I really don't understand the other AC who said, "fuck you, 1%."
Maybe I can help. It seems (and this is just my personal observation) that our culture has the pervasive notion that "If you have more than I have, you must only have gotten it through evil means". However, "If you have less than I have, you really need to try harder, after all, I worked damned hard for what I got."
Of course, both sentiments are usually fallacious, and both put the individual in the spot where they stand to be the model individual. It's absurd, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it seems all too common.
I realize that it's unpopular to be less than sensationalist about this topic, but I read the article, and the truth is, voting machines didn't wreak anything in Maryland.
Some negligent poll workers left some cards behind in a warehouse, and "wreaked" (if you will) inconvenience on some voters. The polls are open an hour later to allow them to vote.
So any citizens who are convinced that the primaries haven't already been decided, can stop on their way home and play democracy.
"I can't link the initial article,...Diebold has flooded the voting machine marketplace with cheap, crappy technology that is demonstrably insecure"
You feel qualified to call Diebold's technology cheap and crappy, but you can't link the initial article? That almost sounds like a credibility gap.
Diebold's machines are not demonstrably insecure. The study led by Avi Ruben from Johns Hopkins would not have been accepted at most high schools. It was fundamentally flawed. It had the Johns Hopkins name on it, so it enjoyed presumed credibility. They reviewed and tested code (not machines) that they pulled down from a public FTP site. They had no assurance that the code they reviewed had ever been used, or would ever be used in an actual election system. The study was riddled with assumptions. (IF this code was used and IF the user (voter) had some means of input to the device, and IF they could stay in this private voting booth long enough to connect that input device to the voting device and IF they used that to access the database and IF they were able to give themselves write access to the database, THEN they might be able to vote more than once. After they determined enough of the schema to implement their sinister plan.) Dr. Ruben, at the time of the study, was on the board of advisors in some capacity for one of Diebold's competitors. That alone would establish a conflict of interest anywhere else in academia. Anybody who believes we'll see a totally secure machine for elections is deluding themselves. Security is the result of a SYSTEM. All parts of the system are responsible, from the vendors, to the poll workers to the registrar to the voters. The only real, valid criticisms against Diebold is that these machines do need to produce a paper trail, (which apparently they do now, they didn't when the original study was done) and the way they reacted to the study. They should have had a better PR guy out front.
"If they can't stand being handled by unauthorized personnel, then what are we to expect after leaving them standing in a public place all day"
Presumably, the third party inspectors would be looking at the internals of the machine, and possibly the code that's running it. The voters who would be using the machine in a public place all day would be using the interface, nothing more. At least, that's what I'd expect. You can see a difference between the two activities, can't you?
"My tone is hostile because this conversation gets hostile pretty quickly"
Almost every conversation on/. gets hostile pretty quickly. Even the ones about Natalie Portman.
"In a democracy, there is only one thing that should absolutely be the property and purview of all the people all the time, and that's the integrity of our vote. Without it, we don't have jack shit."
That's a lovely ideal. And you're right, it should be. But it never has been. Not from George Washington to the present. Since we've never had the absolute integrity of our vote, should we then say that we've never had jack shit? I don't believe that. Elections have always been riddled with inaccuracies of one sort or another. I think it's better today than it's ever been. It's simply that continual gradual improvement doesn't grab headlines the way insider political intrigue does.
I think the International Standard Version (ISV) does that. It is a very recent translation. In fact, I don't think they've finished translating the Old Testament portion yet. The New Testament portion is available though, in hard-copy or electronic forms. You can see what texts they use as their base texts at the Translation Principles page on their website: ISV
The study the article references (by Johns Hopkins ) can hardly be considered a valid study. For an institution as highly regarded as Johns Hopkins, you'd think they'd have a substantive case before publishing such a study. The thing was replete with guesses and "what-ifs." They set up the software on a Windows PC, which is not the way the software is used in the real world. In fact, it's not even the same OS they use in the real world. Diebold, the company who makes the software, has (predictably) published 2 responses to the study. Both of them are.pdf.
Of course, you'd expect them to refute the study, but their claims are valid ones. You can't fairly critique a system unless you can duplicate the process as closely as possible from start to finish. JH didn't do that.
However, all that said, I still agree with their initial assertion that all election software should be open sourced. Even though, as one poster said, the code would be incredibly, mind-numbingly boring to read, it would still be worth it to be able to have the code reviewed.
The problem is... you can't vote anyone out of office. You can only vote their opponents in, which effectively pushes them out, but we have no assurances that the opponents will be any more "tech-friendly", or for that matter, "tech-aware" than the incumbents.
What we should do, is somehow let them (the politicos) know that we constitute a significant voting block. After that, we could distribute surveys on key issues that matter to us, and publish responses like other SIGs do. It probably wouldn't change much, but at least it would let them know that we're paying attention to what they do.
Another approach would be to put some techies in office. But I can't think of any that would be willing to take those kinds of jobs.
As a fundamentalist Christian, and an ordained Southern Baptist minister with an MS in Software Engineering, I'd be happy to offer my thoughts on your question.
First off, I would agree whole-heartedly with the previous poster who commented that much depends on whether the life discovered was (is) intelligent, and whether or not it has a soul.
As far as what I think about stories like this... I don't find any conflicts between my faith and these kinds of articles. The Bible makes mention of creatures such as the Nephilim who lived or visited Earth prior to the flood. And any Christian who would take the time to thoroughly study the Bible would be compelled (I think) to conclude that there is much that we don't know or understand about our situation in the grand scheme of things. If you're going to accept that there are angels, seraphim, cherubim, demons, etc... then they, by definition are "extra-terrestial." I do believe in a Creator, and that Jesus Christ was the Creator incarnate. Simple logic would lead one to believe that if He created life here, he could, at His discretion, have created it elsewhere. (One reason I run seti@home, just out of curiosity)
A thorough study of the Bible must entail at least a passing familiarity with the language(s) from which the version you're reading was translated. The gospel of John tells us that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. (...For God so loved the world...) The Greek word which was translated "world" is "kosmos: the world, the universe."
Like others, I'm saddened to find Christians, or for that matter, anyone, who seems to cling to the belief that they have the final answer to any question. From the Pope on down, none of us can pretend to even begin to comprehend the magnificence of God. Therefore, when I see articles like the one we're discussing, it thrills me to see that we've uncovered one more small piece of the mystery of God's creation.
One final note, I've had bad experiences with fundamentalists just like others have. Any group of people will have their lowest common denominators. Scientists can be just as dogmatic about their theories as many zealots are about their theology. Read / study the Bible for yourself, and draw your conclusions.
We use the Fox Graphics Library in our shop quite a bit, and a good, throrough reference on that would be invaluable. As far as I know, there's no hard copy documentation available, it's all on line. And most of us would prefer to have the information in book form.
I'd hack for the feds. It'd be nice, though if they'd cover my student loan debt in return. Seriously, teachers, health care professionals, and other groups can have their student loans wiped out by offering their services in underpriviledged areas, but computer science types can't really go code in the ghetto and expect the government to wipe out their loans. I'd be happy to offer any help I can, debts cancelled or not, but still, it'd be nice.
Outstanding expression of your goals. Expressed elegantly in clean, aesthetically-pleasing, efficient statements. In short, I suspect this is the whole ball of wax when it comes to programming. I'm brand new at it, and you've quite eloquently mapped out precisely how I feel about programming, and why I enjoy it. I think I'll hang on to this as a reminder for those frustrating days when I wonder why I chose this field. ( which are few & far between )
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand the other AC who said, "fuck you, 1%."
Maybe I can help. It seems (and this is just my personal observation) that our culture has the pervasive notion that "If you have more than I have, you must only have gotten it through evil means". However, "If you have less than I have, you really need to try harder, after all, I worked damned hard for what I got."
Of course, both sentiments are usually fallacious, and both put the individual in the spot where they stand to be the model individual. It's absurd, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it seems all too common.
Yeah, -- democratic republic is what I was taught.
I realize that it's unpopular to be less than sensationalist about this topic, but I read the article, and the truth is, voting machines didn't wreak anything in Maryland.
Some negligent poll workers left some cards behind in a warehouse, and "wreaked" (if you will) inconvenience on some voters. The polls are open an hour later to allow them to vote.
So any citizens who are convinced that the primaries haven't already been decided, can stop on their way home and play democracy.
"WHY IS ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS USING A BLOODY COMPUTER TO DO THIS"
Because a few years ago, some retirees in Florida had trouble with step 2.
You feel qualified to call Diebold's technology cheap and crappy, but you can't link the initial article? That almost sounds like a credibility gap.
Diebold's machines are not demonstrably insecure. The study led by Avi Ruben from Johns Hopkins would not have been accepted at most high schools. It was fundamentally flawed. It had the Johns Hopkins name on it, so it enjoyed presumed credibility. They reviewed and tested code (not machines) that they pulled down from a public FTP site. They had no assurance that the code they reviewed had ever been used, or would ever be used in an actual election system. The study was riddled with assumptions. (IF this code was used and IF the user (voter) had some means of input to the device, and IF they could stay in this private voting booth long enough to connect that input device to the voting device and IF they used that to access the database and IF they were able to give themselves write access to the database, THEN they might be able to vote more than once. After they determined enough of the schema to implement their sinister plan.) Dr. Ruben, at the time of the study, was on the board of advisors in some capacity for one of Diebold's competitors. That alone would establish a conflict of interest anywhere else in academia. Anybody who believes we'll see a totally secure machine for elections is deluding themselves. Security is the result of a SYSTEM. All parts of the system are responsible, from the vendors, to the poll workers to the registrar to the voters. The only real, valid criticisms against Diebold is that these machines do need to produce a paper trail, (which apparently they do now, they didn't when the original study was done) and the way they reacted to the study. They should have had a better PR guy out front.
"If they can't stand being handled by unauthorized personnel, then what are we to expect after leaving them standing in a public place all day"
Presumably, the third party inspectors would be looking at the internals of the machine, and possibly the code that's running it. The voters who would be using the machine in a public place all day would be using the interface, nothing more. At least, that's what I'd expect. You can see a difference between the two activities, can't you?
"My tone is hostile because this conversation gets hostile pretty quickly"
Almost every conversation on /. gets hostile pretty quickly. Even the ones about Natalie Portman.
"In a democracy, there is only one thing that should absolutely be the property and purview of all the people all the time, and that's the integrity of our vote. Without it, we don't have jack shit."
That's a lovely ideal. And you're right, it should be. But it never has been. Not from George Washington to the present. Since we've never had the absolute integrity of our vote, should we then say that we've never had jack shit? I don't believe that. Elections have always been riddled with inaccuracies of one sort or another. I think it's better today than it's ever been. It's simply that continual gradual improvement doesn't grab headlines the way insider political intrigue does.
What can we do to prevent them from no longer being available?
MAME?
Well said. Wish I had mod points right now.
I think the International Standard Version (ISV) does that. It is a very recent translation. In fact, I don't think they've finished translating the Old Testament portion yet. The New Testament portion is available though, in hard-copy or electronic forms. You can see what texts they use as their base texts at the Translation Principles page on their website: ISV
The study the article references (by Johns Hopkins ) can hardly be considered a valid study. For an institution as highly regarded as Johns Hopkins, you'd think they'd have a substantive case before publishing such a study. The thing was replete with guesses and "what-ifs." They set up the software on a Windows PC, which is not the way the software is used in the real world. In fact, it's not even the same OS they use in the real world. Diebold, the company who makes the software, has (predictably) published 2 responses to the study. Both of them are .pdf.
Follow up statement
and
Technical Response
Of course, you'd expect them to refute the study, but their claims are valid ones. You can't fairly critique a system unless you can duplicate the process as closely as possible from start to finish. JH didn't do that.
However, all that said, I still agree with their initial assertion that all election software should be open sourced. Even though, as one poster said, the code would be incredibly, mind-numbingly boring to read, it would still be worth it to be able to have the code reviewed.
So... ROTK will be employing a Shock-n-Awe campaign?
Put the options on a
.. but the trailers for this thing have made it look more like Baywatch in spaceships
Hmmm... sorry, I don't see the downside there.
No, I think it's supposed to be "GNU_TV"
The storylines really just started getting into childish "Windows Sucks! Ha!". Honestly, I don't see how people can still read it.
/. ?
And this is not a recurrent theme on
Don't laugh, you may end up being able to buy a Ganesh carved from Moon Rock on E-bay.
What we should do, is somehow let them (the politicos) know that we constitute a significant voting block. After that, we could distribute surveys on key issues that matter to us, and publish responses like other SIGs do. It probably wouldn't change much, but at least it would let them know that we're paying attention to what they do.
Another approach would be to put some techies in office. But I can't think of any that would be willing to take those kinds of jobs.
You should change your nic to marvin.
First off, I would agree whole-heartedly with the previous poster who commented that much depends on whether the life discovered was (is) intelligent, and whether or not it has a soul.
As far as what I think about stories like this... I don't find any conflicts between my faith and these kinds of articles. The Bible makes mention of creatures such as the Nephilim who lived or visited Earth prior to the flood. And any Christian who would take the time to thoroughly study the Bible would be compelled (I think) to conclude that there is much that we don't know or understand about our situation in the grand scheme of things. If you're going to accept that there are angels, seraphim, cherubim, demons, etc... then they, by definition are "extra-terrestial." I do believe in a Creator, and that Jesus Christ was the Creator incarnate. Simple logic would lead one to believe that if He created life here, he could, at His discretion, have created it elsewhere. (One reason I run seti@home, just out of curiosity)
A thorough study of the Bible must entail at least a passing familiarity with the language(s) from which the version you're reading was translated. The gospel of John tells us that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. (...For God so loved the world...) The Greek word which was translated "world" is "kosmos: the world, the universe."
Like others, I'm saddened to find Christians, or for that matter, anyone, who seems to cling to the belief that they have the final answer to any question. From the Pope on down, none of us can pretend to even begin to comprehend the magnificence of God. Therefore, when I see articles like the one we're discussing, it thrills me to see that we've uncovered one more small piece of the mystery of God's creation.
One final note, I've had bad experiences with fundamentalists just like others have. Any group of people will have their lowest common denominators. Scientists can be just as dogmatic about their theories as many zealots are about their theology. Read / study the Bible for yourself, and draw your conclusions.
Hope I haven't been too tangential.
Nothing original, -- just a heartfelt congratulations to the both of you. ( Kathleen Fent -> Kathleen Taco. Oy, she must love you. )
We use the Fox Graphics Library in our shop quite a bit, and a good, throrough reference on that would be invaluable. As far as I know, there's no hard copy documentation available, it's all on line. And most of us would prefer to have the information in book form.
I'd hack for the feds. It'd be nice, though if they'd cover my student loan debt in return. Seriously, teachers, health care professionals, and other groups can have their student loans wiped out by offering their services in underpriviledged areas, but computer science types can't really go code in the ghetto and expect the government to wipe out their loans. I'd be happy to offer any help I can, debts cancelled or not, but still, it'd be nice.
here's my guess: 2001-03-15 04:12:37
Outstanding expression of your goals. Expressed elegantly in clean, aesthetically-pleasing, efficient statements. In short, I suspect this is the whole ball of wax when it comes to programming. I'm brand new at it, and you've quite eloquently mapped out precisely how I feel about programming, and why I enjoy it. I think I'll hang on to this as a reminder for those frustrating days when I wonder why I chose this field. ( which are few & far between )