But my point is that these same guys who built the mess are likely forced (financially) to be there to clean it up or find solutions to cleaning it up; I suspect the financial incentives to do so are considerable. Think of it more as "they will get" the money.
They probably don't get to just take the money and run. Most of these kinds of deals are back-loaded: you get your payout after a certain time commitment. There are usually even incentives to perform. This keeps the actual value of the company (staff and execs) from walking as soon as they get handed 1.65 billion dollars. Gads.
But even the precinct level is quite coarse: you really want to do the counting in independent batches of 500-1000 votes - you want to *dramatically* increase the number of people you have to corrupt to swing a vote. Since the best form of electoral corruption is to use "just enough", a small number of precincts in the right districts will suffice to change the outcome. You want to shine as much light as possible on each counting event.
But it's good to know that your state gets it closer to right:-)
The evidence I have, looking at too many state's voting proceedures (why federal elections fall under state's rights still, I don't know) is that people give little thought to how the ballots are counted, but a huge amount of energy is directed to the "multiple voting" problems. The latter is an issue, but to systematically alter the presidential election that way requires a frightenning level of fraud. Vote counting fraud is much easier to perpetrate, and even easier to perpetrate when the counting is centralized. There's no good reason to move a ballot box to a central site until after the results the tallied and certified, yet too many people accept exactly this in many parts of the US, accepting excuses of "efficiency" and "counting speed" at the cost of transparency to fraud.
I keep trying to believe that there's just this big illusion of corruption, and that both parties would benefit from making the optics better.
But I also keep feeling like I'm lying to myself.
At least banks keep audit trails, and you have recourse when your records don't match theirs.
There is no such recourse using Diebold's voting machines.
Banks have the option to choose less security in exchange for a lower price, so long as their auditability is sufficient, which is easy to do with a transactional database. The voting machines are a whole other kettle of fish. That said, I approve of the sentiment of boycotting Diebold's customers.
Nice troll moderation there. At least argue the point.
1. Centralized voting means you only need to corrupt small number of people to corrupt an election.
2. Decentralized voting means you need to corrupt many, many people to substantially change an election result.
3. The US has a history of centralizing its vote counting, using techniques such as moving ballot boxes to central counting locations, and using electronic means to centralize counting.
Given the amount of noise about appearance of fraud in US elections, why isn't vote counting de-centralized? Other democracies seem to manage.
Why are Americans such complete and utter *morons* about vote counting? Why do they insist on centralizing vote-counting, one of the most *scalable* problems in civic governance? Instead, form a multi-partisan committee of volunteers fore *each* ballot box. Split up your voting population to keep each box to under 1000 votes or so. Do the count immediately at the close of polling, at the polling place, with the committee and as many observers as signed up in advance (if your party can't muster a volunteer per ballot box, you're not a serious contender in that district).
If you do it the decentralized way you have to corrupt *a lot* of committees to sway the vote substantially. If you centralize the vote counting (moving ballot boxes, electronic voting, etc) you reduce the number of people you have to coopt dramatically. Clearly, anyone intending to corrupt a vote will prefer centralized alternatives. Anyone trying to demonstrate a fair and just election must prefer the decentralized, hard-to-corrupt model.
It's also interesting to note than the 0.02 decline is within the realm of rounding error for the precision of the given data. Was it 3.7145 plus 0.6245 for a resounding 4.34?:-) There really isn't enough data there to make any analysis stick, positive or negative.
I keep a separate Linux box for development - the dev tools I need to run are Windows/Linux only. But the last time I tried to configure my Linux box to do email, web, skype, etc, I swore so loudly I bought the mini. It just worked. And it makes a greak keyboard/mouse switch (via Synergy).
My dev time is too precious to screw around with getting appliance-level performance out of Linux.
Yes, all that case room is a great place to put devices that have drivers that will operate poorly with my OS.
99% of the market want a simple box that works. I use my mini (Core Solo at that!) as a glorified KVM, web browser, mailer, skype box, and occasional photo munger. An appliance to do this wins every time against spending effort configuring another effing PC.
But seriously, the nice deal about this is that she feels it in her fingers, not her chest. That's the nice thing about re-routing the nerves. The chest is just a nice, large, convenient landing spot.
If you check out the various videos, they also have a short demo of touch: the same re-wiring of nerves to the pectoral muscle can be used for feedback. In the case of the female patient, she has two fingers worth of touch, and it's pressure sensitive.
Very impressive.
Pardon? Your statement is nothing but a bald assertion.
Error control mechanisms run in no way against the evolutionary grain. It's easy to imagine that an organism with a little error correction will be more fit in its niches than an organism without. Changing too rapidly, or too randomly, is as dangerous to an organism as not adapting fast enough.
Not at all. At least vi's syntax for this is noun-verb setup: the > says to indent, and can be followed by any range specifier - % happens to jump matching brace pairs. You could as well have said %6j to indent the next 6 lines.
Ah, binocular vision. Ever since my macular hemorage I've been learning to adapt monocularly. Plenty of peripheral vision, but not enough central coherence to fuse stereo. I will say it cause an awful lot of guards and shields to spontanously attach to all my power tools...
Oddly, on the Cell, most of the optimization is low-level algorithmic stuff. Yes, assembly gets you that last little boost, but most of the Cell optimizations I've worked with (for the last 15 months or so) have been data movement and data decomposition exercises. Breaking your data into SPU-sized chunks, or into SPU-streamable chunks is the hard part. It's also the part compilers are *useless* for.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto. All the way. Finish your effing degree Pixie. ;-)
Please, if Apple was designing this like Microsoft is designing Zune, you'd have to go find a G4 mac to connect your new phone to.
But my point is that these same guys who built the mess are likely forced (financially) to be there to clean it up or find solutions to cleaning it up; I suspect the financial incentives to do so are considerable. Think of it more as "they will get" the money.
They probably don't get to just take the money and run. Most of these kinds of deals are back-loaded: you get your payout after a certain time commitment. There are usually even incentives to perform. This keeps the actual value of the company (staff and execs) from walking as soon as they get handed 1.65 billion dollars. Gads.
And British, and Israeli, and French, ... And some of those aren't parliamentary democracies either.
But even the precinct level is quite coarse: you really want to do the counting in independent batches of 500-1000 votes - you want to *dramatically* increase the number of people you have to corrupt to swing a vote. Since the best form of electoral corruption is to use "just enough", a small number of precincts in the right districts will suffice to change the outcome. You want to shine as much light as possible on each counting event. :-)
But it's good to know that your state gets it closer to right
The evidence I have, looking at too many state's voting proceedures (why federal elections fall under state's rights still, I don't know) is that people give little thought to how the ballots are counted, but a huge amount of energy is directed to the "multiple voting" problems. The latter is an issue, but to systematically alter the presidential election that way requires a frightenning level of fraud. Vote counting fraud is much easier to perpetrate, and even easier to perpetrate when the counting is centralized. There's no good reason to move a ballot box to a central site until after the results the tallied and certified, yet too many people accept exactly this in many parts of the US, accepting excuses of "efficiency" and "counting speed" at the cost of transparency to fraud.
Basic UI design: if the choice really matters, don't highlight a default. Anything else is a broken UI.
I keep trying to believe that there's just this big illusion of corruption, and that both parties would benefit from making the optics better.
But I also keep feeling like I'm lying to myself.
At least banks keep audit trails, and you have recourse when your records don't match theirs. There is no such recourse using Diebold's voting machines.
Banks have the option to choose less security in exchange for a lower price, so long as their auditability is sufficient, which is easy to do with a transactional database. The voting machines are a whole other kettle of fish. That said, I approve of the sentiment of boycotting Diebold's customers.
Nice troll moderation there. At least argue the point.
1. Centralized voting means you only need to corrupt small number of people to corrupt an election.
2. Decentralized voting means you need to corrupt many, many people to substantially change an election result.
3. The US has a history of centralizing its vote counting, using techniques such as moving ballot boxes to central counting locations, and using electronic means to centralize counting.
Given the amount of noise about appearance of fraud in US elections, why isn't vote counting de-centralized? Other democracies seem to manage.
Why are Americans such complete and utter *morons* about vote counting? Why do they insist on centralizing vote-counting, one of the most *scalable* problems in civic governance? Instead, form a multi-partisan committee of volunteers fore *each* ballot box. Split up your voting population to keep each box to under 1000 votes or so. Do the count immediately at the close of polling, at the polling place, with the committee and as many observers as signed up in advance (if your party can't muster a volunteer per ballot box, you're not a serious contender in that district).
If you do it the decentralized way you have to corrupt *a lot* of committees to sway the vote substantially. If you centralize the vote counting (moving ballot boxes, electronic voting, etc) you reduce the number of people you have to coopt dramatically. Clearly, anyone intending to corrupt a vote will prefer centralized alternatives. Anyone trying to demonstrate a fair and just election must prefer the decentralized, hard-to-corrupt model.
But :x is *one less keystroke*. And mnemonic eXit.
It's also interesting to note than the 0.02 decline is within the realm of rounding error for the precision of the given data. Was it 3.7145 plus 0.6245 for a resounding 4.34? :-) There really isn't enough data there to make any analysis stick, positive or negative.
I keep a separate Linux box for development - the dev tools I need to run are Windows/Linux only. But the last time I tried to configure my Linux box to do email, web, skype, etc, I swore so loudly I bought the mini. It just worked. And it makes a greak keyboard/mouse switch (via Synergy).
My dev time is too precious to screw around with getting appliance-level performance out of Linux.
Yes, all that case room is a great place to put devices that have drivers that will operate poorly with my OS.
99% of the market want a simple box that works. I use my mini (Core Solo at that!) as a glorified KVM, web browser, mailer, skype box, and occasional photo munger. An appliance to do this wins every time against spending effort configuring another effing PC.
+1 Funny.
But seriously, the nice deal about this is that she feels it in her fingers, not her chest. That's the nice thing about re-routing the nerves. The chest is just a nice, large, convenient landing spot.
If you check out the various videos, they also have a short demo of touch: the same re-wiring of nerves to the pectoral muscle can be used for feedback. In the case of the female patient, she has two fingers worth of touch, and it's pressure sensitive.
Very impressive.
Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off! Holy shit. I reserve that kind of talking for PvP :-)
Think of cancer as a fandango on core followed by a DOS/fork bomb.
Pardon? Your statement is nothing but a bald assertion. Error control mechanisms run in no way against the evolutionary grain. It's easy to imagine that an organism with a little error correction will be more fit in its niches than an organism without. Changing too rapidly, or too randomly, is as dangerous to an organism as not adapting fast enough.
Not at all. At least vi's syntax for this is noun-verb setup: the > says to indent, and can be followed by any range specifier - % happens to jump matching brace pairs. You could as well have said %6j to indent the next 6 lines.
Ah, binocular vision. Ever since my macular hemorage I've been learning to adapt monocularly. Plenty of peripheral vision, but not enough central coherence to fuse stereo. I will say it cause an awful lot of guards and shields to spontanously attach to all my power tools...
Oddly, on the Cell, most of the optimization is low-level algorithmic stuff. Yes, assembly gets you that last little boost, but most of the Cell optimizations I've worked with (for the last 15 months or so) have been data movement and data decomposition exercises. Breaking your data into SPU-sized chunks, or into SPU-streamable chunks is the hard part. It's also the part compilers are *useless* for.
Isn't it to verify the efficacity of the advertising?