How bout we rid of the regressive 15% job tax we have here in America, before we bitch too much about corporations hiring foreigners that do the same job for less money.
Most of the tax I'm referring too is oxymoronically known as the "Social Security" tax.
this is not just security through obscurity. this is also more/different key.
two ways to get 0wn3d r:
1) they know your key. 2) they know how to not need your key.
there is some obscurity to this, but if instead of closing the "knock" ports, you instead replied with "successfully knocked on port 9834" (for all your unused ports), and sent them a link to this article, you still have gained extra key bits.
In the face of (2), however, you are much better off. They have to be clever enough to defeat your sshd and the knock protocol at the same time.
I'm thinking diffie-helman carried out using the port numbers that you try to hit as the transmission channel could be kind of cool. not sure if it useful, but it would be cool.
If we assume that we are not printing out the voter's vote, then we must give them everything else, plus we must give them exactly how the vote was encoded.
I'm not assuming that. I'm saying print the whole thing out, including a big-ass random number, in a OCR-consumable format, If and only If it is requested.
If you make the random number big enough, this defeats the brute force approach to figuring out how somebody voted.
(Even if you ask the voter to provide some secret, it can be beaten out of them, and it can be trivially positively determined whether a given secret is the one in the hash; this is one of those cases where more security is bad; see how making cars harder to steal has increased carjackings, a far more dangerous crime.)
the random number is the secret. don't memorize it. if somebody steals the receipt, then yes they will know how you voted. if that bothers you, as a voter, then don't get one. If an individual sees verifiability as more important than anonymity, then that should be up to them. If only a small fraction of the votes were actually verified, this would increase reliability of the system, even for those who chose anonymity.
Thus, we are still giving the voter a piece of paper that confirms exactly how they voted, making them susceptible to all vote-selling and other such nasty scams.
Yes this could allow people to be paid for their votes. I think if somebody is allowed to do something, they should be allowed to do it for money.
Seems like most votes are already bought in one form or another anyways, and those that aren't aren't for sale. Lets make sure they have to at least go through the motions though. If we don't figure out how to verify the voting, they aren't going to be bought and sold anymore, because they just aren't going to matter at all.
I think you do present the problem pretty well though. If we insist on enforcing anonymity instead of allowing it, then we also throw away verifiability. If we throw away verifiability, we shouldn't be surprised that our voting system is corrupt, unstrustworthy or.. ummm... unverifiable.
explain why you can't also take a hash of the name of the voter? and the time (down to the nano-second) and place (down to # of the voting booth)? and a vote counter for that machine? and then as much random padding as you need (which gets printed out with the receipt)?
then all the hashes are posted on a website somewhere, so you can verify from home that you vote was counted.
Always thought its weird how some accents are easier for some poepole to decode.
E.g. I can understand pretty well (what I condsider to be) a pretty heavy Indian, German, Scottish or Irish accent.
Just a smidge of Chineese or French though and I'm asking them to repeat themselves every other sentence (or just nodding and pretending I understood).
Side note: cool thing about Indians is that when I have trouble understanding them its almost always because of the stress pattern in a long word, but if I say it back to them a few times how I think it should be said they usually adjust in real time.
Krugman is a Keynesian. I don't consider that to be a free-marketer. I don't really give a flip if that makes me 'far-right' or not.
see: this
for a pretty funny (well funny for an Austrian Economics blog) bashing of krugman, which also puts it into a light that, I believe, highlights how much information is lost projecting this onto a 'left-right' spectrum.
I had a whole big flame reply written and had the mouse pointer over the submit button, and was previewing one last time before I realized that it had to be a troll.
If you hadn't talked about writing Doom in VB, I think you had me, although the thing about the regexes should have been an instant give away
>And let's look at it from the PR aspect. Who does the (flag-waving, Bush-voting, PATRIOT-supporting) >US Citizen trust more? The government, or a corporate consortium?
You are assuming the two are always distinguishable. I think the Sonny Bono Act is a good example where trying to separate the government from the corporate consortium makes no sense
but I would NOT want to be involved in trying to debug a Makefile that was causing my machine to not boot properply. And I'm sure people who don't like dorking with Makefiles would feel even stronger about that. Just seems like it could get pretty nasty.
>Of course, books are generally unwilling, except in extreme cases, to spot one team
thats in pro.
In college point spreads of 35 or 45 aren't unheard of. And those lines are usually pretty sharp (i.e. a posteriori seem to be near the median outcome.... so there is no +EV bet). actually if you forced me to bet on the first college game this year with a point spread over 30, I'd take the favorite.
but this is a controlled experiment, if you are willing to grant me the fact that having more hardware increases the probability of software problems. If thats really where your sticking point is (as in precious obviosubly facetious, and pretty funny reply), then OK. Otherwise I don't see what the problem is.
And I think the experiment has been reproduced in several other places. XP crashes. Linux doesn't. The hardware-blamers are the ones relying on anecdotal evidence.
this seems like the best place currently avaliable to do this.
you mother fuckers who say 'windows XP is very stable, its only hardware problems that cause problems' are full of shit.
I'm a computer science major from MIT. I've got two boxes that I built my self. One has windows xp the other has linux (distrubution unimportant). Hardware wise they are exactly the same except for the fact that the linux box has 2 cd drives (one writable) while the windows box only has one (readable). I had to go and find special nvidia driver shit for both of them. other than that everything claims to be honky dory on both boxes.
My linux box has crashed twice in the last two years, both times when netscape freaked out. the fucking XP box crashes daily. And it won't recover from the last crash. It will take hours to days to recover from this, if I don't end up physically putting the hard drive in my linux box just to get the data I care about.
So to all you pieces of shit out there who ever defended any microsoft operating system:
we aren't in court. we are trying to nip Orwellian degradation of the language in the bud right here. Sorry if its already occurred in the courts.
yes fair use is my godamn affirmative right.
the copyright privelege does not extend to fair use. In a supposedely free country I can copy bits from one CD to another in the privacy of my own home , as long as copyright doesn't prevent it. And copyright doesn't prevent it.
The argument about the legalisms would be interesting if we didn't also know that thats a buncha horseshit because the way it really works is whoever hires the best lawyers wins. Any court can and does read any law to mean anything all the damn time.
ya I hate it when my taxes don't go up. Why can't more of my hard earned money go to fund the parasite classes? Paying for things like roads, when we could be spending more money on superviser of the supervisor of the guy in charge of the 'my-two-daddies' seminar tought to 7 year olds, what the hell are they thinking?
Another thing you can do to any company you don't like is to buy 1 share of stock. Then they have to send you reports all the time, and ballots when there are shareholder votes. The ballots come in self addressed stamped envelopes which you should always send back voting a straight party ticket against the reccomendation of the board.
If you happen to live nearby you could probably even go to some shareholder meetings and get some free refreshments er somethin.
I think you have noticed a significant correlation, but you have causality backwards.
I think the economic propserity is the enabling factor for millitary dominance. Especially when you consider how America wins its wars: It's not because we have superior tactics, its because we spend more money on training and equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we have the antivirus companies mostly to blame for this one; they discovered it wasn't enough to sell people the software
They should outsource to India, then they could charge a reasonable price.
How bout we rid of the regressive 15% job tax we have here in America, before we bitch too much about corporations hiring foreigners that do the same job for less money.
Most of the tax I'm referring too is oxymoronically known as the "Social Security" tax.
this is not just security through obscurity. this is also more/different key.
two ways to get 0wn3d r:
1) they know your key.
2) they know how to not need your key.
there is some obscurity to this, but if instead of closing the "knock" ports, you instead replied with "successfully knocked on port 9834" (for all your unused ports), and sent them a link to this article, you still have gained extra key bits.
In the face of (2), however, you are much better off. They have to be clever enough to defeat your sshd and the knock protocol at the same time.
I'm thinking diffie-helman carried out using the port numbers that you try to hit as the transmission channel could be kind of cool. not sure if it useful, but it would be cool.
If we assume that we are not printing out the voter's vote, then we must give them everything else, plus we must give them exactly how the vote was encoded.
.. ummm ... unverifiable.
I'm not assuming that. I'm saying print the whole thing out, including a big-ass random number, in a OCR-consumable format, If and only If it is requested.
If you make the random number big enough, this defeats the brute force approach to figuring out how somebody voted.
(Even if you ask the voter to provide some secret, it can be beaten out of them, and it can be trivially positively determined whether a given secret is the one in the hash; this is one of those cases where more security is bad; see how making cars harder to steal has increased carjackings, a far more dangerous crime.)
the random number is the secret. don't memorize it. if somebody steals the receipt, then yes they will know how you voted. if that bothers you, as a voter, then don't get one. If an individual sees verifiability as more important than anonymity, then that should be up to them. If only a small fraction of the votes were actually verified, this would increase reliability of the system, even for those who chose anonymity.
Thus, we are still giving the voter a piece of paper that confirms exactly how they voted, making them susceptible to all vote-selling and other such nasty scams.
Yes this could allow people to be paid for their votes. I think if somebody is allowed to do something, they should be allowed to do it for money.
Seems like most votes are already bought in one form or another anyways, and those that aren't aren't for sale. Lets make sure they have to at least go through the motions though. If we don't figure out how to verify the voting, they aren't going to be bought and sold anymore, because they just aren't going to matter at all.
I think you do present the problem pretty well though. If we insist on enforcing anonymity instead of allowing it, then we also throw away verifiability. If we throw away verifiability, we shouldn't be surprised that our voting system is corrupt, unstrustworthy or
so does welfare.
paper receipts would merely make the market for votes more fair and out in the open.
explain why you can't also take a hash of the name of the voter? and the time (down to the nano-second) and place (down to # of the voting booth)? and a vote counter for that machine? and then as much random padding as you need (which gets printed out with the receipt)?
then all the hashes are posted on a website somewhere, so you can verify from home that you vote was counted.
Always thought its weird how some accents are easier for some poepole to decode.
E.g. I can understand pretty well (what I condsider to be) a pretty heavy Indian, German, Scottish or Irish accent.
Just a smidge of Chineese or French though and I'm asking them to repeat themselves every other sentence (or just nodding and pretending I understood).
Side note: cool thing about Indians is that when I have trouble understanding them its almost always because of the stress pattern in a long word, but if I say it back to them a few times how I think it should be said they usually adjust in real time.
except when the Federal Reserve does it. (and their versions of check kiting and counterfeting are for the most part the same thing).
Then it 'stimulates the economy' or 'provides liquidity' or 'fights deflation' depending on the rationale of the week.
Yes I know this a tinfoil hat type comment, but I can't help it.
Hmmm FDR took power in ~1932.
Then the economy sucked until, what, ~1947?
Great plan.
Ticking Social Security time bomb says hey.
Krugman is a Keynesian. I don't consider that to be a free-marketer. I don't really give a flip if that makes me 'far-right' or not. see: this for a pretty funny (well funny for an Austrian Economics blog) bashing of krugman, which also puts it into a light that, I believe, highlights how much information is lost projecting this onto a 'left-right' spectrum.
Wow man. that was a very good troll.
I had a whole big flame reply written and had the mouse pointer over the submit button, and was previewing one last time before I realized that it had to be a troll.
If you hadn't talked about writing Doom in VB, I think you had me, although the thing about the regexes should have been an instant give away
Screw fake names of klingon ships.
I will only accept REAL names of Klingon ships.
>And let's look at it from the PR aspect. Who does the (flag-waving, Bush-voting, PATRIOT-supporting)
>US Citizen trust more? The government, or a corporate consortium?
You are assuming the two are always distinguishable. I think the Sonny Bono Act is a good example where trying to separate the government from the corporate consortium makes no sense
Check out 'Praxeology' and 'Austrian Economics' for a different attempt at all this.
If you can actually make it through the whole thing, 'Human Action' by Ludwig von Mises is actually pretty cool. To bad its so damn dry.
JMO,ICBW
are these the sme scientist that thought we were starting a new ice age in the 70's?
Oh ya, that would be western industrialized civilization's fault too.
I like make.
but I would NOT want to be involved in trying to debug a Makefile that was causing my machine to not boot properply. And I'm sure people who don't like dorking with Makefiles would feel even stronger about that. Just seems like it could get pretty nasty.
>Of course, books are generally unwilling, except in extreme cases, to spot one team
.... so there is no +EV bet). actually if you forced me to bet on the first college game this year with a point spread over 30, I'd take the favorite.
thats in pro.
In college point spreads of 35 or 45 aren't unheard of. And those lines are usually pretty sharp (i.e. a posteriori seem to be near the median outcome
Don't talk bad about Perl
yes anecdotal evidence is bullshit.
but this is a controlled experiment, if you are willing to grant me the fact that having more hardware increases the probability of software problems. If thats really where your sticking point is (as in precious obviosubly facetious, and pretty funny reply), then OK. Otherwise I don't see what the problem is.
And I think the experiment has been reproduced in several other places. XP crashes. Linux doesn't. The hardware-blamers are the ones relying on anecdotal evidence.
this seems like the best place currently avaliable to do this.
you mother fuckers who say 'windows XP is very stable, its only hardware problems that cause problems' are full of shit.
I'm a computer science major from MIT. I've got two boxes that I built my self. One has windows xp the other has linux (distrubution unimportant). Hardware wise they are exactly the same except for the fact that the linux box has 2 cd drives (one writable) while the windows box only has one (readable). I had to go and find special nvidia driver shit for both of them. other than that everything claims to be honky dory on both boxes.
My linux box has crashed twice in the last two years, both times when netscape freaked out. the fucking XP box crashes daily. And it won't recover from the last crash. It will take hours to days to recover from this, if I don't end up physically putting the hard drive in my linux box just to get the data I care about.
So to all you pieces of shit out there who ever defended any microsoft operating system:
FUCK YOU!
Chance
we aren't in court. we are trying to nip Orwellian degradation of the language in the bud right here. Sorry if its already occurred in the courts.
yes fair use is my godamn affirmative right.
the copyright privelege does not extend to fair use. In a supposedely free country I can copy bits from one CD to another in the privacy of my own home , as long as copyright doesn't prevent it. And copyright doesn't prevent it.
The argument about the legalisms would be interesting if we didn't also know that thats a buncha horseshit because the way it really works is whoever hires the best lawyers wins. Any court can and does read any law to mean anything all the damn time.
ya I hate it when my taxes don't go up. Why can't more of my hard earned money go to fund the parasite classes? Paying for things like roads, when we could be spending more money on superviser of the supervisor of the guy in charge of the 'my-two-daddies' seminar tought to 7 year olds, what the hell are they thinking?
republican bastards.
Another thing you can do to any company you don't like is to buy 1 share of stock. Then they have to send you reports all the time, and ballots when there are shareholder votes. The ballots come in self addressed stamped envelopes which you should always send back voting a straight party ticket against the reccomendation of the board.
If you happen to live nearby you could probably even go to some shareholder meetings and get some free refreshments er somethin.
I don't know if SCO is publicly traded though.
I think you have noticed a significant correlation, but you have causality backwards.
I think the economic propserity is the enabling factor for millitary dominance. Especially when you consider how America wins its wars: It's not because we have superior tactics, its because we spend more money on training and equipment.
It started out almost as good as budweiser.
Now its warm, and has a little cigarrette ash in it.But it will still get you drunk.