good protection from HPV, but they seem to be somewhat effective.
I'm no expert, but I would be very surprised to find any reputable sex-ed education that claims condoms enable "safe" sex. The term used now, even by condom manufacturers, is "safer" sex. Safer in that they are very effective at preventing AIDS.
Go look at that page. In 1992 and 1998, they launched eight times. In a few other years, seven. Since 1998, no more than six. I purposefully didn't count the years (2003/2004) since Columbia broke up.
Taking a quick look, there were two times when they launched twice in 30 days, but that was followed on either side by long periods of inactivity.
You seem to have an incorrect perception of the shuttle's launch schedule. The future will be even worse since they only have three shuttles, and yet the budget is going up.
According to http://www.space.com/news/budget_nasa_030203.html, the shuttle program request for 2004 is $4 bn (and no launches, of course). That's up from $3.3 bn in 2003, and will probably not drop.
So, by your figures, even the $3.3 bn should buy 33-66 launches in a year. Clearly not the case.
In 2001 and 2002, there were 6 and 5 launches, respectively. Ergo, ~$500M / launch dividing the whole program by the number of launches.
BTW, in 1999 and 200, the launch numbers were 3 and 5. (http://www.seds.org/~spider/shuttle/past.html)
Couldn't agree more. I have the 6208 too. Sure, it's not so great compared to my friends (non-HD) DirectTivo. But if I move in a year and don't get a house/apartment with the correct south facing area, etc., I'm out nothing.
Actually, the $10 they quote is somewhat inaccurate. The price to get HD and DVR is just $10 more than regular cable, probably just $5 above Digital Cable and $5 above regular HD service (which is what I had before).
$5 extra/month vs. $1000 up front is a no brainer.
My point was that it is a small part of the bandwidth of the internet. Why blacklist your recipient e-mail addresses instead of just monitoring the ones you want?
Slashdot Mirror
This of it this way: if the actual value is 0.00, then by your definition, the probe will make a perfect measurement.
"with 1% accuracy" is perfectly acceptable. If you have a meter stick that you can measure the length of something "with 1 mm accuracy," that's what you're interested in. The statement you quote means Gravity Probe B will be able to measure with an accuracy of 1% of the predicted value.
You can't just go by what is on the device remote. My TV remote has a single "Power" button, but it also understands discrete codes. Also, from my own experience, the quality of the equipment doesn't necessarily correlate with having or not having discreet codes.
I'm not worried about your fraud. When you have people, over the course of a couple of weeks, handling the ballots, the possibilities for fraud and error go up. You have people charged with handling, counting, and guarding the votes; a moment of inattention or a simple mistake (marking the wrong column, etc) can change someone's vote or allow someone to tamper with the ballots. And you ignored my point about the voter making mistakes or not making his/her intentions clear.
[me] Optical machines are being replaced by computers, because again, they are (or at least can be) more accurate.
[you] In this case they obviously are not
Are you sure? If you use an optical ballot, what is the chances your vote is not read correctly or you make a mistake and don't convey your intention. What is the chance an electronic machine will not record or tally your vote?
and cannot be checked properly.
This is, indeed a problem. But, there are checks that can be done. You know how many voters cast ballots (from paper and other cross-checks). You can see how many were cast on the machine. Could it record them incorrectly? Yes. On the other hand, the old, big, mechanical machines did this quite (relatively) often.
Regarding your comment about "prototypes" (which they aren't, really) is true. We do have to do the best we can. But, electronic machines *are* the future. Attention has to be paid to how to make them the best they can be, better than the other alternatives. Trying to revert to paper ballots isn't in anyone's interest.
Replying to myself, let me point out that no independant expert I've ever heard has advocated ditching computer based systems for some older form of technology, just that we have to work to make the computer based systems better.
First, when the article talks about laptops connected to the internet, I would bet you 10:1 odds that that is *not* the machine you vote on. Typically when you come in to vote, someone looks you up in a book to see if you are eligible. If you're not in the book, they can make a phone call. It appears these people have stupidly supplied a computer with no paper-book backup. If the computer works, its more accurate, but if it doesn't you are in trouble. In any case, it's not the machine you vote on.
On write-in ballots, you really show your misunderstanding. Write-in ballots were replaced by the big machines and punch-cards because the voter has a higher chance of making a mistake with a write-in ballot. Not to mention the possibilities for fraud and the fact that it would take forever to count these ballots. (Look at Afghanistan, they will count ballots for 2 weeks. Lots of possibility for abuse during that time.)
Mechanical machines are/were replaced by optical scan machines because they are more accurate. Optical machines are being replaced by computers, because again, they are (or at least can be) more accurate. They also don't allow the voter to make certain mistakes, like voting twice in the same race.
Look, every election expert will tell you a few things: 1) Computer based voting has the potential to be more accurate than anything before it. 2) There will always be problems with any method. 3) A lot of the problems we're seeing now, will be worked out. 4) They should have been worked out to a larger degree before now. 5) Your chance of being disenfranchised are almost certainly higher if you choose to use a paper ballot (they are still available).
As per your later comment, you can have an opinion on how elections in the U.S.A. are conducted, but if you don't have the facts first, you're opinion is of limited value.
Paper lists are supplied by the election commission and used by the poll workers. Neither are employees of a company and have nothing to do with the machines.
But, they should have paper lists for what they've got and then deal with the rest via computer lookup.
And this shows that you don't understand how the validity of your vote is ensured. The people working at the polls are not employees of a company, they are citizens like you. Well, not like you. They are doing something instead of just carping about it. For more info, see my other comment, especially the last line.
All right, I've had it with these comments.
Look, the job of running a precinct is pretty complex. I do it. Once, twice, maybe three times a year. That's not often enough to feel completely confident about what you're doing, especially when law makers change the rules once or twice a year and you have to adjust.
Most poll officials are very civic minded and try to do the best they can. Most are also over 65. They are not apathetic, they are overwhelmed. Quit yer bitchin' and do it yourself. Our democratic process needs younger people doing this job. Take a day off of work. Trust me, the world will be better off if you skip writing a few hundred lines of code and insure the accuracy of a few hundred or a few thousand votes instead.
Just to give you an idea what's required, I go to 2-3 hrs of training before elections. That covers maybe 20% of what I need to know about how you handle all the different types of voters who show up in the wrong place to vote. I get a 50 page manual that covers maybe 90% of it. It is a lot of work; I have about 20-30 different pieces of paper that each have to end up in a designated folder, etc. in order to ensure everything is done "correctly."
Local election officials (the ones paid fulltime) work day and night to try to assure that everything goes well. They manage a team of (up to) thousands of near-volunteers (I get $125 for the day, which sure isn't why I do it) and have to try to figure out who the 2% who don't do their job are. They also have to provide clear instructions, in plain English, to their workers based on election law (not in plain English) that constantly changes.
I have to deal with failsafe voters, provisional voters, write in ballots, paper ballots, voter assistance forms, challenges to the right to vote. The list goes on. I'm 33, have umpteen years of education, and run a small precinct. I still find this a challenge.
Think this is an easy job, let me quote myself: Quit yer bitchin' and do it yourself.
Exactly. And, the added scenes are usually intended for the readers of the book more than for the general public. Maybe the best example of this is Galadriel's gift giving scene in the first movie. It was abbreviated in the theatrical release since the whole "Gimli hates elves and turns around to almost worship Galadriel" sub-plot adds nothing to the real plot. But, any fan of the books would be really upset to see this left out.
Well, at least it's not the aliens and psychics channel anymore (at least not as much). I guess the only things I've watched there are "American Chopper" (which I enjoy, but it's not "discovering" anything) and Myth Busters (which others have brought up).
The other thing is that locate doesn't let you search within files. Normally, the name of a file is not that important, what is inside is. There are exceptions, of course.
Yeah, because money and technology are what it takes to make a great movie, right?
That's why Episode I and II are *so* much better than the original trilogy
</sarcasm>
Lucas seems to believe this, which is why I shudder when I hear him speculate about the day when a CGI character can fill in for a completely non-existant actor.
You have to be very careful sorting out cause and effect, especially in sociology where control groups can be hard to come by.
Estimates are that something like 75% (or more) of the sexually active population has one form or another of this virus.
all of their options, the risks associated with each
I went to a private school and sufficiently long ago to say that I never really had any decent sex ed, but I've looked at what abstinence only sex-ed teaches, and it is scary. The basic point is, if you don't abstain, you will get a deadly sexually transmitted disease* and there is no mention at all of what you can do to minimize this should you choose not to abstain. In my opinion, that's kind of like telling teenagers not to speed and not telling them that if they do, it's a good idea to wear a seat-belt. (OK, I know this isn't a good example since you can still be killed driving safely.)
* The deadly disease they are talking about is HPV, some forms of which cause cervical cancer which is deadly in some cases, essentially where women don't get regular pap smears. Condoms don't offer particularly good protection from HPV, but they seem to be somewhat effective.
I'm no expert, but I would be very surprised to find any reputable sex-ed education that claims condoms enable "safe" sex. The term used now, even by condom manufacturers, is "safer" sex. Safer in that they are very effective at preventing AIDS.
Taking a quick look, there were two times when they launched twice in 30 days, but that was followed on either side by long periods of inactivity.
You seem to have an incorrect perception of the shuttle's launch schedule. The future will be even worse since they only have three shuttles, and yet the budget is going up.
So, by your figures, even the $3.3 bn should buy 33-66 launches in a year. Clearly not the case.
In 2001 and 2002, there were 6 and 5 launches, respectively. Ergo, ~$500M / launch dividing the whole program by the number of launches.
BTW, in 1999 and 200, the launch numbers were 3 and 5. (http://www.seds.org/~spider/shuttle/past.html)
1) They are not sending people to the moon, just a probe
2) The cost/shuttle mission is more like $500 million/mission
Ok, there are problems looming, we should fix them, etc. But even if nothing is done, in 40 years, the fix could be a 25% reduction in benefits.
The problems with Medicare are much more severe than with Social Security.
Actually, the $10 they quote is somewhat inaccurate. The price to get HD and DVR is just $10 more than regular cable, probably just $5 above Digital Cable and $5 above regular HD service (which is what I had before).
$5 extra/month vs. $1000 up front is a no brainer.
Will have to look at Dish when I move, though.
My point was that it is a small part of the bandwidth of the internet. Why blacklist your recipient e-mail addresses instead of just monitoring the ones you want?
I probably use more bandwith checking CNN first thing in the morning than is used for spam sent to me (and I get 20-25 pieces/day).
As long as you don't keep storing it on disk, it is just a nuisance.