Dungeons and Dragons solved this simply in 4e by allowing loot to be converted to a mineral element worth 1/5th of the magic item's base value. No need to go back to town to sell stuff you don;t want, just convet it on the fly. The only crap you'd need to haul back to town for the chest deposit would be high levbel stuff you can't use yet, something I don;t think should even be in the game... (higher level items should simply have max damage penalized until you exceed the level limit, and high level items even with penalty might very well be better than a lower level item.)
Mac gaming is a big deal. EA has made a good start, as well as Blizzard, and if the trend continues and more join the party, especially if Apple starts offering systems with more selectible graphics options and room for off-the-shelf non-proprietary form factor cards. The more poular OS X, the more games that will be deved for it, and with Vista a flop and the halo effect working lice a charm, Apple is only a few years from passing Dell in units sold (they already passed them in total net profit).
Linux gaming? not so much. I know about 200 folks with Linux machines, and aside from laptops which are notoriously poor gaming machines anyway, all the Linux desktop users I know are using linux on their old-n-busted previous generation hardware. They few that use linux on their performaqnce machines dual boot to Windows to play anyway. Diversifying the field to include Linux gamers will add dramatic development costs, 30-50% more bug testing, slow product development and updates, complicate game support, and for what, people that could simply boot to Windows anyway?
Now, I might see some Mac-only game developers out there branch into Linux, since recompiling for some distros would be less difficult than a rewrite to support Vista and XP, but I think this is the exception, and would not be considdered rule.
Linux gamers??? I use linux a lot, have for years. I have never considdered it a gaming platform aside from some simple games to occupy time. I know about 200 of my collegues that have linux systems at home, not one uses it for gaming.
Linux graphics drivers are slow to evelve, underporform, and are generally buggy. No DX support to really speak of means huge hurdles for game developers. Plus, nearly all of the linux guys I know have Linux on their "backup" machine, the older hardware no longer good enough to keep up with PC gaming and graphics. Most of use use Linux on the file server, media center, HTPC, backup server, etc.
Where did you get your figures on there are more linux gamers than mac gamers? I'd like to see some actual studies on that. I'd also like that broken down geographically to regions where games published in English exist...
I don't think it will be slower at all, especially from wathing the game footage. Running back to town to stock up on potions that took 1/3rd of my inventory repeatedly durring a dungeon was indeed slowing me down, especially when different party members would run out at different times.
I'll sure we'll still need to TP occasionally to dump our goods (I'd like to see bigger backpacks, for less frequent trips, but maybe in compensation, some kind of gradual encumberance system. I'd also like to see a waty to convert magic items to cash, ala DnD 4e disenchant spell, to make this even less frequent of a requirement)
If this is like many other games thet employ similar systems, you may occasionally have to run away to allow natural regenration to make up some of the difference, or move to positions that are better defended (bottle neck the bastards to keep from being fully surrounded). I don;t think this is a bad tradeoff as I enjoy the challenge and don;t think it will detract much at all from game pace.
The secureROM barcoding on the original disks for Diablo II pretty much ensured it could only be installed using that original disk. yoiu could do a No-CD crack, but only if you played solo or LAN games. Playing online required the original disk to be in the drive at all times.
That's pretty good by me... and I think quite fair. No limit on installations, you just need ths disk to play.
Yup, that's a large part of it. Server load. You also have to considder multi-platform users. I doubt there are many bot apps for Mac systems.
I like what the guys from CoH have come up with now though. Log out at a certain location, and you get an offline "profession," earning some particular item, slowly, of value. (money, salvage, xp, etc) This allows characters to slowly advance when not online. Spending time at certain places offline builds towards bonuses and rewalrds, and having cmbinations of profession rewards unlocks extras and bonuses.
Not all of us can play 40 hours a week, and that extra gold can be highly valuable to a character who plays very little. Players who pound the keyboards all night advance faster, but players who don;t play as often will build extra resources without building XP, meaning they'll have a bit more to spend next content update.
Also, another cool adaptation: friends can create new characters and bind them together in XP. If one friend plays a lot and the other not so much, they both level up at the same pace. XP is not split, it's just granted to the other character at the same rate even when offline. This makes teaming with people I know and like MUCH easier. income will be hard to come by I'm sure, if I level up 10 levels while not playing, i'll be missing 10 levels of stuff and income, but I'm sure I can come up with it from somewhere...
Aparently you did not read the parts about many rewards being based on moral behaviors. The game does not have a strict system for giving set numbers of sticks for specific behaviors (though many negative behaviors have a number for them).
Telling the truth, even when it's bad, is part of this systemm. Simply doing a good deed, or helping someone gets a reward. Conversations can also be rewarded, when they make positive statements, or simply when they learn or repeat something profound. Exrra efforts made without being asked are also rewarded.
Nightly discussions at dinner over why a stick was earned or lost are also a cornerstone of this system. Taking a stick without them talking about why it happened is poitnless, so we account for it.
The rules are "behave" not "don't do this, but do that" The undefined sysem gives parents flexibility, and keeps the kids from playing it as a game. Every decision the kids make all day can effect how many sticks they end up with. It is not a hard and fast system of rewards. This is why it;s superior.
(in a nutshell, I agree with you, you simply missed reading these details that I discussed on some level)
Somewhat, yes. It's more about teaching them to comment "I'm hungy" then "I want..." when still at the store. Then we have a conversation "when we get home we'll make a snack. What would you like?"
Part of the system is helping them understand when it's apporpriate to ask in the first place.
Eventually, they get to a point where they learn "Daddy, I'd like some apples to snack on at home, we don't have any." not only might earn them a stick for asking for a healthy snack in a proper manner, but usually they'll get to eat one of those apples in the car on the way home to boot.
Yes, in general, the system is intended to be flexible. If the rules are strict and top the point like "Don't ask for anything in stores" then you're playing a game, not helping them learn and adapt. It;s really amazing some of the ways they think of to get their point across without crossing lines. My wife and I have had some really good laughs about things that have come out of their mouthes. We're also constantly impressed with how quickly a young mind fugures things out and adapts.
The kids can ask for things. When they're hungry and they ask for food, that's OK. When they're in a store and ask for a candy bar, that's not food, that's a reward.
Asking for toys, gifts, speciual favors, candy, etc, those are all things that have to be earned, and the kids learn this. Ocasionally we'll ask (usually at least once a week) "what are you saving for, what do you want, what do you like, etc" We're aware of their wants and needs. It;s not a system of cruelty. It helps train them not only to earn what they want, but they're learning when it's appropriate to ask, and asking at the right time can be rewarded, just as quickly as asking at the wrong time gets a concequence.
Yup. Everyone should find a nice large empty parking lot, or a wide flat empty road, and give their ABS a try. Many cars actually vibrate your foot on the pedal quite dramatically as well, and people who are not expecting it will actionall STOP BREAKING since it startles them. PLEASE LEARN HOW YOUR CAR BEHAVES!
The first time is snows, take your car to a parking area (get permission ar at least let security know you're not doing donuts for fun). Drive hard, try to swerve (safely), learn how your car handles when avoiding imaginary objects. Learn it's skidding behavior. Learn it's breaking behavior (especially how it handles turning while breaking hard).
In my opinion, every county should have a place where you are required to go within 30 days of registering a new vehicle, and make every driver insured to drive that car go through a vehicle handling course to learn how to handle it properly. This small expense ($20 per driver sounds fair), would mean the ability to lower insurance rates, and far fewer accidents.
Newer cars in the mid and upper price ranges now not only deploy ABS combined with traction control, but many are equipped with intelligent brake steering as well. Even without pressing the brake pedal, steering the car in certain ways makes the car apply breaks to specific wheels. This dramatically improves handling and limits your tail end sliding out on you when performing avoidance maneuvers. When breaking, pressure is applied to different wheels individually, and on really well designed cars, ABS will only trigger on wheels that it detects slipage on.
I was quite surprised reading the manual for my van that it not only had ABS and traction control, but that the rear end actually employs hydrolics to that regardless of load, the rear end is allways level woth the ground, and it keeps the rear end a maximum distance up (lower to ground = more stable). Many vans you'll notice rise up on their springs when unloaded, and this causes the rear end to be more top heavy. My van also deploys 4 wheen steering, further helping rear end spin outs. The breaking system calibrates breaking performance from front and rear based on the load detectedby the hydrolics. When I attach a hitch and trailer, breaking also changes somewho to help prevent loss of trailer control, especially with break-equipped 6 wire trailer hookups.
Actually, no. ABS is NOT to stop your car quicker, it's to overcome the wheels locking under heavy breaking, which almost allways causes your car to skid or swerve. ABS is about CONTROL while breaking.
ABS systems in most cars trigger 16 times a second. The "clacking" you hear while breaking is this system. Only in extremely expensive cars with professional suspension kits does the ABS work on-demand, which actually is a better system (detecting when a wheel drops speed/skids in relation to the others). This type of ABS is superior, but MANY times more expensive, and out of the reach of most cars priced under $40K.
In breaking cases where traction loss from breaking would have been guaranteed (hardest breaking at over 60MPH speeds) ABS can stop cars quicker, but in most cases, 40MPH and less, the most common speed for an "avoidance" manuever, ABS can increase breaking distance as locking tires at lower speeds is not a concern or does not happen frequntly.
The higher priced cars have better tuned ABS systems, meaning that they control breaking pretty close to the tire's friction theshold on WET roads. Cheaper cars, typically have a higher theshold and do not break as fast. Keep in mind, the ABS is also tunes to expect maximum vehicle gross weight. On my car, I had the ABS system tuned. I replaced the tires with ones that had a much higher performance and traction rating than the crap tires that came with the car, which meant the ABS system could be tweaked to provide higher breaking traction without fear of loss of traction.
For most drivers, ABS is a better breaking system, and especially in wet conditions, or with a lot of road dust, abs will stop a car quicker. But do not confuse it with a performance breaking system. On dry roads, ABS will usually cause the car to take longer to stop. The real reason we have it is for breaking CONTROL, not breaking power.
My wife has been using it to teach 3rd and 4th graders for 8 years. She learned about the technique in graduate school working towards her Masters in education. We've been using it at home for 5 years, and we know about 20 familes also doing the same system now. None of us have problems with the kids with the exception of 2 couples who actually have honest to god mentally disabled children. Yes they misbehave occasionally. Yes the WILL test the system. However, behavios and reaction to discipline is much more preductable than with any other system we've seen or heard of. This system even works for those who are borderline ADHD (those typically on medication that really just need a swift kick in the ass).
I must warn however, no positive reinforcement system will work unless you a) stick to it, b) figure out what consequences actually work on your kids (some need spankings, some need things taken away, some need attention isolation, etc). C) There has to be a plus they like, and there has to be a consequence they don't, and D) you can NEVER negotiate. (actually, refusal to bend is pretty much the single most important aspect. If they can get you to compromise, they've got you all wrapped up).
Oh yea, and the drilling? They did tell you that the estimates are we won;t be getting oil from there into our pumps for 7-10 years, and it won't be at less than $4.50 a gallon. Some areas they're proposing to drill have a $6.00 per gallon minimum profit point. Shale oil is even worse, and 6 times as polluting.
Yea, private sector fighting and environmental concerns based mostly in FUD propoganda are preventing grid expansion. It;s worse for nuclear. Of the estimated cost of a new nuclear plant, nearly 30% is in legal fees and payoff concessions. Only 70% of the cost is in actual constuction fees. Coal is better, but nobody wants the coal plant for fear of smog, ignoring the fact that a new plant would use sequestration, since selling the CO2 for RTFS use is actually more profitable than not sequestering it in a newly constructed plant.
daytime charging? what, do you plan on Walmarts installing charging cables? Meters on street corners haveing hookups to 40 amp curcuits? Parking garrages too? How do we know who to bill the electricity to? Assigned parking? Excryted credit card transactions at parking meters? Each parking stall with it's own electrical meter, own hookup? Shit, the cable you plug into your car to charge has over $100 of copper in it... Now you not only have to find a place to park, but one with a working meter, and a connector that's not damaged?
Sure some places will install such a system, but 90% of us who drive to work won't get to use one, not with the costs, jegistaltion, monitoring, ticketing, and everything else balanced vs an extra $1 per 50 miles driven to get home on gasiline.
We have already discovered dozens of ways to improve solar efficiency. We pretty much know what we'll be advancing over the next 10-15 years, just like we've planned out microchip advancements for the last and future decade. You must be one of the people that still think SIMM memory came out 8 years before DIMM was not a coincidence, that naming a first "single" 8 years before there was "double" or that we actually keep designing a better toothbrush after 90 years of study is an actual science...
In the last 20 years, solar has seen about a doubling in efficincy. At 20% efficiency, even if cheap, it's not enough energy. Even for my house, in SC, with a full southern facing roof, I could not install enough solar panels to offset my 2000KWh bill. I would have needed another bank in the back yard to make the difference. Guess what, just a single plug in vehicle driven 80 miles a day would use more energy than the whole house. To power the home and 2 cars, I'd have bneeded 70% efficient cells to cover it without using lawn space....and what do we do about the half of america that does not have a home to put solar on, let alone the half of them that rent homes instead of owning them?
the 15-30 years is coming from the scientists, MIT, research firms, and more. It's not a guess, but a realistic estimate. We know we can only get so much energy out of a given surface area. We know the properties of light and materials. We've made some advancements in refracted photovoltaic crystalization, and we have cheaper, more flexibler materials, but the cost is still rediculous, and though it may be competitive in efficincy in 20 years, it won;t be in cost, or vice versa.
Current solar user who advertise 8-12 year payback are getting substantial government subsidy (up to 70%!). In SC, I only qualify for the $2000 one time benefit from the federal government. To offset 60% of my use, the most economical instalation per amount of energy generated for my location and home size, it was going to take 21 years to pay off, assum ing an annual 5% increase in electric costs, and assuming the panels did not need replacement during that time, and assuming only a 2% annual performance dropp off. 1 hail storm and my insurance deductable, and it would have been impossible to recoup the payments over time. Trippling that toi power the house and 2 cars? simply not possible. The cost needed to be 20% or less than it currently was. Unfortunately, more than 20% of the cost was LABOR, meaning even if the panels were free, I could not have broken even with that scenario vs a plug-in-to-the-grid car.
I completely agree these machines are crap. I completely agree that there needs to be verifyable, per vote, printed responses, including re-reading an entire election electronically, giving each person a receipt they can take home validating their vote, and on screen plus printed verification of voting.
In this case however, we do not currently have that.
Accuracy in a vote is not disputable, but "accuracy" is not defined as each individual vote must be perfect. It;s described as the accuracy of the system must be finer than the margin of error in the system.
Do you know they don;t actually count write-in ballots? When you register an absentee vote, your vote is ONLY counted if the election results are "possibly" adjusted by doing so. Lets say the vote is within 1000 votes, and the ratio of 49% to 51%. If there are 4,000 write-in ballots, they WON'T count them. Statistically, 3000 or the 4000 would have to have voted for the other side. This is so unlikely in a 49/51 split, that even the politicians agree it;s not worth the money to count.
We don;t have to verify each vote, we only have to verify enough votes to show there is no reasonable statistical probability of the other party being the victor. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the statistical prediction. This has been gone over in courts, with those votes being mandated to be counted, and each time they wasted states money to actually count, guess what, the estimates were right, and the absentee vote was no impact, not even a slight one.
Yea, I'd love for every single vote to count, sure. Do I wish to spend a few dozen million dollars ensuring the accuracy of my elections switches from 0.05% to 0.01%? no. Waste of time and taxpayer money, especially when a "close" election is 1%...
These machines may be at risk to tampering, but they have to be tampered one at a time, and over 10,000 machines are in use. To sway just 1%, and to do so in such a way as it;s subtle, an noone suspects and anaylizes the machines (you can't have a machine vote 100% for one guy, if it's off from the exit polls by 5% or more, the'll be an investigation), more than 5% of the machines would likely have to be hacked. Since that means we need 500 hackers, since a single person only gets to touch 1 machine (1 vote, 1 machine). Each of those 500 people would be part of the largest ever terorist action, and how likely is it just one of those 500 would talk?
It;'s much more likely tampering will happen by actual election officials. I don;t care what kind of system you use (especially paper ballots), there's room for tampering. We do not yet have a polling system that is truly secure. Even with the best measures, and double paper verified trails, it;s still possible the results can be augmented. You see, elections are often swayed by more than 1% at a polling location just by altering how many machines they have, or by changing how long people wait, or the temperature of the air in the poling center. (old people don;t like to wait long, swinging to democrats, young people don;t like viting in polkice stations or fire houses, swinging to republicans, even the local media gets involved and tells voters too early that one candidate has won and lts of people simply skip voting altogether, especially those that work late, even the weather has been known to cost a candidate a local election).
No matter how good the system is, unless we force every single person to register a vote, it will never be accurate. As long as only a percentage of people vote, the statistical anomolies just in that outweight any potential for organized state or national election tampering. It;s simly not as big of an issue as people are led to believe.
Same way governments get money for anything else: taxes.
I know those on the far right like to believe that somehow if we keep cutting taxes we'll raise government revenue - sort of like how internet bubble entrepreneurs would lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume. But it doesn't work that way.
Now, later, maybe some of that expense can be made up with lawsuits against the companies that provided the defective voting machines. And maybe money will have to be moved out of other expenditures to balance the books. But right now, in the next month New Jersey must take on this expense of replacing those defective machines; hand-counted paper ballots are the cheapest way to do so.
The Constitution guarantees each state a republican (small-r!) form of government; accurate balloting is a necessary precondition for that. If necessary, then, the federal government must provide emergency funding (probably in the form of a loan).
Reliable voting is not an option, it is a necessity. The money can be raised.
to 1) print all the ballots, on machines we don;t have to print them on
What, the state government doesn't have fscking laser printers? Or couldn't get a rush order done at a commercial printer? C'mon.
and get them to all the polling centers.
What, the state government doesn't have fscking cars and trucks? Or couldn't get FedEx to do the deliveries? C'mon.
Then, we'd have to manually recount all those ballots, twice.
So? Canada does it; if a nation of 33 million can do it, a state of 8 1/2 million can too.
Of course, all this is what what happen in a sane and democratic society. In our crazy corporate plutocracy, I expect that New Jersey will somehow end up giving more money to the vendors and will go ahead and conduct a meaningless, unreliable election.
Much easier if we know the machines faults, can take the elction on existing equipment, then cross check the machine's security
Cross-check them against what? If we had verifiable receipts to validate the machines against, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Besides, there's not enough certified election officials to handle it, and we could not get enough volunteers in time trained and ready to handle the counting.
Nonsense. Counting ballots hardly requires extensive training. Hire a bunch of teenagers at a bit above minimum wage. Or, does NJ have a "volunteer" hour requirement for high school students? I'm opposed to them, but if it's in place, this would be a great opportunity for the kids to burn that off.
These machines are not centrally networked, so to have en effect on even 5% of the election total, someone would have to hacke dozens of machines each at hundreds of polling sites.
The money can not be raised. You do not understand not only the costs, but the logistics involved. You also don;t understand taxes. They have to HAVE the money to spend it. We can pass a bill to collect this money and spend it later, but if it's not in the budget, they can't do it. Not in NJ anyway. They'd need to get approved for disaster releif, for which elections do not qualify.
Ballots require not only special printers to provide authenticity certifications (lest you think paper is more secure than a computer,
The machines WILL have evidence of penetration. We may not be able to audit a paper trail of the votes, but we can certainly confirm if the machine's code or vote tally has been altered, which is enough to decertify the election results from that machine.
We also have exit polling, and regional metrics to validate against, combines with other machines in the same polling location. Based on how these machines ARE verified, since each one is individual and not centrally connected to another computer, each individual machine in a precinct would have to be altered, requiring dozens of hackers just to effect a single precinct, and even if they did, if that vote mismatched from the exit poll or nearby polling centers by even 3 or 4%, we'd be investigating the machines and the staff. We'd need to swing the entire state by 11% to change the current preducted outcome, meaining this would have to happen in HUNDREDS of polling centers.
The information is only hidden from the public, not representitives of either side of the casee. There is no part of this order that prevents the state from taking actions here.
We ARE prepared for this election. The statistical chance of a single machine even being compromised is virtually nil, since no person in joe public has had access to one to hack it. Second, it would take over 1000 hackers in a coordinated strike to even effect 1% of the machines in use here, and potentially shift the vote maybe by 10-20,000 votes, less than 1% of the expected voter base. Also, if certain machines seemed inconsistent with the others at the same poling location, or at multiple poliing locations throughout the state, these could be cross checked by these KNOWN vulnerabilities, and the vote ruled out in small scale without effecting the remaining outcome.
You MORONS are treating this like it;s a single system that can be compromised, and the vote could be shifted by percentages sufficient to alter the outcome of this election. Estimates in this case are that Obama will already take the state by 11%... It would take a MIRACLE effort of the largest ever operating terrorist cell to offset this by even 3 or 4%, which statistically still means nothing for the outcome.
You do NOT understand the technology. You do NOT understand the controls in place. You do NOT understand the runing.
This is NOT a case of the judge refusing to allow the testimony. This is closing that testimony to only the approved witnesses in the case (about 90 people!) This is NOT a cover up.
No, generally it doesn't. Hoiwever, if it;s released, the hacking will almost certainly happen. Failing to release it publically, but advising key authorities to the vulnerability, meansd that the chance is mitigated as much as possible.
We are NOT suggesting this go unfixed. However, du ethe the late arival of these specifics, and the ongoing court case, it was not POSSIBLE to replace the machines. It is also of REDICULOUS cost to go to pen and paper, a system which itself has a higher probability of tampering than these machines!
Here's a fact: these machines are NOT networked. It;s not like a single hacker could compromise the entire election... Each person gets to go into a polling center and access a SINGLE machine. Each station has dozens of machines, and there are thousands of polling centers. Even if a hundred or so machines were somehow compromised, it would not likely have a stastisical impact on the election.
This ruling is a balance of costs and probability vs the potential for damage. It was the right decision.
If there was a 1:1,000 chance that your bank might cause a transaction issue which would effect your account balance by $30, but you could pay $1,000 to prevent this issue, would you? The statastical scale is pretty close to that here...
The information is only witheld pending this one election. Who's to say the judge won;t make it public as soon as it's over, forcing these machines to be replaced before next november...
First, if the kids are home, someone is watching them on some level. They're too young to be home alone, and our family support as well as the baby sitter knows how to fast forward through commercials and how we approve screened TV programs.
My wife and I both work full time. She's a teacher, and after work typically spends another 1-2 hours at home working. She averages 50 hours a week working. I'm a full time senior network analyst, and regularly work long hours, log in remotely to fix issues, or have to work nights and weekends on projects. I get about 2 hours a night with my kids at home while they're awake. We almost exclusievly rely on the weekends for entertaining them and getting quality time. The babysitter has more contact with them than I do. Still, we have strict controls in place and the TV is NOT their babysitter...
Next, the only TVs they're alowed to watch when we're not in the room strictly watching them: 1: have a G rating hard locked 2: the remote is kept away from their hands and the TV is behind a plexi screen (I've got a few LCDs... $30 in plexi and a few bent metal flanges to hold it on was not only a great investment to protect the screen, but it had the side effect of meaning they can't turn on the TV without the remote by pushing buttons):D 3: the TV in the "playroom" is not connected to a signal, it only plays kid approved copies of DVDs (and for their shows, I strip the commercials before burning a copy). Only the oldest one knows how to work the DVD player (or for that matter can reach it). The DVD player is a game station as well, and we strictly control what games they play on it. 4: there is no TV of any kind in any of the kids rooms. 5: the baby sitter can't watch anything rated higher than G herself. This mostly keeps her from doing anything other than watching the kids, since she doesn't get pre-occupied with wathing TV programs the kids are not allowed to watch.
Finally, the legislation does NOT allow more offensive programming. The rules for what is and is not acceptible content, what hours each day it's allowed to be aired, and the general station rating, all stays the same. The new system is basically banning government organizations from messing with the exisating system while requiring them to investigate and mandate alternative technologies to the v-chip. Technologies that start to require commercials to be rated, not just program content. Technologies that allow parts of a show to be blocked not just whole shows. Technologies that have a more granular blocking algorithm than what someone else arbitrarily decides is acceptible PG programming.
I'm not a content nazzi. I would let my oldest one watch programming that most would agree is unacceptable for a 7 year old. Mostly it's still childrens or educational programming, but he's seeing some PG content, and if I'm monitoring it and have a remote handy to skip scened, I've even let him see some PG 13 stuff. However, we limit what they see on TV in terms of number of hours, and we also limit their exposure to commercial content. We'd much prefer they play games, even video games, to watching TV, and to be outdoors whenever possible.
Unfortunately, that approach only works once children understand the value of money, which does not typically happen until they're 5-8 years old. The TV ads in cartoons are often targeting much younger children. Generally, the simple answer is no, especially in a store.
We were taught by our parents that the surest way to be told "no" was to ask for something. "Can I have that?" got a sharp reply of no, and continual asking or compaining got a smack on the ass. The response was even quicker if we tried to ask for something while in a store or if we tried to play the sympathy or public embarresment angle. We had to be especially good just to even go TO the toy section in a store, and Mom always used the candy free isle in the grocery store. We never got something by asking for it. Never.
We were TOLD when we had been good enough to get candy or a toy. Asking before that point delayed how long we'd have to wait to reach that goal. Something like "you've been good today, so after we're done shopping I'll buy you a treat." It worked.
My wife, a 3rd grade teacher, has a better method she uses in her classrooms that we started using with our kids: She gives her students little sticks with their names on them to keep at all times. Each time they do something wrong, or break a rule, they have to turn over one of their sticks. Each time they do something especially good, or just as a reward for effort, they can get one back. They start the day with 3 sticks, and if they end the day with the same number, they get a little card punched with a hole, plus an extra hole for each stick beyond 3 they ended up with. Their puched cards get traded in for a piece of candy (if they have enough holes at the end of the week) or can be stored up for bigger rewards. Less than 3 sticks, certain punishments happen consistent with school rules.
At home, we adapted this system slightly. The kids have the same 3 sticks rule, and get punches for the thrid and each additional stick they end the day with. We let them build up as many sticks as they can doing good things all day. We take a number of sticks away for doing various things bad. A lie saccrifies all sticks, as does agressive play with others (bullying or fighting). Arguing is 1 stick, but they keep loosing more as they continue to argue. Asking for something that is not deserved ("Can I have a...") looses a stick. Something big, like getting in trouble at school to a point that gets a note home, and they can loose not only sticks, but all their built up punches too... Telling the truth, especially when it's not good and might result in punishment, always earns them a stick (sometimes more).
Anything that happens at school can just as easily result in a loss of sticks. We make sure all the parents that may watch our kids for any reason, as well as family members, also know the same rules, and enforce them just the same. Failing to hand in homework, talking back to a teacher, etc, anything we hear about in a note home or in their weekly report goes towards their stick count. We ensure family and friends hold them to the same rules.
The kids have quickly adapted to 1: keeping their mouthes closed in stores and staying close to us while shopping. 2: they do not lie. 3: they do not start fights. Our older girl has been in one; she's in 2nd grade and kicked a 4th grader bully in the nuts hard enough to need medical attention, and after we heard why (he took her juice box from her, and when she first got a teacher involved and then confronted him, he pushed her, then she kicked him) she earned a stick for that plus another for having told the truth about it, and a 3rd for trying to get help first) 4: they understand the rewards for continual good behavior are better than that for incremental behavior. 5: they suffer dissapointment, sometimes big dissapointment, when they're bad and understand the efforts necessary to recoup a loss if that happens. 6: they don't talk back to us. (though the 2 year old loves t
OK, so where do you plan to get enough money to 1) print all the ballots, on machines we don;t have to print them on, and get them to all the polling centers. Then, we'd have to manually recount all those ballots, twice.
Much easier if we know the machines faults, can take the elction on existing equipment, then cross check the machine's security and only invalidate the specific polling locations effected and revote at those locations (and even then only if it would actually have an election impact)
If we find 5% of the machines are effected by tampering after the election, but based on the number of votes effected, the winning candidate had a greater margin the the value of the error, then a revote is pointless and simply wastes taxpeyer money.
If we mind massive tampering, then we have a major national issue, and the federal government has to get involved (finally) in the voting machine issue, which to this point has been strictly a state matter.
It;s WAY to late. Even if we had the equipment and special papers ready to go, printing and distributing 20 million blank ballots, incliding specializations for each individual voting district, different names and parties on each individual ballot for the different seats in different counties, and each individual refferendum... no, even if we started 30 days ago it still likely would not have happened in time. Besides, there's not enough certified election officials to handle it, and we could not get enough volunteers in time trained and ready to handle the counting.
The costs would be massive, and in the end, since the potential for hacking the machines exists, but since no citizens have actually ever had access to one, the likelyhood of someone knowing how, and having access to a machine at voting time to actually hack is is extremely slim.
These machines are not centrally networked, so to have en effect on even 5% of the election total, someone would have to hacke dozens of machines each at hundreds of polling sites. That would take THOUSANDS OF HACKERS, and something most people tend to forget. The effort to tamper with these machines on a massive scale would take the actions of one of the largest organized terrorist groups ever operating, and all that without us even having a hint as to it;s existance, and a group that would need inside information on how to hack the machines...
The rist is really so small it;s meaningless. We can easily validate the machine operation after the results are in and decertify it later at 1/1000th the cost and eleimante the tiny risk that does exist.
Paper ballots are easy to screw up, easy to miss count, easy to have logistics issues with (wrong countie's ballots get distributed, now noone there can vote, etc). The older voting systems are gone, they can't be re-used.
It would void the results only if we know the explotation occured, which is a certainty if we release, and only a chance if we don't.
The "other side" aka the authorities responsible for certifying the election, are not the public, and DO have access to this data. ALL parties involved in the case will have these results, just not joe public, who has not reason to have it.
The judge is only keeping it from public record, not from court documents and proceedings. You clearly didn't read the ruing... This is NOT preventing the suit from continuing, and will not be saving the company from potential fines if they did in fact fail to deliver as contracted by NJ.
The results of this election will be highly scrutinized. Any dramatic deviation from pre-election polling, or from the norm established by other voting districts that use validatable outpus, will be spotted. Further, once the results are in, it should be possible to inspect the machines for tampering now that we know the ways it could be done, and since this case is STILL IN PROCESS, technically the election results in NJ could be added as evidence in this existing case, using it as the avenue to validat the results by experts instead of by the election comittee. This is actually the best possible scenario as it prevents other courts from getting involved in deciding wether ot not to recount.
Slashdot Mirror
Dungeons and Dragons solved this simply in 4e by allowing loot to be converted to a mineral element worth 1/5th of the magic item's base value. No need to go back to town to sell stuff you don;t want, just convet it on the fly. The only crap you'd need to haul back to town for the chest deposit would be high levbel stuff you can't use yet, something I don;t think should even be in the game... (higher level items should simply have max damage penalized until you exceed the level limit, and high level items even with penalty might very well be better than a lower level item.)
Mac gaming is a big deal. EA has made a good start, as well as Blizzard, and if the trend continues and more join the party, especially if Apple starts offering systems with more selectible graphics options and room for off-the-shelf non-proprietary form factor cards. The more poular OS X, the more games that will be deved for it, and with Vista a flop and the halo effect working lice a charm, Apple is only a few years from passing Dell in units sold (they already passed them in total net profit).
Linux gaming? not so much. I know about 200 folks with Linux machines, and aside from laptops which are notoriously poor gaming machines anyway, all the Linux desktop users I know are using linux on their old-n-busted previous generation hardware. They few that use linux on their performaqnce machines dual boot to Windows to play anyway. Diversifying the field to include Linux gamers will add dramatic development costs, 30-50% more bug testing, slow product development and updates, complicate game support, and for what, people that could simply boot to Windows anyway?
Now, I might see some Mac-only game developers out there branch into Linux, since recompiling for some distros would be less difficult than a rewrite to support Vista and XP, but I think this is the exception, and would not be considdered rule.
Linux gamers??? I use linux a lot, have for years. I have never considdered it a gaming platform aside from some simple games to occupy time. I know about 200 of my collegues that have linux systems at home, not one uses it for gaming.
Linux graphics drivers are slow to evelve, underporform, and are generally buggy. No DX support to really speak of means huge hurdles for game developers. Plus, nearly all of the linux guys I know have Linux on their "backup" machine, the older hardware no longer good enough to keep up with PC gaming and graphics. Most of use use Linux on the file server, media center, HTPC, backup server, etc.
Where did you get your figures on there are more linux gamers than mac gamers? I'd like to see some actual studies on that. I'd also like that broken down geographically to regions where games published in English exist...
I don't think it will be slower at all, especially from wathing the game footage. Running back to town to stock up on potions that took 1/3rd of my inventory repeatedly durring a dungeon was indeed slowing me down, especially when different party members would run out at different times.
I'll sure we'll still need to TP occasionally to dump our goods (I'd like to see bigger backpacks, for less frequent trips, but maybe in compensation, some kind of gradual encumberance system. I'd also like to see a waty to convert magic items to cash, ala DnD 4e disenchant spell, to make this even less frequent of a requirement)
If this is like many other games thet employ similar systems, you may occasionally have to run away to allow natural regenration to make up some of the difference, or move to positions that are better defended (bottle neck the bastards to keep from being fully surrounded). I don;t think this is a bad tradeoff as I enjoy the challenge and don;t think it will detract much at all from game pace.
The secureROM barcoding on the original disks for Diablo II pretty much ensured it could only be installed using that original disk. yoiu could do a No-CD crack, but only if you played solo or LAN games. Playing online required the original disk to be in the drive at all times.
That's pretty good by me... and I think quite fair. No limit on installations, you just need ths disk to play.
Yup, that's a large part of it. Server load. You also have to considder multi-platform users. I doubt there are many bot apps for Mac systems.
I like what the guys from CoH have come up with now though. Log out at a certain location, and you get an offline "profession," earning some particular item, slowly, of value. (money, salvage, xp, etc) This allows characters to slowly advance when not online. Spending time at certain places offline builds towards bonuses and rewalrds, and having cmbinations of profession rewards unlocks extras and bonuses.
Not all of us can play 40 hours a week, and that extra gold can be highly valuable to a character who plays very little. Players who pound the keyboards all night advance faster, but players who don;t play as often will build extra resources without building XP, meaning they'll have a bit more to spend next content update.
Also, another cool adaptation: friends can create new characters and bind them together in XP. If one friend plays a lot and the other not so much, they both level up at the same pace. XP is not split, it's just granted to the other character at the same rate even when offline. This makes teaming with people I know and like MUCH easier. income will be hard to come by I'm sure, if I level up 10 levels while not playing, i'll be missing 10 levels of stuff and income, but I'm sure I can come up with it from somewhere...
Aparently you did not read the parts about many rewards being based on moral behaviors. The game does not have a strict system for giving set numbers of sticks for specific behaviors (though many negative behaviors have a number for them).
Telling the truth, even when it's bad, is part of this systemm. Simply doing a good deed, or helping someone gets a reward. Conversations can also be rewarded, when they make positive statements, or simply when they learn or repeat something profound. Exrra efforts made without being asked are also rewarded.
Nightly discussions at dinner over why a stick was earned or lost are also a cornerstone of this system. Taking a stick without them talking about why it happened is poitnless, so we account for it.
The rules are "behave" not "don't do this, but do that" The undefined sysem gives parents flexibility, and keeps the kids from playing it as a game. Every decision the kids make all day can effect how many sticks they end up with. It is not a hard and fast system of rewards. This is why it;s superior.
(in a nutshell, I agree with you, you simply missed reading these details that I discussed on some level)
Somewhat, yes. It's more about teaching them to comment "I'm hungy" then "I want..." when still at the store. Then we have a conversation "when we get home we'll make a snack. What would you like?"
Part of the system is helping them understand when it's apporpriate to ask in the first place.
Eventually, they get to a point where they learn "Daddy, I'd like some apples to snack on at home, we don't have any." not only might earn them a stick for asking for a healthy snack in a proper manner, but usually they'll get to eat one of those apples in the car on the way home to boot.
Yes, in general, the system is intended to be flexible. If the rules are strict and top the point like "Don't ask for anything in stores" then you're playing a game, not helping them learn and adapt. It;s really amazing some of the ways they think of to get their point across without crossing lines. My wife and I have had some really good laughs about things that have come out of their mouthes. We're also constantly impressed with how quickly a young mind fugures things out and adapts.
The kids can ask for things. When they're hungry and they ask for food, that's OK. When they're in a store and ask for a candy bar, that's not food, that's a reward.
Asking for toys, gifts, speciual favors, candy, etc, those are all things that have to be earned, and the kids learn this. Ocasionally we'll ask (usually at least once a week) "what are you saving for, what do you want, what do you like, etc" We're aware of their wants and needs. It;s not a system of cruelty. It helps train them not only to earn what they want, but they're learning when it's appropriate to ask, and asking at the right time can be rewarded, just as quickly as asking at the wrong time gets a concequence.
Yup. Everyone should find a nice large empty parking lot, or a wide flat empty road, and give their ABS a try. Many cars actually vibrate your foot on the pedal quite dramatically as well, and people who are not expecting it will actionall STOP BREAKING since it startles them. PLEASE LEARN HOW YOUR CAR BEHAVES!
The first time is snows, take your car to a parking area (get permission ar at least let security know you're not doing donuts for fun). Drive hard, try to swerve (safely), learn how your car handles when avoiding imaginary objects. Learn it's skidding behavior. Learn it's breaking behavior (especially how it handles turning while breaking hard).
In my opinion, every county should have a place where you are required to go within 30 days of registering a new vehicle, and make every driver insured to drive that car go through a vehicle handling course to learn how to handle it properly. This small expense ($20 per driver sounds fair), would mean the ability to lower insurance rates, and far fewer accidents.
Newer cars in the mid and upper price ranges now not only deploy ABS combined with traction control, but many are equipped with intelligent brake steering as well. Even without pressing the brake pedal, steering the car in certain ways makes the car apply breaks to specific wheels. This dramatically improves handling and limits your tail end sliding out on you when performing avoidance maneuvers. When breaking, pressure is applied to different wheels individually, and on really well designed cars, ABS will only trigger on wheels that it detects slipage on.
I was quite surprised reading the manual for my van that it not only had ABS and traction control, but that the rear end actually employs hydrolics to that regardless of load, the rear end is allways level woth the ground, and it keeps the rear end a maximum distance up (lower to ground = more stable). Many vans you'll notice rise up on their springs when unloaded, and this causes the rear end to be more top heavy. My van also deploys 4 wheen steering, further helping rear end spin outs. The breaking system calibrates breaking performance from front and rear based on the load detectedby the hydrolics. When I attach a hitch and trailer, breaking also changes somewho to help prevent loss of trailer control, especially with break-equipped 6 wire trailer hookups.
Actually, no. ABS is NOT to stop your car quicker, it's to overcome the wheels locking under heavy breaking, which almost allways causes your car to skid or swerve. ABS is about CONTROL while breaking.
ABS systems in most cars trigger 16 times a second. The "clacking" you hear while breaking is this system. Only in extremely expensive cars with professional suspension kits does the ABS work on-demand, which actually is a better system (detecting when a wheel drops speed/skids in relation to the others). This type of ABS is superior, but MANY times more expensive, and out of the reach of most cars priced under $40K.
In breaking cases where traction loss from breaking would have been guaranteed (hardest breaking at over 60MPH speeds) ABS can stop cars quicker, but in most cases, 40MPH and less, the most common speed for an "avoidance" manuever, ABS can increase breaking distance as locking tires at lower speeds is not a concern or does not happen frequntly.
The higher priced cars have better tuned ABS systems, meaning that they control breaking pretty close to the tire's friction theshold on WET roads. Cheaper cars, typically have a higher theshold and do not break as fast. Keep in mind, the ABS is also tunes to expect maximum vehicle gross weight. On my car, I had the ABS system tuned. I replaced the tires with ones that had a much higher performance and traction rating than the crap tires that came with the car, which meant the ABS system could be tweaked to provide higher breaking traction without fear of loss of traction.
For most drivers, ABS is a better breaking system, and especially in wet conditions, or with a lot of road dust, abs will stop a car quicker. But do not confuse it with a performance breaking system. On dry roads, ABS will usually cause the car to take longer to stop. The real reason we have it is for breaking CONTROL, not breaking power.
Even better, it works. It works really well. :D
My wife has been using it to teach 3rd and 4th graders for 8 years. She learned about the technique in graduate school working towards her Masters in education. We've been using it at home for 5 years, and we know about 20 familes also doing the same system now. None of us have problems with the kids with the exception of 2 couples who actually have honest to god mentally disabled children. Yes they misbehave occasionally. Yes the WILL test the system. However, behavios and reaction to discipline is much more preductable than with any other system we've seen or heard of. This system even works for those who are borderline ADHD (those typically on medication that really just need a swift kick in the ass).
I must warn however, no positive reinforcement system will work unless you a) stick to it, b) figure out what consequences actually work on your kids (some need spankings, some need things taken away, some need attention isolation, etc). C) There has to be a plus they like, and there has to be a consequence they don't, and D) you can NEVER negotiate. (actually, refusal to bend is pretty much the single most important aspect. If they can get you to compromise, they've got you all wrapped up).
Oh yea, and the drilling? They did tell you that the estimates are we won;t be getting oil from there into our pumps for 7-10 years, and it won't be at less than $4.50 a gallon. Some areas they're proposing to drill have a $6.00 per gallon minimum profit point. Shale oil is even worse, and 6 times as polluting.
Yea, private sector fighting and environmental concerns based mostly in FUD propoganda are preventing grid expansion. It;s worse for nuclear. Of the estimated cost of a new nuclear plant, nearly 30% is in legal fees and payoff concessions. Only 70% of the cost is in actual constuction fees. Coal is better, but nobody wants the coal plant for fear of smog, ignoring the fact that a new plant would use sequestration, since selling the CO2 for RTFS use is actually more profitable than not sequestering it in a newly constructed plant.
daytime charging? what, do you plan on Walmarts installing charging cables? Meters on street corners haveing hookups to 40 amp curcuits? Parking garrages too? How do we know who to bill the electricity to? Assigned parking? Excryted credit card transactions at parking meters? Each parking stall with it's own electrical meter, own hookup? Shit, the cable you plug into your car to charge has over $100 of copper in it... Now you not only have to find a place to park, but one with a working meter, and a connector that's not damaged?
Sure some places will install such a system, but 90% of us who drive to work won't get to use one, not with the costs, jegistaltion, monitoring, ticketing, and everything else balanced vs an extra $1 per 50 miles driven to get home on gasiline.
We have already discovered dozens of ways to improve solar efficiency. We pretty much know what we'll be advancing over the next 10-15 years, just like we've planned out microchip advancements for the last and future decade. You must be one of the people that still think SIMM memory came out 8 years before DIMM was not a coincidence, that naming a first "single" 8 years before there was "double" or that we actually keep designing a better toothbrush after 90 years of study is an actual science...
In the last 20 years, solar has seen about a doubling in efficincy. At 20% efficiency, even if cheap, it's not enough energy. Even for my house, in SC, with a full southern facing roof, I could not install enough solar panels to offset my 2000KWh bill. I would have needed another bank in the back yard to make the difference. Guess what, just a single plug in vehicle driven 80 miles a day would use more energy than the whole house. To power the home and 2 cars, I'd have bneeded 70% efficient cells to cover it without using lawn space. ...and what do we do about the half of america that does not have a home to put solar on, let alone the half of them that rent homes instead of owning them?
the 15-30 years is coming from the scientists, MIT, research firms, and more. It's not a guess, but a realistic estimate. We know we can only get so much energy out of a given surface area. We know the properties of light and materials. We've made some advancements in refracted photovoltaic crystalization, and we have cheaper, more flexibler materials, but the cost is still rediculous, and though it may be competitive in efficincy in 20 years, it won;t be in cost, or vice versa.
Current solar user who advertise 8-12 year payback are getting substantial government subsidy (up to 70%!). In SC, I only qualify for the $2000 one time benefit from the federal government. To offset 60% of my use, the most economical instalation per amount of energy generated for my location and home size, it was going to take 21 years to pay off, assum ing an annual 5% increase in electric costs, and assuming the panels did not need replacement during that time, and assuming only a 2% annual performance dropp off. 1 hail storm and my insurance deductable, and it would have been impossible to recoup the payments over time. Trippling that toi power the house and 2 cars? simply not possible. The cost needed to be 20% or less than it currently was. Unfortunately, more than 20% of the cost was LABOR, meaning even if the panels were free, I could not have broken even with that scenario vs a plug-in-to-the-grid car.
I completely agree these machines are crap. I completely agree that there needs to be verifyable, per vote, printed responses, including re-reading an entire election electronically, giving each person a receipt they can take home validating their vote, and on screen plus printed verification of voting.
In this case however, we do not currently have that.
Accuracy in a vote is not disputable, but "accuracy" is not defined as each individual vote must be perfect. It;s described as the accuracy of the system must be finer than the margin of error in the system.
Do you know they don;t actually count write-in ballots? When you register an absentee vote, your vote is ONLY counted if the election results are "possibly" adjusted by doing so. Lets say the vote is within 1000 votes, and the ratio of 49% to 51%. If there are 4,000 write-in ballots, they WON'T count them. Statistically, 3000 or the 4000 would have to have voted for the other side. This is so unlikely in a 49/51 split, that even the politicians agree it;s not worth the money to count.
We don;t have to verify each vote, we only have to verify enough votes to show there is no reasonable statistical probability of the other party being the victor. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the statistical prediction. This has been gone over in courts, with those votes being mandated to be counted, and each time they wasted states money to actually count, guess what, the estimates were right, and the absentee vote was no impact, not even a slight one.
Yea, I'd love for every single vote to count, sure. Do I wish to spend a few dozen million dollars ensuring the accuracy of my elections switches from 0.05% to 0.01%? no. Waste of time and taxpayer money, especially when a "close" election is 1%...
These machines may be at risk to tampering, but they have to be tampered one at a time, and over 10,000 machines are in use. To sway just 1%, and to do so in such a way as it;s subtle, an noone suspects and anaylizes the machines (you can't have a machine vote 100% for one guy, if it's off from the exit polls by 5% or more, the'll be an investigation), more than 5% of the machines would likely have to be hacked. Since that means we need 500 hackers, since a single person only gets to touch 1 machine (1 vote, 1 machine). Each of those 500 people would be part of the largest ever terorist action, and how likely is it just one of those 500 would talk?
It;'s much more likely tampering will happen by actual election officials. I don;t care what kind of system you use (especially paper ballots), there's room for tampering. We do not yet have a polling system that is truly secure. Even with the best measures, and double paper verified trails, it;s still possible the results can be augmented. You see, elections are often swayed by more than 1% at a polling location just by altering how many machines they have, or by changing how long people wait, or the temperature of the air in the poling center. (old people don;t like to wait long, swinging to democrats, young people don;t like viting in polkice stations or fire houses, swinging to republicans, even the local media gets involved and tells voters too early that one candidate has won and lts of people simply skip voting altogether, especially those that work late, even the weather has been known to cost a candidate a local election).
No matter how good the system is, unless we force every single person to register a vote, it will never be accurate. As long as only a percentage of people vote, the statistical anomolies just in that outweight any potential for organized state or national election tampering. It;s simly not as big of an issue as people are led to believe.
Same way governments get money for anything else: taxes.
I know those on the far right like to believe that somehow if we keep cutting taxes we'll raise government revenue - sort of like how internet bubble entrepreneurs would lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume. But it doesn't work that way.
Now, later, maybe some of that expense can be made up with lawsuits against the companies that provided the defective voting machines. And maybe money will have to be moved out of other expenditures to balance the books. But right now, in the next month New Jersey must take on this expense of replacing those defective machines; hand-counted paper ballots are the cheapest way to do so.
The Constitution guarantees each state a republican (small-r!) form of government; accurate balloting is a necessary precondition for that. If necessary, then, the federal government must provide emergency funding (probably in the form of a loan).
Reliable voting is not an option, it is a necessity. The money can be raised.
What, the state government doesn't have fscking laser printers? Or couldn't get a rush order done at a commercial printer? C'mon.
What, the state government doesn't have fscking cars and trucks? Or couldn't get FedEx to do the deliveries? C'mon.
So? Canada does it; if a nation of 33 million can do it, a state of 8 1/2 million can too.
Of course, all this is what what happen in a sane and democratic society. In our crazy corporate plutocracy, I expect that New Jersey will somehow end up giving more money to the vendors and will go ahead and conduct a meaningless, unreliable election.
Cross-check them against what? If we had verifiable receipts to validate the machines against, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Nonsense. Counting ballots hardly requires extensive training. Hire a bunch of teenagers at a bit above minimum wage. Or, does NJ have a "volunteer" hour requirement for high school students? I'm opposed to them, but if it's in place, this would be a great opportunity for the kids to burn that off.
The problem is not, or at least not just, "hackers" messing with these machines. The problem is that they are broken when they leave the factory, as New Jersey's past experience with them shows.
The money can not be raised. You do not understand not only the costs, but the logistics involved. You also don;t understand taxes. They have to HAVE the money to spend it. We can pass a bill to collect this money and spend it later, but if it's not in the budget, they can't do it. Not in NJ anyway. They'd need to get approved for disaster releif, for which elections do not qualify.
Ballots require not only special printers to provide authenticity certifications (lest you think paper is more secure than a computer,
The machines WILL have evidence of penetration. We may not be able to audit a paper trail of the votes, but we can certainly confirm if the machine's code or vote tally has been altered, which is enough to decertify the election results from that machine.
We also have exit polling, and regional metrics to validate against, combines with other machines in the same polling location. Based on how these machines ARE verified, since each one is individual and not centrally connected to another computer, each individual machine in a precinct would have to be altered, requiring dozens of hackers just to effect a single precinct, and even if they did, if that vote mismatched from the exit poll or nearby polling centers by even 3 or 4%, we'd be investigating the machines and the staff. We'd need to swing the entire state by 11% to change the current preducted outcome, meaining this would have to happen in HUNDREDS of polling centers.
The information is only hidden from the public, not representitives of either side of the casee. There is no part of this order that prevents the state from taking actions here.
We ARE prepared for this election. The statistical chance of a single machine even being compromised is virtually nil, since no person in joe public has had access to one to hack it. Second, it would take over 1000 hackers in a coordinated strike to even effect 1% of the machines in use here, and potentially shift the vote maybe by 10-20,000 votes, less than 1% of the expected voter base. Also, if certain machines seemed inconsistent with the others at the same poling location, or at multiple poliing locations throughout the state, these could be cross checked by these KNOWN vulnerabilities, and the vote ruled out in small scale without effecting the remaining outcome.
You MORONS are treating this like it;s a single system that can be compromised, and the vote could be shifted by percentages sufficient to alter the outcome of this election. Estimates in this case are that Obama will already take the state by 11%... It would take a MIRACLE effort of the largest ever operating terrorist cell to offset this by even 3 or 4%, which statistically still means nothing for the outcome.
You do NOT understand the technology. You do NOT understand the controls in place. You do NOT understand the runing.
This is NOT a case of the judge refusing to allow the testimony. This is closing that testimony to only the approved witnesses in the case (about 90 people!) This is NOT a cover up.
No, generally it doesn't. Hoiwever, if it;s released, the hacking will almost certainly happen. Failing to release it publically, but advising key authorities to the vulnerability, meansd that the chance is mitigated as much as possible.
We are NOT suggesting this go unfixed. However, du ethe the late arival of these specifics, and the ongoing court case, it was not POSSIBLE to replace the machines. It is also of REDICULOUS cost to go to pen and paper, a system which itself has a higher probability of tampering than these machines!
Here's a fact: these machines are NOT networked. It;s not like a single hacker could compromise the entire election... Each person gets to go into a polling center and access a SINGLE machine. Each station has dozens of machines, and there are thousands of polling centers. Even if a hundred or so machines were somehow compromised, it would not likely have a stastisical impact on the election.
This ruling is a balance of costs and probability vs the potential for damage. It was the right decision.
If there was a 1:1,000 chance that your bank might cause a transaction issue which would effect your account balance by $30, but you could pay $1,000 to prevent this issue, would you? The statastical scale is pretty close to that here...
The information is only witheld pending this one election. Who's to say the judge won;t make it public as soon as it's over, forcing these machines to be replaced before next november...
First, if the kids are home, someone is watching them on some level. They're too young to be home alone, and our family support as well as the baby sitter knows how to fast forward through commercials and how we approve screened TV programs.
My wife and I both work full time. She's a teacher, and after work typically spends another 1-2 hours at home working. She averages 50 hours a week working. I'm a full time senior network analyst, and regularly work long hours, log in remotely to fix issues, or have to work nights and weekends on projects. I get about 2 hours a night with my kids at home while they're awake. We almost exclusievly rely on the weekends for entertaining them and getting quality time. The babysitter has more contact with them than I do. Still, we have strict controls in place and the TV is NOT their babysitter...
Next, the only TVs they're alowed to watch when we're not in the room strictly watching them: :D
1: have a G rating hard locked
2: the remote is kept away from their hands and the TV is behind a plexi screen (I've got a few LCDs... $30 in plexi and a few bent metal flanges to hold it on was not only a great investment to protect the screen, but it had the side effect of meaning they can't turn on the TV without the remote by pushing buttons)
3: the TV in the "playroom" is not connected to a signal, it only plays kid approved copies of DVDs (and for their shows, I strip the commercials before burning a copy). Only the oldest one knows how to work the DVD player (or for that matter can reach it). The DVD player is a game station as well, and we strictly control what games they play on it.
4: there is no TV of any kind in any of the kids rooms.
5: the baby sitter can't watch anything rated higher than G herself. This mostly keeps her from doing anything other than watching the kids, since she doesn't get pre-occupied with wathing TV programs the kids are not allowed to watch.
Finally, the legislation does NOT allow more offensive programming. The rules for what is and is not acceptible content, what hours each day it's allowed to be aired, and the general station rating, all stays the same. The new system is basically banning government organizations from messing with the exisating system while requiring them to investigate and mandate alternative technologies to the v-chip. Technologies that start to require commercials to be rated, not just program content. Technologies that allow parts of a show to be blocked not just whole shows. Technologies that have a more granular blocking algorithm than what someone else arbitrarily decides is acceptible PG programming.
I'm not a content nazzi. I would let my oldest one watch programming that most would agree is unacceptable for a 7 year old. Mostly it's still childrens or educational programming, but he's seeing some PG content, and if I'm monitoring it and have a remote handy to skip scened, I've even let him see some PG 13 stuff. However, we limit what they see on TV in terms of number of hours, and we also limit their exposure to commercial content. We'd much prefer they play games, even video games, to watching TV, and to be outdoors whenever possible.
Unfortunately, that approach only works once children understand the value of money, which does not typically happen until they're 5-8 years old. The TV ads in cartoons are often targeting much younger children. Generally, the simple answer is no, especially in a store.
We were taught by our parents that the surest way to be told "no" was to ask for something. "Can I have that?" got a sharp reply of no, and continual asking or compaining got a smack on the ass. The response was even quicker if we tried to ask for something while in a store or if we tried to play the sympathy or public embarresment angle. We had to be especially good just to even go TO the toy section in a store, and Mom always used the candy free isle in the grocery store. We never got something by asking for it. Never.
We were TOLD when we had been good enough to get candy or a toy. Asking before that point delayed how long we'd have to wait to reach that goal. Something like "you've been good today, so after we're done shopping I'll buy you a treat." It worked.
My wife, a 3rd grade teacher, has a better method she uses in her classrooms that we started using with our kids: She gives her students little sticks with their names on them to keep at all times. Each time they do something wrong, or break a rule, they have to turn over one of their sticks. Each time they do something especially good, or just as a reward for effort, they can get one back. They start the day with 3 sticks, and if they end the day with the same number, they get a little card punched with a hole, plus an extra hole for each stick beyond 3 they ended up with. Their puched cards get traded in for a piece of candy (if they have enough holes at the end of the week) or can be stored up for bigger rewards. Less than 3 sticks, certain punishments happen consistent with school rules.
At home, we adapted this system slightly. The kids have the same 3 sticks rule, and get punches for the thrid and each additional stick they end the day with. We let them build up as many sticks as they can doing good things all day. We take a number of sticks away for doing various things bad. A lie saccrifies all sticks, as does agressive play with others (bullying or fighting). Arguing is 1 stick, but they keep loosing more as they continue to argue. Asking for something that is not deserved ("Can I have a ...") looses a stick. Something big, like getting in trouble at school to a point that gets a note home, and they can loose not only sticks, but all their built up punches too... Telling the truth, especially when it's not good and might result in punishment, always earns them a stick (sometimes more).
Anything that happens at school can just as easily result in a loss of sticks. We make sure all the parents that may watch our kids for any reason, as well as family members, also know the same rules, and enforce them just the same. Failing to hand in homework, talking back to a teacher, etc, anything we hear about in a note home or in their weekly report goes towards their stick count. We ensure family and friends hold them to the same rules.
The kids have quickly adapted to 1: keeping their mouthes closed in stores and staying close to us while shopping. 2: they do not lie. 3: they do not start fights. Our older girl has been in one; she's in 2nd grade and kicked a 4th grader bully in the nuts hard enough to need medical attention, and after we heard why (he took her juice box from her, and when she first got a teacher involved and then confronted him, he pushed her, then she kicked him) she earned a stick for that plus another for having told the truth about it, and a 3rd for trying to get help first) 4: they understand the rewards for continual good behavior are better than that for incremental behavior. 5: they suffer dissapointment, sometimes big dissapointment, when they're bad and understand the efforts necessary to recoup a loss if that happens. 6: they don't talk back to us. (though the 2 year old loves t
OK, so where do you plan to get enough money to 1) print all the ballots, on machines we don;t have to print them on, and get them to all the polling centers. Then, we'd have to manually recount all those ballots, twice.
Much easier if we know the machines faults, can take the elction on existing equipment, then cross check the machine's security and only invalidate the specific polling locations effected and revote at those locations (and even then only if it would actually have an election impact)
If we find 5% of the machines are effected by tampering after the election, but based on the number of votes effected, the winning candidate had a greater margin the the value of the error, then a revote is pointless and simply wastes taxpeyer money.
If we mind massive tampering, then we have a major national issue, and the federal government has to get involved (finally) in the voting machine issue, which to this point has been strictly a state matter.
It;s WAY to late. Even if we had the equipment and special papers ready to go, printing and distributing 20 million blank ballots, incliding specializations for each individual voting district, different names and parties on each individual ballot for the different seats in different counties, and each individual refferendum... no, even if we started 30 days ago it still likely would not have happened in time. Besides, there's not enough certified election officials to handle it, and we could not get enough volunteers in time trained and ready to handle the counting.
The costs would be massive, and in the end, since the potential for hacking the machines exists, but since no citizens have actually ever had access to one, the likelyhood of someone knowing how, and having access to a machine at voting time to actually hack is is extremely slim.
These machines are not centrally networked, so to have en effect on even 5% of the election total, someone would have to hacke dozens of machines each at hundreds of polling sites. That would take THOUSANDS OF HACKERS, and something most people tend to forget. The effort to tamper with these machines on a massive scale would take the actions of one of the largest organized terrorist groups ever operating, and all that without us even having a hint as to it;s existance, and a group that would need inside information on how to hack the machines...
The rist is really so small it;s meaningless. We can easily validate the machine operation after the results are in and decertify it later at 1/1000th the cost and eleimante the tiny risk that does exist.
Paper ballots are easy to screw up, easy to miss count, easy to have logistics issues with (wrong countie's ballots get distributed, now noone there can vote, etc). The older voting systems are gone, they can't be re-used.
It would void the results only if we know the explotation occured, which is a certainty if we release, and only a chance if we don't.
The "other side" aka the authorities responsible for certifying the election, are not the public, and DO have access to this data. ALL parties involved in the case will have these results, just not joe public, who has not reason to have it.
The judge is only keeping it from public record, not from court documents and proceedings. You clearly didn't read the ruing... This is NOT preventing the suit from continuing, and will not be saving the company from potential fines if they did in fact fail to deliver as contracted by NJ.
The results of this election will be highly scrutinized. Any dramatic deviation from pre-election polling, or from the norm established by other voting districts that use validatable outpus, will be spotted. Further, once the results are in, it should be possible to inspect the machines for tampering now that we know the ways it could be done, and since this case is STILL IN PROCESS, technically the election results in NJ could be added as evidence in this existing case, using it as the avenue to validat the results by experts instead of by the election comittee. This is actually the best possible scenario as it prevents other courts from getting involved in deciding wether ot not to recount.