Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) counts himself among the suspicious. The civil rights veteran is the co-sponsor of a bill to require the machines to verify voters' choices on paper.
I spoke to Rep. Lewis about this issue at one of his "Meet and Greet" sessions several months ago. Contacting your representative *does* have an impact.
MTAs should block mail where the FROM does not match the originating server (i.e. act like "v=spf1 a mx ptr -all"). SPF should be used to configure domains to extend this rule. If you have a weird setup, you could add an SPF record to allow additional hosts to send email on your behalf that are outside your domain.
Without this default ("v=spf1 a mx ptr -all"), spammers will be able to find domains that don't use SPF.
Problem: The same people who can create keys also manage the ballots (the government). This gives them the ability to forge votes. You need to separate the people who give you your private/public key and the people who administer the ballots.
One way to do this is to have the two (or more) political parties give each voter a key during the election (so the voter will have two private keys, one from each party). The ballots are signed by both private keys. The political parties publish the public keys and we have a record of which public keys are *real*.
This detects INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE operations on the ballots. You can't insert a record without getting the private key from both parties (not likely), Signing prevents updates, and the parties published the keys that were used, so any missing keys could indicate deleted ballots.
Last week, we had trouble restoring an Exchange box from a backup. The difficulty was due to Exchange being integrated with Active Directory. What caused Exchange to go down? We ran forestprep and domainprep on Active Directory.
The integration of the two products makes it difficult and more costly to administer.
I'm all for electric cars, and I understand that the creators wanted something to cut through traffic, but I don't think I'd really want to move one of these things through traffic next to insane soccer moms in their H2s.
The answer: get a small car and get rid of the H2s.
I'm a strong believer in the free dissemination and *use* of information, and what is discussed below is public domain. (Don't patent it!)
What is clear, is the votes must be signed to prevent tampering by the authority counting the votes. One way to do this is to sign the ballot to prevent tampering. There are two obvious problems if there is one private key doing the signing: 1) the centeral counting authority (Sec. of State) could forge the votes by taking the private key and signing bogus ballots. 2) A voter can vote twice.
What I propose is that each politcal party create 300 million private keys each (in USA) and distribute their *public* keys before the election. On election day, the voter (with help) would take a smart card and go to one political party to get one private key and then to another political party to get another private key (assuming at least two keys and two political parties). They would go to the voting booth and cast their votes and the votes would be signed by the two private keys. The private keys would be thrown away and never used again. The signed ballot would be put in the smart card and then the smart card would be put into a server that stores the votes for that location (and later, sent to the Sec of State). The card is read, and then erased so that it can be used by another voter. The Secretary of State would count the votes, and check the encryption signatures with the public list of public keys distributed by the 2 (or more) parties. The list of public keys and signed ballots can be made publically so that journalists, political parties, and the general public can download the public keys and signed ballots to verify the votes.
The key part of all this is there is no one person who has all the private keys neccessary to vote (except the voter). The two parties would hold the private keys very closely and it would be impossible (i.e. very difficult) to forge a vote -- much less forge many votes.
The other benefit is there is no one authority that counts the votes. Anyone can count the votes.
Our forefathers wanted to protected democracy by protecting free speech. How does this ruling protect democracy? Got me. However, there are some interesting points from the decision (yes, I actually read it):
But the Supreme Court has long emphasized that the first amendment protects "[e]ntertainment, as well as political and ideological speech,"
The quote shows their understanding of where where and why free speech exists: for democracy.
It is true that obscenity is one of
the few categories of speech historically unprotected by the first amendment.
There are times when free speech can be blocked.
We believe that the
County "must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and
that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way."
In this case, as we have already
explained, the County has failed to present the "substantial supporting evidence" of
harm that is required before an ordinance that threatens protected speech can be
upheld.
good point, saying it is better to side with free speech if there is no proof of harm.
Personally, I disagree with the decision, because I beleive that it does do harm to kids AND it does not block political speech.
This is protective content in the US under the first amendment and it's a freedom of speech issue and we will defend both our and industry and game developers to develop the content they think is appropriate. Telling us what we can or can't create, we think is unconstitutional.
Many people do not understand the difference between free and politically free. For example, you are not free to kill someone. Developing violent content has nothing to do with political freedoms. Our forefathers were concerned with protecting policital freedoms, not profits.
I believe freedom is not the advantage of the GPL, but competition is.
One of the slides said that "The GPL is fine for the individual to choose, buy bad for the industry.". This is not true. Sure, the GPL is not as profitable for companies as closed source, but the GPL is good for customers, because it makes for a much more competitive industry. A more competitive industry benefits the customer.
Smart sellers will choose monopolies. Smart buyers will choose competition. It will be interresting to see who wins, proprietary source or open source!
>But eliminating naturally occuring monopolies is extremely distruptive to the marketplace.
I disagree. Capitalism is based on competition. Without it, captitalism is more like the greatest monopoly of them all: Communism. Regardless if the monopoly is natural or not, it is bad for the economy.
>The marketplace will overthrow that one on its own when it's good and ready.
You may have a point here since the monopoly is natural -- it is easy to copy an application over and over with little extra cost. However open source software has the same advantage without being a monopoly, since anyone can take the software and continue its development.
This is a (good) sign that Linux is more interested in the Desktop than before. Adding this feature probably will slow down Linux servers since there is more overhead, but will make desktop machines appear faster. I am glad to see that desktops are taking priority over servers.
Slashdot Mirror
"and being part of a terrorist group."
Does this scare anyone else? Who determines if the group I belong to is a terrorist group?
For those interested to learn more about Public Citizen, here is their website.
I am tired of the current administration's tactic of attacking legitimate concerns with "they're political!".
I spoke to Rep. Lewis about this issue at one of his "Meet and Greet" sessions several months ago. Contacting your representative *does* have an impact.
Without this default ("v=spf1 a mx ptr -all"), spammers will be able to find domains that don't use SPF.
Problem: The same people who can create keys also manage the ballots (the government). This gives them the ability to forge votes. You need to separate the people who give you your private/public key and the people who administer the ballots.
One way to do this is to have the two (or more) political parties give each voter a key during the election (so the voter will have two private keys, one from each party). The ballots are signed by both private keys. The political parties publish the public keys and we have a record of which public keys are *real*.
This detects INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE operations on the ballots. You can't insert a record without getting the private key from both parties (not likely), Signing prevents updates, and the parties published the keys that were used, so any missing keys could indicate deleted ballots.
Last week, we had trouble restoring an Exchange box from a backup. The difficulty was due to Exchange being integrated with Active Directory. What caused Exchange to go down? We ran forestprep and domainprep on Active Directory.
The integration of the two products makes it difficult and more costly to administer.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid= 6528082
The 2.4 kernels took 7 months to go from testing to 2.4.0. If the first 2.6 test kernel was in July, the first 2.6 kernel might be in Feb 2004.
slippery slope is a logical fallacy
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/baloney.htm
The flip side of this is Linux comes preconfigured with Open Office and other apps, making Linux more usable.
I'm all for electric cars, and I understand that the creators wanted something to cut through traffic, but I don't think I'd really want to move one of these things through traffic next to insane soccer moms in their H2s.
The answer: get a small car and get rid of the H2s.
I'm a strong believer in the free dissemination and *use* of information, and what is discussed below is public domain. (Don't patent it!)
What is clear, is the votes must be signed to prevent tampering by the authority counting the votes. One way to do this is to sign the ballot to prevent tampering. There are two obvious problems if there is one private key doing the signing: 1) the centeral counting authority (Sec. of State) could forge the votes by taking the private key and signing bogus ballots. 2) A voter can vote twice.
What I propose is that each politcal party create 300 million private keys each (in USA) and distribute their *public* keys before the election. On election day, the voter (with help) would take a smart card and go to one political party to get one private key and then to another political party to get another private key (assuming at least two keys and two political parties). They would go to the voting booth and cast their votes and the votes would be signed by the two private keys. The private keys would be thrown away and never used again. The signed ballot would be put in the smart card and then the smart card would be put into a server that stores the votes for that location (and later, sent to the Sec of State). The card is read, and then erased so that it can be used by another voter. The Secretary of State would count the votes, and check the encryption signatures with the public list of public keys distributed by the 2 (or more) parties. The list of public keys and signed ballots can be made publically so that journalists, political parties, and the general public can download the public keys and signed ballots to verify the votes.
The key part of all this is there is no one person who has all the private keys neccessary to vote (except the voter). The two parties would hold the private keys very closely and it would be impossible (i.e. very difficult) to forge a vote -- much less forge many votes.
The other benefit is there is no one authority that counts the votes. Anyone can count the votes.
yes, but the bad guys will definitely win.
http://www.kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html
... the difference between an Gentoo fork and a Gentoo based distribution?
If it were called a new Gentoo based distribution, this article would not sound as interesting.
Huh?
A transparent government is necessary for the people to control it. How else do we evaluate how our "employees" are doing?
The privacy of individuals is critical to dissent.
It does not have to be the same.
It's sad that people are throwing away their freedoms.
Vender lock-in is good so that the government can pay more in the long run.
Since when is the buyer concerned about the profits of the seller?
But the Supreme Court has long emphasized that the first amendment protects "[e]ntertainment, as well as political and ideological speech,"
The quote shows their understanding of where where and why free speech exists: for democracy.
It is true that obscenity is one of the few categories of speech historically unprotected by the first amendment.
There are times when free speech can be blocked.
We believe that the County "must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way."
In this case, as we have already explained, the County has failed to present the "substantial supporting evidence" of harm that is required before an ordinance that threatens protected speech can be upheld.
good point, saying it is better to side with free speech if there is no proof of harm.
Personally, I disagree with the decision, because I beleive that it does do harm to kids AND it does not block political speech.
A better business would simplify this and eat the costs for unusual situations.
Many people do not understand the difference between free and politically free. For example, you are not free to kill someone. Developing violent content has nothing to do with political freedoms. Our forefathers were concerned with protecting policital freedoms, not profits.
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfI d=913270
I believe freedom is not the advantage of the GPL, but competition is.
One of the slides said that "The GPL is fine for the individual to choose, buy bad for the industry.". This is not true. Sure, the GPL is not as profitable for companies as closed source, but the GPL is good for customers, because it makes for a much more competitive industry. A more competitive industry benefits the customer.
Smart sellers will choose monopolies. Smart buyers will choose competition. It will be interresting to see who wins, proprietary source or open source!
>But eliminating naturally occuring monopolies is extremely distruptive to the marketplace.
I disagree. Capitalism is based on competition. Without it, captitalism is more like the greatest monopoly of them all: Communism. Regardless if the monopoly is natural or not, it is bad for the economy.
>The marketplace will overthrow that one on its own when it's good and ready.
You may have a point here since the monopoly is natural -- it is easy to copy an application over and over with little extra cost. However open source software has the same advantage without being a monopoly, since anyone can take the software and continue its development.
This is a (good) sign that Linux is more interested in the Desktop than before. Adding this feature probably will slow down Linux servers since there is more overhead, but will make desktop machines appear faster. I am glad to see that desktops are taking priority over servers.