Exactly. That statement is great because it shows that Nedap is totally not getting the point. "We Don't Trust People" is always implicitly assumed. The fundamental reason for any and all voting systems is that they should make it unnecessary to trust anybody. Instead they should make it possible to personally inspect the process and that everything is in order.
With paper voting you don't need to trust anybody, you can simply go to your local polling station and watch the whole process: at the start of the day there is an empty ballot box, all over the day the voters come and cast their ballots and at the end of the day the ballot box is emptied and every ballot counted. No strings attached, no trust involved.
Because: a) you'd need to count the paper votes anyway (at least in some fraction of the districts) and b) what should happen if paper count and computer count disagree? As far as I know the b)-thing happened lately somewhere (I forgot the location, was it in Spain?) and then it was decided that the paper count was too unreliable and the computer count was used.
Excuse me, but am I the only one that remembers the Taliban offering the transfer of Bin Laden to the US, _if_ the US provided sufficient evidence for Bin Laden's guilt?
And I really hope I'm not the only one who doesn't consider "He doesn't like us, we don't like him and he has enough money to fund such a thing." as sufficient evidence.
outlawing encryption does make it easier to identify who is using encryption
I absolutely agree with you on that part.
But using encryption itself shouldn't be a crime.
Simple example: Outlawing red ink makes it easier to identify who is using red ink, but it won't stop people from writing things down.
--
Henryk Plötz
Grüße von der Ostsee
At first: When I'm talking about "Napster" I'm mostly talking about Gnapster and the OpenNap-Network, as I've only tried that.
OK, so I've been using Napster for some time and wasn't quite satisfied. Then I tried Gnutella in the incarnation of the LimeWire client and I think it rocks.
The Napster-Network may have its benefits, but it's like AOL: Just about everyone can use it. There often are these guys that can't figure out, how to change their shared-directory to exclude their precious files, but instead read in some l33t magazine, that they can set their max. uploads limit to 0. That is, I may find the file I want, but will be unable to download it.
Opposed to this I found it much harder to get into the Gnutella Network, and others might have too. Therefore, the user base of Gnutella is more experienced and educated about the importance of sharing in a peer2peer network. LimeWire did its part to this.
Gnutella might not scale as good as Napster doe, but as noted before, it doesn't have to. In Napster one has access to around 5 Terabyte, as opossed to Gnutella where I found to have an average 60 TB available. There is no need for even more files. On the other hand (remember that "No one will ever need more than 640KB of RAM"?) it will probably increase on its own, as technology evolves.
It will not increase in size, because more size is needed, but because more is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. That statement is great because it shows that Nedap is totally not getting the point. "We Don't Trust People" is always implicitly assumed. The fundamental reason for any and all voting systems is that they should make it unnecessary to trust anybody. Instead they should make it possible to personally inspect the process and that everything is in order.
With paper voting you don't need to trust anybody, you can simply go to your local polling station and watch the whole process: at the start of the day there is an empty ballot box, all over the day the voters come and cast their ballots and at the end of the day the ballot box is emptied and every ballot counted. No strings attached, no trust involved.
Because: a) you'd need to count the paper votes anyway (at least in some fraction of the districts) and b) what should happen if paper count and computer count disagree? As far as I know the b)-thing happened lately somewhere (I forgot the location, was it in Spain?) and then it was decided that the paper count was too unreliable and the computer count was used.
Excuse me, but am I the only one that remembers the Taliban offering the transfer of Bin Laden to the US, _if_ the US provided sufficient evidence for Bin Laden's guilt?
And I really hope I'm not the only one who doesn't consider "He doesn't like us, we don't like him and he has enough money to fund such a thing." as sufficient evidence.
--
Henryk Plötz
Grüße von der Ostsee
Simple example: Outlawing red ink makes it easier to identify who is using red ink, but it won't stop people from writing things down.
--
Henryk Plötz
Grüße von der Ostsee
At first: When I'm talking about "Napster" I'm mostly talking about Gnapster and the OpenNap-Network, as I've only tried that.
OK, so I've been using Napster for some time and wasn't quite satisfied. Then I tried Gnutella in the incarnation of the LimeWire client and I think it rocks.
The Napster-Network may have its benefits, but it's like AOL: Just about everyone can use it. There often are these guys that can't figure out, how to change their shared-directory to exclude their precious files, but instead read in some l33t magazine, that they can set their max. uploads limit to 0. That is, I may find the file I want, but will be unable to download it.
Opposed to this I found it much harder to get into the Gnutella Network, and others might have too. Therefore, the user base of Gnutella is more experienced and educated about the importance of sharing in a peer2peer network. LimeWire did its part to this.
Gnutella might not scale as good as Napster doe, but as noted before, it doesn't have to. In Napster one has access to around 5 Terabyte, as opossed to Gnutella where I found to have an average 60 TB available. There is no need for even more files. On the other hand (remember that "No one will ever need more than 640KB of RAM"?) it will probably increase on its own, as technology evolves.
It will not increase in size, because more size is needed, but because more is possible.