for: 1) "Voters need unrestricted access". Good point. We need publicly available computers. Here in Oz most municipal libraries have them. 2) & 3) & 4) & 5) see response above to "6) Checks if a voter can be mapped to at most one vote."
but to reiterate and expand:
In Oz, use the existing roll of voters to issue usernames/passwords. (I don't know what equivalent you have in US/UK etc, but if it's not secure, then why have you got it/not fixed it?) Voters then use that ac/pw to "log into" the vote computer, which keeps secure "vote accounts" much like an online banking account. The "vote accounts computer" database with encrypted names is available read only to anybody who wants to count & verify votes.
If a voter decides to change a vote prior to the "count", then that would be possible.
I think that answers 2,3,4,5.
The greatest weakness I see is the possibility of someone correlating a username with a voter by external (real world) factors. That could be combatted by changing usernames on a regular or time encrypted basis.
In Oz, we have an electoral roll. Every citizen is supposed to be registered. Once. Use that roll as a source for handing out encrypted identity numbers with passwords.
Encrypting identity hides the identity, but allows votes to be counted by a publicly available voters/voted file.
Is there a good package that 1) protects privacy 2) is online 3) allows voter to confirm or change their vote 4) allows anybody to count the votes 5) have I missed anything?
I do not know how he could get to Ecuador. Can he be carried in a political bag? I doubt the UK would accept him as political personnel. Whether ensconced in the Ecuador Embassy or in jail in the US he is an object lesson to those who would follow in his footsteps.
Here in Australia our wimpy Labour government is kowtowing to the US political powers and refusing to provide aid. New Zealanissas no better in the face of the Dotcom matter. I am quite surprised that the US was unable to obtain extradition from the UK but suspect that the political cost there might be too high.
Whatever, Julian, it was nice hearing from you. But you must be made an example of, to show that no one can get away with treading on the tail of a tiger. Specially not an upstart Aussie!
1. Society able to adapt. Yup. (Just build Dykes to hold back the ocean, grow food on the deserts that now get rain, etc. etc.) 2. Risks understood and can be mitigated. Yup, (just make sure it's not a shell company so you can sue if they aren't careful.) 3. Dependence on other nations for oil not a concern. Yup. (Have you noticed what happened to price of that oil substitute "gas".) 4. Public illiterate. Yup. 5. Lazy press. Yup. 6. Advocacy groups that manufacture fear. Surely not on Slashdot? (snigger).
While I do not believe that seat belts save lives, I do notice that my driving degrades while on a cellphone. So perhaps road statistics would improve if "detectors of cellphone users were widespread" here.
The UN ""Bill of Rights" article 12 states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy...".An opposite to "arbitrary" is "consistent" so there should be detectors everywhere. This little old lady performed an "arbitrary" interference, so it should not have been allowed.
The issue is not privacy. It is too much regulation. If people were arrested more frequently for breaking stupid regulations, then bad laws might get repealed.
"What about if that device compiles voice from vibrations from reflections in visible or infared spectrum that have ventured on to public property?! Are you going to brick all your Windows?!"
It works that way already. So like I said, better soundproofing.
And answering "This is about a government that's quickly making their way down the road to a totalitarian regime, and people like you are clearing the path for them."
Well the answer is, "who watches the watchers". Its the same problem governments are experiencing with drug imports etc. Allow the drugs in. Instead of protecting YOUR privacy, make the government reveal everything it's "invasions" reveal,
Somebody already said the best answer, which is "don't try to stop with legislation what can't be stopped with legislation. Just learn to live with it".
The UDHR is not worth the paper it's writ on. For example notice the word "arbitrary". Any freshman lawyer could dive a truckload of bandwidth through that hole.
And the only thing I would add. Any taxpayer funded "invasion of privacy" should be put in the public domain. I want to know the extent of their spying!
"theres a huge difference...." Not really. Just a matter of technology and chance. Last month a motorcyclist was busted in Sydney for using a cellphone. He was seen and photographed by a little old lady on a bus. She phoned it to the police, and he was busted.
Let's face it. We the people can't enforce privacy. There will alway be a bureaucrat who "HasTo Know" to stop "Terrorism" (or whatever).
I know it sounds crazy, but think about it. I suggest we don't put any restrictions on governments spending our tax dollars on observation. Instead make it open slather on the gathering of information in public places. But all of that information must be put into the public domain immediately.
Because this is the INFORMATION AGE and information is more valuable than feudal land ownership or money. (Just ask Sergei Brin). And the value and danger of information is enhanced by exclusivity.
And all of those reasons for privacy (at least all that I've heard) can be cancelled or ameliorated by the open slather policy.
The US culture is based on inventions and the application of those inventions to labor saving devices. When the US goes to war, it is natural that they apply that philosophy. War throughout history has been a major incentive to produce innovation.
Instead of innovation, the Indians created multiple classes within their culture which doubtless stifled innovation.
The Chinese Taoists had exhortations (in the Tao Te Ching) against using labour saving devices (Pien 80).
The Muslims had a religion that promised virgins to holy warriors that died, and if you survived, you got to have multiple wives to breed your successful genes into the next generation. And so on recursively. Not unnaturally, they have a warlike culture that used conquered peoples as slaves (e.g. the Turkish empire prior to WWII).
What worries me is that those same labour saving military devices could so easily be turned against the 99%.
What paradigm will come to dominate education? There will ultimately be only two or three certifying organizations for each vocation. These organizations will produce marque qualifications of trusted standard, like Coca-Cola or Pepsi for soft drinks; McDonald's for Burgers.
The race has started. Microsoft and Novell have become the certifying organizations for certificates in computing. They have achieved this by publishing a syllabus and franchising a worldwide testing network. City & Guilds are paralleling that evolution. They seek trainers, and already offer franchised testing all over the world. The University of Minnesota has recently taken the first step toward becoming a worldwide agricultural university.
There is room at the top of each vocation for two or three testing authorities. Whoever captures recognition as the quality examiner will come to be the possessor of a marque that is comparable in value to the Netscape or Amazon or even Microsoft domain marques."
I feel somewhat vindicated by this article. I did not anticipate the dotcom bust or expect Netscape to fall under the monopoly onslaught of Microsoft's IE. And the MCSE appears to be of limited value, mainly used for the maintenance of Microsoft products.
Tertiary educators were too greedy to move to the online model as quickly as they could have. Those that further delay will risk sinking into relative obscurity and existing in the future as highly paid trainers for the marque institutions' qualifications.
Start out by halving the term of all existing & new copyright licences.
If, after a year that seems to be working, halve it again. Recursively.
Copyright is theft. And it is just not true that creative work would stop in the absence of copyright.
Motion picture companies make their money in theatres. DVDs etc are a trivial offshoot. Musicians can make a living playing live. Recordings would be free or cost 99c from their website, (See Apple) Artists could sell the original painting. Copies would be free advertising to make new works more valuable. Authors could make a living by publishing chapters on their website. Advertising would pay for their work. XKCD, Girl Genius, Questionable Content are proof that that is a workable model.
At the moment, the people who make the lion's share from copyright fees are the agents and distribution corporations. Not the artists.
There is a much better distribution model. Its called the internet. We must cut out the middle man.
I can see that you have not adjusted your thinking to the concept of
the absence of copyright.
For instance you wrote: "it's the copyright on it that legally
guarantees the source code will remain free."
Your software will be free if there is no copyright.
Then: "Without copyright, another organization could appropriate
it, close it up, and release a derivative work without so much as an
acknowledgement that they got it from me, costing me potential
reputation,"
Just release the closed version yourself, with credits embedded.
And really, its not so hard or expensive to set up a domain. Mine
cost me an old computer and the power to run it. UBUNTU is free, APACHE is free, FREEDNS is free. And a few
bucks a year to Godaddy for DNS
registry. As you can write code, doing all that should be
as easy as pi. (oops, pie).
And as an independent programmer, how can you have any street cred
without your own domain?
My point is & always was that it's not the 1000C operations temperature that will kill this project. The SOFC in car will more likely fail from power density from CH4 to wheels.(Weight & Volume of COFC + motors too high) per KW delivered at the wheels.
This (energy density) is an even greater problem with fuel cells that operate on Hydrogen, because liquid hydrogen, although energy dense as a liquid, must be stored at high pressures to reduce the space taken by fuel tanks to a reasonable volume. To maintain a high pressure requires a very heavy container.
I have some awareness of coding. First computer job was writing in PLAN, which was an ICL (ICT?) 1900 series language (well not really a language, used an interpreter straight back to machine code). Then out of computing for a while, ($ was lousy). Then a CS major & learned Pascal and taught BASIC, and wrote a small bit of mainframe software (VAX) then did a few postgrad subjects. Then went to other interests. My website is hosted on the computer in the basement.
I did look for your website. Unless you are lynx, or make amps, I could not find it. (Amps probably have some software.)
As a software programmer you do not need copyright. Unless you have such a valuable product as windows. Just put in a time switch and a referral back to your website. On the compiled program it won't be seen by a thief. That is what Microsoft do.
And don't tell me that someone might unpick your software. The economics of that don't work. Because if they are that good, they cost lots, or they could unpick it and change it enough (maybe even improve it) and release it themselves. This also applies to software jobs you might do. You could guarantee them protection as good as copyright.
Seeing the fuss between Google & Oracle, I am not so sure that copyright is protection anyhow.
So thanks for the confidence. And as for being a shill. A shill would of course deny being a shill, and an honest man would not expect me to believe his unsupported word about anything.
I am puzzled by how you mod 2 all the time. Do you have a second account or is there a higher rank than "Karma Good". I suppose I could read the manual, but that is a last resort.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you do not do your banking online
for:
1) "Voters need unrestricted access". Good point. We need publicly available computers. Here in Oz most municipal libraries have them.
2) & 3) & 4) & 5) see response above to "6) Checks if a voter can be mapped to at most one vote."
but to reiterate and expand:
In Oz, use the existing roll of voters to issue usernames/passwords. (I don't know what equivalent you have in US/UK etc, but if it's not secure, then why have you got it/not fixed it?) Voters then use that ac/pw to "log into" the vote computer, which keeps secure "vote accounts" much like an online banking account. The "vote accounts computer" database with encrypted names is available read only to anybody who wants to count & verify votes.
If a voter decides to change a vote prior to the "count", then that would be possible.
I think that answers 2,3,4,5.
The greatest weakness I see is the possibility of someone correlating a username with a voter by external (real world) factors. That could be combatted by changing usernames on a regular or time encrypted basis.
In Oz, we have an electoral roll. Every citizen is supposed to be registered. Once. Use that roll as a source for handing out encrypted identity numbers with passwords.
Encrypting identity hides the identity, but allows votes to be counted by a publicly available voters/voted file.
Is there a good package that
1) protects privacy
2) is online
3) allows voter to confirm or change their vote
4) allows anybody to count the votes
5) have I missed anything?
I do not know how he could get to Ecuador. Can he be carried in a political bag? I doubt the UK would accept him as political personnel. Whether ensconced in the Ecuador Embassy or in jail in the US he is an object lesson to those who would follow in his footsteps.
Here in Australia our wimpy Labour government is kowtowing to the US political powers and refusing to provide aid. New Zealanissas no better in the face of the Dotcom matter. I am quite surprised that the US was unable to obtain extradition from the UK but suspect that the political cost there might be too high.
Whatever, Julian, it was nice hearing from you. But you must be made an example of, to show that no one can get away with treading on the tail of a tiger. Specially not an upstart Aussie!
1. Society able to adapt. Yup. (Just build Dykes to hold back the ocean, grow food on the deserts that now get rain, etc. etc.)
2. Risks understood and can be mitigated. Yup, (just make sure it's not a shell company so you can sue if they aren't careful.)
3. Dependence on other nations for oil not a concern. Yup. (Have you noticed what happened to price of that oil substitute "gas".)
4. Public illiterate. Yup.
5. Lazy press. Yup.
6. Advocacy groups that manufacture fear. Surely not on Slashdot? (snigger).
"pretty close, the difference is music is still being made at a rate that can meet demand"
However the pipe between the well and the bowser is leaking like a siev.
While I do not believe that seat belts save lives, I do notice that my driving degrades while on a cellphone. So perhaps road statistics would improve if "detectors of cellphone users were widespread" here.
The UN ""Bill of Rights" article 12 states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy...".An opposite to "arbitrary" is "consistent" so there should be detectors everywhere. This little old lady performed an "arbitrary" interference, so it should not have been allowed.
The issue is not privacy. It is too much regulation. If people were arrested more frequently for breaking stupid regulations, then bad laws might get repealed.
"What about if that device compiles voice from vibrations from reflections in visible or infared spectrum that have ventured on to public property?! Are you going to brick all your Windows?!"
It works that way already. So like I said, better soundproofing.
And answering "This is about a government that's quickly making their way down the road to a totalitarian regime, and people like you are clearing the path for them."
Well the answer is, "who watches the watchers". Its the same problem governments are experiencing with drug imports etc. Allow the drugs in. Instead of protecting YOUR privacy, make the government reveal everything it's "invasions" reveal,
Somebody already said the best answer, which is "don't try to stop with legislation what can't be stopped with legislation. Just learn to live with it".
The UDHR is not worth the paper it's writ on. For example notice the word "arbitrary". Any freshman lawyer could dive a truckload of bandwidth through that hole.
OTOH it's precursor, the Rights Of Man had a few more teeth but said diddly about privacy. See http://www.barvennon.com/~liberty/index.html for a comparison.
And the only thing I would add. Any taxpayer funded "invasion of privacy" should be put in the public domain. I want to know the extent of their spying!
Problem for government: Qui observat vigilum.
And also, just install better soundproofing.
"theres a huge difference...." Not really. Just a matter of technology and chance. Last month a motorcyclist was busted in Sydney for using a cellphone. He was seen and photographed by a little old lady on a bus. She phoned it to the police, and he was busted.
Let's face it. We the people can't enforce privacy. There will alway be a bureaucrat who "HasTo Know" to stop "Terrorism" (or whatever).
I know it sounds crazy, but think about it. I suggest we don't put any restrictions on governments spending our tax dollars on observation. Instead make it open slather on the gathering of information in public places. But all of that information must be put into the public domain immediately.
Because this is the INFORMATION AGE and information is more valuable than feudal land ownership or money. (Just ask Sergei Brin). And the value and danger of information is enhanced by exclusivity.
And all of those reasons for privacy (at least all that I've heard) can be cancelled or ameliorated by the open slather policy.
With a second amendment It is two wolves discussing dinner with a well armed sheep.
The US culture is based on inventions and the application of those inventions to labor saving devices. When the US goes to war, it is natural that they apply that philosophy. War throughout history has been a major incentive to produce innovation.
Instead of innovation, the Indians created multiple classes within their culture which doubtless stifled innovation.
The Chinese Taoists had exhortations (in the Tao Te Ching) against using labour saving devices (Pien 80).
The Muslims had a religion that promised virgins to holy warriors that died, and if you survived, you got to have multiple wives to breed your successful genes into the next generation. And so on recursively. Not unnaturally, they have a warlike culture that used conquered peoples as slaves (e.g. the Turkish empire prior to WWII).
What worries me is that those same labour saving military devices could so easily be turned against the 99%.
Because "Dubya" wasnt as smart as Daddy. Daddy booted them outa Kuwait, then left them to stew in their own juice.
Back in 1999 I read a paper on "Using the WWW for education" at IVETA http://www.iveta.org/members/index.php/IVETA-Basics/What-is-IVETA.html
In the conclusion I wrote:
"What Will Really Happen?
What paradigm will come to dominate education?
There will ultimately be only two or three certifying organizations for each vocation. These organizations will produce marque qualifications of trusted standard, like Coca-Cola or Pepsi for soft drinks; McDonald's for Burgers.
The race has started. Microsoft and Novell have become the certifying organizations for certificates in computing. They have achieved this by publishing a syllabus and franchising a worldwide testing network. City & Guilds are paralleling that evolution. They seek trainers, and already offer franchised testing all over the world. The University of Minnesota has recently taken the first step toward becoming a worldwide agricultural university.
There is room at the top of each vocation for two or three testing authorities. Whoever captures recognition as the quality examiner will come to be the possessor of a marque that is comparable in value to the Netscape or Amazon or even Microsoft domain marques."
I feel somewhat vindicated by this article. I did not anticipate the dotcom bust or expect Netscape to fall under the monopoly onslaught of Microsoft's IE. And the MCSE appears to be of limited value, mainly used for the maintenance of Microsoft products.
Tertiary educators were too greedy to move to the online model as quickly as they could have. Those that further delay will risk sinking into relative obscurity and existing in the future as highly paid trainers for the marque institutions' qualifications.
"No copyright means that my own wishes for my own creations can't be respected... and without copyright nobody even owes me any credit"
not true^2
Figure it out. The answers have already been given above.
Start out by halving the term of all existing & new copyright licences.
If, after a year that seems to be working, halve it again. Recursively.
Copyright is theft. And it is just not true that creative work would stop in the absence of copyright.
Motion picture companies make their money in theatres. DVDs etc are a trivial offshoot.
Musicians can make a living playing live. Recordings would be free or cost 99c from their website, (See Apple)
Artists could sell the original painting. Copies would be free advertising to make new works more valuable. Authors could make a living by publishing chapters on their website. Advertising would pay for their work. XKCD, Girl Genius, Questionable Content are proof that that is a workable model.
At the moment, the people who make the lion's share from copyright fees are the agents and distribution corporations. Not the artists.
There is a much better distribution model. Its called the internet. We must cut out the middle man.
huh?? Anyhow, you don't own the land. Try not paying land taxes for a few years and the government will take it from you.
I can see that you have not adjusted your thinking to the concept of the absence of copyright.
For instance you wrote: "it's the copyright on it that legally guarantees the source code will remain free."
Your software will be free if there is no copyright.
Then: "Without copyright, another organization could appropriate it, close it up, and release a derivative work without so much as an acknowledgement that they got it from me, costing me potential reputation,"
Just release the closed version yourself, with credits embedded.
And really, its not so hard or expensive to set up a domain. Mine cost me an old computer and the power to run it. UBUNTU is free, APACHE is free, FREEDNS is free. And a few bucks a year to Godaddy for DNS registry. As you can write code, doing all that should be as easy as pi. (oops, pie).
And as an independent programmer, how can you have any street cred without your own domain?
"The SOFC is made of brittle ceramics which cost a bundle. Hit a bump on the road and you probably cracked it."
Maybe the pilot model is that expensive & fragile. But there are tough (not brittle) ceramics that can withstand those temperatures. http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/PressReleases/feature/tuffceramic/uts.html
My point is & always was that it's not the 1000C operations temperature that will kill this project. The SOFC in car will more likely fail from power density from CH4 to wheels.(Weight & Volume of COFC + motors too high) per KW delivered at the wheels.
This (energy density) is an even greater problem with fuel cells that operate on Hydrogen, because liquid hydrogen, although energy dense as a liquid, must be stored at high pressures to reduce the space taken by fuel tanks to a reasonable volume. To maintain a high pressure requires a very heavy container.
Thank you for your comprehensive response.
I have some awareness of coding. First computer job was writing in PLAN, which was an ICL (ICT?) 1900 series language (well not really a language, used an interpreter straight back to machine code). Then out of computing for a while, ($ was lousy). Then a CS major & learned Pascal and taught BASIC, and wrote a small bit of mainframe software (VAX) then did a few postgrad subjects. Then went to other interests. My website is hosted on the computer in the basement.
I did look for your website. Unless you are lynx, or make amps, I could not find it. (Amps probably have some software.)
As a software programmer you do not need copyright. Unless you have such a valuable product as windows. Just put in a time switch and a referral back to your website. On the compiled program it won't be seen by a thief. That is what Microsoft do.
And don't tell me that someone might unpick your software. The economics of that don't work. Because if they are that good, they cost lots, or they could unpick it and change it enough (maybe even improve it) and release it themselves. This also applies to software jobs you might do. You could guarantee them protection as good as copyright.
Seeing the fuss between Google & Oracle, I am not so sure that copyright is protection anyhow.
So thanks for the confidence. And as for being a shill. A shill would of course deny being a shill, and an honest man would not expect me to believe his unsupported word about anything.
I am puzzled by how you mod 2 all the time. Do you have a second account or is there a higher rank than "Karma Good". I suppose I could read the manual, but that is a last resort.