there is equal willingness to commit fraud, electronic voting, or paper voting
"Electronic voting merely makes fraud a little easier to conceal"
no. the difference is one of scale and ease. the difference is sophisitication of attack vectors, increased number of attack vectors, how easy it is to hide your tracks, etc.
"Does it make it easier or more likely? Not really"
no. with paper voting, you need lots of coordination, effort, and hard work by many players in many positions to effect any real damage. and its more open
with electronic voting, you just need one guy and 100 milliseconds to do absolutely ANYTHING you want to do with votes, including introducing random statistical abberations to prevent the raising of red flags
electronic voting does a LOT more than just make fraud easier to conceal (which is bad enough)- it introduces a myriad more attack vectors and decreases the number of players involved to do a lot more damage a lot more quickly. electronic voting makes fraud a LOT easier
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote
and if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's osmething wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement
you put votes in, out comes sausage. how does the machine turn votes into sausage? i don't know, i can't look inside, its not transparent
voters in the poorest nation in the world, and voters in the richest, should all use paper ballots. end of debate
because its TRANSPARENT
it does a rich society no benefit to advance beyond transparency, and any, ANY electronic voting machine does exactly that. the rich country can use ocr for quicker tallying
what is the reason for electronic voting? what is saved? the nes media can announce the winner faster? that's more important to then the integrity of the voting process?
electronic voting, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are more ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
sure a guy can dump all of the paper ballots from a precinct in the river. he can stuff the box with fake ballots. how much damage is this guy doing? and who can see him do this?
compare that to one... ONE guy who can hack into a machine or database and instantly change votes for an entire country, across the board, in mere milliseconds. he can even introduce algorithms to make statistical analysis of the votes "safe", so as to raise no red flags
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to democracy
whatever is on your list: nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to democracy, ever
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, make the process lose integrity of the eyes of the common people, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
democracies of the world, please: paper ballots. there is no way to improve the process with electronic voting that does not also undermine its integrity. its a black box. it can do nothing except remove transparency
electronic voting. no better device for dirty tricks has ever been invented
paper ballots. ocr. end of debate
anything else, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
fox news? plutocrat neocons? liberal media? america hating moonbats? corporate lobbyists? christian dominionists? uninformed apathetic voters?
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to american democracy
nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to american democracy
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
if the riaa were wiped off of the face of the earth tomorrow, another such organization would rise from obscurity to fulfill their role
why?
because while plenty of people talk about their love of their niche music, of being independent in tastes, about being anti-establishment, the truth is, 90% of music consumers want to be told what to listen to, and pay large sums for a little bit of convenience
for every dude really into gogol bordello or some college chick caterwauling about some bullshit teenage angst in a dank club, most people will swallow britney spears, and like it
music is not some pretty flower that will be freed from the clutches of petty commercialism. the truth is, art and commerce have always been attached at the hip. money matters. aways did, always will
all the internet does is change the game, and riaa simply doesn't know it yet. it will adapt. it has to, or some obscure organization will rise to fill the void: giving the casual uninterested unmotivated pop listener what they want. and that's 90% of the audience
there is actually a difference between your rights in the say, germany, and malaysia. germans are more free than americans in some freedoms of expression, but don't dare mention nazis, for example, in germany. but in germany and australia and the usa, overall, your rights and freedoms to express views which run contrary to those in power is respected. no really, it is. to conflate that with what goes on in malaysia, and egypt, and iran, and china, and other places, where you can, and will be put in brutal conditions, simply for expressing a political opinion. of course its not pure freedom of expression in the west, but there are orders of magnitude in difference
to talk about your rights to expression malaysia in the same breath as roughly comparable to your rights to expression in germany, is to be woefully ignorant of the reality of the situation. this doesn't mean you aren't free to say lots of critical things in malaysia and get away with it. this doesn't mean you can't get abused by the authorities for simply expressing yourself in germany. but, overall, there are orders of magnitude of difference in the kinds of things you can safely say, and the punishment you face for saying unpopular things
and to not realize that, and to not think the difference is important and large, is pure ignorance on your part
please announce the nobel for economics this year, so we can tar and feather him, and set him afire as he protests that its like blaming the weatherman for a bad hurricane
maybe then the gods will be happy and we can get free houses and credit cards again
I want to be a part of a vast online social networking where everyone knows everyone else's personal information, but no company will be able to infiltrate that and make money off of that"
i'm not letting google off the hook, i'm just wondering why anyone thinks this won't happen
is it wrong? is it right? utterly besides the point. it's going to happen, no matter how right or wrong you think it is, no one can stop it
so i headbutted him in the throat, picked up a beer bottle, smashed it on the counter, and stuck him in the abdomen with it as he stood up. after he fell to the floor grasping his throat and side, i took the barstool and smashed his head with it a few times
turns out he was actually addressing the woman sitting next to me
the issue is basically that there was too much regulation in 2004, and the banks were chomping at the bit to deregulate even more, to free them from rules about having enough assets on hand. by freeing them from this government regulation, this decision in 2004 paved the way for all the recent failures
i don't understand your thinking, where excesses obviously related to free market ebullience has led us into the debacle we're at today. in the 1800s, with far less government regulation, there were regular painful and crippling booms and busts related to little oversight and regulation
its kind of a weird, wishful desperate magical thinking on your part: that, in this moment that most disproves the stupidity of free market fundamentalism, free market fundamentalists blame the government and regulation for the failures of the free market
free market fundamentalists: the free market is best when it is in a sandbox. meaning, within certain parameters, the market should allowed to do their thing. however, when it ranges too far out of the sandbox, into regions of manic greed bubbles and crippling fearful busts, the government should step in and either slow things down, or keep things on life support
you can't have a healthy economy without regulation and governemtn invovlement. i'll repeat, as the howls of libertarian fools and blind market fundamentalists is too loud: you can't have a healthy economy without regulation and government invovlement
the mess we are in today is strictly and 100% explainable in terms of natural human failures in terms of greed and poor foresight. nothing the government or regulation rules are responsible for
the error in the thinking of free market fundamentalists is that everything is self-correcting. no, a free market can boom and bust itself right of existence if it is not regulated. just study the financial history of the 1800s if you don't believe me. regulation simply smooths out the hard corners, and it is absolutely necessary for a healthy economy: save us from the scarier regions of the nadir and pinnacle of natural boom and bust cycles due to simple human failures that cascade and build on each other were the market completely free
free market fundamentalism is just as stupid as communism, for equal although inverse reasons: sometimes, you need to save people from themselves, or their excesses destroy way more than their own set of mistakes. in other words, those who choose wrongly in a free market can make mistakes which hurt way more than just themselves. meaning, the free market must be protected, via government involvement, from extreme conditions that damage way more than just those who make the bad decisions
if people made decisions in free markets which alwas and exclusively hurt only themselves, free markets shouls proceed unfettered by government oversight. but they don't. so government oversight is necessary for a healthy economy
free market fundamentalists and libertarians: september 2008 is your comeuppance. the excesses we see crashing today is NOT the faul tof the government, in spite of the magical thinking of the post i am replying to. take a hard gulp, and revisit your ideology. it is flawed, your thinking and your assumptions are wrong
the tom hanks/ bill paxton/ kevin bacon movie with the famous "houston, we have a problem" line
freeze frame when they cut back to ed harris and ground crew strategizing, point to some guy in the background fiddling with some equipment, and say "that's me"
there is no technological security fix made by a man that cannot also be broken by a man
all you need is enough incentive
given that realization, and the boundless financial incentive implicit in onliner poker played for real money, it should rapidly dawn on you that there is no such thing as an online poker game played for money that cannot be fixed, and probably is fixed, if you are pumping real money into it
playing online poker is really foolish. its an arms race between exploitation and security, and the incentives are just way too high to exploit
Slashdot Mirror
it helps not to demonstrate how bad your communication skills are when someone says you have a problem there
but thanks for playing little kid
there is equal willingness to commit fraud, electronic voting, or paper voting
"Electronic voting merely makes fraud a little easier to conceal"
no. the difference is one of scale and ease. the difference is sophisitication of attack vectors, increased number of attack vectors, how easy it is to hide your tracks, etc.
"Does it make it easier or more likely? Not really"
no. with paper voting, you need lots of coordination, effort, and hard work by many players in many positions to effect any real damage. and its more open
with electronic voting, you just need one guy and 100 milliseconds to do absolutely ANYTHING you want to do with votes, including introducing random statistical abberations to prevent the raising of red flags
electronic voting does a LOT more than just make fraud easier to conceal (which is bad enough)- it introduces a myriad more attack vectors and decreases the number of players involved to do a lot more damage a lot more quickly. electronic voting makes fraud a LOT easier
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
2. however, if you use the existence of the electoral college as a reason not to vote, no: you're wrong. the electoral college is a negative tweak to a system that still works. removing the electoral college merely makes it work better. the existence of the electoral college doesn't nullfy the entire process and doesn't nullify your vote. it merely warps the value of your vote in ways that are really kind of arbitrary, neither favoring one ideology or another. it's noise in the system
now, there are people out there with learned helplessness, with deficits in their ability to trust. there are plenty of reasons and examples of the system creating distrust, but there are also people in this world with a pathological disability: an inability to trust
such people are not disenfranchised by the system, such people disenfrachise themselves
so if you do not vote, simply because the electoral college exists, you are looking for a reason not to vote, and you found a very flimsy one. its really not a good reason not to vote
and if you don't vote because of the electoral college, there's osmething wrong with you. its self-disenfrachisement
i am sympathetic to their cause. the javanese are not interested in their well-being
however, the tsuami squashed the rebellion, which is true. that's all i made note of
you need to work on your communication skills
you put votes in, out comes sausage. how does the machine turn votes into sausage? i don't know, i can't look inside, its not transparent
voters in the poorest nation in the world, and voters in the richest, should all use paper ballots. end of debate
because its TRANSPARENT
it does a rich society no benefit to advance beyond transparency, and any, ANY electronic voting machine does exactly that. the rich country can use ocr for quicker tallying
what is the reason for electronic voting? what is saved? the nes media can announce the winner faster? that's more important to then the integrity of the voting process?
electronic voting, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are more ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
sure a guy can dump all of the paper ballots from a precinct in the river. he can stuff the box with fake ballots. how much damage is this guy doing? and who can see him do this?
compare that to one... ONE guy who can hack into a machine or database and instantly change votes for an entire country, across the board, in mere milliseconds. he can even introduce algorithms to make statistical analysis of the votes "safe", so as to raise no red flags
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to democracy
whatever is on your list: nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to democracy, ever
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, make the process lose integrity of the eyes of the common people, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
democracies of the world, please: paper ballots. there is no way to improve the process with electronic voting that does not also undermine its integrity. its a black box. it can do nothing except remove transparency
electronic voting. no better device for dirty tricks has ever been invented
paper ballots. ocr. end of debate
anything else, including traditional mechanical voting machines, are ripe for abuse. not because you can't do dirty tricks with paper ballots, but because electronic voting (and to a lesser degree tradtional mechanical voting machines) increases the number of attack vectors by an order of magnitude, and increases the damage a lone operative can do, exponentially
fox news? plutocrat neocons? liberal media? america hating moonbats? corporate lobbyists? christian dominionists? uninformed apathetic voters?
make a list of what you consider the greatest threat to american democracy
nope, wrong
it's electronic voting. electronic voting removes transparency and introduces distrust into the voting process. electronic voting will prove to be the biggest mistake and the greatest threat to american democracy
democracy's greatest strength is that it creates legitimacy, no other form of government renews legitimacy in the eyes of its people. it gives the people a real voice in their own government. remove that trust with black box voting, and you remove legitimacy and stability and faith in the government. lose that, and you lose everything
maybe the superstitious nutjobs in northern sudan take it as a godly sign that they should stop genociding southern sudan
the acehnese independence drive in indonesia pretty much died off after the 2004 tsumani
we talk about comets and eclipses having an impact in geopolitics in ancient history
well, it still goes on today
if the riaa were wiped off of the face of the earth tomorrow, another such organization would rise from obscurity to fulfill their role
why?
because while plenty of people talk about their love of their niche music, of being independent in tastes, about being anti-establishment, the truth is, 90% of music consumers want to be told what to listen to, and pay large sums for a little bit of convenience
for every dude really into gogol bordello or some college chick caterwauling about some bullshit teenage angst in a dank club, most people will swallow britney spears, and like it
music is not some pretty flower that will be freed from the clutches of petty commercialism. the truth is, art and commerce have always been attached at the hip. money matters. aways did, always will
all the internet does is change the game, and riaa simply doesn't know it yet. it will adapt. it has to, or some obscure organization will rise to fill the void: giving the casual uninterested unmotivated pop listener what they want. and that's 90% of the audience
there is actually a difference between your rights in the say, germany, and malaysia. germans are more free than americans in some freedoms of expression, but don't dare mention nazis, for example, in germany. but in germany and australia and the usa, overall, your rights and freedoms to express views which run contrary to those in power is respected. no really, it is. to conflate that with what goes on in malaysia, and egypt, and iran, and china, and other places, where you can, and will be put in brutal conditions, simply for expressing a political opinion. of course its not pure freedom of expression in the west, but there are orders of magnitude in difference
to talk about your rights to expression malaysia in the same breath as roughly comparable to your rights to expression in germany, is to be woefully ignorant of the reality of the situation. this doesn't mean you aren't free to say lots of critical things in malaysia and get away with it. this doesn't mean you can't get abused by the authorities for simply expressing yourself in germany. but, overall, there are orders of magnitude of difference in the kinds of things you can safely say, and the punishment you face for saying unpopular things
and to not realize that, and to not think the difference is important and large, is pure ignorance on your part
http://www.susanscott.net/Oceanwatch2002/jan04-02.html
study up on flying fish and flying squid
then dabble in cormorants and water beetles
once again, mother nature was here first and has a lot to teach us about where to start
there's 750,000 jobs in my ass
and if you ask me where i got that number, i'll tell you honestly i just pulled it out of my ass
please announce the nobel for economics this year, so we can tar and feather him, and set him afire as he protests that its like blaming the weatherman for a bad hurricane
maybe then the gods will be happy and we can get free houses and credit cards again
I want to be a part of a vast online social networking where everyone knows everyone else's personal information, but no company will be able to infiltrate that and make money off of that"
i'm not letting google off the hook, i'm just wondering why anyone thinks this won't happen
is it wrong? is it right? utterly besides the point. it's going to happen, no matter how right or wrong you think it is, no one can stop it
from observing the modern American political process
but real life isn't as interesting as the plot of a steven seagal movie
pirated movies
it's not just about avoiding $20
it's about avoiding this kind of bullshit
when you weigh down your product with this kind of bullshit, pirate product is superior product
retards
could have been a woman doing all of that ;-P
so i headbutted him in the throat, picked up a beer bottle, smashed it on the counter, and stuck him in the abdomen with it as he stood up. after he fell to the floor grasping his throat and side, i took the barstool and smashed his head with it a few times
turns out he was actually addressing the woman sitting next to me
sorry, honest mistake
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
the issue is basically that there was too much regulation in 2004, and the banks were chomping at the bit to deregulate even more, to free them from rules about having enough assets on hand. by freeing them from this government regulation, this decision in 2004 paved the way for all the recent failures
i don't understand your thinking, where excesses obviously related to free market ebullience has led us into the debacle we're at today. in the 1800s, with far less government regulation, there were regular painful and crippling booms and busts related to little oversight and regulation
its kind of a weird, wishful desperate magical thinking on your part: that, in this moment that most disproves the stupidity of free market fundamentalism, free market fundamentalists blame the government and regulation for the failures of the free market
free market fundamentalists: the free market is best when it is in a sandbox. meaning, within certain parameters, the market should allowed to do their thing. however, when it ranges too far out of the sandbox, into regions of manic greed bubbles and crippling fearful busts, the government should step in and either slow things down, or keep things on life support
you can't have a healthy economy without regulation and governemtn invovlement. i'll repeat, as the howls of libertarian fools and blind market fundamentalists is too loud: you can't have a healthy economy without regulation and government invovlement
the mess we are in today is strictly and 100% explainable in terms of natural human failures in terms of greed and poor foresight. nothing the government or regulation rules are responsible for
the error in the thinking of free market fundamentalists is that everything is self-correcting. no, a free market can boom and bust itself right of existence if it is not regulated. just study the financial history of the 1800s if you don't believe me. regulation simply smooths out the hard corners, and it is absolutely necessary for a healthy economy: save us from the scarier regions of the nadir and pinnacle of natural boom and bust cycles due to simple human failures that cascade and build on each other were the market completely free
free market fundamentalism is just as stupid as communism, for equal although inverse reasons: sometimes, you need to save people from themselves, or their excesses destroy way more than their own set of mistakes. in other words, those who choose wrongly in a free market can make mistakes which hurt way more than just themselves. meaning, the free market must be protected, via government involvement, from extreme conditions that damage way more than just those who make the bad decisions
if people made decisions in free markets which alwas and exclusively hurt only themselves, free markets shouls proceed unfettered by government oversight. but they don't. so government oversight is necessary for a healthy economy
free market fundamentalists and libertarians: september 2008 is your comeuppance. the excesses we see crashing today is NOT the faul tof the government, in spite of the magical thinking of the post i am replying to. take a hard gulp, and revisit your ideology. it is flawed, your thinking and your assumptions are wrong
i'm kind of surprised at the funny mod too, i wasn't trying to be funny
that's really the best way for a bunch of grade school kids to appreciate an IT job at an aerospace company
the tom hanks/ bill paxton/ kevin bacon movie with the famous "houston, we have a problem" line
freeze frame when they cut back to ed harris and ground crew strategizing, point to some guy in the background fiddling with some equipment, and say "that's me"
amelia earhart
maxwell's demon
old, well-tread, philosophically and scientifically fruitless territory here
there is no technological security fix made by a man that cannot also be broken by a man
all you need is enough incentive
given that realization, and the boundless financial incentive implicit in onliner poker played for real money, it should rapidly dawn on you that there is no such thing as an online poker game played for money that cannot be fixed, and probably is fixed, if you are pumping real money into it
playing online poker is really foolish. its an arms race between exploitation and security, and the incentives are just way too high to exploit