> The absolute refusal to administer a paper-trail > system is sickening, but I really can't understand > what they are thinking.
I think the television networks are a driving force here. They want final election results in time for the 11PM news, and a totally computerized system is the only way to get that.
> Actually if you know some actual liberals, you'd > realize CBS News is right wing.
Unless you know some actual conservatives, in which case you'd "realize" CBS News is left wing.
The fact is that the extreme left considers the news media right-wing while the extreme right considers it left-wing. You can find people who call Fox left-wing and others who insist that NPR is rightist.
The ballot box paper copy, of course. Therefor there is no point in bothering with the database at all. Just count the damn votes at the end of the election.
> And not even going into the issue of the voter > copy being used to influence/buy/threaten votes.)
The voter should get a receipt but it should not show the vote.
> No, what's needed beyond open-source is a > verifiable chain of trust from the published code > to each individual machine.
No, what's needed beyond open-source is a verifiable chain of trust from the published code to each individual machine that can be verified by the average poll-watcher. That is impossible with any computerized system.
> I don't know how to make that happen, but I'll > bet there are some crypto gurus out there who > can figure it out.
Why should people who cannot understand the guru's analysis trust it?
> the paper forms would be collected in traditional > ballot boxes for manual recounts should problems > be seen. simply run the forms through a scantron > reader for a machine recount, or count by hand. > easy peasy japanesey.
Recount, hell. Forget all the database crap. The paper form _is_ the vote. Just count it. You can use a scantron if you want.
> He describes the relation between Open Source and > Microsoft as: "one of gnats swarming around a > large, slow-moving beast."
An _extremely_ poor analogy. The gnats draw their sustenance from the beast and would die without it. Free Software exists entirely independently of Microsoft and would replace it were to die.
> It's not tax evasion, it's tax avoidance. If you tax email, I'll stop using email.
Nothing requires them to define email as "messages sent via SMTP". The definition will be extremely broad and vague, with the details left for the administrative rules.
> Note that I didn't say "tax free," because I already pay taxes for the bits that I send. I pay taxes monthly when I pay my ISP bill.
Taxes on taxes are nothing new.
> Now if you're talking about an additional tax on *all* bits transmitted, then it's no longer an email tax, it's a communication tax.
The rest of the camel follows the nose.
> It's pointless to have different taxes on different protocols, because it's all just information.
"It's pointless to have different taxes on different kinds of income, because it's all just money".
> If HTTP is the cheapest tax, then I'll send *everything* using HTTP.
So? It won't be the first time taxes have caused bizarre distortions in behavior. However, I don't think the laws will mention protocols at all.
> Besides, how in the name of the gods do you > implement such a tax?
By requiring ISPs to purchase licenses, keep records, and file reports, in the same way sales taxes are collected. The government would, of course, find other uses for those records and reports.
> Do you tax intra-company email as well?
Probably not, as long as it doesn't travel over the "public" Internet.
> Do you tax email between different geographical > branches of the same company?
Probably, though there might be special licenses. "Legitimate" organizations would be allowed to apply for exemptions for mailing-lists. They would, of course, be required to keep records and file reports.
> What about instant messages? efax? VoIP?
A different set of taxes.
> Suppose people work around it by creating VPNs > and just tunnel their email to members of the > VPN by encrypted means.
Tax evasion is illegal.
> Methinks this whole idea is looney and it will > take about a week for people to develop > workarounds to completely avoid an "email tax".
Thereby justifying the creation of an enforcement bureaucracy with elaborate regulations. You don't think this is really about spam, do you?
Re:The historical importance of SCO
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> The simple fact that people are prepared to go to > war (and this is war)
I've seen war. This isn't it.
Re:Going after HP's customers...
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 1
> I wonder how the people at HP feel, getting a good > solid assfucking...
What are you on about? Do you seriously believe that they are going so much as file suit against an HP customer, let alone win?
The only restriction their license for the patent appears to impose is one forbidding "sublicensing". An implementation released into the public domain would comply as it would involve no licensing at all.
The license for the specification forbids the creation of derivatives but it cannot forbid the creation of an entirely original work expressing the same ideas.
> BUT... What if AT&T did a bit of research and > found that this technique was first mentioned on, > oh, let's say USENET, by an AT&T employee years > ago?
If the invention is made public more than a year before the patent is filed the patent is invalid. It doesn't matter who published it or why.
> it could even be internal memos/e-mails
Internal memos/emails aren't similar. They are not public.
> It is relatively easy to trace a hack back to a > particular computer, but proving that a specific > person committed the crime...
'Hack' != 'crime'
>...could become much more difficult especially > since, as a recent CNN.com article stated, a > hacker's legal defense can be: it wasn't me but > my hijacked computer that committed the crime.
And 'hacker' != 'criminal', no matter what the assholes who edit "Newsweek" say.
Slashdot Mirror
> The absolute refusal to administer a paper-trail
> system is sickening, but I really can't understand
> what they are thinking.
I think the television networks are a driving force here. They want final election results in time for the 11PM news, and a totally computerized system is the only way to get that.
> Actually if you know some actual liberals, you'd
> realize CBS News is right wing.
Unless you know some actual conservatives, in which case you'd "realize" CBS News is left wing.
The fact is that the extreme left considers the news media right-wing while the extreme right considers it left-wing. You can find people who call Fox left-wing and others who insist that NPR is rightist.
The ballot box paper copy, of course. Therefor there is no point in bothering with the database at all. Just count the damn votes at the end of the election.
> And not even going into the issue of the voter
> copy being used to influence/buy/threaten votes.)
The voter should get a receipt but it should not show the vote.
> No, what's needed beyond open-source is a
> verifiable chain of trust from the published code
> to each individual machine.
No, what's needed beyond open-source is a verifiable chain of trust from the published code to each individual machine that can be verified by the average poll-watcher. That is impossible with any computerized system.
> I don't know how to make that happen, but I'll
> bet there are some crypto gurus out there who
> can figure it out.
Why should people who cannot understand the guru's analysis trust it?
> the paper forms would be collected in traditional
> ballot boxes for manual recounts should problems
> be seen. simply run the forms through a scantron
> reader for a machine recount, or count by hand.
> easy peasy japanesey.
Recount, hell. Forget all the database crap. The paper form _is_ the vote. Just count it. You can use a scantron if you want.
> He describes the relation between Open Source and
> Microsoft as: "one of gnats swarming around a
> large, slow-moving beast."
An _extremely_ poor analogy. The gnats draw their sustenance from the beast and would die without it. Free Software exists entirely independently of Microsoft and would replace it were to die.
Write to OSDL and ask them to pay your legal expenses.
Bulk mail can't be returned. The post office will just throw it away.
> It's not tax evasion, it's tax avoidance. If you tax email, I'll stop using email.
Nothing requires them to define email as "messages sent via SMTP". The definition will be extremely broad and vague, with the details left for the administrative rules.
> Note that I didn't say "tax free," because I already pay taxes for the bits that I send. I pay taxes monthly when I pay my ISP bill.
Taxes on taxes are nothing new.
> Now if you're talking about an additional tax on *all* bits transmitted, then it's no longer an email tax, it's a communication tax.
The rest of the camel follows the nose.
> It's pointless to have different taxes on different protocols, because it's all just information.
"It's pointless to have different taxes on different kinds of income, because it's all just money".
> If HTTP is the cheapest tax, then I'll send *everything* using HTTP.
So? It won't be the first time taxes have caused bizarre distortions in behavior. However, I don't think the laws will mention protocols at all.
> If you could track spammers down and collect a tax
You misunderstand. The tax would be on _ISPs_. It would be up to them to collect from their customers.
> All this would do is tax law-abiding citizens,
Now you're catching on.
Most of the spam I receive is illegal under existing US law.
> Besides, how in the name of the gods do you
> implement such a tax?
By requiring ISPs to purchase licenses, keep records, and file reports, in the same way sales taxes are collected. The government would, of course, find other uses for those records and reports.
> Do you tax intra-company email as well?
Probably not, as long as it doesn't travel over the "public" Internet.
> Do you tax email between different geographical
> branches of the same company?
Probably, though there might be special licenses. "Legitimate" organizations would be allowed to apply for exemptions for mailing-lists. They would, of course, be required to keep records and file reports.
> What about instant messages? efax? VoIP?
A different set of taxes.
> Suppose people work around it by creating VPNs
> and just tunnel their email to members of the
> VPN by encrypted means.
Tax evasion is illegal.
> Methinks this whole idea is looney and it will
> take about a week for people to develop
> workarounds to completely avoid an "email tax".
Thereby justifying the creation of an enforcement bureaucracy with elaborate regulations. You don't think this is really about spam, do you?
> The simple fact that people are prepared to go to
> war (and this is war)
I've seen war. This isn't it.
> I wonder how the people at HP feel, getting a good
> solid assfucking...
What are you on about? Do you seriously believe that they are going so much as file suit against an HP customer, let alone win?
> The number of spam emails that get through
> SpamAssassin because of forged "From:" headers is
> ridiculous.
It certainly is. No spams get through Spamassasin here for that reason. In fact very few get through at all.
> And worse is the number of bounce messages I get
> because someone has used my email address as the
> "From:" header in a massive spam mailout.
Such bounces make up about a quarter of my email.
NEVER REPLY TO SPAM
Where's the DoS when each of us independently decides to visit the spammer's Web site? He _invited_ us, after all.
> IANAL, but I think this says no open source
> implementation is possible, doesn't it?
No. Place your implementation in the public domain. You are then not licensing anything, their being no copyright and therefor no rights to license.
The only restriction their license for the patent appears to impose is one forbidding "sublicensing". An implementation released into the public domain would comply as it would involve no licensing at all.
The license for the specification forbids the creation of derivatives but it cannot forbid the creation of an entirely original work expressing the same ideas.
> AntiSpamCo would still be using pieces of AT&T
> patent in their filtering software.
I don't see anything in the patent that applies to filtering software.
> ...the incentives in the organization says
> "patent, don't publish".
Patenting _is_ publishing.
> BUT ... What if AT&T did a bit of research and
> found that this technique was first mentioned on,
> oh, let's say USENET, by an AT&T employee years
> ago?
If the invention is made public more than a year before the patent is filed the patent is invalid. It doesn't matter who published it or why.
> it could even be internal memos/e-mails
Internal memos/emails aren't similar. They are not public.
Spam costs AT&T far more money than they could possibly make by licensing this patent.
Patent infringement is entirely a civil matter.
> That being said, I'll bet you can figure out
> pretty easily what he thinks of tract housing.
Yes. I can also figure out that he thinks only the rich should own houses.
> It is relatively easy to trace a hack back to a
...could become much more difficult especially
> particular computer, but proving that a specific
> person committed the crime...
'Hack' != 'crime'
>
> since, as a recent CNN.com article stated, a
> hacker's legal defense can be: it wasn't me but
> my hijacked computer that committed the crime.
And 'hacker' != 'criminal', no matter what the assholes who edit "Newsweek" say.