>...i wander if the headline for the arrest of someone on my res > hall would read "international organized piracy syndicate taken > down".
Yes, of course it would, and if anyone in the building is from the Middle East there would be allegations that the operation was "financing terrorism".
> Would this not be more useful as software, able to render simple > 3d hands with low microprocessor overheads...
There is no need for 3d. I know a woman who makes her living as an ASL translator. She spends most of her time sitting sitting in front of a monitor and camera wearing earphones.
The robot hand is pointless. The computer could just as well generate cartoon images.
> Also, would it be possible for my card, whatever it may be, to be > scanned twice at the same moment?
Of course. It would even be possible to build a "passive" scanner that does not transmit any rf to excite the chip but instead waits for another scanner to do so. This would avoid detection by monitors designed to detect "unauthorized" scanners.
> What if I took an RFID scanner and lurked around a stationary > scanner, would it be possible for me to pick up people's RFID > info?
If you used a normal active scanner you would not need to lurk around stationary scanners.
To oversimplify, the tag receives rf transmitted by the reader, rectifies it, and uses the resulting dc to power a transmitter. The range thus depends on the power of the reader's transmitter and the sensitivity of its receiver. As I noted elsewhere, rfid tags have been read at 65 feet using homebrew readers.
> Considering the reading range on RFID cards is usually a few > centimetres, I think I might notice someone trying to put a > piece of electronic equipment to my trouser pocket.
The range is determined by the reader, not the chip. That "few cm" is the guaranteed range of the manufacturers (fairly low power) readers. Last I saw the record, using a homebrew reader, was 65 feet. This is radio we are talking about. There is no firm range limit.
> I think it would be much easier, and cheaper, to have banket > security in this case -- i.e., you need positive approval from > me before reading any of my data.
Or be in line behind you when you are buying cigarettes.
And, of course, it would be closed-source and compulsory for all music and video. All players and recorders of any sort would be required to implement it in hardware.
And cracking it or possessing cracking tools would be a felony.
> Any respectable/. user should have most of this suite installed > already (excluding a few things)...
I don't have most of those things installed, couldn't if I wanted to because I don't use Microsoft software, and wouldn't want most of it even if I could install it. I guess I'm not a real Slashdotter.
> Let me guess, you don't vote because you think your vote doesn't > count.
You guessed wrong. I'm arguing against those who say that you should only vote for major party candidates, because otherwise you are "wasting your vote".
> Please always vote.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I decide.
> Unless, of course, you're a democrat. Then I don't mind if you > stay home;-)
In your terms, I'm a radical libertarian with anarchistic tendencies. From my point of view the differences between Republicans and Democrats is almost imperceptible.
BTW before you get all choked up about the wonders of democracy you might want to read up on Arrow's theorem.
> I have relatives in Wisconsin that are very set on voting, but are > not computer friendly at all. Getting them to make the change > should be entertaining. There comfort level is based on the old > system, and any change about something they view as important as > voting will make them very nervous.
I'm with them. I live in Wisconsin and am more computer-literate than the average Slashdotter, but I still oppose computerized voting. In fact, it is precisely because I know a lot about computers that I oppose it. Fortunately, I live in a small rural township where I hope we will continue to put our paper ballots into our 100 year old ballot box for the forseeable future.
Bad idea. Closed-source firmware, excessive complexity, poor reliability. Voting machines need to be simple special-purpose machines with all design details (not just source code) public.
> What would really be nice for secure voting would be a system of > encrypted voting.
It is not sufficient for a system of voting to be secure. It must also be able to be seen to be secure by an ordinary citizen. Paper ballots meet both requirements. No computerized system does.
First, the law does not require "open source". It requires that the software be availble for voters to read and test. Not the same thing at all. Second, what part of "the software" don't you understand? And why would a voting machine have a BIOS at all? And why would it have anything other than firmware? Do you expect them to use desktop pcs for this?
Slashdot Mirror
> ...i wander if the headline for the arrest of someone on my res
> hall would read "international organized piracy syndicate taken
> down".
Yes, of course it would, and if anyone in the building is from the Middle East there would be allegations that the operation was "financing terrorism".
> Would this not be more useful as software, able to render simple
> 3d hands with low microprocessor overheads...
There is no need for 3d. I know a woman who makes her living as an ASL translator. She spends most of her time sitting sitting in front of a monitor and camera wearing earphones.
The robot hand is pointless. The computer could just as well generate cartoon images.
> Also, would it be possible for my card, whatever it may be, to be
> scanned twice at the same moment?
Of course. It would even be possible to build a "passive" scanner that does not transmit any rf to excite the chip but instead waits for another scanner to do so. This would avoid detection by monitors designed to detect "unauthorized" scanners.
> What if I took an RFID scanner and lurked around a stationary
> scanner, would it be possible for me to pick up people's RFID
> info?
If you used a normal active scanner you would not need to lurk around stationary scanners.
To oversimplify, the tag receives rf transmitted by the reader, rectifies it, and uses the resulting dc to power a transmitter. The range thus depends on the power of the reader's transmitter and the sensitivity of its receiver. As I noted elsewhere, rfid tags have been read at 65 feet using homebrew readers.
> Considering the reading range on RFID cards is usually a few
> centimetres, I think I might notice someone trying to put a
> piece of electronic equipment to my trouser pocket.
The range is determined by the reader, not the chip. That "few cm" is the guaranteed range of the manufacturers (fairly low power) readers. Last I saw the record, using a homebrew reader, was 65 feet. This is radio we are talking about. There is no firm range limit.
> I think it would be much easier, and cheaper, to have banket
> security in this case -- i.e., you need positive approval from
> me before reading any of my data.
Or be in line behind you when you are buying cigarettes.
Line your wallet with adhesive-backed aluminum tape.
And, of course, it would be closed-source and compulsory for all music and video. All players and recorders of any sort would be required to implement it in hardware.
And cracking it or possessing cracking tools would be a felony.
Larry Paige in a white robe being lowered onto the stage on wires? Sure.
This is about tapping investor's wallets, not trees. After all, "green" is HOT! And what could be "greener" than a tree?
...Perhaps by Slashdot standards.
> This sounds like sleep deprivation more than anything.
Some people do fine on five hours a day (I envy them). However, fifteen hours a day in front of the computer? Get the hell out of the house!
I think that the-joy-of-being-a-flaming-asshole dept would be more appropriate. This is Rupert Murdoch we're talking about.
> Any respectable /. user should have most of this suite installed
> already (excluding a few things)...
I don't have most of those things installed, couldn't if I wanted to because I don't use Microsoft software, and wouldn't want most of it even if I could install it. I guess I'm not a real Slashdotter.
> Let me guess, you don't vote because you think your vote doesn't
;-)
> count.
You guessed wrong. I'm arguing against those who say that you should only vote for major party candidates, because otherwise you are "wasting your vote".
> Please always vote.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I decide.
> Unless, of course, you're a democrat. Then I don't mind if you
> stay home
In your terms, I'm a radical libertarian with anarchistic tendencies. From my point of view the differences between Republicans and Democrats is almost imperceptible.
BTW before you get all choked up about the wonders of democracy you might want to read up on Arrow's theorem.
> Now, if we can only get people to forget the feral cat thing...
I'd rather forget the premise registration thing.
> It's pretty much the same thing in the debate. Right now I'm not
> required to show any form of ID before I vote.
Neither am I. Anna just writes down my name and asks if Robin will be coming in to vote later.
When I say paper ballot I mean paper ballot. Computer-printed ballots are something else, though certainly preferable to purely electronic systems.
Where did the "copied so the voter can verify later" part come from, though?
I don't understand your question. What voting machine?
> I have relatives in Wisconsin that are very set on voting, but are
> not computer friendly at all. Getting them to make the change
> should be entertaining. There comfort level is based on the old
> system, and any change about something they view as important as
> voting will make them very nervous.
I'm with them. I live in Wisconsin and am more computer-literate than the average Slashdotter, but I still oppose computerized voting. In fact, it is precisely because I know a lot about computers that I oppose it. Fortunately, I live in a small rural township where I hope we will continue to put our paper ballots into our 100 year old ballot box for the forseeable future.
> Commodity hardware
Bad idea. Closed-source firmware, excessive complexity, poor reliability. Voting machines need to be simple special-purpose machines with all design details (not just source code) public.
> What would really be nice for secure voting would be a system of
> encrypted voting.
It is not sufficient for a system of voting to be secure. It must also be able to be seen to be secure by an ordinary citizen. Paper ballots meet both requirements. No computerized system does.
First, the law does not require "open source". It requires that the software be availble for voters to read and test. Not the same thing at all. Second, what part of "the software" don't you understand? And why would a voting machine have a BIOS at all? And why would it have anything other than firmware? Do you expect them to use desktop pcs for this?
> Though it won't make much difference if they also decide to ignore
> the new law when no vendors offer anything compliant.
If they try that I abso-fucking-lutely guarantee that they will find themselves in court if I have to sue them myself and go pro se.