I hail from one of the less populous Western states, and we haven't had a presiential candidate, or his running mate, set foot in the state for years.
Funny. In my life, I've lived in two of these here midwestern states. We've been getting rained on by these guys lately. Traffic is fun when the 8 or so Bush buses go by. Traffic comes to a stop fast and don't recover anywhere near as quick. I was in work and didn't see or hear what it was like when Kerry came through.
In the last election, I think we even made it on the Daily show because of a campaign bus stopping here. You don't usually get to see them in the midwest unless they are out to play us off as dumb hicks.
I have to admit, the thought of my state affectly having no say in what the folks in New York and L.A. say we should do or have would be distressing. It'd be like having a King or Aristocracy, an ocean away, making your decissions for you. In a country as large and non-uniform as the US, you have to pay attention to regional concerns, something that wouldn't happen if there wasn't some form of arm-twisting built into the system to encourage it.
Since they aren't coming through your state, it makes me think you might be in a state that pretty much already decided. Which way is your state going to go?
We've all been wonder what step 2 was. Now I guess we know. Get way to capitalize on the insecure nature of the software they write. It might even provide better motivation to be less secure. Swell plan guys!
I had a Dodge Omni broken into at college. I spent more time on hold than I did actually talking to law enforcement to give a report. (Effectively no law enforcement.) The took a pair of speakers, (and no, I did not have 'a system'. These were dinky and pathtic.) a tape case, (the laugh was mine, the good tapes were on the floor. Anything in the case sucked too much to pull out.) and my ash tray. Ya, that's right. ASH TRAY. They must have wanted the pennies. They busted the windows for it. They did cars all along the alley. They ripped the back seat out of one car and took a jacket, leaving a mint in CDs behind.
If someone can tell you you can't use cell phone on their property, why can't they say you can't use wireless routers. Or does this mean I can sue movie theater for not allowing me to use my cell for in the theater.
...If the guys who made Mister Sinus don't get their asses kicked in court, something's wrong with copyright law.
ok. So you are saying they shouldn't win. Right?
But, I do think there is something wrong with copyright law. Actually a lot of people here do. So wait. So are you implying they will win?
I hate it when people get clever. My head hurts. Stop it!
* Loss of anonymity. This is an important characteristic that prevents vote-buying or reprisals against people who vote "incorrectly" (since there's no way for a political party to find out who voted which way). If you're sending via an email system, and the system is secure, it's a pretty damn good bet that you're exposing your identity (via signed, encrypted email or whatnot).
* Loss of the local privacy guarantee. Voting booths are secured. Who might be looking over your shoulder when you vote?
Again, I see these as privacy issues. They should be corrected before and long term solution is approved. I also believe that our troops should not be denied the right to vote if they (like myself) were not really concern over who saw the ballot. I'm not selling my vote and I don't fear retibution. Soldiers who share these feels could be denied the right to vote inspite of it. * Loss of the non-coercion guarantee. If I can just fire off an email, someone can have a *gun* to my head forcing me to vote a particular way.
And someone could have had a gun to my head when I was filling out my absentee ballot in '96. So based on this reasoning, we really can't do any absentee ballots. All citizens in remote locatations are automatically disenfranchized. * Loss of a controlled voting environment. How many Outlook worms does it take to convince people that email clients and desktop systems just aren't all that locked down?
You've got me there. I do hope the troops in the field are able to avoid use of Outlook though. * Loss of voter verifiability. With a paper ballot, I can verify that the card contains the hole that I punched in it. Short of physically substituting cards (something that's a hard to do and much easier to guard against), someone can't attack your vote data. With e-voting, there are a huge number of places to allow a different vote to be submitted than what you wanted -- in the client OS, in the client email system, in the vote-counting system, etc, etc, etc. There are a *lot* of programmers that can be bought off or act in a partisian manner -- and any one can compromise the entire system.
Florida says your wrong. I'll forgo the debate about whether people do verify the hole or care enough to read the directions about how to use ballots. I can verify the card at least has the hole I intended, but that doesn't stop someone from later invalidating my vote by creating more holes. That wouldn't create a vote, it would simply takes my vote away. I do think that the men and women dying for our country should have the right to vote. But they also deserve the same guarantees on their voting process that they and the rest of us have enjoyed for a long, long time.
When we can provide all the guarantees, we should provide them. If we can, unlike some, I lean towards letting them decide if they are concerned with the guarantees that cannot be provided, rather than just saying "Sorry, no vote for you. Back to the front with you." If we can't pull them off the front lines long enough to vote...what is it, exactly, that they're fighting for?
Well, I'll assume your earily comments don't imply the we need to being each soldier back home to cast a ballot. "Stop the world! I want to vote!" You know something. The battle field doesn't really work on a schedule that corresponds to the election or much of anything else. So if the war heats up near November, the troops might be to busy to set up voting stations. The mail system probably won't be moving too well then either (Come rain nor snow now pounding mortar...) so the usual absentee ballot might not be all that reasonable either. But nowadays, they might have a secure satilite uplink.
Given the matra that "Every Vote should count" and the fact that solders serving in danger locations overseas are doing more to 'earn' they vote, I think it ought to be considered. Sure it should be improved upon for both military and civilian use in the future.
I just know that if I were in the field right now, I would rather send a ballot by email than not to have the opportunity to vote at all. I won't campaign for anyone, but I don't really care if someone knows who I voted for. Al least not this year. Requiring a fax sounds rather absurd.
I guess more than the privacy concern, I'd worry about the security problems and the possibility to manufacture votes, or email votes to multiple districts, or change votes in transit. So I guess it still might not be a good idea, but I don't think privacy would be my concern if I were serving. It would be hacktivists.
So the initial location of the firey cataclysm that wipeout of the dominate species on Earth is now frozen over. Hmm... so when someone stipulates Hell freezing over first, does that mean we can now point out the Antartic Circle and tell them they're late?
This seems to take lack of discrimination to a new unhealthy level. Sounds like these guys need to take a lesson out of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead".
Now we are going to have to put up with military and/or FBI swarming the place if a known terrorist decides to drop off a bomb in one of the lockers near Lady Liberty. Not that she'd be a target or something.
This is suppose to compete with Linux, which doesn't limit network connects, number of applications running, or graphics? Sounds like they are coming into this fight with both hands, a leg and their brain tied behind their back. I think the only way Microsoft could handicap themselves more is to actually use this Starter Edition themselves.
What does this say about their understanding of the appeal of Linux?
If Madonna gets to take her name away from a Catholic web site, why not here? The church was even using the name before she was born. The choice to use the term wasn't even related to the singer.
In this case, it sounds like the activist site chose the name because of him. Given Falwell's beliefs, this would be kind of like openning Mandella.org and making it a racist site.
I'm sure that it comes as no surprise to anyone here that the technical complexity and procedurally delicate nature of paper ballot voting is far beyond the understanding of the average DEFCON and Black Hat attendee. I can't imagine why you'd would expect otherwise. Now if you'll excuse me, I must look into getting my VCR to stop blinking 12:00'
That is the truth. I've been so ticked of at my 'entertainment' that is peaching for one of the parties or insulting my beliefs. This thing was very welcome. It's just hilarious. It's about politics without degenerating into being political.
AllTheWeb and Teoma are good alternatives, as far I remember, and do some things in a smarter way than Google. MSN search is supposed to be improved in a beta URL (there was an history here about it some weeks ago)
So, a virus on an MS's os is attaching MS's main competition in their new battle field, the search engine. Just as MS is claiming they've improved they enginee and just as the competitor under attach is in the process of an IPO. I think that would get us all thinking harder about getting a tinfoil beanie. Of course, that will be your downfall since THEY will know what you're thinking.
Now let us all remember, the software (the intangible formula/equation that can be replicated at near zero cost) is the important pricey stuff, and the hardware (that tangible object with per unit production cost) is going to be free. A market based on selling goods at prices that are nearly 100% margin is obviously sustainable.
Off topic: I've been reading this and been wondering about how much of this "won't someone think of the children" crap would still exist if legal age for voting was 14 or 15.
I can't say I've looked at that (or rather that "this") but I do know that if we lower the voting age enough, my 3 year son would be right there to vote for Buzz Lightyear. He'd take us to infinity and beyond!
I mean, yeah, children are our future and all, but come on.
Now our new CIO has elected to stop that benefit using the argument that...
This is the point of confusion in my mind. Who's benefit? They benefit from your accessability. If you employer wants you to have better than dialup speed access one a single phone line and hit or miss phone response, then they need to cover it at least in part. Otherwise, expecting you to cover it out of you wages w/o a pay raise is effectively a pay cut. Likewise, increases in such costs would be pay cuts.
You employer has to understand that if they want to motivate their top performers, they cannot do so with pay cuts. Further more, since cell phones and the like cost per use, if they contact you a lot or make you use them excessively on their behalf, it is pure cost to you with out motivation to the company to try to control those expenses. It would be irresponsible for you to pay for them if the you employer is going to make excesive use if of them.
Basicly, your employer is the one benfitting you login from home, during vacation, at 2 in the morning to fix a problem while taking to tech support 2 timezones away. A dedicate employee would like knowing he can do that, but being dedicated does not mean you are made of money unless you employer pays you truly obscene amounts.
Of course, if you tell you CIO this, he may understand or he may take it as insubordination. If he understands, he may try to work out something to limit paying for non-work related use (like expensing).
If he take offense, then you have a decision to make. Is this guy and some what dense when it comes to dealing with support? Does he consider your job overhead? Chances are he going to keep try to sap you to save the company money. He'll kill moral and if he peers and superiors do recognize it, then things will get a lot worse before they get better.
As far as I know, I don't really run any java. I've installed it I think for a token website or too and I pretty much always instal gcj along with a mess of other toy compilers 'just in case I want to play with it'. I tend to block java in the webbrowser, so even then it is rare.
At work, on AIX we run a lot of java, and my experience there tells me that it would be very unlikely that I'd be running java without knowing it. It may provide a pleasent experience for the developer, but it ain't too nice to users under X, especially remote X.
And it's down right hostile to sys admins who have to maintain the apps. Juggling jre's, keeping the right app pointed at the right jre, managing network problems caused by anti-social redraw behavior of remote X, the ever recurring class path problems and the joy of upgrading the universe all at once because some genius used RMI for a corperation wide protocol.
Just another case of Big Brother prying into everything of our good. Now a bag can't move around in an airport or on a plane without Big Brother seeing.
Suppose my luggage wants to go on an unplanned excursion and get away from all the hussle and bussle of the airport luggage system. Suppose it wants to take a more scenic route. Lord knows is has before.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. In my life, I've lived in two of these here midwestern states. We've been getting rained on by these guys lately. Traffic is fun when the 8 or so Bush buses go by. Traffic comes to a stop fast and don't recover anywhere near as quick. I was in work and didn't see or hear what it was like when Kerry came through.
In the last election, I think we even made it on the Daily show because of a campaign bus stopping here. You don't usually get to see them in the midwest unless they are out to play us off as dumb hicks.
I have to admit, the thought of my state affectly having no say in what the folks in New York and L.A. say we should do or have would be distressing. It'd be like having a King or Aristocracy, an ocean away, making your decissions for you. In a country as large and non-uniform as the US, you have to pay attention to regional concerns, something that wouldn't happen if there wasn't some form of arm-twisting built into the system to encourage it.
Since they aren't coming through your state, it makes me think you might be in a state that pretty much already decided. Which way is your state going to go?
Why, global domination, of course!
Am I the only person who read this as "World Damnation"
We've all been wonder what step 2 was. Now I guess we know. Get way to capitalize on the insecure nature of the software they write. It might even provide better motivation to be less secure. Swell plan guys!
My next car is going to have one of these.
If someone can tell you you can't use cell phone on their property, why can't they say you can't use wireless routers. Or does this mean I can sue movie theater for not allowing me to use my cell for in the theater.
ok. So you are saying they shouldn't win. Right?
But, I do think there is something wrong with copyright law. Actually a lot of people here do. So wait. So are you implying they will win? I hate it when people get clever. My head hurts. Stop it!
* Loss of anonymity. This is an important characteristic that prevents vote-buying or reprisals against people who vote "incorrectly" (since there's no way for a political party to find out who voted which way). If you're sending via an email system, and the system is secure, it's a pretty damn good bet that you're exposing your identity (via signed, encrypted email or whatnot).
* Loss of the local privacy guarantee. Voting booths are secured. Who might be looking over your shoulder when you vote?
Again, I see these as privacy issues. They should be corrected before and long term solution is approved. I also believe that our troops should not be denied the right to vote if they (like myself) were not really concern over who saw the ballot. I'm not selling my vote and I don't fear retibution. Soldiers who share these feels could be denied the right to vote inspite of it.
* Loss of the non-coercion guarantee. If I can just fire off an email, someone can have a *gun* to my head forcing me to vote a particular way.
And someone could have had a gun to my head when I was filling out my absentee ballot in '96. So based on this reasoning, we really can't do any absentee ballots. All citizens in remote locatations are automatically disenfranchized.
* Loss of a controlled voting environment. How many Outlook worms does it take to convince people that email clients and desktop systems just aren't all that locked down?
You've got me there. I do hope the troops in the field are able to avoid use of Outlook though.
* Loss of voter verifiability. With a paper ballot, I can verify that the card contains the hole that I punched in it. Short of physically substituting cards (something that's a hard to do and much easier to guard against), someone can't attack your vote data. With e-voting, there are a huge number of places to allow a different vote to be submitted than what you wanted -- in the client OS, in the client email system, in the vote-counting system, etc, etc, etc. There are a *lot* of programmers that can be bought off or act in a partisian manner -- and any one can compromise the entire system.
Florida says your wrong. I'll forgo the debate about whether people do verify the hole or care enough to read the directions about how to use ballots. I can verify the card at least has the hole I intended, but that doesn't stop someone from later invalidating my vote by creating more holes. That wouldn't create a vote, it would simply takes my vote away.
I do think that the men and women dying for our country should have the right to vote. But they also deserve the same guarantees on their voting process that they and the rest of us have enjoyed for a long, long time.
When we can provide all the guarantees, we should provide them. If we can, unlike some, I lean towards letting them decide if they are concerned with the guarantees that cannot be provided, rather than just saying "Sorry, no vote for you. Back to the front with you."
If we can't pull them off the front lines long enough to vote...what is it, exactly, that they're fighting for?
Well, I'll assume your earily comments don't imply the we need to being each soldier back home to cast a ballot. "Stop the world! I want to vote!" You know something. The battle field doesn't really work on a schedule that corresponds to the election or much of anything else. So if the war heats up near November, the troops might be to busy to set up voting stations. The mail system probably won't be moving too well then either (Come rain nor snow now pounding mortar...) so the usual absentee ballot might not be all that reasonable either. But nowadays, they might have a secure satilite uplink.
Given the matra that "Every Vote should count" and the fact that solders serving in danger locations overseas are doing more to 'earn' they vote, I think it ought to be considered. Sure it should be improved upon for both military and civilian use in the future.
I just know that if I were in the field right now, I would rather send a ballot by email than not to have the opportunity to vote at all. I won't campaign for anyone, but I don't really care if someone knows who I voted for. Al least not this year. Requiring a fax sounds rather absurd.
I guess more than the privacy concern, I'd worry about the security problems and the possibility to manufacture votes, or email votes to multiple districts, or change votes in transit. So I guess it still might not be a good idea, but I don't think privacy would be my concern if I were serving. It would be hacktivists.
So the initial location of the firey cataclysm that wipeout of the dominate species on Earth is now frozen over. Hmm... so when someone stipulates Hell freezing over first, does that mean we can now point out the Antartic Circle and tell them they're late?
This seems to take lack of discrimination to a new unhealthy level. Sounds like these guys need to take a lesson out of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead".
"Don't you discriminate!"
Now we are going to have to put up with military and/or FBI swarming the place if a known terrorist decides to drop off a bomb in one of the lockers near Lady Liberty. Not that she'd be a target or something.
This is suppose to compete with Linux, which doesn't limit network connects, number of applications running, or graphics? Sounds like they are coming into this fight with both hands, a leg and their brain tied behind their back. I think the only way Microsoft could handicap themselves more is to actually use this Starter Edition themselves.
What does this say about their understanding of the appeal of Linux?
If Madonna gets to take her name away from a Catholic web site, why not here? The church was even using the name before she was born. The choice to use the term wasn't even related to the singer.
In this case, it sounds like the activist site chose the name because of him. Given Falwell's beliefs, this would be kind of like openning Mandella.org and making it a racist site.
I'm sure that it comes as no surprise to anyone here that the technical complexity and procedurally delicate nature of paper ballot voting is far beyond the understanding of the average DEFCON and Black Hat attendee. I can't imagine why you'd would expect otherwise. Now if you'll excuse me, I must look into getting my VCR to stop blinking 12:00'
However, it's probably not a place to discuss it unless you have something to contribute to resolving it.
My favorite was an admin from the dos world who ran 'rm -rf *.*' as root in /tmp. I had to admit, it's subtle, but think about it.
/tmp
cd
rm -rf *.*
It's now my argument for disallowing root over nfs no matter how trusted the network is.
Just don't do it with any of your virus ridden email accounts. lusers.
(ducks. runs.)
That is the truth. I've been so ticked of at my 'entertainment' that is peaching for one of the parties or insulting my beliefs. This thing was very welcome. It's just hilarious. It's about politics without degenerating into being political.
So, a virus on an MS's os is attaching MS's main competition in their new battle field, the search engine. Just as MS is claiming they've improved they enginee and just as the competitor under attach is in the process of an IPO. I think that would get us all thinking harder about getting a tinfoil beanie. Of course, that will be your downfall since THEY will know what you're thinking.
HA! You fools!
In the UK? They might now. Sounds like it could be worth their while.
Now let us all remember, the software (the intangible formula/equation that can be replicated at near zero cost) is the important pricey stuff, and the hardware (that tangible object with per unit production cost) is going to be free. A market based on selling goods at prices that are nearly 100% margin is obviously sustainable.
I can't say I've looked at that (or rather that "this") but I do know that if we lower the voting age enough, my 3 year son would be right there to vote for Buzz Lightyear. He'd take us to infinity and beyond!
I mean, yeah, children are our future and all, but come on.
This is the point of confusion in my mind. Who's benefit? They benefit from your accessability. If you employer wants you to have better than dialup speed access one a single phone line and hit or miss phone response, then they need to cover it at least in part. Otherwise, expecting you to cover it out of you wages w/o a pay raise is effectively a pay cut. Likewise, increases in such costs would be pay cuts.
You employer has to understand that if they want to motivate their top performers, they cannot do so with pay cuts. Further more, since cell phones and the like cost per use, if they contact you a lot or make you use them excessively on their behalf, it is pure cost to you with out motivation to the company to try to control those expenses. It would be irresponsible for you to pay for them if the you employer is going to make excesive use if of them.
Basicly, your employer is the one benfitting you login from home, during vacation, at 2 in the morning to fix a problem while taking to tech support 2 timezones away. A dedicate employee would like knowing he can do that, but being dedicated does not mean you are made of money unless you employer pays you truly obscene amounts.
Of course, if you tell you CIO this, he may understand or he may take it as insubordination. If he understands, he may try to work out something to limit paying for non-work related use (like expensing).
If he take offense, then you have a decision to make. Is this guy and some what dense when it comes to dealing with support? Does he consider your job overhead? Chances are he going to keep try to sap you to save the company money. He'll kill moral and if he peers and superiors do recognize it, then things will get a lot worse before they get better.
As far as I know, I don't really run any java. I've installed it I think for a token website or too and I pretty much always instal gcj along with a mess of other toy compilers 'just in case I want to play with it'. I tend to block java in the webbrowser, so even then it is rare.
At work, on AIX we run a lot of java, and my experience there tells me that it would be very unlikely that I'd be running java without knowing it. It may provide a pleasent experience for the developer, but it ain't too nice to users under X, especially remote X.
And it's down right hostile to sys admins who have to maintain the apps. Juggling jre's, keeping the right app pointed at the right jre, managing network problems caused by anti-social redraw behavior of remote X, the ever recurring class path problems and the joy of upgrading the universe all at once because some genius used RMI for a corperation wide protocol.
Suppose my luggage wants to go on an unplanned excursion and get away from all the hussle and bussle of the airport luggage system. Suppose it wants to take a more scenic route. Lord knows is has before.