The simple truth is there is NO excuse for not using paper copy to double check any electronic voting machines except that the republicans are afraid of re-count vo
The simple truth is that if you need paper copy for your electronic voting machines, you can simplify the system by leaving out the electronic voting machines.
So, V1 + K1 != R1. Were the votes counted correctly, or fudged? And if fudged, where? V1, K1, R1?
Or are you suggesting that if V1+k1 != R1, the vote count should be invalidated? Easy to abuse, that - if you're in a district dominated by the other party, go vote, but cast no vote. Then V1 + K1 != R1, and the other side loses more votes than your side does.
In reality, the only way this situation will change is to start voting for third party candidates.
The only way out of this situation is to elect some third party House and Senate members. Assuming that you can do anything meaningful to the duopoly in a Presidential election is absurd. Main thing you'd accomplish if you managed to elect a third-party President without significant third-party support in Congress would be to demonstrate just how little power the President actually has.
They have degenerated into a 3-day infomercial paid for by the taxpayers
Kind of ironic that you'd say that. The Conventions are partially federally funded because too many people squalled at the previous private funding (you know, by "special interests") of the Conventions. That said, the Conventions are largely a waste of time - have been since the reformers managed to convince the Parties to use primary elections to pick the candidates.
Actually, that's a question I desparately need an answer to. Why are ATMs more secure and trustworthy? (or at least, seen to be more secure) then voting machines?
ATM's don't require anonymity. They require the opposite. And any given transaction only affects one person (well, more than one for a joint account, and I suppose the bank might count as yet another). Consider the likelihood that an ATM would be acceptable if all the money were tossed into one big pool, and noone was allowed to know just who put money into or took money out of that big pool....
You probably haven't been looking in the right place.
I confess that our electronic voting machines, which have been in use at least the 14 years I have voted in La., are still working just fine, thank you. Amazingly enough, both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans (and even the odd independent or three - and they get VERY odd down here) have been elected with them.
That said, I don't really see the advantage of electronic voting machines, myself. Paper and Pen ballots, and immutable procedures for recounts seem to work everywhere they have been tried.
No, history hasn't shown any such thing. Nor did Iraq show such. It's not like the American forces came under heavy bombardments of the kind they were dishing out. Showing that Iraqi conscripts (and their volunteer officers) panicked when bombarded says little about the difference between volunteers and conscripts, since the volunteer force you are using in comparison (UK and US) didn't get bombarded in return.
"Am I prepared to die for this cause?" Interesting question. Not meaningful, but interesting. If you think you know the answer before the first shell lands near you, you are a fool.
I volunteered to be in the USNavy many years ago. Never had the chance to find out whether I could handle combat, since I was never exposed to any back then. I don't pretend to think that my volunteering made me a "better" man than, say, a conscripted German sergeant in Holland in 1944.
California is one of the places where I've seen minimum speed signs. Note, however, that I didn't specify minimum speeds for highways only. ALL ROADS should have them
Answer: Neither. Alas, being a willing volunteer in no way prepares one for his first taste of an artillery barrage. Or his first taste of inbound machinegun fire. Nor does being conscripted by force of law make one LESS likely to be able to deal with those events.
Training, training, training. That's all there is, or ever was to the subject. The USA uses the doctrine of "Train like you fight", meaning make training as much like "real combat" as possible. Even so, it is impractical, for a lot of reasons, to bombard your men in training. Hard on the men, if nothing else.
Now, it must be conceded that a long-service professional army tends to be better trained. That is, however, not because they are volunteers, but because they are "long service".
And it's not necessarily true. Most officer corps consist of volunteers, most higher officers are long-service (almost by definition, but there are other ways to get high rank), yet officers (especially junior officers) are as likely to panic under fire as anyone.
The US War Between the States is a useful study when looking at the difference between professional soldiers, volunteers, and conscripts. This because both sides had units that fit each of the three categories. In any given battle, some units of each side would be professional, some volunteer, some conscripts. The only general lesson to be learned about how they stood up to battle was that those units with the longest combat histories tended to suffer fewer casualties, given the same situation and the same orders.
I don't count the UK as European. The UK traditionally used a long service professional army, and only resorted to conscription in time of war. Perhaps I should have separated out Continental Europeans from you lads in Britain...
And yet...
WW2 was fought with conscripts on both sides.
whatever that action in 1919 in Russia was called - the one the Brits/French/Amis did against the Reds.
As was WW1.
the Franco-Prussian Wars.
the Crimean War
the "Napoleanic Wars" in general.
To guarantee dedication under fire
You CANNOT guarantee dedication under fire. All you can do it make it more or less likely. Training does that, and experience. The method of picking people to train doesn't do much one way or another.
Note that a wartime draft does not, of itself, imply the sort of conscription used to maintain a large pool of trained men. As often as not, wartime drafts were used to allocate men equitably among the services, glamourous and otherwise.
Tobacco is sold because people want to buy it despite being told how dangerous it is
No. A lot of things that people want aren't sold (legally, at least). Some things aren't sold at all (weapon-grade U-235, as an example). The fact that people want something does not, in and of itself, imply that it will be available, legally or otherwise.
Wasn't saying the government was evil. Saying that government in general has characteristic evils. There are things that are as natural to government as breathing is to humans.
Collecting taxes is one.
Adding laws without ever subtracting laws is another.
Some of these inherent behaviours are good things. Some aren't. The tax one qualifies under "some aren't". Governments will, in general, not give up a source of tax revenue if they can possibly help it. Which is why most people rightly distrust "tax reform"....
Tobacco is sold not because of the evil of corporations, but because of the evil of government.
In this particular case, the tobacco tax revenues are so large that none of the governments involved want to lose them by making tobacco a controlled substance. Which they could do quite easily. Pass a law giving the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, and wait for the FDA to ban it (which they would pretty much have to do, since it is addictive and a carcinogen).
Course, we'd probably get a thriving black-market in tobacco if we did that. But we won't. Check out how much tobacco taxes your state/national government gets, and decide for yourself if they'll ever kill the goose...
Because they're conscripts, by definition they don't want to be there
No. COnscription is merely a technique for ensuring a large pool of people with fundamental military skills, in case of conflict.
It has been the preferred method for Europeans for centuries. It works fairly well, all things considered.
Note that the US Draft, when we had one, was not especially like the European Conscription systems. Note also that European-style conscription fits the citizen-soldier model quite well, unlike the professional army we have traditionally used in the USA.
The (presumably intentional) extreme case you describe doesn't really need either 30 minutes or a black box. The driver will be dead, the autopsy will reveal whether he was drunk or stoned when he died.
Keep in mind that we were arguably safer, as a species (or even the U.S. as a nation), during the cold war.
Yah, true enough. "Arguably" is the key word, of course.
During the Cold War, we could be pretty sure that noone was doing much of anything without the approval of one Great Power or the other. Which at least gave us the security of knowing who to talk to about problems. Now, we find ourselves fighting a fog - nothing concrete to strike at that will definitively deal with the problem.
I recently read an estimate that AQ had ~20,000 lads in arms now. Almost a division's worth. If they gathered in one place for three days, the War on Terror would be over. But scattered into 5000 discrete cells is a whole 'nuther ball game.
And, unfortunately, people have been feeding them. Spanish and Philippino pullouts from Iraq (while perfectly understandable, when I put on my Spanish/Philippino Thinking Cap (tm)) have encouraged a rash of hostage situations. Which WILL result in more groups/nations pulling back. Which will encourage yet more of the tactic. Encouraging the bad guys to do bad things (by making the bad things effective) is, well, bad....
As a non-American (but citizen of a supposed ally), the U.S. military's superiority makes me a little nervous when coupled with their "might-makes-right" attitude
I agree completely. You should start lobbying for your own country to increase military spending (and your military size) to the point that you can meet the US Military on equal terms (or, at least, near equal).
Probably noone but the EU could afford to do it, though. So push for an EU Military as large as the US Military. Or, if you're Russian, Chinese, or Indian, push for both more military spending and trade/economic policies that allow said military expansion.
Keep in mind that several really large militaries might increase the chances of an unpleasant altercation, but that's a small price to pay for a multipolar world.
Alternatively, you can continue as is. Much more likely, I think, as the world has gotten quite happy with a very low level of military spending in the presence of the 800# gorilla.
I'd like to know what kind and what caliber of machine gun rounds we're talking about, though.
Likely, they're talking about 7.62 or smaller. That would cover most modern machine guns (Browning M2 and that Soviet thing in 14.5mm are about the only exceptions I can think of), and be reasonably achievable.
Well, no. We changed our patent laws to be a closer match to the European ones some years back. Not for something as obvious as patentability issues, but minor things like terms and such
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned.
on
Blackhat/Defcon Report
·
· Score: 1
Not sure why we settled on "czar" for a single grand pooh-bah. Probably letover rhetoric from the Cold War years.
His job title would probably Secretary of Intelligence, if it weren't for all the jokes the title leaves room for.
Re:What police/intelligence agencies have learned.
on
Blackhat/Defcon Report
·
· Score: 1
The new intelligence czar is a response to the 9/11 commission report, where they specifically recommended such.
Personally, I mislike the idea intensely, as it reminds me a bit much of J Edgar back in the day....
"They are different. You have to pay 'X' and they don't",
Not necessarily. Non-discriminatory licensing is not actually required. I can license my patent to MS for $10 per copy, and to Linux for free, and to my little brother for $1000, if that floats my boat. If I had a patent.
Not that I am trying to imply that MS will do "the Right Thing" (whatever that is) with its patent arsenal.
I agree. Wonder how long (given that this first iteration works as intended) before they replace the existing service module on the Soyuz with something that can enter/leave lunar orbit? Then they'll just be a lander away from putting people on the ground.
I'm not particularly fond of some of the Soyuz design, but it's a good spacecraft, and could be adapted into a lunar craft if they want to make the effort.
These types of things always make me wonder whether or not i'd go even if i knew i would die
My daughter will graduate highschool soon, so I'm not really at liberty to do something hazardous and frivolous. But absent that constraint, I'd go in a heartbeat!
The mission is a complete lunacy. Their booster stage docks to Soyuz on its front and acceleration commences with the austronaughts hanging on the belts in their seats in the direction opposite to the normal. Even if the spacecraft survives, you will not. You will have your neck broken even prior to the "Return to Earth" phase.
You'll only have your neck broken if they pull enough G's in boost-phase to do something like that. Since they're starting from orbit, they don't have to pull high G's to enter a lunar transition orbit.
just they would have been showing support instead of forcing support
How is this "forcing support"? If you don't want to support it, don't. If few enough bother to support it, they keep the hack private. Since the hack is their IP, they can do that.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple truth is that if you need paper copy for your electronic voting machines, you can simplify the system by leaving out the electronic voting machines.
Or are you suggesting that if V1+k1 != R1, the vote count should be invalidated? Easy to abuse, that - if you're in a district dominated by the other party, go vote, but cast no vote. Then V1 + K1 != R1, and the other side loses more votes than your side does.
The only way out of this situation is to elect some third party House and Senate members. Assuming that you can do anything meaningful to the duopoly in a Presidential election is absurd. Main thing you'd accomplish if you managed to elect a third-party President without significant third-party support in Congress would be to demonstrate just how little power the President actually has.
They have degenerated into a 3-day infomercial paid for by the taxpayers
Kind of ironic that you'd say that. The Conventions are partially federally funded because too many people squalled at the previous private funding (you know, by "special interests") of the Conventions. That said, the Conventions are largely a waste of time - have been since the reformers managed to convince the Parties to use primary elections to pick the candidates.
ATM's don't require anonymity. They require the opposite. And any given transaction only affects one person (well, more than one for a joint account, and I suppose the bank might count as yet another). Consider the likelihood that an ATM would be acceptable if all the money were tossed into one big pool, and noone was allowed to know just who put money into or took money out of that big pool....
I confess that our electronic voting machines, which have been in use at least the 14 years I have voted in La., are still working just fine, thank you. Amazingly enough, both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans (and even the odd independent or three - and they get VERY odd down here) have been elected with them.
That said, I don't really see the advantage of electronic voting machines, myself. Paper and Pen ballots, and immutable procedures for recounts seem to work everywhere they have been tried.
No, history hasn't shown any such thing. Nor did Iraq show such. It's not like the American forces came under heavy bombardments of the kind they were dishing out. Showing that Iraqi conscripts (and their volunteer officers) panicked when bombarded says little about the difference between volunteers and conscripts, since the volunteer force you are using in comparison (UK and US) didn't get bombarded in return.
"Am I prepared to die for this cause?" Interesting question. Not meaningful, but interesting. If you think you know the answer before the first shell lands near you, you are a fool.
I volunteered to be in the USNavy many years ago. Never had the chance to find out whether I could handle combat, since I was never exposed to any back then. I don't pretend to think that my volunteering made me a "better" man than, say, a conscripted German sergeant in Holland in 1944.
California is one of the places where I've seen minimum speed signs. Note, however, that I didn't specify minimum speeds for highways only. ALL ROADS should have them
Training, training, training. That's all there is, or ever was to the subject. The USA uses the doctrine of "Train like you fight", meaning make training as much like "real combat" as possible. Even so, it is impractical, for a lot of reasons, to bombard your men in training. Hard on the men, if nothing else.
Now, it must be conceded that a long-service professional army tends to be better trained. That is, however, not because they are volunteers, but because they are "long service".
And it's not necessarily true. Most officer corps consist of volunteers, most higher officers are long-service (almost by definition, but there are other ways to get high rank), yet officers (especially junior officers) are as likely to panic under fire as anyone.
The US War Between the States is a useful study when looking at the difference between professional soldiers, volunteers, and conscripts. This because both sides had units that fit each of the three categories. In any given battle, some units of each side would be professional, some volunteer, some conscripts. The only general lesson to be learned about how they stood up to battle was that those units with the longest combat histories tended to suffer fewer casualties, given the same situation and the same orders.
And yet...
WW2 was fought with conscripts on both sides.
whatever that action in 1919 in Russia was called - the one the Brits/French/Amis did against the Reds.
As was WW1.
the Franco-Prussian Wars.
the Crimean War
the "Napoleanic Wars" in general.
To guarantee dedication under fire
You CANNOT guarantee dedication under fire. All you can do it make it more or less likely. Training does that, and experience. The method of picking people to train doesn't do much one way or another.
Note that a wartime draft does not, of itself, imply the sort of conscription used to maintain a large pool of trained men. As often as not, wartime drafts were used to allocate men equitably among the services, glamourous and otherwise.
No. A lot of things that people want aren't sold (legally, at least). Some things aren't sold at all (weapon-grade U-235, as an example). The fact that people want something does not, in and of itself, imply that it will be available, legally or otherwise.
Wasn't saying the government was evil. Saying that government in general has characteristic evils. There are things that are as natural to government as breathing is to humans.
Collecting taxes is one.
Adding laws without ever subtracting laws is another.
Some of these inherent behaviours are good things. Some aren't. The tax one qualifies under "some aren't". Governments will, in general, not give up a source of tax revenue if they can possibly help it. Which is why most people rightly distrust "tax reform"....
Tobacco is sold not because of the evil of corporations, but because of the evil of government.
In this particular case, the tobacco tax revenues are so large that none of the governments involved want to lose them by making tobacco a controlled substance. Which they could do quite easily. Pass a law giving the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, and wait for the FDA to ban it (which they would pretty much have to do, since it is addictive and a carcinogen).
Course, we'd probably get a thriving black-market in tobacco if we did that. But we won't. Check out how much tobacco taxes your state/national government gets, and decide for yourself if they'll ever kill the goose...
No. COnscription is merely a technique for ensuring a large pool of people with fundamental military skills, in case of conflict.
It has been the preferred method for Europeans for centuries. It works fairly well, all things considered.
Note that the US Draft, when we had one, was not especially like the European Conscription systems. Note also that European-style conscription fits the citizen-soldier model quite well, unlike the professional army we have traditionally used in the USA.
The (presumably intentional) extreme case you describe doesn't really need either 30 minutes or a black box. The driver will be dead, the autopsy will reveal whether he was drunk or stoned when he died.
If that were true, there would be lower-speed limits on all roads. Some Interstates have them, most roads don't.
But, for the most part, I still believe speed limits are about revenue enhancement, with safety as a secondary concern and fig-leaf.
Yah, true enough. "Arguably" is the key word, of course.
During the Cold War, we could be pretty sure that noone was doing much of anything without the approval of one Great Power or the other. Which at least gave us the security of knowing who to talk to about problems. Now, we find ourselves fighting a fog - nothing concrete to strike at that will definitively deal with the problem.
I recently read an estimate that AQ had ~20,000 lads in arms now. Almost a division's worth. If they gathered in one place for three days, the War on Terror would be over. But scattered into 5000 discrete cells is a whole 'nuther ball game.
And, unfortunately, people have been feeding them. Spanish and Philippino pullouts from Iraq (while perfectly understandable, when I put on my Spanish/Philippino Thinking Cap (tm)) have encouraged a rash of hostage situations. Which WILL result in more groups/nations pulling back. Which will encourage yet more of the tactic. Encouraging the bad guys to do bad things (by making the bad things effective) is, well, bad....
I agree completely. You should start lobbying for your own country to increase military spending (and your military size) to the point that you can meet the US Military on equal terms (or, at least, near equal).
Probably noone but the EU could afford to do it, though. So push for an EU Military as large as the US Military. Or, if you're Russian, Chinese, or Indian, push for both more military spending and trade/economic policies that allow said military expansion.
Keep in mind that several really large militaries might increase the chances of an unpleasant altercation, but that's a small price to pay for a multipolar world.
Alternatively, you can continue as is. Much more likely, I think, as the world has gotten quite happy with a very low level of military spending in the presence of the 800# gorilla.
Likely, they're talking about 7.62 or smaller. That would cover most modern machine guns (Browning M2 and that Soviet thing in 14.5mm are about the only exceptions I can think of), and be reasonably achievable.
Well, no. We changed our patent laws to be a closer match to the European ones some years back. Not for something as obvious as patentability issues, but minor things like terms and such
His job title would probably Secretary of Intelligence, if it weren't for all the jokes the title leaves room for.
Personally, I mislike the idea intensely, as it reminds me a bit much of J Edgar back in the day....
Not necessarily. Non-discriminatory licensing is not actually required. I can license my patent to MS for $10 per copy, and to Linux for free, and to my little brother for $1000, if that floats my boat. If I had a patent.
Not that I am trying to imply that MS will do "the Right Thing" (whatever that is) with its patent arsenal.
I'm not particularly fond of some of the Soyuz design, but it's a good spacecraft, and could be adapted into a lunar craft if they want to make the effort.
These types of things always make me wonder whether or not i'd go even if i knew i would die
My daughter will graduate highschool soon, so I'm not really at liberty to do something hazardous and frivolous. But absent that constraint, I'd go in a heartbeat!
You'll only have your neck broken if they pull enough G's in boost-phase to do something like that. Since they're starting from orbit, they don't have to pull high G's to enter a lunar transition orbit.
No, it does, however, advance the study of the study of physics.
How is this "forcing support"? If you don't want to support it, don't. If few enough bother to support it, they keep the hack private. Since the hack is their IP, they can do that.