This doesn't have a damn thing to do with open source, don't fool yourself. This has to do with accountability and the public perception that e-voting machines don't have any. The license isn't open source because it doesn't need to be.
The code is reviewable, so it can be audited to avoid the kind of debacles diebold is facing. It's a marketing move, and a move that is in the public interest. Intead of complaining that it wasn't released in the license you like you should be grateful that it is available for review at all.
Open source is good, but that doesn't mean something is bad just because you can't do with it what you want.
You babble incoherently, that or English is definitely not your first language. Please repost in a logical manner that asks a clear question and I will see if I can answer it for you. Ask a sincere question, and I will try to provide a sincere answer, but your post simply does not make sense.
Look at Rwanda. Just what did anyone do to "create" that?
. Answer. Nothing, nothing at all. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. ~ source disputed
Nuclear weapons can't prevent something like the Rwandan hatchet job, but they can and have prevented WWIII. In the final body count few things have saved more lives in the history of this planet than the nuclear weapon.
Thats because they were never classified as soldiers to begin with. A criminal or terrorist does not become a soldeir simply by picking up a gun. Did you know there are qualifications to be a prisoner of war? To simplify it they are:
1. Must be answerable to a commander; 2. Must have a distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance on their uniform; 3. Must openly carry arms (weapons); 4. Must conduct their operations in line with the laws of war.
Here is the text of the treaty if you care to actually read it instead of just spewing anti-US rhetoric.
These distinctions like uniforms are what help protect civilians in times of war. They are the slim incentive to soldiers who otherwise may have none at all to act with what human decency is possible during a war. It's really pretty simple, follow the rules of war, and you are garaunteed certain rights in event of capture. Don't follow those rules and you have no rights, got it?
Re:The bad side of course...
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No problem, hope this helps. I'm not counting things like the intifada in Israel or the "war on terrorism".
1990 Rwanda Civl War 1990 Iraq-Kuwait 1990 Malian Civil War 1990 Nigerian Civil War 1990 Trinidadian Rebellion 1991 Croatian War of Independence 1991 Djibouti Civil War 1991 Georgian Civil Wars 1991 Haitian Civil War 1991 Moldovan Civil War 1991 Sierra Leonean Civil War 1991 Slovene War of Independence 1991 Somalian Civil War 1991 Togolese Civil War 1991 UN-Iraq 1992 Algerian Civil War 1992 Bosnian Civil War 1992 Tajikistan Civil War 1993 Burundian Civil War 1994 Chechan Revolt 1994 Ghanian Civil War 1994 Yemenite Civil War 1995 Ecuadoran-Peruvian Border War 1997 Comoran Rebellion 1998 Kosovo War 2002 US-Afghanistan 2003 US-Iraq 2004 Haitian Civil War
You state:
The dipolar world of the cold war had its share of troubles, but they were expressed as wars between client states, revolutions funded from abroad, and other such dirty tricks.
You might be surprised but I largely agree with you here, I just draw a different conclusion than you do.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0326/p02s01-usmi.htm l
Ignorance can be cured, but I can't help it if your stupid. Have you bothered to check out facts about the whole thing or does your news just consist of getting a few anti-US that reaffirm your world view? Regardless I'm going to try to answer your questions.
As for direct Democratic control, US soldiers answer to the Commander in Chief aka the president. To answer the direct control question, this occurs because the Constitution gives it to him in order to assure the military answers to a leader democraticaly elected by the people. The cabinet as a whole has no control of the military.
As for treaties, the US doesn't sign a lot of treaties because they tend to bind us whilst other parties typicaly give them lip service at best. I'll provide two good examples. The Geneva convention which is supposed to protect soldiers in times of war and is probably the second most broken treaty in history, yet most countries have signed it. How about the UN human rights treaties?
http://www.bayefsky.com/
In theory these are supposed to protect about every person in the world. In reality most nations disregard the treaty like they do all the others. It does no good to enter a treaty with someone that will only pay lip service or is fundamentaly incapable of following it.
How are we supposed to believe other nations would stick to their obligations on things like Kyoto (have you actually read how lopsided it is?), when most nations can't even stick to the basics like human rights and treatment of enemy soldiers in battle?
It also created the longest period of relative peace and stability this world has ever known. To put this in perspective, think of this: There have been more wars fought since the end of the cold war than there were during the entire cold war itself. MAD, the most succeessful peace plan in history.
As WWII apply demonstrated, you don't need nukes to cause widespread loss of life and human tragedy. You need nukes to avoid widespread loss of life and human tragedy. Nukes are terrible, this I don't dispute, but they are the lesser terrible.
Bah, look at the automotive industry. They certainly aren't free from lawsuits, and they sell items with thousands of highly complex parts that are put under a diverse range of conditions. However when something breaks the customers get to have it fixed under warranty.
The only time they are succesfully sued is for gross negligence (Chrysler with minivan latch they could have fixed for pennies and knew about comes to mind). It's simple, make software, it breaks (bug), fix software (patch). If gross negligence is applicable in everything but software, why should software be immune?
Point on fact, I found a bug in the software of the company I was working for in 1999. This buy would completely wipe out all user data if the product (licenses routinely ran upwards of $100,000) was upgraded on a system with the date rolled back (quite popular y2k solution for our market that often couldn't afford new machines). This was a design flaw with an absurdly simple solution. All that had to be done was to have the installer check the system date before launching.
I talked to Sr Mgmt who wanted the problem to go away and this to be undocumented so as to avoid liability for Y2K lawsuits over this. It went direct to a vice president who took the matter out of my hands and prohibited me from touching it again. At this point it sat there and I was discreetly told that the bug would never be addressed.
For perspective, this software is used to track things like whether or not people graduate high school, college, get military promotions or even get out of prison. It was routinely used in court as proof of progress and compliance. If unchecked it would have very real world consequences far beyond any computer lab.
I felt a moral obligation to do something. Solution, go talk to programmer in charge of installer and get him to surrepticously install my absurdly simple bug fix in exchange for a can of Mountain Dew. He fixed the installer while I was talking to him once I explained the problem. This I believe is a perfect example of gross negligence where a lawsuit would have been appropriate for very real world damages.
The industry will quickly take care of things all on their own without government dictation of the hows or wheres. All you have to do solve this multi-billion dollar problem is get rid of the EULA's ability to bypass accountability.
Thought here on the region free aspect. Could they be doing this to try and remove the most widely stated fair use reason for mod chips? Eliminate the need for a mod chip to play discs from other regions and you've just made a big impact on the perceived legitamacy of mod chips on the whole.
All you need is a package with the various Discovery, History, TLC and sports channels for $20 a month. It would sell like crazy. Beyond these types of tv, men in that age bracket like myself just don't see the appeal. Here's a thought for you tv people that might be reading this. Stop bashing men and stereotyping them and men might might be more inclined to watch. If portraying Blacks, Women, Arabs and so on stereotypically is unnacceptable, why should portraying men that way be acceptable?
Of particular disdain is that in order to have the programming loud enough to hear, the commercials are so loud they hurt your ears. Or you can have the commercials at the right volume and strain to hear the programming, if at all. Pop ups killed themselves when they were abused, and thats what tv does with commercials that are significantly louder than the programming. Whatever happened to sound leveling technology?
Don't know about the $20, but the Euro is supposed to have an RFID in it soon enough. Makes counterfieting harder and mugging easier. Heres a story for tin hat brigade about it.
Yup, and the store will typically even install them. You know those little gates you pass through on your way out of a store for shoplifting? All you do is change those to have RFID scanners in the them and they'll go off if a match is made to the white list. The stores will do this as an anti-shoplifting measure of their won, easy solve, that one.
Hm, reliant upon a wally world cashier, never a good idea in any book. The principal I proposed is still good, but I make no claims to its ability to withstand human stupidity. Or as my favorite Einstein quote puts it:
You know, two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe.
First, there is always a potential vulnerability in anything security related. Whether were talking ssh or fort knox, it's got vulnerabilities. This I don't dispute. That being said, I would assume that the retailer would just attach a new RFID tag to the item at the return counter. After all, it would then be there property again.
Yup, I pretty much copied what I wrote a few days ago. Plagarizing yourself is ok I think. I even nabbed my typo on "cot". It seemed relevant the other day, but the comment entered late and didn't get too far. I just went and refined it a bit and reposted. As for contacting Mr Leahy, I think I will, I tend to like to contact my congress-critters anyways. He isn't mine, so a lot of time that means their office doesn't much want to hear from you (Orrin Hatch comes to mind), but I'll try anyways.
I have heard this, but then this is to be optional from what I understand. If the tag is destroyed at checkout, that's great. However until we get something requiring it, the public has to take it on faith, and I just don't trust the marketing types. Voluntary guidelines for retailers are just that - voluntary. Less scrupulous retailers will opt out, and thieves will take advantage. If it isn't in writing, codified as law, it's meaningless.
RFID is good technology, with a lot of potential and a number of legitimate uses. Unfortunately it can also put big brother in your pocket, shoes, shirt and pants. If they could do just three key elements in a law I think it could flourish without privacy fears and diminished abuse potential.
Only allow people to scan for RFID that match a white list of your own property or property in your care with your consent. Any reading not on a white list must be discarded. Once an item is sold it is no longer their property and must be removed from the white list - with todays pos tech this would be absurdly easy to implement. This would allow retailers and distribution centers to use it for their own logistical and loss prevention purposes. This would also keep people minding their own business - literaly.
IF an RFID tag is on an item it should be prominently labeled, and be removable without destruction, devaluation or vandalism to the item that is attached to. For example, someone here asked a bit back, why not just cot off the tag? Answer - some clothing is now comes tagless.
Make sure that warranties and returns do not require RFID tags in order to be upheld. Someone should not be required to keep an RFID tag on something valuable just because they may have to get warranty service on it someday. As more powerful readers (blackmarket/will/ produce them) come about, they would become a neon broadcast flag to theives.
You'll only be able flash part of the BIOS, not the who'll thing. The other part is a "secure" area not touchable by the public. DMCA will prevent gaining access to the rest.
Because the BIOS will be capable of independent contacting of whatever entities have paid the BIOS manufacture enough. We had an article just last week talking about a Pheonix BIOS that can read your email. They can also contact web sites and "report" you for suspicious behavior. The job of the new BIOS will be literal enforcement of those licensees that pay for said enforcement.
Imagine someone like my sister for whom I ripped all of her CD's for her to MP3 just days before they were stolen. She bought and paid for that music, and it isnt the place of some computer company to sick the RIAA on her.
Laws can change in a heartbeat with a Supreme Court ruling. Point to matter is the Sony vs Betamax ruling. Time shifting became legal, and the public embraced it. Hollywood made billions, but if DRM / Trusted Computing hardware had been mandated, that entire industry could never have been born.
I'm familiar with the unit. While the military made use of the data, the medical community outside the military has flatly rejected the research. The point stands, after all a doctor in the military doesnt tend to have a lot of choice on what he researches - their called orders.
Except that you will have no choice, there will be no alternative, and that's what trusted computing is about, taking away choice. It doesn't matter if your a business or a home user, you will have to have trusted computing. Just curious, are you really able to get all of your code signed? You are aware that you don't have to have special hardware to run signed code, aren't you?
It's called an analogy. Dont take it out of context, ok? That being said, trusted computing is evil because it is about taking away the rights and choices of others in the name of profit. The fact that it is intended to be brought in a manner such that there is no alternative only attestifies to it's evil nature. There is absolutely no consumer benefit to trusted computing. Even the name is inherintly dishonest as trusted computers cant be trusted by their owners. My point was that trusted computing is fundamentaly evil, and my point stands. Benefiting from the evil does not make it any less evil. Got it?
I dont think so. Trusted computing is based in principal on evil. It should not be legitimized by finding ways to use it that were unintended. Endorsing something rooted in evil does not change the morality of the base. I don't care how shiny you giftwrap bullshit, it's still bullshit.
Think of it this way, Germany and Japan conducted much in the way of medical research in WWII, but since they conducted experiments that were inhumane, tortorous, and used unwilling subjects. The medical community wont touch their research, not because it is fundamentaly flawed, but because their research was fundamentaly evil.
Stand up for your morals here and fight trusted computing.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't have a damn thing to do with open source, don't fool yourself. This has to do with accountability and the public perception that e-voting machines don't have any. The license isn't open source because it doesn't need to be.
The code is reviewable, so it can be audited to avoid the kind of debacles diebold is facing. It's a marketing move, and a move that is in the public interest. Intead of complaining that it wasn't released in the license you like you should be grateful that it is available for review at all.
Open source is good, but that doesn't mean something is bad just because you can't do with it what you want.
You babble incoherently, that or English is definitely not your first language. Please repost in a logical manner that asks a clear question and I will see if I can answer it for you. Ask a sincere question, and I will try to provide a sincere answer, but your post simply does not make sense.
Nuclear weapons can't prevent something like the Rwandan hatchet job, but they can and have prevented WWIII. In the final body count few things have saved more lives in the history of this planet than the nuclear weapon.
Thats because they were never classified as soldiers to begin with. A criminal or terrorist does not become a soldeir simply by picking up a gun. Did you know there are qualifications to be a prisoner of war? To simplify it they are:
1 25 63cd0051aa8d?OpenDocument
1. Must be answerable to a commander;
2. Must have a distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance on their uniform;
3. Must openly carry arms (weapons);
4. Must conduct their operations in line with the laws of war.
Here is the text of the treaty if you care to actually read it instead of just spewing anti-US rhetoric.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b08868538c2c
These distinctions like uniforms are what help protect civilians in times of war. They are the slim incentive to soldiers who otherwise may have none at all to act with what human decency is possible during a war. It's really pretty simple, follow the rules of war, and you are garaunteed certain rights in event of capture. Don't follow those rules and you have no rights, got it?
1990 Rwanda Civl War
1990 Iraq-Kuwait
1990 Malian Civil War
1990 Nigerian Civil War
1990 Trinidadian Rebellion
1991 Croatian War of Independence
1991 Djibouti Civil War
1991 Georgian Civil Wars
1991 Haitian Civil War
1991 Moldovan Civil War
1991 Sierra Leonean Civil War
1991 Slovene War of Independence
1991 Somalian Civil War
1991 Togolese Civil War
1991 UN-Iraq
1992 Algerian Civil War
1992 Bosnian Civil War
1992 Tajikistan Civil War
1993 Burundian Civil War
1994 Chechan Revolt
1994 Ghanian Civil War
1994 Yemenite Civil War
1995 Ecuadoran-Peruvian Border War
1997 Comoran Rebellion
1998 Kosovo War
2002 US-Afghanistan
2003 US-Iraq
2004 Haitian Civil War
You state: You might be surprised but I largely agree with you here, I just draw a different conclusion than you do.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0326/p02s01-usmi.htm l
Ignorance can be cured, but I can't help it if your stupid. Have you bothered to check out facts about the whole thing or does your news just consist of getting a few anti-US that reaffirm your world view? Regardless I'm going to try to answer your questions.
As for direct Democratic control, US soldiers answer to the Commander in Chief aka the president. To answer the direct control question, this occurs because the Constitution gives it to him in order to assure the military answers to a leader democraticaly elected by the people. The cabinet as a whole has no control of the military.
As for treaties, the US doesn't sign a lot of treaties because they tend to bind us whilst other parties typicaly give them lip service at best. I'll provide two good examples. The Geneva convention which is supposed to protect soldiers in times of war and is probably the second most broken treaty in history, yet most countries have signed it. How about the UN human rights treaties?
http://www.bayefsky.com/
In theory these are supposed to protect about every person in the world. In reality most nations disregard the treaty like they do all the others. It does no good to enter a treaty with someone that will only pay lip service or is fundamentaly incapable of following it.
How are we supposed to believe other nations would stick to their obligations on things like Kyoto (have you actually read how lopsided it is?), when most nations can't even stick to the basics like human rights and treatment of enemy soldiers in battle?
It also created the longest period of relative peace and stability this world has ever known. To put this in perspective, think of this: There have been more wars fought since the end of the cold war than there were during the entire cold war itself. MAD, the most succeessful peace plan in history.
As WWII apply demonstrated, you don't need nukes to cause widespread loss of life and human tragedy. You need nukes to avoid widespread loss of life and human tragedy. Nukes are terrible, this I don't dispute, but they are the lesser terrible.
Bah, look at the automotive industry. They certainly aren't free from lawsuits, and they sell items with thousands of highly complex parts that are put under a diverse range of conditions. However when something breaks the customers get to have it fixed under warranty.
The only time they are succesfully sued is for gross negligence (Chrysler with minivan latch they could have fixed for pennies and knew about comes to mind). It's simple, make software, it breaks (bug), fix software (patch). If gross negligence is applicable in everything but software, why should software be immune?
Point on fact, I found a bug in the software of the company I was working for in 1999. This buy would completely wipe out all user data if the product (licenses routinely ran upwards of $100,000) was upgraded on a system with the date rolled back (quite popular y2k solution for our market that often couldn't afford new machines). This was a design flaw with an absurdly simple solution. All that had to be done was to have the installer check the system date before launching.
I talked to Sr Mgmt who wanted the problem to go away and this to be undocumented so as to avoid liability for Y2K lawsuits over this. It went direct to a vice president who took the matter out of my hands and prohibited me from touching it again. At this point it sat there and I was discreetly told that the bug would never be addressed.
For perspective, this software is used to track things like whether or not people graduate high school, college, get military promotions or even get out of prison. It was routinely used in court as proof of progress and compliance. If unchecked it would have very real world consequences far beyond any computer lab.
I felt a moral obligation to do something. Solution, go talk to programmer in charge of installer and get him to surrepticously install my absurdly simple bug fix in exchange for a can of Mountain Dew. He fixed the installer while I was talking to him once I explained the problem. This I believe is a perfect example of gross negligence where a lawsuit would have been appropriate for very real world damages.
The industry will quickly take care of things all on their own without government dictation of the hows or wheres. All you have to do solve this multi-billion dollar problem is get rid of the EULA's ability to bypass accountability.
That's it. Problem solved.
Thought here on the region free aspect. Could they be doing this to try and remove the most widely stated fair use reason for mod chips? Eliminate the need for a mod chip to play discs from other regions and you've just made a big impact on the perceived legitamacy of mod chips on the whole.
All you need is a package with the various Discovery, History, TLC and sports channels for $20 a month. It would sell like crazy. Beyond these types of tv, men in that age bracket like myself just don't see the appeal. Here's a thought for you tv people that might be reading this. Stop bashing men and stereotyping them and men might might be more inclined to watch. If portraying Blacks, Women, Arabs and so on stereotypically is unnacceptable, why should portraying men that way be acceptable?
Of particular disdain is that in order to have the programming loud enough to hear, the commercials are so loud they hurt your ears. Or you can have the commercials at the right volume and strain to hear the programming, if at all. Pop ups killed themselves when they were abused, and thats what tv does with commercials that are significantly louder than the programming. Whatever happened to sound leveling technology?
Don't know about the $20, but the Euro is supposed to have an RFID in it soon enough. Makes counterfieting harder and mugging easier. Heres a story for tin hat brigade about it.
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011219S0016
Yup, and the store will typically even install them. You know those little gates you pass through on your way out of a store for shoplifting? All you do is change those to have RFID scanners in the them and they'll go off if a match is made to the white list. The stores will do this as an anti-shoplifting measure of their won, easy solve, that one.
First, there is always a potential vulnerability in anything security related. Whether were talking ssh or fort knox, it's got vulnerabilities. This I don't dispute. That being said, I would assume that the retailer would just attach a new RFID tag to the item at the return counter. After all, it would then be there property again.
Yup, I pretty much copied what I wrote a few days ago. Plagarizing yourself is ok I think. I even nabbed my typo on "cot". It seemed relevant the other day, but the comment entered late and didn't get too far. I just went and refined it a bit and reposted. As for contacting Mr Leahy, I think I will, I tend to like to contact my congress-critters anyways. He isn't mine, so a lot of time that means their office doesn't much want to hear from you (Orrin Hatch comes to mind), but I'll try anyways.
I have heard this, but then this is to be optional from what I understand. If the tag is destroyed at checkout, that's great. However until we get something requiring it, the public has to take it on faith, and I just don't trust the marketing types. Voluntary guidelines for retailers are just that - voluntary. Less scrupulous retailers will opt out, and thieves will take advantage. If it isn't in writing, codified as law, it's meaningless.
RFID is good technology, with a lot of potential and a number of legitimate uses. Unfortunately it can also put big brother in your pocket, shoes, shirt and pants. If they could do just three key elements in a law I think it could flourish without privacy fears and diminished abuse potential.
/will/ produce them) come about, they would become a neon broadcast flag to theives.
Only allow people to scan for RFID that match a white list of your own property or property in your care with your consent. Any reading not on a white list must be discarded. Once an item is sold it is no longer their property and must be removed from the white list - with todays pos tech this would be absurdly easy to implement. This would allow retailers and distribution centers to use it for their own logistical and loss prevention purposes. This would also keep people minding their own business - literaly.
IF an RFID tag is on an item it should be prominently labeled, and be removable without destruction, devaluation or vandalism to the item that is attached to. For example, someone here asked a bit back, why not just cot off the tag? Answer - some clothing is now comes tagless.
Make sure that warranties and returns do not require RFID tags in order to be upheld. Someone should not be required to keep an RFID tag on something valuable just because they may have to get warranty service on it someday. As more powerful readers (blackmarket
You'll only be able flash part of the BIOS, not the who'll thing. The other part is a "secure" area not touchable by the public. DMCA will prevent gaining access to the rest.
Because the BIOS will be capable of independent contacting of whatever entities have paid the BIOS manufacture enough. We had an article just last week talking about a Pheonix BIOS that can read your email. They can also contact web sites and "report" you for suspicious behavior. The job of the new BIOS will be literal enforcement of those licensees that pay for said enforcement.
Imagine someone like my sister for whom I ripped all of her CD's for her to MP3 just days before they were stolen. She bought and paid for that music, and it isnt the place of some computer company to sick the RIAA on her.
Laws can change in a heartbeat with a Supreme Court ruling. Point to matter is the Sony vs Betamax ruling. Time shifting became legal, and the public embraced it. Hollywood made billions, but if DRM / Trusted Computing hardware had been mandated, that entire industry could never have been born.
Best damn point I've seen on slashdot in a long time.
I'm familiar with the unit. While the military made use of the data, the medical community outside the military has flatly rejected the research. The point stands, after all a doctor in the military doesnt tend to have a lot of choice on what he researches - their called orders.
Except that you will have no choice, there will be no alternative, and that's what trusted computing is about, taking away choice. It doesn't matter if your a business or a home user, you will have to have trusted computing. Just curious, are you really able to get all of your code signed? You are aware that you don't have to have special hardware to run signed code, aren't you?
It's called an analogy. Dont take it out of context, ok? That being said, trusted computing is evil because it is about taking away the rights and choices of others in the name of profit. The fact that it is intended to be brought in a manner such that there is no alternative only attestifies to it's evil nature. There is absolutely no consumer benefit to trusted computing. Even the name is inherintly dishonest as trusted computers cant be trusted by their owners. My point was that trusted computing is fundamentaly evil, and my point stands. Benefiting from the evil does not make it any less evil. Got it?
I dont think so. Trusted computing is based in principal on evil. It should not be legitimized by finding ways to use it that were unintended. Endorsing something rooted in evil does not change the morality of the base. I don't care how shiny you giftwrap bullshit, it's still bullshit.
Think of it this way, Germany and Japan conducted much in the way of medical research in WWII, but since they conducted experiments that were inhumane, tortorous, and used unwilling subjects. The medical community wont touch their research, not because it is fundamentaly flawed, but because their research was fundamentaly evil.
Stand up for your morals here and fight trusted computing.