I found the CBS link, where the FBI was unable to find documents that were previously released under FOIA, particularly troubling. Either there is a direct effort to render FOIA useless, or, perhaps more likely, that the FBI's computer systems are just incapable of managing even the most basic intelligence queries.
DomainKeys should use 'sender' and not 'from' line. In this way a gateway can read the incoming mail, verify the DomainKey signature of the sender, perhaps mark that it was accepted for delivery and adding what ever headers it wishes, and then using DomainKeys to sign the outgoing message (but using its own sender). In effect, DomainKeys should be 'chainable', trusted gateways should continue to work as they do today, in a sequence of trusted servers.
The Kwiki implementation is done in Perl, easy to install, and quite satisfactory. What is cool is that it has a wonderful plug-in framework, with lots of extensibility options.
Brian Ingerson, the author, also has a very clever idea to handle Wiki Spammers (who try to increase page rank) -- Kwiki pushes all links through google.
The most important aspect of a voting system is that how one voted remains anonymous. If it is possible for an employer, spouse, parent, or anyone else to have someone 'prove' that they voted red or blue, then organized coersion is likely.
Another important aspect is that the person's vote should not be "sellable". If this mechanism admits the possibility of a card to be sold, then it is a non-starter.
Thank you, anonymous coward, this was a very good link. However, my point still stands quite clearly, this has very little to do with the current issue of verified voting - the top poster gained little by his lead-in.
a) the voting machine produces a 'voucher'
listing the canidates whom the voter selected
b) the voter can, in the privacy of the voting
booth, review this voucher for accuracy
c) the voucher is placed into a ballot box
for the vote to be counted, the voucher
itself _is_ the legally binding vote
You are absolutely correct to rail against a receipt which the voter takes home with them. I've personally witnessed Diabold people purposefully mis-represnet verified voting as providing a take-home receipt. Worse, I've had people I've talked to randomly on the air plane talk about it as if it is a good idea!
What is "Despite the inherent liberal bias" for? This issue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative viewpoints, although I might add that I've yet to see a conservative news source spend any serious time on election issues.
Also, I'd hardly call the Times "liberal", it's been pro-Bush for most of the Bush's administration and during the Clinton adminstration it attacked the sitting president on a daily basis - on the front page. Perhaps you are referring to Dowd or Krugman? These arn't part of the NY Times Editoral board, they are OP-ED contributors, pushing one position or the other, in the same manner as William Safire (Nixon's Speech Writer) and David Brooks are there to push so-called conservative positions. The NY Times is far less "liberal" than you think -- perhaps if you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh for a while you might realize that news papers should be free to explore all sorts of positions, popular or not. A "liberal" news source would be the American Prospect.
Asserting the First Amendment rights of its customers, the Tattered Cover Bookstore challenged a search warrant obtained by police that sought information about all books purchased by a customer in a 30-day period. The ACLU of Colorado filed an amicus brief arguing that the state constitutional right of free expression requires special procedural protections when the government seeks information about who is reading which particular books. In a groundbreaking opinion that recognizes the dangers posed by government monitoring of citizens' reading habits, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bookstore.
Absentee ballots are not a solution. They are not anonymous, and anonymous voting is required to make sure that people arn't selling votes or involved in coersion. While some people may have legitimate use of this form of voting, they should have very very limited usage.
These receipts can be provided by anybody to verify their vote was tabulated correctly, and provided by them at their option for exit poll tabulation and watchdog monitoring.
You can't be serious! This is what they did back in the day of Jim Crow. See, when you vote you get a Blue card if you vote one way, and a Red card if you vote another. God forbid you showed up to work the next morning with the wrong colored card.
The content of the paper card listing the voter's choices should be in native language; OCR on a limited set of data is quite accurate -- no need for barcodes. Also, you don't want to be punching holes, simply print out the voter's choices on a card so that the voter can verify that the program has understood the vote properly. Barcodes and other non-human-readable items can be used to circumvent voter verifyability.
Government should own the wires and heavily regulate who gets to maintain them (the actual installation and maintenance should be done by a private company). Then, the wires should be "rented" on a monthly basis, to the highest bidder, by those who want to offer services and the revenue used to continue maintenance and increase the level of coverage. There is a role for government, it is not a all-or-nothing approach. Companies, by themselves, without a legal infrastructure are amoral beasts.
Why? Because putting in wires requires "right of way", that is, the right to put wires on my property (or on government property). Currently, governments give this "right" to a single company, forming a monopoly because they don't want to administer it; and then regulating the monopoly since monopolies do what they do -- raise prices in the absence of competition. Worse yet, the government usually raises bonds to "pay" these companies to build their monopoly, having the public shoulder all of the risk without opportunity for a return on investment (better wires, or reduced taxes). This is a cop-out. The government should own the "monopoly" and make everything else subject to competition.
Government regulations restrict change, allowing megalythic companies to exist and flourish.
This is sometimes true, sometimes false. Turner is making the argument that the regulations in the 60's, which restricted very large companies was _good_ for capitalism. It allowed a large bunch of smaller competitors to get stronger. If the large companies were not regulated, then they would have _squashed_ the smaller competitors before they got strong enough to really compete.
Enron was trying to build a business model on buying and selling government pollution credits, and leveraging regulatory changes that it knew about before hand by buying politicians.
A great example of a broken political system, where regulation is put in place _by_ the large companies to restrict small ones. But this does not invalidate the usefulness of good regulation. The evil item here is concentrated media, which gives large companies a bigger voice than the smaller companies and individuals. And this evil item is exactly what Ted is attacking.
The reason I don't have any interest in creating yet more media regulations is because I don't want MY access restricted.
This is exactly why medial regulation is needed, perhaps a smaller cap on the number of stations that every company can own, etc.
I like being able to post articles where anyone can see them without worrying about language or subject content. I can even advertise my business (if I had one).
I'd like to note that you can do this exactly because of government regulation of Bell Telephone and Telegraph. Without this regulation (allowing data to travel over phone wires via local telephone calls), the Internet would have been squashed. Also, since Ma Bell was restricted so that it could not sell software, it released Unix, pretty much for "free" to Universities. Most of its 'internal' tools -- which it was restricted from selling -- form the basis of your Linux box!
And if you want to extrapolate your "regulation == the suck" process further, say to the Environment, you'd really cause problems. The EPA keeps me from dumping shit into rivers, air, and other stuff that you would have to drink and breath. Regulation has its place, capitalism by itself, without a set of rules for its behavior, will always run amuck. It's not Black vs White world.
his point is that targeted regulation to maintain a competitive market is a _good thing_ for capitalism. The problem with cars, is that the major automakers _own_ the distribution channel. If anything, with the smaller part manufacturers that have sprung up as a result of outsourcing, it is becoming more possible to start a small car manufacturer. Distribution channels, _define_ markets, and these need to be regulated so that their monopoly power cannot be extended into manufacturing and production, both of which need not be monopolies.
This is just the first of the hard cuts that will have to happen to have social security for the baby boomers as they start to retire.
Saying that we have to cut NASA funding to fund baby boomers is pure nonsense. The difference between what the boomers will need (in the trillions of dollars) is far far less than the NASA budget). Now... if you want to cut the military, you could make some headroom. But you mentioned social security; so,
Right now the social security "surplus" (about 25% of your payroll taxes, or 25% *.12 = 3% of your income) is being used for general spending -- it is a effectly an extra tax people under 80K are paying that those who are making millions don't. If we wanted to "shore-up" social security, we should stop using this money to pay the national debt; and start investing it.
Where to invest billions of dollars? I'll tell you. In education, especially healthcare and initiatives for keeping care of retires. Why? Well, its simple economics. In another 10-20 years the demand for retirement services (esp. nurses and doctors who specialize in geriatrics) will be fixed -- determined by the increasing retirement age. At that time, the supply will also be fixed, since it takes several years to "learn" someone a nursing degree (from High school all the way through). So, the price will be fixed, and we will have to raise taxes to cover that price. If we work hard at increasing the supply of services now (since they take many years to build-up), we will still pay a price, but a lower price, and hence we won't have to raise taxes as much. Further, if the money is used for general education, the average american will have more skills, and will need less time (due to productivity) to cover the needs of their parents and grandparents.
In short, we should not be using this 3% tax to pay for revenue lost from the estate tax and lower capital gains. We should be investing this 3% into education for the next generations of Americans. Education is the answer, and one frequently overlooked.
What's sadly missing is a discussion of the DAMAGE done to society since people cannot create derivitive works. Imagine for a minute if Walt Dizney could not make movies of Cinderella, Peter Pan, Scrooge, and other historicial fiction whose copyright has expired. Why is it that they can build on the works of others, but not allow others to build on their works? If they were _truly_ interested in defending copyright, they would find the descendents of these works and pay them the "outrageous" royalties that they would deserve. But WD doesn't do this, they waot all the way till Mouse is about to expire and _then_ lobby to extend copyright (otherwise, they'd have to pay back royalties on Fantasia's music).
You can also buy this at the Tattered Cover -- the bookstore which did not turn over purchase records to the government when asked; and defended the right to privacy in court.
(I'm not in any way associated with the cover, and this is not a referrer link)
If you don't have a social network, find local technology companies in the area; use google, a phone book, or the local chamber of commerce. Find the local business get-togethers; they do exist. Bring a resume, be humble.
When I graduated in '93 ish the job market was similar as the ones today; it wasn't easy getting a job. However, after a month of calling around, sure enough, I found a small company that needed some simple coding done; I did it, and then moved on. Three things to remember when looking for a job and starting out:
(a) don't sign a non-compete; question it, if they explain its not enforcable, then smile, and say "good, we can cross it out then"
(b) ask for written job reviews early and often, don't ever let three months go by without a written statement of your progress, signed by your manager
(c) build a portfolio; unlike the 60's you don't work for the same employer for more than a year or so (especially when starting out), and if an employer doesn' like you, or your manager passes (which happened to me on one occasion) you may not be able to get verification of the work you did - publish, make open source code, and even do some voluenteer work that gets documented and put-up on their website
You are correct about barcodes undermining the solution. However, the other poster here has a point about using OCR. So what if it is only 97% accurate. Use a human for the other 3%.;)
Slashdot Mirror
I found the CBS link, where the FBI was unable to find documents that were previously released under FOIA, particularly troubling. Either there is a direct effort to render FOIA useless, or, perhaps more likely, that the FBI's computer systems are just incapable of managing even the most basic intelligence queries.
DomainKeys should use 'sender' and not 'from' line. In this way a gateway can read the incoming mail, verify the DomainKey signature of the sender, perhaps mark that it was accepted for delivery and adding what ever headers it wishes, and then using DomainKeys to sign the outgoing message (but using its own sender). In effect, DomainKeys should be 'chainable', trusted gateways should continue to work as they do today, in a sequence of trusted servers.
The Kwiki implementation is done in Perl, easy to install, and quite satisfactory. What is cool is that it has a wonderful plug-in framework, with lots of extensibility options.
Brian Ingerson, the author, also has a very clever idea to handle Wiki Spammers (who try to increase page rank) -- Kwiki pushes all links through google.
The most important aspect of a voting system is that how one voted remains anonymous. If it is possible for an employer, spouse, parent, or anyone else to have someone 'prove' that they voted red or blue, then organized coersion is likely.
Another important aspect is that the person's vote should not be "sellable". If this mechanism admits the possibility of a card to be sold, then it is a non-starter.
Thank you, anonymous coward, this was a very good link. However, my point still stands quite clearly, this has very little to do with the current issue of verified voting - the top poster gained little by his lead-in.
What people mean by "verified voting" is:
a) the voting machine produces a 'voucher'
listing the canidates whom the voter selected
b) the voter can, in the privacy of the voting
booth, review this voucher for accuracy
c) the voucher is placed into a ballot box
for the vote to be counted, the voucher
itself _is_ the legally binding vote
You are absolutely correct to rail against a receipt which the voter takes home with them. I've personally witnessed Diabold people purposefully mis-represnet verified voting as providing a take-home receipt. Worse, I've had people I've talked to randomly on the air plane talk about it as if it is a good idea!
What is "Despite the inherent liberal bias" for? This issue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative viewpoints, although I might add that I've yet to see a conservative news source spend any serious time on election issues.
Also, I'd hardly call the Times "liberal", it's been pro-Bush for most of the Bush's administration and during the Clinton adminstration it attacked the sitting president on a daily basis - on the front page. Perhaps you are referring to Dowd or Krugman? These arn't part of the NY Times Editoral board, they are OP-ED contributors, pushing one position or the other, in the same manner as William Safire (Nixon's Speech Writer) and David Brooks are there to push so-called conservative positions. The NY Times is far less "liberal" than you think -- perhaps if you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh for a while you might realize that news papers should be free to explore all sorts of positions, popular or not. A "liberal" news source would be the American Prospect.
Seconded. The author, "Why The Lucky Stiff" is quite a clever fella.
"Why The Luck Stiff" rocks.
You can purchase Solaris Systems Programming at the Tattered Cover. This is not an affiliate link. I post this beacuse the Tattered Cover works to protect First Amendment Rights. Thank you.
Asserting the First Amendment rights of its customers, the Tattered Cover Bookstore challenged a search warrant obtained by police that sought information about all books purchased by a customer in a 30-day period. The ACLU of Colorado filed an amicus brief arguing that the state constitutional right of free expression requires special procedural protections when the government seeks information about who is reading which particular books. In a groundbreaking opinion that recognizes the dangers posed by government monitoring of citizens' reading habits, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bookstore.
Absentee ballots are not a solution. They are not anonymous, and anonymous voting is required to make sure that people arn't selling votes or involved in coersion. While some people may have legitimate use of this form of voting, they should have very very limited usage.
These receipts can be provided by anybody to verify their vote was tabulated correctly, and provided by them at their option for exit poll tabulation and watchdog monitoring.
You can't be serious! This is what they did back in the day of Jim Crow. See, when you vote you get a Blue card if you vote one way, and a Red card if you vote another. God forbid you showed up to work the next morning with the wrong colored card.
The content of the paper card listing the voter's choices should be in native language; OCR on a limited set of data is quite accurate -- no need for barcodes. Also, you don't want to be punching holes, simply print out the voter's choices on a card so that the voter can verify that the program has understood the vote properly. Barcodes and other non-human-readable items can be used to circumvent voter verifyability.
Government should own the wires and heavily regulate who gets to maintain them (the actual installation and maintenance should be done by a private company). Then, the wires should be "rented" on a monthly basis, to the highest bidder, by those who want to offer services and the revenue used to continue maintenance and increase the level of coverage. There is a role for government, it is not a all-or-nothing approach. Companies, by themselves, without a legal infrastructure are amoral beasts.
Why? Because putting in wires requires "right of way", that is, the right to put wires on my property (or on government property). Currently, governments give this "right" to a single company, forming a monopoly because they don't want to administer it; and then regulating the monopoly since monopolies do what they do -- raise prices in the absence of competition. Worse yet, the government usually raises bonds to "pay" these companies to build their monopoly, having the public shoulder all of the risk without opportunity for a return on investment (better wires, or reduced taxes). This is a cop-out. The government should own the "monopoly" and make everything else subject to competition.
Government regulations restrict change, allowing megalythic companies to exist and flourish.
This is sometimes true, sometimes false. Turner is making the argument that the regulations in the 60's, which restricted very large companies was _good_ for capitalism. It allowed a large bunch of smaller competitors to get stronger. If the large companies were not regulated, then they would have _squashed_ the smaller competitors before they got strong enough to really compete.
Enron was trying to build a business model on buying and selling government pollution credits, and leveraging regulatory changes that it knew about before hand by buying politicians.
A great example of a broken political system, where regulation is put in place _by_ the large companies to restrict small ones. But this does not invalidate the usefulness of good regulation. The evil item here is concentrated media, which gives large companies a bigger voice than the smaller companies and individuals. And this evil item is exactly what Ted is attacking.
The reason I don't have any interest in creating yet more media regulations is because I don't want MY access restricted.
This is exactly why medial regulation is needed,
perhaps a smaller cap on the number of stations that every company can own, etc.
I like being able to post articles where anyone can see them without worrying about language or subject content. I can even advertise my business (if I had one).
I'd like to note that you can do this exactly because of government regulation of Bell Telephone and Telegraph. Without this regulation (allowing data to travel over phone wires via local telephone calls), the Internet would have been squashed. Also, since Ma Bell was restricted so that it could not sell software, it released Unix, pretty much for "free" to Universities. Most of its 'internal' tools -- which it was restricted from selling -- form the basis of your Linux box!
And if you want to extrapolate your "regulation == the suck" process further, say to the Environment, you'd really cause problems. The EPA keeps me from dumping shit into rivers, air, and other stuff that you would have to drink and breath. Regulation has its place, capitalism by itself, without a set of rules for its behavior, will always run amuck. It's not Black vs White world.
his point is that targeted regulation to maintain a competitive market is a _good thing_ for capitalism. The problem with cars, is that the major automakers _own_ the distribution channel. If anything, with the smaller part manufacturers that have sprung up as a result of outsourcing, it is becoming more possible to start a small car manufacturer. Distribution channels, _define_ markets, and these need to be regulated so that their monopoly power cannot be extended into manufacturing and production, both of which need not be monopolies.
This is just the first of the hard cuts that will have to happen to have social security for the baby boomers as they start to retire.
.12 = 3% of your income) is being used for general spending -- it is a effectly an extra tax people under 80K are paying that those who are making millions don't. If we wanted to "shore-up" social security, we should stop using this money to pay the national debt; and start investing it.
Saying that we have to cut NASA funding to fund baby boomers is pure nonsense. The difference between what the boomers will need (in the trillions of dollars) is far far less than the NASA budget). Now... if you want to cut the military, you could make some headroom. But you mentioned social security; so,
Right now the social security "surplus" (about 25% of your payroll taxes, or 25% *
Where to invest billions of dollars? I'll tell you. In education, especially healthcare and initiatives for keeping care of retires. Why?
Well, its simple economics. In another 10-20 years the demand for retirement services (esp. nurses and doctors who specialize in geriatrics) will be fixed -- determined by the increasing retirement age. At that time, the supply will also be fixed, since it takes several years to "learn" someone a nursing degree (from High school all the way through). So, the price will be fixed, and we will have to raise taxes to cover that price. If we work hard at increasing the supply of services now (since they take many years to build-up), we will still pay a price, but a lower price, and hence we won't have to raise taxes as much. Further, if the money is used for general education, the average american will have more skills, and will need less time (due to productivity) to cover the needs of their parents and grandparents.
In short, we should not be using this 3% tax to pay for revenue lost from the estate tax and lower capital gains. We should be investing this 3% into education for the next generations of Americans. Education is the answer, and one frequently overlooked.
ion2
/usr/ports/x11-wm/ion-2
For those with FreeBSD who hate the mouse...
# cd
# make install
Karma is an angry black woman in a beat up Plymouth Reliant with two flat tires that only turns left.
is a bit offensive, don't you think?
What's sadly missing is a discussion of the DAMAGE done to society since people cannot create derivitive works. Imagine for a minute if Walt Dizney could not make movies of Cinderella, Peter Pan, Scrooge, and other historicial fiction whose copyright has expired. Why is it that they can build on the works of others, but not allow others to build on their works? If they were _truly_ interested in defending copyright, they would find the descendents of these works and pay them the "outrageous" royalties that they would deserve. But WD doesn't do this, they waot all the way till Mouse is about to expire and _then_ lobby to extend copyright (otherwise, they'd have to pay back royalties on Fantasia's music).
You can also buy this at the Tattered Cover -- the bookstore which did not turn over purchase records to the government when asked; and defended the right to privacy in
court.
(I'm not in any way associated with the cover, and this is not a referrer link)
If you don't have a social network, find local technology companies in the area; use google, a phone book, or the local chamber of commerce. Find the local business get-togethers; they do exist. Bring a resume, be humble.
When I graduated in '93 ish the job market was similar as the ones today; it wasn't easy getting a job. However, after a month of calling around, sure enough, I found a small company that needed some simple coding done; I did it, and then moved on. Three things to remember when looking for a job and starting out:
(a) don't sign a non-compete; question it, if they explain its not enforcable, then smile, and say "good, we can cross it out then"
(b) ask for written job reviews early and often, don't ever let three months go by without a written statement of your progress, signed by your manager
(c) build a portfolio; unlike the 60's you don't work for the same employer for more than a year or so (especially when starting out), and if an employer doesn' like you, or your manager passes (which happened to me on one occasion) you may not be able to get verification of the work you did - publish, make open source code, and even do some voluenteer work that gets documented and put-up on their website
It should be public domain, without any restrictions on its use.
You are correct about barcodes undermining the solution. However, the other poster here has a point about using OCR. So what if it is only 97% accurate. Use a human for the other 3%. ;)
Yes. You are totally correct. Thank you for the correction.