The paper ballots would only need to be counted in a case where the race was very close or where there was good reason to suspect fraud.
The reason for allowing the printed ballot to be examined by the voter is to ensure that the hard copy is for sure what the voter wanted.
There is also the fact that the hard copy would be an absolute persistant store, if the electronic copies got nuked for one of a host of reasons (I test software to store large amounts of data, there are lots of reason that data could go away or be written incorrectly) then you have a voter verified hard copy that can be counted.
I understand all of that.... but don't you have all of that with paper ballots?
What is the point of the cost of electronic machines?
What is the gain, vs cost? What does an electronic machine give me that a paper ballot doesn't when we are already having to use paper, verify, and use them in case instead of the system we are paying gobs of money for. (I don't remember how many gobs, if anyone wants to post it, that'd be nice.)
You don't need to identify yourself uniquely when you open up a bank account, pay your taxes, get a library card or ask the society to pay for your $20000 surgery?
Why not combine it all in a one ID, let's say a passport or a national driver's license?
Don't get me wrong, I like the ID card concept right up until something negative happens with it, which it surely will.
I'm not just wearing a tin foil hat. As long as there are no advertisements, databases, or anything whatsoever that can profit off of any information that my id card would obtain or hold.
Wouldn't it be easy for each voting booth to also print a completed paper ballot after each vote, so that the voter could verify the results? Then the electronic total could always be double-checked by using the stack of paper ballots (using a simple Scantron-type reader?)
We get the benefits (speed, etc) of electronic voting, along with the tangibility of real ballots (that are easy to read, since they are machine produced) and still maintain anonymity.
What am I missing?
If we do that, why not just keep paper ballots?
What is the point of using a computer if all of that double checking, and re-verifying is needed?
I honestly just don't see how the high cost of voting machines is worthy of such little benefit if you take away part of what was advertised.
I thought that's what social security cards where used for?
I know I sure won't see any actual money from social security, so my hard earned taxes pays for my number!
Re:Why pirates are bad
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
Pirates have always been considered bad in the strictest sense. They are those that take property of others. What Disney et al have done is romantize the Pirate for movies and the like to sell a product. They glamorize it, make it look cool, fun, exciting, and package it like anything else. All we have here is the new commercialization of something old which was bad now made to seem cool
So what you're saying is that the copy of Winzip that I just cracked will not make me handsome, and cool?..... Disney has hoodwinked us all!
Sadly, I've been meaning to download one of his exclusive tracks, and it showed up in a tenth of the time it took to rip a single track. Doh! I think Apple is trying to tell me something....
This case has been around for years and Bernstein [cr.yp.to] is a well known figure in the field of crypto research. If it was something that interested you enough to enter the story, you should have either already known about it or gone and looked up the history of the case. Google's for research, Slashdot's for current news.
Slashdot's for current news with enough information, and or links to previous stories to lead you along.
I expect when I read a story on something I've never seen before for it to at least allude to what it is talking about.
Hopefully give me links to information that will fill me in. That's what news sites do.
Slashdot Mirror
Without a doubt one receives much software with SUSE LINUX 9,0 for its money required.
Ain't that the truth.
I very much doubt your potato chips are created in that way.
Aww man, I was going to try and get on Slashdot's main page with my revolutionary home brewed micro potato chips.
But back around 1900 or so, the Supreme Court managed to grant the rights of personhood to corporations.
You cannot fire your entire staff.... We will sue you for destroying our corperate family!
Still no cure for cancer.
An AC post below you had this to say.
You don't need to create a new Internet, just a new series of root servers make your own TLD. I vote for ".fuq"
Piggy back your new TDL over the Internet infrastucture.
Would that really work? Could the EULA that Rudy mentioned really work?
Yes as the internet lives inside countries you would have to follow laws.
I'm not saying ALL laws, but specifically that one.
If I make a private internet, can companies force me to use it?
why don't we get the good folks of Enron to manage our national debt?
I'm not sure I want the cleaning staff managing the national debt.
Besides, can anyonce really trust what a Verisign Root server would send you anyways?
.... Which is what I want...
......
My guess is that it wouldn't be porn!
Porn that is....
From a server....
businesses ought to learn how to adapt
I think I saw a commercial about that. We should buy them Microsoft Servers.
They want verisgn to be incharge of the root servers
and I want to be in charge of root servers.
Who the hell is verisign? What position of authority do they have to be in charge of root servers?
Thank you for that link, an easy to use way to vote your opinion.
Who actually controls the internet? Who is the "ruling power"?
Who could decide to take the entire thing down?
Someone please explain to me who "owns" the internet, and how anyone could make the decision to commercialize it.
Also, theorectically couldn't we just create a secondary internet (is that what Internet 2 is?), create our own rules, and let that be that?
Would we have to follow laws like allowing a company to take the domain of their copyright on "our" internet?
A lot of questions.. excuse me.
The paper ballots would only need to be counted in a case where the race was very close or where there was good reason to suspect fraud.
The reason for allowing the printed ballot to be examined by the voter is to ensure that the hard copy is for sure what the voter wanted.
There is also the fact that the hard copy would be an absolute persistant store, if the electronic copies got nuked for one of a host of reasons (I test software to store large amounts of data, there are lots of reason that data could go away or be written incorrectly) then you have a voter verified hard copy that can be counted.
I understand all of that.... but don't you have all of that with paper ballots?
What is the point of the cost of electronic machines?
What is the gain, vs cost? What does an electronic machine give me that a paper ballot doesn't when we are already having to use paper, verify, and use them in case instead of the system we are paying gobs of money for. (I don't remember how many gobs, if anyone wants to post it, that'd be nice.)
Sometimes, the best tool for the job does not involve technology.
and sometimes it's a hammer with a device to automatically hit the nail.
You don't need to identify yourself uniquely when you open up a bank account, pay your taxes, get a library card or ask the society to pay for your $20000 surgery?
Why not combine it all in a one ID, let's say a passport or a national driver's license?
Don't get me wrong, I like the ID card concept right up until something negative happens with it, which it surely will.
I'm not just wearing a tin foil hat. As long as there are no advertisements, databases, or anything whatsoever that can profit off of any information that my id card would obtain or hold.
Well then, I'm jolly!
Wouldn't it be easy for each voting booth to also print a completed paper ballot after each vote, so that the voter could verify the results? Then the electronic total could always be double-checked by using the stack of paper ballots (using a simple Scantron-type reader?)
We get the benefits (speed, etc) of electronic voting, along with the tangibility of real ballots (that are easy to read, since they are machine produced) and still maintain anonymity.
What am I missing?
If we do that, why not just keep paper ballots?
What is the point of using a computer if all of that double checking, and re-verifying is needed?
I honestly just don't see how the high cost of voting machines is worthy of such little benefit if you take away part of what was advertised.
I thought that's what social security cards where used for?
I know I sure won't see any actual money from social security, so my hard earned taxes pays for my number!
Pirates have always been considered bad in the strictest sense. They are those that take property of others.
..... Disney has hoodwinked us all!
What Disney et al have done is romantize the Pirate for movies and the like to sell a product.
They glamorize it, make it look cool, fun, exciting, and package it
like anything else. All we have here is the new commercialization of something old which was bad now made to seem cool
So what you're saying is that the copy of Winzip that I just cracked will not make me handsome, and cool?
What else can you call it when you get to mention Natalie Portman, Uma Thurman, and Patrick Stewart in the same posting.
Offtopic?
Sadly, I've been meaning to download one of his exclusive tracks, and it showed up in a tenth of the time it took to rip a single track. Doh! I think Apple is trying to tell me something....
:)
Yeah, get some music taste
Well, hell froze over just before it was released, so it can't take too long...
Maybe you didn't hear, the Cubs lost.
Even if nothing else is the same, thank goodness the logo's still there. It clearly means Napster is exactly the same. What a relief!
So I do get free music???
This case has been around for years and Bernstein [cr.yp.to] is a well known figure in the field of crypto research. If it was something that interested you enough to enter the story, you should have either already known about it or gone and looked up the history of the case. Google's for research, Slashdot's for current news.
Slashdot's for current news with enough information, and or links to previous stories to lead you along.
I expect when I read a story on something I've never seen before for it to at least allude to what it is talking about.
Hopefully give me links to information that will fill me in. That's what news sites do.
That's what Slashdot (usually) does.
That you don't recognize the case or the person involved is perhaps an indication that you should do some additional research.
I thought reading Slashdot was research. My mistake, next time I will bone up on my news before reading a news site.
And that depression and anger can be harnessed into a force for change
That and rampant violence!