A voter marks their ballot with a black pencil, puts it into the secrecy envelope and seals that. Then that envelope gets put into the return envelope, which the voter must sign on the back. Only signed and verified envelopes are opened and the secrecy envelopes with the ballots in them are taken to the optical scanning machines to be tallied.
So how is such a vote, cast at home and sent in by mail not respect the voter's secrecy?
There might be somebody else in your home, holding a gun to your head and demanding that you vote a certain way, and nobody else would know.
it's only been six weeks since the u.s. election -- and already people are forgetting the importance of anonymity.
in the united states, indeed in every western democracy, ballots are secret. no one questions this anonymity -- indeed, it's mandated by law.
This is highly limited anonymity. You know what an election with real anonymity would look like? Everybody would be able to vote as often as they'd like. Because nobody would know you'd already voted.
Do you think a truly anonymous election would be fair? Anonymity has its place. As does accountability.
It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again.
So together, you and GP could agree with Esther Dyson (whoever she is). Anonymity needs to be possible in order to fight evil, but most people won't actually need it most of the time, and it'll only make them behave like total assholes.
Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?
Why would you encourage it if it doesn't affect anyone?
The thing is, anonymity and the lack thereof have lots of effects, both positive and negative. In an oppressive regime, anonymity lets you criticise the government. On the other hand, lack of anonymity means people know who they're talking to. If somebody keeps saying smart things, they might want to elect him president or something like that.
So both anonymity and the lack thereof each have their uses. And, like abortion, in the ideal case anonymity shouldn't be necessary, but we don't live in an ideal world. Both should not be standard or common, but should still be legal. So I agree wholeheartedly with this Esther Dyson (if that is her real name).
Just because scientists can be poor politicians, it doesn't mean all are, and this bright guy could just maybe have skills in both departments.
It's certainly not unheard of. The current Dutch minister of science and education is a respected scientist, and he's one of the best ministers we've got, and probably one of the best we've ever had in that department.
On the other hand, our prime minister used to be a professor, and he's a complete idiot and a bumbling fool (despite his 7 year reign).
An expanding system of product taxes if taken to infinity IS socialism
No. Not when it's done for the profit of wealthy corporations. Socialism is by definition about a more equal distribution of wealth, not about funding a corporate oligarchy.
I think you should look up the concept of civil disobedience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience).
Of course, it means that one would publicly violate the law and face the consequences directly, not break the law in secret for self gain.
Exactly. There's a big, big difference between publicly breaking a law out of protest against that law, and breaking it secretly for personal gain. I have a lot of respect for people who do the former, and none whatsoever for those who do the latter.
Is the government as productive with money as a private business?
In some cases, it is. A lot of private businesses (particularly very large ones) are extremely inefficient, and only survive due to economies of scale. I did a job at a large bank once, and it's enough to poke your brain out.
Similarly, there are some parts of government that are very efficient, even in the big bureaucratic parts. My wife works for the Dutch immigration service (IND), and while some parts of the IND are very inefficient indeed, the ones where she's worked are as efficient as any large organisation could hope to be. And she's constantly trying to improve on it.
Unfortunately that doesn't quite weigh up to the parts of government where billions are being wasted on absolutely nothing. (Like that new OV chip card, the overly luxurious UWV building some years ago, or dozens of other well known and lesser known examples.)
I think the biggest barrier to growth is the lack of music talent now compared to the times past which saw explosive growth in the 70's and 80's.
There's just as much talent now as there was in the '70s. Don't forget there was also quite a lot of crap in the '70s, but that's not what gets remembered. We remember the classics. There was an enormous amount of crap in the 80s that nobody remembers anymore (except for Rick Astley).
And then there's the fact that record companies don't like to invest in new artist (except for artists they created and control), so new artists have to work really hard to get any exposure. Well, I'm sure this effect also existed in the '70s, but maybe it's gotten stronger now.
At least, it did until recently. Now all of a sudden completely unknown artists can get exposure on MySpace or YouTube and score a big hit. Artists and customers in control, which is the way it should be. And that is exactly the biggest fear of the record companies: we're about to cut out the middle man who used to decide who succeeds and what we listen to.
I disagree. Have them start with high level or logical stuff (Ruby, Python, any functional language), and if they remain interested, they'll want to know what happens under the hood later anyway.
Besides, what happens under the hood isn't C, it's assembly. (Well, almost.)
I would prefer Java over VB, to teach idea of cross platform performance, while still having a few GUI APIs available from the standard Java SDK to enable them free visual expression.
No, Java is way too verbose. I'd start with a language where you don't have to write a new class for every little thing you do. I'd go with either a functional language, or a much cleaner OO language like Ruby or Python.
While I don't disagree with your suggestions of Logo, LISP, Scala, F#, Erlang, and Haskell, Hackity Hack is a kit that uses Ruby to teach kids to program. It looks kinda cool, and a nice place to start.
(And I'm not boasting here, I was in a gifted program in elementary and early high school, then shortly burned out midway through high school.)
I'm not good at studying and it's catching up with me now in university. Hmm... maybe this is an Ask Slashdot...
Let me answer that one right now: you're not the only one. I never did any homework in high school and graduated with very nice grades, but in university I discovered that meant I'd never learned to actually work. High school should have been a lot harder. Or more challenging, is perhaps a better way of putting it.
I don't think it's worth attributing the teacher's support of Windows to some kind of fanatical support of union directives. From postal workers to teachers, truckers to plumbers, in my admittedly anecdotal experience I've found that the average professional has very little clue about his union's sources of funds and its goals.
I agree. I think Ken Starks' letter wasn't really all that well written, and might convince the teacher she's dealing with a bunch on loonies. Insisting on a Union conspiracy to increase the Windows user base is the wrong way to handle this.
Besides, the really scary bit here is that a teacher is discouraging students to be interested in computers and new ways of doing things. He should have focused on that, after pointing out that Linux is as legal as it can get, and how it's better than Windows in a lot of ways.
Instead he hangs his argument on the silly (and probably false) claim that the teacher is part of a conspiracy, which will only invalidate his entire argument in the eyes of the teacher.
What I'd also like to know is what the kid's parents think of teachers who take away their son's stuff and try to discourage him from learning about computers. That's the real way to get some heads rolling.
This was plotted of course, while the US was actively in a SHOOTING WAR to help out muslems in another country (Baltics) that were being persecuted and killed by christians.
Among all the other ignorance in your post, this one really stands out. I don't think the US has ever been in a shooting war in the Baltics. You're probably confusing the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) with Bosnia (part of former Yugoslavia).
I know what you mean, and I am aware of the apparent discrepancy in my statement. I view it more as being "Right" on the Authoritarian scale (assuming that an Authoritarian scale would be on a horizontal axis).
Being mostly left-libertarian, I'm also inclined to see authoritarianism as right-wing, but that's misleading, because right-wing libertarians tend to equal authoritarianism with socialism.
Many people who label themselves as "Right" or "Conservative" are in fact very socialist in their policies when it suits their agenda (i.e. Sarah Palin distributes the Alaskan oil wealth to other Alaskans and Bush gives out handouts to billion dollar businesses and tax breaks to the rich; not to mention Pork Belly).
I don't see what's socialist about supporting the rich. That's exactly the opposite of socialism. It's state-capitalism, corporatism or fascism, but definitely not socialism.
"Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty." - Pope John Paul II
Considering God's reaction to discovering that Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge and had become embarrassed at being naked, I'd even argue that if we want to be closer to God we shouldn't be wearing anything anyway.
There are christian naturists who agree. A few of them even go as far as organising naked church services.
You don't need to be a communist to be against censorship, but there is a high correlation between authoritarianism and the Right Wing movement/governments.
Authoritarian - libertarian is completely orthogonal to left - right (or socialist - capitalist, if you like). There are some really scary right wingers who nevertheless oppose authoritarianism.
therefore conservatives HAVE to be FOR network neutrality, if they ever want a FREE and FAIR MARKET in which people can actually have a chance of making money.
But conservatives don't want a fair and free market, they want a market that's dominated by their big business buddies. A market that's free for the big players.
At least, that's the impression I'm getting from US republicans. I'm hoping it's not as universal as it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
A voter marks their ballot with a black pencil, puts it into the secrecy envelope and seals that. Then that envelope gets put into the return envelope, which the voter must sign on the back. Only signed and verified envelopes are opened and the secrecy envelopes with the ballots in them are taken to the optical scanning machines to be tallied.
So how is such a vote, cast at home and sent in by mail not respect the voter's secrecy?
There might be somebody else in your home, holding a gun to your head and demanding that you vote a certain way, and nobody else would know.
it's only been six weeks since the u.s. election -- and already people are forgetting the importance of anonymity.
in the united states, indeed in every western democracy, ballots are secret. no one questions this anonymity -- indeed, it's mandated by law.
This is highly limited anonymity. You know what an election with real anonymity would look like? Everybody would be able to vote as often as they'd like. Because nobody would know you'd already voted.
Do you think a truly anonymous election would be fair? Anonymity has its place. As does accountability.
It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again.
So together, you and GP could agree with Esther Dyson (whoever she is). Anonymity needs to be possible in order to fight evil, but most people won't actually need it most of the time, and it'll only make them behave like total assholes.
Accountability is important, but so is anonymity.
Oh cool. Is this the start of a new internet meme?
I first saw that post only a few days ago (despite it apparently being over a year old).
Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?
Why would you encourage it if it doesn't affect anyone?
The thing is, anonymity and the lack thereof have lots of effects, both positive and negative. In an oppressive regime, anonymity lets you criticise the government. On the other hand, lack of anonymity means people know who they're talking to. If somebody keeps saying smart things, they might want to elect him president or something like that.
So both anonymity and the lack thereof each have their uses. And, like abortion, in the ideal case anonymity shouldn't be necessary, but we don't live in an ideal world. Both should not be standard or common, but should still be legal. So I agree wholeheartedly with this Esther Dyson (if that is her real name).
How to fix Detriot? Force them to make cars no one wants to buy!
Weren't they already doing that?
Just because scientists can be poor politicians, it doesn't mean all are, and this bright guy could just maybe have skills in both departments.
It's certainly not unheard of. The current Dutch minister of science and education is a respected scientist, and he's one of the best ministers we've got, and probably one of the best we've ever had in that department.
On the other hand, our prime minister used to be a professor, and he's a complete idiot and a bumbling fool (despite his 7 year reign).
Au contraire.
An expanding system of product taxes if taken to infinity IS socialism
No. Not when it's done for the profit of wealthy corporations. Socialism is by definition about a more equal distribution of wealth, not about funding a corporate oligarchy.
I think you should look up the concept of civil disobedience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience).
Of course, it means that one would publicly violate the law and face the consequences directly, not break the law in secret for self gain.
Exactly. There's a big, big difference between publicly breaking a law out of protest against that law, and breaking it secretly for personal gain. I have a lot of respect for people who do the former, and none whatsoever for those who do the latter.
No, no, no, the ??? goes before the Profit. :)
I think they've got the ??? figured out already.
1. Complain how downloading is unfair
2. Make everybody pay music tax to us
3. Profit!
Is the government as productive with money as a private business?
In some cases, it is. A lot of private businesses (particularly very large ones) are extremely inefficient, and only survive due to economies of scale. I did a job at a large bank once, and it's enough to poke your brain out.
Similarly, there are some parts of government that are very efficient, even in the big bureaucratic parts. My wife works for the Dutch immigration service (IND), and while some parts of the IND are very inefficient indeed, the ones where she's worked are as efficient as any large organisation could hope to be. And she's constantly trying to improve on it.
Unfortunately that doesn't quite weigh up to the parts of government where billions are being wasted on absolutely nothing. (Like that new OV chip card, the overly luxurious UWV building some years ago, or dozens of other well known and lesser known examples.)
I think the biggest barrier to growth is the lack of music talent now compared to the times past which saw explosive growth in the 70's and 80's.
There's just as much talent now as there was in the '70s. Don't forget there was also quite a lot of crap in the '70s, but that's not what gets remembered. We remember the classics. There was an enormous amount of crap in the 80s that nobody remembers anymore (except for Rick Astley).
And then there's the fact that record companies don't like to invest in new artist (except for artists they created and control), so new artists have to work really hard to get any exposure. Well, I'm sure this effect also existed in the '70s, but maybe it's gotten stronger now.
At least, it did until recently. Now all of a sudden completely unknown artists can get exposure on MySpace or YouTube and score a big hit. Artists and customers in control, which is the way it should be. And that is exactly the biggest fear of the record companies: we're about to cut out the middle man who used to decide who succeeds and what we listen to.
I disagree. Have them start with high level or logical stuff (Ruby, Python, any functional language), and if they remain interested, they'll want to know what happens under the hood later anyway.
Besides, what happens under the hood isn't C, it's assembly. (Well, almost.)
I would prefer Java over VB, to teach idea of cross platform performance, while still having a few GUI APIs available from the standard Java SDK to enable them free visual expression.
No, Java is way too verbose. I'd start with a language where you don't have to write a new class for every little thing you do. I'd go with either a functional language, or a much cleaner OO language like Ruby or Python.
Modern Basics don't have line numbers. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure the original BASIC had line numbers either.
Then how can you do GOTO 10 if you don't have line numbers?
While I don't disagree with your suggestions of Logo, LISP, Scala, F#, Erlang, and Haskell, Hackity Hack is a kit that uses Ruby to teach kids to program. It looks kinda cool, and a nice place to start.
(And I'm not boasting here, I was in a gifted program in elementary and early high school, then shortly burned out midway through high school.)
I'm not good at studying and it's catching up with me now in university. Hmm... maybe this is an Ask Slashdot...
Let me answer that one right now: you're not the only one. I never did any homework in high school and graduated with very nice grades, but in university I discovered that meant I'd never learned to actually work. High school should have been a lot harder. Or more challenging, is perhaps a better way of putting it.
I don't think it's worth attributing the teacher's support of Windows to some kind of fanatical support of union directives. From postal workers to teachers, truckers to plumbers, in my admittedly anecdotal experience I've found that the average professional has very little clue about his union's sources of funds and its goals.
I agree. I think Ken Starks' letter wasn't really all that well written, and might convince the teacher she's dealing with a bunch on loonies. Insisting on a Union conspiracy to increase the Windows user base is the wrong way to handle this.
Besides, the really scary bit here is that a teacher is discouraging students to be interested in computers and new ways of doing things. He should have focused on that, after pointing out that Linux is as legal as it can get, and how it's better than Windows in a lot of ways.
Instead he hangs his argument on the silly (and probably false) claim that the teacher is part of a conspiracy, which will only invalidate his entire argument in the eyes of the teacher.
What I'd also like to know is what the kid's parents think of teachers who take away their son's stuff and try to discourage him from learning about computers. That's the real way to get some heads rolling.
This was plotted of course, while the US was actively in a SHOOTING WAR to help out muslems in another country (Baltics) that were being persecuted and killed by christians.
Among all the other ignorance in your post, this one really stands out. I don't think the US has ever been in a shooting war in the Baltics. You're probably confusing the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) with Bosnia (part of former Yugoslavia).
Hey, they both start with a 'B' right?
Sadly they reported on this several times on msnbc.
And rightly so! We were led to believe that Obama was hip and cool, and now it turns out he's using a Zune. He's a liar!
I know what you mean, and I am aware of the apparent discrepancy in my statement. I view it more as being "Right" on the Authoritarian scale (assuming that an Authoritarian scale would be on a horizontal axis).
Being mostly left-libertarian, I'm also inclined to see authoritarianism as right-wing, but that's misleading, because right-wing libertarians tend to equal authoritarianism with socialism.
Many people who label themselves as "Right" or "Conservative" are in fact very socialist in their policies when it suits their agenda (i.e. Sarah Palin distributes the Alaskan oil wealth to other Alaskans and Bush gives out handouts to billion dollar businesses and tax breaks to the rich; not to mention Pork Belly).
I don't see what's socialist about supporting the rich. That's exactly the opposite of socialism. It's state-capitalism, corporatism or fascism, but definitely not socialism.
"Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty." - Pope John Paul II
Considering God's reaction to discovering that Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge and had become embarrassed at being naked, I'd even argue that if we want to be closer to God we shouldn't be wearing anything anyway.
There are christian naturists who agree. A few of them even go as far as organising naked church services.
Opposition of censorship != "left-wing"
You don't need to be a communist to be against censorship, but there is a high correlation between authoritarianism and the Right Wing movement/governments.
Authoritarian - libertarian is completely orthogonal to left - right (or socialist - capitalist, if you like). There are some really scary right wingers who nevertheless oppose authoritarianism.
Yeah. I was having a bad day. Please see later comments, this thread - TIA.
I saw them. After I posted this one, of course. That'll teach me to post before reading the entire thread.
therefore conservatives HAVE to be FOR network neutrality, if they ever want a FREE and FAIR MARKET in which people can actually have a chance of making money.
But conservatives don't want a fair and free market, they want a market that's dominated by their big business buddies. A market that's free for the big players.
At least, that's the impression I'm getting from US republicans. I'm hoping it's not as universal as it seems.