Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The inherent problem with electronic voting (Score 3, Interesting) 116 116

The system used in Argentina has a paper trail. When a vote is casted the machine saves the voter's choice to an RFID chip inside the ballot and at the same time the same information is printed as human-readable text on the ballot. The voter can use a separate machine to read the RFID and verify that the information printed matches the information stored.

The votes are counted at each polling station primarily using a RFID reader, but each political party can designate monitors to oversee the process. In case of doubts the votes can be re-counted using the printed information. When everyone present agrees on the totals, the results are sent to a central location where they are aggregated. Results from each polling station are made available online so each party can verify that the totals add up correctly.

As a final step, 5% of the polling stations are randomly selected the week after the election and votes are manually re-counted using the paper trail. This is done in the presence of monitors from the different parties. This is the second time this system is used. The first time the audit of the 5% of the polling stations showed no differences.

I think there is a bit of exaggeration on these reports since even if the software is vulnerable, the system as a whole can be verified. The police raids can be explained since some of these "researchers" made available a list of all the employees of the company supplying the voting machines including phone numbers and addresses in an attempt to prove the incompetence of that company

Comment Re:The inherent problem with electronic voting (Score 2) 116 116

In this case the audit is just counting the paper votes. The voting machines used in Argentina will save the voter selection to an RFID chip in the ballot and at the same time print the exact same information. The voter can use a separate machine to read the information in the chip and verify that the information displayed on a screen matches the information printed on the ballot. After that the voter has to insert the ballot in a box. At the end of the day the voting station authorities will empty the box and use a machine similar to the one that the voters used to verify their ballot in order to tally the votes, approaching the ballots one by one to the RFID reader. Each political party can nominate a monitor to oversee this process. They can even ask to manually recount the votes using the printed information if they have doubts. When everyone present agrees on the results, the data is transmitted to a central location to be aggregated. The ballots are put in the box again and the box is shipped to a central location. The totals from each polling station are made available online. The week after the election a 5% of the polling stations are randomly selected. The boxes from those stations are re-opened and the votes are re-counted using the printed information. Again, delegates from every political party oversee this. This is the second time this system is used. The first time was in the Salta province. The audit of the 5% of the votes found no differences.

Comment Re:Still joking? (Score 1) 216 216

It'a no more ridiculous a thought than you trying to create an arbitrary separation between me driving a friend across town and someone I don't know.

The separation is as arbitrary as any other taxing criteria. The criteria applied here has nothing to do with driving someone you don't know. It's about charging extra for vehicle registration to companies whose main purpose is to drive around goods or people for a profit. Your original question was "Why should I apply for a commercial license?". The answer was "You don't", because you don't meet the criteria. The discussion here is not about you. It's about uber, which apparently meets the criteria but somehow gets away not paying extra.

since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure

Which I and my rider pay for regardless of us knowing each other or not.

The question is not wether you pay for the infrastructure but rather how much you pay. You would pay considerably more if the companies that met the above criteria wouldn't have to pay extra. Is the criteria fair? Maybe not. Maybe all vehicles should pay the same regardless of their purpose, or pay based on mileage, but that's a completely different discussion.

Comment Re:You have got to be kidding (Score 1) 216 216

All you are saying is that, under the current circumstances, driving is the most cost-effective means of transportation for you (and your competitors). If somehow the cost of driving went steeply up, you (and your competitors) can switch to an alternative means of transportation and still keep doing whatever you do for a living. In that sense, driving is not an absolute requirement for your business. That's not the case of uber, and since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure is so central to their business model, it's arguably fair for them to pay extra for it.

Comment Re:Wrong (Score 1) 216 216

You could potentially walk, bike, take public transport or a cab to get to your clients. You drive because it's more efficient or convenient, but it's not an absolute requirement for your business. On the other hand, driving *is* what uber does. You take that out and they have no business. That's the key difference.

Comment Making a profit off publicly-funded infrastructure (Score 3, Insightful) 216 216

I thought the general principle was that if you are making a profit off publicly-funded infrastructure (in this case, roads) you should be taxed more than the general public, hence the special license for commercial vehicles. I can't see why uber and the like should be exempted.

Comment Re:Im all for human rights... (Score 1) 1482 1482

So Communists believe in restricting economic freedom. Should we call for the boycott of companies that hire communist employees? Wait! That already happened. It was called McCarthyism.

You fight political ideas by convincing the majority of people that these ideas are wrong, not by trying to silence the proponents of the ideas you oppose.

Comment CMMI utterly useless in my opinion (Score 4, Interesting) 228 228

I live in Argentina, where any software company getting a CMMI certification can apply for a tax cut. Because of that, CMMI was all the rage around eight years ago or so. Turns out CMMI was so utterly useless and cumbersome that at this point most companies prefer to forget about the tax cuts rather than bother with being CMMI certified. Only companies seeking government contracts continue doing so.

Comment Goiânia Accident (Score 5, Informative) 98 98

Glad it was already found.

To understand the risks that this type of events involve check what happened in Brazil several years ago when radioactive medical material went missing and ended up killing several people

Submission + - A Javascript Editor That Doesn't Suck

kreide33 writes: Most code editors provide features such as syntax highlighting and auto completion, but the programmer still needs to mentally execute the code to understand how it will actually work. This blog entry describes a code editor that in addition to all the usual bells and whistles also visualizes the actual code execution, live while the user is editing. The implementation is done using Rhino and the article goes into detail on how the Rhino debugger API is used to single-step through the JavaScript code to simulate its execution and the result is then displayed side-by-side with the code.

Comment Take the test yourself (Score 5, Informative) 263 263


You can take a sample test yourself. See how basic the questions are and feel appalled to see the % of students in your country that managed to pass each level.

For example, only 11% of students in my country (Argentina) were able to reach level 3 (identify the smallest value in a table). Highest rank for that question was Shanghai-China (89%). USA was 48%.

Support Mental Health. Or I'll kill you.