I'll go with the assumption that putting massive amounts of anything (C02) into a relatively stable equation probably isn't a good thing. Does the earth go through cycles? sure, but thinking we aren't influencing the direction of things is just folly.
So reducing our effect on the environment is probably a better plan than waiting till we find out it's too friggin late to do anything about it.
That was my exact thought. However good or bad the *numbers* might be, it's rather hard to refute the fact that the Arctic ice cap is something like 40% smaller than 50 years ago (and yes I'm making those specific numbers up) linky.
And while most of the "it's a bad thing crowd" is probably overreacting somewhat...the consequences of *not* overreacting if indeed it's true are pretty scary.
Apples and Oranges...ok well maybe Apples and Crab Apples;-)
Ballot Box stuffing and other frauds are serious problems, and neither paper ballots nor computers are a shield against them as you say.
The difference is that we can go back and check the count against the physical votes cast with paper ballots. A computer only system doesn't let me check the count against anything.
As you point out, the problem of maintaining the integrity of the registration system and the voting process is of equal importance to counting the votes. But they are different facets of the problem.
if we're at a state where retaliation for voting is likely, then we have more serious problems then voting integrity.
Given our President and his minions actively calling people 'Losers', 'Defeatists', and 'Terrorist Sympathizers' then they don't agree with *them* I would venture we're not that terribly far from such a state...
An overboard comment? perhaps, but liberty is a fragile thing that has been subverted in the name of itself many many times before.
The cost savings areare in the 'time'. Counting 100 million ballots (random number..don't take it literally) takes time.
By having a computer do the counting we have the results much faster. The downside to computers is no verifiable way to check the returned results against a 'master' set of the actual votes.
So the compromise is have votes done electronically but produce a paper trail of the votes cast. If there's question about the computer results, then you can check them against the master paper trail.
So you save the time and manpower it takes to physically do the counting of all the ballots. I won't venture as to whether that's a net plus or minus though;-)
Agreed. The OP's point was that in the name of 'saving' money, such things aren't usually done, even though in the long run they'd see a financial benefit to a slight more expensive initial outlay.
Something I find myself saying is it compares 'quantifiable' (new computer, new lan) vs 'unquantifiable' (better productivity, more results) costs. And since the bean counters usually have the money, it's far far easier to quibble about the known costs than the unknown (and not gauranteed) benefits.
I probably should have been a bit more clear. Your points are valid, completely unfettered computers probably aren't practical, but something without that various stuff that gets jammed into the cookie-cutter distributions for the masses. Developers don't need that. If there's a separate 'developer' footprint available, then I agree that's a good compromise. (oh crap I said the 'C' word on/. the horror!).
As far as getting hacked, if it's a separate dirty lan, it's supposed to be unconnected to *anything* including the internet. Hard to hack across an air gap. If they need something from the internet, download it on the 'safe' box/lan and transfer it themselves.
And developers aren't admins, this is true, but they do generally need admin priviledges on the boxes (at least windoze ones that I'm familiar with). To me that's another reason why they need something on a separate box/lan so any damage they might cause is contained.
There you go applying 'logic' to 'business decisions';-) Some people just never learn! (the others go into mgmt!)
My biggest peeve is a lack of development focused PCs, we're saddled with the 'standard' footprint that everybody gets. I don't want email, or office or anything else non development related on my dev box. All developers should get 2 machines - 1 cookie-cutter footprint for mundane office stuff, and one completely unshackled and free dev box (on a separate dirty LAN).
The amount of productivity lost to such 'decisions' boggles the mind....
open source gives you the transparency of the code.
Checksums and other mechanisms give you the confidence that the software 'compiled' on the machine is the same software in your open source code base.
That said, I agree that paper ballots are amazingly able to do the simple job of tallying a vote count anonymously. I really wish everything were back to paper ballots; at least until a validated 'open' system of electronic voting is developed.
Description: Lets you load pages in IE with a single right-click, or mark certain sites to *always* load in IE. Useful for incompatible pages, or cross-browser testing.
I like the idea that you can tell users, if it doesn't seem to look right, try this...and then have them default the few non-compatible sites to use IE. Trains them that IE is 'different' and Firefox is more standard.
Granted it's Mac, but it shows you that Firefox can indeed lock it's proxy settings. And without really delving into the article it looks as if it would be very difficult to override by 'non' geeks.
That is an easily solvable problem: provide free state ID to those without one.
May I see your papers comrade? The point is if you don't *want* to have photo ID you don't need too. If you mandate something, that doesn't mean everyone will get it. The *vast* majority of people without ID will be of lower economic status, and also much more likely to vote Democratic.
I believe what he's saying is that the GOP needs to restrict as many possible Democratic voters from being able to vote to maintain their current electoral majority.
Nope, I won't blame you...as you wouldn't have voted for Kerry since you didn't vote for Kerry. My beef is with the misguided souls who think that *feel good* voting somehow helps the country. I'll disagree with your vote and all the assorted issues that I find with the current administration, but I won't blame you for the fact that he did win the election.
Your logic is at best a stretch. You're claiming that of the NINETY FIVE percent of votes for Kerry or Bush, a *large* percentage of them are really misdirected because of a lack of 3rd party candidates? puleeze.
Where are these votes when 3rd party house seats are cast? If you can't win a house seat on the up and up, you will never, ever, ever win the presidency. Any claim to the contrary is simply denial of the reality you live in.
My point is that if you don't like the rules (and I don't like the 2 party lock-in, gerrymandering crap that goes on either) THEN VOTE IN HOUSE MEMBERS TO CHANGE THE RULES!
I'm simply saying that voting for a 3rd party *presidential* candidate has no hope of getting anything accomplished short of your own 'feel good about myself' morals. Start with the grass roots and you'll get the chance to make the changes you want.
I've voted independant/3rd party when that person had a legitamite chance of winning, but if they are polling in the 1-2% range, face facts, they can't win.
Yep, I'd be lambasting you for not voting as well. Because *any* vote/non-vote outside the 2 choices we currently have in a presidential election, is implicitly accepting whatever the outcome is. (This is not an endorsement of 2 party system, I'd love to see a realistic challanger to it).
So if you feel better because you didn't help the situation, then so be it. But that doesn't help the country deal with the myriad of crisises(sp?) facing it that are of Dubya's doing.
By that same logic, major party Presidential votes in heavily favored states are also a waste.
Nope, because Kerry got a fair percentage of the vote. What percent of the vote did any 3rd party candidate get? I'm in Virginia and it was pretty well known Bush would win here too...but it was also quite a bit closer than had been expected.
linky -
What I've been saying throughout this thread is you need to have a *reasonable* chance at winning. Meaning your candidate will get a measurable portion of the votes. And 0.34 % is not *reasonable*, 45% is.
Win some House seats and people will start to believe in the 3rd party cause. But until then, they are will always be 'crackpot' candidates to the general electorate.
Funny, at the time of the election my parents told me the same thing, only with the names reversed.
Actually they are pretty much as 'right' as I am in my assertion.
If based with only 2 realistic options, and you choose a third, then your vote was against whoever you might have picked of the 2. In my case that's Kerry, and in your parents' that's Bush.
I'm all for voting for your conscience, but don't complain about the situation that results from voting for someone else who had no chance of actually winning. A friend of mine literally voted for Colin Powell...I mean c'mon, he wasn't even on the ballot and wasn't going to win.
Would Kerry have really been *worse* that Bush? Especially after seeing 4 years of his ineptitude? Gimme the Clinton years where President and Congress are in different hands; you don't get the crazy shit passed.
I commend you on holding to ideals. But in the end, who won the election? Wasn't Libertarians that's for sure.
Are they 'downtrodden' by the 2 main parties? Sure. But you won't win the presidential election EVER unless you have support in the country, which translates to seats in Congress. Get those and then a vote for Libertarian president could make a difference. You've gotta prove yourself in the minors before you can take a turn in the majors.
But if you don't like Bush, and you voted for someone other than Kerry, then you gave a vote to Bush (by taking one away from the only option with a chance to beat him).
But, if you're happy with Bush in office, then disregard everything I've said...
Agree, the rules suck. The only way to change the *rules* is to have people in Congress who aren't beholden to the main party's desire to lock out other choices.
Which is my point...get house members elected to start changing the rules. Voting for 3rd party presidential candidates does absolutely nothing in the long run.
And maybe you missed my point....mostly because I didn't type it;-)
And this was probably the stretch I shouldn't have made with your post....If people voted for a 3rd party candidate AND are complaining about Bush, then yes, they elected Bush by not voting for Kerry.
I'd find it a hard argument to make that *anything* Kerry would have done could be worse than all the Bush has managed to screw up. Especially with a GOP congress...much like with Clinton, nothing except the bare essentials would have gotten done and we'd all have been better off.
But my other main point stands. 3rd party presidential votes 'are' a complete waste. They might make the voter feel better, but it's still not helping the current situation. Ground up is the only way to do it with staying power.
Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush.
Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election. I generally favor the ideas of non Dem/GOP candidates as they are more realistic. However, the 3rd party groups need to win some local elections before they can lay any claim to being a superior choice.
Lets talk when there are more than 30 Libertarians in the House....show the country you actually have convinced some people to vote for you and they will listen. Until then deal with the choices you have, not defacto electing the worse of the evils by claiming to vote 'better'.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll go with the assumption that putting massive amounts of anything (C02) into a relatively stable equation probably isn't a good thing. Does the earth go through cycles? sure, but thinking we aren't influencing the direction of things is just folly.
So reducing our effect on the environment is probably a better plan than waiting till we find out it's too friggin late to do anything about it.
That was my exact thought. However good or bad the *numbers* might be, it's rather hard to refute the fact that the Arctic ice cap is something like 40% smaller than 50 years ago (and yes I'm making those specific numbers up) linky.
And while most of the "it's a bad thing crowd" is probably overreacting somewhat...the consequences of *not* overreacting if indeed it's true are pretty scary.
Apples and Oranges...ok well maybe Apples and Crab Apples ;-)
Ballot Box stuffing and other frauds are serious problems, and neither paper ballots nor computers are a shield against them as you say.
The difference is that we can go back and check the count against the physical votes cast with paper ballots. A computer only system doesn't let me check the count against anything.
As you point out, the problem of maintaining the integrity of the registration system and the voting process is of equal importance to counting the votes. But they are different facets of the problem.
if we're at a state where retaliation for voting is likely, then we have more serious problems then voting integrity.
Given our President and his minions actively calling people 'Losers', 'Defeatists', and 'Terrorist Sympathizers' then they don't agree with *them* I would venture we're not that terribly far from such a state...
An overboard comment? perhaps, but liberty is a fragile thing that has been subverted in the name of itself many many times before.
The cost savings areare in the 'time'. Counting 100 million ballots (random number..don't take it literally) takes time.
;-)
By having a computer do the counting we have the results much faster. The downside to computers is no verifiable way to check the returned results against a 'master' set of the actual votes.
So the compromise is have votes done electronically but produce a paper trail of the votes cast. If there's question about the computer results, then you can check them against the master paper trail.
So you save the time and manpower it takes to physically do the counting of all the ballots. I won't venture as to whether that's a net plus or minus though
the real obligatory comment is:
;-)
Nice cake...but what's with all the bugs?
Agreed. The OP's point was that in the name of 'saving' money, such things aren't usually done, even though in the long run they'd see a financial benefit to a slight more expensive initial outlay.
Something I find myself saying is it compares 'quantifiable' (new computer, new lan) vs 'unquantifiable' (better productivity, more results) costs. And since the bean counters usually have the money, it's far far easier to quibble about the known costs than the unknown (and not gauranteed) benefits.
I probably should have been a bit more clear. Your points are valid, completely unfettered computers probably aren't practical, but something without that various stuff that gets jammed into the cookie-cutter distributions for the masses. Developers don't need that. If there's a separate 'developer' footprint available, then I agree that's a good compromise. (oh crap I said the 'C' word on /. the horror!).
As far as getting hacked, if it's a separate dirty lan, it's supposed to be unconnected to *anything* including the internet. Hard to hack across an air gap. If they need something from the internet, download it on the 'safe' box/lan and transfer it themselves.
And developers aren't admins, this is true, but they do generally need admin priviledges on the boxes (at least windoze ones that I'm familiar with). To me that's another reason why they need something on a separate box/lan so any damage they might cause is contained.
There you go applying 'logic' to 'business decisions' ;-) Some people just never learn! (the others go into mgmt!)
My biggest peeve is a lack of development focused PCs, we're saddled with the 'standard' footprint that everybody gets. I don't want email, or office or anything else non development related on my dev box. All developers should get 2 machines - 1 cookie-cutter footprint for mundane office stuff, and one completely unshackled and free dev box (on a separate dirty LAN).
The amount of productivity lost to such 'decisions' boggles the mind....
whaddaya bet the 'fine print' on the insurance says you *can't* tell anyone about it?
open source gives you the transparency of the code.
Checksums and other mechanisms give you the confidence that the software 'compiled' on the machine is the same software in your open source code base.
That said, I agree that paper ballots are amazingly able to do the simple job of tallying a vote count anonymously. I really wish everything were back to paper ballots; at least until a validated 'open' system of electronic voting is developed.
and the second point:
Firefox plug-in IE View
Description: Lets you load pages in IE with a single right-click, or mark certain sites to *always* load in IE. Useful for incompatible pages, or cross-browser testing.
I like the idea that you can tell users, if it doesn't seem to look right, try this...and then have them default the few non-compatible sites to use IE. Trains them that IE is 'different' and Firefox is more standard.
Did you try Googling for your problem?
'lock firefox proxy settings'
The first hit is this link:
Granted it's Mac, but it shows you that Firefox can indeed lock it's proxy settings. And without really delving into the article it looks as if it would be very difficult to override by 'non' geeks.
That is an easily solvable problem: provide free state ID to those without one.
May I see your papers comrade? The point is if you don't *want* to have photo ID you don't need too. If you mandate something, that doesn't mean everyone will get it. The *vast* majority of people without ID will be of lower economic status, and also much more likely to vote Democratic.
I believe what he's saying is that the GOP needs to restrict as many possible Democratic voters from being able to vote to maintain their current electoral majority.
Ball bearings. It's so simple, maybe you need a refresher course. It's all ball bearings these days!
Nope, I won't blame you...as you wouldn't have voted for Kerry since you didn't vote for Kerry. My beef is with the misguided souls who think that *feel good* voting somehow helps the country. I'll disagree with your vote and all the assorted issues that I find with the current administration, but I won't blame you for the fact that he did win the election.
Your logic is at best a stretch. You're claiming that of the NINETY FIVE percent of votes for Kerry or Bush, a *large* percentage of them are really misdirected because of a lack of 3rd party candidates? puleeze.
Where are these votes when 3rd party house seats are cast? If you can't win a house seat on the up and up, you will never, ever, ever win the presidency. Any claim to the contrary is simply denial of the reality you live in.
My point is that if you don't like the rules (and I don't like the 2 party lock-in, gerrymandering crap that goes on either) THEN VOTE IN HOUSE MEMBERS TO CHANGE THE RULES!
I'm simply saying that voting for a 3rd party *presidential* candidate has no hope of getting anything accomplished short of your own 'feel good about myself' morals. Start with the grass roots and you'll get the chance to make the changes you want.
I've voted independant/3rd party when that person had a legitamite chance of winning, but if they are polling in the 1-2% range, face facts, they can't win.
Yep, I'd be lambasting you for not voting as well. Because *any* vote/non-vote outside the 2 choices we currently have in a presidential election, is implicitly accepting whatever the outcome is. (This is not an endorsement of 2 party system, I'd love to see a realistic challanger to it).
So if you feel better because you didn't help the situation, then so be it. But that doesn't help the country deal with the myriad of crisises(sp?) facing it that are of Dubya's doing.
By that same logic, major party Presidential votes in heavily favored states are also a waste.
Nope, because Kerry got a fair percentage of the vote. What percent of the vote did any 3rd party candidate get? I'm in Virginia and it was pretty well known Bush would win here too...but it was also quite a bit closer than had been expected.
linky - What I've been saying throughout this thread is you need to have a *reasonable* chance at winning. Meaning your candidate will get a measurable portion of the votes. And 0.34 % is not *reasonable*, 45% is.
Win some House seats and people will start to believe in the 3rd party cause. But until then, they are will always be 'crackpot' candidates to the general electorate.
Funny, at the time of the election my parents told me the same thing, only with the names reversed.
Actually they are pretty much as 'right' as I am in my assertion.
If based with only 2 realistic options, and you choose a third, then your vote was against whoever you might have picked of the 2. In my case that's Kerry, and in your parents' that's Bush.
I'm all for voting for your conscience, but don't complain about the situation that results from voting for someone else who had no chance of actually winning. A friend of mine literally voted for Colin Powell...I mean c'mon, he wasn't even on the ballot and wasn't going to win.
Would Kerry have really been *worse* that Bush? Especially after seeing 4 years of his ineptitude? Gimme the Clinton years where President and Congress are in different hands; you don't get the crazy shit passed.
I commend you on holding to ideals. But in the end, who won the election? Wasn't Libertarians that's for sure.
Are they 'downtrodden' by the 2 main parties? Sure. But you won't win the presidential election EVER unless you have support in the country, which translates to seats in Congress. Get those and then a vote for Libertarian president could make a difference. You've gotta prove yourself in the minors before you can take a turn in the majors.
But if you don't like Bush, and you voted for someone other than Kerry, then you gave a vote to Bush (by taking one away from the only option with a chance to beat him).
But, if you're happy with Bush in office, then disregard everything I've said...
Agree, the rules suck. The only way to change the *rules* is to have people in Congress who aren't beholden to the main party's desire to lock out other choices.
Which is my point...get house members elected to start changing the rules. Voting for 3rd party presidential candidates does absolutely nothing in the long run.
And maybe you missed my point....mostly because I didn't type it ;-)
And this was probably the stretch I shouldn't have made with your post....If people voted for a 3rd party candidate AND are complaining about Bush, then yes, they elected Bush by not voting for Kerry.
I'd find it a hard argument to make that *anything* Kerry would have done could be worse than all the Bush has managed to screw up. Especially with a GOP congress...much like with Clinton, nothing except the bare essentials would have gotten done and we'd all have been better off.
But my other main point stands. 3rd party presidential votes 'are' a complete waste. They might make the voter feel better, but it's still not helping the current situation. Ground up is the only way to do it with staying power.
Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush.
Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election. I generally favor the ideas of non Dem/GOP candidates as they are more realistic. However, the 3rd party groups need to win some local elections before they can lay any claim to being a superior choice.
Lets talk when there are more than 30 Libertarians in the House....show the country you actually have convinced some people to vote for you and they will listen. Until then deal with the choices you have, not defacto electing the worse of the evils by claiming to vote 'better'.