The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy. It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve. Even online voting.
It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us. But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.
Technically maybe. But voter coercion is a hard problem. You can't check remotely whether the vote was forced while you can easily control it in the voting booth.
Despite the obvious differences the whole thing somehow reminded me of Google Wave. It seems when the time of an idea comes (distributed communication service, every user can run a server easily, something like that) then different teams come up with similar solutions independently without knowing about each other's work.
The apparent drawbacks of Opera Unite are bandwidth problems when running locally (e.g. ADSL upload speed) and the services being dependent on your computer being turned on.
What would the US government do if the Chinese government demanded we censor our internet the same way they are, or they won't let us borrow anymore money?
A slippery slope, indeed.
If they don't let the US borrow more money then the US won't be able to pay interest for the existing debts, so that's a double edged sword.
That's what you get with a single party system, my friends. And no, this is not a typo - Dems and Repubs are pretty much the same party with minor variations.
I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.
Your physical security is also an issue.
If you go to a polling station then you can be sure no one will force you to cast your vote on his preferred candidate.
But if you vote from your home via the internet then members of the local mafia can stand behind your back while you're voting and they can force you to vote on the politician who pays them.
How could you fix this "security hole" in the internet voting scheme?
Yup. There are plenty of proxies out there too, so what exactly is this going to do?
This is only a half-hearted attempt, so they can say they prevent the flow of dangerous ideas. The real thing keeping people in check is their standard of living. In recent years lots of people have a better life in China. Especially people in cities. According to reports young Chinese don't really care about Tiananmen, because they can buy stuff which makes them happy.
The easiest way to control people is turning them into consumers. A consumer don't really care about anything until he can consume what he wants. It's a great way to keep people from thinking.
For those who haven't noticed: the same thing is happening in the West
Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history. Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.
Well, email is also stored centrally on providers' servers (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) which can talk to each other.
It is the same with wave: anyone can run a wave server and these servers can talk to each other.
It becomes harder to manage, just like an IRC, IM or real-life conversation with more than 5 people. It gets noisy, confusing and you will probably miss quite a bit. Wave isn't magic, it will have limitations just like anything else does. Or perhaps I am wrong and it will have tools to manage this, either way it's a non-point.
It's non-point also because he criticized the default, reference implementation interface. No one said this the only possible way you can look at waves. I can imagine an interface which is much more stripped down, maybe even by disallowing some features of the protocol to keep it simple.
Since the main point is the protocol I expect several different GUIs developed for it, each with a slightly different philosophy. The most important thing is the protocol right now. A good interface is not here yet, and it will surely require several trial and errors until someone finally gets it right.
Got me thinking. Will Slashdot and similar forums exist in their current form a few years from now? Or will they transform into wave servers and topics like this one will be waves on those servers?
"It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads"
And they say they don't like flashing ads and stuff, that's why they remove it with adblocker.
That's stealing. If you don't like the ads on a site then don't visit the site. If enough people do this then companies will change their ad model when they realize it drives away visitors.
So people shouldn't rationalize their stealing by saying it's their right to remove ads and view others' content without them.
The ethical way is to stop going there, not stealing.
I think the MRI would find I preferred rotten turnip to Angelina Jolie.
They should have chosen a celebrity who the subject does find very attractive.
Choosing a generic attractive woman doesn't mean much. E.g. some prefer Kate Winslet to Angelina, so for them Angie is not the ultimate object of desire.
... would be the most important in my opinion of "user sophistication", a lot of times google will pull a lot of sites quite frankly should be able to be punished by users by users beign able to filter them out of their search results.
Well, I downloaded the latest Lost torrent from it yesterday without any problem (sorry, I can't wait until they decide to air it here in Europe), so the filter is apparently not very good.
There is an other provider. It's called Torrent and it's available everywhere. I wonder what Hulu-ABC will do if they hear about it. Change their business model or something?
Slashdot Mirror
They're trying to compete with Youtube?... Compete for what? The privilege of losing $1.65 million per day?
Well, it's a great privilege. Not everyone can do that.
The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy. It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve. Even online voting.
It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us. But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.
Technically maybe. But voter coercion is a hard problem. You can't check remotely whether the vote was forced while you can easily control it in the voting booth.
Yep, in the current economic situation it's not a wise thing to talk about the default.
The Chinese read Slashdot too, you know.
Can you say "huge honking security hole"?
Every server is a security hole waiting to be fixed.
Despite the obvious differences the whole thing somehow reminded me of Google Wave. It seems when the time of an idea comes (distributed communication service, every user can run a server easily, something like that) then different teams come up with similar solutions independently without knowing about each other's work.
The apparent drawbacks of Opera Unite are bandwidth problems when running locally (e.g. ADSL upload speed) and the services being dependent on your computer being turned on.
Google Wave seems more promising in the long run.
Seems that twitter would be a great way to use one-time pads and code phrases.....
Sounds like a terrorist tool. We should ban it.
(Apparently, the terrorist-argument can actually be used for the common good in some cases.)
What would the US government do if the Chinese government demanded we censor our internet the same way they are, or they won't let us borrow anymore money?
A slippery slope, indeed.
If they don't let the US borrow more money then the US won't be able to pay interest for the existing debts, so that's a double edged sword.
Because oh no, those poor imaginary cartoon characters need judicial protection!
Won't someone think of the imaginary children?
Those who have those urges towards children may feel prodded seeing the depicted acts to try them in the real world.
Yes, it's the same with murder and stuff, but those being legal doesn't mean we should make everything legal just because it's "imaginary".
That's what you get with a single party system, my friends. And no, this is not a typo - Dems and Repubs are pretty much the same party with minor variations.
Why don't you start a revolution then?
I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.
Your physical security is also an issue.
If you go to a polling station then you can be sure no one will force you to cast your vote on his preferred candidate.
But if you vote from your home via the internet then members of the local mafia can stand behind your back while you're voting and they can force you to vote on the politician who pays them.
How could you fix this "security hole" in the internet voting scheme?
Yup. There are plenty of proxies out there too, so what exactly is this going to do?
This is only a half-hearted attempt, so they can say they prevent the flow of dangerous ideas. The real thing keeping people in check is their standard of living. In recent years lots of people have a better life in China. Especially people in cities. According to reports young Chinese don't really care about Tiananmen, because they can buy stuff which makes them happy.
The easiest way to control people is turning them into consumers. A consumer don't really care about anything until he can consume what he wants. It's a great way to keep people from thinking.
For those who haven't noticed: the same thing is happening in the West
Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history. Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.
Well, email is also stored centrally on providers' servers (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) which can talk to each other.
It is the same with wave: anyone can run a wave server and these servers can talk to each other.
It becomes harder to manage, just like an IRC, IM or real-life conversation with more than 5 people. It gets noisy, confusing and you will probably miss quite a bit. Wave isn't magic, it will have limitations just like anything else does. Or perhaps I am wrong and it will have tools to manage this, either way it's a non-point.
It's non-point also because he criticized the default, reference implementation interface. No one said this the only possible way you can look at waves. I can imagine an interface which is much more stripped down, maybe even by disallowing some features of the protocol to keep it simple.
Since the main point is the protocol I expect several different GUIs developed for it, each with a slightly different philosophy. The most important thing is the protocol right now. A good interface is not here yet, and it will surely require several trial and errors until someone finally gets it right.
I can attest Qt is a very fine GUI toolkit with excellent documentation.
Seems like the "not invented here" syndrome rears its ugly head again, otherwise more people would give it a try instead of Gtk.
because it would be under the control of a single corporation, this could well be argued to be a bad thing, for obvious reasons.
The protocol will be open and every can run their own wave server independetly of Google, so it won't be under the control of a single corporation.
Got me thinking. Will Slashdot and similar forums exist in their current form a few years from now? Or will they transform into wave servers and topics like this one will be waves on those servers?
You used to be cool.
Really? When?
"It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads"
And they say they don't like flashing ads and stuff, that's why they remove it with adblocker.
That's stealing. If you don't like the ads on a site then don't visit the site. If enough people do this then companies will change their ad model when they realize it drives away visitors.
So people shouldn't rationalize their stealing by saying it's their right to remove ads and view others' content without them.
The ethical way is to stop going there, not stealing.
Who'd think a signals intelligence analysis network can help in home automation? Pretty revolutionary thinking. It didn't occur to me.
Tinfoil panties to everyone!
I think the MRI would find I preferred rotten turnip to Angelina Jolie.
They should have chosen a celebrity who the subject does find very attractive.
Choosing a generic attractive woman doesn't mean much. E.g. some prefer Kate Winslet to Angelina, so for them Angie is not the ultimate object of desire.
... would be the most important in my opinion of "user sophistication", a lot of times google will pull a lot of sites quite frankly should be able to be punished by users by users beign able to filter them out of their search results.
Isn't Search Wiki what you're looking for?
Well, I downloaded the latest Lost torrent from it yesterday without any problem (sorry, I can't wait until they decide to air it here in Europe), so the filter is apparently not very good.
Can I close the frame permanently if I don't want it at all on any site? That is the right question.
There is an other provider. It's called Torrent and it's available everywhere. I wonder what Hulu-ABC will do if they hear about it. Change their business model or something?