Shouldn't the factor with the least influence be the multiplicative identity, 1, not 0?

This isn't business.

Hmm, I shouldn't have said "all immigrants work hard", but I think you can still understand the idea I was trying to present.

All immigrants work hard. I strongly doubt your work is harder than working on farms, or more useful than providing affordable food. Yet these people don't get the title of citizenship.

I completely agree with you that working in a competitive economy is something that contributes to everyone else around you. Considering how many people don't do that (I'm thinking about those who get privileged easy jobs), it is certainly true that it is beneficial for you to be present.

But we both know that hard work and contributing to an economy don't earn a person citizenship. Plenty of people are harder working and better educated than you or me and don't get citizenship. I know those with college educations and worked harder than you can imagine who can't get citizenship on technicalities even.

More importantly, plenty of people don't work hard and are just born with citizenship. "Citizenship" is just a title awarded to people which grants them rights, it is not something that is earned. It especially does not justify the condescending position that citizens take towards those who are here without citizenship.

They are literally immigrants without citizenship. That phrase is 100% accurate, it captures everyone who is meant to be captured by it and doesn't capture anyone else.

The problem most will have with the phrase is the question of "whose fault is it?" that the choice of phrase leaves open. If you say "illegal immigrant" then it automatically assumes some criminal intent on the part of the immigrant. If you say "without citizenship" then it leaves open the question of "whose fault is it that they don't have citizenship?"

Citizenship is just a title. Don't ever delude yourself to think that you earned it, or that it is something that you deserve because of some virtue you maintain. There is no royalty is in the US.

On a related but independent note: (rant begins here)

How the hell is it your business if someone wants to live in the US? If they find a landlord who will rent to them and a job that will pay them, then it is absolutely no one else's concern. At most, it would be a zoning issue for counties trying to handle local population size. Even that is a stretch.

But in return for this paranoia, what have you gained? Suppose one day that you want to go live in France or Korea or somewhere else. Well guess what, you can't. Because they have the same policy you have, maybe in 10 years after you've given up tons of money and dignity, and then maybe you can somehow be treated as a second class citizen.

Thank god for you though, you have no intention of living somewhere besides where you were born. And you are totally fine living in this cage you've built for everyone.

If it became generally accepted that people should have the right to live in whatever state or country they want, this would be the single most important right any human would have. It would do far more to protect your other rights than even "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Press", because when all else fails you can just leave to live with like minded people.
(end rant)

Linux runs on old hardware.
Linux runs on embedded hardware.
Linux runs on XBOX.
Linux runs on a toaster.

Some geek out there is smugly telling his friends "I made Linux run on a US Navy Destroyer".

Then, while not strictly speaking an issue of Constitutional jurisdiction, there is the whole issue of perjury in front of congress.

Writing your own bot from scratch and watching it play and interact is far more fun than the game itself. If you design it well enough then it's more much rewarding than doing things manually. Or you can write a semi manual bot to assist.

Sitting in front of a computer, doing all the tedious tasks manually...that's really just an insult to the entire history of electronic computer design.

The first computers were humans. There was no first programmer.

In terms of being a pioneer of formalizing and proving a nontrivial algorithm from axioms, Euclid can't get enough credit for his work like computing greatest common divisor. He was like the Knuth of the ancient world.

The point is to provide a way for people to show that votes are being counted correctly or incorrectly. As far as fixing things goes, that requires human motivation which no protocol can provide.

One way would be to publish your receipt with a redacted name. One might be ignored, but if 1000 are ignored then as I said, "human motivation" is lacking.

Another way would be to show your receipt to 1 public official that you trust. You would actually want the lists to be published per-voter-district, and if you can't trust anyone in the district that you live, you should move.

Forged receipts are actually more interesting, but why would you want to forge a vote for someone rather than just voting for them directly? I can only really think of doing it to grief the voting officials.

Give everyone who votes a receipt with a unique serial number, and a list of how they voted.

Release 2 lists to the public (no private lists are kept): First, a list of everyone who voted. Just name and address. Second, a list of how each serial number voted. No correlation between the order of the lists should exist.

It is anonymous. You can ensure that there are no extra votes, as the list lengths should be the same. You can ensure that no fake people voted by auditing the first list. You can ensure your vote was counted correctly by checking your receipt again the second list. It requires no trust of private parties because there is no private list.

Yes, it is possible to have anonymity and vote verification.

That's just what oppressive governments do. They have to monitor everything to stay in power.

OOPS I meant "only an idiot would shut down the nonessential one." That or someone who is feeling really altruistic.

This shutdown will have nothing to do with what's essential and what isn't essential. Suppose you are getting income for multiple services. Then you are told "shut down the one that isn't essential so we can pay you less." Only an idiot would shut down the essential one. You want to make the point "give us less money and it will suck for you", which you can only do by shutting down the most useful services. That's why the IRS will shut down "question and answering", it will be painful later when the audits are resumed.

Words and ideas are the most powerful thing in the Universe, more powerful than the strongest standing army. As someone's sig here says, "the tyrant fears a laugh more than a bullet."