Maybe I should have brought up Washington State's clear violation of law
I don't claim to be familiar with that case, but did you read the article you linked to? "The judge found that the Republicans failed to prove that Gregoire received one illegal vote among those improperly cast. In fact, he said, the only "clear and convincing" evidence he saw was the statements of four felons who said they voted for Rossi and one who said he cast a ballot for a Libertarian candidate."
Also keep in mind that most states, if not all states, it is illegal to not have a photo identification on your person if you are over 16 years of age
I do not believe that to be true. Cite, please. A qucik LexisNexis search of Maryland law turns up nothing relevant.
It is not really a checksum, something to ensure it is one vote, authentic and not a copy.
I think the word you're looking for is "watermark."
Ideally I would like to not hear whining after the next election from the looser, whoever that is.
Casting votes on watermarked paper does very little to help with that. The problems are seeing that only people permitted to vote are allowed to vote, and coversely that everyone permitted to vote is allowed to vote. You can have the voters etch their ballots into special platinum-iridium tablets under the watchful eyes of the Dali Lama and the Pope, but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether the guy doing the etching is authorized to vote or not, or of denying access to people who are authorized.
Maybe you are insecure? Afraid of the man? It doesn't show how you voted, just the fact that you did. Here in the US I have more respect for those who actually do vote.
I choose to tell people that I voted; heck, I choose to tell them who I voted for and why they should vote the same way.:-) That doesn't mean that such disclosure should be forced. With such a marker it would be very easy to cruise a neighborhood full of "undesirable" ethnic/socioeconomic types and beat the hell out of any of them that dared to vote.
It is even a matter of public record, along with information on your house, marriage and other information.
Voter registration is a matter of public record. Whether you go to the polls or not is, AFAIK, not, and should not be.
The voter doesn't take the paper with him, as you say that would ruin the whole anonymous ballot thing.
There are crytographic methods that allow the voter to take with them a verifiable receit that can be validated by (and only by) someone with the proper key.
In Maryland they have had the "late" returns, where the dead were voting to put behind Parris Glendenning over the top and steal the election from Saurbrey (she is now an ambassador).
No. A handful a fraudulent votes were found in the first Glendening/Sauerbrey contest, but not enough to matter.
Sauerbrey was an underdog who ran a (from a stickly political-game perspective) very strong campain and almost, but not quite, caught up to Glendening. (Registered Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Maryland, so it was pretty much his race to lose.)
Her allegations of fraud proved baseless, and damaged her image enormously. (I'm not saying there weren't irregularities, only that they weren't significant to the final outcome.) In 1998 the Maryland GOP was silly enough to make her their candidate again and she got defeated again.
(For the record, I didn't vote for either of them either time.)
What they really need is a secure voting system. One that requires positive identification of the voters, cross checking to make sure they only vote once, a paper trail - with incremental checksums.
The problem is that a secure system is one that denies access by default. But a democratic (small-d) voting system must allow access to the polls by default.
I don't understand your reference to checksums.
Purple dye people's thumbs too.
It's nobody's business but my own (and the poll workers) whether I've been to the polls or not. Marking people who have voted in a manner that is publically accessible is a bad idea.
Did the Columbus set out on a 'maybe' we'll find a shorter path to India by going around the other way?
Columbus is quite possibly the luckiest fsck-up in history. He completely miscalculated the size of the Earth (never mind that the ancient Greeks had managed to get it right) and would have starved if he hadn't blundered into the Americas. And yet, despite this, and despite not being the first person to "find" this land mass (the American "Indians", the Vikings, and the Chinese all having been there first), despite kidnapping and enslaving natives, he gets remembered as some kind of a hero of exploration.
We ought to use more genuine heroes for comparison when advocating space exploration.
I have the address prius.driver@gmail.com, and someone else has priusdriver@gmail.com.
Are you sure that someone else has this "other" address? From this discussion it looks like Gmail maps them to the same account. Getting spam is hardly surprising, especially with such a dictionary-attack bait as your addresses; the "legitimate messages" you got could well be phishing attempts, or simply e-mail addresses gotten wrong
That doesn't mean Computer Science.lt. Rocket Science. (Hoping I recall the FORTRAN syntax right.)
Software projects can span the range from quite simple (yet another report generator) to stunningly complex (OS kernels, compilers, telecommunications), where aerospace projects tend to cluster around highly complex. "Rocket Science" today isn't like the "Rocket Science" of the 1950s where everything was new and complex - any more than the computer science of today is like the computer science of a few decades ago.
Aerospace projects also have the simplifying advantage that the graviational pull of the Earth, or the structural properties of steel, don't change from year to year; software projects have to account for a changing universe.
My girlfriend is a genuine rocket scientist - has a degree in aerospace engineering, and is currently working on a project proposal for an instrument pallet for the ISS. She's smart (that's why I like her) but she's not significantly smarter than me, and from our discussions the work she does seems no more complex than some things I've worked on. (I'm slacking somewhat these days.)
the actual coding part of CS is braindead fucktard robotic monkey easy
Not the classes I took. Of course, that was a long time ago, before the internet bubble made everyone want to be a programmer, so classes may have been dumbed down by then, but we had some serious coding projects.
On the other hand, with a few exceptions I found the math side of my undergrad CS work pretty easy. Automata theory, algorithm analysis...that was fairly fun (graduate school was another matter).
Which is funny because I was (foolishly) attemping a double major in CS and physics, and the math I needed for physics kicked me; I never recovered from my poor grasp of diff eq's.
If you can fit the entire population into a football stadium, yep, it's a small town.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
Too bad you're breathing and ingesting U and Po on a daily basis already, from natural sources.
Didn't say I wasn't. However, the existance of a baseline of exposure doesn't resolve the ethical question of how much exposure risk we can force on others. The fact that there's a (very very tiny) baseline risk of any given person getting hit by a meteorite, does not imply it's ok for me to throw stones out my window that might hit passers-by.
(And it's questionable how much U and Po in the air could be said to be from "natural" sources. Trace amounts of both are released from mining; U is released by burning coal; Po exposure comes from contamination of mineral phosphates used as a fertilizer, on crops including tobacco. (And yes, that does make it ironic when someone worried about the risk of Pu exposure from a failed rocket launch tells you about this over a cigarette.)
Get an M.S. degree and teach college...I'm constantly on the prowl for qualified faculty members for our IT degree programs
I've got the degree and have thought about trying to find a teaching gig at a local community college. (Where's your school?:-) )
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
we're still talking about 1 part per quadrillion.
Meaningless. If I fire a bullet out my window, the fact that its path represents a very small part of the space around me does not make it any less fatal if it happens to hit someone. If you happen to be the guy who gets a particle of plutonium stuck in a lung, it's no comfort to know that relative to the volume of the atmosphere there aren't that many particles.
We can argue over how much risk it is ethical to expose other people to in order to launch a probe, but ignoring or understating the risk because of a technofetishism or a predetermined conclusion about the politics of space exploration or about nuclear power is a poor practice.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
But will you and the parent poster apologize if one of these probes do explode on lift off?
It's already happened. In 1964, about 1 kg of plutonium was released from a Navy navigational satellite, Transit 5BN, that failed to make orbit. (That's the hotter Pu-238 isotope, not the 239 one used in most ground-based fission reactors.) It spread radioactive particles over the whole planet. That's alleged by some to have led to a significant increase in lung cancer rates; others say that's a bunch of hooey. I haven't investigated enough myself to have a informed opinion on the magnitude of risk, but all other things being equal I'm pretty breathing plutonium is less than heathful.
NASA claims that modern RTGs are just about unbreechable. Skeptics note that NASA also once claimed that the odds of the Space Shuttle being destroyed by a launch failure at 1 in 100,000.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
They seemed certain that launching this craft was going to be a disaster.
I didn't hear from anyone who was certain that launching this was going to be a disaster.
how can someone make the reverse accusation? How can they prove that they weren't hired because of their race?
Unless someone at the company is dumb enough to say "No Irish/Blacks/Indians/Koreans/Whatever Need Apply", one person can't prove it.
It takes a thorough review of hiring records, or better yet a deliberate investigation where matched sets of applicants with near-identical credentials (or actors playing such applicants) are sent in; if they always offer the white guy the job, there's a problem.
Saying the wrong thing can also be saying "I hope somebody kills the President" or "Gee, I hope nobody planted a bomb in my bags" in an airport.
Threats have always been understood to not fall under free speech.
There's a difference between someone going to an appearance by W and shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" and me sitting here with no weapons and no access to W saying that it's too bad John Wilkes Booth isn't around today to give tyrants what they deserve. Of course were I to say such a thing, I would probably attract the attention of the Secret Service and they might want to drop by for a chat, but they would have no legal basis for further action. (Though I wouldn't count on the current government to recognize the First Amendment any more than I count on them to recognize the Fourth.)
BTW, I'm not expressing such a belief, not out of any fandom for the criminal currently occupying the White House but because I'm generally opposed to killing.
There's a large difference between making a specific credible threat about shooting someone or blowing up a plane (or failing to prevent someone else from blowing up a plane), and making a statement, however wrong and stupid, about politics or history.
My father was a programmer. He turned 55 in 2000; in the lead-up to Y2K he did pretty well, having skills with older systems, but after that...nothing. He was out of work for years before moving on to a different field (real estate.)
That made me look around the office. How many developers over 40 were there? Few. Over 50? One.
I decided to go back to school and get a job skill that can't be outsourced and (if I stay healthy) I can keep going into my 60s or later. (I'm still doing software part-time.)
I have lost four jobs in the past to less (only slightly though) qualified individuals because they were minorities and the company had to meet the EOE minimum requirements.
And you know that they hired these people rather than you based on race...how exactly?
I don't think I've even been given specific reasons why I wasn't offered jobs after interviews, usually just a "we've decided to go with someone else, thanks for your time". (If I heard back anything at all; many times it's just been a silence.)
Maybe your estimation of your own qualifications is incorrect. Maybe you asked for too much money. Maybe they didn't think you'd be a good "organization fit".
If a company has some extra money to spend on head count, who are they going to hire? You, or another engineer?
If they are smart, they hire a tech writer, thus freeing the developers' time for dealing with coding rather than fiddling with LaTeX or MS Word or whatever documentation tools are being used and with the nicities of grammar. If you've got a twenty developers and each save 5% of their time by having a tech writer, you've just created another developer's worth of productivity at a tech writer's salary.
It is *never* correct to link something like "click here" - unless you're linking to the Click Here(R) Inc. home page.
Sorry, but just who is the arbiter of correct hypertext conventions? It's entirely too new a form to make such strong statements.
It's correct to write hypertext that's clear to the reader. Occasionally - not often, but occasionally - it may clearest to say something like, "If you want more details, click here".
If the article is on CNN about flying monkeys, "flying monkeys" should be linked because that's what the link is about - it's not about CNN.
For CNN, I'd agree, since we all presumably know what CNN is. If the article is from Joe's News Service, about which people have no information, it might be appropriate to link that also, i.e. [a href="www.JoesNewsService.com"]Joe's News Service[/a] reports that [a href="www.JoesNewsService.com/flyingmonkeys"]flyin g monkeys[/a] have been sighted over Washington D.C.". That first link might help readers understand that Joe's News Service is one notch below the Weekly World News in terms of credibility. (Or maybe a link to "www.MediaWatchdog.com/JoesNewsService" would be more appropriate as the first link.)
Presumably you have a URL for that good quality spelling *and grammar* checking tool that runs on Linux?
The best grammar-checking tool is the brain of an educated native speaker of the language. It runs on Wetware, but is fully compatible with Linux.
The lack of a software solution for a problem does not mean the problem has no solution.
the expression is "peace of mind" not "piece of mind"
For my own peace of mind, let me give you a piece of my mind about errors like that. Are they truly grammar errors, or are they spelling or typographical ones?
For example, I fully understand the difference between "your" and "you're", and it annoys me when people use them incorrectly...but every so often, my brain tells my fingers to type "you're" and somehow "your" comes out. Have I commited a grammar error (used the wrong word), a spelling error (used the correct word but spelled it incorrectly), or a typographical error (used the correct word, was aware of the correct spelling, but the cerebrum misdirected the fingers)?
The world we live in is far different from Franklin's, and it requires a different world view.
It's sad that people seem to think blowing shit up was invented in 2001. Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot, anyone?
The wire tapping isn't about trading liberty for security (how has your freedom been reduced by the government listening to Bin Laden's telephone calls?)
That's not what they're doing. They're listening to the phone calls of American citizens, without the Constitutionally required warrants.
I would venture that the problem may be a bad ground on one circuit. I have seen problems where a computer plugged into a peripheral, say a printer, would crash if the peripheral was on a different power circuit, due to a problem with ground and neutral not being connected (or something like that).
It's been a long time since high school electronics, but I could see a grounding-related problem more simply than a phase-related problem.
In hard science/math we do not yet have that problem since we still try to be stringent and keep the science in good health by completely discarding and disallowing anything that can not be formally proven true.
Mathematics is based on axioms and definitions; all proofs are based on those assumptions. Not only is mathematical truth is a matter of assumption, but Godel showed years ago that even in the limited realm of mathematics "truth" and "proof" cover different ground.
Science is based on observation of the universe. Proof is by experiment, not formal means. The universe is not impressed by formal proofs of what it "should" do based on our axioms, definitions, and models; it continues to go on and do its thing, regardless of how confounding that is to our monkey brains.
(I sometimes contemplate the idea that any statement more detailed than "the universe is doing what the universe is doing" is a statement about a model, not about the universe.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why does the idea have to be "interesting"? A boring solution that works sounds great to me.
There were incidents of fraud but they were not significant. Several of the alleged "dead" voters turned out to be not just alive, but to have voted for Sauerbrey. An FBI investigation turned up no sustaining evidence of significant fraud.
I don't claim to be familiar with that case, but did you read the article you linked to? "The judge found that the Republicans failed to prove that Gregoire received one illegal vote among those improperly cast. In fact, he said, the only "clear and convincing" evidence he saw was the statements of four felons who said they voted for Rossi and one who said he cast a ballot for a Libertarian candidate."
I do not believe that to be true. Cite, please. A qucik LexisNexis search of Maryland law turns up nothing relevant.
I think the word you're looking for is "watermark."
Casting votes on watermarked paper does very little to help with that. The problems are seeing that only people permitted to vote are allowed to vote, and coversely that everyone permitted to vote is allowed to vote. You can have the voters etch their ballots into special platinum-iridium tablets under the watchful eyes of the Dali Lama and the Pope, but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether the guy doing the etching is authorized to vote or not, or of denying access to people who are authorized.
I choose to tell people that I voted; heck, I choose to tell them who I voted for and why they should vote the same way. :-) That doesn't mean that such disclosure should be forced. With such a marker it would be very easy to cruise a neighborhood full of "undesirable" ethnic/socioeconomic types and beat the hell out of any of them that dared to vote.
Voter registration is a matter of public record. Whether you go to the polls or not is, AFAIK, not, and should not be.
There are crytographic methods that allow the voter to take with them a verifiable receit that can be validated by (and only by) someone with the proper key.
No. A handful a fraudulent votes were found in the first Glendening/Sauerbrey contest, but not enough to matter.
Sauerbrey was an underdog who ran a (from a stickly political-game perspective) very strong campain and almost, but not quite, caught up to Glendening. (Registered Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Maryland, so it was pretty much his race to lose.)
Her allegations of fraud proved baseless, and damaged her image enormously. (I'm not saying there weren't irregularities, only that they weren't significant to the final outcome.) In 1998 the Maryland GOP was silly enough to make her their candidate again and she got defeated again.
(For the record, I didn't vote for either of them either time.)
The problem is that a secure system is one that denies access by default. But a democratic (small-d) voting system must allow access to the polls by default.
I don't understand your reference to checksums.
It's nobody's business but my own (and the poll workers) whether I've been to the polls or not. Marking people who have voted in a manner that is publically accessible is a bad idea.
Columbus is quite possibly the luckiest fsck-up in history. He completely miscalculated the size of the Earth (never mind that the ancient Greeks had managed to get it right) and would have starved if he hadn't blundered into the Americas. And yet, despite this, and despite not being the first person to "find" this land mass (the American "Indians", the Vikings, and the Chinese all having been there first), despite kidnapping and enslaving natives, he gets remembered as some kind of a hero of exploration.
We ought to use more genuine heroes for comparison when advocating space exploration.
Are you sure that someone else has this "other" address? From this discussion it looks like Gmail maps them to the same account. Getting spam is hardly surprising, especially with such a dictionary-attack bait as your addresses; the "legitimate messages" you got could well be phishing attempts, or simply e-mail addresses gotten wrong
That doesn't mean Computer Science .lt. Rocket Science. (Hoping I recall the FORTRAN syntax right.)
Software projects can span the range from quite simple (yet another report generator) to stunningly complex (OS kernels, compilers, telecommunications), where aerospace projects tend to cluster around highly complex. "Rocket Science" today isn't like the "Rocket Science" of the 1950s where everything was new and complex - any more than the computer science of today is like the computer science of a few decades ago.
Aerospace projects also have the simplifying advantage that the graviational pull of the Earth, or the structural properties of steel, don't change from year to year; software projects have to account for a changing universe.
My girlfriend is a genuine rocket scientist - has a degree in aerospace engineering, and is currently working on a project proposal for an instrument pallet for the ISS. She's smart (that's why I like her) but she's not significantly smarter than me, and from our discussions the work she does seems no more complex than some things I've worked on. (I'm slacking somewhat these days.)
Not the classes I took. Of course, that was a long time ago, before the internet bubble made everyone want to be a programmer, so classes may have been dumbed down by then, but we had some serious coding projects.
On the other hand, with a few exceptions I found the math side of my undergrad CS work pretty easy. Automata theory, algorithm analysis...that was fairly fun (graduate school was another matter).
Which is funny because I was (foolishly) attemping a double major in CS and physics, and the math I needed for physics kicked me; I never recovered from my poor grasp of diff eq's.
If you can fit the entire population into a football stadium, yep, it's a small town.
Didn't say I wasn't. However, the existance of a baseline of exposure doesn't resolve the ethical question of how much exposure risk we can force on others. The fact that there's a (very very tiny) baseline risk of any given person getting hit by a meteorite, does not imply it's ok for me to throw stones out my window that might hit passers-by.
(And it's questionable how much U and Po in the air could be said to be from "natural" sources. Trace amounts of both are released from mining; U is released by burning coal; Po exposure comes from contamination of mineral phosphates used as a fertilizer, on crops including tobacco. (And yes, that does make it ironic when someone worried about the risk of Pu exposure from a failed rocket launch tells you about this over a cigarette.)
I've got the degree and have thought about trying to find a teaching gig at a local community college. (Where's your school? :-) )
Meaningless. If I fire a bullet out my window, the fact that its path represents a very small part of the space around me does not make it any less fatal if it happens to hit someone. If you happen to be the guy who gets a particle of plutonium stuck in a lung, it's no comfort to know that relative to the volume of the atmosphere there aren't that many particles.
We can argue over how much risk it is ethical to expose other people to in order to launch a probe, but ignoring or understating the risk because of a technofetishism or a predetermined conclusion about the politics of space exploration or about nuclear power is a poor practice.
It's already happened. In 1964, about 1 kg of plutonium was released from a Navy navigational satellite, Transit 5BN, that failed to make orbit. (That's the hotter Pu-238 isotope, not the 239 one used in most ground-based fission reactors.) It spread radioactive particles over the whole planet. That's alleged by some to have led to a significant increase in lung cancer rates; others say that's a bunch of hooey. I haven't investigated enough myself to have a informed opinion on the magnitude of risk, but all other things being equal I'm pretty breathing plutonium is less than heathful.
NASA claims that modern RTGs are just about unbreechable. Skeptics note that NASA also once claimed that the odds of the Space Shuttle being destroyed by a launch failure at 1 in 100,000.
I didn't hear from anyone who was certain that launching this was going to be a disaster.
I did hear from people who were certain that shooting plutonium into space is a risk, and who beleived that NASA and the DOE have not been honest in their assessments of the risk.
Unless someone at the company is dumb enough to say "No Irish/Blacks/Indians/Koreans/Whatever Need Apply", one person can't prove it.
It takes a thorough review of hiring records, or better yet a deliberate investigation where matched sets of applicants with near-identical credentials (or actors playing such applicants) are sent in; if they always offer the white guy the job, there's a problem.
Threats have always been understood to not fall under free speech.
There's a difference between someone going to an appearance by W and shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" and me sitting here with no weapons and no access to W saying that it's too bad John Wilkes Booth isn't around today to give tyrants what they deserve. Of course were I to say such a thing, I would probably attract the attention of the Secret Service and they might want to drop by for a chat, but they would have no legal basis for further action. (Though I wouldn't count on the current government to recognize the First Amendment any more than I count on them to recognize the Fourth.)
BTW, I'm not expressing such a belief, not out of any fandom for the criminal currently occupying the White House but because I'm generally opposed to killing.
There's a large difference between making a specific credible threat about shooting someone or blowing up a plane (or failing to prevent someone else from blowing up a plane), and making a statement, however wrong and stupid, about politics or history.
Of course my rights end when I'm dead. Protecting my corpse and my image is for the benefit of my survivors, not me.
Yep.
My father was a programmer. He turned 55 in 2000; in the lead-up to Y2K he did pretty well, having skills with older systems, but after that...nothing. He was out of work for years before moving on to a different field (real estate.)
That made me look around the office. How many developers over 40 were there? Few. Over 50? One.
I decided to go back to school and get a job skill that can't be outsourced and (if I stay healthy) I can keep going into my 60s or later. (I'm still doing software part-time.)
And you know that they hired these people rather than you based on race...how exactly?
I don't think I've even been given specific reasons why I wasn't offered jobs after interviews, usually just a "we've decided to go with someone else, thanks for your time". (If I heard back anything at all; many times it's just been a silence.)
Maybe your estimation of your own qualifications is incorrect. Maybe you asked for too much money. Maybe they didn't think you'd be a good "organization fit".
If they are smart, they hire a tech writer, thus freeing the developers' time for dealing with coding rather than fiddling with LaTeX or MS Word or whatever documentation tools are being used and with the nicities of grammar. If you've got a twenty developers and each save 5% of their time by having a tech writer, you've just created another developer's worth of productivity at a tech writer's salary.
Sorry, but just who is the arbiter of correct hypertext conventions? It's entirely too new a form to make such strong statements.
It's correct to write hypertext that's clear to the reader. Occasionally - not often, but occasionally - it may clearest to say something like, "If you want more details, click here".
For CNN, I'd agree, since we all presumably know what CNN is. If the article is from Joe's News Service, about which people have no information, it might be appropriate to link that also, i.e. [a href="www.JoesNewsService.com"]Joe's News Service[/a] reports that [a href="www.JoesNewsService.com/flyingmonkeys"]flyin g monkeys[/a] have been sighted over Washington D.C.". That first link might help readers understand that Joe's News Service is one notch below the Weekly World News in terms of credibility. (Or maybe a link to "www.MediaWatchdog.com/JoesNewsService" would be more appropriate as the first link.)
The best grammar-checking tool is the brain of an educated native speaker of the language. It runs on Wetware, but is fully compatible with Linux.
The lack of a software solution for a problem does not mean the problem has no solution.
For my own peace of mind, let me give you a piece of my mind about errors like that. Are they truly grammar errors, or are they spelling or typographical ones?
For example, I fully understand the difference between "your" and "you're", and it annoys me when people use them incorrectly...but every so often, my brain tells my fingers to type "you're" and somehow "your" comes out. Have I commited a grammar error (used the wrong word), a spelling error (used the correct word but spelled it incorrectly), or a typographical error (used the correct word, was aware of the correct spelling, but the cerebrum misdirected the fingers)?
It's sad that people seem to think blowing shit up was invented in 2001. Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot, anyone?
That's not what they're doing. They're listening to the phone calls of American citizens, without the Constitutionally required warrants.
I would venture that the problem may be a bad ground on one circuit. I have seen problems where a computer plugged into a peripheral, say a printer, would crash if the peripheral was on a different power circuit, due to a problem with ground and neutral not being connected (or something like that).
It's been a long time since high school electronics, but I could see a grounding-related problem more simply than a phase-related problem.
Mathematics is based on axioms and definitions; all proofs are based on those assumptions. Not only is mathematical truth is a matter of assumption, but Godel showed years ago that even in the limited realm of mathematics "truth" and "proof" cover different ground.
Science is based on observation of the universe. Proof is by experiment, not formal means. The universe is not impressed by formal proofs of what it "should" do based on our axioms, definitions, and models; it continues to go on and do its thing, regardless of how confounding that is to our monkey brains.
(I sometimes contemplate the idea that any statement more detailed than "the universe is doing what the universe is doing" is a statement about a model, not about the universe.)