I repeat myself for emphasis: there are methods to produce a secret, secure, election that is verifiably correct to an arbitrary degree of certainty. If you don't understand how, do everyone a favor and follow the links and read the material.
We need to consider voting a cryptographic problem and a research area of critical interest. A CERN-like multi-national government funding agency should work to develop a practical, economical, open-source technological solution with mathematically proven security. Once it is developed we can distribute it globally for free.
Electronic Voting can be much better than paper ballots. We just need to stop being stupid about it.
We need to consider voting a cryptographic problem and a research area of critical interest. A CERN-like multi-national government funding agency should work to develop a practical, economical, open-source technological solution with mathematically proven security. Once it is developed we can distribute it globally for free.
Electronic Voting can be much better than paper ballots. We just need to stop being stupid about it.
I can see why you might be reminded about teachers writing irrelevant, pedantic bullshit in tests, but I can't see why this makes you sympathetic. Tests in school should be about determining the student's understanding, not about jumping through hoops to give your teacher a cheap authoritarian thrill. Voting should be about democracy, not democracy subject to one's ability to adhere to subtleties that any individual could honestly overlook. There's no reason for making the system more complicated than it needs to be.
The ombudsman is there to represent the interests of the employer. He protects the company interests by adopting a neutral, sympathetic tone. He is there to collect and address grievances from the staff and recommend solutions. Whenever possible a good ombudsman will arrange a win-win situation. But if the situation dictates that either the company or the employee lose, the ombudsman will do his best to act like the employee's trustworthy friend while ensuring that the employee loses.
An ombudsman could be clever and underhanded. A slimy ombudsman could, for instance, recommend an employee talk to a recommended "stress management expert" -- then in an eventual trial the company could smear him in court as an unhinged loony undergoing therapy. Now obviously this would violate the ombudsman Standards of Practice, but guess what? Company's don't hire ombudsmen to adhere to some Norwegian Social Democrat's "Standards of Practice", they hire ombudsmen to make problems disappear and to prevent them from happening in the first place.
Example of Ombudsman BS: My girlfriend recently went to her company's ombudsman to complain that the aerobics instructor the company had hired was batshit. The ombudsman immediately broke confidentiality explicitly violating his "code of ethics" and the personal guarantee of strict confidentiality he gave her. The ombudsman casually revealed her complaint to his secretary, even though he was told that his secretary and the batshit aerobics instructor were friends. The angry and still batshit aerobics instructor confronted my girlfriend about this after the next aerobics class. And the ombudsman never got back to her.
If you are being victimized by a line manager in a way you know upper management would disapprove of, going to the ombudsman might result in a positive change. But even in that case you still might be better of talking to your own lawyer.
If you have been victimized by your company and are considering seeking legal remedies, get a lawyer. The ombudsman is not your lawyer. If you belong in a union, then your union may be willing to assist you, but they might sell you out. Ultimately, only your lawyer is your lawyer. 99% of the time the ombudsman is just a person who acts really sensitive to your issues and tries to assuage you with sentimental cliches.
All of this guy's reasoning could equally be applied to television. Sure, tough times might make some people watch less TV because they would rather be productive by reducing costs or making money. And some people probably won't be able to work as much on Wikipedia. But despite this impending "sharp cultural shift in our attitude toward the economic value of our labor" I'm betting that Wikipedia and television will both continue to flourish.
First, I don't believe you. Name these myriad companies that Warren Buffet "snapped up" at under market value because of the estate tax. If you can't do that, then you're just naively propagating myths. The real question is: Why is it worth your time to advance right-wing misinformation?
Secondly, it's worth noting the ever-shifting rationals in the accusations against Buffet made only in this thread.
The first guy claimed that Buffet allegedly made all his money by selling estate tax insurance.
Another guy claimed that Buffet was supporting Obama because of Obama's tax-friendly policy towards capital gains.
Now the new story is that Buffet is that made all his money as a predator of small businesses that were entered forced liquidation due to the estate tax.
None of you ever provide any data to support your claims. You just perpetually invent new arguments to support your character attacks and hope that nobody knowledgeable enough comes along to discredit you. You never apologize and you never admit that you were wrong.
Why the hostility? Simply because Buffet disagrees with your political ideas. You enthusiastically and persistently smear one of America's finest capitalists because you don't like Democrats.
Take a look at the enormity of Bershire Hathaway. Then look at the fraction of Berkshire which is insurance/reinsurance. Then identify the tiny slice of that which is personal life insurance. Then perform a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the marginal annual impact of the estate tax on that life insurance segment. Write down that number. Then compare that number to 12.5% of Berkshire's annual profit. Why 12.5%? Because that's the difference in the rate at which McCain and Obama would tax capital gains.
The parent alleged that Buffet was endorsing Obama out of greed because of the risk that Republicans would eliminate the estate tax. It's a ludicrous allegation to anybody who familiar with the facts.
Who gave you "informative"? The parent clearly explained how Buffet is not going to suffer from Obama's tax plan. Care to read it again or was it to complicated for you?
People who produce traditional income (through wages or sold assets such as products and goods) are going to get a tax increase. Asshats like buffet and the other schmucks that caused this current mess wont be taxed because they deal in "securities" (such as stocks) which will NOT be taxed.
The parent made a laundry list of false and baseless statements. Just because I didn't take my precious time to argue with each one of them doesn't mean I need some pedantic retard to explain things for me.
Now let me respond to your point by looking at facts instead of speciously generated bullshit.
As an investor, Warren Buffet makes money through capital gains instead of a salary.
Now let's look at tax proposals:
"McCain wants to cut capital gains tax in half to 7.5% for two years. Obama wants to raise it to 20% for wealthier investors."
So there you have the facts: Buffet would pay more taxes under Obama's proposal and less under McCain's. So this accusation that Buffet is preferentially supporting Obama for his tax policy is false. And it's not just false, it's a populist myth invented by right-wing ideologues to discredit the endorsement of Obama by one of America's premier capitalists.
Berkshire Hathaway is Warren Buffet's company. Berkshire Hathaway does not specialize in "estate tax insurance and planning" which is not a "huge part" of their business. Berkshire Hathaway sells all sorts of things including electricity, candy, and insurance. But nobody sells "estate tax insurance" since people can only insure themselves against risks not known liabilities.
Before anybody listens to the parent's allegations of conflict of interest (which he curiously portrays as a phenomenon unique to the Democratic Party) I think it's fair to demand the following evidence:
Give us in dollar terms how "huge" Buffet's business is in "estate tax insurance and planning".
Give us the url where we can go and purchase our own estate tax insurance.
BTW, I'm really excited to hear that url for estate tax insurance. Gosh, maybe he even sells other tax insurance, like income tax insurance! That would be awesome. Geeze, it seems like I have to pay that one every year.
Wait-a-minute! That's why buffet is supporting Obama's tax hike for the rich: He's going to make a mint selling the income tax insurance! Oh Buffet, you are a wiley one!
Green Freedom uses atmospheric CO2. Obviously they need to process a huge volume of air to get all that CO2. But one of the beauties of the Green Freedom is that it uses the plant's own cooling towers to process the air.
I saw the Green Freedom developer, Dr. Jeffrey Martin, give a talk at Georgetown. His process is already really efficient. As I recall the GF process to convert CO2 into fuel was within a factor of 7 of the theoretical minimum energy required which compares well even to biological processes. I'm skeptical that the magic proprietary "Biocatalytic Reactors" Inhabitat has developed could be significantly more efficient, especially since no numbers whatsoever are provided. Yellow Flag: Inhabit doesn't even claim to have a patent pending on their "breakthrough" process. Green Freedom has at least a few real patents in the works.
I think you mean the computer may be declared a computer as often as humans are, and must be declared human as often as humans are.
Otherwise if computers were declared computers 90% of the time and humans were declared humans 90% of the time then it would be mathematically impossible for any computer to pass the turing test.
Women have consistent evolutionary principles. They want men who will father, provide for, and protect vibrant offspring. However, the criteria that women use to asses these qualities in potential mates hasn't changed that much since the advent of agriculture. Consequently to modern man these judgments seem contradictory and illogical to geeks (many of whom are inadvertently and constantly telegraphing their low value to the women they meet).
More good news: once you determine the real criteria that women are using, you can the knowledge of these criteria to your advantage and charm all kinds of women.
So before you write off your lifetime sexual prospects, do yourself a favor and at least give the book a chance: The Mystery Method.
"Highly intelligent, creative, socially supportive guys" can go out and read The Mystery Method. It's written by a former Dungeons and Dragons dork. Yes, it works. It's easier than you think.
After years of resistance, I started using Facebook. No, I don't really need to keep in touch with long-lost friends (such as ones that moved to Kenya) but that's only one aspect of the site.
My issue is that I'm young and mobile. Like many people on slashdot, I'm not particularly outgoing and I'm slow to accumulate friends. Right now I'm using Facebook to get a social toe-hold in a new town. As far as I can tell, old friends and friends-of-friends are the most likely to be receptive and enjoyable. Yes, I can go rock-climbing and go to concerts etc to meet people but it's not as efficient as using my own network and intuition. This requires a strong network and, for me, Facebook is the best.
I don't know how many more times I'll have to relocate in my life, but Facebook takes some of the edge off.
You are correct. However, the key word I used was spontaneous dividends aka dividends issued for the express purpose of foiling naked short sellers. Like you said: companies don't like to keep extra cash on hand. So coming up with cash for a dividend payment on some arbitrary date is going to be hassle for any company.
1) Parent baselessly (and falsely) assumes that a drop in the share price will not affect the profitability or solvency of the company.
2) Parent laughably believes that companies with plummeting share prices have lots of capital to issue dividends.
3) Parent apparently believes in some exogenous, universally quantifiable "fair price" of a stock that exists independent of its supply and demand.
4) Parent believes that investors have perfect information and that they could distinguish between a stock price that is legitimately falling and a stock price and one that is the product of manipulation.
5) Parent apparently believes that shareholders who sells below the mythical "fair price" of a stock are "stupid" regardless of the profitability of the trade, the future trajectory of the stock price, or even anticipated future trajectory.
Time for a reality check. The parent suggests that he would respond to naked short market manipulation by buying tons of stocks. But would he?
First, I'll make the very generous assumption that he has a "rational" bank with a similar "understanding" of economics that is willing to extend arbitrary credit to finance his splurge on tanking stocks.
So I assume he could, even though he can't. But would he?
I doubt it. By the parent's own reasoning the stock price really can't deviate at all from the "fair price." Before issuing the order he would cast judgment thusly:
"The free market does not lie! The fall in price must reflect a change in the underlying value of the company. Of course if I knew the asset was trading below it's God-Given Fair Price, I would immediately enforce that price by my own hand. Heavens! I'd leverage to infinity if I thought somebody was making a mockery of the Free Market!"
It comes down to how the company is financed. Companies can have large loans secured by a deposit of stock. If the stock price collapses then the company could need to find additional capital to maintain requirements for the loan.
But banks and investors alike are going to look at their falling share price and get scared away. The company won't be able to raise capital, it won't meet loan requirements, and it will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. That is part of what happened with Lehman Bros, although its unknown what role naked shorts played.
If the company has no potential to generate dividends then it is worth nothing and should be shorted into oblivion.
Future potential to pay dividends != current ability to pay dividends. No well managed company is able to spontaneously issue a dividend because well-managed companies do not sit on cash. When sit on cash you are wasting capital.
Dividends aren't common as they used to be. But dividends by a company whose share price is collapsing? Not a chance. Companies issue dividends when they have excess capital, not when their capital is being vaporized. And if companies have loans secured by stock then they certainly can and will go bankrupt simply by a rapid drop in share price.
It depends. Technically, collapsing the stock price doesn't necessarily cause bankruptcy, but it could cause any highly leveraged institution (eg an investment bank) to go bankrupt. It's fairly common for companies to have large loans secured by a deposit of stock. If the stock price collapses then the company needs to find additional capital. But banks and investors alike are going to look at their falling share price and get scared away. The company won't be able to raise capital, it won't meet loan requirements, and it will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither of the references I linked to are particularly complicated. They can be digested by reasonably literate people.
One day we will have mathematical assurances that our votes are being counted properly by electronic voting machines. Cryptographers have been working on mathematically proven cryptographically safe voting schemes for years. (See also Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography.) Secure algorithms already exist, although they are not yet fully practical.
I repeat myself for emphasis: there are methods to produce a secret, secure, election that is verifiably correct to an arbitrary degree of certainty. If you don't understand how, do everyone a favor and follow the links and read the material.
We need to consider voting a cryptographic problem and a research area of critical interest. A CERN-like multi-national government funding agency should work to develop a practical, economical, open-source technological solution with mathematically proven security. Once it is developed we can distribute it globally for free.
Electronic Voting can be much better than paper ballots. We just need to stop being stupid about it.
True. The capstone to the Washington Monument was made out of aluminum for this reason.
One day we will have mathematical assurances that our votes are being counted properly by electronic voting machines. Cryptographers have been working on mathematically proven cryptographically safe voting schemes for years. (See also Bruce Schneir's Applied Cryptography.) Secure algorithms already exist, although they are not yet fully practical.
We need to consider voting a cryptographic problem and a research area of critical interest. A CERN-like multi-national government funding agency should work to develop a practical, economical, open-source technological solution with mathematically proven security. Once it is developed we can distribute it globally for free.
Electronic Voting can be much better than paper ballots. We just need to stop being stupid about it.
I can see why you might be reminded about teachers writing irrelevant, pedantic bullshit in tests, but I can't see why this makes you sympathetic. Tests in school should be about determining the student's understanding, not about jumping through hoops to give your teacher a cheap authoritarian thrill. Voting should be about democracy, not democracy subject to one's ability to adhere to subtleties that any individual could honestly overlook. There's no reason for making the system more complicated than it needs to be.
The ombudsman is there to represent the interests of the employer. He protects the company interests by adopting a neutral, sympathetic tone. He is there to collect and address grievances from the staff and recommend solutions. Whenever possible a good ombudsman will arrange a win-win situation. But if the situation dictates that either the company or the employee lose, the ombudsman will do his best to act like the employee's trustworthy friend while ensuring that the employee loses.
An ombudsman could be clever and underhanded. A slimy ombudsman could, for instance, recommend an employee talk to a recommended "stress management expert" -- then in an eventual trial the company could smear him in court as an unhinged loony undergoing therapy. Now obviously this would violate the ombudsman Standards of Practice, but guess what? Company's don't hire ombudsmen to adhere to some Norwegian Social Democrat's "Standards of Practice", they hire ombudsmen to make problems disappear and to prevent them from happening in the first place.
Example of Ombudsman BS: My girlfriend recently went to her company's ombudsman to complain that the aerobics instructor the company had hired was batshit. The ombudsman immediately broke confidentiality explicitly violating his "code of ethics" and the personal guarantee of strict confidentiality he gave her. The ombudsman casually revealed her complaint to his secretary, even though he was told that his secretary and the batshit aerobics instructor were friends. The angry and still batshit aerobics instructor confronted my girlfriend about this after the next aerobics class. And the ombudsman never got back to her.
If you are being victimized by a line manager in a way you know upper management would disapprove of, going to the ombudsman might result in a positive change. But even in that case you still might be better of talking to your own lawyer.
If you have been victimized by your company and are considering seeking legal remedies, get a lawyer. The ombudsman is not your lawyer. If you belong in a union, then your union may be willing to assist you, but they might sell you out. Ultimately, only your lawyer is your lawyer. 99% of the time the ombudsman is just a person who acts really sensitive to your issues and tries to assuage you with sentimental cliches.
All of this guy's reasoning could equally be applied to television. Sure, tough times might make some people watch less TV because they would rather be productive by reducing costs or making money. And some people probably won't be able to work as much on Wikipedia. But despite this impending "sharp cultural shift in our attitude toward the economic value of our labor" I'm betting that Wikipedia and television will both continue to flourish.
First, I don't believe you. Name these myriad companies that Warren Buffet "snapped up" at under market value because of the estate tax. If you can't do that, then you're just naively propagating myths. The real question is: Why is it worth your time to advance right-wing misinformation?
Secondly, it's worth noting the ever-shifting rationals in the accusations against Buffet made only in this thread.
None of you ever provide any data to support your claims. You just perpetually invent new arguments to support your character attacks and hope that nobody knowledgeable enough comes along to discredit you. You never apologize and you never admit that you were wrong.
Why the hostility? Simply because Buffet disagrees with your political ideas. You enthusiastically and persistently smear one of America's finest capitalists because you don't like Democrats.
That's low.
Don't forget the Virginia Tech massacre.
Take a look at the enormity of Bershire Hathaway. Then look at the fraction of Berkshire which is insurance/reinsurance. Then identify the tiny slice of that which is personal life insurance. Then perform a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the marginal annual impact of the estate tax on that life insurance segment. Write down that number. Then compare that number to 12.5% of Berkshire's annual profit. Why 12.5%? Because that's the difference in the rate at which McCain and Obama would tax capital gains.
The parent alleged that Buffet was endorsing Obama out of greed because of the risk that Republicans would eliminate the estate tax. It's a ludicrous allegation to anybody who familiar with the facts.
The parent made a laundry list of false and baseless statements. Just because I didn't take my precious time to argue with each one of them doesn't mean I need some pedantic retard to explain things for me.
Now let me respond to your point by looking at facts instead of speciously generated bullshit. As an investor, Warren Buffet makes money through capital gains instead of a salary. Now let's look at tax proposals:
"McCain wants to cut capital gains tax in half to 7.5% for two years. Obama wants to raise it to 20% for wealthier investors."
So there you have the facts: Buffet would pay more taxes under Obama's proposal and less under McCain's. So this accusation that Buffet is preferentially supporting Obama for his tax policy is false. And it's not just false, it's a populist myth invented by right-wing ideologues to discredit the endorsement of Obama by one of America's premier capitalists.
Berkshire Hathaway is Warren Buffet's company. Berkshire Hathaway does not specialize in "estate tax insurance and planning" which is not a "huge part" of their business. Berkshire Hathaway sells all sorts of things including electricity, candy, and insurance. But nobody sells "estate tax insurance" since people can only insure themselves against risks not known liabilities.
Before anybody listens to the parent's allegations of conflict of interest (which he curiously portrays as a phenomenon unique to the Democratic Party) I think it's fair to demand the following evidence:
BTW, I'm really excited to hear that url for estate tax insurance. Gosh, maybe he even sells other tax insurance, like income tax insurance! That would be awesome. Geeze, it seems like I have to pay that one every year.
Wait-a-minute! That's why buffet is supporting Obama's tax hike for the rich: He's going to make a mint selling the income tax insurance! Oh Buffet, you are a wiley one!
Green Freedom uses atmospheric CO2. Obviously they need to process a huge volume of air to get all that CO2. But one of the beauties of the Green Freedom is that it uses the plant's own cooling towers to process the air.
Ha. Funnier than I was expecting.
I saw the Green Freedom developer, Dr. Jeffrey Martin, give a talk at Georgetown. His process is already really efficient. As I recall the GF process to convert CO2 into fuel was within a factor of 7 of the theoretical minimum energy required which compares well even to biological processes. I'm skeptical that the magic proprietary "Biocatalytic Reactors" Inhabitat has developed could be significantly more efficient, especially since no numbers whatsoever are provided. Yellow Flag: Inhabit doesn't even claim to have a patent pending on their "breakthrough" process. Green Freedom has at least a few real patents in the works.
I think you mean the computer may be declared a computer as often as humans are, and must be declared human as often as humans are. Otherwise if computers were declared computers 90% of the time and humans were declared humans 90% of the time then it would be mathematically impossible for any computer to pass the turing test.
Here's the good news: you're just wrong.
Women have consistent evolutionary principles. They want men who will father, provide for, and protect vibrant offspring. However, the criteria that women use to asses these qualities in potential mates hasn't changed that much since the advent of agriculture. Consequently to modern man these judgments seem contradictory and illogical to geeks (many of whom are inadvertently and constantly telegraphing their low value to the women they meet).
More good news: once you determine the real criteria that women are using, you can the knowledge of these criteria to your advantage and charm all kinds of women.
So before you write off your lifetime sexual prospects, do yourself a favor and at least give the book a chance: The Mystery Method.
"Highly intelligent, creative, socially supportive guys" can go out and read The Mystery Method. It's written by a former Dungeons and Dragons dork. Yes, it works. It's easier than you think.
After years of resistance, I started using Facebook. No, I don't really need to keep in touch with long-lost friends (such as ones that moved to Kenya) but that's only one aspect of the site.
My issue is that I'm young and mobile. Like many people on slashdot, I'm not particularly outgoing and I'm slow to accumulate friends. Right now I'm using Facebook to get a social toe-hold in a new town. As far as I can tell, old friends and friends-of-friends are the most likely to be receptive and enjoyable. Yes, I can go rock-climbing and go to concerts etc to meet people but it's not as efficient as using my own network and intuition. This requires a strong network and, for me, Facebook is the best.
I don't know how many more times I'll have to relocate in my life, but Facebook takes some of the edge off.
You are correct. However, the key word I used was spontaneous dividends aka dividends issued for the express purpose of foiling naked short sellers. Like you said: companies don't like to keep extra cash on hand. So coming up with cash for a dividend payment on some arbitrary date is going to be hassle for any company.
So wrong, let me count the ways ...
1) Parent baselessly (and falsely) assumes that a drop in the share price will not affect the profitability or solvency of the company.
2) Parent laughably believes that companies with plummeting share prices have lots of capital to issue dividends.
3) Parent apparently believes in some exogenous, universally quantifiable "fair price" of a stock that exists independent of its supply and demand.
4) Parent believes that investors have perfect information and that they could distinguish between a stock price that is legitimately falling and a stock price and one that is the product of manipulation.
5) Parent apparently believes that shareholders who sells below the mythical "fair price" of a stock are "stupid" regardless of the profitability of the trade, the future trajectory of the stock price, or even anticipated future trajectory.
Time for a reality check. The parent suggests that he would respond to naked short market manipulation by buying tons of stocks. But would he?
First, I'll make the very generous assumption that he has a "rational" bank with a similar "understanding" of economics that is willing to extend arbitrary credit to finance his splurge on tanking stocks.
So I assume he could, even though he can't. But would he?
I doubt it. By the parent's own reasoning the stock price really can't deviate at all from the "fair price." Before issuing the order he would cast judgment thusly:
"The free market does not lie! The fall in price must reflect a change in the underlying value of the company. Of course if I knew the asset was trading below it's God-Given Fair Price, I would immediately enforce that price by my own hand. Heavens! I'd leverage to infinity if I thought somebody was making a mockery of the Free Market!"
It comes down to how the company is financed. Companies can have large loans secured by a deposit of stock. If the stock price collapses then the company could need to find additional capital to maintain requirements for the loan.
But banks and investors alike are going to look at their falling share price and get scared away. The company won't be able to raise capital, it won't meet loan requirements, and it will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. That is part of what happened with Lehman Bros, although its unknown what role naked shorts played.
Future potential to pay dividends != current ability to pay dividends. No well managed company is able to spontaneously issue a dividend because well-managed companies do not sit on cash. When sit on cash you are wasting capital.
Dividends aren't common as they used to be. But dividends by a company whose share price is collapsing? Not a chance. Companies issue dividends when they have excess capital, not when their capital is being vaporized. And if companies have loans secured by stock then they certainly can and will go bankrupt simply by a rapid drop in share price.
It depends. Technically, collapsing the stock price doesn't necessarily cause bankruptcy, but it could cause any highly leveraged institution (eg an investment bank) to go bankrupt. It's fairly common for companies to have large loans secured by a deposit of stock. If the stock price collapses then the company needs to find additional capital. But banks and investors alike are going to look at their falling share price and get scared away. The company won't be able to raise capital, it won't meet loan requirements, and it will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.