1. Rehabilitation. 2. Deterrent, especially to others. 3. Keeping the public safe.
Notice that all 3 are heavily dependent on psychology.
Rehabilitation is largely a matter of getting criminals to feel bad about committing crime and feeling good about being lawful.
Religion is one way. Straightforward brainwashing (Clockwork Orange) is another way.
I doubt mainstream psychology is up to the job.
2. Deterrent is a matter of publicising what happens to criminals. This really has to be based on shock value. Personally, I would bring back the stocks.
The e-touch optical scan comparison referenced as 'strange anomaly' may
be explained if one considers that counties with small populations used optical
machines and those with large populations used the e-touch machines.
Then I'm not sure you're aware of the degree of the disparity.
With these trends, if your district uses an e-voting system, 2% more swing &
independent votes would go to Republican than Democrat. If however your
district used optical scanning, the difference would be 45%!
That's very strong evidence that something went seriously wrong. While
certain people would like to sweep this under the carpet, I hope and expect
that this will be in the courts and newspapers for months.
In the very article referenced by commandantTaco one reads (if on is able)...Palm Beach County appears to have accounted for the discrepancy...
As others have pointed out, it's the Electoral College system that counts (and got Bush in 4 years ago).
Ohio was closer than Florida. The statistical analysis for Florida shows an unexplained disparity of 600,000 votes, almost twice what would be needed to reverse the result and hence the election.
Therefore, anyone who is "below" us in the economic pyramid has a very vested interest in seeing us taken down a few notches -- environment or no environment.
Wonder how many other Americans think economic development is some kind of race.
You left out the fact that the U.S. produces roughly 21-31 % of global goods and services
Of course, that doesn't excuse the US from Kyoto.
Kyoto asks for a 29% CO2 reduction by 2010. The only major countries not signing up are the US and Australia.
Are they offering a 20% reduction? No. Are they offering a 10% reduction? No Are they offering any reduction whatsoever? No.
Seeing as the US also produces 23% of the world's CO2, and given that Kyoto might actually save human civilisation, you might forgive the rest of the world for being angry at this.
I wonder what would happen if the world boycotted those US goods.
Because your attitude isn't unusual. For any phenomenon such as this to get taken seriously, the proposers have to jump through hoops that simply aren't demanded of more plausible techologies.
Nobody takes the guardian seriously anymore. Especially after they tried
to influence the election and called for the assassination of the president.
Actually, the Guardian is the most respected paper in the UK amongst people
with an IQ more than twice their waist measurement.
Trying to influence your election seems like a good idea to me. I tried it
myself. Bush has deceived us Brits into 2 unwinnable wars, 1 against a
against a fanatical guerilla enemy, the other against a non-existent
enemy.
He probably also wrecked the ecosystem (Kyoto) and stopped the Microsoft breakup
(which I take personally).
I'd also like to point out the difference between a journalist and a columnist.
Ronson is a columnist and so is the guy who humourously called for assassination.
Fair points about the currency though, can't tell except in the long term.
Nonsense. Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom.
If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated
to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion
over the leaders even if they just close their eyes and point.
If you don't like it, I think there are a few countries where you might
fit in a little better.
Not all US citizens have that chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders.
If you're a Republican in CA, or a Democrat in Texas, you have zero influence
in this election.
So your equating freedom = one person, one vote and anything else
= un-American is based on at least 2 dubious premises.
Fighting wars, being taxed and being subject to laws are (notionally) for the
good of the people and the country. Elections should be exactly the same.
The reason we allow everyone to vote is because we believe that is the best
way to elect good leaders. Now that may be the case, but such important
issues should be discussed.
If all the electorate was competent at electing leaders, then Bush & Kerry
wouldn't be spending millions on adverts of hyenas and other such propaganda.
The question then becomes: can we find any process that we can trust
to decide who is qualified to vote?
Sorry, I don't think you understand the importance of marketing.
Sadly, I do;)
Java is not a success, it is just an also-ran language like all others.
If it was a success all apps would be written in it.
The reasons it's not a big success are largely down to Microsoft's monopoly.
My point is if they'd called it Portable Internet Control (PIC), it wouldn't
have been as successful as it is.
I know what Orange is even though I don't know of any other European telecom.
I assume Branson has one as he spent over a billion marketing one in my country
and ran away in less than a year.
Virgin. A reasonable brand, but Branson himself is the better brand.
I don't think knowledge of Orange got into my non-European brain magically.
No, it's a memorable name and image. In fact, I found it memorable because
it ignored your doctrine of describing the product.
What you might not know is that Orange was the last entry into the UK mobile
market, behind Cellnet, Mercury 1-to-1 and Vodaphone.
If you've read any of Al Ries' stuff, you know that the first product to market
usually dominates.
Wi-Fi is a technology not a competing standard.
It competes with Bluetooth (also a cool name).
There is no Un-Fi. Same with 3G, it is an updated set of technologies
where there is no standards competition(at least for consumers).
Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?
Blunkett wants a solution for his immigration problem and the police are in
favour.
Currently, illegal immigrants are impossible to track whilst their claim takes months to be processed.
Naturally, the police are a little bit more focussed on stopping criminals than protecting civil liberties.
On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?
I'm much more concerned about the impending database state. So much data
is collected on us already and the only thing stopping it and all future data (eg DNA & CCTV tracking) being indexed
by anyone with a grudge or genocidal tendencies is our flimsy democracy and
the lack of a unique identity number.
And there's no secret information stored on it either
Why would they store information on the card where everyone can see it?
Your card only needs a unique number. Connecting to the central database,
this number can then be used to download your photograph, name, date & place
of birth and international travel details.
I'd have thought/.ers would have figured this out.
One problem comes when that unique number indexes every single database storing
information about you: bank, credit card, store cards, phone, internet, medical
etc etc.
I've posted about this at length today and don't wish to repeat myself.
>In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just
60 years ago fairly near where you
>live, millions of people were being gassed because they
could be easily identified as Jewish.
If Jews could have been easily identified by just looking at
some document, like you say, then why did the Nazis bother with such a major
bureaucratic effort?
The bureaucracy was required because the document did not initially identify
you as a Jew. That information was stored in on IBM punch cards somewhere. If
the Nazis had even 300bd modems, I doubt any European Jews would have escaped
the genocide.
I think this entire thing is overblown. Most countries in Europe have national
ID cards. My country too.
So what? Most people are prejudiced, doesn't make it OK for me to be.
We don't have militaristic juntas running the country,
Such a database doesn't make it easier for militaristic juntas to gain power.
It just makes it easier for them to persecute people if they do.
we don't have government spying on people more than the british one does
(with all the CCTV cameras).
No, but thanks for pointing out why the British shouldn't follow your lead.
And there are always centralized government databases with your basic data
in them.
Not legally there isn't. Not in Britain anyway.
People just focus on this ID card because it's an easy target
Because it's an easy target is EXACTLY why we should focus on it. When
everyone has these cards and some future government changes the law to put your DNA
or religion on there, or to make all corporate databases available to them, how is
anyone going to stop them?
but the difference to privacy and civil rights is negligible.
Tell it to the Jews that were persecuted in the Holocaust thanks to IBM database
technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple - this was a threat to those who use the internet to criticise the US government.
There IS no terrorist threat. At least not on the scale insinuated by Bush & his neo-cons.
There are 3 goals of the prison system:
1. Rehabilitation.
2. Deterrent, especially to others.
3. Keeping the public safe.
Notice that all 3 are heavily dependent on psychology.
Rehabilitation is largely a matter of getting criminals to feel bad about committing crime and feeling good about being lawful.
Religion is one way. Straightforward brainwashing (Clockwork Orange) is another way.
I doubt mainstream psychology is up to the job.
2. Deterrent is a matter of publicising what happens to criminals. This really has to be based on shock value. Personally, I would bring back the stocks.
The disparity is 38.37% for those states that went opscan in 2004 and -12.64% for those that went evoting.
So arguably, the anomaly is greater in 2000.
Doesn't preclude fraud, but does make it less of a significant anomaly.
I take it back, Diebold's CEO founded ES&S.
The disparity points to nearly 600,000 extra Bush votes in Florida where Kerry lost by 377,216.
That's pretty significant. Ohio may be more significant, but we'll never know unless you guys demand the information.
The e-touch optical scan comparison referenced as 'strange anomaly' may be explained if one considers that counties with small populations used optical machines and those with large populations used the e-touch machines.
Then I'm not sure you're aware of the degree of the disparity. With these trends, if your district uses an e-voting system, 2% more swing & independent votes would go to Republican than Democrat. If however your district used optical scanning, the difference would be 45%!
That's very strong evidence that something went seriously wrong. While certain people would like to sweep this under the carpet, I hope and expect that this will be in the courts and newspapers for months.
In the very article referenced by commandantTaco one reads (if on is able) ...Palm Beach County appears to have accounted for the discrepancy...
No, Palm Beach used e-voting machines.
The disparity is consistent amongst all Opscan machines, not just Diebold machines.
As others have pointed out, it's the Electoral College system that counts (and got Bush in 4 years ago).
Ohio was closer than Florida. The statistical analysis for Florida shows an unexplained disparity of 600,000 votes, almost twice what would be needed to reverse the result and hence the election.
At least 2 different types of systems show the same disparity.
This staggers belief.
There is an enormous anomaly of 600,000+ votes in Bush's favour, which doesn't exist in e-voting results.*
Kerry lost by 377,216. Considering Kerry winning Florida would have made him President, THAT'S how big this issue is.
Now both Diebold and ES&S (and Sequoia) machines show a similar GIANT anomaly.
I presume these machines scanned real voter cards which still exist in sealed boxes somewhere?
If so, PLEASE demand a hand count...
*
For Florida Opscan machines
Rep: 1,337,242 expected, 1,950,213 voted
Dem: 1,432,425 expected, 1,445,675 voted
Therefore, anyone who is "below" us in the economic pyramid has a very vested interest in seeing us taken down a few notches -- environment or no environment.
Wonder how many other Americans think economic development is some kind of race.
You left out the fact that the U.S. produces roughly 21-31 % of global goods and services
Of course, that doesn't excuse the US from Kyoto.
Kyoto asks for a 29% CO2 reduction by 2010. The only major countries not signing up are the US and Australia.
Are they offering a 20% reduction? No.
Are they offering a 10% reduction? No
Are they offering any reduction whatsoever? No.
Seeing as the US also produces 23% of the world's CO2, and given that Kyoto might actually save human civilisation, you might forgive the rest of the world for being angry at this.
I wonder what would happen if the world boycotted those US goods.
Did a bit of research, the programme was Proof Positive and the guy was David Moorhouse. Never heard of him myself, but Puthoff has. Nice quote:
"most skeptics are not skeptical enough - they tend to accept the given wisdom without questioning it."
Because your attitude isn't unusual. For any phenomenon such as this to get taken seriously, the proposers have to jump through hoops that simply aren't demanded of more plausible techologies.
Again, you show your determined ignorance.
Wikipedia page
Not sure if that comment is meant to be serious scientific criticism or not.
The research was done at Stanford in the 70s, before the WWW ever existed.
Nobody takes the guardian seriously anymore. Especially after they tried to influence the election and called for the assassination of the president.
Actually, the Guardian is the most respected paper in the UK amongst people with an IQ more than twice their waist measurement.
Trying to influence your election seems like a good idea to me. I tried it myself. Bush has deceived us Brits into 2 unwinnable wars, 1 against a against a fanatical guerilla enemy, the other against a non-existent enemy.
He probably also wrecked the ecosystem (Kyoto) and stopped the Microsoft breakup (which I take personally).
I'd also like to point out the difference between a journalist and a columnist. Ronson is a columnist and so is the guy who humourously called for assassination.
Fair points about the currency though, can't tell except in the long term.
Have you even looked?
You might want to read Ingo Swann. He has demonstrated Remote Viewing several times in a scientific setting. I'm not sure why this isn't better known.
Nonsense. Intelligence or being informed is not a prerequisite to freedom. If people can be asked to die for their country or to pay taxes or to be subjugated to the laws of the land, then they should have a chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders even if they just close their eyes and point.
If you don't like it, I think there are a few countries where you might fit in a little better.
Not all US citizens have that chance to exercise their opinion over the leaders. If you're a Republican in CA, or a Democrat in Texas, you have zero influence in this election.
So your equating freedom = one person, one vote and anything else = un-American is based on at least 2 dubious premises.
Fighting wars, being taxed and being subject to laws are (notionally) for the good of the people and the country. Elections should be exactly the same.
The reason we allow everyone to vote is because we believe that is the best way to elect good leaders. Now that may be the case, but such important issues should be discussed.
If all the electorate was competent at electing leaders, then Bush & Kerry wouldn't be spending millions on adverts of hyenas and other such propaganda.
The question then becomes: can we find any process that we can trust to decide who is qualified to vote?
Sorry, I don't think you understand the importance of marketing.
Sadly, I do ;)
Java is not a success, it is just an also-ran language like all others. If it was a success all apps would be written in it.
The reasons it's not a big success are largely down to Microsoft's monopoly. My point is if they'd called it Portable Internet Control (PIC), it wouldn't have been as successful as it is.
I know what Orange is even though I don't know of any other European telecom. I assume Branson has one as he spent over a billion marketing one in my country and ran away in less than a year.
Virgin. A reasonable brand, but Branson himself is the better brand.
I don't think knowledge of Orange got into my non-European brain magically.
No, it's a memorable name and image. In fact, I found it memorable because it ignored your doctrine of describing the product.
What you might not know is that Orange was the last entry into the UK mobile market, behind Cellnet, Mercury 1-to-1 and Vodaphone.
If you've read any of Al Ries' stuff, you know that the first product to market usually dominates.
Wi-Fi is a technology not a competing standard.
It competes with Bluetooth (also a cool name).
There is no Un-Fi. Same with 3G, it is an updated set of technologies where there is no standards competition(at least for consumers).
Yeah, that one's a lame example... :(
Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?
Blunkett wants a solution for his immigration problem and the police are in favour.
Currently, illegal immigrants are impossible to track whilst their claim takes months to be processed.
Naturally, the police are a little bit more focussed on stopping criminals than protecting civil liberties.
On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?
I'm much more concerned about the impending database state. So much data is collected on us already and the only thing stopping it and all future data (eg DNA & CCTV tracking) being indexed by anyone with a grudge or genocidal tendencies is our flimsy democracy and the lack of a unique identity number.
Why would they store information on the card where everyone can see it?
Your card only needs a unique number. Connecting to the central database, this number can then be used to download your photograph, name, date & place of birth and international travel details.
I'd have thought /.ers would have figured this out.
One problem comes when that unique number indexes every single database storing information about you: bank, credit card, store cards, phone, internet, medical etc etc.
I've posted about this at length today and don't wish to repeat myself.
>In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you
> live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.
If Jews could have been easily identified by just looking at some document, like you say, then why did the Nazis bother with such a major bureaucratic effort?
The bureaucracy was required because the document did not initially identify you as a Jew. That information was stored in on IBM punch cards somewhere. If the Nazis had even 300bd modems, I doubt any European Jews would have escaped the genocide.
I think this entire thing is overblown. Most countries in Europe have national ID cards. My country too.
So what? Most people are prejudiced, doesn't make it OK for me to be.
We don't have militaristic juntas running the country,
Such a database doesn't make it easier for militaristic juntas to gain power. It just makes it easier for them to persecute people if they do.
we don't have government spying on people more than the british one does (with all the CCTV cameras).
No, but thanks for pointing out why the British shouldn't follow your lead.
And there are always centralized government databases with your basic data in them.
Not legally there isn't. Not in Britain anyway.
People just focus on this ID card because it's an easy target
Because it's an easy target is EXACTLY why we should focus on it. When everyone has these cards and some future government changes the law to put your DNA or religion on there, or to make all corporate databases available to them, how is anyone going to stop them?
but the difference to privacy and civil rights is negligible.
Tell it to the Jews that were persecuted in the Holocaust thanks to IBM database technology.