The voter could be given a receipt which contains, in encrypted text, their selections and their id (perhaps their voter registration number or perhaps their name and address). A clear-text "ballot id" would also be printed on the receipt. (A "voter key" would also be included - see below).
The voting system would also store an electronic copy of the encrypted receipt along with a fragment of the encryption key ("registrar key" below) in a "receipt database" indexed by ballot id. The receipt field in the receipt database would further be encrypted with a public key to which only a few trusted "ballot verifiers" (perhaps a panel of federal or state judges) have the private key (and even this key may be split among the panel so "m-of-n" panel members are required to construct the entire key).
Three keys would be combined to encrypt the receipt:
One unique random key ("voter key") printed on the receipt and stored NOWHERE else.
One unique random key ("registrar key") stored ONLY in the ballot record in the "ballot record" database in the voting system and not revealed to the voter.
A user supplied password ("voter password") which the voter is responsible for generating and remembering and which is not stored anywhere by the system (yes, we know, users will probably write it on a sticky note on their dashboard).
If a voter wanted to verify that their vote was recorded correctly, they would go to the "ballot verifier" panel and the following would happen:
Your photo id would be checked and verified by the panel.
You would provide a copy of your receipt to the panel.
You would enter your "voter password" into a terminal in a secure private room.
The panel (or a fraction thereof) would, in a private room, enter the "voter key" from your receipt.
The panel (or a fraction thereof) would, in a private room, enter their private key to decrypt the "receipt database" record corresponding to your vote.
The receipt field for your ballot would then be decrypted with the "voter key" (from the receipt), the "registrar key" (stored in the record itself), and the "voter password" (entered above by the voter).
The panel would then be allowed to view the "voter id" portion of the record and accept that it matches who your id says you are (if not, you'd probably be investigated for a federal voting rights crime since you're trying to infringe on the "secret ballot").
Assuming the id check passed, you (but not the panel unless you request it) would be allowed to view the decrypted receipt AND the actual vote recorded in conjunction with this ballot. If there is a mismatch, obviously it would become a matter for serious investigation and possible prosecution -- which may require the approval of the voter to reveal their decrypted vote for the purposes of evidence.
This seems to cover everything to prevent vote buying/coercion while still allowing complete verification that ones vote was counted correctly AND moves the verification process (hopefully) to a higher level (the ballot verifier panels should, as a matter of public policy, be distant from the local voting boards - probably state or federal level).
The paper and electronic versions could travel with different people. Also, the electronic version could be transmitted electronically immediately at the close of polling and in view of all the poll watchers. If the transmitted version is later found not to match the paper versions, it's time for a big investigation.
The notion that the tax burden should depend on ones "Wealth" is dangerous.
"Wealth" is very different from "Income" while "Consumption" is very different from both. Taxes can be levied on any of the three items (or others of course).
The current U.S. personal tax system primarily taxes "Income" (income tax) and, to a lesser extent, "Consumption" (as in sales tax and "luxury" taxes).
The only significant personal "Wealth" tax in the U.S. that comes to mind is property tax. Generally property tax is very progressive - the poorest pay little direct property tax (they tend to rent or live in low cost housing) while consuming the bulk of the benefits (subsidized public health programs, transportation, and education) and the highest income individuals tend to pay high direct property taxes (since they tend to live in expensive homes and own businesses) and reap few if any of the direct benefits (they pay for their own health care [and more], rarely use public transportation [except for politicians who want to make a point], and send their children to private school).
So, what is the "fairest" thing to tax? The usual claim of "unfairness" in the U.S. system of taxation seems to, at the root, be that individuals who enjoy a lot of creature comforts don't pay their "fair" share compared to individuals who have a minimum of creature comforts. It turns out, these creature comforts are a direct result of consumption, not income or wealth.
The only way to substantially enjoy ones wealth is to spend (i.e., consume) it - if you have $1B USD in corporate bonds and stocks and spend only $20K a year, your lifestyle is not much different from a fairly low paid worker BUT your $1B is helping create and sustain jobs. Sure, you're getting a revenue stream from your investment, but obviously less than what someone else thought the assets were worth (else there would have been no willing sellers of the stock you own or willing borrowers of your money) and your lifestyle is not improved by this revenue stream. This investment revenue stream must just be being plowed back into creating and sustaining more jobs (unless you're a horrible investor!) since at most $20K/year is being consumed for creature comforts. Sure, you have a greater feeling of "well being" because you have money for a rainy day which the fairly low paid worker doesn't - but taxing "feelings of well being" seems odd (presumably that would result in taxing those who follow a religion since a feeling of "well being" is something that most religions tout either explicitly or implicitly and would also result in very rich, but emotionally depressed, people paying no taxes).
Consider two single developers working side by side at similar jobs and both earning a salary of $75K/year (for the moment, ignore taxes since "appropriate taxation" is the issue we are addressing):
The first (call them "Mr. Frugal") spends $25K/year ($10K for a studio apartment, $15K for other stuff) and owns an old car, a 20 year old 19 inch color TV, eschews cable TV, and has a wardrobe consisting mostly of t-shirts with product and company names on them. The remaining $50K a year is invested in stocks and corporate bonds.
The second (call them "Mr. HighRoller") spends $75K/year ($25K for a nice apartment, $50K for other stuff) and always has a nice current model year car, a high end HD TV not more than three years old, the best of cable TV packages, and a wardrobe full of the latest designer labels. Since there is no "remaining" money, HighRoller saves or invests nothing.
After working for 45 years, Frugal has well in excess of $2.25M (inflation adjusted of course and assuming the investments were not too stupid) and retires comfortably - never requiring a penny of public assistance. On the other hand, HighRoller retires with NOTHING (except rapidly depreciating designer clothes, HDTV set, and high end car) and ends up living on Social Security
Sometimes I think we old folks should leave off our oldest experience from our resumes, then make a 'mistake' when indicating the year we graduated college.
Just leave the year off of the degree(s) entirely - it's actually quite common to do this. And, of course, on your resume, start showing work at whatever date you feel is "right" - BUT DON'T DO THIS ON THE JOB APPLICATION IF THEY MAKE YOU FILL ONE OUT (there, you're signing that what you wrote is true and not that you just couldn't fit ALL your experience into two pages).
Of course, if you do this, don't expect that anyone will give you "credits" for your non-stated years of work when making an offer (but this probably doesn't mean all that much if you keep the last 20 years on the resume).
Have representatives from each party ride along with them.
...and both will agree to replace all the ballots from the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party... So, now a bus is needed to transport the ballots and all the watchers...
Seriously, the machine has the complete vote count in this case and the voter (or any precinct level human) should not be able to actually touch the paper ballot -- pressing "ACCEPT" causes the vote to be committed in the machine AND the paper ballot to be visually transported to the ballot box; pressing "CANCEL" causes the vote to be dropped by the machine AND the paper ballot visually destroyed (at least voided and transported to a "spoiled ballot" bin). Obviously the machine and the paper better match or someone's been cooking the results. (The machine's record should initially be sent electronically, publically, and encrypted from the precinct to the county clerk's office to minimize the potential for fraud).
It also annoys me when CR takes political stances on things. Indeed, for this reason I'm probably not going to renew our subscription (after many years of continuous subscribing) -- they've pushed me past the breaking point millimeter by millimeter.
A classic example is their regular editorials calling for nationalized health care in the USA - it may be good, it may be bad, but it's a political issue of how society allocates and redistributes resources, not something a supposedly objective publication should be dealing with. If I want politics, I'll subscribe to Mother Jones or National Review - at least these publications are pretty clear on their biases.
In CU's defense though, 25 years ago they had an "anti-feature" bias -- they seemed to think any neat feature was "unnecessary" - even many that WERE useful to the consumer. Fortunately they have substantially toned down that part of their Luddite and Birkenstock bias in the intervening period.
Of course why a paper ballot and pen isn't good enough baffles me...
With paper ballots, "voter intent" becomes a big issue in really close elections... Is that a smudge or a mark? Is that line that crosses through both candidate's boxes intended to be a vote for the first, the second, or an intentional overvote intended to void the vote so an election worker can't later mark one of them [I do this for every office or measure I decide not to vote on]? Remember the chads?
Also, paper ballots move around (in car trunks and the like in some areas) and can (and do) get "lost". They are also not under constant surveillance at all times so the question of vote modification can be easily alleged and not disproven. A proper (and Diebold is of course NOT an example of this, nor could anything that didn't have ALL the source code and hardware designs public be) electronic based system allows multiple backups, electronic data transfer before the physical data store is moved to a secure location (so, if the original electronic data transfer doesn't match what finally appears at the county courthouse, someone's got some 'splaining to do), and security that is much more difficult to crack than paper ballots.
Although you must admit, the subway/light rail in Los Angeles is hardly the gold standard among "real cities" (Los Angeles really isn't much of a "city" - it's more of a sprawling fungus with a few particularly tall fungal masses somewhere near the center). At least compare BART to Washington DC or Boston or...
Windows should be double paned with a motorized venetian blinds in the center. The computer would determined by the need of the house for heat whether or not to open them.
That's just asking for a whole new set of viruses designed to cause the blinds to raise at the most unexpected times after detecting the gender, age, appearance, and state of undress of each occupant.
Although, from the sound of the article (I didn't notice a link to her website), she may have been making claims of fact about things which she had insufficient knowledge.
For example, the article indicates that she claims "roofers [were] working without proper safety equipment". This is very different than if she claimed to have "seen roofers working without any visible safety tethers" (for example). The first requires expertise in safety laws/practices as well as rather complete knowledge of what safety methods were actually being used - otherwise it's at best an irresponsible statement and quite possibly untrue. The second statement is (if that was truly what she saw) true without question.
Yes you can. The post I referred to described a way to do this by constraining outputs to known safe values. There are still bugs, but none that can hurt you.
I think my point is being missed... If software is doing the checking for safe values, you still can't be SURE that there are no bugs. You can be comfortable enough to ship it, but not 100% sure. Even if there is no OS (and hence no OS bugs) and you have a separate processor, memory, busses etc. for checking, you need to prove that the processor and chipsets have no bugs - I don't know of any such proofs. The software doing the checking obviously needs to be written in machine code or by a PROVEN (in the formal sense) compiler (I assume someone has written one of these somewhere in academia for a simple language). The machine code version of course is harder to check as well as a high level language version (and easier not to notice the failure of the programmer to check a timer value for wrap or handle an ECC memory trap correctly).
Anyway, I'm just being pedantic about 100% vs. 99.99999999% (although, who knows how many 9's)...
You can ensure that no bugs create a dangerous condition, which is different from no bugs at all.
Actually, no you can't insure even that there are no dangerous bugs. You can reduce the probability, but for practical systems you can't reduce it to zero with current technology. Obviously if you could eliminate all dangerous bugs, you could (at some cost) eliminate all bugs by declaring all bugs as "dangerous" and tracking all of them down. Of course, sometimes a "bug" is not a coding error but a design or requirements flaw.
I believe the rules of international warfare would rule out using Wayne Newton's work as the sound input - much for the same reason one isn't supposed to use mustard gas anymore.
(I actually went and refreshed my brain on the overexposure to radiation case after many years - my "shield" description is very simplistic although the general idea is correct. So, don't do any designs based on my prior post as I will disavow all liability)
But then if I walked in and saw that the machine that was about to pump tons of radiation into me was running Windows, I'd turn around and walk back out.
I would also - but it's probably pretty impractical to tell if just the operator interface is running Windows, or if the low level controller of the electromechanical sensors, switches and actuators is also running Windows. I wouldn't worry about the former, I'd worry a lot about the latter. (Well, to be honest, I probably would accept the treatments anyway - risk analysis would lead me to trust Windows more than trusting my body to eradicate the cancer on its own)
My guess is that the operator really wouldn't know either (although, she would probably assure me that it "it's very safe").
Basically you'd have to have one engineer, or team thereof, overseeing the entire project to be sure that proper methods are being followed to ensure that there aren't any bugs.
Ah, but any such engineer would by definition be unqualified as they would have to think they can do the impossible. First, one can't insure that there aren't any bugs in real systems using current technology (or even anything on the horizon). Second, while having methods, processes, and tools to increase requirements, design, and code quality is important, simply "following methods" insures very little about the resulting system's quality if those doing the following are idiots or just don't care much.
It's important that life critical software (and hardware) not only have few bugs (and good requirements yada, yada), but that it is designed defensively - which may require additional sensors and additional hardware in addition to watchdog monitors etc.
For example, even if you're pretty sure that the software in a machine won't decide to pump a liter of morphine into the patient within ten seconds, you should have some hardware/software combination that stops such absurd and deadly results even if the primary software fails (or the operator made an absurd error which the primary software failed to catch).
For another example (since I didn't RTFA), I don't know if they list the irradiation device that killed at least one patient because a bug (in a driver associated with keyboard input IIRC) resulted in a shield (which should ALWAYS have been in place if the "more powerful" radiation source were used) not being moved into place before the more powerful radiation source was activated. IMHO, this system should have had an independent (probably electromechanical) system that just REFUSED to activate that radiation source if independent sensors didn't detect that the shield was REALLY in place (and, perhaps even, that the shield had just recently been retracted and extended - to help detect failures in the "shield sensing" device or an operator's misguided attempts to fool the system).
First, I have never been friends with the boss (actually, thinking back on it, I've never socialized with my boss outside of the workplace) -- indeed, I argue with them, skip level over them, and they hate to see me (but try to hire me when they move to a new company) -- BUT they respect me because I figure out whatever needs figuring out. Indeed, I've gotten some people who reported WELL above me fired because they tried to play politics with me and they misjudged my ability to manipulate them into being insubordinate in the eyes of their own management.
Second, you'll be unlikely to find five people who are better than me AT WHAT I DO (there are more than five, it would just be hard to round up five - but if you hire me, I may be able to bring a couple over long as you're willing to pay them). You can find a million people better than me at a lot of stuff (applications for example). No, I don't crank out GUIs (indeed, the first time I modified a GUI was almost 25 years into my career and then just because someone had to do it and it was needed at 2AM). It is not about education (which I have an adequate, but not impressive amount of) - it is about determining what YOU are natively good at and finding a way to exploit that.
I'm about as loyal (but to the CUSTOMER and the SHAREHOLDER of my company - not my boss) as they come. I've NEVER worked with someone who worked harder than I do when the chips are down (but, I've really enjoyed working on those teams where most people worked AS hard).
Needless to say, I'm very confident in my ability to compete with anyone - foreign or domestic IN THE AREA THAT I'M GOOD AT.
If you were my boss (unlikely I suspect by the way), you would call me at 4AM to figure out how to fix (asking me to build and coordinate an ad-hoc team if needed) a problem one of the top 10 Fortune 500 companies (would that be Fortune 10?) was having that was shutting down their business. I would grab some doughnuts and coffee and stay up with the team for the next 48 hours until we SOLVED the problem. If you failed to call me because you thought you were so smart you didn't need me, in the postmortem, the CEO would probably have you fired.
I have NEVER been at risk of being outsourced. BUT, you would NEVER hire me to be an application programmer (first, you should not offer me such a position - second, I would politely decline any such position at ANY salary and probably cease all discussions with your company because I really don't want to work where I know there are idiots managing important organizations).
In fact, I started at a startup company over 20 years ago and have never accepted an offer since except at startup companies (albeit, I have mistakenly hung around a couple of times for a year or two after the startup was acquired). However, NONE of these companies went out of business and one in particular is very well respected now (as a subsidiary of another company who is not as respected).
My friends keep saying I should apply at Google - but I know better. Google is a great company with some fabulous people. BUT, they have fairly low data integrity standards and in that market it's okay (as has happened twice to me in the last 24 hours) for my gmail to be unavailable a few hours a year. That's not my business, so I politely listen to my friends and ignore them. Google really has no need for me.
I get called in when others have failed. My management can count on me to tell them (and their boss, their boss's boss, and the customer) the TRUTH.
In your career, it's important to figure out what YOU enjoy doing and are good at (if "nothing" is the answer, get a job at WalMart - it will be a lot more pleasant than being miscast for 45 years). Then, pursue that with a relentless energy. Much of this has to do with what you ENJOY, not what pays well. If you have the (arguable) misfortune of being really interested in (and good at) being a pianist - DO IT (even if it means you make most of your money working in a smokey lounge) because you wi
This sounds an awful lot like someone making excuses for not being very successful by blaming someone/thing else for their lack of success.
I didn't go to an Ivy league school. I went to a moderately well respected state university and earned a bachelor's degree in CS. Later (while working) I spent a couple years in the evening getting an master's degree in CS (from a school you have heard of and probably think is pretty good - but it was a complete waste of time as it was less in depth than my undergrad courses). The master's degree never helped me land a job or get a raise or promotion. It's been a long time since I made anywhere close to as little as $100K (yep, I just work for "da man" - I'm not self employed or have my own company). Of course, I'm good at what I do, I take the customer's needs (even if they don't know they need it!) very seriously, and I work my butt off when needed to get the solution working or the bug identified and fixed.
BTW, since I left the university where I got my bachelor's degree, I have only seen one person from the school (and that was my girlfriend at the time) so even my first job had nothing to do with contacts from school (or, for that matter, family) - I interviewed just like everyone else and ended up at a large company. Sure, now I have contacts because people know of my work, but those contacts were EARNED.
These are almost certainly from the A9 (now owned by Amazon) search/map pages. They know the addresses of the businesses and know where the photo SUV is (via GPS), but really have no idea which picture best represents the business searched for (due to just where the signage is, if a bus is in the way in some pictures, bad angles on signs etc). So, they are paying you to pick the "best" image to show when that address is requested. When you search on this site, it asks you to identify the "best" picture, but I guess free labor (vs. that you pay $.03/image) isn't very easy to come by.
The A9 thing is pretty neat. Doing a 'virtual drive-by' is helpful so you can see that the place you're looking for is just a few doors down from something that stands out (like a fast food place).
Here's a nice starting point to play with (it's the (Mann) Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollyweird) for the maps.a9.com experience.
Here's an example of the first hit searching for "Sex" in Los Angeles at the Yellow Pages site (yp.a9.com) - I guess the City of Los Angeles keeps track of sex acts in the Hall of Records?
Yes it would be come more costly for those that need to use this software on a regular basises
I agree about "per use" licensing opening up a large body of professional software for geeks' hobby (or other) use. (CAD/CAM packages come to mind for me). However, with volume discounts and "unlimited" use subscriptions, there's no reason that heavy users need to pay more than they do now. Of course, the casual users may be too much of a support pain (the high end packages tend to be more difficult to learn) for the vendor and/or too small of a group to be of interest.
There are some things that Science Cannot Prove, There are things Religion, be it Christian or otherwise cannot Prove.
Here are somethings that cannot be proven:
...
3)Origins of Humanity.
Umm... what evidence do you have for this claim? Can you prove that this is not provable? Just because we don't yet know the answer doesn't mean it won't be known in the future (I suspect to the great dismay of some). I suspect that ten thousand years ago, the same might have been said about what causes rain - but I suspect that you would not add "what causes rain" to your list of unprovables today.
To assume that there can't be a provable answer to a question just because it seems way too hard to answer now is pretty weak.
Also, I think it would be more correct to say that Religion can't prove anything in the common usage of "prove" since it is based on faith rather than logical deduction, experiment, testing and the like.
They are usually multiple-choice tests, and it is a known fact that multiple choice tests cannot test ability, only knowledge.
Without some evidence, I don't accept that it is a "known fact" that a multiple choice test can test only knowledge. Downpost you seem to soften your position and eventually end up with, on the whole, a claim that perhaps could be stated as: "Tests, and multiple choice tests in particular, are not very effective at objectively validating the level of some skills and abilities, esp. those requiring traits such as creativity, eloquence, and writing skills."
With the softened position, I don't disagree. But certainly basic math, basic science, reading comp, vocabulary, some types of reasoning, some level of history and the like CAN be tested adequately with multiple choice tests - the goal of standardized testing at the K-12 level should be on basic skills and they should not (and do not) try to differentiate between the brightest student and the second brightest student in the class. Take a look at this {pdf warning} sample LSAT and let me know if it tests only knowledge. Indeed, the LSAT test seems to require almost NO prior knowledge except of English and seems to me to be fairly good at testing skills of basic reading comp and logical thinking. Note the first question on this test doesn't even expect you to remember what a stalagmite is - and actually rather cleverly both tells you what they are and then uses this possibly newly acquired knowledge as part of a logical and reading comp exercise.
I expect a high school degree from a public school supported by my tax dollars to mean that the student has some minimal level of skills and knowledge - not advanced ones. I don't want my tax dollars spent cranking out unemployable vessels full of creativity but devoid of knowledge - so I don't mind that tests require knowledge. Your history example is valid - but not as a basic criteria for graduation from high school. History is one of those areas that is harder to meaningfully test with a multiple choice test and, unfortunately, if poorly done can end up with being a date/name/place/act memorization exercise (which it should not be). However, careful test writing can improve this somewhat and focus on basic knowledge. For example, questions could ask for the dates the Declaration of Independence was signed, the date the Constitution was ratified by all states, and the date the Revolutionary war was over. Alternatively (and better but not perfect), a multiple choice test could provide several alternative sequencing of these events and a student who understands even the most basic history of that period could get this correct without remembering a single date (and, those who memorized dates could of course also get this right).
As far as ESL - that's a long discussion. I personally don't think that our taxpayer supported education system should allow students to stay in ESL programs for more than one or two years (something like the lower end of this range for 1-4 and the higher end for 5-12). I think ESL programs should have a primary focus of teaching English to these students - even if it means delaying other areas of education (math etc) and requires an additional year (or summer school) for the student to eventually graduate from high school. Certainly for those ESL students, test results can, at best, only be compared to other ESL students. Right off hand, I can't think of a single highly successful and well known American citizen that doesn't at least speak English (I'm sure there are a few, but the fact I can't think of one but could name 100's that DO speak English suggests to me that it's not common) and I have no problem with that -- but it suggests that minimal English language capabilities may be useful.
As far as your American history essay example goes, a free form essay of this sort seems inappropriate for the type of "minimum bar" standardized testing under discussion.
Umm.. why? Companies are free to fire (if the contract allows it) celebrity endorsers for things they do outside of their endorsement roles. It's all a matter of contracts between two private parties (in the case of private schools of course) - and a smart religious school would include a "morals clause" just as celebrity endorsement contracts often include them.
Don't forget the effect of the Teacher's Union(s) which (at least in California) have great power and are more interested in their members' benefits than the quality of education they provide. Hopefully some of this will soon change in California at least.
Ironically, and as much as I hate to admit it (I'm mostly a libertarian), the movement of more Federal control in education finally pushed aside the petty objections to uniform testing of students. The teacher's unions usually objected to any objective measure of student achievement because (correctly) they realized that this would also help objective measure of teacher ability. Testing isn't the perfect solution, but it's much better than NO objective accountability.
By setting up community groups without government control you are circumventing the protection provided by the constitution. Why would you want to do that?
Huh???
That's absurd. I hope you are joking (and perhaps I'm too dense to have gotten the 'humor through overstatement').
R U seriously suggesting that the government should control all community groups? If you like that idea, perhaps you should move to North Korea or any of a number of other societies that better reflect your beliefs. Please, move -- I'll buy you a one way ticket if you promise to stay for 20 years in North Korea to truly understand what government domination really means.
Slashdot Mirror
The voting system would also store an electronic copy of the encrypted receipt along with a fragment of the encryption key ("registrar key" below) in a "receipt database" indexed by ballot id. The receipt field in the receipt database would further be encrypted with a public key to which only a few trusted "ballot verifiers" (perhaps a panel of federal or state judges) have the private key (and even this key may be split among the panel so "m-of-n" panel members are required to construct the entire key).
Three keys would be combined to encrypt the receipt:
One unique random key ("voter key") printed on the receipt and stored NOWHERE else. One unique random key ("registrar key") stored ONLY in the ballot record in the "ballot record" database in the voting system and not revealed to the voter. A user supplied password ("voter password") which the voter is responsible for generating and remembering and which is not stored anywhere by the system (yes, we know, users will probably write it on a sticky note on their dashboard).If a voter wanted to verify that their vote was recorded correctly, they would go to the "ballot verifier" panel and the following would happen:
Your photo id would be checked and verified by the panel.You would provide a copy of your receipt to the panel.
You would enter your "voter password" into a terminal in a secure private room.
The panel (or a fraction thereof) would, in a private room, enter the "voter key" from your receipt.
The panel (or a fraction thereof) would, in a private room, enter their private key to decrypt the "receipt database" record corresponding to your vote.
The receipt field for your ballot would then be decrypted with the "voter key" (from the receipt), the "registrar key" (stored in the record itself), and the "voter password" (entered above by the voter).
The panel would then be allowed to view the "voter id" portion of the record and accept that it matches who your id says you are (if not, you'd probably be investigated for a federal voting rights crime since you're trying to infringe on the "secret ballot").
Assuming the id check passed, you (but not the panel unless you request it) would be allowed to view the decrypted receipt AND the actual vote recorded in conjunction with this ballot. If there is a mismatch, obviously it would become a matter for serious investigation and possible prosecution -- which may require the approval of the voter to reveal their decrypted vote for the purposes of evidence.
This seems to cover everything to prevent vote buying/coercion while still allowing complete verification that ones vote was counted correctly AND moves the verification process (hopefully) to a higher level (the ballot verifier panels should, as a matter of public policy, be distant from the local voting boards - probably state or federal level).
The paper and electronic versions could travel with different people. Also, the electronic version could be transmitted electronically immediately at the close of polling and in view of all the poll watchers. If the transmitted version is later found not to match the paper versions, it's time for a big investigation.
"Wealth" is very different from "Income" while "Consumption" is very different from both. Taxes can be levied on any of the three items (or others of course).
The current U.S. personal tax system primarily taxes "Income" (income tax) and, to a lesser extent, "Consumption" (as in sales tax and "luxury" taxes).
The only significant personal "Wealth" tax in the U.S. that comes to mind is property tax. Generally property tax is very progressive - the poorest pay little direct property tax (they tend to rent or live in low cost housing) while consuming the bulk of the benefits (subsidized public health programs, transportation, and education) and the highest income individuals tend to pay high direct property taxes (since they tend to live in expensive homes and own businesses) and reap few if any of the direct benefits (they pay for their own health care [and more], rarely use public transportation [except for politicians who want to make a point], and send their children to private school).
So, what is the "fairest" thing to tax? The usual claim of "unfairness" in the U.S. system of taxation seems to, at the root, be that individuals who enjoy a lot of creature comforts don't pay their "fair" share compared to individuals who have a minimum of creature comforts. It turns out, these creature comforts are a direct result of consumption, not income or wealth.
The only way to substantially enjoy ones wealth is to spend (i.e., consume) it - if you have $1B USD in corporate bonds and stocks and spend only $20K a year, your lifestyle is not much different from a fairly low paid worker BUT your $1B is helping create and sustain jobs. Sure, you're getting a revenue stream from your investment, but obviously less than what someone else thought the assets were worth (else there would have been no willing sellers of the stock you own or willing borrowers of your money) and your lifestyle is not improved by this revenue stream. This investment revenue stream must just be being plowed back into creating and sustaining more jobs (unless you're a horrible investor!) since at most $20K/year is being consumed for creature comforts. Sure, you have a greater feeling of "well being" because you have money for a rainy day which the fairly low paid worker doesn't - but taxing "feelings of well being" seems odd (presumably that would result in taxing those who follow a religion since a feeling of "well being" is something that most religions tout either explicitly or implicitly and would also result in very rich, but emotionally depressed, people paying no taxes).
Consider two single developers working side by side at similar jobs and both earning a salary of $75K/year (for the moment, ignore taxes since "appropriate taxation" is the issue we are addressing):
The first (call them "Mr. Frugal") spends $25K/year ($10K for a studio apartment, $15K for other stuff) and owns an old car, a 20 year old 19 inch color TV, eschews cable TV, and has a wardrobe consisting mostly of t-shirts with product and company names on them. The remaining $50K a year is invested in stocks and corporate bonds.The second (call them "Mr. HighRoller") spends $75K/year ($25K for a nice apartment, $50K for other stuff) and always has a nice current model year car, a high end HD TV not more than three years old, the best of cable TV packages, and a wardrobe full of the latest designer labels. Since there is no "remaining" money, HighRoller saves or invests nothing.
After working for 45 years, Frugal has well in excess of $2.25M (inflation adjusted of course and assuming the investments were not too stupid) and retires comfortably - never requiring a penny of public assistance. On the other hand, HighRoller retires with NOTHING (except rapidly depreciating designer clothes, HDTV set, and high end car) and ends up living on Social Security
Just leave the year off of the degree(s) entirely - it's actually quite common to do this. And, of course, on your resume, start showing work at whatever date you feel is "right" - BUT DON'T DO THIS ON THE JOB APPLICATION IF THEY MAKE YOU FILL ONE OUT (there, you're signing that what you wrote is true and not that you just couldn't fit ALL your experience into two pages).
Of course, if you do this, don't expect that anyone will give you "credits" for your non-stated years of work when making an offer (but this probably doesn't mean all that much if you keep the last 20 years on the resume).
Seriously, the machine has the complete vote count in this case and the voter (or any precinct level human) should not be able to actually touch the paper ballot -- pressing "ACCEPT" causes the vote to be committed in the machine AND the paper ballot to be visually transported to the ballot box; pressing "CANCEL" causes the vote to be dropped by the machine AND the paper ballot visually destroyed (at least voided and transported to a "spoiled ballot" bin). Obviously the machine and the paper better match or someone's been cooking the results. (The machine's record should initially be sent electronically, publically, and encrypted from the precinct to the county clerk's office to minimize the potential for fraud).
A classic example is their regular editorials calling for nationalized health care in the USA - it may be good, it may be bad, but it's a political issue of how society allocates and redistributes resources, not something a supposedly objective publication should be dealing with. If I want politics, I'll subscribe to Mother Jones or National Review - at least these publications are pretty clear on their biases.
In CU's defense though, 25 years ago they had an "anti-feature" bias -- they seemed to think any neat feature was "unnecessary" - even many that WERE useful to the consumer. Fortunately they have substantially toned down that part of their Luddite and Birkenstock bias in the intervening period.
With paper ballots, "voter intent" becomes a big issue in really close elections... Is that a smudge or a mark? Is that line that crosses through both candidate's boxes intended to be a vote for the first, the second, or an intentional overvote intended to void the vote so an election worker can't later mark one of them [I do this for every office or measure I decide not to vote on]? Remember the chads?
Also, paper ballots move around (in car trunks and the like in some areas) and can (and do) get "lost". They are also not under constant surveillance at all times so the question of vote modification can be easily alleged and not disproven. A proper (and Diebold is of course NOT an example of this, nor could anything that didn't have ALL the source code and hardware designs public be) electronic based system allows multiple backups, electronic data transfer before the physical data store is moved to a secure location (so, if the original electronic data transfer doesn't match what finally appears at the county courthouse, someone's got some 'splaining to do), and security that is much more difficult to crack than paper ballots.
Although you must admit, the subway/light rail in Los Angeles is hardly the gold standard among "real cities" (Los Angeles really isn't much of a "city" - it's more of a sprawling fungus with a few particularly tall fungal masses somewhere near the center). At least compare BART to Washington DC or Boston or ...
That's just asking for a whole new set of viruses designed to cause the blinds to raise at the most unexpected times after detecting the gender, age, appearance, and state of undress of each occupant.
For example, the article indicates that she claims "roofers [were] working without proper safety equipment". This is very different than if she claimed to have "seen roofers working without any visible safety tethers" (for example). The first requires expertise in safety laws/practices as well as rather complete knowledge of what safety methods were actually being used - otherwise it's at best an irresponsible statement and quite possibly untrue. The second statement is (if that was truly what she saw) true without question.
Anyway, I'm just being pedantic about 100% vs. 99.99999999% (although, who knows how many 9's)...
I believe the rules of international warfare would rule out using Wayne Newton's work as the sound input - much for the same reason one isn't supposed to use mustard gas anymore.
(I actually went and refreshed my brain on the overexposure to radiation case after many years - my "shield" description is very simplistic although the general idea is correct. So, don't do any designs based on my prior post as I will disavow all liability)
My guess is that the operator really wouldn't know either (although, she would probably assure me that it "it's very safe").
It's important that life critical software (and hardware) not only have few bugs (and good requirements yada, yada), but that it is designed defensively - which may require additional sensors and additional hardware in addition to watchdog monitors etc.
For example, even if you're pretty sure that the software in a machine won't decide to pump a liter of morphine into the patient within ten seconds, you should have some hardware/software combination that stops such absurd and deadly results even if the primary software fails (or the operator made an absurd error which the primary software failed to catch).
For another example (since I didn't RTFA), I don't know if they list the irradiation device that killed at least one patient because a bug (in a driver associated with keyboard input IIRC) resulted in a shield (which should ALWAYS have been in place if the "more powerful" radiation source were used) not being moved into place before the more powerful radiation source was activated. IMHO, this system should have had an independent (probably electromechanical) system that just REFUSED to activate that radiation source if independent sensors didn't detect that the shield was REALLY in place (and, perhaps even, that the shield had just recently been retracted and extended - to help detect failures in the "shield sensing" device or an operator's misguided attempts to fool the system).
Second, you'll be unlikely to find five people who are better than me AT WHAT I DO (there are more than five, it would just be hard to round up five - but if you hire me, I may be able to bring a couple over long as you're willing to pay them). You can find a million people better than me at a lot of stuff (applications for example). No, I don't crank out GUIs (indeed, the first time I modified a GUI was almost 25 years into my career and then just because someone had to do it and it was needed at 2AM). It is not about education (which I have an adequate, but not impressive amount of) - it is about determining what YOU are natively good at and finding a way to exploit that.
I'm about as loyal (but to the CUSTOMER and the SHAREHOLDER of my company - not my boss) as they come. I've NEVER worked with someone who worked harder than I do when the chips are down (but, I've really enjoyed working on those teams where most people worked AS hard).
Needless to say, I'm very confident in my ability to compete with anyone - foreign or domestic IN THE AREA THAT I'M GOOD AT.
If you were my boss (unlikely I suspect by the way), you would call me at 4AM to figure out how to fix (asking me to build and coordinate an ad-hoc team if needed) a problem one of the top 10 Fortune 500 companies (would that be Fortune 10?) was having that was shutting down their business. I would grab some doughnuts and coffee and stay up with the team for the next 48 hours until we SOLVED the problem. If you failed to call me because you thought you were so smart you didn't need me, in the postmortem, the CEO would probably have you fired.
I have NEVER been at risk of being outsourced. BUT, you would NEVER hire me to be an application programmer (first, you should not offer me such a position - second, I would politely decline any such position at ANY salary and probably cease all discussions with your company because I really don't want to work where I know there are idiots managing important organizations).
In fact, I started at a startup company over 20 years ago and have never accepted an offer since except at startup companies (albeit, I have mistakenly hung around a couple of times for a year or two after the startup was acquired). However, NONE of these companies went out of business and one in particular is very well respected now (as a subsidiary of another company who is not as respected).
My friends keep saying I should apply at Google - but I know better. Google is a great company with some fabulous people. BUT, they have fairly low data integrity standards and in that market it's okay (as has happened twice to me in the last 24 hours) for my gmail to be unavailable a few hours a year. That's not my business, so I politely listen to my friends and ignore them. Google really has no need for me.
I get called in when others have failed. My management can count on me to tell them (and their boss, their boss's boss, and the customer) the TRUTH.
In your career, it's important to figure out what YOU enjoy doing and are good at (if "nothing" is the answer, get a job at WalMart - it will be a lot more pleasant than being miscast for 45 years). Then, pursue that with a relentless energy. Much of this has to do with what you ENJOY, not what pays well. If you have the (arguable) misfortune of being really interested in (and good at) being a pianist - DO IT (even if it means you make most of your money working in a smokey lounge) because you wi
This sounds an awful lot like someone making excuses for not being very successful by blaming someone/thing else for their lack of success.
I didn't go to an Ivy league school. I went to a moderately well respected state university and earned a bachelor's degree in CS. Later (while working) I spent a couple years in the evening getting an master's degree in CS (from a school you have heard of and probably think is pretty good - but it was a complete waste of time as it was less in depth than my undergrad courses). The master's degree never helped me land a job or get a raise or promotion. It's been a long time since I made anywhere close to as little as $100K (yep, I just work for "da man" - I'm not self employed or have my own company). Of course, I'm good at what I do, I take the customer's needs (even if they don't know they need it!) very seriously, and I work my butt off when needed to get the solution working or the bug identified and fixed.
BTW, since I left the university where I got my bachelor's degree, I have only seen one person from the school (and that was my girlfriend at the time) so even my first job had nothing to do with contacts from school (or, for that matter, family) - I interviewed just like everyone else and ended up at a large company. Sure, now I have contacts because people know of my work, but those contacts were EARNED.
Have you considered another line of work?
The A9 thing is pretty neat. Doing a 'virtual drive-by' is helpful so you can see that the place you're looking for is just a few doors down from something that stands out (like a fast food place).
Here's a nice starting point to play with (it's the (Mann) Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollyweird) for the maps.a9.com experience.
Here's an example of the first hit searching for "Sex" in Los Angeles at the Yellow Pages site (yp.a9.com) - I guess the City of Los Angeles keeps track of sex acts in the Hall of Records?
I agree about "per use" licensing opening up a large body of professional software for geeks' hobby (or other) use. (CAD/CAM packages come to mind for me). However, with volume discounts and "unlimited" use subscriptions, there's no reason that heavy users need to pay more than they do now. Of course, the casual users may be too much of a support pain (the high end packages tend to be more difficult to learn) for the vendor and/or too small of a group to be of interest.
Here are somethings that cannot be proven:
...
3)Origins of Humanity.
Umm... what evidence do you have for this claim? Can you prove that this is not provable? Just because we don't yet know the answer doesn't mean it won't be known in the future (I suspect to the great dismay of some). I suspect that ten thousand years ago, the same might have been said about what causes rain - but I suspect that you would not add "what causes rain" to your list of unprovables today.
To assume that there can't be a provable answer to a question just because it seems way too hard to answer now is pretty weak.
Also, I think it would be more correct to say that Religion can't prove anything in the common usage of "prove" since it is based on faith rather than logical deduction, experiment, testing and the like.
Without some evidence, I don't accept that it is a "known fact" that a multiple choice test can test only knowledge. Downpost you seem to soften your position and eventually end up with, on the whole, a claim that perhaps could be stated as: "Tests, and multiple choice tests in particular, are not very effective at objectively validating the level of some skills and abilities, esp. those requiring traits such as creativity, eloquence, and writing skills."
With the softened position, I don't disagree. But certainly basic math, basic science, reading comp, vocabulary, some types of reasoning, some level of history and the like CAN be tested adequately with multiple choice tests - the goal of standardized testing at the K-12 level should be on basic skills and they should not (and do not) try to differentiate between the brightest student and the second brightest student in the class. Take a look at this {pdf warning} sample LSAT and let me know if it tests only knowledge. Indeed, the LSAT test seems to require almost NO prior knowledge except of English and seems to me to be fairly good at testing skills of basic reading comp and logical thinking. Note the first question on this test doesn't even expect you to remember what a stalagmite is - and actually rather cleverly both tells you what they are and then uses this possibly newly acquired knowledge as part of a logical and reading comp exercise.
I expect a high school degree from a public school supported by my tax dollars to mean that the student has some minimal level of skills and knowledge - not advanced ones. I don't want my tax dollars spent cranking out unemployable vessels full of creativity but devoid of knowledge - so I don't mind that tests require knowledge. Your history example is valid - but not as a basic criteria for graduation from high school. History is one of those areas that is harder to meaningfully test with a multiple choice test and, unfortunately, if poorly done can end up with being a date/name/place/act memorization exercise (which it should not be). However, careful test writing can improve this somewhat and focus on basic knowledge. For example, questions could ask for the dates the Declaration of Independence was signed, the date the Constitution was ratified by all states, and the date the Revolutionary war was over. Alternatively (and better but not perfect), a multiple choice test could provide several alternative sequencing of these events and a student who understands even the most basic history of that period could get this correct without remembering a single date (and, those who memorized dates could of course also get this right).
As far as ESL - that's a long discussion. I personally don't think that our taxpayer supported education system should allow students to stay in ESL programs for more than one or two years (something like the lower end of this range for 1-4 and the higher end for 5-12). I think ESL programs should have a primary focus of teaching English to these students - even if it means delaying other areas of education (math etc) and requires an additional year (or summer school) for the student to eventually graduate from high school. Certainly for those ESL students, test results can, at best, only be compared to other ESL students. Right off hand, I can't think of a single highly successful and well known American citizen that doesn't at least speak English (I'm sure there are a few, but the fact I can't think of one but could name 100's that DO speak English suggests to me that it's not common) and I have no problem with that -- but it suggests that minimal English language capabilities may be useful.
As far as your American history essay example goes, a free form essay of this sort seems inappropriate for the type of "minimum bar" standardized testing under discussion.
Umm.. why? Companies are free to fire (if the contract allows it) celebrity endorsers for things they do outside of their endorsement roles. It's all a matter of contracts between two private parties (in the case of private schools of course) - and a smart religious school would include a "morals clause" just as celebrity endorsement contracts often include them.
Ironically, and as much as I hate to admit it (I'm mostly a libertarian), the movement of more Federal control in education finally pushed aside the petty objections to uniform testing of students. The teacher's unions usually objected to any objective measure of student achievement because (correctly) they realized that this would also help objective measure of teacher ability. Testing isn't the perfect solution, but it's much better than NO objective accountability.
Huh???
That's absurd. I hope you are joking (and perhaps I'm too dense to have gotten the 'humor through overstatement').
R U seriously suggesting that the government should control all community groups? If you like that idea, perhaps you should move to North Korea or any of a number of other societies that better reflect your beliefs. Please, move -- I'll buy you a one way ticket if you promise to stay for 20 years in North Korea to truly understand what government domination really means.