> You can confirm your vote was recorded correctly when you drop it into a box, but how do you know that box doesn't get swapped out? Or that another stuffed box doesn't get set right next to it?
Oh, ghod.
Multiple human beings, from each party, write ballot serial numbers on paper logs and sign them.
Most of the problems with electronic voting come from wanting the machines to to *everything*.
As soon as you make the machines only do the 70% they're *good at*, the other 30% protects you from all the possible screwups.
If the ballot card is a physical object, where the actual, countable items are human readable, then each party could bring its own machinery to read the ballots...
and in the case of disputes, actual Mark 1 Mod 0 human eyeballs could look at them.
Printed ballot cards will have no chad, and could have no spelling errors, etc.
In general, I assume anyone who pooh-pooh's Vote as a Physical Object to be someone with an axe to grind, who would rather steal elections than have them be fair.
Good try, there, though, with all the appeals to emotion. This isn't an emotion subject; there are objective standards. Physical human readable ballots meet them. Nothing else does.
But the *answer* is: "better for our democratic country, by the *objective standards by which voting and vote-counting systems are evaluated*", and there are such standards, and nobody much disagrees with them, that I'm aware of.
> To me the conflict is between the secrecy of the ballot and the ability to verify results. If there is no way to link a completed ballot to an eligible voter, you can never be 100% sure.
Correct. But there are ways to do even that, most of which, alas, involve crypto that the civilians won't trust.
If you are suggesting that such stories are apocryphal *merely* because Republicans are in the lead... then you've made the point, because they are documentarily not apocryphal, and you are clearly so implying merely because you're a Republican partisan.
If you design the system properly (no counting in the terminals at *all*; they merely remember ballots, count printed ballots and spoils, and speak to blind people), then it doesn't matter: you have a Physical Vote, and *humans* can read it and count it if necessary, cause it's printed in OCR-A.
> However, I would actually consider the inability to have a recount a positive. It saves money for the taxpayer and reduces confusion and legal challenges after the election.
You sound like Tampa mayor Pam Iorio, who actually said that in public, and still got elected.
And note: they *are* at the same volume: measured by *peak level*. The peak levels of the commercial never get any louder than the peak level of the program, cause both are about 95% deviation
Cause it ties the playback loudness of the commercials to *what program material surrounds them*: the same spot could play louder during Footday Night Monball than during CSI, frex.
FCC wisely ducked this, last time.
What will the Senate do next, vote to reduce gravity, so overweight people can get around more easily?
(His piece, written in his usual "I am not at all nuts" style, assumes that IPv6 is *solely* a new "address space", and not an entire replacement protocol.
(While that might have been a better design, smarter people than me decided it wasn't practical to approach it that way, so listing the ways in which that wasn't well implemented is useless, since *that wasn't what they were TRYING to implement*; the entire page is a strawman.)
Slashdot Mirror
How do they protect that system against vote-selling?
> You can confirm your vote was recorded correctly when you drop it into a box, but how do you know that box doesn't get swapped out? Or that another stuffed box doesn't get set right next to it?
Oh, ghod.
Multiple human beings, from each party, write ballot serial numbers on paper logs and sign them.
Most of the problems with electronic voting come from wanting the machines to to *everything*.
As soon as you make the machines only do the 70% they're *good at*, the other 30% protects you from all the possible screwups.
If the ballot card is a physical object, where the actual, countable items are human readable, then each party could bring its own machinery to read the ballots...
and in the case of disputes, actual Mark 1 Mod 0 human eyeballs could look at them.
Printed ballot cards will have no chad, and could have no spelling errors, etc.
In general, I assume anyone who pooh-pooh's Vote as a Physical Object to be someone with an axe to grind, who would rather steal elections than have them be fair.
Good try, there, though, with all the appeals to emotion. This isn't an emotion subject; there are objective standards. Physical human readable ballots meet them. Nothing else does.
Sure it will.
But the *answer* is: "better for our democratic country, by the *objective standards by which voting and vote-counting systems are evaluated*", and there are such standards, and nobody much disagrees with them, that I'm aware of.
We covered it, 2 years ago:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/07/0029224&tid=266
For competing with Protools, wouldn't Ardour be a better choice?
> To me the conflict is between the secrecy of the ballot and the ability to verify results. If there is no way to link a completed ballot to an eligible voter, you can never be 100% sure.
Correct. But there are ways to do even that, most of which, alas, involve crypto that the civilians won't trust.
"The love of money" is the root of all evil.
Getting that particular quote right matters.
If you are suggesting that such stories are apocryphal *merely* because Republicans are in the lead... then you've made the point, because they are documentarily not apocryphal, and you are clearly so implying merely because you're a Republican partisan.
Read, um, *the links in the lede*.
No.
It was the Help America Vote (The Way We Want Them To) Act that is responsible for most of it.
If you design the system properly (no counting in the terminals at *all*; they merely remember ballots, count printed ballots and spoils, and speak to blind people), then it doesn't matter: you have a Physical Vote, and *humans* can read it and count it if necessary, cause it's printed in OCR-A.
> However, I would actually consider the inability to have a recount a positive. It saves money for the taxpayer and reduces confusion and legal challenges after the election.
You sound like Tampa mayor Pam Iorio, who actually said that in public, and still got elected.
Would you both please go jump off a bridge, now?
Everyone else, repeat after me:
A VOTE IS A PHYSICAL OBJECT.
That's your mantra; use it well.
"Fruit Bat Fellatio".
Don't you read Slashdot?
> But wait, that's not the end of the good news.
There. FTFY.
You couldn't ship pets as cargo without special handling *cause the cargo compartments weren't heated*, and got down to 40F or below.
I find these conflicting reports most conflicting.
to ask someone from Rosenet, in Thomasville GA, who have NATted *all their customers* for some years now.
I expect they've learned all the necessary lessons.
Certainly, this is grandstanding. Just like 75% of what comes off the hill.
The compression *is the source of the problem*, AC.
And note: they *are* at the same volume: measured by *peak level*. The peak levels of the commercial never get any louder than the peak level of the program, cause both are about 95% deviation
See also: audio compression.
Cause it ties the playback loudness of the commercials to *what program material surrounds them*: the same spot could play louder during Footday Night Monball than during CSI, frex.
FCC wisely ducked this, last time.
What will the Senate do next, vote to reduce gravity, so overweight people can get around more easily?
Amusingly, I read that as "a technical presentation on mendacity by Mark Zuckerberg".
It *is* a security mechanism: you can't Ping Of Death a machine that doesn't have a routable address from the public Internet.
That doesn't say it's a *sufficient* security mechanism for any specific threat, but saying simply that it is *not* one is ignorant.
Wow. DJB misunderstands something?
Say it ain't so, Joe!
(His piece, written in his usual "I am not at all nuts" style, assumes that IPv6 is *solely* a new "address space", and not an entire replacement protocol.
(While that might have been a better design, smarter people than me decided it wasn't practical to approach it that way, so listing the ways in which that wasn't well implemented is useless, since *that wasn't what they were TRYING to implement*; the entire page is a strawman.)
"Man gets 10 years for felony commercial theft of service".
There. FTFY.
No hacking involved here; nothing to see; move along.
When manufacturers start *printing "No HFCS!" on packaging*, your ship has pretty much sailed, folks.