The e-voting machines produced by Diebold are deeply flawed in concept.
The "e-voting" concept should be that the computer prints the ballot and that paper ballot is your vote. That ballot lists ONLY the names you chose. You read that and drop it into the ballot box.
The computer counts the number of paper ballots it has printed for each candidate. This number can be released to the news agencies. But the real vote is the paper ballot.
At the end of the day, the names of the voters who used that machine are counted, the paper ballots are counted and both of those are compared to the total number of votes the machine says were cast. If they don't match, there is a problem.
In case of recount, the paper ballots are hand counted.
A random number of machines are checked against the ballots cast at them.
The fact that this is such an obvious solution and that it is so trivial to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious. What company would choose (and what government would allow) anything but the easy and elegant solution described if not because they plan to perpetrate election fraud?
If you had read the article, you would know that the problem was not the machines.
But the problem really was the machines. Diebold's machines don't create paper trails. If there'd been a paper trail, that paper wouldn't have gone back to Diebold HQ and would not have been erased.
Nope [the songs are not watermarked with your ID]. The songs are being provided encoded by the labels and the only watermarks identify the retailer, not the purchaser. Bandwidth would be the predominant cost here.
I hope this is true, but in the interest of diligence: Any online citations available corroborating this? Any independent comparison verifying bitwise identicality between songs sold to separate accounts?
Because when I think back to times when even corporations still behaved with a modicum of civility and tended to err on the side of the customer, I realized that the general level of decency at all levels of interaction was higher.
I wonder if this perception (which I share, by the way) that corporations used to behave better is due to greater information access. The internet now makes bad behavior more widely known and harder to cover up. Which in turn might snowball by making corporations less prone to trying to cover up in the first place.
The fact that someone might fear retribution does not hold. People are obligated to testify in trials even though they might fear retribution. They don't testify anonymously.
I know it's not routine to testify anonymously, but I have a (admittedly vague) impression that I've heard of anonymous testimony in cases where potential retribution was deemed an issue, e.g. mafia-related trials. Do I have this wrong?
I agree that any analogy that incorporates frogs, alligators, or duckbilled platypi has an automatic comic factor built into it.:)
if you meddle with the expected operation of a black-box device--one not intended for unauthorized modifications--you get what you should have expected.
Almost certainly you would have expected Apple to have honored defects introduced by firmware updates. Why are you free of similar obligations?
Are you saying that because Apple fixes firmware defects, people are obligated to let Apple dictate arbitrary terms of usage? For example, can Apple require that iphone owners change their middle names to "Alligator"? (Sorry, I had to work alligators in there somehow.) But seriously, if being required to accept deliberate sabotage by Apple is quid pro quo for having Apple fix firmware bugs, I'd prefer a Rockbox model: Apple sells the hardware, is in no way obligated to fix bugs, and the open community comes up with its own variety of software.
"Apple has more money" is not a valid answer unless you're also willing to admit you don't mind thievery if the subject is rich enough.
While "Apple has more money" wasn't among my answers, I'll state for the record that I don't mind wealth redistribution that in some way compensates for the absurd free ride that corporations are getting legally/politically. Maybe that makes me a communist.
I probably wouldn't have an issue with a counselor/photographer at my kid's camp (or excursion or whatever it was) posting photos of the event that included my daughter. I would have a problem with a company making a buck off of my child's photo, especially in light of the ridicule this child has apparently been subject to.
Ok, so either you feel the license has been violated (in which case you sue Virgin) or you object to the original licensing of the photo (in which case you sue the photographer). Was the license violated? And on what grounds would Creative Commons become one of your targets?
I am not a father, but if some company plastered my 16 y.o. daughter's picture all over TV, billboards, newspapers and the internet with a caption "Free Text Virgin to Virgin," there would be no end to my wrath.
Ok, but why wouldn't your wrath be directed at the photographer who made the photo publicly available with a license saying, essentially, "use however you like"?
It's always the responsibility of the final client to ensure that a model release exists.
I'll ask because you seem knowledgeable: what is a "model release"? And whatever it is, where can one find authoritative info spelling out where responsibility lies as far as ensuring one exists?
[Google's data-mining capabilities aren't] much different from any other Cell Provider...
I'd contend that they are quite different. Google has many different channels of data available, most of it digital rather than in need of anything like voice recognition, which Google is eminently capable of correlating and drawing semantic inferences from. These statements don't apply to other cellphone carriers.
...while Google has a history of creating a level of user anonymity that companies like AT&T don't.
I'm drawing a complete blank here... what history of Google creating anonymity are you referring to?
I can still run, repair, and write code for my Sun IPX. The only reason to "change" (not evolve) is human desire. Has nothing to do with need.
If I have a business that involves running software, and the people who contract and pay for my work want my output to keep up with features and bugfixes available only in the newest version of Microsoft SQL, or demand that their data on my servers be protected by the most current anti virus software available, is it meaningful to characterize my motivation to accede to my clients' wishes as a "desire" vs a "want"? What does such a distinction bring to this discussion?
Stallman's view that you can "lose your freedom" is similar to the argument that "piracy is stealing".
No matter how much I release derived software in violation of the GPL, your freedom is not reduced any more than if I hadn't. There is nothing I could do to prevent you from taking the current version of Linux and changing it to do what you want.
Your argument above is like the view that not being able to upgrade one's copy of Windows is in no way a detriment... after all, the OS still does all the stuff it originally did at the time of purchase, so there's no backslide, right? Except that hardware needs evolve, software needs evolve, security needs evolve. A three-year-old unpatched version of windows IS worse than it was at the time of purchase... there's lots of new software you can't run, your ability to upgrade to new and more powerful machines is hampered, and your defenses against the latest viruses are laughable.
Similarly, Stallman doesn't want the ongoing evolution of software to leave behind the very people who got that software to its original baseline.
An example, somewhat contrived for the sake of stark illustration: suppose hardware vendors begin putting some new piece of hardware on all new motherboards such that it became impossible to purchase a motherboard without this hardware. Maybe the hardware is a video chip deemed to be the be-all end-all, or some new variety of tcpa chip through which all bus transmissions travel. Suppose it's impossible to meaningfully operate such a motherboard without involving the new hardware. And, suppose the hardware is proprietary, without free drivers or controllers. This could end in a situation where it's not possible to run Linux on the machine.
Doesn't sound all that crazy to me. Lord knows, it's not like vendors' consciences would prevent them from doing this; if for-profit organizations could charge you $10 per breath until you were dead, without getting themselves into legal trouble, many would do it in a snap. And from a technological viability standpoint I doubt the impossibility of this scenario. Just how likely or unlikely it is seems hard to guess, but at this point in time -- with our corrupt governments, unabashedly greedy corporations, and woefully uninformed populace, it seems plausible to speculate that the outcome could be determined by factors other than "what's good for the consumer". In fact, the only fly in the ointment for the corporate overlords might just end up being that there's a little technicality known as "the law" which demands corporations respect various licenses, among them the GPL.
So I don't particularly blame Stallman for targeting parts of the GPL v3 at such scenarios. In fact, rather than critizing him or calling him a zealot, I rather find myself inclined to feel thankful that someone has their thinking cap on.
Do we pop up a window saying, "SOFTWARE PIRACY DETECTED!! YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL IF YOU DON'T STOP!"
fyi, this option will motivate people to take up the challenge. They'll make it their mission to crack the software and distribute the crack as widely as possible, just out of principle.
If the website designer has to pay for bits each time you view their website without viewing their banner ads, are you engaged in theft?
For the millionth time, no. No more so than getting up from the couch during tv commercials, and no more so than turning one's head away from a billboard.
Next question please, and this time make it a good one.
So even if something like Heaven (for instance) doesn't exist, it doesn't matter because A.) if Heaven exists, you're set, B.) if Heaven doesn't exist, you'll be dead by the time you learn the truth
A different scenario I frequently mull upon begins with a person who applies this logic by professing fealty to gods out of a fear that not doing so will bar him entrance from heaven. This person figures he's safe in this position due to the logic above (Pascal's wager). This person dies, finds himself in an audience with various gods, and upon reviewing his record the gods are repelled by the idea of somebody who spent a lifetime choosing behavior simply to gain a reward, rather than doing "good" things because doing so made sense in itself. The gods decide they don't want the company of someone who won't think for themselves, that they'd rather have the company of people whos lives aren't directed by fear.
Who are you to challenge the intelligence of people like Einstein...
Feel like I should flag this one. From what I've read, Einstein didn't believe in gods. The quote about gods not playing dice was -- reportedly -- a metaphor.
...Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, George Washington and all of the many, many other brilliant historical figures that also believed in God? [...] The the rest of us are quite capable of speaking without your help.
A list of impressive people, though one could question whether their various strengths lend them credibility in theological matters. But regardless: doesn't asserting the right/imperative/ability of people to think and speak for themselves seem a bit contrary to claiming that the beliefs of others should be considered persuasive?
You might find the Nokia 9300 (and it's bigger cousin the 9500) fun... they're simbian based, i.e. descended directly from the Psion lineage complete with app buttons and (for a pda) a great keyboard. I was a Psion series 3A fan way back in 94 and missed the hell out of it when it disappeared from the market; the Nokia 9300 has really been like going home.:)
Quite frankly, unless you really really want to waste time, buy one of these tiny devices and begin enjoying a powerful open Linux-powered media system within minutes. The package also includes a remote control that can be easily programmed to work with most TV.
The Neuros OSD FAQ mentions that there is no tuner in the device, and portrays the workarounds for this omission as not working smoothly:
Can I use the OSD to record live TV?
Yes you can. All you need to do is connect your Neuros OSD to a video source (DVR, Cable or Satellite receiver box, VCR, etc...) using the RCA cables provided. Get your video source on the channel you want to record (the Neuros OSD does not have a built-in tuner), and you are all set. You can even use the IR blaster included in the accessories to schedule recordings on different channels at different times. The IR blaster will emulate the IR signal used by your remote to set the tuner of your video source to the channel of your choice at the time of the recording. (you can also use the serial cable which has the potential for interfacing with devices such as TiVo directly). None of these solutions (IR blaster and serial cable) are in 100% working order as of 3/20/07, but they are being actively pursued. Stay tuned for updates.
Slashdot Mirror
It really makes one think, doesn't it? I'll quote a slashdot entry from an earlier related discussion:
But the problem really was the machines. Diebold's machines don't create paper trails. If there'd been a paper trail, that paper wouldn't have gone back to Diebold HQ and would not have been erased.
Yup. Time to hit up your med school chum for that spare cadaver.
I hope this is true, but in the interest of diligence: Any online citations available corroborating this? Any independent comparison verifying bitwise identicality between songs sold to separate accounts?
I wonder if this perception (which I share, by the way) that corporations used to behave better is due to greater information access. The internet now makes bad behavior more widely known and harder to cover up. Which in turn might snowball by making corporations less prone to trying to cover up in the first place.
I know it's not routine to testify anonymously, but I have a (admittedly vague) impression that I've heard of anonymous testimony in cases where potential retribution was deemed an issue, e.g. mafia-related trials. Do I have this wrong?
I dunno sounds harmless to me...
I agree that any analogy that incorporates frogs, alligators, or duckbilled platypi has an automatic comic factor built into it. :)
Are you saying that because Apple fixes firmware defects, people are obligated to let Apple dictate arbitrary terms of usage? For example, can Apple require that iphone owners change their middle names to "Alligator"? (Sorry, I had to work alligators in there somehow.) But seriously, if being required to accept deliberate sabotage by Apple is quid pro quo for having Apple fix firmware bugs, I'd prefer a Rockbox model: Apple sells the hardware, is in no way obligated to fix bugs, and the open community comes up with its own variety of software.
While "Apple has more money" wasn't among my answers, I'll state for the record that I don't mind wealth redistribution that in some way compensates for the absurd free ride that corporations are getting legally/politically. Maybe that makes me a communist.
Right, and the fact that they put the alligators in the water to intentionally eat swimmers doesn't take away their moral high ground one bit.
Ok, so either you feel the license has been violated (in which case you sue Virgin) or you object to the original licensing of the photo (in which case you sue the photographer). Was the license violated? And on what grounds would Creative Commons become one of your targets?
Ok, but why wouldn't your wrath be directed at the photographer who made the photo publicly available with a license saying, essentially, "use however you like"?
I'll ask because you seem knowledgeable: what is a "model release"? And whatever it is, where can one find authoritative info spelling out where responsibility lies as far as ensuring one exists?
I'd contend that they are quite different. Google has many different channels of data available, most of it digital rather than in need of anything like voice recognition, which Google is eminently capable of correlating and drawing semantic inferences from. These statements don't apply to other cellphone carriers.
I'm drawing a complete blank here... what history of Google creating anonymity are you referring to?
Reminds me of the (presumably rhetorical) question "If Jesus is all powerful, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?"
If I have a business that involves running software, and the people who contract and pay for my work want my output to keep up with features and bugfixes available only in the newest version of Microsoft SQL, or demand that their data on my servers be protected by the most current anti virus software available, is it meaningful to characterize my motivation to accede to my clients' wishes as a "desire" vs a "want"? What does such a distinction bring to this discussion?
Your argument above is like the view that not being able to upgrade one's copy of Windows is in no way a detriment... after all, the OS still does all the stuff it originally did at the time of purchase, so there's no backslide, right? Except that hardware needs evolve, software needs evolve, security needs evolve. A three-year-old unpatched version of windows IS worse than it was at the time of purchase... there's lots of new software you can't run, your ability to upgrade to new and more powerful machines is hampered, and your defenses against the latest viruses are laughable.
Similarly, Stallman doesn't want the ongoing evolution of software to leave behind the very people who got that software to its original baseline.
An example, somewhat contrived for the sake of stark illustration: suppose hardware vendors begin putting some new piece of hardware on all new motherboards such that it became impossible to purchase a motherboard without this hardware. Maybe the hardware is a video chip deemed to be the be-all end-all, or some new variety of tcpa chip through which all bus transmissions travel. Suppose it's impossible to meaningfully operate such a motherboard without involving the new hardware. And, suppose the hardware is proprietary, without free drivers or controllers. This could end in a situation where it's not possible to run Linux on the machine.
Doesn't sound all that crazy to me. Lord knows, it's not like vendors' consciences would prevent them from doing this; if for-profit organizations could charge you $10 per breath until you were dead, without getting themselves into legal trouble, many would do it in a snap. And from a technological viability standpoint I doubt the impossibility of this scenario. Just how likely or unlikely it is seems hard to guess, but at this point in time -- with our corrupt governments, unabashedly greedy corporations, and woefully uninformed populace, it seems plausible to speculate that the outcome could be determined by factors other than "what's good for the consumer". In fact, the only fly in the ointment for the corporate overlords might just end up being that there's a little technicality known as "the law" which demands corporations respect various licenses, among them the GPL.
So I don't particularly blame Stallman for targeting parts of the GPL v3 at such scenarios. In fact, rather than critizing him or calling him a zealot, I rather find myself inclined to feel thankful that someone has their thinking cap on.
fyi, this option will motivate people to take up the challenge. They'll make it their mission to crack the software and distribute the crack as widely as possible, just out of principle.
For the millionth time, no. No more so than getting up from the couch during tv commercials, and no more so than turning one's head away from a billboard.
Next question please, and this time make it a good one.
A different scenario I frequently mull upon begins with a person who applies this logic by professing fealty to gods out of a fear that not doing so will bar him entrance from heaven. This person figures he's safe in this position due to the logic above (Pascal's wager). This person dies, finds himself in an audience with various gods, and upon reviewing his record the gods are repelled by the idea of somebody who spent a lifetime choosing behavior simply to gain a reward, rather than doing "good" things because doing so made sense in itself. The gods decide they don't want the company of someone who won't think for themselves, that they'd rather have the company of people whos lives aren't directed by fear.
Just a thought. :)
Feel like I should flag this one. From what I've read, Einstein didn't believe in gods. The quote about gods not playing dice was -- reportedly -- a metaphor.
A list of impressive people, though one could question whether their various strengths lend them credibility in theological matters. But regardless: doesn't asserting the right/imperative/ability of people to think and speak for themselves seem a bit contrary to claiming that the beliefs of others should be considered persuasive?
You might find the Nokia 9300 (and it's bigger cousin the 9500) fun... they're simbian based, i.e. descended directly from the Psion lineage complete with app buttons and (for a pda) a great keyboard. I was a Psion series 3A fan way back in 94 and missed the hell out of it when it disappeared from the market; the Nokia 9300 has really been like going home. :)
Replace "get to" with "have to". As the GP pointed out, we are all being systematically criminalized. You need to think for yourself now... try it.
Reminds me of that joke about Elaine and the horse etc.
The Neuros OSD FAQ mentions that there is no tuner in the device, and portrays the workarounds for this omission as not working smoothly:
Any clarification available?Check this out