Mainly because it's cheap and gives a valuable double-check. If there are errors of method in the manual process, the electronic process will probably not have the same errors. Thus you get better reliability than you get using manual counting alone.
Less important, but also valuable, is the quick results that you get from electronic counting. This speed is not important enough to decide which counting process to use, far from it, but it's still valuable in my view.
There should always be both electronic and manual counting. The electronic counting delivers a quick result, the manual counting delivers the official and definitive result. In the case of discrepancies you check again, and you investigate where exactly the error appeared.
It may seem like an unnecessary expense to always count manually, but we should allow the legitimacy of democracy to cost some. It's worth it.
How on earth did you manage to reply in the wrong thread? [...] realised mistake [...], felt like idiot. This is an example of an important reason why we should be wary of voting machines. When people make mistakes on machines they feel more embarrassed than otherwise. Trivial mistakes that would be shrugged off if they happened with paper and pencil, with machines people will often feel as if the mistake were important, especially with computers they'll feel as if people around them might sneer at them. Much more so than with similarly small mistakes made with simpler technology like paper and pencil.
In a voting scenario this can become very important, as it can make people accept discrepancies, worrying that people will look down on them if they complain. Thus an attacker could introduce systematic small discrepancies that add up to a certain result.
The voting procedure must be designed to minimize this problem.
Because vote buying doesn't happen now anyhow? The problem would get even worse, much worse, if you add a second type of vote-buying procedure. Immediately lots of people all over the country would find that in order to keep their jobs, they'd better vote for the candidate preferred by the boss. It's bad now, but it would get far, far worse.
and then two copies of a reciept, matching what's on the screen, come off a receipt printer. Too many people are scared stiff of "doing something wrong" on the machine, and that, because of this, people around them will think they are stupid. Because of this they'll silently accept discrepancies, they'll assume that they "did something stupid" on the machine.
Let the machine produce a piece of paper that you carry to the poll box, a piece of paper that you can trash to make a new one if you're not satisfied with the first. The procedure should never be that you have to complain to a poll worker when you're not satisfied with the printout.
One copy for the voter, In addition to what others have said, that thugs or vote buyers could demand to see the receipt, and vote secrecy would be broken, also a receipt does nothing against vote-counting fraud. The receipt does nothing to prove that your vote was counted correctly, and gives you no way to correct an error.
It's important here that the youth of Japan grow up in very small houses, They are so used to small things that they'd get lost in the vast expanse of a desktop computer screen, assuming they could get one through the door. A mobile screen feels just like home.
Don't you know that we're entitled to everything we want Ah, yes, indeed, of course, you're right. That's the modern way. I'm so 20th century. I suppose I'm dating myself, spewing off all these old-fashioned ideas.
So why don't you buy a Slashdot subscription? Someone has to pay their costs, either you pay yourself by subscribing, or the ads pay for you so you don't have to.
If you don't accept that there are ads, and you don't want to pay a subscription, who do you expect to pay this for you?
That's just for getting a widget that gives you the illusion that you're tagging the article. For your tag to really show up in the list of tags, something else is needed — some very secret voodoo it seems.
Western readers just call "panopticon" in politicaly correct way. They call it 'political correctness'. Depends on the country. In the US there are two words, "un-American" and "unpatriotic".
Why is this modded troll? Not that I can read the moderator's mind, but my guess is that he believes that the poster is making light of tragedy.
Some people don't understand that humor and laughter is also a way of crying together and sharing the pain of tragedy. I automatically read the comment that way, but very likely the moderator didn't. This kind of humor is especially widespread under repressive regimes, where you can't talk explicitly about the issues. In such countries people tend to comment on things in ways that humorless secret police agents will meet with a disapproving and slightly bewildered frown, rather than a one-way ticket to the Gulag.
A bit harsh. They're just a minute apart. Maybe just seconds apart.
Not that I see much point in protesting mods. This happens all the time. You just move on. Next time it may go the opposite way.
But if, in spite of this, you do stop to think about it briefly, then in fact it is undeserved when the comments may well have been just a few seconds apart.
How? Who decides which alternatives are fact-oriented and principled?
If people could easily agree on on which alternatives are sound, people would do it that way all the time, in most fields of human endeavor. You're taking an unsolvable problem and assuming it's solved.
Seems like 1/20th of a sec wouldn't cut it for all but the brightest objects. One of the short texts below the two initial articles says that it's a new camera capable of detecting individual photons:
This new camera chip is so sensitive that it can detect individual particles of light called photons even when running at high speed. It is this extraordinary sensitivity that makes these detectors so attractive for astronomers. Unfortunately it doesn't give any details on how much light is needed compared to other techniques.
According to the second article on that page, it's the other way around:
Images from ground-based telescopes are invariably blurred out by the atmosphere. Astronomers have tried to develop techniques to correct the blurring called adaptive optics but so far they only work successfully in the infrared where the smearing is greatly reduced.
Should I call Linux "Linsux" or "StillLiveInMom'sBasementIx?" Are you going out of your way to be offensive? Obviously that should be "StillLiveInMom'sBasemenTux".
Slashdot Mirror
Mainly because it's cheap and gives a valuable double-check. If there are errors of method in the manual process, the electronic process will probably not have the same errors. Thus you get better reliability than you get using manual counting alone.
Less important, but also valuable, is the quick results that you get from electronic counting. This speed is not important enough to decide which counting process to use, far from it, but it's still valuable in my view.
There should always be both electronic and manual counting. The electronic counting delivers a quick result, the manual counting delivers the official and definitive result. In the case of discrepancies you check again, and you investigate where exactly the error appeared.
It may seem like an unnecessary expense to always count manually, but we should allow the legitimacy of democracy to cost some. It's worth it.
In a voting scenario this can become very important, as it can make people accept discrepancies, worrying that people will look down on them if they complain. Thus an attacker could introduce systematic small discrepancies that add up to a certain result.
The voting procedure must be designed to minimize this problem.
Let the machine produce a piece of paper that you carry to the poll box, a piece of paper that you can trash to make a new one if you're not satisfied with the first. The procedure should never be that you have to complain to a poll worker when you're not satisfied with the printout. One copy for the voter, In addition to what others have said, that thugs or vote buyers could demand to see the receipt, and vote secrecy would be broken, also a receipt does nothing against vote-counting fraud. The receipt does nothing to prove that your vote was counted correctly, and gives you no way to correct an error.
Amazing. I'm pretty sure in most countries they'd get a court order to stop infringing on brand recognition and property rights.
I bet we wouldn't have half the problems we do now if we were just.
So why don't you buy a Slashdot subscription? Someone has to pay their costs, either you pay yourself by subscribing, or the ads pay for you so you don't have to.
If you don't accept that there are ads, and you don't want to pay a subscription, who do you expect to pay this for you?
That's just for getting a widget that gives you the illusion that you're tagging the article. For your tag to really show up in the list of tags, something else is needed — some very secret voodoo it seems.
They call it 'political correctness'. Depends on the country. In the US there are two words, "un-American" and "unpatriotic".
Some people don't understand that humor and laughter is also a way of crying together and sharing the pain of tragedy. I automatically read the comment that way, but very likely the moderator didn't. This kind of humor is especially widespread under repressive regimes, where you can't talk explicitly about the issues. In such countries people tend to comment on things in ways that humorless secret police agents will meet with a disapproving and slightly bewildered frown, rather than a one-way ticket to the Gulag.
A bit harsh. They're just a minute apart. Maybe just seconds apart.
Not that I see much point in protesting mods. This happens all the time. You just move on. Next time it may go the opposite way.
But if, in spite of this, you do stop to think about it briefly, then in fact it is undeserved when the comments may well have been just a few seconds apart.
Tuff is the Swedish word for tough, so that's a natural mistake for a Swede.
But I agree that he sounds very much like some petulant teenager. His tone doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Oh for crying out unquietly!
How? Who decides which alternatives are fact-oriented and principled?
If people could easily agree on on which alternatives are sound, people would do it that way all the time, in most fields of human endeavor. You're taking an unsolvable problem and assuming it's solved.
Don't worry, they'll only jump on you when you're asleep.