Now that millions of people are programmers with supercomputers on their desks and an itch to scratch, and now that the cost of software distribution is approximately zero, the unconstrained market value of a line of code for a commonly used application is rapidly converging to zero.
If this is true, then the market will prevail. But we've had personal computers on our desks for 20 years now, and software development has just gotten more expensive due to complexity, not less. At some point reality has to come into play here.
Why then do you feel the need to enforce your desire of market direction shift through government intervention? Why do OSS zealots want to establish artificial barriers to entry into the market for commercial software?
One of the biggest problems facing OSS advocacy is that the people advocating don't seem to understand that there are a great many people who don't buy their arguments.
It's not just a single company, there are millions of developers like myself who do not believe in Linux and do not wish to see the software industry corrupted by open source. I don't know, maybe I just like having a job too much, apparently that's the wrong attitude to have in this world.
Especially one whose lack of product security and general badness have become world reknown even in non-techie circles.
If only OSS weren't worse than Windows in these categories, you might have had a valid point.
It's good that the UN is not buying the OSS bullshit.
I'm seriously trying to remember the last time I was on slashdot, read one of the chicken little "Microsoft is going to cause the sky to fall!" stories and it turned out to be true.
Hmm... Been reading since 1997 and can't think of a single instance.
Looks like someone has a bad track record, and it isn't Microsoft.
Now how do you propose we extricate ourselves from this anti-competitive situation?
You could start by offering reasonable alternatives for people to use instead of whining on slashdot all day.
I don't know what line of work you're in, but if your in the computer industry, and value your career, it's time to open your eyes.
Open my eyes to what? Either there is software out there that works, or there is not. You can't have it both ways.
I've always questioned the political motivations of OSS, but I find it really worisome that the latest tactics in the past year or two now amount to demands for Government monopolies because the software can't compete in a free market based on it's own merits.
CCIA is an organization formed by Sun, Oracle and a number of other rabid Anti-Microsoft competitors.
Making up your own facts makes it hard for me to believe anything you say.
Whatever. CCIA is well known for pushing anti-Microsoft issues... Go to www.ccianet.org to educate yourself on the group's mission.
To be honest, I think Geer has figured out a way to get a lot of publicity, and may have already known he was going to get fired for some other reason and decided to cause a lot of trouble. It would make absolutely no sense for either Microsoft or @stake to dirty their reputations by doing this quickly.
Probably. Like I've said before, @stake is trying to get away from their kiddy-hacker reputation, and given the relatively low academic quality of the paper I'm not surprised to see them want to disassociate themselves from this gentleman.
Apparently, the difference between you and I - given that you say you have read the book - is that I actually understood what I was reading.
No, the difference is that I don't agree with what was written. It's not a question of understanding.
You clearly know nothing about Bruce Schneier. The simple fact that you can't see that the paper stands on it's own as an objective and accurate assessment of the current state of technology here on planet earth amplifies the point that certificates and degrees mean nothing.
And there you go again.
So today this little news article came over across the SANS news alert list. It had commentary both by Schneir and Stephen Northcutt(do you even know who that is?). I responded to the email saying I agreed with Northcutt's point that monoculture is necessary because the competition doesn't offer equivalent functionality, and then proceeded to point out that even trying to apply this concept of monoculture from genetics to software was quite a bit of a stretch. You can't change the basic architecture of a bannana in response to disease, but you can change software quite radically.
You didn't learn a damn thing worth knowing from them apparently.
You remind me of Republicans. You have no root understanding of the issues, rather you simply heard some guy on the radio say something and now you're going around repeating it as gospel and calling anybody who disagrees with you an idiot.
Your mother should have taught you better manners.
That sounds very strange, though I'm unsure if an actual firing on Tuesday clears @stake much, since the paper was not written Tuesday night and they must have been aware of it earlier.
I don't see that anybody needs to be cleared. Geer clearly did something that @stake felt was not a good idea, and as such they set him loose.
If Geer is going to take this attitude of "Well I did the right thing, and I'm standing by it." then he should have some backbone and not whine on the internet when the consequences of his action cause him to be let go from the company. Obviously anybody who knows the history here realizes that @stake is the new name of l0pht that was chosen when they decided to become good corporate citizens. Because they're trying to enhance their image, they certainly don't want employees going off half-cocked with wild unsupported accusations.
Generally, I find Geer's version of events to be convoluted and I believe he lacks credibility largely based upon the fact that this study was funded by Microsoft competitors. The idea that an article with the title "Sun thinks Microsoft makes crappy products!" would be considered newsworthy is baffling.
Your assertion that M$ competitors funded the paper is baseless and absurd, and at the very least shows that you know nothing about security.
My assertion that MS competitors funded the paper is based on the fact that it was released by and marketed by the CCIA group. If you don't know who CCIA is than you better go educate yourself.
Try not to be too embaressed when you figure out that the paper is an objective, dead on balls accurate description of the current fallibility in the security landscape.
I'm sorry, but I do have a GIAC certification and do understand security. The problem that Schneier has with regards to security is that his attitude is purely theoretical. He's never written software or supported it in a large environment. So his recommendations are great in theory, but fall flat on their face in practice. As such, what's the bloody point?
You may think reading one book gives you the substantive backing to throw personal insults at me, but in most peoples books it just makes you look like a troll.
The article(yeah I know, sacrilege for RTFA)... states that this guy's last day as an employee was Tuesday.
The report was published Wednesday.
An announcement went out on Thursday publiclly stating this guy wasn't an employee.
So obviously his no longer being an employee was not some sort of reaction to his opinion paper.
However, he also states that on Wednesday he did telephone interviews and referred to himself as an @stake employee. Well considering his last day was tuesday, that certainly was not the case. So it's not unreasonable for the company to on thursday issue a press release pointing out how he isn't an employee.
I have to question Dan Geer's credibility here, as well as his motivations. This report when it came out was quite clearly paid for and motivated by Microsoft competitors. Now we have a guy who quit his job on Tuesday claiming that he's being repressed so he can get free publicity. Sorry, not buying it.
At my IT department, five years ago we decided to hell with computers. We went out and bought everybody pens and paper.
The end result was a dramatic savings in software costs. We don't even need electricity anymore, we bought all of our clerks candles. In order to cut costs in the winter, we have now supplied each employee with their own brazier and they are required to purchase their own coal to eat their work space.
We are now nearly eliminated 100% of our ties to expensive, over-priced technology. No more upgrades!!!!! We are FREE!!! FREE I TELL YA!!!!
Saving money is always a good thing!!!!!!
Other states may want to investigate this strategy in order to save $$$$$$$!!!!!!
If it was good enough for Ben Franklin, it ought to be good enough for you too!
Microsoft releases roughly 4 patches for every 1 that RH releases.
I believe you mistyped because the facts say Redhat issues about 4 patches for every one that Microsoft releases.
I first noticed this myself last year after having installed Redhat 8.0 and subscribed to the redhat network and witnessed the slew of emails I began receiving warning me to run up2date.
But thats just my two cents and I'm sure there are a line of people out there to tell me I'm wrong and/or full of crap; but these are real world observations from someone who is completely OS neutral.
I'm not interested in getting into any sort of philosophical debate or say you are wrong or anything. You have your perception, but the facts clearly don't support your anecdotal evidence.
http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/
In fact if you look out at Redhat 9 you'll see there was a Apache vulnerability patched just today.
Hmm, I get the distinct impression from reading your post that you think Open Source should have preference.
Now maybe I'm mistaken, but last time I looked there are many companies involved with Open Source, and it is actually a Business, or at least a market.
So forgive me when I call you a hypocrite.
You're no different from Microsoft, Sun, HP, DEC, SGI, etc. when they advocate their products. But at least those companies are honest with me as to what their intentions are.
My solution?? I used Red Hat Linux to download the patch, and wrote it on some media.
It would have been far easier to just turn on the built-in firewall before connecting the machine to the Internet.
But then Linux users always did like to do things the hard way.
This really isn't about techie issues...
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm involved with the Draft Clark 2004 group, which is largely organized off the Internet in the form of websites, blogs, email lists, etc. It's related with moveon.org, meetup.com, etc. in that it's another grassroots organization using technology to benefit progressive causes.
What this article is talking about really has nothing to do with techies. It has to do with technies using their knowledge of the Internet to help bring people together who have a common interest. This isn't about bringing technology to government, nor is it really about pushing techie politic issues. It simply is an organized reaction to the overwhelming influence of special interest groups in politics.
What is interesting about this, is it's grassroots citizenry pushing for change from below. This is different from the Republican strategy of years past which involved big donors and big corporations running issue ads and subverting the media to push issues down onto the people.
So it is a change, I believe it's a change for the positive. I just don't see that it has much to do with techies other than as a tool to aid the collaboration.
Our Draft Clark meetings have had a wide range of people attending, a large number of military vets, women, people of foreign birth or with extensive world travel experience. There have been some techies, certainly. But a common sentiment has been the concern of the deterioration of Americans civil rights under the Bush administration. This has more to do with the Patriot Act than it does with the DMCA, however.
If speed is so important, we can create a preliminary election result from electronic data. We can even do an automated machine count of the paper ballots. But we still need at least the ability to do a proper hand count of the paper ballots, at least until the technology for pure electronic voting is much more proven than it currently is.
Absolutely!
The voting machines could maintain a tally of results thus far. But the real result would be performed by an optical scanning machine. We use these today in many precincts, and they aren't rocket science. You insert the ballot, it is scanned and then secured in a locked box underneath.
Now you have two electronic tallies, and they can be compared against one another. The two different machines could come from two different sources. We could have a Federal standard for ballots to insure compatibility. Now you have these two different tallies, and you can compare them to make sure the results are similar.(you'll have a certain difference due to hand entered ballots into the optical scanner)
One can also compare the total tally of votes cast to the registration records. (i.e. 1200 people showed up to vote, we have counted 1200 ballots)
Then you have the paper ballots as a fall back in case of dispute.
Oh another thing... Exit polling provides another statistic to maintain trustworthyness. If the exit polling shows one candidate clearly ahead, but the tally shows something different, that's a flag to pull the paper ballots out and count them by hand.
I'm as much of a technophile as the next guy, but there are still things in this world that require the paper trail.
One has to ask, what is the problem that we are trying to solve with electronic voting? Is it cost? I don't think so. Elections only happen once a year and the results are far too important to cut costs while lowering quality.
What we want to do is increase the quality of the elections by assisting the voters in filling out the ballot correctly. With the automated UI the voting results can be checked against business rules... that is, if you're only allowed to vote for two judges then you can only check off two on the ballot, etc. It provides instant instructions and instant feedback.
But regardless, you need a paper backup to do audits on the election. And most importantly, as we learned in Florida, that ballot must be in a human readable form which can not be easily damaged through normal handling.
The best solution I've seen suggested is to have an automated UI which queries the voter for responses, but the end result is then printed on a laser printer to a ballot sheet. The ballot sheet lists the names, with markers that are filled in(or line drawn between two arrows) to clearly identify the selections.
The voter may then review their ballot to insure it is marked as they wished it to be, and if so take it to a secure optical scan machine just like we use today.
One benefit of this system is that it provides a backup mechanism in the event of failure. That is, if the machines are not working the voter can still cast their ballot with the good old fashioned pencil. The automated UI system is there only as a convenience item.
Any system which only records results in an electronic manner is subject to corruption. The results have to be on paper for auditing and verification purposes.
Cost shouldn't be an issue, this is far to important to the stability of our democracy.
Then how could you be so wrong? I was there, and I witnessed the changes. Why are you so intent to go back to the good old days of uninteroperability?
How again does my (or anyone elses) choices change when we are offered only one option? We had more choices before Win95.
The point is not about choice, the point is about functionality that people expect to have on a PC when they bring it from the store. What you call choice, I call interoperability problems.
I'm sorry, I didn't think I was whining about anything in my comments. Just telling the truth. Can you refute it with your own facts?/. readers want to know?
Obviously you're just another/. troll with this comment.
But just to let you know.... I have 15 computers running at all times in my house. Four Apple's(II+,IIe, 2 gs's), two Macs (Mac LC and PowerPC), an Amiga9K and a AtariST.
I have a VIC-20 in the closet. All my other old computers(CP/M, C-128, Amiga, etc.) were long since sold or thrown out.
I think you've highlighted the problem I have with your argument. You like living in the past.
Do you want to know about my network? It's a really interesting mix of Token Ring, Ethernet and Appletalk. Don't you want to know how I tied them all together?
With a bunch of 3c509 cards using 10base2 thinnet, i'm sure. Or are you using Arcnet? Maybe you have a handful of old Lantastic cards for fun and giggles?
I understand that for you, no flame intended, the O/S is more important than the data you generate with your "own" computer. All..rightty then.
Quite the contrary. I'm only concerned with the end results. Making Apple II's connect to VIC-20's on a Atari ST network of serial cables isn't my idea of an efficient system.
Osborne luggable Good insult.
That's what the Osborne was called back in those days. If you truly had been part of computer history, you'd have known that.
Quit trying to force the computer world back into the past, nothing good comes from that direction.
No, actually I'd say you're failing to understand PC History.
Prior to the unleashing of Win95, computer makers choose what software to bundle.
After the release of Win95, consumers needs and tastes changed. Computers are no longer a luxury item at home for the absolute geek, they're now owned by anyone and everyone.
Besides that you forget that prior to the Osborne luggable when you bought a computer you got nothing bundled... maybe an OS, if you were lucky. Even the first IBM PC required you to buy the OS.
The computer world changes, it's time you got used to that and stopped whining about the lack of good buggy whip manufacturers.
Nowhere in that definition does it indicate that "superior" is a synonym of "popular"
Nobody claimed it would.
But the third definition says "Of great value or excellence" does it not? Isn't the most popular product the one of greatest value to the consumer?
Do you also believe that the Backstreet Boys are superior to all other music artists because more radio stations play them?
Is it necessary for myself to believe that? I don't know... 30 million other people who did buy Backstreet Boys CDs clearly believe it.
The fact is, I haven't tried to redefine "superior" pal, you have.
Basically you're selfish, you think only of yourself and ignore the needs/wants/desires of others. Your world is a market of one, and you claim that the rest of the market does not matter.
You need to look at the market as a whole to define superior. Look at the Beta v VHS historical argument as an example.
Superior is not equivelent to "most popular" whatever you think. Superior is accomplishing a task in a more efficient manner. Linux is that.
Superior is ALWAYS equivalent to "most popular", whatever you think.
Your definition of efficient is not that of the consumer. The consumer doesn't care how much hardware resources is taken, they care about how much time they have to waste performing a task. That's efficiency, and it's something Linux does not have.
Apple preinstalls MacOS, you'll find 95% of apple computer users run what's preinstalled, MacOS.
My point was that people have a choice of buying an Apple or a Dell. They choose the Dell over the Apple about 95 to 1. There is a reason for that choice being made, and it has nothing to do with Windows being preinstalled.
You sound much like a marketing or sales droid who believes in capitalism.
I'm an Engineer who firmly believes in capitalism.
Do you have some sort of disdain for capitalism? I can't fathom why.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that millions of people are programmers with supercomputers on their desks and an itch to scratch, and now that the cost of software distribution is approximately zero, the unconstrained market value of a line of code for a commonly used application is rapidly converging to zero.
If this is true, then the market will prevail. But we've had personal computers on our desks for 20 years now, and software development has just gotten more expensive due to complexity, not less. At some point reality has to come into play here.
Why then do you feel the need to enforce your desire of market direction shift through government intervention? Why do OSS zealots want to establish artificial barriers to entry into the market for commercial software?
I have a real problem with your hypocrisy.
One of the biggest problems facing OSS advocacy is that the people advocating don't seem to understand that there are a great many people who don't buy their arguments.
It's not just a single company, there are millions of developers like myself who do not believe in Linux and do not wish to see the software industry corrupted by open source. I don't know, maybe I just like having a job too much, apparently that's the wrong attitude to have in this world.
Especially one whose lack of product security and general badness have become world reknown even in non-techie circles.
If only OSS weren't worse than Windows in these categories, you might have had a valid point.
It's good that the UN is not buying the OSS bullshit.
I'm seriously trying to remember the last time I was on slashdot, read one of the chicken little "Microsoft is going to cause the sky to fall!" stories and it turned out to be true.
Hmm... Been reading since 1997 and can't think of a single instance.
Looks like someone has a bad track record, and it isn't Microsoft.
Now how do you propose we extricate ourselves from this anti-competitive situation?
You could start by offering reasonable alternatives for people to use instead of whining on slashdot all day.
I don't know what line of work you're in, but if your in the computer industry, and value your career, it's time to open your eyes.
Open my eyes to what? Either there is software out there that works, or there is not. You can't have it both ways.
I've always questioned the political motivations of OSS, but I find it really worisome that the latest tactics in the past year or two now amount to demands for Government monopolies because the software can't compete in a free market based on it's own merits.
Enough said. You may now reply and have the last word if you like. I can always use another good laugh 8^}
Coward.
Study was funded by Microsoft competitors?
CCIA is an organization formed by Sun, Oracle and a number of other rabid Anti-Microsoft competitors.
Making up your own facts makes it hard for me to believe anything you say.
Whatever. CCIA is well known for pushing anti-Microsoft issues... Go to www.ccianet.org to educate yourself on the group's mission.
To be honest, I think Geer has figured out a way to get a lot of publicity, and may have already known he was going to get fired for some other reason and decided to cause a lot of trouble. It would make absolutely no sense for either Microsoft or @stake to dirty their reputations by doing this quickly.
Probably. Like I've said before, @stake is trying to get away from their kiddy-hacker reputation, and given the relatively low academic quality of the paper I'm not surprised to see them want to disassociate themselves from this gentleman.
Apparently, the difference between you and I - given that you say you have read the book - is that I actually understood what I was reading.
No, the difference is that I don't agree with what was written. It's not a question of understanding.
You clearly know nothing about Bruce Schneier. The simple fact that you can't see that the paper stands on it's own as an objective and accurate assessment of the current state of technology here on planet earth amplifies the point that certificates and degrees mean nothing.
And there you go again.
So today this little news article came over across the SANS news alert list. It had commentary both by Schneir and Stephen Northcutt(do you even know who that is?). I responded to the email saying I agreed with Northcutt's point that monoculture is necessary because the competition doesn't offer equivalent functionality, and then proceeded to point out that even trying to apply this concept of monoculture from genetics to software was quite a bit of a stretch. You can't change the basic architecture of a bannana in response to disease, but you can change software quite radically.
You didn't learn a damn thing worth knowing from them apparently.
You remind me of Republicans. You have no root understanding of the issues, rather you simply heard some guy on the radio say something and now you're going around repeating it as gospel and calling anybody who disagrees with you an idiot.
Your mother should have taught you better manners.
That sounds very strange, though I'm unsure if an actual firing on Tuesday clears @stake much, since the paper was not written Tuesday night and they must have been aware of it earlier.
I don't see that anybody needs to be cleared. Geer clearly did something that @stake felt was not a good idea, and as such they set him loose.
If Geer is going to take this attitude of "Well I did the right thing, and I'm standing by it." then he should have some backbone and not whine on the internet when the consequences of his action cause him to be let go from the company. Obviously anybody who knows the history here realizes that @stake is the new name of l0pht that was chosen when they decided to become good corporate citizens. Because they're trying to enhance their image, they certainly don't want employees going off half-cocked with wild unsupported accusations.
Generally, I find Geer's version of events to be convoluted and I believe he lacks credibility largely based upon the fact that this study was funded by Microsoft competitors. The idea that an article with the title "Sun thinks Microsoft makes crappy products!" would be considered newsworthy is baffling.
Your assertion that M$ competitors funded the paper is baseless and absurd, and at the very least shows that you know nothing about security.
My assertion that MS competitors funded the paper is based on the fact that it was released by and marketed by the CCIA group. If you don't know who CCIA is than you better go educate yourself.
Try not to be too embaressed when you figure out that the paper is an objective, dead on balls accurate description of the current fallibility in the security landscape.
I'm sorry, but I do have a GIAC certification and do understand security. The problem that Schneier has with regards to security is that his attitude is purely theoretical. He's never written software or supported it in a large environment. So his recommendations are great in theory, but fall flat on their face in practice. As such, what's the bloody point?
You may think reading one book gives you the substantive backing to throw personal insults at me, but in most peoples books it just makes you look like a troll.
The article(yeah I know, sacrilege for RTFA)... states that this guy's last day as an employee was Tuesday.
The report was published Wednesday.
An announcement went out on Thursday publiclly stating this guy wasn't an employee.
So obviously his no longer being an employee was not some sort of reaction to his opinion paper.
However, he also states that on Wednesday he did telephone interviews and referred to himself as an @stake employee. Well considering his last day was tuesday, that certainly was not the case. So it's not unreasonable for the company to on thursday issue a press release pointing out how he isn't an employee.
I have to question Dan Geer's credibility here, as well as his motivations. This report when it came out was quite clearly paid for and motivated by Microsoft competitors. Now we have a guy who quit his job on Tuesday claiming that he's being repressed so he can get free publicity. Sorry, not buying it.
At my IT department, five years ago we decided to hell with computers. We went out and bought everybody pens and paper.
The end result was a dramatic savings in software costs. We don't even need electricity anymore, we bought all of our clerks candles. In order to cut costs in the winter, we have now supplied each employee with their own brazier and they are required to purchase their own coal to eat their work space.
We are now nearly eliminated 100% of our ties to expensive, over-priced technology. No more upgrades!!!!! We are FREE!!! FREE I TELL YA!!!!
Saving money is always a good thing!!!!!!
Other states may want to investigate this strategy in order to save $$$$$$$!!!!!!
If it was good enough for Ben Franklin, it ought to be good enough for you too!
Microsoft releases roughly 4 patches for every 1 that RH releases.
I believe you mistyped because the facts say Redhat issues about 4 patches for every one that Microsoft releases.
I first noticed this myself last year after having installed Redhat 8.0 and subscribed to the redhat network and witnessed the slew of emails I began receiving warning me to run up2date.
But thats just my two cents and I'm sure there are a line of people out there to tell me I'm wrong and/or full of crap; but these are real world observations from someone who is completely OS neutral.
I'm not interested in getting into any sort of philosophical debate or say you are wrong or anything. You have your perception, but the facts clearly don't support your anecdotal evidence.
http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/
In fact if you look out at Redhat 9 you'll see there was a Apache vulnerability patched just today.
The graphics lab has upgraded many old SGI machines to sparkly-new Windows machines... what, for their speed, stability, or security?
And the SGIs were originally donated to the school by SGI.
Hypocrite.
Hmm, I get the distinct impression from reading your post that you think Open Source should have preference.
Now maybe I'm mistaken, but last time I looked there are many companies involved with Open Source, and it is actually a Business, or at least a market.
So forgive me when I call you a hypocrite.
You're no different from Microsoft, Sun, HP, DEC, SGI, etc. when they advocate their products. But at least those companies are honest with me as to what their intentions are.
My solution?? I used Red Hat Linux to download the patch, and wrote it on some media.
It would have been far easier to just turn on the built-in firewall before connecting the machine to the Internet.
But then Linux users always did like to do things the hard way.
I'm involved with the Draft Clark 2004 group, which is largely organized off the Internet in the form of websites, blogs, email lists, etc. It's related with moveon.org, meetup.com, etc. in that it's another grassroots organization using technology to benefit progressive causes.
What this article is talking about really has nothing to do with techies. It has to do with technies using their knowledge of the Internet to help bring people together who have a common interest. This isn't about bringing technology to government, nor is it really about pushing techie politic issues. It simply is an organized reaction to the overwhelming influence of special interest groups in politics.
What is interesting about this, is it's grassroots citizenry pushing for change from below. This is different from the Republican strategy of years past which involved big donors and big corporations running issue ads and subverting the media to push issues down onto the people.
So it is a change, I believe it's a change for the positive. I just don't see that it has much to do with techies other than as a tool to aid the collaboration.
Our Draft Clark meetings have had a wide range of people attending, a large number of military vets, women, people of foreign birth or with extensive world travel experience. There have been some techies, certainly. But a common sentiment has been the concern of the deterioration of Americans civil rights under the Bush administration. This has more to do with the Patriot Act than it does with the DMCA, however.
If speed is so important, we can create a preliminary election result from electronic data. We can even do an automated machine count of the paper ballots. But we still need at least the ability to do a proper hand count of the paper ballots, at least until the technology for pure electronic voting is much more proven than it currently is.
Absolutely!
The voting machines could maintain a tally of results thus far. But the real result would be performed by an optical scanning machine. We use these today in many precincts, and they aren't rocket science. You insert the ballot, it is scanned and then secured in a locked box underneath.
Now you have two electronic tallies, and they can be compared against one another. The two different machines could come from two different sources. We could have a Federal standard for ballots to insure compatibility. Now you have these two different tallies, and you can compare them to make sure the results are similar.(you'll have a certain difference due to hand entered ballots into the optical scanner)
One can also compare the total tally of votes cast to the registration records. (i.e. 1200 people showed up to vote, we have counted 1200 ballots)
Then you have the paper ballots as a fall back in case of dispute.
Oh another thing... Exit polling provides another statistic to maintain trustworthyness. If the exit polling shows one candidate clearly ahead, but the tally shows something different, that's a flag to pull the paper ballots out and count them by hand.
I'm as much of a technophile as the next guy, but there are still things in this world that require the paper trail.
One has to ask, what is the problem that we are trying to solve with electronic voting? Is it cost? I don't think so. Elections only happen once a year and the results are far too important to cut costs while lowering quality.
What we want to do is increase the quality of the elections by assisting the voters in filling out the ballot correctly. With the automated UI the voting results can be checked against business rules... that is, if you're only allowed to vote for two judges then you can only check off two on the ballot, etc. It provides instant instructions and instant feedback.
But regardless, you need a paper backup to do audits on the election. And most importantly, as we learned in Florida, that ballot must be in a human readable form which can not be easily damaged through normal handling.
The best solution I've seen suggested is to have an automated UI which queries the voter for responses, but the end result is then printed on a laser printer to a ballot sheet. The ballot sheet lists the names, with markers that are filled in(or line drawn between two arrows) to clearly identify the selections.
The voter may then review their ballot to insure it is marked as they wished it to be, and if so take it to a secure optical scan machine just like we use today.
One benefit of this system is that it provides a backup mechanism in the event of failure. That is, if the machines are not working the voter can still cast their ballot with the good old fashioned pencil. The automated UI system is there only as a convenience item.
Any system which only records results in an electronic manner is subject to corruption. The results have to be on paper for auditing and verification purposes.
Cost shouldn't be an issue, this is far to important to the stability of our democracy.
How? I was there when it happend, now I am here?
/. readers want to know?
/. troll with this comment.
Then how could you be so wrong? I was there, and I witnessed the changes. Why are you so intent to go back to the good old days of uninteroperability?
How again does my (or anyone elses) choices change when we are offered only one option? We had more choices before Win95.
The point is not about choice, the point is about functionality that people expect to have on a PC when they bring it from the store. What you call choice, I call interoperability problems.
I'm sorry, I didn't think I was whining about anything in my comments. Just telling the truth. Can you refute it with your own facts?
Obviously you're just another
But just to let you know....
I have 15 computers running at all times in my house. Four Apple's(II+,IIe, 2 gs's), two Macs (Mac LC and PowerPC), an Amiga9K and a AtariST.
I have a VIC-20 in the closet. All my other old computers(CP/M, C-128, Amiga, etc.) were long since sold or thrown out.
I think you've highlighted the problem I have with your argument. You like living in the past.
Do you want to know about my network? It's a really interesting mix of Token Ring, Ethernet and Appletalk. Don't you want to know how I tied them all together?
With a bunch of 3c509 cards using 10base2 thinnet, i'm sure. Or are you using Arcnet? Maybe you have a handful of old Lantastic cards for fun and giggles?
I understand that for you, no flame intended, the O/S is more important than the data you generate with your "own" computer. All..rightty then.
Quite the contrary. I'm only concerned with the end results. Making Apple II's connect to VIC-20's on a Atari ST network of serial cables isn't my idea of an efficient system.
Osborne luggable Good insult.
That's what the Osborne was called back in those days. If you truly had been part of computer history, you'd have known that.
Quit trying to force the computer world back into the past, nothing good comes from that direction.
We at /. should know this better than most.
/.
No, you just ignore more facts than most.
Someone with a six digit userid shouldn't be claiming to speak for
Your trying to rewrite PC History.
No, actually I'd say you're failing to understand PC History.
Prior to the unleashing of Win95, computer makers choose what software to bundle.
After the release of Win95, consumers needs and tastes changed. Computers are no longer a luxury item at home for the absolute geek, they're now owned by anyone and everyone.
Besides that you forget that prior to the Osborne luggable when you bought a computer you got nothing bundled... maybe an OS, if you were lucky. Even the first IBM PC required you to buy the OS.
The computer world changes, it's time you got used to that and stopped whining about the lack of good buggy whip manufacturers.
how many open source project are there that are based on VBA / Office / VB / other MS technologies?
You gotta be kidding me!?
I mean check out the DotNet workspaces over at gotdotnet. Do a search on sourceforge.net for Win32 apps. It's all over the place.
This is one of the larger problems with those who advocate Linux... they just don't know any better.
Nowhere in that definition does it indicate that "superior" is a synonym of "popular"
Nobody claimed it would.
But the third definition says "Of great value or excellence" does it not? Isn't the most popular product the one of greatest value to the consumer?
Do you also believe that the Backstreet Boys are superior to all other music artists because more radio stations play them?
Is it necessary for myself to believe that? I don't know... 30 million other people who did buy Backstreet Boys CDs clearly believe it.
The fact is, I haven't tried to redefine "superior" pal, you have.
Basically you're selfish, you think only of yourself and ignore the needs/wants/desires of others. Your world is a market of one, and you claim that the rest of the market does not matter.
You need to look at the market as a whole to define superior. Look at the Beta v VHS historical argument as an example.
Superior is not equivelent to "most popular" whatever you think. Superior is accomplishing a task in a more efficient manner. Linux is that.
Superior is ALWAYS equivalent to "most popular", whatever you think.
Your definition of efficient is not that of the consumer. The consumer doesn't care how much hardware resources is taken, they care about how much time they have to waste performing a task. That's efficiency, and it's something Linux does not have.
Apple preinstalls MacOS, you'll find 95% of apple computer users run what's preinstalled, MacOS.
My point was that people have a choice of buying an Apple or a Dell. They choose the Dell over the Apple about 95 to 1. There is a reason for that choice being made, and it has nothing to do with Windows being preinstalled.
You sound much like a marketing or sales droid who believes in capitalism.
I'm an Engineer who firmly believes in capitalism.
Do you have some sort of disdain for capitalism? I can't fathom why.
NOBODY switches after using the solution for 90 days (and no that's not our guaranteee period), or wants to.
Really?
Everybody I switched over to Linux back in the mid 1990's has given up on it and moved to Windows XP.
I can't see any reasonably intelligent person wasting their time with Linux these days.