Place machines in libraries. Use them year-round. When elections come, boot off of a CD to a scaled down version of Linux specifically designed for the one task of processing the election. Close access to the physical box. Leave only the mouse and the monitor. (A touchscreen really isn't all that much easier than a mouse, and there's no point in wasting money.)
When the voter finishes selecting candidates and props at the voter station, a paper receipt with a bar code is printed. In addition to the bar code, written on the receipt is each of the selections for the voter to verify. S/he verifies the selections first at that machine, which immediately stores the vote as a listed but not yet completed vote. (If the voter does not confirm the vote, the vote is dropped.)
From there, the voter proceeds to a verification machine (also running on a scaled down version of Linux) at which s/he scans in the bar code on the receipt. S/he checks the vote again. If it appears correct, the voter confirms it there. To complete the vote, the voter inserts the receipt into a ballot box at that station where it is scanned again as a completed vote (thus generating a paper trail).
The computers all work together by creating multiple-output reporting when it comes time to count the votes. Each voter station machine, verification machine, and ballot box prints its own individual summary of the votes cast at the close of the polls. Each host machine prints a copy of the votes it has scanned in addition to the votes placed at each of the voter station machines it is responsible for counting.
By choosing an open source software, you'll allow countless thousands of programmers to inspect the code and ensure that it is safe. Furthermore, with only access to the mouse, there will be no way to hack into the computers. But, even in the event of compromised security, the voter-verified paper receipts will still be available. If any discrepancies occur, they can simply refer to a count of the paper receipts localized to those machines whose reports did not match up (or of which there is any reason at all to doubt). The final advantage is that rather than having a box that can only be used once every two or four years, you end up with something we need anyway: more computers in local libraries.
Am I dreaming? Is there something wrong with this? Has this already been suggested? I do not claim to be an expert, so I just ask: why not?
There are a lot of people bashing SEO, but--if you do it honestly--it can make a big difference. The company I work for sells computer parts, an industry where 90% of the items have industry-standard part numbers. A strong indexing of these is invaluable. There are plenty of crooked companies (that don't really have the parts) who do precisely the same thing. The difference is, we have it and we have very competitive prices.
A lot of slashdot posters seem to carry the presumption that optimizing for a Google search is the same as link farms and keyword spam. It isn't necessarily. There are honest things that can improve search results. Furthermore, adding a link for Digg, StumbleUpon, and other social networking sites isn't SPAM if your users want to submit it. It's up to them to choose what they want to share. All it does is make it easier for them.
Finally, the whole premise of the article is silly, because the massive link structure of google.com is a little beyond analysis of the its first few pages. It's humorous, though, if that's what was intended--the end page looks a lot like Yahoo.
I've purchased x number of CDs for an average of z dollars (a price which was illegally inflated by an average of 200%).
I've downloaded y number of albums which were...free.
If xz < yz/2 then I suppose I ought to be immediately dumped into the furnaces of Mordor.
If xz > yz/2 then I am a moral individual and the RIAA can suck it.
It's their RIGHT:
Hey, it's their content. They can dictate what should be done with it. This is America. Constitution. Blah blah blah blah blah if you don't like it, gyet out.
They'll never understand what is RIGHT:
They don't see how badly they've sullied the reputation of every artist they represent, the entire process of making money from playing music, and the beloved image of the American rock star. They'll just keep on beating a dead horse, because they're old, and stupid, and ugly, and they have small
wieners, and they don't really care about musicians (let alone music), and did I mention they have small
wieners?
We are RIGHT:
Hey, it's our hot music. We do what we want. We do what we want. We fly by the seat of our pants and eat copyright law for breakfast. You
aint bad. We bad. We download full length films the day before they come out and watch shitty screening cams that forever ruin the experience of the film, but at least we don't give the MAN our money that we made by selling downloaded music at flee markets. Yeah, look at us. We do what we want.
The desire to profit isn't RIGHT:
Artists can't expect to make money from making music, and shouldn't expect to. They should want to make music because they love it. Yada yada yada...love is all you need.....yada yada yada....the marketplace corrupts.
Newer models are RIGHT:
Just accept that CDs are promotional items to drive other types of sales, and stop suing grandmas. You can't stop progress, and you can't come up with DRM that some pimply teenager won't hack within a few weeks.
The RIGHT thing here is to do what you feel is RIGHT, no matter what the legal RIGHT:
Your right to point and click and use your ears *feels* as legitimate as (or more than) theirs to enforce their right to restrict *every* listening of a song to some type of commercial transaction, yet legally it isn't. Think about the artist. Think about the label. Think about the music. Think about your bank account. When you love an artist enough, you know you'll spend money on them. This is the compromise most of us make. This is the compromise the industry has to get used to.
Chess is a game whose moves are always based on the board. It is finite, but, more importantly, it is purely unemotional. Poker, on the other hand, is a game composed of "human" processes. I've heard it estimated that 80-90% of the game (the popular Texas Hold 'Em anyway) is just knowing the right hands to bet. The rest is about reading your opponents, understanding their plays, anticipating their bluffs, spotting tells, and, generally, reading them.
Another thing I love about poker...Poker is proof that there's no clairvoyance in this world. They can ramble on and on about "Ooh no, it's our gift and we can't abuse it by betting," but that's all a crock because why couldn't they just use the money to help people? Feed the homeless? Or, better yet, get them the care and housing they really need? You know why they can't...Because they're bullshitters. Stupid psychic Cleo and her stupid psychic friends. That was a tangent. >br>Anyway, I've been playing chess most of my life and I play chess at an expert level. I never went beyond that, because it requires a lot of study that I just didn't care to do. Computers are one of the reasons for this. Poker is a far more interesting game in many ways. I just happen to not be willing to gamble with money I work hard for.
I disagree. There is no reason you should be able to edit your own article in the same way that others do. Just implying that it was written by someone else, in itself, is misleading. There ought to be a rule of etiquette set for another way to make edits to an article about you, such as utilizing the dispute pages with regards details you disagree with. And if it is found that someone makes edits to one's own article without following the proper process first, those changes should be removed.
Sure, THEY SAY IT JUST BLINDS, but I seem to recall that a similar device was used to COMPLETELY REBUILD MEMORIES!!!! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!
Yeah, you remember it too. You just need a little memory jogging. The only protection you have against this Memory Rebuilder, if I recall the educational film Men In Black correctly, is a pair of sunglasses.
How ironic. I say nothing hateful, expressing concern about advertising which I view as dangerous. You call me a turd. Who is full of hate?
But you know what? I DO hate advertising. And Americans
Hate Advertising. From link: "Forty five percent of respondents said the amount of advertising and marketing they were exposed to "detracts from the experience of everyday life."
Windowpain: "People often have to be persuaded to try top-quality products. They also have to be informed that the products exist in the first place."
Internet, word-of-mouth, consumer reports, press releases...WHY exactly do they need more?
No, clearly I wasn't around back when the Polio vaccine came around. Thanks for the cheap shot though.
Yes, I understand. Public service announcements may be an exception to the rule of useless advertising. But then, I think it's a fair question to ask whether this couldn't simply be part of the news. There is no rule that says it has to be the way it is, and, as you know, many Americans are unhappy with the large amount of advertising they receive in a day. Just that it works for you doesn't mean it's right.
Windowpain: "There's still time though. Perhaps you can stop the ads for the human papilloma virus vaccine. That's a good product so it doesn't have to be advertised. We can just wait for women to 'search and pay for' it. The ones who don't know about it will have a greater chance of getting genital warts and cervical cancer but that's there problem, right?"
You mean to say "their," and no it's not their problem. This is a pretty strange misconstruing of what I was saying. I do think though, that lies in advertising and politics make the important statements we make seem less reliable to people in developing countries. Just like your calling me a turd makes your statements less meaningful and shows that what you are saying comes out of hatred. Well, I guess I should hate you too then. Drink Coke. Have a nice day.
I think it's pretty disgusting that, at 22, I still know all the words to the Puppy Surprise jingle from when I was under 10-years-old. Advertising is all crap. All of it (on TV anyway). Either a product is good and doesn't need to be spotlighted because it actually has value that people will search and pay for, or a product is bad and it is necessary to lie (story-tell) extensively in order to create demand that would not otherwise be there.
"Give...Live...Love...Coke" sounds a lot better than "Got Poison?"
Since truth in advertising is (nearly) meaningless, pharmaceutical ads are particularly dangerous. As people have pointed out in comments above, it's quite obviously your doctor's job (and not yours) to diagnose your disease. But what about diseases of a more subjective nature? "If you've been sad for 'six weeks or more,' then you MAY have [unproven disease] ASSOCIATED WITH biochemical changes in the brain." The science of suggestion is very dangerous business. Most people experience emotional times in their lives and if they go to their doctor convinced that they need a certain drug, they may end up getting it...even if they don't need it.
I'll say it again: if a product is good, it shouldn't need to be spoonfed to people in-between clips of entertainment. If it isn't good, then it almost certainly will be. How's that for capitalist "incentive?"
Maybe this has already been suggested and maybe there's a lot of holes in this, but I always thought it was pretty wild to pay for computers that would serve only one purpose (voting). Couldn't we find a way to work around this?
Why not build a really scaled back version of Linux designed to only take input from a mouse (and uses a protocol that adds the votes over the network so that they are authenticated by the machine as well as other machines), make it a dual boot, and place the machines in local libraries.
On election day, run an authentication program in the morning that verifies that the OS is EXACTLY what it should be, and lock the boxes so there is absolutely no access (not even to a keyboard). Just a mouse, a screen, and a network.
I'm really not an expert, so I guess I'm asking why this couldn't be done?
Slashdot Mirror
My Fantasy Election
Place machines in libraries. Use them year-round. When elections come, boot off of a CD to a scaled down version of Linux specifically designed for the one task of processing the election. Close access to the physical box. Leave only the mouse and the monitor. (A touchscreen really isn't all that much easier than a mouse, and there's no point in wasting money.)
When the voter finishes selecting candidates and props at the voter station, a paper receipt with a bar code is printed. In addition to the bar code, written on the receipt is each of the selections for the voter to verify. S/he verifies the selections first at that machine, which immediately stores the vote as a listed but not yet completed vote. (If the voter does not confirm the vote, the vote is dropped.)
From there, the voter proceeds to a verification machine (also running on a scaled down version of Linux) at which s/he scans in the bar code on the receipt. S/he checks the vote again. If it appears correct, the voter confirms it there. To complete the vote, the voter inserts the receipt into a ballot box at that station where it is scanned again as a completed vote (thus generating a paper trail).
The computers all work together by creating multiple-output reporting when it comes time to count the votes. Each voter station machine, verification machine, and ballot box prints its own individual summary of the votes cast at the close of the polls. Each host machine prints a copy of the votes it has scanned in addition to the votes placed at each of the voter station machines it is responsible for counting.
By choosing an open source software, you'll allow countless thousands of programmers to inspect the code and ensure that it is safe. Furthermore, with only access to the mouse, there will be no way to hack into the computers. But, even in the event of compromised security, the voter-verified paper receipts will still be available. If any discrepancies occur, they can simply refer to a count of the paper receipts localized to those machines whose reports did not match up (or of which there is any reason at all to doubt). The final advantage is that rather than having a box that can only be used once every two or four years, you end up with something we need anyway: more computers in local libraries.
Am I dreaming? Is there something wrong with this? Has this already been suggested? I do not claim to be an expert, so I just ask: why not?
There are a lot of people bashing SEO, but--if you do it honestly--it can make a big difference. The company I work for sells computer parts, an industry where 90% of the items have industry-standard part numbers. A strong indexing of these is invaluable. There are plenty of crooked companies (that don't really have the parts) who do precisely the same thing. The difference is, we have it and we have very competitive prices.
A lot of slashdot posters seem to carry the presumption that optimizing for a Google search is the same as link farms and keyword spam. It isn't necessarily. There are honest things that can improve search results. Furthermore, adding a link for Digg, StumbleUpon, and other social networking sites isn't SPAM if your users want to submit it. It's up to them to choose what they want to share. All it does is make it easier for them.
Finally, the whole premise of the article is silly, because the massive link structure of google.com is a little beyond analysis of the its first few pages. It's humorous, though, if that's what was intended--the end page looks a lot like Yahoo.
Two wrongs make a RIGHT:
I've purchased x number of CDs for an average of z dollars (a price which was illegally inflated by an average of 200%).
I've downloaded y number of albums which were...free.
If xz < yz/2 then I suppose I ought to be immediately dumped into the furnaces of Mordor.
If xz > yz/2 then I am a moral individual and the RIAA can suck it.
It's their RIGHT:
Hey, it's their content. They can dictate what should be done with it. This is America. Constitution. Blah blah blah blah blah if you don't like it, gyet out.
They'll never understand what is RIGHT:
They don't see how badly they've sullied the reputation of every artist they represent, the entire process of making money from playing music, and the beloved image of the American rock star. They'll just keep on beating a dead horse, because they're old, and stupid, and ugly, and they have small wieners, and they don't really care about musicians (let alone music), and did I mention they have small wieners?
We are RIGHT:
Hey, it's our hot music. We do what we want. We do what we want. We fly by the seat of our pants and eat copyright law for breakfast. You aint bad. We bad. We download full length films the day before they come out and watch shitty screening cams that forever ruin the experience of the film, but at least we don't give the MAN our money that we made by selling downloaded music at flee markets. Yeah, look at us. We do what we want.
The desire to profit isn't RIGHT:
Artists can't expect to make money from making music, and shouldn't expect to. They should want to make music because they love it. Yada yada yada...love is all you need.....yada yada yada....the marketplace corrupts.
Newer models are RIGHT:
Just accept that CDs are promotional items to drive other types of sales, and stop suing grandmas. You can't stop progress, and you can't come up with DRM that some pimply teenager won't hack within a few weeks.
The RIGHT thing here is to do what you feel is RIGHT, no matter what the legal RIGHT:
Your right to point and click and use your ears *feels* as legitimate as (or more than) theirs to enforce their right to restrict *every* listening of a song to some type of commercial transaction, yet legally it isn't. Think about the artist. Think about the label. Think about the music. Think about your bank account. When you love an artist enough, you know you'll spend money on them. This is the compromise most of us make. This is the compromise the industry has to get used to.
"Class Action...RIAA." YES, YES, YES, OH GOD... I will never wash these pants again.
Chess is a game whose moves are always based on the board. It is finite, but, more importantly, it is purely unemotional. Poker, on the other hand, is a game composed of "human" processes. I've heard it estimated that 80-90% of the game (the popular Texas Hold 'Em anyway) is just knowing the right hands to bet. The rest is about reading your opponents, understanding their plays, anticipating their bluffs, spotting tells, and, generally, reading them.
Another thing I love about poker...Poker is proof that there's no clairvoyance in this world. They can ramble on and on about "Ooh no, it's our gift and we can't abuse it by betting," but that's all a crock because why couldn't they just use the money to help people? Feed the homeless? Or, better yet, get them the care and housing they really need? You know why they can't...Because they're bullshitters. Stupid psychic Cleo and her stupid psychic friends. That was a tangent.
>br>Anyway, I've been playing chess most of my life and I play chess at an expert level. I never went beyond that, because it requires a lot of study that I just didn't care to do. Computers are one of the reasons for this. Poker is a far more interesting game in many ways. I just happen to not be willing to gamble with money I work hard for.
I disagree. There is no reason you should be able to edit your own article in the same way that others do. Just implying that it was written by someone else, in itself, is misleading. There ought to be a rule of etiquette set for another way to make edits to an article about you, such as utilizing the dispute pages with regards details you disagree with. And if it is found that someone makes edits to one's own article without following the proper process first, those changes should be removed.
Yeah, you remember it too. You just need a little memory jogging. The only protection you have against this Memory Rebuilder, if I recall the educational film Men In Black correctly, is a pair of sunglasses.
it will do the Macarena, and the universe will suddenly stop expanding and collapse in on the dancing light faster than, er...light.
"What a hateful little turd you are."
How ironic. I say nothing hateful, expressing concern about advertising which I view as dangerous. You call me a turd. Who is full of hate?
But you know what? I DO hate advertising. And Americans Hate Advertising. From link: "Forty five percent of respondents said the amount of advertising and marketing they were exposed to "detracts from the experience of everyday life."
Windowpain: "People often have to be persuaded to try top-quality products. They also have to be informed that the products exist in the first place."
Internet, word-of-mouth, consumer reports, press releases...WHY exactly do they need more?
No, clearly I wasn't around back when the Polio vaccine came around. Thanks for the cheap shot though.
Yes, I understand. Public service announcements may be an exception to the rule of useless advertising. But then, I think it's a fair question to ask whether this couldn't simply be part of the news. There is no rule that says it has to be the way it is, and, as you know, many Americans are unhappy with the large amount of advertising they receive in a day. Just that it works for you doesn't mean it's right.
Windowpain: "There's still time though. Perhaps you can stop the ads for the human papilloma virus vaccine. That's a good product so it doesn't have to be advertised. We can just wait for women to 'search and pay for' it. The ones who don't know about it will have a greater chance of getting genital warts and cervical cancer but that's there problem, right?"
You mean to say "their," and no it's not their problem. This is a pretty strange misconstruing of what I was saying. I do think though, that lies in advertising and politics make the important statements we make seem less reliable to people in developing countries. Just like your calling me a turd makes your statements less meaningful and shows that what you are saying comes out of hatred. Well, I guess I should hate you too then. Drink Coke. Have a nice day.
I think it's pretty disgusting that, at 22, I still know all the words to the Puppy Surprise jingle from when I was under 10-years-old. Advertising is all crap. All of it (on TV anyway). Either a product is good and doesn't need to be spotlighted because it actually has value that people will search and pay for, or a product is bad and it is necessary to lie (story-tell) extensively in order to create demand that would not otherwise be there.
"Give...Live...Love...Coke" sounds a lot better than "Got Poison?"
Since truth in advertising is (nearly) meaningless, pharmaceutical ads are particularly dangerous. As people have pointed out in comments above, it's quite obviously your doctor's job (and not yours) to diagnose your disease. But what about diseases of a more subjective nature? "If you've been sad for 'six weeks or more,' then you MAY have [unproven disease] ASSOCIATED WITH biochemical changes in the brain." The science of suggestion is very dangerous business. Most people experience emotional times in their lives and if they go to their doctor convinced that they need a certain drug, they may end up getting it...even if they don't need it.
I'll say it again: if a product is good, it shouldn't need to be spoonfed to people in-between clips of entertainment. If it isn't good, then it almost certainly will be. How's that for capitalist "incentive?"
Maybe this has already been suggested and maybe there's a lot of holes in this, but I always thought it was pretty wild to pay for computers that would serve only one purpose (voting). Couldn't we find a way to work around this? Why not build a really scaled back version of Linux designed to only take input from a mouse (and uses a protocol that adds the votes over the network so that they are authenticated by the machine as well as other machines), make it a dual boot, and place the machines in local libraries. On election day, run an authentication program in the morning that verifies that the OS is EXACTLY what it should be, and lock the boxes so there is absolutely no access (not even to a keyboard). Just a mouse, a screen, and a network. I'm really not an expert, so I guess I'm asking why this couldn't be done?