Actually, a ballot would only be shredded if it was incorrect (i.e. for some reason the voter picked a candidate accidentally for example) and wanted to correct his vote before "submitting" it.
Right, unless someone hacks it to shred votes that the voter approves, or send votes to machine B which the voter flagged as "incorrect." Which was the point of my objection. And, what's to stop the paper printout from displaying a different vote than the one which is electronically recorded?
Not only is the vote electronically validated by two sources, but there is a paper ballot and the voter gets to verify that his vote was cast correctly.
How is the vote "electronically validated by two sources"? How do you stop one machine from playing tricky games? How does the voter know that the paper vote is an accurate reflection of the electronic vote?
But, who the fuck watches music videos anyway? I doubt it's even possible to give them away. Perhaps the plan is to somehow get people to pay a fee, so they can avoid seeing the videos?
I spend less per gallon, but more per mile. BJ's uses 10% Ethanol, whereas most other stations in the area don't.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, because in most cars, added ethanol gives better fuel economy than straight petroleum. And you usually get better performance as well.
Of course. I've worked in print production for 15 years. I've run departments.
You must be pretty incompetent if you think that CMYK is the only way to produce continuous-tone images, as you said. So, did you really mean that, or not?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that all of the album artwork in the 60s, 70s and 80s was printed with spot colors?
No. When did I say this? Do you have reading comprehension problems?
You said "then we would still have decent artists making album covers, not shitty process CMYK reproductions" which, to me, implied that CMYK was not used to print those old covers at all.
Note the adjective shitty CMYK reproductions. Not all CMYK reproductions are equal. Most of the CD covers seem to come off presses that don't take very much care. And yes, there are some albums that use spot colours or different colour schemes than CMYK, to give solid colours, or to use unusual inks.
Hexachrome, baby!
Hexachrome still can't reproduce flouroescent or metallic colors. And you are still going to get half-toning, unless you are reproducing a solid area of one of the Hexachrome inks. This is one of the reasons custom colors and many screenprints look so great - you don't need to use a mixture of dots to reproduce a special color that is the "signature" of the image.
Second, at no point in the vote counting process is one vendor in control.
In the above scenario, it is mentioned that the voter sees the ballot, and gets to verify the vote. Otherwise, it is shredded. That appears to be under the control of one machine, before it goes to the other. And I don't really see how this process could be done by "two machines."
So, what's to stop the company that makes machine A from rigging it, so that it shreds votes when the voter presses the "valid vote" button, or from passing on votes to machine B, and not shredding them when the voter presses the "wrong vote" button?
You have no idea what you are talking about. I have worked in print production for years. Have you never heard of spot colors? Have you never seen images that have been screen-printed? Never seen a print made with unusual inks like flouroescent or metallic?
There is only one way to print pictures on an offset press, and that is using CMYK.*
Hilarious! So, how do they print monochrome pictures? How do they reproduce colours that can't be made with CMYK inks?
Let Wikipedia guide you.
Sorry, I get my information from extensive real-world experience, not searching on the internet.
I know what mutually exclusive means, but apparently you don't know what "far left" means. Nobody in the far left could call themselves a Democrat, at least not if they actually held far left beliefs, because the Democrats are moderate to slightly right-wing.
Arguing with fraudsters is like arguing with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. As soon as you demonstrate that one part of their evidence is either bogus or had no significant impact on the election,
That seems odd. Arguing that something had "no significant impact" does not mean it did not happen. Are you OK with fraudulent things happening, if they don't affect the outcome?
Only 2 out of Ohio's 88 counties used Diebold machines in 2004. The vast majority of counties used punch-card ballots. So then how are the machines "particularly from Diebold" supposed to have "skewed results in the GOP's favor", as the article claims? If there was any significant bias, wouldn't those two counties have stuck out like a sore thumb, if they are to account for Bush's margin of 118,000 votes?
But the Diebold machines aren't even a major allegation over the Ohio election. Do you deny that many voters were struck from the records, particularly minorities and lower-income people?
Are you denying that there were problems, and people were turned away from the polls? Are you denying that the exit polls had a significant discrepancy from the outcome (something which is not typical)?
In general, the voter fraud is down to the level where it does not effect the outcome
How would you know? What evidence do you have that fraud is at an all-time low?
The US electoral system is not very open. It's nearly impossible for citizens to know what is going on. Just take the Diebold fiasco for example - how is it possible that in a modern democracy, a single company is able to control access to the voting system like that? They claim their system is a "proprietary secret." How can a proprietary system like that possibly be accepted by the electoral system? Diebold doesn't have any right of ownership over it - the American people do.
And if things are so great, then why is it so easy to just strike valid voters off the rolls? How was it possible for the recount in Florida to be stalled? The system seems utterly absurd and totally abusable, when compared to most other modern democracies in the world. Hell, even without comparison to other democracies, which generally don't have these problems, the system raises questions on its own terms.
So have you refuted every argument put forth by the Discovery Institute on why evolution is bunk? Or after the first few stupid things get debunked, do you learn to consider the source until Nature comes out with the announcement that it's all been a big mistake?
That's a pretty disingenuous comparison. We are talking about a current issue that hasn't had much light shed on it yet, not something that's widely examined and held to be true.
After Kennedy re-hashed tired and long-disproven arguments about vaccines causing autism, I learned to consider the source and will wait for somebody more credible to make the argument before I bother trying to support or refute it.
I don't see what autism has to do with elections. One would think a politician is more expert in the field of politics than medicine. In any case, you are setting up a straw man. Nobody has all the facts on Ohio yet. Kennedy may be right or may be wrong. But there was certainly suspicious activity. The American public should demand more transparent elections, whether or not Ohio was stolen. It's absurd that information surrounding what really went on at elections is so obscured.
It's nothing like arguing against evolution. It's more like discovering some phenomenon, and then investigating further. Or would you just rather not bother? After all, it's only democracy which is at stake.
Plus, while there's likely to be a correlation between exit polls and what people voted, there's no way to rule out a self-selection. Maybe Kerry supporters were more likely to answer the poll. Maybe people were embarrassed to admit they voted for Bush and lied on the exit poll. Maybe the people taking the exit poll rigged the exit poll for Kerry.
Perhaps, but why have exit polls been so amazingly accurate in the past - and now, when anomalies turn up, the exit polls don't match for those places where weird shit was going on, like voters being turned away from the polls, or machines malfunctioning?
On a related note, I love the duality of various far-left Democrats,
That doesn't make any sense. The terms "far left" and "Democrat" are mutually exlusive. Democrats are typically centrist, many of them increasingly right-leaning.
howling at the same time that the current administration is completely incompetent, while at the same time accusing them of managing to conspire to rig the election.
I don;t see the contradiction. They are incompetent at running the country, because they spend so much time on their corrupt self-serving schemes. Same with most bad politicians, of whatever persuasion
If they can't keep secret prisons secret, what's the chance that they'd keep an election conspiracy secret?
They can't, and they haven't. Anyone with their eyes open knows there's dodgy stuff going on. Of course, that doesn't mean most Americans care. Hell, we KNOW, for sure about hundreds of screw-ups and lies, and somehow Bush hasn't been impeached yet. They openly come out and advocate torture, and it seems nobody cares. Maybe it would be a different matter if the President got a Blow Job. Seems that harmless personal infidelity is evil in the eyes of the voters, but corruption on a massive scale is perfectly OK. People very quickly forget. How many people really even remember what happened at Abu Ghraib? How many people remember the "anthrax attacks" and who it was that was investigated for those?
If people don't even remember such major events and atrocities, they aren't going to remember much about the fiascos in Ohio and Florida. It's basically been revealed that Diebold machines are easily hackable, and the people that run the company have partisan intentions. Where is all the outrage? Why isn't that issue being covered every day on the national news networks? Instead, all you get is celebrity gossip and talking points about Democrats "giving aid to the enemy" or being "terrorist sympathizers" and other such nonsense.
Do you have anything to refute the content and the facts laid out in the article? It doesn't matter who the source is. It matters if it's true or not. Show me any human on this planet who is not biased.
It's pretty unlikely that you can hear many frequencies above 20,000 Hz. Plus most audio equipment has difficulties in that range. And what does the sampling rate have to do with frequency response? Using 96k audio files is not going to change the top end response of the hardware. I'm not sure what your point is.
Not all the great album covers were continuous tone. And those that were CMYK tended not to be shitty CMYK that has no care taken with it, as is often the case these days. Also, it was usually printed on good paper stock, too, not some of the flimsy garbage you see these days.
Perhaps, but not with my collection. I have lots of CDs, but rarely shooped at the same store more than a few times. Heck, most of my CDs were bought in stores that have been out of business for quite some time, and no longer exist.
In my work as a private dick, I've come across a number of strange cases. But nothing beats the time when this dame came into my office and told me about her murdered husband. He was found clutching his iPod, ears bleeding, with Michael Bolton on repeat-play. After making love on my desk, I decided to investigate.
To cut a long story short, it turned out to be Mr. Mustard in the drawing room with a candlestick.
But you still can't play your CDs directly with your iPod. You have to jump through hoops first.
Jump through hoops? I'm not sure what you are talking about. You simply insert the disc into your CD-ROM drive, iTunes rips the files, tags them, and transfers to your iPod. It's exactly as convenient as listening to the CD in a normal player.
It be like everyone was buying cassete players, but still buying 8 track tapes and recording them onto cassettes.
Not really, because the CD was a quantum leap in convenience from tapes. No more rewinding, or hunting for songs. It was also a big increase in audio quality. Never mind the fact that 8-tracks never had the kind of market dominance that CDs enjoy.
Similarly, the iPod was also a big increase in convenience. No more sorting through physical discs to find your CDs. No more bulky collections to carry around. The iPod did not increase quality - but the main reason for the success of both the CD and the iPod was not quality but convenience.
Maybe the switch will happen when the CD player is less dominant elsewhere (like stereos) and the media center PC becomes a reality in every home.
That's pretty much already happened. How many people actually play CDs in standalone CD players these days? How many people have a computer with a CD-ROM? I'm not sure why you need a "media center" PC to use iTunes. The difference is that people already have huge collections of CDs, and have stores that sell CDs in their neighborhood. I don't think it has much to do with people not being comfortable with using their PCs for music.
Well, I guess it's a good thing Apple added the "download album artwork" feature to the latest version of iTunes. But I don't think you are representative of the market. Very few people give a shit about album artwork. Most people just rip their CDs to their portable player - and the CD/artwork goes on the shelf or in a drawer, never to be touched by human hands again.
I think most people buy music for the music, not for the artwork. If they bought for the artwork, then vinyl LPs would still be dominant - the artwork you get on those tiny CD packges is shitty, and can't compare to the quality of artwork on vinyl LPs. If people bought for the artwork - then we would still have decent artists making album covers, not shitty process CMYK reproductions of hacked-together "artwork" in miniature.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, unless someone hacks it to shred votes that the voter approves, or send votes to machine B which the voter flagged as "incorrect." Which was the point of my objection. And, what's to stop the paper printout from displaying a different vote than the one which is electronically recorded?
Not only is the vote electronically validated by two sources, but there is a paper ballot and the voter gets to verify that his vote was cast correctly.
How is the vote "electronically validated by two sources"? How do you stop one machine from playing tricky games? How does the voter know that the paper vote is an accurate reflection of the electronic vote?
*shudder*
But, who the fuck watches music videos anyway? I doubt it's even possible to give them away. Perhaps the plan is to somehow get people to pay a fee, so they can avoid seeing the videos?
That doesn't make a lot of sense, because in most cars, added ethanol gives better fuel economy than straight petroleum. And you usually get better performance as well.
You must be pretty incompetent if you think that CMYK is the only way to produce continuous-tone images, as you said. So, did you really mean that, or not?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that all of the album artwork in the 60s, 70s and 80s was printed with spot colors?
No. When did I say this? Do you have reading comprehension problems?
You said "then we would still have decent artists making album covers, not shitty process CMYK reproductions" which, to me, implied that CMYK was not used to print those old covers at all.
Note the adjective shitty CMYK reproductions. Not all CMYK reproductions are equal. Most of the CD covers seem to come off presses that don't take very much care. And yes, there are some albums that use spot colours or different colour schemes than CMYK, to give solid colours, or to use unusual inks.
Hexachrome, baby!
Hexachrome still can't reproduce flouroescent or metallic colors. And you are still going to get half-toning, unless you are reproducing a solid area of one of the Hexachrome inks. This is one of the reasons custom colors and many screenprints look so great - you don't need to use a mixture of dots to reproduce a special color that is the "signature" of the image.
Circumnavigate security measures? What, do you find the New World when you make it to the other side?
In the above scenario, it is mentioned that the voter sees the ballot, and gets to verify the vote. Otherwise, it is shredded. That appears to be under the control of one machine, before it goes to the other. And I don't really see how this process could be done by "two machines."
So, what's to stop the company that makes machine A from rigging it, so that it shreds votes when the voter presses the "valid vote" button, or from passing on votes to machine B, and not shredding them when the voter presses the "wrong vote" button?
Because the BSA is an American organization?
Are you saying that Chuck Norris isn't real?
There is only one way to print pictures on an offset press, and that is using CMYK.*
Hilarious! So, how do they print monochrome pictures? How do they reproduce colours that can't be made with CMYK inks?
Let Wikipedia guide you.
Sorry, I get my information from extensive real-world experience, not searching on the internet.
I need a new ironying board.
I know what mutually exclusive means, but apparently you don't know what "far left" means. Nobody in the far left could call themselves a Democrat, at least not if they actually held far left beliefs, because the Democrats are moderate to slightly right-wing.
That seems odd. Arguing that something had "no significant impact" does not mean it did not happen. Are you OK with fraudulent things happening, if they don't affect the outcome?
Only 2 out of Ohio's 88 counties used Diebold machines in 2004. The vast majority of counties used punch-card ballots. So then how are the machines "particularly from Diebold" supposed to have "skewed results in the GOP's favor", as the article claims? If there was any significant bias, wouldn't those two counties have stuck out like a sore thumb, if they are to account for Bush's margin of 118,000 votes?
But the Diebold machines aren't even a major allegation over the Ohio election. Do you deny that many voters were struck from the records, particularly minorities and lower-income people?
Are you denying that there were problems, and people were turned away from the polls? Are you denying that the exit polls had a significant discrepancy from the outcome (something which is not typical)?
How would you know? What evidence do you have that fraud is at an all-time low?
The US electoral system is not very open. It's nearly impossible for citizens to know what is going on. Just take the Diebold fiasco for example - how is it possible that in a modern democracy, a single company is able to control access to the voting system like that? They claim their system is a "proprietary secret." How can a proprietary system like that possibly be accepted by the electoral system? Diebold doesn't have any right of ownership over it - the American people do.
And if things are so great, then why is it so easy to just strike valid voters off the rolls? How was it possible for the recount in Florida to be stalled? The system seems utterly absurd and totally abusable, when compared to most other modern democracies in the world. Hell, even without comparison to other democracies, which generally don't have these problems, the system raises questions on its own terms.
That's a pretty disingenuous comparison. We are talking about a current issue that hasn't had much light shed on it yet, not something that's widely examined and held to be true.
After Kennedy re-hashed tired and long-disproven arguments about vaccines causing autism, I learned to consider the source and will wait for somebody more credible to make the argument before I bother trying to support or refute it.
I don't see what autism has to do with elections. One would think a politician is more expert in the field of politics than medicine. In any case, you are setting up a straw man. Nobody has all the facts on Ohio yet. Kennedy may be right or may be wrong. But there was certainly suspicious activity. The American public should demand more transparent elections, whether or not Ohio was stolen. It's absurd that information surrounding what really went on at elections is so obscured.
It's nothing like arguing against evolution. It's more like discovering some phenomenon, and then investigating further. Or would you just rather not bother? After all, it's only democracy which is at stake.
Perhaps, but why have exit polls been so amazingly accurate in the past - and now, when anomalies turn up, the exit polls don't match for those places where weird shit was going on, like voters being turned away from the polls, or machines malfunctioning?
On a related note, I love the duality of various far-left Democrats,
That doesn't make any sense. The terms "far left" and "Democrat" are mutually exlusive. Democrats are typically centrist, many of them increasingly right-leaning.
howling at the same time that the current administration is completely incompetent, while at the same time accusing them of managing to conspire to rig the election.
I don;t see the contradiction. They are incompetent at running the country, because they spend so much time on their corrupt self-serving schemes. Same with most bad politicians, of whatever persuasion
If they can't keep secret prisons secret, what's the chance that they'd keep an election conspiracy secret?
They can't, and they haven't. Anyone with their eyes open knows there's dodgy stuff going on. Of course, that doesn't mean most Americans care. Hell, we KNOW, for sure about hundreds of screw-ups and lies, and somehow Bush hasn't been impeached yet. They openly come out and advocate torture, and it seems nobody cares. Maybe it would be a different matter if the President got a Blow Job. Seems that harmless personal infidelity is evil in the eyes of the voters, but corruption on a massive scale is perfectly OK. People very quickly forget. How many people really even remember what happened at Abu Ghraib? How many people remember the "anthrax attacks" and who it was that was investigated for those?
If people don't even remember such major events and atrocities, they aren't going to remember much about the fiascos in Ohio and Florida. It's basically been revealed that Diebold machines are easily hackable, and the people that run the company have partisan intentions. Where is all the outrage? Why isn't that issue being covered every day on the national news networks? Instead, all you get is celebrity gossip and talking points about Democrats "giving aid to the enemy" or being "terrorist sympathizers" and other such nonsense.
Argue with the argument, not the arguer.
It's pretty unlikely that you can hear many frequencies above 20,000 Hz. Plus most audio equipment has difficulties in that range. And what does the sampling rate have to do with frequency response? Using 96k audio files is not going to change the top end response of the hardware. I'm not sure what your point is.
Not all the great album covers were continuous tone. And those that were CMYK tended not to be shitty CMYK that has no care taken with it, as is often the case these days. Also, it was usually printed on good paper stock, too, not some of the flimsy garbage you see these days.
Bender's got bling, baby, and you know it!
It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.
Perhaps, but not with my collection. I have lots of CDs, but rarely shooped at the same store more than a few times. Heck, most of my CDs were bought in stores that have been out of business for quite some time, and no longer exist.
To cut a long story short, it turned out to be Mr. Mustard in the drawing room with a candlestick.
Jump through hoops? I'm not sure what you are talking about. You simply insert the disc into your CD-ROM drive, iTunes rips the files, tags them, and transfers to your iPod. It's exactly as convenient as listening to the CD in a normal player.
It be like everyone was buying cassete players, but still buying 8 track tapes and recording them onto cassettes.
Not really, because the CD was a quantum leap in convenience from tapes. No more rewinding, or hunting for songs. It was also a big increase in audio quality. Never mind the fact that 8-tracks never had the kind of market dominance that CDs enjoy.
Similarly, the iPod was also a big increase in convenience. No more sorting through physical discs to find your CDs. No more bulky collections to carry around. The iPod did not increase quality - but the main reason for the success of both the CD and the iPod was not quality but convenience.
Maybe the switch will happen when the CD player is less dominant elsewhere (like stereos) and the media center PC becomes a reality in every home.
That's pretty much already happened. How many people actually play CDs in standalone CD players these days? How many people have a computer with a CD-ROM? I'm not sure why you need a "media center" PC to use iTunes. The difference is that people already have huge collections of CDs, and have stores that sell CDs in their neighborhood. I don't think it has much to do with people not being comfortable with using their PCs for music.
I think most people buy music for the music, not for the artwork. If they bought for the artwork, then vinyl LPs would still be dominant - the artwork you get on those tiny CD packges is shitty, and can't compare to the quality of artwork on vinyl LPs. If people bought for the artwork - then we would still have decent artists making album covers, not shitty process CMYK reproductions of hacked-together "artwork" in miniature.