If it fails, some scientists believe the only alternative is to figure out some way to pump all that carbon dioxide into the ocean, a significant problem since about 70 percent of the nation's power plants are inland.
No, the answer, of course, is to NOT burn coal. Go nuclear:-)
Quoting from her site: (Read the rest, it's worth it!)
I am adamantly opposed to the use of fully electronic systems for use
in anonymous balloting and vote tabulation applications. The reasons
for my opposition are manyfold, and are expressed in my writings as well
as those of other computer security experts (many papers are linked below).
To briefly summarize my opinion (based on a decade of research) on this
matter I state the following:
Fully electronic systems do not provide any way that the voter can truly
verify that the ballot cast corresponds to that being recorded, transmitted,
or tabulated. Any programmer can write code that displays one thing
on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result.
There is no known way to ensure that this is not happening inside of a
voting system.
Electronic balloting systems without individual print-outs for examination
by the voters, do not provide an independent audit trail (despite manufacturer
claims to the contrary). As all systems (especially electronic) are
prone to error, the ability to also perform a manual hand-count of the
ballots is essential.
No electronic voting system has been certified to even the lowest level
of the U.S. government or international computer security standards, nor
has any been required to comply with such. Hence, no electronic voting
system can be called secure (despite manufacturer claims).
There are no required standards for voting displays, so computer ballots
can be constructed to be as confusing (or more) than the butterfly used
in Florida, giving advantage to some candidates over others.
Electronic balloting and tabulation makes the tasks performed by poll workers,
challengers, and election officials purely procedural, and removes any
opportunity to perform bipartisan checks. The election process is
entrusted to a small group of individuals who program and construct the
machines.
Internet voting provides avenues of system attack to the entire planet.
If the major software manufacturer in the USA could not protect their own
company from an Internet attack, one must understand that voting systems
will be no better (and probably worse) in terms of vulnerability.
Off-site Internet voting creates unresolvable problems with authentication,
leading to possible loss of voter privacy, vote-selling, and coersion.
These systems should not be used for any government election.
Also, the RISKS Digest has several articles in recent issues about this; it's archived at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks
Check out this article for a counter argument to this approach.
Quoting from that page:
Why you should oppose Location Poisoning as a customer
As customer, you are paying, so that the company owning the web-pages can profile you. Not only is tracking the default, there also is no way out, no "I don't wanna be tracked" button.
With "paying" I do literally mean money and time. Location Poisoning disables proxy servers, DNS caching and other mechanisms that reduce the amount of net traffic. More traffic means waiting longer for pages to appear, and if you pay for your traffic (most small businesses do) it also means you are paying money that you shouldn't have to pay.
Location Poisoning also abuses HTTP and DNS standards. The reply to an initial request is a 302 error code, reserved for "Temporarily Moved" documents. Giving this reply is somewhat akin to a lie by the remote webserver.
Abusing standards for one-sided gains should not be endorsed. It undermines the standards and punishes those who try to respect them.
Location Poisoning also undermines the purpose of DNS and hostnames. Instead of using DNS to give human-readable names of server machines ("www.lemuria.org" instead of 195.244.121.251), it abuses the DNS to identify a client machine - i.e. you, the customer.
If we could moderate the articles themselves, I'd moderate this one down as Flamebait or Troll.
I agree! Bad karma to CmdrTaco!:))
Seriously, though, that's a horribly bad summary of the article. If/. has editorial reviews, or even just an internal mailing list for posters, they should circulate this as a clear example of what _not_ to do.
I don't see this as a problem at all. They used l0phtcrack (sp?) to break into systems and steal data. That makes it a burglary tool, along with the computer it was used on in my eyes.
We're hardly talking about some egregious insane clause in the UCITA, here. If you use your coat hanger to pop the lock on someone else's car and drive off in it, your coathanger's a burglary tool. It doesn't matter if someone else in the next town is using coathangers innocently to open their own car; their coathanger is completely unrelated to yours.
How's that for a wierd example?:))
ObDisclaimer: IANAL
Re:Imminent demise of USENET predicted
on
Is Usenet Dying?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you.
Of course, all any of these things need is open free good crypto, just like almost any other problem we have these days:)
On the plus side, September gets closer every day... -- Mike
I'm fairly sure this was made illegal by a law passed recently (after some congressman's cell calls were taped? I can't remember).
But it does make a good point about the need for encryption, doesn't it?
This feels closer to "art" or "civil disobedience" than an illegal act... Actually, if the "artist" billed it as an art form commenting on the silliness of the crypto restrictions, would that make this protected speech?
I think college is probably not a bad idea; it's a good way to get an introduction to a broad range of subjects you may not otherwise look at.
If you're self-disciplined enough, you could just buy and read the textbooks, but I think few people have the discipline to make it all the way through the Dragon Book, for instance, without a final exam looming in the future.
Of course, it also depends on the degree. An "IT" or "MIS" program that's heavy on accounting and business courses is not likely to be "geek-friendly":) The CS/Math degree I took was fairly interesting, though, and gave me a look at lots of things I wouldn't have otherwise seen.
The flip side of that is that I've learned a lot more at work or on my own projects than I ever did in school, but I might not have had the base to start from (or the first job:) without the university...
Slashdot Mirror
The bad joke possibilities are just endless...
In the book, an accidental massive nuking of clathrate deposits causes a runaway greenhouse effect. Not pretty...
I think he was talking about much larger deposits than this, though, and a heck of a big nuke (well, antimatter, I seem to recall. Details...).
In any case, it's a pretty good story for the weather effects, but there are some very disturbing sexual scenes, so you've been warned...
No, the answer, of course, is to NOT burn coal. Go nuclear :-)
Quoting from her site: (Read the rest, it's worth it!)
I am adamantly opposed to the use of fully electronic systems for use
in anonymous balloting and vote tabulation applications. The reasons
for my opposition are manyfold, and are expressed in my writings as well
as those of other computer security experts (many papers are linked below).
To briefly summarize my opinion (based on a decade of research) on this
matter I state the following:
verify that the ballot cast corresponds to that being recorded, transmitted,
or tabulated. Any programmer can write code that displays one thing
on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result.
There is no known way to ensure that this is not happening inside of a
voting system.
by the voters, do not provide an independent audit trail (despite manufacturer
claims to the contrary). As all systems (especially electronic) are
prone to error, the ability to also perform a manual hand-count of the
ballots is essential.
of the U.S. government or international computer security standards, nor
has any been required to comply with such. Hence, no electronic voting
system can be called secure (despite manufacturer claims).
can be constructed to be as confusing (or more) than the butterfly used
in Florida, giving advantage to some candidates over others.
challengers, and election officials purely procedural, and removes any
opportunity to perform bipartisan checks. The election process is
entrusted to a small group of individuals who program and construct the
machines.
If the major software manufacturer in the USA could not protect their own
company from an Internet attack, one must understand that voting systems
will be no better (and probably worse) in terms of vulnerability.
leading to possible loss of voter privacy, vote-selling, and coersion.
These systems should not be used for any government election.
Also, the RISKS Digest has several articles in recent issues about this; it's archived at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks
If the gene sequence is copylefted, does that mean that the cell has to publish its source if it mutates? :-)
--
Mike
Check out this article for a counter argument to this approach.
Quoting from that page:
Why you should oppose Location Poisoning as a customerAs customer, you are paying, so that the company owning the web-pages can profile you. Not only is tracking the default, there also is no way out, no "I don't wanna be tracked" button.
With "paying" I do literally mean money and time. Location Poisoning disables proxy servers, DNS caching and other mechanisms that reduce the amount of net traffic. More traffic means waiting longer for pages to appear, and if you pay for your traffic (most small businesses do) it also means you are paying money that you shouldn't have to pay.
Location Poisoning also abuses HTTP and DNS standards. The reply to an initial request is a 302 error code, reserved for "Temporarily Moved" documents. Giving this reply is somewhat akin to a lie by the remote webserver.
Abusing standards for one-sided gains should not be endorsed. It undermines the standards and punishes those who try to respect them.
Location Poisoning also undermines the purpose of DNS and hostnames. Instead of using DNS to give human-readable names of server machines ("www.lemuria.org" instead of 195.244.121.251), it abuses the DNS to identify a client machine - i.e. you, the customer.
If we could moderate the articles themselves, I'd moderate this one down as Flamebait or Troll.
:))
/. has editorial reviews, or even just an internal mailing list for posters, they should circulate this as a clear example of what _not_ to do.
I agree! Bad karma to CmdrTaco!
Seriously, though, that's a horribly bad summary of the article. If
The alternative is losing all credibility, IMHO.
I don't see this as a problem at all. They used l0phtcrack (sp?) to break into systems and steal data. That makes it a burglary tool, along with the computer it was used on in my eyes.
:))
We're hardly talking about some egregious insane clause in the UCITA, here. If you use your coat hanger to pop the lock on someone else's car and drive off in it, your coathanger's a burglary tool. It doesn't matter if someone else in the next town is using coathangers innocently to open their own car; their coathanger is completely unrelated to yours.
How's that for a wierd example?
ObDisclaimer: IANAL
I agree with you.
:)
Of course, all any of these things need is open free good crypto, just like almost any other problem we have these days
On the plus side, September gets closer every day...
--
Mike
I'm fairly sure this was made illegal by a law passed recently (after some congressman's cell calls were taped? I can't remember).
But it does make a good point about the need for encryption, doesn't it?
This feels closer to "art" or "civil disobedience" than an illegal act... Actually, if the "artist" billed it as an art form commenting on the silliness of the crypto restrictions, would that make this protected speech?
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer!
--
Mike
>A superluminal link would be just a little bit :)
:)
>faster than my Ethernet connection, I'd guess
Well, the bandwidth wouldn't necessarily be better, but the latency would be great!
Good for those lag-free Quake XX games with your buddies on Mars...
I think college is probably not a bad idea; it's a good way to get an introduction to a broad range of subjects you may not otherwise look at.
:) The CS/Math degree I took was fairly interesting, though, and gave me a look at lots of things I wouldn't have otherwise seen.
:) without the university...
If you're self-disciplined enough, you could just buy and read the textbooks, but I think few people have the discipline to make it all the way through the Dragon Book, for instance, without a final exam looming in the future.
Of course, it also depends on the degree. An "IT" or "MIS" program that's heavy on accounting and business courses is not likely to be "geek-friendly"
The flip side of that is that I've learned a lot more at work or on my own projects than I ever did in school, but I might not have had the base to start from (or the first job