What we need is a stronger regime, one even more unafraid of manipulating silly elections. The point of elections isn't to choose a leader; it is to advertise to people that they have "chosen" their new dictator.
Unwashed masses that THINK they were somehow involved are much easier to abuse. THAT is the purpose of putting on an election performance.
Thanks for pointing out that I was too lazy to open a separate browser tab to www.m-w.com.:-)
Why only two randomly chosen readers? I assume Dems and Repubs would each contract out opposing manufacturers. I must not have worded that clearly, but that was a big part of what I was suggesting.
If there is ANY way to trace my vote to me, I can be compelled to vote a certain way. Blackmail, death threats, etc. If how I voted can be found out AFTER the election, it's still just as bad. Don't try to tell me that I wouldn't accidentally let my voter ID number slip if someone was holding a gun to my head.
The complementary scenario is where someone offers to pay $100 per vote in a certain district, payable upon proof of a certain vote. You think campaign finance laws are bad! Whoot! I think this scenario is significantly more open to abuse!
Whatever the hash is needs to be a public algorithm, but it must include the time (that card was punched) so that two people voting identically after one another would display different hashed check-sums (that would be compared against the other parties hashed checksums in step #8.) Perhaps not the hour, but only the minute and seconds. This would have to be punched on the card as well.
-------------
But not to worry. The USA do not desire accurate votes. No one wants the unwashed masses to affect the outcome anyhow. And worst of all, if verifiable elections suddenly became the norm, turnout would go from 55% to 95%! Totally unacceptable!
Problem with these is that someone can alter the scantron card after-the fact (say, during the recount phase.) Adding a second choice makes that entire card now an invalid vote.
If the idea is to accurately count the voter's intentions (how absurd) this would work better:
1) Voter checks in at front desk, signs voter registration and is given a punch card.
2) Voter enters a voting booth, and inserts blank card.
3) Voter enters their vote choices on touch screen (with pictures of candidates even!) and when done, card is automatically punched with appropriate votes.
4) Voter takes punch card and inserts it into a Republican card reader.
5) Voter takes card and inserts it into a Democratic card reader.
6) Voter takes card and inserts it into independent card reader.
7) Voter gives card to election offical.
8) Election offical presses a button. If results from 4 & 5 & 6 do not ALL match, voter must start over (back to step 2) with a fresh card (current card is destroyed.)
9) Card where votes match placed into old fashioned voter box for recount broo-haa-haa. (sp?)
------- But as Joseph Stalin, I would never advocate having multiple parties each having their own electronic systems in a polling place. Accurate vote counts are kind of antithetical for me.:-)
For this to become law, Bush would have to sign this right? Does ANYONE think for even a split second that this won't get veto'ed? Bwuhahahaha. What a silly waste of time, just to reiterate that Bush hates American citizens.
Do you mean to say that you think that all of the flaws were mistakes?
I fully expect that some of them were intended as 'features' that would only be available to a select few.
If the devices aren't fully open, don't trust them. If the devices are fully open, don't trust them.
This is a particularly insightful comment!
It is impossible for a vendor to be unbiased, one way or the other!
Perhaps a better system would entail three or more separate voting machines, provided and linked by different vendors. No vote would be submitted until the voting results on all three voting machines matched; from that point any discrepancies have an actual chance of receiving attention.
What am I saying? Accurate vote counting leads to silly things like popular people being elected, not the most competant, like me!
"As a technical matter, it is illegal to download a recording from another that is not yours. As a practical matter, there is no reason to do it. It is easier these days to rip a recording from a CD than to download it."
If I ever meet Matt Oppenheim, remind me to ask him to to rip vinyl LPs or cassette tapes.
It's unclear whether you inteded your post to be a troll or not, but against better judgement, I'll bite anyway...
... and I'd much rather have an accountable law enforcement agency policing copyright infringement (which is, whatever your personal ethical position, a crime according to the US Code) than RIAA and MPAA vigilantes.
When I download music using peer to peer services, I download songs that I have already purchased in the form of CD, cassette tape or album. AFAIK, that is legal fair use. I still do not understand statements (such as yours) that imply that the means themselves consititue a criminal act.
On the other hand, the copyright issues themselves are now so horribly abused by our "representatives" that they are an embarrassment to our country and constitution. None of the mass produced songs that are seeking protection are genuinely new works. They are all derivitive works that simply refuse to give recognition or credit to the original authors or folk songs. The "limited times" clause has effectively been eliminated. And for these reasons, nothing that is trying to be protected by this invasive law actually deserves protection. These works belong in the public domain.
Lots of great links there, but you left out The CIA's world fact book. They publish as much as they can so that anyone (including their own agents) can access the needed information, from anywhere.
World Fact Book
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
Slashdot Mirror
What you are describing is generally called extortion.
What we need is a stronger regime, one even more unafraid of manipulating silly elections. The point of elections isn't to choose a leader; it is to advertise to people that they have "chosen" their new dictator.
Unwashed masses that THINK they were somehow involved are much easier to abuse. THAT is the purpose of putting on an election performance.
--
I also bet he is experiencing a hardware problem. Did he run memtest86? fsck? Were they clean?
--
Nice to see you keeping an open mind. :-)
Your theory still has a serious flaw. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
--
Thanks for pointing out that I was too lazy to open a separate browser tab to www.m-w.com. :-)
Why only two randomly chosen readers? I assume Dems and Repubs would each contract out opposing manufacturers. I must not have worded that clearly, but that was a big part of what I was suggesting.
Thanks for your ontopic comment.
--
I guess you didn't understand my earlier post.
If there is ANY way to trace my vote to me, I can be compelled to vote a certain way. Blackmail, death threats, etc. If how I voted can be found out AFTER the election, it's still just as bad. Don't try to tell me that I wouldn't accidentally let my voter ID number slip if someone was holding a gun to my head.
The complementary scenario is where someone offers to pay $100 per vote in a certain district, payable upon proof of a certain vote. You think campaign finance laws are bad! Whoot! I think this scenario is significantly more open to abuse!
Meet my pals Guido and Tony...
They just want to take a look at your voter confirmation form.
You lost it? Hey Tony, break his legs.
Oh, you know where it is, eh? Let's see it. Guido, tie up his wife.
So, let's see now...
-----------
Anonymous voting is important.
Anonymous voting is important.
ANONYMOUS VOTING IS IMPORTANT!
Sheesh.
You will vote for *ME* or I will smash your head in!
Let me see your voter ID number. {beep}{boop}{beep} I see we have a little problem here comrade...
A Caveat about #8:
Whatever the hash is needs to be a public algorithm, but it must include the time (that card was punched) so that two people voting identically after one another would display different hashed check-sums (that would be compared against the other parties hashed checksums in step #8.) Perhaps not the hour, but only the minute and seconds. This would have to be punched on the card as well.
-------------
But not to worry. The USA do not desire accurate votes. No one wants the unwashed masses to affect the outcome anyhow. And worst of all, if verifiable elections suddenly became the norm, turnout would go from 55% to 95%! Totally unacceptable!
By the way,
There was a requirement in the "Ask Slashdot" that said this solution must be cheap.
BULLSHIT.
How much is YOUR vote worth to YOU? Inexpensive my ass!
Problem with these is that someone can alter the scantron card after-the fact (say, during the recount phase.) Adding a second choice makes that entire card now an invalid vote.
If the idea is to accurately count the voter's intentions (how absurd) this would work better:
:-)
1) Voter checks in at front desk, signs voter registration and is given a punch card.
2) Voter enters a voting booth, and inserts blank card.
3) Voter enters their vote choices on touch screen (with pictures of candidates even!) and when done, card is automatically punched with appropriate votes.
4) Voter takes punch card and inserts it into a Republican card reader.
5) Voter takes card and inserts it into a Democratic card reader.
6) Voter takes card and inserts it into independent card reader.
7) Voter gives card to election offical.
8) Election offical presses a button. If results from 4 & 5 & 6 do not ALL match, voter must start over (back to step 2) with a fresh card (current card is destroyed.)
9) Card where votes match placed into old fashioned voter box for recount broo-haa-haa. (sp?)
-------
But as Joseph Stalin, I would never advocate having multiple parties each having their own electronic systems in a polling place. Accurate vote counts are kind of antithetical for me.
There's no reason in an office environment for one desktop to talk directly with another.
Unless it's a small office.
It doesn't matter, the code will vote for you
And it will vote for you again and again and again...
For this to become law, Bush would have to sign this right? Does ANYONE think for even a split second that this won't get veto'ed? Bwuhahahaha. What a silly waste of time, just to reiterate that Bush hates American citizens.
I was just moderating comments, and at first, I misread the extra-large text "Moderating..." as "Masturbating..."
/. was masturbating. Nor precisely how a web server would actually do that.
I couldn't for the life of me figure out why
Maybe it's the tie I'm wearing right now...
Do you mean to say that you think that all of the flaws were mistakes?
I fully expect that some of them were intended as 'features' that would only be available to a select few.
If the devices aren't fully open, don't trust them.
If the devices are fully open, don't trust them.
This is a particularly insightful comment!
It is impossible for a vendor to be unbiased, one way or the other!
Perhaps a better system would entail three or more separate voting machines, provided and linked by different vendors. No vote would be submitted until the voting results on all three voting machines matched; from that point any discrepancies have an actual chance of receiving attention.
What am I saying? Accurate vote counting leads to silly things like popular people being elected, not the most competant, like me!
ever heard of a hierarchical database?
I program in a language called MUMPS.
MUMPS is a language and database combined.
MUMPS (the database) is in every sense a hierarcal database.
Caché is a hierarcal database (it is a language that has evolved from MUMPS and still retains the hierarcal underlying database.)
Heh. Rigged elections work for me. :-)
Thank you. That is an interesting quote...
"As a technical matter, it is illegal to download a recording from another that is not yours. As a practical matter, there is no reason to do it. It is easier these days to rip a recording from a CD than to download it."
If I ever meet Matt Oppenheim, remind me to ask him to to rip vinyl LPs or cassette tapes.
When I download music using peer to peer services, I download songs that I have already purchased in the form of CD, cassette tape or album. AFAIK, that is legal fair use. I still do not understand statements (such as yours) that imply that the means themselves consititue a criminal act.
On the other hand, the copyright issues themselves are now so horribly abused by our "representatives" that they are an embarrassment to our country and constitution. None of the mass produced songs that are seeking protection are genuinely new works. They are all derivitive works that simply refuse to give recognition or credit to the original authors or folk songs. The "limited times" clause has effectively been eliminated. And for these reasons, nothing that is trying to be protected by this invasive law actually deserves protection. These works belong in the public domain.
Lots of great links there, but you left out The CIA's world fact book. They publish as much as they can so that anyone (including their own agents) can access the needed information, from anywhere. World Fact Book http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index .html
Bwuahahahahahahahaha.
Excellently sidestepped, my apprentice.
I can.
Peasants should'nt be voting in the first place.