OK, in theory it is possible to have a secure voting system - plenty of pdfs around, just go search for it.
However, what I don't understand is why is it such a big deal that voters can't keep a receipt of how they voted. Or that votes have to be so secret. Yes it'll be good if they are secret or at least most of them.
So what if it means the voter can sell his/her vote?
Also, if someone could coerce 1 voter to vote a particular way (the proof being the receipt) AND get away with it, if you are pragmatic it isn't really a big issue.
If someone could force thousands of voters to vote a particular way, that's called Diebold, and not enough seem to care anyway.
If you have some evil organisation forcing thousands of voters (or more) to vote a particular way AND getting away with it, the country is already so screwed up the results aren't going to matter that much are they?
Uh what was the problem they are trying to solve again?
The US has control over the parts of the Internet that's within the USA. And that's fair enough.
Other than that, it doesn't really have control nor should it ( with the exception of political and military "influence" of course, and the fact that much of the popular sites are in the USA).
Same for the rest of the countries.
If the countries really don't like it they form groups and set up their own root name servers and tell ICANN to get lost. Same for the other stuff - routing, IP allocation etc. The problem is it might splinter the Internet - but it's not as if network administrators have never ever blocked parts of the Internet they didn't like.
So if the USA makes a crappy enough decision or allows something stupid to be done(e.g. verisign's wildcard DNS stuff), network and sys admins around the world could decide to change things.
Thus, tell me again, what is the problem those people are trying to solve, and how is their solution not worse than the "problem"?
People like Spamhaus could shift to.co.uk, or could even have used a registrar in Europe.
If the US starts threatening economic sanctions or military action, well they do that all the time anyway, and it's nothing to do with the Internet needing any special treatment.
I agree - why waste time doing about the same things over and over again.
Since Bush likes going to the moon so much, save even more money- Send G W Bush to the moon;).
While you are at it, set up a way for US citizens to vote politicians off the planet - with options - return / 1 way.
Think of it as the next Survivor series. I bet the voter turn out will be great, and even one of those reality TV shows can probably come up with a voting system that works better than Diebold's.
"most male cross-dressers are aggressively attached to their penises"
Uh, nearly all male humans are very attached to their penises, and if anybody tried to change that they shouldn't be surprised if there were signs of aggression.
People who spend their whole life playing WoW are less likely to kill me.
Also, I'll be more afraid of someone who spends a lot of time at the rifle range than someone who spends a lot of time playing some videogame, if they said they were going to kill me.
For perspective what the President of the USA does is more likely to kill you or cause you to be killed. So that's a far more important concern than some silly summit.
Well a good actor can sometimes come up with a brilliant adlib and turn a mediocre part of a screenplay into a memorable scene.
But the Hollywood bosses are definitely overpaid. Whoever it was that kept making those crappy Kevin Costner movies was overpaid.
The fact that Hollywood intentionally makes violent movies AND then tries to chop them up so that they get "ok for kids" ratings shows to me that their primary agenda is not profit (at least for the companies they work for), and thus they shouldn't be paid so much.
It's like a whisky maker making whisky and then watering it down till the law says the result can be served to minors without parental supervision. The result sure isn't going to make the whisky drinkers happy. And you think it makes parents happy?
Whenever they try that sort of crap the movie doesn't do that well, and then they blame "piracy", P2P and everyone else but themselves.
Also for some reason Hollywood (not everyone else) seems a bit surprised when stuff like "Finding Nemo" becomes a hit. If Hollywood was really interested in profit and making money, they'd be making more movies genuinely suitable or even targeted at children and families, just like McDonalds targets children and families.
Sure many of us might barf at that sort of stuff, but it sells - the evidence is there. You don't have to enjoy something to know it sells.
Just a look at: http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross and: http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region= world-wide
And then when you look at: http://www.imdb.com/chart/
Which of those movies in the chart would be enjoyed by the people who enjoyed any of the top boxoffice hits? Go see later (total takings) if there's a correlation.
Also why bother making: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" AND then water it down? "According to producer Brad Fuller, the film was given an NC-17 by the MPAA, and a total of 17 scenes had to be edited in order to get an R rating."
So either Hollywood is incompetent or they are up to no good.
Anyway even if you just want to be pragmatic a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Where you draw that line is the problem - lots of people are going to complain wherever you draw it.
But if you draw a line somewhere, even though it was difficult to decide a good place for it, if done well, it can make it unnecessary to draw even more difficult lines.
For example if they start doing more and more human animal hybrids: then the question = human or not, murder/manslaughter or not?
Sure there could be some benefits in doing XYZ, but the long term consequences may cost more than the benefit.
I believe people need to know that though every day more and more things become possible with technology, it doesn't mean that all that is possible should be done.
Just because you can build a Big Red Button that when pressed kills everyone else, doesn't mean you should, nor does it mean you should allow such a button to be built.
Lastly, I'm not saying that XYZ research should be outlawed, my main point is that humans as a whole appear to be rushing into things before thinking about the long term consequences. If in doubt, one could choose to do a safer ABC first and postpone XYZ for later - after all our resources are not infinite, and our wisdom is definitely closer to zero.
There's a significant difference between using money and being controlled by Money. Having money serve you, and you serving Money...
Money is a very useful concept, no doubt about it. But as it has been said:
1 Timothy 6:9-10 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes it seems your president is trying to be the happiest man in the world by making the rest of the world less happy.
OK, in theory it is possible to have a secure voting system - plenty of pdfs around, just go search for it.
:).
However, what I don't understand is why is it such a big deal that voters can't keep a receipt of how they voted. Or that votes have to be so secret. Yes it'll be good if they are secret or at least most of them.
So what if it means the voter can sell his/her vote?
Also, if someone could coerce 1 voter to vote a particular way (the proof being the receipt) AND get away with it, if you are pragmatic it isn't really a big issue.
If someone could force thousands of voters to vote a particular way, that's called Diebold, and not enough seem to care anyway.
If you have some evil organisation forcing thousands of voters (or more) to vote a particular way AND getting away with it, the country is already so screwed up the results aren't going to matter that much are they?
So what's the big deal
Uh what was the problem they are trying to solve again?
.co.uk, or could even have used a registrar in Europe.
The US has control over the parts of the Internet that's within the USA. And that's fair enough.
Other than that, it doesn't really have control nor should it ( with the exception of political and military "influence" of course, and the fact that much of the popular sites are in the USA).
Same for the rest of the countries.
If the countries really don't like it they form groups and set up their own root name servers and tell ICANN to get lost. Same for the other stuff - routing, IP allocation etc. The problem is it might splinter the Internet - but it's not as if network administrators have never ever blocked parts of the Internet they didn't like.
So if the USA makes a crappy enough decision or allows something stupid to be done(e.g. verisign's wildcard DNS stuff), network and sys admins around the world could decide to change things.
Thus, tell me again, what is the problem those people are trying to solve, and how is their solution not worse than the "problem"?
People like Spamhaus could shift to
If the US starts threatening economic sanctions or military action, well they do that all the time anyway, and it's nothing to do with the Internet needing any special treatment.
Really?
Eternity is a very long time if you are not perfect.
You might start to feel like you're in one of those Twilight Zone episodes...
Or in Hell.
AFAIK broadcast power has little relation to the audio amplitude of a television broadcast.
I agree - why waste time doing about the same things over and over again.
;).
Since Bush likes going to the moon so much, save even more money- Send G W Bush to the moon
While you are at it, set up a way for US citizens to vote politicians off the planet - with options - return / 1 way.
Think of it as the next Survivor series. I bet the voter turn out will be great, and even one of those reality TV shows can probably come up with a voting system that works better than Diebold's.
You think Edgy is funny?
:).
At the rate they are going I wonder what they are going to call the version starting with F*
Ah, but they have a Queen.
Big difference you know.
"most male cross-dressers are aggressively attached to their penises"
Uh, nearly all male humans are very attached to their penises, and if anybody tried to change that they shouldn't be surprised if there were signs of aggression.
Set your kernel to use idle=poll
Your cpus will run warmer, but they will be in sync.
Government exploration of space can be a benefit to the whole world.
;)
How about sending G. W. Bush to space for instance.
Vote him off the planet!
People kill people ;).
People who spend their whole life playing WoW are less likely to kill me.
Also, I'll be more afraid of someone who spends a lot of time at the rifle range than someone who spends a lot of time playing some videogame, if they said they were going to kill me.
For perspective what the President of the USA does is more likely to kill you or cause you to be killed. So that's a far more important concern than some silly summit.
"Now, a 40 hour work day is a good idea "
;).
40 hour work day?
I strongly disagree. I would recommend working smarter and not harder
I think immigration is a good thing if done well.
;).
It is the only way a country can legally pick its citizens. So pick the best you can get, and at least pick better than your average citizens.
Big question: what is better? Well hopefully someone is wise enough to figure that out
But it should be obvious what's below the average.
They call it rendition nowadays... Or "extraordinary rendition".
You could be suffering a stroke actually.
Do you have "hole in the heart"? Go look it up. hole in heart migraine stroke.
If so, you may want to consider getting it fixed (there's a risk of course).
Sure: http://www.huawei.com/ ;)
Well a good actor can sometimes come up with a brilliant adlib and turn a mediocre part of a screenplay into a memorable scene.
= world-wide
But the Hollywood bosses are definitely overpaid. Whoever it was that kept making those crappy Kevin Costner movies was overpaid.
The fact that Hollywood intentionally makes violent movies AND then tries to chop them up so that they get "ok for kids" ratings shows to me that their primary agenda is not profit (at least for the companies they work for), and thus they shouldn't be paid so much.
It's like a whisky maker making whisky and then watering it down till the law says the result can be served to minors without parental supervision. The result sure isn't going to make the whisky drinkers happy. And you think it makes parents happy?
Whenever they try that sort of crap the movie doesn't do that well, and then they blame "piracy", P2P and everyone else but themselves.
Also for some reason Hollywood (not everyone else) seems a bit surprised when stuff like "Finding Nemo" becomes a hit. If Hollywood was really interested in profit and making money, they'd be making more movies genuinely suitable or even targeted at children and families, just like McDonalds targets children and families.
Sure many of us might barf at that sort of stuff, but it sells - the evidence is there. You don't have to enjoy something to know it sells.
Just a look at:
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross
and:
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region
And then when you look at:
http://www.imdb.com/chart/
Which of those movies in the chart would be enjoyed by the people who enjoyed any of the top boxoffice hits? Go see later (total takings) if there's a correlation.
Also why bother making: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" AND then water it down?
"According to producer Brad Fuller, the film was given an NC-17 by the MPAA, and a total of 17 scenes had to be edited in order to get an R rating."
So either Hollywood is incompetent or they are up to no good.
Anyway even if you just want to be pragmatic a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Where you draw that line is the problem - lots of people are going to complain wherever you draw it.
But if you draw a line somewhere, even though it was difficult to decide a good place for it, if done well, it can make it unnecessary to draw even more difficult lines.
For example if they start doing more and more human animal hybrids: then the question = human or not, murder/manslaughter or not?
Sure there could be some benefits in doing XYZ, but the long term consequences may cost more than the benefit.
I believe people need to know that though every day more and more things become possible with technology, it doesn't mean that all that is possible should be done.
Just because you can build a Big Red Button that when pressed kills everyone else, doesn't mean you should, nor does it mean you should allow such a button to be built.
Lastly, I'm not saying that XYZ research should be outlawed, my main point is that humans as a whole appear to be rushing into things before thinking about the long term consequences. If in doubt, one could choose to do a safer ABC first and postpone XYZ for later - after all our resources are not infinite, and our wisdom is definitely closer to zero.
Too much greed around and too little wisdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Faustman
Doesn't seem clear that stem cell research is the best hope. Looks like there are plenty of encouraging areas.
Nor is it clear that embryonic stem cell research is the best hope, which apparently is opposed by some (noisy ones).
There's a significant difference between using money and being controlled by Money. Having money serve you, and you serving Money...
Money is a very useful concept, no doubt about it. But as it has been said:
1 Timothy 6:9-10
People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
That's crazy.
Most of the decent disk encryption schemes you'd want to use have features like "Corporate Key".
So even if the employee/person can't provide the password: forgot, in some deserted island, in a coma, dead, the Company still can access the data.
With key sharing schemes, one could also require M out of N keys to access stuff.
And almost everyone's fingerprints on the screen... ;)
"We've had sshfs for 15 years"
Sometimes I wonder what Douglas Engelbart thinks of the "progress" we've all made since the 1960s.
Well I haven't seen it really slow down stuff on Linux.
And it doesn't seem to slow down on one of my home Win2K PCs with autorun disabled.
But I don't see a good reason why autorun should cause everything to freeze.