Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1, Interesting) 329

The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty.

The above is a 100% accurate statement. The below statement is also 100% accurate:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature drops in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
or even:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."

In other words, neither statement says anything but that a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely exists. Which make them meaningless in terms of a scientific conclusion.

Wake me up again when scientists say, "If we don't drop our carbon consumption tomorrow, we're all going to die. Therefore, wanting to live, as of today I'm no longer going to consume any more carbon than I absolutely need to live" and have actual data to back it up. 'Cause that's about how drastic it'd have to be for people to believe after all the false alarms and cries of wolf not matched by personal action nor actual empirical results. After you're wrong repeatedly in your models, the rest of us will need to see some actually predict something accurately for a while before thinking you're on to something.

Comment Re:After watching (Score 1) 356

A system based on total votes counted for the entire nation is vulnerable by rigging performed by election officials in as little as a single location.

As an example, currently if a heavily Democratic Party controlled State like CA has election officials who rigg things to add votes to Hillary, they only affect the electoral college results from CA, which being heavily Democratic already they've already got. If switched to a system of total votes, they could produce extra "votes" for Hillary where GOP poll watchers didn't show up (because the local race isn't competitive) and seriously affect the overall election. If you want a reverse example, think Diabold in a southern state and the potential ability to add votes when another party controls things.

So one of the reasons for the current system is to limit and constrain issues in a particularly partisan location to that location, rather than making it a nationwide issue. Another reason (the original one for the electoral college) is that different parts of the country have different interests, values and goals, even beyond the typical urban/rural divide. Forcing candidates to win in a lot of places by what may be a smaller amount, rather then simply winning a few places by a ton of votes and ignoring the rest improves their ability to represent the whole country, rather than one single partisan slice popular regionally.

Comment Re:You can't protect against everything. (Score 1) 236

as you can only stockpile a finite quantity of fuel, you can't guarantee staying up until the power's back

You only need to store enough fuel to last until your first contracted for tanker truck shows up. Typically two weeks of on-site diesel is more than plenty, as long as you have a good enough contract specifying ongoing deliveries in case of an emergency. In that situation, you can keep things running for as long as your generator equipment doesn't fail from use...hopefully you count that in months or even years.

But really, the typical solution is that you have data centers all over the country. Unless the whole country gets destroyed (in which case you likely have bigger problems), even if you lose multiple data centers (usually for something like a fiery chemical train crash in a tunnel which destroys most major fiber provider's networks all at one and slams their surviving network - been, there, gone through that, whole east coast was off the internet for a couple of days), you're fine.

Submission + - Clinton Campaign, DNC Coordinated With Organizations To Incite Violence At Trump ( 7

Kneo24 writes: In a video shown by independent investigative reporter James O'keefe, you can see that there was collusion between Clinton's campaign and the DNC, to incite riots and violence at Trump's rallies. One of the key operatives states: "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."

Submission + - A new look into the world of violent AstroTurfing and Bird Dogging (

_Sharp'r_ writes: Slashdot commentators frequently talk about how common AstroTurfing is, but what about when the purpose is specifically to incite violence in a process called bird dogging? The latest Project Veritas undercover video series shows a fascinating network of consultants who tie themselves to the DNC and Clinton campaign and brag about hiring hundreds of protestors on an ongoing basis to incite violence at various Trump events.

Comment Re:US Post Office always secure. (Score 1) 454

Look at it from a game theory perspective. Election fraud is more rare when an election isn't expected to be close (not worth the risk of bothering) and more common when it is. Election fraud is more rare when riskier (i.e. more likely to get caught) and more common when unlikely/impossible to get caught.

So nobody bothers much when the election isn't close and people are voting securely, but when you get a few really close swing states to turn an election and they have a situation where it's easy to defraud, then that's when you get stories about Ohio precincts with no opposition poll watchers voting >100% of their registered voters, or people complaining about their Florida mentally ill brother having someone come and take his absentee ballot.

The idea is to keep it on the difficult side to commit fraud, not to suddenly make it much easier across the country by going to 100% mail-in ballots.

Comment Re:US Post Office always secure. (Score 1) 454

I read it. Apparently you missed some key portions...Yeah, it mentions the pros and cons. The reason it talks about them is that:
"While voter-impersonation fraud at the polls is nearly unheard of, both sides in the voter fraud debate acknowledge that absentee ballots are susceptible to fraud."
and then there is this little section:

More susceptible to fraud
Election fraud is rare, but it usually involves absentee or mail ballots, said Paul Gronke, a Reed College political scientist, who directs the Early Voting Information Center in Oregon. He cites what he calls a classic example of election fraud, a local official stealing votes by filling out absentee ballots. That was the case in Lincoln County, W.Va., where the sheriff and clerk pleaded guilty to distributing absentee ballots to unqualified voters and helping mark them during a 2010 Democratic primary.

Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, said vote-buying and bribery could occur more easily with mail voting and absentee voting. At a polling place, someone who bribed voters would have no way to verify that the bribe worked. A person who bribes mail voters could watch as they mark ballots or even mark ballots for them.

Gans also points to the potential to influence voters in gatherings that some call ballot-signing parties. A caregiver could mark a dependent's ballot.

"All the other types of fraud are essentially hard to do and easy to defend against," Gans said. "This isn't."

The point was that vote by mail is way more susceptible to fraud... something which if you took a few minutes to think it through is pretty obvious.

Comment Re:US Post Office always secure. (Score 1) 454

Voting fraud is most important... and most likely to happen, in closely contested elections. Yeah, when an election is for sure going one way or the other, why would anyone bother to risk it?

You sound like you haven't actually thought any of this through. There are already news stories of the young and the mentally ill in this election cycle having their absentee mail-in ballot voted for them in swing states expected to be close.

Comment Re:US Post Office always secure. (Score 1, Troll) 454

Here union member, prove you're loyal... when you get your mail-in ballot, just sign it and leave it blank and drop it by the office. We'll take care of it from there and make sure you get the best work assignments...

I'm sure that could never happen... it's not like mail-in ballots are considered more vulnerable to fraud or anything...

Comment Re:US Post Office always secure. (Score 5, Insightful) 454

It's much easier to buy/intimidate votes than to tamper with the post office. Now the voter (or their mom,don't forget that recent case in the news) can just drop their blank ballot off at the local party/union/employer/funder's headquarters in exchange for whatever incentive and the ballots can be voted the "right" way. Much closer to the Russian model, actually, where the person officially voting isn't necessarily the decision maker.

How about just making it so we have a disconnected backup, maybe even a paper copy somewhere just in case, and then the threat from "hackers" isn't much of one. But that would expect a modicum of competence, right?

Comment Re:Doesn't matter, he's "none of the above" (Score 1) 523

No, the House can't pick "anyone", they may only choose from the top 3 electoral college vote getters for President. From the 12th amendment, "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

Slashdot Top Deals

Earth is a beta site.