The reality of the market is that the cost of entry into the music market is no longer very high. Any artist with a few thousand dollars can get his song or album recorded, and distributed through an Indie label (or distribute it himself). No longer do they have to borrow large amounts from big record companies who turn artists into indentured servants.
Another reality is that the cost to become a record label isn't that high anymore either. Many of the small distributors (like CD Baby) started as a hobby project, and have grown into a profitable business over time. These labels offer a better deal to both artists and customers.
In short, the sweet, sweet days of being able to screw both customers and artists are over for the RIAA and its members. The one advantage they have over the upstart labels is deep pockets. Since money is no longer the deciding factor for entering into the music business, the one thing they can spend it on is legal action. Money buys them lawyers and apparently senators as well, and of late it seems that the RIAA is pursuing both these options.
One has to wonder about the brazenness of the whole thing. What they are really saying is: "We are a monopoly, we have been able to skin the general public for years, and we would very much like to continue to do so. Please change the law to let us remain a monopoly, and do something about these upstart Indie labels"
I recently upgraded Office 97 (or was it 98?) to Office 2000. The only differences I noted:
- Different icons, wahey!
- Outlook now takes over a minute to start, where it used to take a few seconds. Okay, I have very large mail folders, people tell me I should 'archive' them. Why should I? I want them to be accessible at all times, besides the old version of Outlook managed these folders just fine.
- When I quit Outlook, it doesn't really. There's a process called 'Outlook' that remains running (and taking over 20MB of memory to boot).
Other than that, I noticed no differences. So why are people paying to upgrade, exactly?
What doesn't surprise me at all is that someone found an (arbitrary) word to be offended with. Happens all the time. What does surprise me (or hmm, maybe it doesn't) is that this was picked up by some committee and acted upon officially. Where does it end?
We (here in Holland) live in a very diverse culture, with lots of different people crammed into a tiny country. Anything you do or say is bound to offend someone else. Politicians here preach tolerance until we're sick of it... they think being tolerant of other cultures means to adapt yourself so that you will not offend members of those other cultures. Not only is that impossible, but one cannot help but notice that this requirement to adapt is somehow never applied to the minority groups. Ie. I cannot say anything offensive about Muslems, Jews or other minorites (just an example!), but if they do or say something that offends me, I'm called racist or intolerant if I comment on it, and I will be sternly reminded that I 'should respect their culture'.
Tolerance is a two-way street, people. On the one hand, you should be aware of the fact that some things you find normal are going to piss other people off, and you try (within reason) to minimise that. But on the other hand, you (and especially the minorities and politicians) should accept that other groups will do things that'll offend you. Rather than expecting everyone to change to suit your world view, accept that you'll be offended from time to time and do not make a big deal out of it.
Neural networks are well-suited for tweaking the (possibly numerous) parameters of an established algorithm. It's good for finding good local maxima on n-parameter functions. Another technique for this is simulated annealing.
It's the cleverness of the algorithm that makes a computerised Go player good. Using a simple stinky algorithm and tweaking its parameters isn't going to turn a mediocre Go player program into a great one.
As always, you pick the solution that fits the problem.
From the article:
Indivuals who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.
Even if this is for personal use they theoretically face up to two years in jail or an unlimited fine, and possible civil action from copyright holders.
The article is wrong, then?
Yes and no. English law (apparently) prohibits making copies for personal use, but the EUCD does not.
No it does not, not directly at least. There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.
However, it does make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection devices... in a few years, when DRM might becomes commonplace, it could mean that your rights to make copies for personal use are de facto taken away from you.
Over here in Holland, fair-use rights have always been upheld as a right. Not because prevention and prosecution of the making of such copies would be impractical, but because lawmakers deem the ability to make such copies for personal use a right. What I would like to see is legislation that would protect and guarantee this right, rather than take it away by outlawing the circumvention of copy protection devices. How about a law that outlaws a copy protection device or DRM, if such a device would infringe on fair-use rights, making it impossible to make copies for home use?
Unfortunately it will never happen. When corresponding with both left-wing and right-wing representatives in the EU government, I get the distinct feeling that no consideration whatsoever is given to the rights of individuals, when copyrights or piracy are discussed. The current politcal wind seems to fully favor the RIAA and its ilk.
One does not trust the system, but rather those who implement it. Regardless of the system in use.
Not regardless of the system in use. As the Dutch saying goes "Trust is good, but control is better". (Control meaning the act of checking and supervising, rather than the act of actively steering). Ask yourself why you trust the people implementing the system. Simple, because you know they are being watched by others. In case of a paper ballot system, it's easy to see that they are being watched by others, ie. by people from the party you happened to vote for. And because the system is so simple, it's also easy to see that it will be very difficult to rig the elections without the watchers knowing it.
With an electronic system, you have two issues when it comes to trusting the implementers:
1) Are the implementers being watched at all times? Who can say... remember that you'd have to inspect the code for the machines and also make sure that that exact code is loaded into the voting machines, and not some different version. With such a complex system, even I wouldn't be so sure that all steps in the process, manual or automatic, are under scrutiny of impartial observers (or observers from all parties).... and I'm a techie. Besides, recent news about Diebold does not instill much confidence in the process, now does it?
2) Even if you somehow ensure that all steps of the software programming, software and machine distribution, machine operation, and the collection of the tallies are all supervised by impartial observers... how can you be sure that they are doing a good job? With such a complex system, it'd be easy for some mistake or intentional hack to pass undetected.
Many online and offline business rental companies will let you rent a projector. This is HIGHLY recommended. The $50-$100 more you'll spend will give you a big chance to see if the projector is for you.
Better yet: the shops that specialise in projectors often both rent beamers and sell them. Sometimes you can get good deals from them... some will waive the rental fee if you decide to buy a unit from them when you return the rental. Ask around!
Or at least, apparently some company did something similar. They'd pop Windows messages up on users' computers every 10 minutes, with offers to sell something to disable these messages for $10 or so. I seem to recall a recent story on Slashdot about this company being hauled into court for this.
...until I have seen the movie (and the special edition DVD, I suppose). Turning a book into a movie is hard in most cases, and the LOTR is a challenge indeed. I think Jackson's interpretation of the book is quite good so far, both in the cinema version and the extended version, which (for once) did actually add something worth watching, without short-changing those who only went to see the regular version.
You could say that they're holding out on us in the cinema version in order to sell us the special DVD, but perhaps it is thanks to DVD technology that we get to see the extra footage that simply would not have fit into the cinema version. As for the true fans... they'll buy anything. No need to set them up.
6. anyone on the European Community payroll... the joke goes that they add up the average wages for a given position in each of the member countries, to arrive at the sum to be paid to EC workers. And they make that tax-free... a serious benefit in a region where 40% income tax is considered normal.
If you really want to be objective about these issues try to look beyond the smoke and mirrors. Ask yourself how objective the research is - there are far more people out there funded by big business than you'd imagine. Ask yourself who stands to profit by presenting a negative picture of climate change? Who stands to lose if the problem is tackled head-on? And who stands to profit if it's ignored and the situation is allowed to continue unchecked?
Just so... but you have to look at the big picture rather than just follow the money. Ask yourself who benefits from these studies, but also ask how they benefit.
Certainly big business fund research to produce results that they like to see... but environmentalists are just as guilty. For example: the way Greenpeace falsified reports about the amount of harmful substances on the Brent Spar (I cancelled my membership after that event).
Organisations sometimes simply want to push their own misguided views of the world, or in some cases they pursue their own self-interest. Organisations like Greenpeace may not be in it for the money, but for thing like power and influence. That does not make them any better or more objective than researchers funded by business.
basically it works like this. every country has to make quotas. but the stupid thing is you can TRADE them. Lets say the US it polluting too much, it can buy "clean air quotas" from another country who doesn't pollute as much. It's kinda interesting but lame at the same time.
The stupid thing is that you can't trade quota's... this is something the environmentalists emphasised in Kyoto: you have to meet pollution reductions in your own country. This rule seems stupid to me, and I wonder if it wasn't born out of malice: "Rich countries should not be allowed to just buy their way out, they should suffer". To me, it makes sense that the rich industrialist countries pay for the cleanup up third-world and ex-USSR factories, thereby achieving a huge decrease in pollution, instead of being forced to spend 10 times the amount to squeeze out the last 0,1% pollution reduction in their own already-cleanish factories.
Pollution is a social, technological and an economical problem. It makes sense to see where we can achieve the most bang for our buck, and focus our efforts on where we can achieve the best results.
I wonder if the results are skewed because of mistakes, or if the numbers have been wilfully embellished. Neither would surprise me: almost every lobby group for every side of every issue, from Greenpeace to the car industry lobby, have been known to juggle the books a little in order to support their own beliefs. In some cases, outright fraud has taken place.
What scared me about Kyoto is not so much the conclusion that was drawn, nor the way scientists had arrived at that conclusion, but the zealous belief of many governments in these conclusions. In Europe, scientists or governments (the US) who were sceptical about the Kyoto paper became the brunt of scorn and vilification in the media. It again showed how deeply environmentalists have become entrenched in the decision-making bodies of government... it reminds me of the case where two scientists were fired from the Dutch government environmental agency, for publishing reports that proved the official line on acid rain was wrong.
The reactions to this article will tell us if the political climate has changed... if the policy-makers are still only accepting opinions that fit their own world view, or if we have a more open climate where scientific discussion rather than dogma holds sway.
whoever wrote this is probably sitting somewhere overseas. so, unfortunately we can bitch all we want about it being illegal, because noone is going to do anything about it.
The reason no one is going to do anything about this is not the fact that these people are overseas, but the fact that local law enforcement is not doing anything.
These cyber-crimes should be addressed in the same way as any other (international crime). Your national law enforcement officers should track down the country of residence of the culprit and/or send out an international search warrant. Contrary to popular belief, 'overseas' isn't some backwards region whose citizens have barely discovered the abacus. In many countries, writing or distributing virii is a crime, as is executing DDOS attacks. Which is good, because it means law enforcement in those countries will generally assist in bringing these criminals to justice.
If you want to complain about nothing happening, complain to your local cybercops.
A common misconception: eating less will not necessarily help lose weight, nor is it necessarily healthier. Eating less will make you feel hungry and/or lower your blood sugar levels, which will increase your craving for sugary snacks. The result is that you'll snack more... which will still feel like you're eating less, but you are eating things that are worse for you. That, or you'll stay off the snacks and feel miserable all the time. Personally, I don't eat a lot but I still gain weight. If I eat less, I feel like crap.
If by eating less you mean don't stuff yourself, sure... but eating less in itself will not help you lose weight, it'll just feel like you may think you are supposed to feel when losing weight. A nice thing about Atkins is that you do not have to feel hungry at all.
It's dieting explained in terms of engineering and project management.
You know what the problem of most diets is? That's right: having to take an engineering and/or project management approach to the diet. If I have to be busy with it all the time, watch myself for what I eat and how much, count calories, etc etc etc, I will give up.
The nice thing about Atkins is that the rules are fairly simple: limit your carbs. You can count them if you want them, but if you're lazy like me, you can just eat however much you happen to feel like of certain foods, and you'll not exceed your carb limit on most days.
No need. In fact, Atkins warned about this: Do not try to do Atkins as a low carb AND low fat diet. One of his messages was to forget the rule 'all fat is bad'. Eat the fat, don't worry about it.
But you're right, it is a very easy diet. They say every diet works as long as you stick to the regime, and Atkins is easy to stick to.
I just hope this provokes them to create an open solution.
You hit the nail on the head. This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of elections. But consider what 'open' means in this context.
The entire process of casting and tallying votes should be open, so that every voter knows what happens in each step of the process, or that he at least can be sure that other people are keeping a proper eye on the process on his behalf. Only then will the majority of the voters have faith in the accuracy of the results of the election, even if they do not necessarily agree with the outcome. This is a key aspect in any functioning democracy.
The system of paper-based ballots is very open, in the sense that the ordinary voters can understand the process. They can also understand that the counting is fair, and that every person involved is watched by at least one other person. In most democratic countries, voting offices are staffed by representatives from every party taking part in the election.
Those who think open-source software will make electronic voting open, think again. Electronic voting is way too complicated for ordinary folks to understand. Grandma isn't going to inspect the source code. Which trustworthy person can do this for her, and inspect everything without oversights? "Of course electronic voting is safe, grandma, you can inspect the source code yourself! Oh, well you can take my word for it being safe... no... no, I have not inspected all 100.000 lines of this code, not for every single machine that was used in the election! But I am sure someone has... oh, no I can't be sure that they didn't overlook something.".
No, open-source electronic voting does not make for open elections.
What are the problems with the current system of a piece of paper and an X? How would this new system overcome them? Most importantly, what extra problems would this new system cause?
I see electronic voting as a potentially useful supplement to paper-based voting. But no more than that, and certainly not a replacement.
Casting votes should be anonymous (something that is easier to verify when using paper ballots). Every single step of the tallying process should be under the direct scrutiny of multiple persons, who wtach the process and each other. (preferably a representative from each of the stakeholders in the election). Only when John Q. Public can see with his own eyes that these conditions are met, is he going to be reasonably certain that his vote will not be used against him, and that the count is accurate.
I do not see how we can ever achieve this when using only electronic voting. But technology can help in several ways:
- Producing accurate ballots. Remember the last election for the US presidency? People complained that the ballots were unclear in some way. A machine can double-check with the voter, by displaying 'You have selected Candidate X. Press the Big Red Button to cast your vote for X'. Then, when the voter presses the red button, the machine prints off an anonymous paper ballot, which the voter takes and deposits in an ordinary ballot box.
- Providing near-instant preliminary results, and serving as a double-check against the tally of the paper ballots.
So yes, I see how machines can help. But the final and binding result must be the one obtained from hand-counting the paper ballots.
Big "foties" + hot dogs + shopping at 1:30 am = terrorist?
Not that paranoid... I can see the day when your equation will add up to a higher health insurance premium. Our stupid and misguided minister of health would actually love that... she's of the opinion that there ought to be a law against unhealthy living.
I think we're between a rock and a hard place. Liability for future consequences could cripple innovation, or limit it to large companies with litigation war chests. Which is the same thing. Making people responsible for whatever happens to them requires that they have an unrealistic level of expertise and caution. We want a safe world. We want a changing, progressive world. What a can of worms.
It's mostly the USA that has these insane liability lawsuits. Here in Holland we enjoy a saner system: You can only claim actual, proven damages. Since mental anguish isn't measurable, the awards for that are small. There certainly isn't anything like punitive damages: over here we give fines. Companies have to pony up large amounts, but the proceeds go to the state, not the victim. The money is supposed to be punishment for the perpetrator and not a reward for the victim, after all. Incidentally, that also means there's no lawyer who benefits from asking 4 billion in punitive damages for something that was the victims own damn fault.
Our country seems to do fine without liability. People bitch and moan that the government should cover them for everything and absolve them of all resonsibility, but at the same time the same people actually do take responsibility, and exercise due caution.
We need a middle ground, where companies that do screw up through negligence or even wilfully hide known defects are held fully liable for the consequences of their actions, but where these companies are absolved of any liability in case of stupidity on part of the victim.
Re:Erm... a lot of people
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Also... people (like myself) who want to hear something new once in a while.
Sadly not many radio stations serve as a good source to discover new music. Studio Brussels was quite good; I used to commute for 2 hours (one way!) every day, and I'd listen to that station. Every now and then I'd hear something interesting and I'd quickly jot down the band name. A good station, with short and infrequent commercial breaks, DJ's that still knew how to shut up, and if they had the occasional caller on the air, they'd keep it real short. Too bad I can't receive that station on my car radio on the commute I have now.
The current run-of-the-mill radio stations playing nothing but prepackaged crap in between overly chatty DJs, deserve to die.
Slashdot Mirror
Market realities?
The reality of the market is that the cost of entry into the music market is no longer very high. Any artist with a few thousand dollars can get his song or album recorded, and distributed through an Indie label (or distribute it himself). No longer do they have to borrow large amounts from big record companies who turn artists into indentured servants.
Another reality is that the cost to become a record label isn't that high anymore either. Many of the small distributors (like CD Baby) started as a hobby project, and have grown into a profitable business over time. These labels offer a better deal to both artists and customers.
In short, the sweet, sweet days of being able to screw both customers and artists are over for the RIAA and its members. The one advantage they have over the upstart labels is deep pockets. Since money is no longer the deciding factor for entering into the music business, the one thing they can spend it on is legal action. Money buys them lawyers and apparently senators as well, and of late it seems that the RIAA is pursuing both these options.
One has to wonder about the brazenness of the whole thing. What they are really saying is: "We are a monopoly, we have been able to skin the general public for years, and we would very much like to continue to do so. Please change the law to let us remain a monopoly, and do something about these upstart Indie labels"
I recently upgraded Office 97 (or was it 98?) to Office 2000. The only differences I noted:
- Different icons, wahey!
- Outlook now takes over a minute to start, where it used to take a few seconds. Okay, I have very large mail folders, people tell me I should 'archive' them. Why should I? I want them to be accessible at all times, besides the old version of Outlook managed these folders just fine.
- When I quit Outlook, it doesn't really. There's a process called 'Outlook' that remains running (and taking over 20MB of memory to boot).
Other than that, I noticed no differences. So why are people paying to upgrade, exactly?
What doesn't surprise me at all is that someone found an (arbitrary) word to be offended with. Happens all the time. What does surprise me (or hmm, maybe it doesn't) is that this was picked up by some committee and acted upon officially. Where does it end?
We (here in Holland) live in a very diverse culture, with lots of different people crammed into a tiny country. Anything you do or say is bound to offend someone else. Politicians here preach tolerance until we're sick of it... they think being tolerant of other cultures means to adapt yourself so that you will not offend members of those other cultures. Not only is that impossible, but one cannot help but notice that this requirement to adapt is somehow never applied to the minority groups. Ie. I cannot say anything offensive about Muslems, Jews or other minorites (just an example!), but if they do or say something that offends me, I'm called racist or intolerant if I comment on it, and I will be sternly reminded that I 'should respect their culture'.
Tolerance is a two-way street, people. On the one hand, you should be aware of the fact that some things you find normal are going to piss other people off, and you try (within reason) to minimise that. But on the other hand, you (and especially the minorities and politicians) should accept that other groups will do things that'll offend you. Rather than expecting everyone to change to suit your world view, accept that you'll be offended from time to time and do not make a big deal out of it.
Neural networks are well-suited for tweaking the (possibly numerous) parameters of an established algorithm. It's good for finding good local maxima on n-parameter functions. Another technique for this is simulated annealing.
It's the cleverness of the algorithm that makes a computerised Go player good. Using a simple stinky algorithm and tweaking its parameters isn't going to turn a mediocre Go player program into a great one.
As always, you pick the solution that fits the problem.
No it does not, not directly at least. There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.
However, it does make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection devices... in a few years, when DRM might becomes commonplace, it could mean that your rights to make copies for personal use are de facto taken away from you.
Over here in Holland, fair-use rights have always been upheld as a right. Not because prevention and prosecution of the making of such copies would be impractical, but because lawmakers deem the ability to make such copies for personal use a right. What I would like to see is legislation that would protect and guarantee this right, rather than take it away by outlawing the circumvention of copy protection devices. How about a law that outlaws a copy protection device or DRM, if such a device would infringe on fair-use rights, making it impossible to make copies for home use?
Unfortunately it will never happen. When corresponding with both left-wing and right-wing representatives in the EU government, I get the distinct feeling that no consideration whatsoever is given to the rights of individuals, when copyrights or piracy are discussed. The current politcal wind seems to fully favor the RIAA and its ilk.
More about the EUCD and the UK implementation.
I believe Mercedes and certain Renault models already use this technique, altough they use RFID tags rather than a Bluetooth device
With an electronic system, you have two issues when it comes to trusting the implementers:
1) Are the implementers being watched at all times? Who can say... remember that you'd have to inspect the code for the machines and also make sure that that exact code is loaded into the voting machines, and not some different version. With such a complex system, even I wouldn't be so sure that all steps in the process, manual or automatic, are under scrutiny of impartial observers (or observers from all parties).... and I'm a techie. Besides, recent news about Diebold does not instill much confidence in the process, now does it?
2) Even if you somehow ensure that all steps of the software programming, software and machine distribution, machine operation, and the collection of the tallies are all supervised by impartial observers... how can you be sure that they are doing a good job? With such a complex system, it'd be easy for some mistake or intentional hack to pass undetected.
Or at least, apparently some company did something similar. They'd pop Windows messages up on users' computers every 10 minutes, with offers to sell something to disable these messages for $10 or so. I seem to recall a recent story on Slashdot about this company being hauled into court for this.
...until I have seen the movie (and the special edition DVD, I suppose). Turning a book into a movie is hard in most cases, and the LOTR is a challenge indeed. I think Jackson's interpretation of the book is quite good so far, both in the cinema version and the extended version, which (for once) did actually add something worth watching, without short-changing those who only went to see the regular version.
You could say that they're holding out on us in the cinema version in order to sell us the special DVD, but perhaps it is thanks to DVD technology that we get to see the extra footage that simply would not have fit into the cinema version. As for the true fans... they'll buy anything. No need to set them up.
6. anyone on the European Community payroll... the joke goes that they add up the average wages for a given position in each of the member countries, to arrive at the sum to be paid to EC workers. And they make that tax-free... a serious benefit in a region where 40% income tax is considered normal.
Just so... but you have to look at the big picture rather than just follow the money. Ask yourself who benefits from these studies, but also ask how they benefit.
Certainly big business fund research to produce results that they like to see... but environmentalists are just as guilty. For example: the way Greenpeace falsified reports about the amount of harmful substances on the Brent Spar (I cancelled my membership after that event).
Organisations sometimes simply want to push their own misguided views of the world, or in some cases they pursue their own self-interest. Organisations like Greenpeace may not be in it for the money, but for thing like power and influence. That does not make them any better or more objective than researchers funded by business.
Pollution is a social, technological and an economical problem. It makes sense to see where we can achieve the most bang for our buck, and focus our efforts on where we can achieve the best results.
I wonder if the results are skewed because of mistakes, or if the numbers have been wilfully embellished. Neither would surprise me: almost every lobby group for every side of every issue, from Greenpeace to the car industry lobby, have been known to juggle the books a little in order to support their own beliefs. In some cases, outright fraud has taken place.
What scared me about Kyoto is not so much the conclusion that was drawn, nor the way scientists had arrived at that conclusion, but the zealous belief of many governments in these conclusions. In Europe, scientists or governments (the US) who were sceptical about the Kyoto paper became the brunt of scorn and vilification in the media. It again showed how deeply environmentalists have become entrenched in the decision-making bodies of government... it reminds me of the case where two scientists were fired from the Dutch government environmental agency, for publishing reports that proved the official line on acid rain was wrong.
The reactions to this article will tell us if the political climate has changed... if the policy-makers are still only accepting opinions that fit their own world view, or if we have a more open climate where scientific discussion rather than dogma holds sway.
These cyber-crimes should be addressed in the same way as any other (international crime). Your national law enforcement officers should track down the country of residence of the culprit and/or send out an international search warrant. Contrary to popular belief, 'overseas' isn't some backwards region whose citizens have barely discovered the abacus. In many countries, writing or distributing virii is a crime, as is executing DDOS attacks. Which is good, because it means law enforcement in those countries will generally assist in bringing these criminals to justice.
If you want to complain about nothing happening, complain to your local cybercops.
If by eating less you mean don't stuff yourself, sure... but eating less in itself will not help you lose weight, it'll just feel like you may think you are supposed to feel when losing weight. A nice thing about Atkins is that you do not have to feel hungry at all.
You know what the problem of most diets is? That's right: having to take an engineering and/or project management approach to the diet. If I have to be busy with it all the time, watch myself for what I eat and how much, count calories, etc etc etc, I will give up.
The nice thing about Atkins is that the rules are fairly simple: limit your carbs. You can count them if you want them, but if you're lazy like me, you can just eat however much you happen to feel like of certain foods, and you'll not exceed your carb limit on most days.
But you're right, it is a very easy diet. They say every diet works as long as you stick to the regime, and Atkins is easy to stick to.
You hit the nail on the head. This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of elections. But consider what 'open' means in this context.
The entire process of casting and tallying votes should be open, so that every voter knows what happens in each step of the process, or that he at least can be sure that other people are keeping a proper eye on the process on his behalf. Only then will the majority of the voters have faith in the accuracy of the results of the election, even if they do not necessarily agree with the outcome. This is a key aspect in any functioning democracy.
The system of paper-based ballots is very open, in the sense that the ordinary voters can understand the process. They can also understand that the counting is fair, and that every person involved is watched by at least one other person. In most democratic countries, voting offices are staffed by representatives from every party taking part in the election.
Those who think open-source software will make electronic voting open, think again. Electronic voting is way too complicated for ordinary folks to understand. Grandma isn't going to inspect the source code. Which trustworthy person can do this for her, and inspect everything without oversights? "Of course electronic voting is safe, grandma, you can inspect the source code yourself! Oh, well you can take my word for it being safe... no... no, I have not inspected all 100.000 lines of this code, not for every single machine that was used in the election! But I am sure someone has... oh, no I can't be sure that they didn't overlook something.".
No, open-source electronic voting does not make for open elections.
Casting votes should be anonymous (something that is easier to verify when using paper ballots). Every single step of the tallying process should be under the direct scrutiny of multiple persons, who wtach the process and each other. (preferably a representative from each of the stakeholders in the election). Only when John Q. Public can see with his own eyes that these conditions are met, is he going to be reasonably certain that his vote will not be used against him, and that the count is accurate.
I do not see how we can ever achieve this when using only electronic voting. But technology can help in several ways:
- Producing accurate ballots. Remember the last election for the US presidency? People complained that the ballots were unclear in some way. A machine can double-check with the voter, by displaying 'You have selected Candidate X. Press the Big Red Button to cast your vote for X'. Then, when the voter presses the red button, the machine prints off an anonymous paper ballot, which the voter takes and deposits in an ordinary ballot box.
- Providing near-instant preliminary results, and serving as a double-check against the tally of the paper ballots.
So yes, I see how machines can help. But the final and binding result must be the one obtained from hand-counting the paper ballots.
Our country seems to do fine without liability. People bitch and moan that the government should cover them for everything and absolve them of all resonsibility, but at the same time the same people actually do take responsibility, and exercise due caution.
We need a middle ground, where companies that do screw up through negligence or even wilfully hide known defects are held fully liable for the consequences of their actions, but where these companies are absolved of any liability in case of stupidity on part of the victim.
Also... people (like myself) who want to hear something new once in a while.
Sadly not many radio stations serve as a good source to discover new music. Studio Brussels was quite good; I used to commute for 2 hours (one way!) every day, and I'd listen to that station. Every now and then I'd hear something interesting and I'd quickly jot down the band name. A good station, with short and infrequent commercial breaks, DJ's that still knew how to shut up, and if they had the occasional caller on the air, they'd keep it real short. Too bad I can't receive that station on my car radio on the commute I have now.
The current run-of-the-mill radio stations playing nothing but prepackaged crap in between overly chatty DJs, deserve to die.