If you attended the logic and accuracy test and asked the election official this question, she would tell you that all write-in votes get kicked out and handcounted.
That doesn't answer my question. How do I know that no side-effects occur, in addition to the write-in vote getting kicked out and handcounted? Because I trust the election official? I'm sorry, I'd rather trust individuals as little as possible. Sure, you ultimately need to trust them that the software installed is the same as is open to inspection, but that's much harder to screw around with, especially on a large scale basis.
It's a perfect case for technology, considering paper ballots don't exactly work reliably.
Well, the fact of the matter is that most paper ballots are already counted by computers. We're just arguing over the input method. But one thing that it seems ridiculous to not have is a paper trail. There needs to be a mechanism for a manual recount in case of computer error or claims of fraud.
I submit that if you are interested in the accuracy of your elections, that you call the county clerk and ask to observe the required logic and accuracy tests of the ballot counting equipment before and after each election.
How does that prove that a backdoor hasn't been placed in the code for anyone who votes for a write-in candidate named "Joshua".
Why not have a federal project to develop a decent piece of software that all counties around the country could use if they wanted.
Because the republicans would complain about how it's a waste of federal money (and the libertarians would complain about how it's a violation of the 10th amendment). No, it's much better to waste taxpayer money over and over and over again on a private closed source solution than to hire those lazy government workers.
The code absolutely positively must be open to inspection by the public. Whether or not the code is actually open source is a different matter. I'd find it acceptable (though not preferable) to have a closed source software which is viewable by the public.
Anyway, I find it incredible that this is even a question. Frankly I think it's a serious enough issue it should be mandated by the state constitution that any election be done in an open manner.
Basically, when they take you to court, the prosecutors have an additional burden to show that you had a pre-existing inclination to commit the crime, before the undercover cops spoke with you. That's not very hard if they can find evidence of prior violations when searching your home & computer after the arrest.
I'm not sure how they would prove prior violations beyond a reasonable doubt since they can't prove I didn't obtain those other mp3s legitimately or under fair use. Actually it'd be quite an uphill battle proving that my downloads themselves weren't fair use, or that they weren't legally copied onto an audio CD-R under the Audio Home Recording Act.
Also, you mention an arrest, but I seriously doubt that downloading a single mp3 would fall under criminal copyright law. That would require probable cause (for the arrest) that the download was made "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, since I don't download more than $1000 worth of music in a 180 day period." Since the police have no way of knowing if I already own the CD, if I'm just downloading for a school project, etc., they aren't going to get that probable cause to make the arrest.
Fortunately for you, today's undercover cops aren't interested in puny busts like this. Someday that could change...
I guess anything's possible, but I seriously doubt the FBI is ever going to concern itself with small time mp3 leeches.
Yeah, it's kind of like the post office. They won't even let me send my horses through the mail. "Handling costs" blah blah blah. You should've used a better formula when computing the price of a stamp!
Funny, they've decided to block their users from contributory copyright violation, while still letting them download all the MP3s they want.
Distribution of a copyrighted work without a license is direct copyright infringement. Downloading, on the other hand... Well, no one's going to be able to prove it, since if they upload it to you it's entrapment. That's why I only download mp3s, never upload them.
Well, that's certainly not the way my insurance company works. If you just have liability insurance, you don't get a discount for having an alarm. I called and checked.
Makes sense, since having an alarm doesn't help prevent accidents.
Look, as everybody else has said, if someone's going to steal your car, they're going to steal it. If they're going to break into it, they're going to break into it.
Yeah, and it was just as untrue then as it is now. Obviously a thief who's intent on stealing your car could do it, but most thieves are not that stubborn. If the thief presses a button and the car door opens and the car turns on, you're much more likely to have your car stolen.
Having a car alarm of some sort brings down my car insurance a lot... i guess mainly because of my age and the car i drive
I could be wrong, but intuition suggests that your age has nothing to do with the discount for having a car alarm, since it would lower your comprehensive rather than your liability/collision. But maybe the theory is that young people park in more dangerous locations... Possible I guess.
Although I usually do not recommend this approach, consider obtaining security through obscurity.
Heh, for some reason I thought you were going to suggest taking off the Dodge logos and replacing them with Chevy logos.
If you're afraid of someone scanning the remote's codes to gain access to your car, consider getting an aftermarket system.
Unless you plan on turning off the beep and/or the light flash when you unlock your car this doesn't seem like a very useful plan. Most thieves using this method will just stand in the middle of the parking lot and hit the button. I.E. they're probably not going to be targetting a single car.
Well, this probably isn't how they do it, but you could always do it the same was as this device (keep a clock and compute a unique hash based on the time).
You could confirm many SSNs by looking at their driver's license, but not everyone has an SSN on their driver's license. You could say driver's license number and state, but not everyone has that either. Maybe name, birthdate, and birth city?
This is really the silly part of PGP webs of trust. Each use is going to need something different. Better to sign a certificate stating exactly what identification you have checked. Writeup something saying "I have verified that [Person] has a driver's license listing the name [Name]" and another one saying "I have verified that [Person] has a driver's license listing the address [Address]" or whatever else the person wants you to confirm and sign it.
I'll check out the book. Still, if it really is cost effective to use solar energy to purify water, I don't see why more people aren't doing it. Not that I care, I'm perfectly willing to set up the system anyway, if it's cost effective. Assuming it's a system that can be set up in a relatively small area here in New Jersey.
Because on a small scale you aren't going to get enough water out of the dirt to do anything more than survive.
Right. But that directly contradicts the original statement, that "Solar-powered desalination plants exist. They're just not commercially implemented because... drum roll... *anyone* can do it."
They're more likely not commercially implemented because... drum roll... the solution is more expensive than other solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
If you attended the logic and accuracy test and asked the election official this question, she would tell you that all write-in votes get kicked out and handcounted.
That doesn't answer my question. How do I know that no side-effects occur, in addition to the write-in vote getting kicked out and handcounted? Because I trust the election official? I'm sorry, I'd rather trust individuals as little as possible. Sure, you ultimately need to trust them that the software installed is the same as is open to inspection, but that's much harder to screw around with, especially on a large scale basis.
And the answer is, "Why not?"
Because it's too easy for people to fuck with.
It's a perfect case for technology, considering paper ballots don't exactly work reliably.
Well, the fact of the matter is that most paper ballots are already counted by computers. We're just arguing over the input method. But one thing that it seems ridiculous to not have is a paper trail. There needs to be a mechanism for a manual recount in case of computer error or claims of fraud.
I submit that if you are interested in the accuracy of your elections, that you call the county clerk and ask to observe the required logic and accuracy tests of the ballot counting equipment before and after each election.
How does that prove that a backdoor hasn't been placed in the code for anyone who votes for a write-in candidate named "Joshua".
But what if that person chose to exploit that flaw instead?
Then maybe we'll get it into our thick heads that this is a stupid solution.
Why not have a federal project to develop a decent piece of software that all counties around the country could use if they wanted.
Because the republicans would complain about how it's a waste of federal money (and the libertarians would complain about how it's a violation of the 10th amendment). No, it's much better to waste taxpayer money over and over and over again on a private closed source solution than to hire those lazy government workers.
The downside is also obvious, since we know how it works we can break the system.
I don't understand that. I know how a punchcard reader works, but I can't break that system.
The code absolutely positively must be open to inspection by the public. Whether or not the code is actually open source is a different matter. I'd find it acceptable (though not preferable) to have a closed source software which is viewable by the public.
Anyway, I find it incredible that this is even a question. Frankly I think it's a serious enough issue it should be mandated by the state constitution that any election be done in an open manner.
Basically, when they take you to court, the prosecutors have an additional burden to show that you had a pre-existing inclination to commit the crime, before the undercover cops spoke with you. That's not very hard if they can find evidence of prior violations when searching your home & computer after the arrest.
I'm not sure how they would prove prior violations beyond a reasonable doubt since they can't prove I didn't obtain those other mp3s legitimately or under fair use. Actually it'd be quite an uphill battle proving that my downloads themselves weren't fair use, or that they weren't legally copied onto an audio CD-R under the Audio Home Recording Act.
Also, you mention an arrest, but I seriously doubt that downloading a single mp3 would fall under criminal copyright law. That would require probable cause (for the arrest) that the download was made "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, since I don't download more than $1000 worth of music in a 180 day period." Since the police have no way of knowing if I already own the CD, if I'm just downloading for a school project, etc., they aren't going to get that probable cause to make the arrest.
Fortunately for you, today's undercover cops aren't interested in puny busts like this. Someday that could change...
I guess anything's possible, but I seriously doubt the FBI is ever going to concern itself with small time mp3 leeches.
Yeah, it's kind of like the post office. They won't even let me send my horses through the mail. "Handling costs" blah blah blah. You should've used a better formula when computing the price of a stamp!
Funny, they've decided to block their users from contributory copyright violation, while still letting them download all the MP3s they want.
Distribution of a copyrighted work without a license is direct copyright infringement. Downloading, on the other hand... Well, no one's going to be able to prove it, since if they upload it to you it's entrapment. That's why I only download mp3s, never upload them.
The Republicans get a majority in the House and Senate and already they're saving taxpayer money.
The atmosphere of the Earth would distort the picture too much to get a fine enough resolution.
Well, that's certainly not the way my insurance company works. If you just have liability insurance, you don't get a discount for having an alarm. I called and checked.
Makes sense, since having an alarm doesn't help prevent accidents.
Look, as everybody else has said, if someone's going to steal your car, they're going to steal it. If they're going to break into it, they're going to break into it.
Yeah, and it was just as untrue then as it is now. Obviously a thief who's intent on stealing your car could do it, but most thieves are not that stubborn. If the thief presses a button and the car door opens and the car turns on, you're much more likely to have your car stolen.
Having a car alarm of some sort brings down my car insurance a lot... i guess mainly because of my age and the car i drive
I could be wrong, but intuition suggests that your age has nothing to do with the discount for having a car alarm, since it would lower your comprehensive rather than your liability/collision. But maybe the theory is that young people park in more dangerous locations... Possible I guess.
Although I usually do not recommend this approach, consider obtaining security through obscurity.
Heh, for some reason I thought you were going to suggest taking off the Dodge logos and replacing them with Chevy logos.
If you're afraid of someone scanning the remote's codes to gain access to your car, consider getting an aftermarket system.
Unless you plan on turning off the beep and/or the light flash when you unlock your car this doesn't seem like a very useful plan. Most thieves using this method will just stand in the middle of the parking lot and hit the button. I.E. they're probably not going to be targetting a single car.
Well, this probably isn't how they do it, but you could always do it the same was as this device (keep a clock and compute a unique hash based on the time).
Exactly, the OS (any OS) is nothing more than an "unimportant collection of slightly buggy device drivers."
Filtration isn't a renewable solution though, is it? I figured solar distillation was the only renewable way to get the water drinkable.
The only book you need is the US Code, Title 11. Pay special attention to Chapter 13.
Still, LARTing people's asses doesn't seem like a very productive way to spend people's time. Then again, they are AOL employees.
You could confirm many SSNs by looking at their driver's license, but not everyone has an SSN on their driver's license. You could say driver's license number and state, but not everyone has that either. Maybe name, birthdate, and birth city?
This is really the silly part of PGP webs of trust. Each use is going to need something different. Better to sign a certificate stating exactly what identification you have checked. Writeup something saying "I have verified that [Person] has a driver's license listing the name [Name]" and another one saying "I have verified that [Person] has a driver's license listing the address [Address]" or whatever else the person wants you to confirm and sign it.
Those of you who are too paranoid to not use PGP are the same ones who are too paranoid to have government issued identification.
I'll check out the book. Still, if it really is cost effective to use solar energy to purify water, I don't see why more people aren't doing it. Not that I care, I'm perfectly willing to set up the system anyway, if it's cost effective. Assuming it's a system that can be set up in a relatively small area here in New Jersey.
Because on a small scale you aren't going to get enough water out of the dirt to do anything more than survive.
Right. But that directly contradicts the original statement, that "Solar-powered desalination plants exist. They're just not commercially implemented because ... drum roll ... *anyone* can do it."
They're more likely not commercially implemented because ... drum roll ... the solution is more expensive than other solutions.
Solar stills are not a primary water source, nor a subsititue for carrying adequate amounts of water in the desert.