Is it just me or has the signal-to-noise ration *dramatically* increased on Slashdot in the last year or so?
I wish it was correct and that the signal to noise ratio had increased, specially if it was in a "dramatic" way... Unfortunately, I think you meant that the ratio has decreased, which is the case.
No, the incumbant is not on TV at that time as he's part of the black out.
In fact, there's really no need to see the president every day and looking at Bush's vacation time in Texas, the president doesn't even need to be in office most of the time...
If I remember correctly, that's the way it's done in France for a few days (a week?) before the election.
What's even more important in fact, is that the media is not allowed to report on the campaigns at all during that time, there's a complete black out during which voters are supposed to make up their minds, analyzing the merits of each candidate.
The hell with the LCD panels, I want to know his ISP!
It's not that complicated to find out... www.hoagy.org resolves as 208.184.121.21 which is is also 208.184.121.21.above.net so from that you should be able to figure out where it's hosted.
Tools like http://samspade.org/ are pretty useful for quickly finding more info on a host/IP address.
For instance, France currently generates 75% of its total power from nuclear sources (from this BBC story [bbc.co.uk]).
According to the French electricity company (http://www.edf.fr/index.php4?coe_i_id=206), 85% of the electricty produced in 2003 was from nuclear energy. Of course, some of that may have been sold to neighboring countries so maybe the 75% is also correct for the domestic consumption...
On that same page, it says that an extra 10% is from hydro power and that 95% of their production doesn't generate CO2.
That's probably going to work for about a month, until the spam programs are updated.
As mentionned in other posts, he's describing http://greylisting.org/. Even if spammers adapt their software, the beauty of the system is that by the time the message is resent, it's probably already in a distributed spam database, so spamassassin will give it a higher score than if it had been accepted the first time around.
I've been using it and it cut my SPAM significantly with only minimal problems (broken mail servers not resending messages after a temporary failure). With the reporting tool included, it's easy to check for legitimate messages that were not resent.
Spammers try to deliver once, and never retry if rejected. By contrast, real mailservers retry if the ipcheck fails (because the reject code is marked as "temporary"). I have a logscanner that tells me if some site has been retrying for 24 hours, and if it looks legit I just add it to the trusted site list.
Since you already reject mail with a temporary failure, you should look into using greylisting. More info is available at http://greylisting.org/. As you're using postfix, check out Postgrey at http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/. I've been using it for a while and I'm extremely satisfied with it as it's cutting the amount of SPAM significantly. With the report tool, it's pretty easy to see if legitimate mail wasn't resent.
And after you make your vote and put it in the box, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether it will be counted, and if it is counted, whether it will be counted in the manner you intended. To put on the tinfoil hat, someone could open the box, tamper with all the votes, then seal the box back. I fail to see how the possibility of corruption is decreased with a paper voting system.
First, let me state that even if I live in the US, I have only participated in French elections but I follow the US process pretty closely and I believe the voters can check the process in a similar way in the US. Besides, the article is about Australia and there shouldn't be any country specific issues dealing with having secure electronic voting.
Now back to the point: in the French system, representatives from all political parties and the general public, i.e. any citizen registered to vote, can and do stay in the voting place to guarantee that there is no tampering going on. Of course, this implies citizen involvment but that is a different issue... The point is that there is no time between the empty box at the start until the time the count is complete where the ballot boxes are "hidden behing a curtain" and can be tampered with.
So, you appear to be saying that you would be for it if the proper checks and balances were part of the process from the start. Which means that you are not against electronic voting in any way, but that the nascent version of this election system is flawed (completely different things).
I never said I was against electronic voting. I'm only against the current systems being deployed as there needs to be a way to maintain the integrity of the process and this is with a paper ballot left in a ballot box that can be used to (re)count the votes. The electronic system can be used to give instant results but the paper ballots are the official votes in case of discrepancies.
OK, I think I'll let this thread die now as I don't think we can add much to the discussion...
I won't reiterate the arguments for vote buying as there's numerous posts about it already above, including mine.
Good. Because that is irrelevant to the question of accuracy. Though the solution needs to be a single method, the problems should be addressed separately. Since the question is on accuracy of the vote placed, it is irrelevant, at this point, whether there is some way to influence the vote before it is cast.
It is not irrelevant as the original post was suggesting printing two copies of the ballot. In my initial post, I agreed on the printing part but pointed out that letting the voter leave the booth with a vote receipt was a bad idea and the thread evolved from there.
The integrity of the system is done by people checking the entire process from the empty boxes at the start to the break of the seals before the count at the end of the day to the count itself. That includes officials from all political parties and members of the general public.
Just as electronic voting has the devices inspected and certified by the same people. It seems all the comments against electronic voting are really arguments against any poor voting system, whether electronic or not. If the answer is that there needs to be more checking of electronic systems, then so be it.
The difference is that the certification is done beforehand and (put tinfoil hat on), the software could modify its behavior between the testing phase and the time it's deployed in the field on election day. On the other hand, with paper ballots, the integrity chain can remain intact, assuming voters are ready to get involved in the validation process, as there can be safeguards during the actual voting process from the empty boxes at the start of the election to the manual count at the end.
And if the voter doesn't keep a copy of his vote, then the one he puts in the box can be "lost" or miscounted. Just placing the paper in the box doesn't mean the system works.
I won't reiterate the arguments for vote buying as there's numerous posts about it already above, including mine. The integrity of the system is done by people checking the entire process from the empty boxes at the start to the break of the seals before the count at the end of the day to the count itself. That includes officials from all political parties and members of the general public.
The software development process is COMPLETELY irrelevent to ANYTHING. That's right, irrelevent.
I agree entirely on that part, open source is not the issue here as even if the source code is released, the machine can still be tampered with as there's no proof the code you're looking at is what's running on the machine. The only safeguard is a paper ballot printed by the machine.
One copy to the voter, one copy goes into a sealed box.
You've got it wrong here. If the voter keeps a copy of his/her vote, this opens the door for buying votes. There is a reason votes are kept secret in a democracy.
In the Microsoft Knowledge Base article at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;126449, they list:
Microsoft Natural Keyboard Keys
* Windows Logo: Start menu
* Windows Logo+R: Run dialog box
* Windows Logo+M: Minimize all
* SHIFT+Windows Logo+M: Undo minimize all
* Windows Logo+F1: Help
* Windows Logo+E: Windows Explorer
* Windows Logo+F: Find files or folders
* Windows Logo+D: Minimizes all open windows and displays the desktop
* CTRL+Windows Logo+F: Find computer
* CTRL+Windows Logo+TAB: Moves focus from Start, to the Quick Launch toolbar, to the system tray (use RIGHT ARROW or LEFT ARROW to move focus to items on the Quick Launch toolbar and the system tray)
* Windows Logo+TAB: Cycle through taskbar buttons
* Windows Logo+Break: System Properties dialog box
* Application key: Displays a shortcut menu for the selected item
Microsoft Natural Keyboard with IntelliType Software Installed
* Windows Logo+L: Log off Windows
* Windows Logo+P: Starts Print Manager
* Windows Logo+C: Opens Control Panel
* Windows Logo+V: Starts Clipboard
* Windows Logo+K: Opens Keyboard Properties dialog box
* Windows Logo+I: Opens Mouse Properties dialog box
* Windows Logo+A: Starts Accessibility Options (if installed)
* Windows Logo+SPACEBAR: Displays the list of Microsoft IntelliType shortcut keys
* Windows Logo+S: Toggles CAPS LOCK on and off
This is not some dumb use of turbo to mean fast, it's based on the fact that the decoders are using feedback to improve the error correction. This quote is taken from the article:
It was France Telecom that asked Berrou to come up with a commercial name for the invention. He found the name when one day, watching a car race on TV, he noticed that the newly invented code used the output of the decoders to improve the decoding process, much as a turbocharger uses its exhaust to force air into the engine and boost combustion. Voila: "turbo codes"!
Of course, the fact that I graduated from the school where they're teaching/doing research may be the reason I feel that I need to defend their name choice...
OK, no need to be that agressive. That was a half baked suggestion without putting too much thought into it. The block could only be from the IP address doing the initial brute force attack. I'm sure you'll come up with something against that as well (after all, I'm not really that smart) but my message was in response to some unlikely scenario in my view and I was was suggesting some basic counter measure but I'll let the smart people come up with a real solution to the dictionary attack against the auth server...
On a mail server with over 40,000 users it's relitively easy for someone with a password cracker to hammer away at common names like 'joe' 'jeffp', etc and try to get some passwords. One way to prevent that is to limit the number of logins for each user on your mail server. Three invalid tries, your account is disabled for half an hour. After all, how many people change their mail config once it's set up? So the spammer/cracker would move to a different user name/domain and the real user would be blocked for the next half hour.
If it doesn't mean "denied", then it must either mean "allowed" or "undefined" - but if that's the case, what's the point in implementing it at all?
One way to use that system would be to combine it with SpamAssassin: a valid mail server gests a null or negative score, unknow get a small positive score so that combined with other rules, the message can be tagged as spam.
All kidding aside, why would George Bush need a personal computer?
And assuming he doesn't have one, if you're planning on getting him one (not that he cannot afford it), buy him a subscription to a newspaper. I don't even care which one, but at least somebody should try to get him to read one paper...
Just a small correction, it's made by Citroen, not Renault as you can see the two "chevrons" on the front in those pictures, symbol of the Citroen brand.
It doesn't scale well. The population of Canada is about an order of magitude smaller than the population of the US. The Election officials and staffers in the US are already overworked as it is, even with the votes counted electronically. That system is also extremely labor intensive, which is why the US started switching to mechanical voting years ago.
This could be done by volunteers the way it's done in other countries where a representative of each candidate is there to check that everything is done correctly. Think about the people concerned about the process and complaining here. If they volunteered to count the ballots, this labor intensive issue is solved.
As far as the scale issue, I don't see the point, each voting location can be made as small as possible to handle the count correctly and if each location deals with 10.000 registered voters, it doesn't matter whether there's 1000 voting locations or 10.000, there's only the need for a percentage of voters to participate to count the ballots.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish it was correct and that the signal to noise ratio had increased, specially if it was in a "dramatic" way... Unfortunately, I think you meant that the ratio has decreased, which is the case.
In fact, there's really no need to see the president every day and looking at Bush's vacation time in Texas, the president doesn't even need to be in office most of the time...
What's even more important in fact, is that the media is not allowed to report on the campaigns at all during that time, there's a complete black out during which voters are supposed to make up their minds, analyzing the merits of each candidate.
Parent: From the article:...
OMG!
SHE READS SLASHDOT!
Well obviously you didn't read the article that closely, just below that picture: Boy, Julie was sorry to have said that she wanted to help solder. and at the bottom of the page: © 2004 Ryan Hoagland so I doubt it's a girl's site and most certainly not the girl in the picture.
The hell with the LCD panels, I want to know his ISP!
It's not that complicated to find out... www.hoagy.org resolves as 208.184.121.21 which is is also 208.184.121.21.above.net so from that you should be able to figure out where it's hosted.
Tools like http://samspade.org/ are pretty useful for quickly finding more info on a host/IP address.
According to the French electricity company (http://www.edf.fr/index.php4?coe_i_id=206), 85% of the electricty produced in 2003 was from nuclear energy. Of course, some of that may have been sold to neighboring countries so maybe the 75% is also correct for the domestic consumption...
On that same page, it says that an extra 10% is from hydro power and that 95% of their production doesn't generate CO2.
As mentionned in other posts, he's describing http://greylisting.org/. Even if spammers adapt their software, the beauty of the system is that by the time the message is resent, it's probably already in a distributed spam database, so spamassassin will give it a higher score than if it had been accepted the first time around.
I've been using it and it cut my SPAM significantly with only minimal problems (broken mail servers not resending messages after a temporary failure). With the reporting tool included, it's easy to check for legitimate messages that were not resent.
Since you already reject mail with a temporary failure, you should look into using greylisting. More info is available at http://greylisting.org/. As you're using postfix, check out Postgrey at http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/. I've been using it for a while and I'm extremely satisfied with it as it's cutting the amount of SPAM significantly. With the report tool, it's pretty easy to see if legitimate mail wasn't resent.
First, let me state that even if I live in the US, I have only participated in French elections but I follow the US process pretty closely and I believe the voters can check the process in a similar way in the US. Besides, the article is about Australia and there shouldn't be any country specific issues dealing with having secure electronic voting.
Now back to the point: in the French system, representatives from all political parties and the general public, i.e. any citizen registered to vote, can and do stay in the voting place to guarantee that there is no tampering going on. Of course, this implies citizen involvment but that is a different issue... The point is that there is no time between the empty box at the start until the time the count is complete where the ballot boxes are "hidden behing a curtain" and can be tampered with.
So, you appear to be saying that you would be for it if the proper checks and balances were part of the process from the start. Which means that you are not against electronic voting in any way, but that the nascent version of this election system is flawed (completely different things).
I never said I was against electronic voting. I'm only against the current systems being deployed as there needs to be a way to maintain the integrity of the process and this is with a paper ballot left in a ballot box that can be used to (re)count the votes. The electronic system can be used to give instant results but the paper ballots are the official votes in case of discrepancies.
OK, I think I'll let this thread die now as I don't think we can add much to the discussion...
Good. Because that is irrelevant to the question of accuracy. Though the solution needs to be a single method, the problems should be addressed separately. Since the question is on accuracy of the vote placed, it is irrelevant, at this point, whether there is some way to influence the vote before it is cast.
It is not irrelevant as the original post was suggesting printing two copies of the ballot. In my initial post, I agreed on the printing part but pointed out that letting the voter leave the booth with a vote receipt was a bad idea and the thread evolved from there.
The integrity of the system is done by people checking the entire process from the empty boxes at the start to the break of the seals before the count at the end of the day to the count itself. That includes officials from all political parties and members of the general public.
Just as electronic voting has the devices inspected and certified by the same people. It seems all the comments against electronic voting are really arguments against any poor voting system, whether electronic or not. If the answer is that there needs to be more checking of electronic systems, then so be it.
The difference is that the certification is done beforehand and (put tinfoil hat on), the software could modify its behavior between the testing phase and the time it's deployed in the field on election day. On the other hand, with paper ballots, the integrity chain can remain intact, assuming voters are ready to get involved in the validation process, as there can be safeguards during the actual voting process from the empty boxes at the start of the election to the manual count at the end.
Another post (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116799&th reshold=1&commentsort=3&tid=185&tid=17&tid=9&tid=2 18&mode=thread&cid=9882263) pointed out that contrary to most discussions on technology, in this case, most computer professionals are against using technology to solve this problem as we know it's too easy to circumvent such a system if checks and balances are not part of the process from the start.
I won't reiterate the arguments for vote buying as there's numerous posts about it already above, including mine. The integrity of the system is done by people checking the entire process from the empty boxes at the start to the break of the seals before the count at the end of the day to the count itself. That includes officials from all political parties and members of the general public.
I agree entirely on that part, open source is not the issue here as even if the source code is released, the machine can still be tampered with as there's no proof the code you're looking at is what's running on the machine. The only safeguard is a paper ballot printed by the machine.
One copy to the voter, one copy goes into a sealed box.
You've got it wrong here. If the voter keeps a copy of his/her vote, this opens the door for buying votes. There is a reason votes are kept secret in a democracy.
In the Microsoft Knowledge Base article at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;126449, they list:
Microsoft Natural Keyboard Keys
* Windows Logo: Start menu
* Windows Logo+R: Run dialog box
* Windows Logo+M: Minimize all
* SHIFT+Windows Logo+M: Undo minimize all
* Windows Logo+F1: Help
* Windows Logo+E: Windows Explorer
* Windows Logo+F: Find files or folders
* Windows Logo+D: Minimizes all open windows and displays the desktop
* CTRL+Windows Logo+F: Find computer
* CTRL+Windows Logo+TAB: Moves focus from Start, to the Quick Launch toolbar, to the system tray (use RIGHT ARROW or LEFT ARROW to move focus to items on the Quick Launch toolbar and the system tray)
* Windows Logo+TAB: Cycle through taskbar buttons
* Windows Logo+Break: System Properties dialog box
* Application key: Displays a shortcut menu for the selected item
Microsoft Natural Keyboard with IntelliType Software Installed
* Windows Logo+L: Log off Windows
* Windows Logo+P: Starts Print Manager
* Windows Logo+C: Opens Control Panel
* Windows Logo+V: Starts Clipboard
* Windows Logo+K: Opens Keyboard Properties dialog box
* Windows Logo+I: Opens Mouse Properties dialog box
* Windows Logo+A: Starts Accessibility Options (if installed)
* Windows Logo+SPACEBAR: Displays the list of Microsoft IntelliType shortcut keys
* Windows Logo+S: Toggles CAPS LOCK on and off
And how's that different from C++? Unless you believe the first C++ compiler was written in C++...
Ehm. The first C++-compiler _was_ written in C++!
No, it was a set of C preprocessor macros and the underlying compiler was still a C compiler and not a C++ compiler per se.
"It's always been written in Java."
Except for the first Java compiler.
And how's that different from C++? Unless you believe the first C++ compiler was written in C++...
This is not some dumb use of turbo to mean fast, it's based on the fact that the decoders are using feedback to improve the error correction. This quote is taken from the article:
It was France Telecom that asked Berrou to come up with a commercial name for the invention. He found the name when one day, watching a car race on TV, he noticed that the newly invented code used the output of the decoders to improve the decoding process, much as a turbocharger uses its exhaust to force air into the engine and boost combustion. Voila: "turbo codes"!
Of course, the fact that I graduated from the school where they're teaching/doing research may be the reason I feel that I need to defend their name choice...
OK, no need to be that agressive. That was a half baked suggestion without putting too much thought into it. The block could only be from the IP address doing the initial brute force attack. I'm sure you'll come up with something against that as well (after all, I'm not really that smart) but my message was in response to some unlikely scenario in my view and I was was suggesting some basic counter measure but I'll let the smart people come up with a real solution to the dictionary attack against the auth server...
On a mail server with over 40,000 users it's relitively easy for someone
with a password cracker to hammer away at common names like 'joe'
'jeffp', etc and try to get some passwords.
One way to prevent that is to limit the number of logins for each user on your mail server. Three invalid tries, your account is disabled for half an hour. After all, how many people change their mail config once it's set up? So the spammer/cracker would move to a different user name/domain and the real user would be blocked for the next half hour.
If it doesn't mean "denied", then it must either mean "allowed" or "undefined" - but if that's the case, what's the point in implementing it at all?
One way to use that system would be to combine it with SpamAssassin: a valid mail server gests a null or negative score, unknow get a small positive score so that combined with other rules, the message can be tagged as spam.
And assuming he doesn't have one, if you're planning on getting him one (not that he cannot afford it), buy him a subscription to a newspaper. I don't even care which one, but at least somebody should try to get him to read one paper...
Just a small correction, it's made by Citroen, not Renault as you can see the two "chevrons" on the front in those pictures, symbol of the Citroen brand.
This is NOT true. This was fabricated and the israeli government said so today.
This could be done by volunteers the way it's done in other countries where a representative of each candidate is there to check that everything is done correctly. Think about the people concerned about the process and complaining here. If they volunteered to count the ballots, this labor intensive issue is solved.
As far as the scale issue, I don't see the point, each voting location can be made as small as possible to handle the count correctly and if each location deals with 10.000 registered voters, it doesn't matter whether there's 1000 voting locations or 10.000, there's only the need for a percentage of voters to participate to count the ballots.
Of course, there are valid uses of the cell phone tracking if everybody involved is aware of it.