"your employer could threaten you to make you vote from the office computer, and watch you do it. "
Sure you could also have a law that makes that illegal right? So all you have to do is record the incident and voila employer is in jail for a very long time.
If the country doesn't take that law seriously, I think you're in bigger trouble than the lack of anonymous voting.
In practical terms the lack of anonymous voting is no big deal. By the time it becomes a problem, the other problems are far more serious.
All the ballot boxes are shown to be empty before use and locked. In comparison it is hard to prove that a electronic voting machine has zero votes before _actual_ use. There could be a special signal to "turn it on", e.g. a special vote, or even a radio signal, so before the signal it behaves correctly. Believe me I've worked in IT security I can think of lots of ways to cheat e-voting that are hard to detect.
People are validated and vote (just like for electronic votes), and their votes are put into a ballot box.
When each ballot box is full it is sealed shut and never leaves the polling station, representatives of the various parties and a number of independent observers are allowed to keep an eye on all of them (guards are posted to make sure people never get too close to them till counting time).
When it's time to count, the boxes are opened up one by one, and the votes are hand counted while everyone is watching. If the result is close enough, the votes can be recounted.
The final results are then announced for the different areas (the various parties can confirm the results with their representatives).
If you can post magicians in every polling place then you win I guess;).
But then maybe you can post magicians/hackers to tamper with electronic voting machines in every polling place too.
Which way is easier to understand? Many countries have been using methods similar to what I've mentioned.
The only problem with paper votes is postal votes. But that problem is still present even if electronic voting is used.
A way to reduce the impact of cheating with postal votes is to force people to count the postal votes FIRST. That way they can't move postal votes around to where they are "needed". They have to guess where the votes would be needed in advance.
If you can have so many accidents with the method I mentioned, how can you be so confident of the electronic votes?
So what? The more voters you have, the more human counters you can have.
You can get election results the same day of voting if you want, but why is it so important?
Pen and paper is not perfect, but I've worked in IT security and I KNOW how computers work and I'll tell you this: It's a LOT easier to cheat with computers.
Compare: How easy is it to print thousands of fake votes and sneak them into the various polling centers, destroy the real votes, ALL without getting detected.
vs:
Tampering with the programs/results of the machines. Even if the source code of the official program is available, how do you know for sure that's the program that's running? You DON'T.
If your country is screwed up enough that there's widespread rigging with paper votes, it won't be long before they figure out how to rig electronic votes, and it WILL be rigged.
If your country is so screwed up that even if cheating with paper votes is detected, nothing happens, then electronic voting isn't going to solve anything.
I've been in IT for decades, and I can tell you - there really is no need for widespread electronic voting.
Elections do not just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ to be fair.
Paper ballots fit this better than some fancy electronic bullshit.
So what if it takes hours to count the votes by hand. So what if a handful of votes are miscounted - you can always recount and the other parties (and observers) can always observe the counts one by one ( which is what happens in my country). When there's a spoilt or ambiguous vote - the counter will show it to everyone.
When your hand counters and observers are working together to cheat you, you're screwed up enough that electronic voting isn't going to help you at all.
With pen and paper the accidents need to be a lot bigger and widespread. You need many accidents.
With electronic voting, you only need one accident. All you need is for someone to accidentally insert a thumbdrive. Or accidentally press the "demo key sequence".
It's so much easier to cheat with electonic voting.
Printing thousands of fake paper votes and moving them into the right locations can be done, but it is a lot more work than cheating with electronic voting.
Even if the source code is validated, the results can be easily changed. Without a paper trail you can't check.
If you have a paper trail, you might as well stick to paper and pen.
There was a higher percentage of chinese during the time of British (before 1957), compared to now[0].
In the 1980s the Malaysian Government started encouraging large numbers of Indonesians to come over and become "Malays". Tons promptly came over, got Malaysian citizenship, but continued behaving like Indonesians instead of Malays (the Malays themselves tell me those aren't Malays, I dunno what do you think?).
That plus the dwindling birth rate of the Chinese (and Indians?) has led to the 65% Malay ratio.
It's interesting that those Indonesians get to be considered "Sons/Princes of the Soil" (bumiputera) whereas the Chinese who have been around for generations (especially in Malacca and Penang) are in practice still considered squatters and "immigrants" by the political leaders (ironically some of them "Malays" whose grandparents were foreigners).
It seems Indonesian terrorists can easily get Malaysian citizenship[1], whereas it's hard for decent professionals from other countries to do so. In other countries like Australia - you get extra "points" if you are a plumber or in some other desirable profession. In Malaysia it almost seems as if you get extra points if you've blown up a church or are a terrorist leader. If instead you've trained the Malaysian badminton team to win world championships, you can't even get a permanent residentship [2].
I know someone who is legally a bumiputera in Sarawak, but in practice is not considered bumiputera in Peninsular Malaysia - when he applied for some privileges the bureaucrats said he had to convert to Islam first. He basically told them to shove it.
As for Islam being firmly tied to Malay identity. Seriously look at Malay culture - look at the _Malay_ style clothes the Malay ladies were wearing before the wave of Islamization in the 70s and 80s, go ask your older relatives on Malay fashion in the 40s and 50s. Tapai is as alcoholic as beer and it's been part of Malay culture for a long time (centuries?), so much so that it's politically incorrect to make it haram (and thus change Malay weddings and kenduris a bit;) ). Many Malays are now blindly switching to Arab culture and thinking that's Islamic culture.
BTW I know a Malay Christian who was detained under the ISA in 1987[3] - AFAIK he didn't do anything dangerous to the country. He's a rather jovial and even-tempered guy. Not someone who would wave a keris around and say inflammatory things.
Malaysians have lived together mostly in peace all these decades DESPITE the meddling of the politicians. The ruling government is the one stirring things up and doing the divide and conquer (yes the British did it, but the ruling government is doing it too).
Recently the Malaysian Government has used the ISA to detain a reporter who correctly reported inflammatory remarks made by a politician in the ruling party, instead of the politician himself[4], and used the ISA to detain a politician in the opposition party instead of the reporters/editors allegedly misreporting her remarks[5].
Did RPK (the infamous blogger) say anything that would cause large numbers of people be angry at large numbers of people? No just large numbers of people angry with their "leaders" (and in most cases justifiably so).
The Gov also has spent their time trying to jail another blogger who tried to get people to post images of the Malaysian flag upside down on the web as a sign of distress, instead of dealing with real problems like corruption.
The present leaders are the ones who have been making inflammatory remarks, and who have created a immigration system that gives terrorists citizenship (go figure how destabilizing that is).
Back in the 1969 race riots it was also the politicians who started it.
Now that the ruling party has lost its 2/3rd majority (and thus lost some power), I think it's time for the Malaysian voters to have their turn at divide and conquer - dividing and conquering the politicians.
1) They tend to drive slower (though they often use multiple lanes to do so, while chatting to passengers or on the phone, or look for stuff in their handbags). So they are less likely to get killed (though they might get others killed/injured).
2) The more attractive ones might get away with the guy going "Never mind about that - small thing, hey can I have your number?" (e.g. the "Met her by accident" aka "Nice bumping into you" approach;) ). So fewer insurance claims for those.
3) Guys tend to overestimate[1] their skill level, or drive faster and closer to the limit of their skill level and their skill levels are often high enough to put them in the more "deadly zone". So if something goes wrong - even if it's not their fault, they are more likely to die or get their car in state worthy of insurance claims.
[1] Self-confident guys have had a significantly higher chance of breeding for generations. So a few million extra deaths due to accidents and "misadventure" aren't going to change things.
Those pedal operated toy cars are fairly safe, one of those boring Toyotas is probably safer than one of those fast cars (in the hands of your kid).
So now instead of buying multiple cars, you now only need one car which can behave like different cars. The insane fast car for you, and the "boring lame" car for the kid.
Trust is earned, and there are degrees of trust. This is a good way for your child to earn it, if they can still get in trouble with a boring safe car, they sure don't get access to the insanely fast car. Once you can trust them, they get "The Keys". All part of the human domestication and obedience training process.
At least this way, if your kids screw up (as most will), the odds are higher that you only have to ground them instead of bury them.
You can trust your kids all you want, but it's good to have "defense in depth".
Throw in some logging and it's even better. They're going to grow up in a world where Big Brother is watching them, so they might as well get used to it and be aware that Big Daddy is watching them;).
Once your children are old enough to be legally considered adults, if they want to kill themselves or other people, they can buy their own car with their own money to do it.
I'm not dismissing the differences between Obama and McCain.
If you think Obama is a decent candidate, go ahead and vote for him. I personally would prefer Obama over McCain (and Palin).
As I said, it may well be that the current two parties are really representing 99% of the voters.
If the "stay at home" voters disagree, they should get off their butts and be counted. Then at least the other two parties might have additional information on deciding whether they need to shift their direction - they have changed over the years.
BTW if you're the only one voting for some fringe candidate at least it's a test of those electronic voting systems - "No it can't be zero votes- because I voted for him".
But it really is a bad idea to have voters micromanage.
If you dislike the candidates voters have been choosing, do you really think you would like voters to make all those decisions?
As it is the real leaders are the ones who control the media the voters watch. They'd probably still have voted for the Iraq war etc. And there is even less accountability if the media lies.
"because it comes across as you making a judgement, however accurate it may be, on the competency of the legal department that prepared that contract"
It should come across as making a judgement on the company that approved such a contract, and also a company that _insists_ on such clauses not be struck off.
There are other companies out there, if people keep bowing down and serving the crappy ones, the crappy ones will be all that's left.
As I said - if the clause is not legally enforceable why should the company make such a big fuss about it? It says a LOT if they do.
If you really insist on working for a company like that, go ahead.
As for consent with the other party, of course you have to get it - that's called good faith, don't sneak in your changes. For one, it looks bad to the judge (even though many companies do it all the time and get away with it).
"why aren't they signing a contract with you instead of the other way around"
Huh? The contract is for BOTH parties.
Maybe the ones you've been happily signing over the years have been very one sided, where one party gets most of the benefit (e.g. I being of sound mind and body agree to sell my self off as a slave for 7 years to my Master, Company X, in return for food, lodging and free whippings. Being their property they shall also own _everything_ I create during that period).
Contracts are for both parties to agree to and sign - it's supposed to be win-win.
I suggest people avoid signing crappy contracts just because they believe they can run to the Courts who will kiss and make it better.
"That's because those of us in the states live in a republic and our UK mates live in a constitutional monarchy"
And so what if you in the USA don't live in a "Real Democracy"?
The last I checked in USA 2004, 99% of the voters voted for either of "The Two" AND Bush got _reelected_ AND this time round his party still has a fighting chance, rather than say "Not One of the Two" party.
So unless the elections got completely diebolded it sure smells like DEMOCRACY to me. It's not perfect, but that's a good enough representation of the People's Will for me.
If you don't like the results, go take it up with the voters.
If you voted for a candidate you actually didn't want, well that's your problem. There ARE other candidates, it's not just the Two that the media and voters keep assuming.
At the rate the USA is going, it's not so different from China which has only One Party;). Just think of McCain and Obama as candidates of rival factions in the same Party that has ruled the country for decades.
As long as you backup the entire drive image - they will know that you made changes. Salt does not render this attack useless.
This is why you do not backup images of encrypted drives (or reencrypt changed documents with the same key - this is normally not a problem for decent file crypto).
If you are going to backup data that's on an encrypted drive, you copy the files and reencrypt them to your backup media.
There are lots of people with the same name. And people are allowed to change their names.
That's why I don't really object to assigning everyone their own unique ID# from birth. What I do object to is creating a system that assumes it's foolproof. Documents can be faked, people can be bribed, stuff goes wrong etc.
Better than letting China or Japan buy loads of US companies up?
I mean that's what the IMF recommended other countries do in 1997 - let your banks and companies collapse (and "open up your markets" aka let us buy them up cheap).
That sort of thing really made the government in my country (Malaysia) take notice. They still won but a fair number of states are now controlled by different parties:).
It's not a wasted vote even if the candidate you actually liked didn't win, because if a large enough % of people start voting for someone else, the politicians will start to consider doing things a bit differently.
Whereas if like in 2004 where you have more than 99% of the voters voting for the same two parties, and Bush getting reelected, it just means that the Two Parties can claim they are representing the will of the people, and between the two of them, they have been doing what the people want.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool then you can sell your vote many times... And the potential buyers know it.
:).
Good good
When I hear Lord British and Space, it reminds me of the earlier Ultima games...
:).
Man I'm old...
Soon you'll be old just because you know who Lord British is
"your employer could threaten you to make you vote from the office computer, and watch you do it. "
Sure you could also have a law that makes that illegal right? So all you have to do is record the incident and voila employer is in jail for a very long time.
If the country doesn't take that law seriously, I think you're in bigger trouble than the lack of anonymous voting.
In practical terms the lack of anonymous voting is no big deal. By the time it becomes a problem, the other problems are far more serious.
Same goes for paper votes.
;).
Proper procedures, proper procedures.
All the ballot boxes are shown to be empty before use and locked. In comparison it is hard to prove that a electronic voting machine has zero votes before _actual_ use. There could be a special signal to "turn it on", e.g. a special vote, or even a radio signal, so before the signal it behaves correctly. Believe me I've worked in IT security I can think of lots of ways to cheat e-voting that are hard to detect.
People are validated and vote (just like for electronic votes), and their votes are put into a ballot box.
When each ballot box is full it is sealed shut and never leaves the polling station, representatives of the various parties and a number of independent observers are allowed to keep an eye on all of them (guards are posted to make sure people never get too close to them till counting time).
When it's time to count, the boxes are opened up one by one, and the votes are hand counted while everyone is watching. If the result is close enough, the votes can be recounted.
The final results are then announced for the different areas (the various parties can confirm the results with their representatives).
If you can post magicians in every polling place then you win I guess
But then maybe you can post magicians/hackers to tamper with electronic voting machines in every polling place too.
Which way is easier to understand? Many countries have been using methods similar to what I've mentioned.
The only problem with paper votes is postal votes. But that problem is still present even if electronic voting is used.
A way to reduce the impact of cheating with postal votes is to force people to count the postal votes FIRST. That way they can't move postal votes around to where they are "needed". They have to guess where the votes would be needed in advance.
If you can have so many accidents with the method I mentioned, how can you be so confident of the electronic votes?
So what? The more voters you have, the more human counters you can have.
You can get election results the same day of voting if you want, but why is it so important?
Pen and paper is not perfect, but I've worked in IT security and I KNOW how computers work and I'll tell you this: It's a LOT easier to cheat with computers.
Compare:
How easy is it to print thousands of fake votes and sneak them into the various polling centers, destroy the real votes, ALL without getting detected.
vs:
Tampering with the programs/results of the machines. Even if the source code of the official program is available, how do you know for sure that's the program that's running? You DON'T.
If your country is screwed up enough that there's widespread rigging with paper votes, it won't be long before they figure out how to rig electronic votes, and it WILL be rigged.
If your country is so screwed up that even if cheating with paper votes is detected, nothing happens, then electronic voting isn't going to solve anything.
I've been in IT for decades, and I can tell you - there really is no need for widespread electronic voting.
Elections do not just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ to be fair.
Paper ballots fit this better than some fancy electronic bullshit.
So what if it takes hours to count the votes by hand. So what if a handful of votes are miscounted - you can always recount and the other parties (and observers) can always observe the counts one by one ( which is what happens in my country). When there's a spoilt or ambiguous vote - the counter will show it to everyone.
When your hand counters and observers are working together to cheat you, you're screwed up enough that electronic voting isn't going to help you at all.
With pen and paper the accidents need to be a lot bigger and widespread. You need many accidents.
With electronic voting, you only need one accident. All you need is for someone to accidentally insert a thumbdrive. Or accidentally press the "demo key sequence".
It's so much easier to cheat with electonic voting.
Printing thousands of fake paper votes and moving them into the right locations can be done, but it is a lot more work than cheating with electronic voting.
Even if the source code is validated, the results can be easily changed. Without a paper trail you can't check.
If you have a paper trail, you might as well stick to paper and pen.
UK police != US police, yet.
;).
That said, some Brazilians might beg to differ
What a lot of those crypto/security people don't about their fancy fool proof electronic voting schemes is:
Elections don't just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ to be fair.
A typical Joe Sixpack has got to be able to look at the elections and grudgingly admit - "Darnit, my party lost and there wasn't that much cheating".
Rather than "What's this complicated bullshit? They're cheating big time I know it".
And the funny thing is - it doesn't really have to be that complicated. Hand counting scales.
Maybe he meant McCain = Yet Another Bush
Lots of birds can do it (e.g. cormorants). They don't fly and swim that fast though.
There was a higher percentage of chinese during the time of British (before 1957), compared to now[0].
In the 1980s the Malaysian Government started encouraging large numbers of Indonesians to come over and become "Malays". Tons promptly came over, got Malaysian citizenship, but continued behaving like Indonesians instead of Malays (the Malays themselves tell me those aren't Malays, I dunno what do you think?).
That plus the dwindling birth rate of the Chinese (and Indians?) has led to the 65% Malay ratio.
It's interesting that those Indonesians get to be considered "Sons/Princes of the Soil" (bumiputera) whereas the Chinese who have been around for generations (especially in Malacca and Penang) are in practice still considered squatters and "immigrants" by the political leaders (ironically some of them "Malays" whose grandparents were foreigners).
It seems Indonesian terrorists can easily get Malaysian citizenship[1], whereas it's hard for decent professionals from other countries to do so. In other countries like Australia - you get extra "points" if you are a plumber or in some other desirable profession. In Malaysia it almost seems as if you get extra points if you've blown up a church or are a terrorist leader. If instead you've trained the Malaysian badminton team to win world championships, you can't even get a permanent residentship [2].
I know someone who is legally a bumiputera in Sarawak, but in practice is not considered bumiputera in Peninsular Malaysia - when he applied for some privileges the bureaucrats said he had to convert to Islam first. He basically told them to shove it.
As for Islam being firmly tied to Malay identity. Seriously look at Malay culture - look at the _Malay_ style clothes the Malay ladies were wearing before the wave of Islamization in the 70s and 80s, go ask your older relatives on Malay fashion in the 40s and 50s. Tapai is as alcoholic as beer and it's been part of Malay culture for a long time (centuries?), so much so that it's politically incorrect to make it haram (and thus change Malay weddings and kenduris a bit ;) ). Many Malays are now blindly switching to Arab culture and thinking that's Islamic culture.
BTW I know a Malay Christian who was detained under the ISA in 1987[3] - AFAIK he didn't do anything dangerous to the country. He's a rather jovial and even-tempered guy. Not someone who would wave a keris around and say inflammatory things.
Malaysians have lived together mostly in peace all these decades DESPITE the meddling of the politicians. The ruling government is the one stirring things up and doing the divide and conquer (yes the British did it, but the ruling government is doing it too).
Recently the Malaysian Government has used the ISA to detain a reporter who correctly reported inflammatory remarks made by a politician in the ruling party, instead of the politician himself[4], and used the ISA to detain a politician in the opposition party instead of the reporters/editors allegedly misreporting her remarks[5].
Did RPK (the infamous blogger) say anything that would cause large numbers of people be angry at large numbers of people? No just large numbers of people angry with their "leaders" (and in most cases justifiably so).
The Gov also has spent their time trying to jail another blogger who tried to get people to post images of the Malaysian flag upside down on the web as a sign of distress, instead of dealing with real problems like corruption.
The present leaders are the ones who have been making inflammatory remarks, and who have created a immigration system that gives terrorists citizenship (go figure how destabilizing that is).
Back in the 1969 race riots it was also the politicians who started it.
Now that the ruling party has lost its 2/3rd majority (and thus lost some power), I think it's time for the Malaysian voters to have their turn at divide and conquer - dividing and conquering the politicians.
BTW the NEP while rather flawed has done some
"I have more problems with female drivers. "
;) ). So fewer insurance claims for those.
They are safer though for insurance purposes.
1) They tend to drive slower (though they often use multiple lanes to do so, while chatting to passengers or on the phone, or look for stuff in their handbags). So they are less likely to get killed (though they might get others killed/injured).
2) The more attractive ones might get away with the guy going "Never mind about that - small thing, hey can I have your number?" (e.g. the "Met her by accident" aka "Nice bumping into you" approach
3) Guys tend to overestimate[1] their skill level, or drive faster and closer to the limit of their skill level and their skill levels are often high enough to put them in the more "deadly zone". So if something goes wrong - even if it's not their fault, they are more likely to die or get their car in state worthy of insurance claims.
[1] Self-confident guys have had a significantly higher chance of breeding for generations. So a few million extra deaths due to accidents and "misadventure" aren't going to change things.
I think this is a good idea.
;).
Not all cars are the same.
Those pedal operated toy cars are fairly safe, one of those boring Toyotas is probably safer than one of those fast cars (in the hands of your kid).
So now instead of buying multiple cars, you now only need one car which can behave like different cars. The insane fast car for you, and the "boring lame" car for the kid.
Trust is earned, and there are degrees of trust. This is a good way for your child to earn it, if they can still get in trouble with a boring safe car, they sure don't get access to the insanely fast car. Once you can trust them, they get "The Keys". All part of the human domestication and obedience training process.
At least this way, if your kids screw up (as most will), the odds are higher that you only have to ground them instead of bury them.
You can trust your kids all you want, but it's good to have "defense in depth".
Throw in some logging and it's even better. They're going to grow up in a world where Big Brother is watching them, so they might as well get used to it and be aware that Big Daddy is watching them
Once your children are old enough to be legally considered adults, if they want to kill themselves or other people, they can buy their own car with their own money to do it.
I'm not dismissing the differences between Obama and McCain.
If you think Obama is a decent candidate, go ahead and vote for him. I personally would prefer Obama over McCain (and Palin).
As I said, it may well be that the current two parties are really representing 99% of the voters.
If the "stay at home" voters disagree, they should get off their butts and be counted. Then at least the other two parties might have additional information on deciding whether they need to shift their direction - they have changed over the years.
BTW if you're the only one voting for some fringe candidate at least it's a test of those electronic voting systems - "No it can't be zero votes- because I voted for him".
So what do you want?
300 million people to decide what is the best chess move to make next?
Or people to decide who makes the chess moves for them?
I'm all for referendums for big issues (like war - see: http://slashdot.org/~TheLink/journal/208853 )
But it really is a bad idea to have voters micromanage.
If you dislike the candidates voters have been choosing, do you really think you would like voters to make all those decisions?
As it is the real leaders are the ones who control the media the voters watch. They'd probably still have voted for the Iraq war etc. And there is even less accountability if the media lies.
Dianne Feinstein got 90000 calls against the bailout and she still voted for the bailout. Those weren't whispers.
It only works if you make sure you punish them by not voting them back in.
Hey if they're stupid enough they might even be happy to be eaten.
Is there anything unethical or immoral about eating a cow that wants to be eaten?
"because it comes across as you making a judgement, however accurate it may be, on the competency of the legal department that prepared that contract"
It should come across as making a judgement on the company that approved such a contract, and also a company that _insists_ on such clauses not be struck off.
There are other companies out there, if people keep bowing down and serving the crappy ones, the crappy ones will be all that's left.
As I said - if the clause is not legally enforceable why should the company make such a big fuss about it? It says a LOT if they do.
If you really insist on working for a company like that, go ahead.
As for consent with the other party, of course you have to get it - that's called good faith, don't sneak in your changes. For one, it looks bad to the judge (even though many companies do it all the time and get away with it).
"why aren't they signing a contract with you instead of the other way around"
Huh? The contract is for BOTH parties.
Maybe the ones you've been happily signing over the years have been very one sided, where one party gets most of the benefit (e.g. I being of sound mind and body agree to sell my self off as a slave for 7 years to my Master, Company X, in return for food, lodging and free whippings. Being their property they shall also own _everything_ I create during that period).
Contracts are for both parties to agree to and sign - it's supposed to be win-win.
I suggest people avoid signing crappy contracts just because they believe they can run to the Courts who will kiss and make it better.
"That's because those of us in the states live in a republic and our UK mates live in a constitutional monarchy"
;). Just think of McCain and Obama as candidates of rival factions in the same Party that has ruled the country for decades.
And so what if you in the USA don't live in a "Real Democracy"?
The last I checked in USA 2004, 99% of the voters voted for either of "The Two" AND Bush got _reelected_ AND this time round his party still has a fighting chance, rather than say "Not One of the Two" party.
So unless the elections got completely diebolded it sure smells like DEMOCRACY to me. It's not perfect, but that's a good enough representation of the People's Will for me.
If you don't like the results, go take it up with the voters.
If you voted for a candidate you actually didn't want, well that's your problem. There ARE other candidates, it's not just the Two that the media and voters keep assuming.
At the rate the USA is going, it's not so different from China which has only One Party
It's not new, it's old stuff.
As long as you backup the entire drive image - they will know that you made changes. Salt does not render this attack useless.
This is why you do not backup images of encrypted drives (or reencrypt changed documents with the same key - this is normally not a problem for decent file crypto).
If you are going to backup data that's on an encrypted drive, you copy the files and reencrypt them to your backup media.
There are lots of people with the same name. And people are allowed to change their names.
That's why I don't really object to assigning everyone their own unique ID# from birth. What I do object to is creating a system that assumes it's foolproof. Documents can be faked, people can be bribed, stuff goes wrong etc.
Better than letting China or Japan buy loads of US companies up?
I mean that's what the IMF recommended other countries do in 1997 - let your banks and companies collapse (and "open up your markets" aka let us buy them up cheap).
You all should really try that.
:).
That sort of thing really made the government in my country (Malaysia) take notice. They still won but a fair number of states are now controlled by different parties
It's not a wasted vote even if the candidate you actually liked didn't win, because if a large enough % of people start voting for someone else, the politicians will start to consider doing things a bit differently.
Whereas if like in 2004 where you have more than 99% of the voters voting for the same two parties, and Bush getting reelected, it just means that the Two Parties can claim they are representing the will of the people, and between the two of them, they have been doing what the people want.
Dunno that doesn't look that bad to me.
How about this:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Diebolded
And there's also gerrymandering.
But sharing is evil!
Didn't your mom tell you that?
Wait...