Why. Why isn't a paper trail, that the voter SEES being printed insufficient. Such a paper trail would provide more accountability than even the open code because 99% of voters could decipher the paper trail while only (number pulled out of a hat) about 2% could make heads or tails out of the code.
You say that even with paper trail that CS systems are inadaquate, explain why (see previous post for my full argument). Give some reasons people! Why isn't a system where the voter can be assured that a physical copy of their vote has been registered and can be counted accepable?
My "blathering" at least gave some support in that I said a varifiable paper trail would lead to assurance that problems could be challenged. You leave us a bit hanging on your rational.
CS projects have the advantage of security through obscurity. This is a trivial advantage in most systems, however most people will only operate the voting system for a short period of time, not the hours of guess-and-check it takes to brute force closed exploits and they will be completly unable to reverse engineer the system to look for logical errors. Most exploits will never be found, and, in theory, the people who are most likly to find the exploits are the "trusted" experts assigned to the system. Don't trust the "experts"? Then challenge and have a look at the paper trail. If it matches the official tally, all is good if there is a discrepency, go with the paper trail which the voter saw printed out. Yes, someone could fake a printout, but this would be at least as hard as faking normal paper ballots.
So, other than the idea that the general public is the only trustable organization (and if that is the case why put up with a republic?). What possible advantage does an open source solution have over a CS with accountability? Although slashdot does not seem to realize it, there are advantages to the closed source model. For most things I think they are outweighted by the advantages of open source, however in this instance I think the positive and negitive balance out.
Guys, like always, you're jumping the gun a little bit in favour of Free Software. I do not deny that an open project could be usefull in voting machine technologies, but that is far from the only solution. All that is truly needed is accountability built into the system. If a commercial product created a paper-trail that could appeald to in case of a challenge of the voting results (and the voters could see their vote choice printed) it would solve the major problems the diebold systems were designed to have. True, a GPL'd solution could do this as well, but when we start saying that no commercial product will work, we start to look like zealots who's primary goal is to get Free Software out everywhere. The issue this time isn't free vrs non-free software, it is free vrs. non-free elections: if such is possible this is a more important issue than Free Software proliferation.
You don't have security clearance to post on this colour of background. Please submit form TTTR-1137 (A.K.A. Treasonous Troubleshooter Terminitation Request 1137) and report to the nearest termination booth. If you are upset about this, please tell us who is likly to be at fault for failure to supply you with requisite quanity of happy-happy pills so they also can be terminated.
No research here, but there is only one thing, it could hurt the child's self esteem when he realizes he will NEVER be that big. (And might set unrealistic expectations of what his partner should be willing/able to do).
Slashdot is great for geek news, but please don't pretend you're lawyers
Ok, now what am I going to do for halloween? I wanted to be the most evil thing imaganible (an SCO lawyer) now I'll have to settle for second most terryfing thing and be a clown. (What, they don't frighten you?)
Hitler wasn't an atheist. Stalin probably was. Bin Laden isn't an atheist. Saddam probably is.
Now back to history: the crusades (religious based) the Spanish Inquisition (religious based), the children of Isreal killing everything with breath in Jerico, even women, children and animals, (Religious based) KKK (religious based), slaughter of native American "savages" (mostly religious based) Salem Witch Hunt (religious based), thousands of others throughout Europe burned as witches (religious based), Crucifixion of Jesus (religious based) feeding of early Christians to Lions (religious based)
I could go on for pages on religious-based wars, murders genocides, infanticides, stonings of women for acting like humans, sacrifices, and other killings for religious purposes. I think one would be hard pressed to find one thing in the history of humankind that has led to more deaths of humans, at the hands of other humans, than religion. The assertion that atheism sparks cruelty, murder or war flies in the face of history and current events and shows a lopsided view of the world. Even most honost hardcore Christian historians will agree that most of history's killings have been done in the name of religion (although they may lay the blame at the feet only of the "infedels" a.k.a people with different views than their own). Remember: no atheist has ever made a law saying a 16 year old girl can be stoned to death because she got pregnant after being raped. No atheist ever went to war to convert others to their beleif system at sword(or gun) point. (Although some communists have gone to war to spread their economic views, and disbanded organized religion in the process, none have ever made it a capitol offence to have differing religious beleifs). No atheist parent has, or probably ever will, kill their own children to send them to heaven without having to suffer the rigors and hardships of life.
The difference is that while the motto on the currency may be taken as an an endorcement of jeduo-christian religious views (and I think it is) it is less of a big deal because nobody is asked to take an oath saying they trust god in order to:
Get through the elementary school system without a lawyer or
Become a citizen of the USA
The use of currency that endorces one religious view over another is unconstitutional and should be changed, but the requirement that ANYONE has to affirm the existance of God, even inderectly, during an oath with their hand placed over their heart is a much bigger issue and should be changed first.
I have set up in my room a Vector Graphics (64K Ram, Z80 processor, S-100 bus) "Mainframe" computer (it has connections for up to five terminials) running CP/M and a Hazeltine 1500 dumb terminal. I still use the system with terminal emulation software to access my linux box over serial cable and occasionaly just to play with CP/M. I also have a Practical Parifrials(spelling?) 1200 baud zoom modem (heh) which was my pride and joy in the days of 300 baud average modem speed. I still have it hooked up to a system, and occasionaly dial into my school's HP-UX system via a shell account when I feel like testing software I've written to see if it scrolls text to fast. (If the 1200 baud can handle it, it is good for any practical purpose). I also still have a Timex Sinclair, a Comodore 64, an Apple II e, and a 8086-based "portable" Zeineth Data systems box, but I don't use them for anything anymore really, I just keep them for sentimental value. Oh, and I have about 6 dot-matrix printers, one of which has options to use serial or the "new" parallel interface. Wonder if I missed something... 486 router, but that's nothing spectacular, I'm sure I'll think of something else as soon as I hit "submit" (even if I preview first).
Um users of any OS SHOULD apply patches. This is a good thing. If MS is serrious about the public awareness campaign they will be doing the world a favor, as many patches, if promptly installed would have lessened the extent of which some of the recent worms/viri gobbled up bandwidth. I have heard security directors saying this even before MS windows came out, and it is just as true today.
As far as publishing flaws, I'm not completly sure if he means he doesn't want flaws published at all. (Probably, but who can blame him with how many flaws his OS has?) If, however, he is MOSTLY targeting those people who irrisponsably publish the flaws, and there are many of them, the is making a good and valid point. It is extremly bad form to publish a flaw prior to notifing the company/maintainer of the flaw and allowing them to fix it or create a patch. Only after they have had time is it appropriate to publish the patch. Many black-hat-crackers publish their exploits under the guise of responsible research; that is bullshit.
As far as your final point Steve, it's time that your organisation started to take some responsibility for it's lousy product.
I agree wholeheartadly, but the points you're making here show a lack of understanding of the broader security picture.
You consider a DC-3 full of backup tapes "broadband" otherwise that was just a sad non sequiter. Broadband and power over laser are two different technologies and have very different hurdles to surmount before being practical. Progress in one area does not neccicarily cause progress in another. Kids, we're loosing touch with reality, there are things that don't revolve around broadband. (I think)
More importantly, the Key Grip etc. doesn't get paid by movie sales (usualy) but a flat fee. Only when piracy gets bad enough that they stop making movies will the Key Grip or lighting guy not get his money. (And movies make more in merchandising than movie sales anyway, it would probably be feasable to give the movies away and just merchandise many of them and then piracy wouln't be a problem). Basicly, the adds are inaccurate propaganda attempting to make people feel guilty for causing harm to someone who is unharmed by their actions.
F*king 'ey!
Go Away
We Don't need no
MPAA!
I hereby release that little rhyme into the public domian, it sucks anyway.:)
Any work of art I make I'd ripped off. Art, to me is about conveying an idea to as many people as possible, not about making profit. If your primary concern is profit you're not an artist. If by having my work "ripped" it would reach a 1,000 person larger audience than it is better by 1,000 people. Note, I've never created a work for profit, nor could I probably as I don't have as much talent as the big guys, but I pray I would have the same point of view if I could and did make better art.
Just for the record, if you hold down the powerbutton it WILL shut off the system, even if the OS can't receive the signal. But I agree, the button on the drive sould edject, there should be a power switch somewhere that instantly powers off (perhaps a second switch on the rear of the machine?) and anyone who remaps ctrl-alt-del to login should be laughed out of the country. (BTW in mac OS 10.2, ctrl-applethingythatIcan'trememberthenameofbecause Istillcallitopenapple-reset still does a soft reboot, just like it did on the early apple systems. Apple got it right:)
Which begs the question -- Is it the purpose of the gyros to balance a person? Or are they there to provide a marketing angle???
First of all it doesn't beg the question, it raises the question.
More importantly, however, I think a large part of the rational behind It/Ginger/Segway was to develop balance for a different device which never panned out. My personal inclination is the creator was working on a device for disabled humans to allow them upright movement, possibly in a rigid frame. The Segway was released as a way to get money from what they had, after the origional idea either failed, or wasn't ready when funding was running low. But that is just hypothetical, of course.
No, they were TRYING to confuse the customer. They were trying to make the customer think that Pentium was a different class of processor than anybody else's 586. Yes, perhaps it makes good business sense, but it is still arrogant posturing and deception of the customer. All they had to do was keep up their "Intel Inside" commercials to make sure everybody knew the difference. (As if everybody is so stupid they can't find the brand of a processor without a big honking sticker on the front of the box)
(note: tone of this message should be considered friendly) Hmm, I said more bugs than are currently known would be found in Linux. You said (or at least STRONGLY implied) that more bugs would be found in linux than are currently being found in MS products. Do you stand by that statement? If so, either call it an unsupported oppinion or give some support.
As far as obtuse/intuitive, I have a few questions: which Linux and which desktop. How much more had you used windows based products before you were introudced to Linux? Personaly, I think KDE (not my desktop of choice btw) is as intuitive as MS Windows and more functional (I love multiple workspaces). Note, however, for the purposes of this argument I am not refering to Windows XP as I have no expireince, positive or negitive, with it. In many cases where MS is called "intuitive" it isn't that MS is intuative but that it is familiar. The two conditions have simaliar outward appearances but one is the responsibility of the user the other the responsibility of the developer. For the first time since I started using Linux (Redhat 3 was my first distro and was new) I can actualy recomend Linux as User-Friendly. (RedHat 9 in paticular, although this is not the distro I personaly use. I use Debian)
I follow you, but think your idea is only valid the first time, or first few times, we attempt to decipher a word. Eventualy when we read words like deoxyribonucleic (acid) we no longer put it into our "stack" but instead fairly instantly recognize the word, especialy when it is in context. Most of our time reading is not reading from left to right but seeing an entire word and making sense of it. I don't have a counterclaim as to how this works, but I think it is fairly evident that once we become proficient readers we no longer actualy read each word left to right but read entire words. This is even more evident with extremly small words that we see often. (of and or but the dog cat mom dad ect.) We recognize the word much quicker than we have time to order the characters into sounds and put them together. Try reading a story with an unpronouncable name of a main character (esp fantasy and sci-fi stories). Even if you never try to figure out how to say the name, you will eventually recognize the name as refering to the character. (Or am I the only one who does this) even if you don't pay ANY attention to the order the characters come in. You could even learn to recognize a name in an alphabet you didn't know, althought it might take longer.
The human eye system can perceive difference in depth at close distances only. I'm not sure of the exact limit, but it is significantly less than 30 feet. Beyond the range where binocular vision creates depth perception, all clues to objects' distance are based on perception cues. (Lines meeting at the horizon, relative size, etc.) Thus if the filmed subject were further away than the depth horizon (my own term) and the viewing subject were at a reasonable distance from the screen, the effects of 2d vrs 3d would not be distingushible.
Slashdot Mirror
Why. Why isn't a paper trail, that the voter SEES being printed insufficient. Such a paper trail would provide more accountability than even the open code because 99% of voters could decipher the paper trail while only (number pulled out of a hat) about 2% could make heads or tails out of the code.
You say that even with paper trail that CS systems are inadaquate, explain why (see previous post for my full argument). Give some reasons people! Why isn't a system where the voter can be assured that a physical copy of their vote has been registered and can be counted accepable?
My "blathering" at least gave some support in that I said a varifiable paper trail would lead to assurance that problems could be challenged. You leave us a bit hanging on your rational.
CS projects have the advantage of security through obscurity. This is a trivial advantage in most systems, however most people will only operate the voting system for a short period of time, not the hours of guess-and-check it takes to brute force closed exploits and they will be completly unable to reverse engineer the system to look for logical errors. Most exploits will never be found, and, in theory, the people who are most likly to find the exploits are the "trusted" experts assigned to the system. Don't trust the "experts"? Then challenge and have a look at the paper trail. If it matches the official tally, all is good if there is a discrepency, go with the paper trail which the voter saw printed out. Yes, someone could fake a printout, but this would be at least as hard as faking normal paper ballots.
So, other than the idea that the general public is the only trustable organization (and if that is the case why put up with a republic?). What possible advantage does an open source solution have over a CS with accountability? Although slashdot does not seem to realize it, there are advantages to the closed source model. For most things I think they are outweighted by the advantages of open source, however in this instance I think the positive and negitive balance out.
Guys, like always, you're jumping the gun a little bit in favour of Free Software. I do not deny that an open project could be usefull in voting machine technologies, but that is far from the only solution. All that is truly needed is accountability built into the system. If a commercial product created a paper-trail that could appeald to in case of a challenge of the voting results (and the voters could see their vote choice printed) it would solve the major problems the diebold systems were designed to have. True, a GPL'd solution could do this as well, but when we start saying that no commercial product will work, we start to look like zealots who's primary goal is to get Free Software out everywhere. The issue this time isn't free vrs non-free software, it is free vrs. non-free elections: if such is possible this is a more important issue than Free Software proliferation.
Have a nice day.
No, heads of companies become fat.
The fact that someone will never equal the airbrushed porn stars doesn't mean that they are the lowest common denominators, just that they are human.
No research here, but there is only one thing, it could hurt the child's self esteem when he realizes he will NEVER be that big. (And might set unrealistic expectations of what his partner should be willing/able to do).
Ok, now what am I going to do for halloween? I wanted to be the most evil thing imaganible (an SCO lawyer) now I'll have to settle for second most terryfing thing and be a clown. (What, they don't frighten you?)
Now back to history: the crusades (religious based) the Spanish Inquisition (religious based), the children of Isreal killing everything with breath in Jerico, even women, children and animals, (Religious based) KKK (religious based), slaughter of native American "savages" (mostly religious based) Salem Witch Hunt (religious based), thousands of others throughout Europe burned as witches (religious based), Crucifixion of Jesus (religious based) feeding of early Christians to Lions (religious based)
I could go on for pages on religious-based wars, murders genocides, infanticides, stonings of women for acting like humans, sacrifices, and other killings for religious purposes. I think one would be hard pressed to find one thing in the history of humankind that has led to more deaths of humans, at the hands of other humans, than religion. The assertion that atheism sparks cruelty, murder or war flies in the face of history and current events and shows a lopsided view of the world. Even most honost hardcore Christian historians will agree that most of history's killings have been done in the name of religion (although they may lay the blame at the feet only of the "infedels" a.k.a people with different views than their own). Remember: no atheist has ever made a law saying a 16 year old girl can be stoned to death because she got pregnant after being raped. No atheist ever went to war to convert others to their beleif system at sword(or gun) point. (Although some communists have gone to war to spread their economic views, and disbanded organized religion in the process, none have ever made it a capitol offence to have differing religious beleifs). No atheist parent has, or probably ever will, kill their own children to send them to heaven without having to suffer the rigors and hardships of life.
The use of currency that endorces one religious view over another is unconstitutional and should be changed, but the requirement that ANYONE has to affirm the existance of God, even inderectly, during an oath with their hand placed over their heart is a much bigger issue and should be changed first.
I have set up in my room a Vector Graphics (64K Ram, Z80 processor, S-100 bus) "Mainframe" computer (it has connections for up to five terminials) running CP/M and a Hazeltine 1500 dumb terminal. I still use the system with terminal emulation software to access my linux box over serial cable and occasionaly just to play with CP/M. I also have a Practical Parifrials(spelling?) 1200 baud zoom modem (heh) which was my pride and joy in the days of 300 baud average modem speed. I still have it hooked up to a system, and occasionaly dial into my school's HP-UX system via a shell account when I feel like testing software I've written to see if it scrolls text to fast. (If the 1200 baud can handle it, it is good for any practical purpose). I also still have a Timex Sinclair, a Comodore 64, an Apple II e, and a 8086-based "portable" Zeineth Data systems box, but I don't use them for anything anymore really, I just keep them for sentimental value. Oh, and I have about 6 dot-matrix printers, one of which has options to use serial or the "new" parallel interface. Wonder if I missed something... 486 router, but that's nothing spectacular, I'm sure I'll think of something else as soon as I hit "submit" (even if I preview first).
As far as publishing flaws, I'm not completly sure if he means he doesn't want flaws published at all. (Probably, but who can blame him with how many flaws his OS has?) If, however, he is MOSTLY targeting those people who irrisponsably publish the flaws, and there are many of them, the is making a good and valid point. It is extremly bad form to publish a flaw prior to notifing the company/maintainer of the flaw and allowing them to fix it or create a patch. Only after they have had time is it appropriate to publish the patch. Many black-hat-crackers publish their exploits under the guise of responsible research; that is bullshit.
As far as your final point Steve, it's time that your organisation started to take some responsibility for it's lousy product. I agree wholeheartadly, but the points you're making here show a lack of understanding of the broader security picture.
You consider a DC-3 full of backup tapes "broadband" otherwise that was just a sad non sequiter. Broadband and power over laser are two different technologies and have very different hurdles to surmount before being practical. Progress in one area does not neccicarily cause progress in another. Kids, we're loosing touch with reality, there are things that don't revolve around broadband. (I think)
Tell Me Too!
whatdoesthebiglongkeyatthebottomofmykeyboarddo?
F*king 'ey!
Go Away
We Don't need no
MPAA!
I hereby release that little rhyme into the public domian, it sucks anyway. :)
Any work of art I make I'd ripped off. Art, to me is about conveying an idea to as many people as possible, not about making profit. If your primary concern is profit you're not an artist. If by having my work "ripped" it would reach a 1,000 person larger audience than it is better by 1,000 people. Note, I've never created a work for profit, nor could I probably as I don't have as much talent as the big guys, but I pray I would have the same point of view if I could and did make better art.
Just for the record, if you hold down the powerbutton it WILL shut off the system, even if the OS can't receive the signal. But I agree, the button on the drive sould edject, there should be a power switch somewhere that instantly powers off (perhaps a second switch on the rear of the machine?) and anyone who remaps ctrl-alt-del to login should be laughed out of the country. (BTW in mac OS 10.2, ctrl-applethingythatIcan'trememberthenameofbecause Istillcallitopenapple-reset still does a soft reboot, just like it did on the early apple systems. Apple got it right :)
First of all it doesn't beg the question, it raises the question.
More importantly, however, I think a large part of the rational behind It/Ginger/Segway was to develop balance for a different device which never panned out. My personal inclination is the creator was working on a device for disabled humans to allow them upright movement, possibly in a rigid frame. The Segway was released as a way to get money from what they had, after the origional idea either failed, or wasn't ready when funding was running low. But that is just hypothetical, of course.
No, they were TRYING to confuse the customer. They were trying to make the customer think that Pentium was a different class of processor than anybody else's 586. Yes, perhaps it makes good business sense, but it is still arrogant posturing and deception of the customer. All they had to do was keep up their "Intel Inside" commercials to make sure everybody knew the difference. (As if everybody is so stupid they can't find the brand of a processor without a big honking sticker on the front of the box)
As far as obtuse/intuitive, I have a few questions: which Linux and which desktop. How much more had you used windows based products before you were introudced to Linux? Personaly, I think KDE (not my desktop of choice btw) is as intuitive as MS Windows and more functional (I love multiple workspaces). Note, however, for the purposes of this argument I am not refering to Windows XP as I have no expireince, positive or negitive, with it. In many cases where MS is called "intuitive" it isn't that MS is intuative but that it is familiar. The two conditions have simaliar outward appearances but one is the responsibility of the user the other the responsibility of the developer. For the first time since I started using Linux (Redhat 3 was my first distro and was new) I can actualy recomend Linux as User-Friendly. (RedHat 9 in paticular, although this is not the distro I personaly use. I use Debian)
Anyone follow that?
The human eye system can perceive difference in depth at close distances only. I'm not sure of the exact limit, but it is significantly less than 30 feet. Beyond the range where binocular vision creates depth perception, all clues to objects' distance are based on perception cues. (Lines meeting at the horizon, relative size, etc.) Thus if the filmed subject were further away than the depth horizon (my own term) and the viewing subject were at a reasonable distance from the screen, the effects of 2d vrs 3d would not be distingushible.