Why are you moving things around so often? I have an eight port KVM that's filled up, and cabling is a disaster behind the computers. But that's where they live, and once they're there, I have no reason to move them until I move to a new home.
Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.
With one more stipulation: No Touch Screens. Use real physical buttons next to an LCD display, like we've all used on ATMs for decades now. Touch screens go out of calibration, leading to opportunities for all sorts of shenanigans.
A judges job is to enforce the law. If he's not enforcing the law as written, he's a bad judge. If he's enforcing bad law as written, he's a bad person.
this exploit requires: knowing what cryptographic software is being run, the presence of Xen and an apparent security hole therein, and lucky core colocation of the VMs in an environment that could easily have dozens of VMs running against more than a dozen cores "over the course of a few hours".
It doesn't seem that far fetched to me. Call up the cloud provider as a customer and ask what technology they use. If they say Xen, go ahead, if not find another cloud provider.
Then you guess what cryptography software is likely to be in use. AES on LUKS is a very common setup. Since multiple VMs are likely to be sharing the same hardware, this increases your chance of a hit.
Then you wait. Yes, it might take a while for the two VMs to coincide on the same CPU, but it will happen.
In order for Linux creator Linus Torvalds and other key kernel developers to remain independent, the Linux Foundation sponsors them so they can work full-time on improving Linux.
You're right, Obama never claimed credit for inventing the idea. But it's still a Republican idea, and Obama ran on a platform of change after a Republican presidency. He endorsed single payer during the campaign, only to abandon it immediately after getting elected.
But the real problem isn't that we don't have single payer, it's that Obama denied single payer advocates any sort of access to the debate whatsoever. That's where Obama's betrayal is clearest. An honest agent for change would have had both insurance industry representatives AND groups like PHNP offering input on the new health care law. But Obama didn't.
"Stealing" ideas? Anybody who bothered to pay attention knew exactly where the ideas behind "obamacare" came from, and that they had been implemented in Mass.
Yes, it was a Republican idea to begin with. If Obama wanted what was best for the country, if he really wanted to deliver on his promise of hope and change, he would have started from single payer and moved to the right as necessary, getting something in return for each move to the right. Instead, his reforms amount to little more than a large gift of healthy young customers to the insurance industry due to the mandate.
I think among other things Obama proposed this set of reforms because he actually sought compromise with serious Republicans on free-market heath care reform.
He probably did. By doing so he fucked over the single payer advocates that got him elected.
But there are no serious Republicans, as your post proves. If any of you had any balls at all, or gave a damn about the issues at stake
Say what? You talk about Republicans in the first sentence, and then use the second person pronoun in the second sentence. What part of my post made you think I was a Republican?
I have. I've never met anyone who claimed the law was a reason they didn't do heroin. People who are likely to do heroin aren't likely to give much thought to consequences. Therefore they're not going to give much thought to breaking the law.
There's nobody out there just waiting for drugs to be legalized to get themselves addicted. People who want drugs go and get them. This is supported by the fact that wherever drugs are decriminalized (even heroin), use and the associated harms are reduced.
In fact, the harms caused by criminalization are so bad that even if we saw an increase in addiction society would be better off on the whole after decriminalization. Clean, cheap, pharmaceutical grade heroin means that there will be no accidental overdoses. No blood borne diseases due to shared needles. No robberies will be necessary to get a fix when the government supplies your drug for pennies a day. Hell, with known doses, a steady supply, and the acquisition of tolerance many heroin addicts can even function as valued employees and family members.
Addiction doesn't stop users of caffeine or nicotine from contributing to society. There are even a large number of functional alcoholics. We'd be better off if we allowed the heroin addicts among us to contribute to society rather than persecuting them.
Crazy religion is redundant. I'd love to have a country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion. But as atheists are consistently polled as one of the least liked groups, that's not likely to happen in my lifetime.
You can be equally sure that the corporate Rape of the American middle class (and poor, why does everyone always forget about the poor?) will continue to get worse under a second Obama term.
But just about every election is a choice between two flawed individuals.
No sir. There are at least four other individuals you can choose from, most of which have fewer flaws than the two you refer to. Make a real choice on Tuesday. Tell the oligarchy you've had enough.
If you haven't noticed, the bombs have been dropping for over a decade now. Obama even started dropping them directly on US citizens. These things are life and death, and we've been choosing death in election after election.
You don't give Obama much credit then. Republicans have been playing hardball since they impeached Clinton. That's 15 years where they've put political games ahead of country. And there were no signals at all that they would change in 2008, and plenty of reasons to believe that
No, Obama's smarter than that. He knew exactly what he was getting into, and that he could promise anything and blame Republican intransigence for not actually delivering.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you moving things around so often? I have an eight port KVM that's filled up, and cabling is a disaster behind the computers. But that's where they live, and once they're there, I have no reason to move them until I move to a new home.
If I can run a browser, I can run a SSH client.
How do you run an SSH client on a kiosk?
Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.
With one more stipulation: No Touch Screens. Use real physical buttons next to an LCD display, like we've all used on ATMs for decades now. Touch screens go out of calibration, leading to opportunities for all sorts of shenanigans.
Who said all laws were bad? Your lack of reading comprehension tells us that you are stupid.
A judges job is to enforce the law. If he's not enforcing the law as written, he's a bad judge. If he's enforcing bad law as written, he's a bad person.
The problem with X3 and Eve are their learning curves. They're vertical cliffs.
As was Elite.
Any judge in office today is enforcing bad law. This means they are bad people. Throw them all out.
this exploit requires: knowing what cryptographic software is being run, the presence of Xen and an apparent security hole therein, and lucky core colocation of the VMs in an environment that could easily have dozens of VMs running against more than a dozen cores "over the course of a few hours".
It doesn't seem that far fetched to me. Call up the cloud provider as a customer and ask what technology they use. If they say Xen, go ahead, if not find another cloud provider.
Then you guess what cryptography software is likely to be in use. AES on LUKS is a very common setup. Since multiple VMs are likely to be sharing the same hardware, this increases your chance of a hit.
Then you wait. Yes, it might take a while for the two VMs to coincide on the same CPU, but it will happen.
Anywhere where simple possession can get you the death penalty is a shithole.
Usually you have to budget 2x salary for the total cost of an employee.
Why doesn't a tablet need a file system browser? Are you not going to put any files on it?
From your wiki link:
I don't see how $500K can even be that much to the Linux foundation. That's not enough to pay 5 good developers for a year.
You're right, Obama never claimed credit for inventing the idea. But it's still a Republican idea, and Obama ran on a platform of change after a Republican presidency. He endorsed single payer during the campaign, only to abandon it immediately after getting elected.
But the real problem isn't that we don't have single payer, it's that Obama denied single payer advocates any sort of access to the debate whatsoever. That's where Obama's betrayal is clearest. An honest agent for change would have had both insurance industry representatives AND groups like PHNP offering input on the new health care law. But Obama didn't.
But as time goes on, those purely mechanical vehicles will get rarer and rarer, to the point where not everyone is going to be able to afford one.
Which is exactly what we are going to see with general purpose computers, when Microsoft finally locks down the bootloader.
It's not a good idea. Single payer is a good idea.
"Stealing" ideas? Anybody who bothered to pay attention knew exactly where the ideas behind "obamacare" came from, and that they had been implemented in Mass.
Yes, it was a Republican idea to begin with. If Obama wanted what was best for the country, if he really wanted to deliver on his promise of hope and change, he would have started from single payer and moved to the right as necessary, getting something in return for each move to the right. Instead, his reforms amount to little more than a large gift of healthy young customers to the insurance industry due to the mandate.
I think among other things Obama proposed this set of reforms because he actually sought compromise with serious Republicans on free-market heath care reform.
He probably did. By doing so he fucked over the single payer advocates that got him elected.
But there are no serious Republicans, as your post proves. If any of you had any balls at all, or gave a damn about the issues at stake
Say what? You talk about Republicans in the first sentence, and then use the second person pronoun in the second sentence. What part of my post made you think I was a Republican?
I have. I've never met anyone who claimed the law was a reason they didn't do heroin. People who are likely to do heroin aren't likely to give much thought to consequences. Therefore they're not going to give much thought to breaking the law.
There's nobody out there just waiting for drugs to be legalized to get themselves addicted. People who want drugs go and get them. This is supported by the fact that wherever drugs are decriminalized (even heroin), use and the associated harms are reduced.
In fact, the harms caused by criminalization are so bad that even if we saw an increase in addiction society would be better off on the whole after decriminalization. Clean, cheap, pharmaceutical grade heroin means that there will be no accidental overdoses. No blood borne diseases due to shared needles. No robberies will be necessary to get a fix when the government supplies your drug for pennies a day. Hell, with known doses, a steady supply, and the acquisition of tolerance many heroin addicts can even function as valued employees and family members.
Addiction doesn't stop users of caffeine or nicotine from contributing to society. There are even a large number of functional alcoholics. We'd be better off if we allowed the heroin addicts among us to contribute to society rather than persecuting them.
Please vote third party. If you won't vote third party, stay home. Voting for either D or R harms America.
because we have been raised in a country that has historically been pretty suspicious of government.
We're only suspicious of government when it wants to help people. When it wants to kill people, Americans love government.
Crazy religion is redundant. I'd love to have a country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion. But as atheists are consistently polled as one of the least liked groups, that's not likely to happen in my lifetime.
You can be equally sure that the corporate Rape of the American middle class (and poor, why does everyone always forget about the poor?) will continue to get worse under a second Obama term.
But just about every election is a choice between two flawed individuals.
No sir. There are at least four other individuals you can choose from, most of which have fewer flaws than the two you refer to. Make a real choice on Tuesday. Tell the oligarchy you've had enough.
If you haven't noticed, the bombs have been dropping for over a decade now. Obama even started dropping them directly on US citizens. These things are life and death, and we've been choosing death in election after election.
You don't give Obama much credit then. Republicans have been playing hardball since they impeached Clinton. That's 15 years where they've put political games ahead of country. And there were no signals at all that they would change in 2008, and plenty of reasons to believe that
No, Obama's smarter than that. He knew exactly what he was getting into, and that he could promise anything and blame Republican intransigence for not actually delivering.