After all, the ext2 file system is still at revision 0.17, Enlightenment 0.17 is still in CVS and Sawfish is still at 0.38 - and millions of people use them.
Actually, Sawfish has finally made it to 1.0. It's just that packagers don't seem to have gotten the 1.0 packages out yet. Not that this invalidates the point that many very useful programs are still officially pre-1.0.
AFAIK the key is that Mozilla is in a feature freeze for the 1.0 release. All work until then is supposed to be bug fixing, although there also appears to be some cosmetic work like changing the available themes. Once they reach 1.0, they can start adding new features again (though many posters here would claim that Mozilla is already so bloated that new features would be redundant.) As other people have pointed out, 1.0 is also a big psychological milestone.
IMO, Mozilla is already well ahead of the quality of most released commercial software, and the willingness of Netscape to base NS6 on the existing Mozilla tree is pretty good evidence that Netscape agrees. The Mozilla team could declare the next version to be 1.0 and I doubt that any more people would complain about the quality than with other packages. The decision to squish every last bug before declaring 1.0 is a really good sign of the quality of code that the team wants to put out.
Part of the issue here is just how rapidly people's perceptions change. Just look at some of the sites that already exist; slashdot is actually a pretty good example. A place like this never could have existed under the old system of publishing. But people have adapted so rapidly to the concept of places like slashdot that they stop seeing them as the radical change to the old order that they are. The failure of the web to live up to its promise only shows that some of its promise was a mirage. It turns out that giving everyone a virtual soapbox doesn't equate to them all having worthwhile things to say or audiences ready to listen.
That's great, but how do they know when somebody is entering a password locally? It's not as though they can read all your keystrokes and tell exactly what you're doing. The only way they could do so is if they're also logged on to the remote computer so that they can process monitor and see exactly what you're doing. Otherwise they won't know whether you're typing in a password or replying to a message on/. in Links. If they've already got access to the machine, they're much more likely to be able to find a local root compromise than brute force a good password using key timings.
That's not to say that they should just ignore the problem. With a little bit of cleverness they could minimize the problem. Some of the approaches already mentioned- adding jitter to packet sending times, sending multiple characters in a single packet if they're being typed quickly, etc. could make the technique pretty much hopeless. But let's face it, it's already pretty hopeless, since the attacker doesn't have an obvious way of finding out when and where you're sending a password during the session in the first place.
OTOH in the UK they wouldn't have needed a keylogger to get the key. They can demand your PGP passphrase (the computer was seized legally, so that's not the issue) and throw you in jail if you don't divulge it. It's up to the accused to prove that he doesn't know or has forgotten it, and if he can't prove that then he can be imprisoned for failing to cooperate.
AFAIK, even if they did get the combination to the safe illegally, the contents may still be admissible as "inevitable discovery". With most safes it's going to be possible to crack them given enough time and/or the right tools. If nothing else you can brute force the combination, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FBI and similar agencies have robots designed specifically to do so. Or, of course, they could physically break open the safe and get the contents that way. The key is that as long as they inevitably would have gotten the safe open without their illegal activity, they can still use the evidence they get that way. You'd still be allowed to sue them for violating your rights, but you wouldn't be able to suppress the evidence.
One interesting question raised is whether it's always been classified, or if they're retroactively classifying it in order to avoid revealing how they work.
At least according to the article, the technology must be classified before the filing in order for them to invoke the act. To wit:
He [Mark Rasch, a former DoJ lawyer] also said the government's action raised more questions than it answered. Under the law, for example, the government is required to show that it classified the technology in question properly, and did so before it was used in the investigation. "Simply saying `it's classified' is not enough," he said. The government has not yet publicly offered the proof that Mr. Rasch described.
Presumably, at least, the "classified the technology in question properly" is to ensure that there's actually something that deserves real protection, not just a lame attempt to keep it unaccountable and unquestionable under the mantle of National Security. It also appears to be pretty clear that the classification has to predate the claims against it. If they're trying to classify it retroactively to avoid accountability, their attempt is likely to blow up in their face.
While the/. article is factually correct, it missed the main point of the action today. The big thing that happened today is that they selected the judge (Kollar-Kotelly) who will be re-hearing the penalty phase. Kollar-Kotelly is a Clinton appointee. There's a biography of her here, but it doesn't tell much about her politics. Anyone know what her attitude is likely to be?
Linux today looks almost exactly like Linux did 10 years ago.
What are you smoking, and where did you get it? Linux is so radically different under the hood today that it can scarecely be compared to what it was like 10 years ago. From a user standpoint it's also changed radically, with the advent of multiple quite nice and usable GUIs. Unless you take the almost meaningless concept of the Linux command line (in which case it's true that the GNU tools haven't changed much in appearance in 10 years) things have changed drastically. And if you do take that standpoint, Windows hasn't changed much, either. The DOS prompt under Windows looks pretty much exactly like what it looked like 10 years ago, too. And remember that many, if not most, Windows users are still using a version of Windows that's running on DOS technology and hasn't really changed that much at all.
I think that there may be some truth to the idea that the system is flawed, but IMO the deeper flaws aren't where Goodstein thinks they are. The problem isn't that the system is focused too much on finding the scientists and ignoring others. The problem is that most science courses focus on science as knowlege, rather than science as process. The reason that people don't care about science and don't know how to apply it in their everyday lives is because they've been taught that science is about learning answers from scientists. If they were taught instead that science is about searching for answers to problems, they'd find it a much more attractive and practical subject.
Actually, though, I'm not at all surprised that Goodstein didn't notice that as a problem. Anyone who's seen The Mechanical Universe knows that it's about filling people's heads with facts, not about searching for knowledge. At least as a lecturer (and I had Goodstein for one term of introductory Physics as an undergrad) he's another one causing the problems.
I haven't done anything illegal with my CD burner and I've had it for well over a year. Actually, I'm willing to bet that many, if not most, owners of CD burners haven't done anything illegal with them. Believe it or not, personal use copying of CDs is not illegal; it was specifically exempted in the Audio Home Recording Act. Neither is making compilation CDs, CDs of legally obtained mp3s, or many other things that the RIAA wants to claim are illegal.
As a matter of fact, I can't remember if I've even copied a music CD with my burner. I primarily use it to do weekly backups of my system, and secondarily to distribute my digital photographs to my friends and family. All music related uses put together are much, much lower down on the list. Believe it or not, many people actually want to use their equipment for perfectly legitimate, non-musical uses.
Not if you speak German. In that case the Federal Republic of Germany is Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) and the old German Democratic Republic is Deutche Democratische Republik (DDR).
I think that most Windows terminal emulators have similar functionality. It seems like a very simple step to take to help preserve passwords. I also find that it's convenient because I like to use a long password and it's easier to correct mistakes that way.
That still doesn't invalidate the general comment, though, which is that SSH and similar protocols are still subject to traffic analysis. Padding with null information, deliberately introducing some timing jitter into keystrokes being sent, etc. can certainly help in that regard. The big thing to remember is that security is relative; you can always find some way of making it a little bit better.
I agree - but put a different spin on it. Who are you to say that I cannot cooperate with my neighbor by sharing generally useful technical information with them? Who are you to throw me in jail because I copied something I bought to a CD?
Hear, Hear! This is exactly the point that RMS gets and ESR misses- which is surprising given that ESR is a libertarian. All software licenses are inherently coercive; they use the power of the State through the means of copyright to restrict the rights of the user. The difference between a Free Software license and a proprietary license is that a Free Software license uses that power for the benefit of all (by restricting obnoxious behavior) while a proprietary license uses it for the sole benefit of the writer (by restricting socially beneficial uses like sharing). And sadly, the mere existence of Free Software does not defang the power of proprietary licenses. Big software houses like Microsoft can still engage in serious legal harrassment of just about any computer using business even if they don't actually use any Microsoft software.
You do have a choice! Just download the source and port it yourself...
If you don't have the skills to do it yourself, pay someone that does. Whining doesn't accomplish anything.
Get off the guy's case. He does say that he's a paying customer, which means that he is paying somebody with the skills necessary to make a port of the Drake tools to KDE. He's paying Mandrake, who ought to have the skills if anyone does. And by standing up and saying that he wants the KDE port he's providing customer feedback about something that they might do to improve their product. Many companies would be very grateful for free advice about what their customers really want in the next generation of their product. Mandrake is clearly one of those companies, since they've gone to the trouble of setting up a web site where customers can make exactly those kinds of comments. Admittedly the suggestion might be more likely to be acted on if it were sent to Mandrake Forum instead of Slashdot, but I doubt that you've actually checked to see whether the above poster has sent the suggestion to Mandrake or not.
No, DeCSS allowed Windows users to decode (not play) DVDs. Since Linux didn't have the needed the needed DVD filesystem support, the software had to be run on Windows. Not sure if Linux has this support now, but it didn't then.
Well, the article does actually use the word allows (i.e. present tense) and DeCSS most certainly does allow users of Linux to decode and play DVDs today. I use it for that myself, although the players are still comparatively primitive. ISTR that even at the time that the suit over DeCSS was started there was experimental UDF support in the 2.3 kernel series, so Linux users could watch DVDs, albeit not on a production kernel. And there are actually some DVDs that are in ISO9660 format and not UDF and thus are readable under what was available on a stock Linux system at that time. My copy of The Matrix, for instance, is an ISO9660 disk.
Furthermore, the comment about "decode (not play)" is a complete red herring. The disk must be decoded before it can be played (duh!), so your distinction between the two is completely bogus. This is actually the complaint about the DMCA. By wrapping together their copy protection scheme (decoding) with the steps necessary to use the product (playing), and by making tools to break the copy protection scheme illegal, content providers thus place unreasonable restrictions on noninfringing use- like the effective inability to watch DVDs under Linux.
The Everquest market shouldn't really follow normal economic rules, because it is a constructed economic model, created to maximize game enjoyment, not reality.
Well, it sounds as though that's not necessarily all that they're studying. Some of their descriptions made it sound as though they're at least partly interested in a descriptive study. They want to know what kinds of activity people are involved in, for instance. That's not necessarily hard core analytical economics, but the descriptive statistics that they get from studies like that are the grist for the mill of later, more quantitative studies.
At the same time, why should the fact that the economy is entirely artificial prevent it from behaving like the real world? The people who designed the game are obviously most familiar with the real world economy, so some of their basic assumptions are going to be framed in terms of conventional economics. Equally, if not more, important is that the players who are implementing the economy are also trained in the conventional, meat space economy. When they're thrust into an artificial economy, they're going to respond with the same general types of behavior that they'd exhibit in meat space. The exact details may be shaped by the nature of the game economy, but the assumptions made by the people involved are going to have a tremendous impact on the overall outcome.
According to the law, you don't have to have 100% market share in order to have a monopoly. You must simply have a large enough share of the market that you can engage in anti-competitive manipulation without fear of losing your market share in the near term. I'd say that MS comfortably passes that test. If they decided to double their prices tomorrow, the vast majority of users would bend over and take it because they need Windows to maintain compatibility.
Sadly, I'll be the first to admit that it's not at all original. That's what annoys me the most about a lot of that "don't break up Microsoft" arguments. There are extremely strong, cogent counterarguments (one of which I've reproduced above) that nobody has seriously tried to rebut. But the original complaints keep cropping up again and again.
In the long run, breaking up the company is probably the least intrusive approach that actually has a chance solving the problem. It's actually less intrusive than many suggested alternatives that would also be less effective. But many people don't seem to want an effective remedy, so they propose ineffective ones that let them A) keep Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior and B) point out how interfering the government is.
Splitting up Microsoft, all in all, is just a bizarre way of applying century-old law to this problem.
Actually, splitting up the company is a very simple and pragmatic way of solving the problem. Consider what the problem is: Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating systems and they're illegally using that to expand their monopoly to other kinds of software by bundling that software with Windows. There are basically three things that you could consider doing to remedy the problem:
Impose a fine large enough to convince them not to do so again. This has the problem that it's difficult to determine how big a fine that would be. MS has shown a desire to continue bundling software with Windows even though they're still in the penalty phase of a trial for doing just that. They don't seem to be getting the message.
Impose a conduct remedy. This basically means putting a government regulator inside MS to decide what they are and aren't allowed to include in Windows. You can bet that there would be constant fights over each and every decision.
Split the part of the company that's making the OS from the part that's developing applications. This would eliminate most of the motivation for the illegal actions and thus minimize the need for future lawsuits and regulation.
IOW, far from being the most intrusive and legally costly strategy for dealing with Microsoft, splitting the company in two as the government proposed is likely to be the least intrusive. It cuts to the very heart of their illegal actions and should be effective in stopping it from happening again in the future. Seems reasonable to me.
Also the logistics of counting 200 million paper ballots without any kind of technological assistance means that our current President would have to serve another term before we figured out who won the last election.
Bullshit. First of all, there wouldn't be 200 million ballots; you're high by a factor of about 3. Second, a well designed hand counted system could be handled quite quickly. The problem with the Florida counting was that the ballots were designed to be read by machine, not by hand, so hand counting was difficult. That wouldn't need to be the case if you designed the ballots to be hand counted from the start.
A single person could easily count several thousand ballots per day, which is well more than the number of voters at most polling places. That means that you just have the election monitors bring their ballot boxes to a central location (which they'd have to do anyway) and then they'd spend an hour or two counting the votes. They already have people from both major parties there, so there would be built in protection against fraud. This would require more labor than the current system, but given the reduced cost of machines and ballots might even save money.
If you should get into the beta group (50 people), why not write up a report for us on this little device? If it only played.ogg files, I would try to pre-order from somewhere.
Sounds like a great reason to be a beta tester to me! Not only would you get to try the thing out, you'd also be able to give them the feedback that it should play.ogg files. It's quite possible, even likely, that Phillips could add.ogg playing capability with a firmware change. If somebody told them it was a desirable feature, that would greatly increase the chances of it being included.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Sawfish has finally made it to 1.0. It's just that packagers don't seem to have gotten the 1.0 packages out yet. Not that this invalidates the point that many very useful programs are still officially pre-1.0.
AFAIK the key is that Mozilla is in a feature freeze for the 1.0 release. All work until then is supposed to be bug fixing, although there also appears to be some cosmetic work like changing the available themes. Once they reach 1.0, they can start adding new features again (though many posters here would claim that Mozilla is already so bloated that new features would be redundant.) As other people have pointed out, 1.0 is also a big psychological milestone.
IMO, Mozilla is already well ahead of the quality of most released commercial software, and the willingness of Netscape to base NS6 on the existing Mozilla tree is pretty good evidence that Netscape agrees. The Mozilla team could declare the next version to be 1.0 and I doubt that any more people would complain about the quality than with other packages. The decision to squish every last bug before declaring 1.0 is a really good sign of the quality of code that the team wants to put out.
Part of the issue here is just how rapidly people's perceptions change. Just look at some of the sites that already exist; slashdot is actually a pretty good example. A place like this never could have existed under the old system of publishing. But people have adapted so rapidly to the concept of places like slashdot that they stop seeing them as the radical change to the old order that they are. The failure of the web to live up to its promise only shows that some of its promise was a mirage. It turns out that giving everyone a virtual soapbox doesn't equate to them all having worthwhile things to say or audiences ready to listen.
That's great, but how do they know when somebody is entering a password locally? It's not as though they can read all your keystrokes and tell exactly what you're doing. The only way they could do so is if they're also logged on to the remote computer so that they can process monitor and see exactly what you're doing. Otherwise they won't know whether you're typing in a password or replying to a message on /. in Links. If they've already got access to the machine, they're much more likely to be able to find a local root compromise than brute force a good password using key timings.
That's not to say that they should just ignore the problem. With a little bit of cleverness they could minimize the problem. Some of the approaches already mentioned- adding jitter to packet sending times, sending multiple characters in a single packet if they're being typed quickly, etc. could make the technique pretty much hopeless. But let's face it, it's already pretty hopeless, since the attacker doesn't have an obvious way of finding out when and where you're sending a password during the session in the first place.
OTOH in the UK they wouldn't have needed a keylogger to get the key. They can demand your PGP passphrase (the computer was seized legally, so that's not the issue) and throw you in jail if you don't divulge it. It's up to the accused to prove that he doesn't know or has forgotten it, and if he can't prove that then he can be imprisoned for failing to cooperate.
AFAIK, even if they did get the combination to the safe illegally, the contents may still be admissible as "inevitable discovery". With most safes it's going to be possible to crack them given enough time and/or the right tools. If nothing else you can brute force the combination, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FBI and similar agencies have robots designed specifically to do so. Or, of course, they could physically break open the safe and get the contents that way. The key is that as long as they inevitably would have gotten the safe open without their illegal activity, they can still use the evidence they get that way. You'd still be allowed to sue them for violating your rights, but you wouldn't be able to suppress the evidence.
Presumably, at least, the "classified the technology in question properly" is to ensure that there's actually something that deserves real protection, not just a lame attempt to keep it unaccountable and unquestionable under the mantle of National Security. It also appears to be pretty clear that the classification has to predate the claims against it. If they're trying to classify it retroactively to avoid accountability, their attempt is likely to blow up in their face.
In other news, Microsoft says that XP has gone gold and is going to be released to OEMs today.
While the /. article is factually correct, it missed the main point of the action today. The big thing that happened today is that they selected the judge (Kollar-Kotelly) who will be re-hearing the penalty phase. Kollar-Kotelly is a Clinton appointee. There's a biography of her here, but it doesn't tell much about her politics. Anyone know what her attitude is likely to be?
What are you smoking, and where did you get it? Linux is so radically different under the hood today that it can scarecely be compared to what it was like 10 years ago. From a user standpoint it's also changed radically, with the advent of multiple quite nice and usable GUIs. Unless you take the almost meaningless concept of the Linux command line (in which case it's true that the GNU tools haven't changed much in appearance in 10 years) things have changed drastically. And if you do take that standpoint, Windows hasn't changed much, either. The DOS prompt under Windows looks pretty much exactly like what it looked like 10 years ago, too. And remember that many, if not most, Windows users are still using a version of Windows that's running on DOS technology and hasn't really changed that much at all.
Just think of it as a way of proving to newbies that you were on Usenet way before it was cool.
MAKE ENEMIES FAST!!!!
I think that there may be some truth to the idea that the system is flawed, but IMO the deeper flaws aren't where Goodstein thinks they are. The problem isn't that the system is focused too much on finding the scientists and ignoring others. The problem is that most science courses focus on science as knowlege, rather than science as process. The reason that people don't care about science and don't know how to apply it in their everyday lives is because they've been taught that science is about learning answers from scientists. If they were taught instead that science is about searching for answers to problems, they'd find it a much more attractive and practical subject.
Actually, though, I'm not at all surprised that Goodstein didn't notice that as a problem. Anyone who's seen The Mechanical Universe knows that it's about filling people's heads with facts, not about searching for knowledge. At least as a lecturer (and I had Goodstein for one term of introductory Physics as an undergrad) he's another one causing the problems.
I haven't done anything illegal with my CD burner and I've had it for well over a year. Actually, I'm willing to bet that many, if not most, owners of CD burners haven't done anything illegal with them. Believe it or not, personal use copying of CDs is not illegal; it was specifically exempted in the Audio Home Recording Act. Neither is making compilation CDs, CDs of legally obtained mp3s, or many other things that the RIAA wants to claim are illegal.
As a matter of fact, I can't remember if I've even copied a music CD with my burner. I primarily use it to do weekly backups of my system, and secondarily to distribute my digital photographs to my friends and family. All music related uses put together are much, much lower down on the list. Believe it or not, many people actually want to use their equipment for perfectly legitimate, non-musical uses.
Not if you speak German. In that case the Federal Republic of Germany is Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) and the old German Democratic Republic is Deutche Democratische Republik (DDR).
I think that most Windows terminal emulators have similar functionality. It seems like a very simple step to take to help preserve passwords. I also find that it's convenient because I like to use a long password and it's easier to correct mistakes that way.
That still doesn't invalidate the general comment, though, which is that SSH and similar protocols are still subject to traffic analysis. Padding with null information, deliberately introducing some timing jitter into keystrokes being sent, etc. can certainly help in that regard. The big thing to remember is that security is relative; you can always find some way of making it a little bit better.
Hear, Hear! This is exactly the point that RMS gets and ESR misses- which is surprising given that ESR is a libertarian. All software licenses are inherently coercive; they use the power of the State through the means of copyright to restrict the rights of the user. The difference between a Free Software license and a proprietary license is that a Free Software license uses that power for the benefit of all (by restricting obnoxious behavior) while a proprietary license uses it for the sole benefit of the writer (by restricting socially beneficial uses like sharing). And sadly, the mere existence of Free Software does not defang the power of proprietary licenses. Big software houses like Microsoft can still engage in serious legal harrassment of just about any computer using business even if they don't actually use any Microsoft software.
Get off the guy's case. He does say that he's a paying customer, which means that he is paying somebody with the skills necessary to make a port of the Drake tools to KDE. He's paying Mandrake, who ought to have the skills if anyone does. And by standing up and saying that he wants the KDE port he's providing customer feedback about something that they might do to improve their product. Many companies would be very grateful for free advice about what their customers really want in the next generation of their product. Mandrake is clearly one of those companies, since they've gone to the trouble of setting up a web site where customers can make exactly those kinds of comments. Admittedly the suggestion might be more likely to be acted on if it were sent to Mandrake Forum instead of Slashdot, but I doubt that you've actually checked to see whether the above poster has sent the suggestion to Mandrake or not.
Well, the article does actually use the word allows (i.e. present tense) and DeCSS most certainly does allow users of Linux to decode and play DVDs today. I use it for that myself, although the players are still comparatively primitive. ISTR that even at the time that the suit over DeCSS was started there was experimental UDF support in the 2.3 kernel series, so Linux users could watch DVDs, albeit not on a production kernel. And there are actually some DVDs that are in ISO9660 format and not UDF and thus are readable under what was available on a stock Linux system at that time. My copy of The Matrix, for instance, is an ISO9660 disk.
Furthermore, the comment about "decode (not play)" is a complete red herring. The disk must be decoded before it can be played (duh!), so your distinction between the two is completely bogus. This is actually the complaint about the DMCA. By wrapping together their copy protection scheme (decoding) with the steps necessary to use the product (playing), and by making tools to break the copy protection scheme illegal, content providers thus place unreasonable restrictions on noninfringing use- like the effective inability to watch DVDs under Linux.
Well, it sounds as though that's not necessarily all that they're studying. Some of their descriptions made it sound as though they're at least partly interested in a descriptive study. They want to know what kinds of activity people are involved in, for instance. That's not necessarily hard core analytical economics, but the descriptive statistics that they get from studies like that are the grist for the mill of later, more quantitative studies.
At the same time, why should the fact that the economy is entirely artificial prevent it from behaving like the real world? The people who designed the game are obviously most familiar with the real world economy, so some of their basic assumptions are going to be framed in terms of conventional economics. Equally, if not more, important is that the players who are implementing the economy are also trained in the conventional, meat space economy. When they're thrust into an artificial economy, they're going to respond with the same general types of behavior that they'd exhibit in meat space. The exact details may be shaped by the nature of the game economy, but the assumptions made by the people involved are going to have a tremendous impact on the overall outcome.
According to the law, you don't have to have 100% market share in order to have a monopoly. You must simply have a large enough share of the market that you can engage in anti-competitive manipulation without fear of losing your market share in the near term. I'd say that MS comfortably passes that test. If they decided to double their prices tomorrow, the vast majority of users would bend over and take it because they need Windows to maintain compatibility.
Sadly, I'll be the first to admit that it's not at all original. That's what annoys me the most about a lot of that "don't break up Microsoft" arguments. There are extremely strong, cogent counterarguments (one of which I've reproduced above) that nobody has seriously tried to rebut. But the original complaints keep cropping up again and again.
In the long run, breaking up the company is probably the least intrusive approach that actually has a chance solving the problem. It's actually less intrusive than many suggested alternatives that would also be less effective. But many people don't seem to want an effective remedy, so they propose ineffective ones that let them A) keep Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior and B) point out how interfering the government is.
Actually, splitting up the company is a very simple and pragmatic way of solving the problem. Consider what the problem is: Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating systems and they're illegally using that to expand their monopoly to other kinds of software by bundling that software with Windows. There are basically three things that you could consider doing to remedy the problem:
IOW, far from being the most intrusive and legally costly strategy for dealing with Microsoft, splitting the company in two as the government proposed is likely to be the least intrusive. It cuts to the very heart of their illegal actions and should be effective in stopping it from happening again in the future. Seems reasonable to me.
Bullshit. First of all, there wouldn't be 200 million ballots; you're high by a factor of about 3. Second, a well designed hand counted system could be handled quite quickly. The problem with the Florida counting was that the ballots were designed to be read by machine, not by hand, so hand counting was difficult. That wouldn't need to be the case if you designed the ballots to be hand counted from the start.
A single person could easily count several thousand ballots per day, which is well more than the number of voters at most polling places. That means that you just have the election monitors bring their ballot boxes to a central location (which they'd have to do anyway) and then they'd spend an hour or two counting the votes. They already have people from both major parties there, so there would be built in protection against fraud. This would require more labor than the current system, but given the reduced cost of machines and ballots might even save money.
Sounds like a great reason to be a beta tester to me! Not only would you get to try the thing out, you'd also be able to give them the feedback that it should play .ogg files. It's quite possible, even likely, that Phillips could add .ogg playing capability with a firmware change. If somebody told them it was a desirable feature, that would greatly increase the chances of it being included.
IOW, sign up, sign up, sign up.
[goes to sign up]
No! That burning money would create carcinogenic smoke, attracting more lawyers and starting the cycle of lawsuits all over again. Recycle instead.