You'll have to tell us what reasoning lead you to that conclusion
No, I do not have to tell you anything more than what I have already told you, read again and you may understand with some effort.
That might be true if there was one polling station for every dozen voters. But there's normally a thousand voters per polling station.
Being one in a thousand people does not provide anonymity. Especially considering these thousand people live relatively near from each other. It is very easy to blackmail small communities and check the local results if the counting is local. It is one of the prices you pay for your less than smart system.
If that were true we'd know who wrote Duqu [wikipedia.org], or who stole the account and password information from Yahoo!, LinkedIn, Twitter, Living Social, etc. The problem is that if the attacker plays his hand right we'll never even have any reason to suspect that something is wrong.
If it was economically viable to know it we would, but many times, like these, nobody cares enough to make the necessary effort and pay the price. There will always have reason to suspect irregularities in high profile activities, though, like voting.
Just bribe the guy guarding the voting computers in between elections. Use that time to plant a virus on one of them [infoworld.com]. Done.
Which is considerably harder than just tampering with ballots. Requires inside information about what is running in the machine and the hiring of technical expertise in addition to local bribes, in comparison to just local bribes.
Or bribe any one of the programmers at the voting company.
Even harder.
You live in fantasy land, but that is the place most of your country likes to reside in anyway, so at least you shouldn't be lonely there.
Transparent urns and local counting do not prevent tampering at all, although they may help to increase security a bit. Anonymity and security are like speed and position in Heisenberg Principle, the more you get from one of them the less you will have from the other. Local counting gives away anonymity for security. You still have a reasonable measure of anonymity although less than you would have in central counting, and in exchange you have a little more security.
And no, centralization does not make hacking untraceable, there is no untraceable electronic hacking. Decentralization makes affecting overall results harder, that much I agree and have stated in my previous post, but it makes affecting local results easier, because recruiting accomplishes in a small town in the middle of nowhere is much easier and cheaper than getting them in high places, which are usually a lot more in evidence.
Local results are not very useful to elect presidents, but they are very useful to elect congressmen, for example.
To provide anonymity the counting and the voting must be separated. In between ballots must be stored in containers. That does provide opportunity for tampering. There can be and there actually were many cases where the containers were tampered with.
The most famous paper vote tampering suspicion that has occurred in US was probably in Florida during Bush's first mandate. The recount was made multiple times and each time the results were a little different. It points to obvious flaws in either ballot security or in the counting process, which are both huge problems especially when the state in question decided presidential elections and both candidates were very close to each other in votes.
And more, paper vote tampering is usually impossible to be proved and untraceable, unlike most electronic tampering.
The prototype being based in a big developer board means nothing. The exploit could be easily replicated in smaller boards that would fit just fine in regular chargers.
There is nothing wrong with voting normally as there is nothing wrong with travelling from east to west cost by foot. It is just a lot slower than the alternative and requires considerably more work.
The right question to make is not this one, though. It is: "Is there a way to achieve both anonymity and security"? The answer is unfortunately no. That is true for normal, paper voting as well, by the way.
The main difference is that electronic voting, and in special online voting, is easier to be tampered with in large scale, and paper voting is easier to be tampered with in smaller scale.
Sorry, but no matter what they do with their money they will keep losing market share if they keep making stupid decisions. If they will wake up in time remains to be seem.
So what? Three times would be reasonable in this case. Now if the probability is 0.1%, 2000 times is not a reasonable or fair amount. If the probability is this low, the law is unenforceable and should be made null and void, replaced by better alternatives that are more akin to reality.
Well, when the intrinsic value of something is lower than its cost to extract or produce it has for any practical effect no value and money paper net value is negative.
You could, but nobody would because it is cheaper to use non money paper even if the money didn't have its added value given by law. But then again most money is bits in bank accounts, paper money isn't going to last long.
No, it would not. If the probability to get caught is too low the law is unenforceable and the government should just give up instead of wasting taxpayer money. If the probability to get caught is something remotely worth the trouble 2-3 times the value is more than enough.
Sure, but nobody does that. Considering you are giving value to the currency by law the lower its cost the better. That is why no fiat currency in existence has any innate value.
Innate value is intrinsic value. In this context innate and intrinsic are synonyms. And no, I haven't said anything that would imply sand or anything else (including dollars) should or should not be currencies. Sand does have innate value though, albeit low, differently from dollars.
Fiat money does have value, and again, nowhere I said or implied it does not, but it has no innate value, in the very same way bitcoins do not.
Any value comes from the use we apply to stuff. "Innate value" comes from the value something has on its own, without some external source adding value to it. Gold does have innate value because it would still be required to create many things even if all governments in the planet ceased to be tomorrow. The money in your bank account does not. If you have some cash it may still be used to make a good fire and warm your feet, though.
That said, yes, gold current value comes more from it being used as a currency (and stored increasing its scarcity) than from its innate value, and therefore the former is considerable greater than the latter.
That is virtual value that can cease to be in a moment, in the same way bitcoin value can. Sure, governments with strong economies can keep their currencies healthy, but any economy can dive nose down very quickly and unpredictably given the right (or wrong) circumstances.
Gold has some innate value in the sense that it can be used directly to build stuff. It is just a much lesser value than its current market value at the moment. Fiat currencies have absolute no innate value.
M$ is losing more and more of its competent developers to Google, Apple and other companies. It is in no position to start firing people for Internet posts. And no, they can't take legal action against him because of this post. The post was very generic, no specific information was disclosed.
I would never buy from Apple, or any big record studio, but I would buy from independent musicians through torrent. I would even pay far in excess of market prices to the ones I like.
Slashdot Mirror
Merely stating so does not mean it's true.
It is true never the less.
You'll have to tell us what reasoning lead you to that conclusion
No, I do not have to tell you anything more than what I have already told you, read again and you may understand with some effort.
That might be true if there was one polling station for every dozen voters. But there's normally a thousand voters per polling station.
Being one in a thousand people does not provide anonymity. Especially considering these thousand people live relatively near from each other. It is very easy to blackmail small communities and check the local results if the counting is local. It is one of the prices you pay for your less than smart system.
If that were true we'd know who wrote Duqu [wikipedia.org], or who stole the account and password information from Yahoo!, LinkedIn, Twitter, Living Social, etc. The problem is that if the attacker plays his hand right we'll never even have any reason to suspect that something is wrong.
If it was economically viable to know it we would, but many times, like these, nobody cares enough to make the necessary effort and pay the price. There will always have reason to suspect irregularities in high profile activities, though, like voting.
Just bribe the guy guarding the voting computers in between elections. Use that time to plant a virus on one of them [infoworld.com]. Done.
Which is considerably harder than just tampering with ballots. Requires inside information about what is running in the machine and the hiring of technical expertise in addition to local bribes, in comparison to just local bribes.
Or bribe any one of the programmers at the voting company.
Even harder.
You live in fantasy land, but that is the place most of your country likes to reside in anyway, so at least you shouldn't be lonely there.
Transparent urns and local counting do not prevent tampering at all, although they may help to increase security a bit. Anonymity and security are like speed and position in Heisenberg Principle, the more you get from one of them the less you will have from the other. Local counting gives away anonymity for security. You still have a reasonable measure of anonymity although less than you would have in central counting, and in exchange you have a little more security.
And no, centralization does not make hacking untraceable, there is no untraceable electronic hacking. Decentralization makes affecting overall results harder, that much I agree and have stated in my previous post, but it makes affecting local results easier, because recruiting accomplishes in a small town in the middle of nowhere is much easier and cheaper than getting them in high places, which are usually a lot more in evidence.
Local results are not very useful to elect presidents, but they are very useful to elect congressmen, for example.
To provide anonymity the counting and the voting must be separated. In between ballots must be stored in containers. That does provide opportunity for tampering. There can be and there actually were many cases where the containers were tampered with.
The most famous paper vote tampering suspicion that has occurred in US was probably in Florida during Bush's first mandate. The recount was made multiple times and each time the results were a little different. It points to obvious flaws in either ballot security or in the counting process, which are both huge problems especially when the state in question decided presidential elections and both candidates were very close to each other in votes.
And more, paper vote tampering is usually impossible to be proved and untraceable, unlike most electronic tampering.
The prototype being based in a big developer board means nothing. The exploit could be easily replicated in smaller boards that would fit just fine in regular chargers.
There is nothing wrong with voting normally as there is nothing wrong with travelling from east to west cost by foot. It is just a lot slower than the alternative and requires considerably more work.
The right question to make is not this one, though. It is: "Is there a way to achieve both anonymity and security"? The answer is unfortunately no. That is true for normal, paper voting as well, by the way.
The main difference is that electronic voting, and in special online voting, is easier to be tampered with in large scale, and paper voting is easier to be tampered with in smaller scale.
Sorry, but no matter what they do with their money they will keep losing market share if they keep making stupid decisions. If they will wake up in time remains to be seem.
So what? Three times would be reasonable in this case. Now if the probability is 0.1%, 2000 times is not a reasonable or fair amount. If the probability is this low, the law is unenforceable and should be made null and void, replaced by better alternatives that are more akin to reality.
Not at all if I could still sell the product at a profit, as all motherboard and cellphone manufacturers do, for example.
Well, when the intrinsic value of something is lower than its cost to extract or produce it has for any practical effect no value and money paper net value is negative.
You could, but nobody would because it is cheaper to use non money paper even if the money didn't have its added value given by law. But then again most money is bits in bank accounts, paper money isn't going to last long.
No, it would not. If the probability to get caught is too low the law is unenforceable and the government should just give up instead of wasting taxpayer money. If the probability to get caught is something remotely worth the trouble 2-3 times the value is more than enough.
Sure but that does not mean the punishment must be 10 or 100 times the value of what you stole. Twice the value is a fair amount.
Bits in your bank account cannot.
Sure, but nobody does that. Considering you are giving value to the currency by law the lower its cost the better. That is why no fiat currency in existence has any innate value.
Innate value is intrinsic value. In this context innate and intrinsic are synonyms. And no, I haven't said anything that would imply sand or anything else (including dollars) should or should not be currencies. Sand does have innate value though, albeit low, differently from dollars.
Fiat money does have value, and again, nowhere I said or implied it does not, but it has no innate value, in the very same way bitcoins do not.
Like Zimbabwean dollars?
Any value comes from the use we apply to stuff. "Innate value" comes from the value something has on its own, without some external source adding value to it. Gold does have innate value because it would still be required to create many things even if all governments in the planet ceased to be tomorrow. The money in your bank account does not. If you have some cash it may still be used to make a good fire and warm your feet, though.
That said, yes, gold current value comes more from it being used as a currency (and stored increasing its scarcity) than from its innate value, and therefore the former is considerable greater than the latter.
That is virtual value that can cease to be in a moment, in the same way bitcoin value can. Sure, governments with strong economies can keep their currencies healthy, but any economy can dive nose down very quickly and unpredictably given the right (or wrong) circumstances.
Gold has some innate value in the sense that it can be used directly to build stuff. It is just a much lesser value than its current market value at the moment. Fiat currencies have absolute no innate value.
No modern currency has innate value.
Many? More like "a few" paranoid ones, as in "a very few", and it is a completely ineffective measure anyways.
The problem is that it goes all way up to Ballmer.
M$ is losing more and more of its competent developers to Google, Apple and other companies. It is in no position to start firing people for Internet posts. And no, they can't take legal action against him because of this post. The post was very generic, no specific information was disclosed.
Nah, I am just a person who has his own tastes, not a sheeple like you who only likes what your masters tell you to.
I would never buy from Apple, or any big record studio, but I would buy from independent musicians through torrent. I would even pay far in excess of market prices to the ones I like.