"Your honor, may I have redirect? Thank you. Please continue the statement you were rudely cut off before you could finish".
"No, I never stopped beating women... because one must start something before one can stop it. And the attempt to force a 'yes or no' answer for such a question is reprehensible."
A piece of tape over the lens disables the video recording, without damaging or destroying the device. For briefer times, the could just put their hand over it 'accidentally'.
Easy answer: The text vote, as that is what the voter saw, read, and confirmed was correct. It makes no sense to commit vote fraud by changing the human-readable vote, and leave the barcode alone- he voter would call foul if the text vote wasn't what they chose. The only way to commit fraud is to make people think they voted the way they wanted to (ie; leave the human-readable vote alone), while changing the machine-readable one. And thus, the human-readable one is the one the voter actually wanted.
Just how did you get hold of someone's vote reciept?
Got it out of the trash. (You don't think every single voter would take it home, do you?)
Why did they give it to you?
Maybe my boss will fire me if I don't vote for candidate 'A', and their boss will fire them unless they vote for candidate 'B', so we swapped. Doesn't matter- it cannot be proven that it is MY receipt.
If you are a woman and your husband asks to see you reciept (under threat of physical force) what are you going to show him?
The restraining order, followed by the divorce papers.
"The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections. "
That barcode is a bad idea - it is a point in which the human-readable part of the ballot can differ with the machine read part of the ballot.
Meh- it's trivial to check. Do a re-count on, say, 1% of the ballots- and a certain percentage of those get the barcodes read and compared to the plain text. ANY discrepancies cause a full re-count and investigation.
1) That's ILLEGAL, and no one would openly advertise like that.
2) Simply make the 'voting receipt' have no identifying info on it (other than voting location,voting machine serial number, and time to the minute), and then there's no proof that the receipt actually belongs to the voter. Who would pay for votes, with no actual way to verify?
Screw PCs- how many people have a Microsoft XBox Kinect in their living rooms, complete with camera? You mean to tell me that Microsoft, at the perfectly legal (ie: rubber-stamped) request of the government, couldn't push an update that allows them to turn the Kinect cameras on at will??
Well, firstly, you can, of course, convert to Dollars (Or Euros) and use those.
Second, there are online site that you can buy groceries from. Even a trivial amount of research (like typing "bitcoins groceries" into Google) will show this.
--The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns.
-That's what Tesla staff supposedly told Broder was going to happen when he set of,
Yes, that's what they told him. And the car did 50+ miles while showing "32" miles. Which proves them right.
He's still wrong for leaving before the car said it could go the distance he wanted to go.
"Holle, who had given the police statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted on August 3, 2004, of first-degree murder under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule." - wikipedia
SO, he didn't "lend his car to someone going to the store", he lent his car to someone going to a burglary.
I came up with this basic idea, like, 5-6 years ago. A little different with the details:
Each user makes available one or more 'proxy connections' of a given speed (1Mb/sec, for instance). Then, when they want to DL a file, their software connects both to a 'file tracker', AND a 'proxy tracker' (Which might be the same or different machines). The file tracker works like it does now, and the proxy tracker offers to the client as many proxies as the client offers it- the more you offer, the more you get, just like DL'ing- if you throttle your UPload, your DOWNload suffers for it.
With a patent, you may not (in the USA) claim any damages that happened between the time when you first became aware of the infringement and the time when you notified the infringing party.
I think you mean "With a patent, you may not (in the USA) claim any damages that happened between the time when they can prove you first became aware of the infringement and the time when you notified the infringing party.
Sure, there was the flap over "pink slime"... but that was still beef, though it was washed in ammonia. I don't think it was the meat people were bitching about so much as the ammonia. It should be noted that only one company produced the ammonia-soaked "pink slime", and they don't do it anymore. Other companies process trimmings, too, but they already used other methods to keep the meat bacteria-free.
Firstly, the meat is NOT "washed" or "soaked" in "ammonia".
"Ammonia/ammonium hydroxide is one of a number of processing aids used with meat and poultry in order to ensure the safety of these foods before they are delivered to consumers. The pH enhancement process is an important component of our overall food safety effort. By adding a tiny amount of ammonia (gas) to the beef, we raise the pH in the beef to help kill any harmful bacteria that could possibly be present."
They use ammonia GAS to raise the PH level so any bacteria are killed. This ammonia combines with the water present in meat to form some Ammonium hydroxide. "Ammonium hydroxide is naturally found in beef, other proteins, and virtually all foods. It is widely used in the processing of numerous foods, such as baked goods, cheeses, gelatins, chocolate, caramels, and puddings."
Second, if people were just bitching about the "ammonia", then they'd call it "Ammonia Meat", not "Pink Slime". The name "Pink Slime" is a biased term meant to evoke a negative emotional response rather then evoke a logical discussion. It's kinda like the sugar industry calling honey "bee barf", or the chocolate industry calling flowers "dead reproductive organs of plants" around Valentines day.
Third, it was produced by three companies, BPI, AFA Foods and Cargill. AFA filed for bankruptcy, Cargill significantly cut production, and BPI closed three of its four plants.
Fourth, as you (correctly) point out- "pink slime" was just... beef. It was little cuts and trimmings that, because it was attached to fat, were difficult to get. So, they heated it up to soften the fat, spun it to separate the denser meat from the less dense fat, then, just in case it had picked up any bacteria during this additional processing, they exposed it to ammonia gas. That's it.
People on Slashdot seem to see oversubscription as some kind of evil - it's really not. It keeps your costs down in the name of accommodating real-world demands rather than peak demands.
Then they actually need to keep up when the real world demands change. Like, say, when streaming and torrenting become normal.
As a question for the geeks and engineers of the community - how truly difficult is it to make one of these voting machines safe for use? Is there something I'm missing that would make it difficult to have a kiosk with an imaged system that's been certified, locked down, and can print out results, without it being easy to tamper with or easy to fudge the numbers of? It seems like this is something that engineers could have designed to be foolproof by now, and at a fraction of the budget. How truly complex is the problem they're trying to solve?
It's fucking trivial.
Server locked in a cage in the corner of the room. Boots off a DVD. An image of the DVD is released weeks before, and people are encouraged to DL it and check out the code. Day of, anyone interested shows up with a burned copy of the DVD. A random burned copy is selected, and compared (hash-wise) to the 'official' copy. Then the server is booted off the burned copy. Thus, no cheating with the code. (The code is bone-dead simple, anyway. Just add 1 to the person the voter votes for.)
Clients are a simple podium- touchscreen at the top with a locked steel box near the bottom with a nano-sized MB in it. They boot over the network from the server. Privacy curtains only come down to the voters waist, so any attempt to bend over and access the MB would be obvious.
The printer used a huge roll of dual-layer receipt paper (like cash registers used to use years ago). Both layers are printed on at the same time by the same mechanical process, so there's no way they can differ. Once the voter confirms their choice onscreen, a door in the printer opens to reveal the receipt (under glass). The voter then has a chance to read it and confirm it matches what they voted for. Once they confirm, the 'top' copy spits out as a receipt, and the 'bottom' copy remain in the printer as a 'journal' copy. If a recall happens (which can be upon request, or randomly), they can take the journal spools and run them past a barcode reader (it prints the votes in English and in a barcode format), which tallies them up.
The receipt the voter gets has only the vote(s), the time to the nearest minute or so, and the voting machine number. Nothing else. Nothing that can link the receipt to the voter, or vice versa, so there can be no selling of votes- who would buy something that cannot be proven? After all, you could have picked that receipt off the floor, or out of the trash. No one would pay for that.
THERE. The outlines of a simple, foolproof electronic voting system.
Aren't we talking about public airports here? My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places
There's just a little difference between 'being overheard while in public', and 'having all your conversations recorded and archived for future use by the State'. If you can't see it....
Aren't we talking about public airports here? My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places
There's just a little difference between 'being overheard while in public', and 'having all your conversations recorded and archived for future use by the State'. If you can't see it....
I'll ask you this question, as I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer from anyone else who claims bad cops are a 'small percentile':
If bad cops are a tiny percentage (let's say 1% for the purpose of this argument) of all cops, then why don't the 'good' cops, who vastly outnumber the 'bad' cops simply have a little chat with the 'bad' cops?
"Hey, Joe? I and my 98 pals have noticed you are breaking the law and departmental policies. And we don't like it. You're giving all of us a bad name. Straighten up, or we'll start documenting the shit you do, and get your ass fired and/or in jail."
And yet, they don't stand up to them. Almost like they were afraid of the 'bad' cops. But that can't be, if the bad cops are actually a tiny, tiny percentage. On the other hand, if 'bad' cops were the majority, then the few 'good' cops would be afraid of them, and not do anything. But, you claim 'bad' cops are a small percentile. Hmm.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, I ..."
"That's all, no more questions!"
"Your honor, may I have redirect? Thank you. Please continue the statement you were rudely cut off before you could finish".
"No, I never stopped beating women... because one must start something before one can stop it. And the attempt to force a 'yes or no' answer for such a question is reprehensible."
A piece of tape over the lens disables the video recording, without damaging or destroying the device. For briefer times, the could just put their hand over it 'accidentally'.
Easy answer: The text vote, as that is what the voter saw, read, and confirmed was correct. It makes no sense to commit vote fraud by changing the human-readable vote, and leave the barcode alone- he voter would call foul if the text vote wasn't what they chose. The only way to commit fraud is to make people think they voted the way they wanted to (ie; leave the human-readable vote alone), while changing the machine-readable one. And thus, the human-readable one is the one the voter actually wanted.
Just how did you get hold of someone's vote reciept?
Got it out of the trash. (You don't think every single voter would take it home, do you?)
Why did they give it to you?
Maybe my boss will fire me if I don't vote for candidate 'A', and their boss will fire them unless they vote for candidate 'B', so we swapped. Doesn't matter- it cannot be proven that it is MY receipt.
If you are a woman and your husband asks to see you reciept (under threat of physical force) what are you going to show him?
The restraining order, followed by the divorce papers.
"The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections. "
That barcode is a bad idea - it is a point in which the human-readable part of the ballot can differ with the machine read part of the ballot.
Meh- it's trivial to check. Do a re-count on, say, 1% of the ballots- and a certain percentage of those get the barcodes read and compared to the plain text. ANY discrepancies cause a full re-count and investigation.
Having proof means you can sell your vote, or get blackmailed to vote for their candidate.
Wrong.
It verifies that someone voted for the specified candidate(s). It does NOT verify that that specific person did so.
I can show you a receipt from Macy's for new sheets.... doesn't prove I was the one who bought the sheets.
A detailed receipt verifying who a person voted for is a bad idea. It can be used to verify that purchased votes were actually delivered.
No- it verifies that someone voted for the specified candidate(s). It does NOT verify that that specific person did so.
I can show you a receipt from Macy's for new sheets.... doesn't prove I was the one who bought the sheets.
1) That's ILLEGAL, and no one would openly advertise like that.
2) Simply make the 'voting receipt' have no identifying info on it (other than voting location,voting machine serial number, and time to the minute), and then there's no proof that the receipt actually belongs to the voter. Who would pay for votes, with no actual way to verify?
Of course it was Bullshit. The spec documents the TSA put out for the machines specifically required them to be able to save and transmit the images!
Google for 'epic tsa spec', and find this: http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf
(Not to mention, how'd they get the sample images they show on TSA.gov, if the machines cannot save and transfer images??)
Screw PCs- how many people have a Microsoft XBox Kinect in their living rooms, complete with camera? You mean to tell me that Microsoft, at the perfectly legal (ie: rubber-stamped) request of the government, couldn't push an update that allows them to turn the Kinect cameras on at will??
Hell, in some places, the laws themselves are copyrighted.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/ignorance-of-dcs-copyrighted-laws-can-be-costly/
Why would a reasonable person keep $800,000 in cash, in their car?
None of your business.
Well, firstly, you can, of course, convert to Dollars (Or Euros) and use those.
Second, there are online site that you can buy groceries from. Even a trivial amount of research (like typing "bitcoins groceries" into Google) will show this.
Third: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73712.0
"Topic: Las Vegas Property Management Co Accepts Bitcoins for Rent Payments"
Forth: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1867.0
"Topic: Reloading a pre-paid gas card via bitcoin"
So... as per your request, I'm letting you know. HTH. HAND.
--The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns.
-That's what Tesla staff supposedly told Broder was going to happen when he set of,
Yes, that's what they told him. And the car did 50+ miles while showing "32" miles. Which proves them right.
He's still wrong for leaving before the car said it could go the distance he wanted to go.
"Holle, who had given the police statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted on August 3, 2004, of first-degree murder under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule." - wikipedia
SO, he didn't "lend his car to someone going to the store", he lent his car to someone going to a burglary.
Just a tiny difference.
I came up with this basic idea, like, 5-6 years ago. A little different with the details:
Each user makes available one or more 'proxy connections' of a given speed (1Mb/sec, for instance). Then, when they want to DL a file, their software connects both to a 'file tracker', AND a 'proxy tracker' (Which might be the same or different machines). The file tracker works like it does now, and the proxy tracker offers to the client as many proxies as the client offers it- the more you offer, the more you get, just like DL'ing- if you throttle your UPload, your DOWNload suffers for it.
With a patent, you may not (in the USA) claim any damages that happened between the time when you first became aware of the infringement and the time when you notified the infringing party.
I think you mean "With a patent, you may not (in the USA) claim any damages that happened between the time when they can prove you first became aware of the infringement and the time when you notified the infringing party.
Sure, there was the flap over "pink slime"... but that was still beef, though it was washed in ammonia. I don't think it was the meat people were bitching about so much as the ammonia.
It should be noted that only one company produced the ammonia-soaked "pink slime", and they don't do it anymore. Other companies process trimmings, too, but they already used other methods to keep the meat bacteria-free.
Firstly, the meat is NOT "washed" or "soaked" in "ammonia".
"Ammonia/ammonium hydroxide is one of a number of processing aids used with meat and poultry in order to ensure the safety of these foods before they are delivered to consumers. The pH enhancement process is an important component of our overall food safety effort. By adding a tiny amount of ammonia (gas) to the beef, we raise the pH in the beef to help kill any harmful bacteria that could possibly be present."
They use ammonia GAS to raise the PH level so any bacteria are killed. This ammonia combines with the water present in meat to form some Ammonium hydroxide. "Ammonium hydroxide is naturally found in beef, other proteins, and virtually all foods. It is widely used in the processing of numerous foods, such as baked goods, cheeses, gelatins, chocolate, caramels, and puddings."
Second, if people were just bitching about the "ammonia", then they'd call it "Ammonia Meat", not "Pink Slime". The name "Pink Slime" is a biased term meant to evoke a negative emotional response rather then evoke a logical discussion. It's kinda like the sugar industry calling honey "bee barf", or the chocolate industry calling flowers "dead reproductive organs of plants" around Valentines day.
Third, it was produced by three companies, BPI, AFA Foods and Cargill. AFA filed for bankruptcy, Cargill significantly cut production, and BPI closed three of its four plants.
Fourth, as you (correctly) point out- "pink slime" was just... beef. It was little cuts and trimmings that, because it was attached to fat, were difficult to get. So, they heated it up to soften the fat, spun it to separate the denser meat from the less dense fat, then, just in case it had picked up any bacteria during this additional processing, they exposed it to ammonia gas. That's it.
People on Slashdot seem to see oversubscription as some kind of evil - it's really not. It keeps your costs down in the name of accommodating real-world demands rather than peak demands.
Then they actually need to keep up when the real world demands change. Like, say, when streaming and torrenting become normal.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=underground+house
As a question for the geeks and engineers of the community - how truly difficult is it to make one of these voting machines safe for use? Is there something I'm missing that would make it difficult to have a kiosk with an imaged system that's been certified, locked down, and can print out results, without it being easy to tamper with or easy to fudge the numbers of? It seems like this is something that engineers could have designed to be foolproof by now, and at a fraction of the budget. How truly complex is the problem they're trying to solve?
It's fucking trivial.
Server locked in a cage in the corner of the room. Boots off a DVD. An image of the DVD is released weeks before, and people are encouraged to DL it and check out the code. Day of, anyone interested shows up with a burned copy of the DVD. A random burned copy is selected, and compared (hash-wise) to the 'official' copy. Then the server is booted off the burned copy. Thus, no cheating with the code. (The code is bone-dead simple, anyway. Just add 1 to the person the voter votes for.)
Clients are a simple podium- touchscreen at the top with a locked steel box near the bottom with a nano-sized MB in it. They boot over the network from the server. Privacy curtains only come down to the voters waist, so any attempt to bend over and access the MB would be obvious.
The printer used a huge roll of dual-layer receipt paper (like cash registers used to use years ago). Both layers are printed on at the same time by the same mechanical process, so there's no way they can differ. Once the voter confirms their choice onscreen, a door in the printer opens to reveal the receipt (under glass). The voter then has a chance to read it and confirm it matches what they voted for. Once they confirm, the 'top' copy spits out as a receipt, and the 'bottom' copy remain in the printer as a 'journal' copy. If a recall happens (which can be upon request, or randomly), they can take the journal spools and run them past a barcode reader (it prints the votes in English and in a barcode format), which tallies them up.
The receipt the voter gets has only the vote(s), the time to the nearest minute or so, and the voting machine number. Nothing else. Nothing that can link the receipt to the voter, or vice versa, so there can be no selling of votes- who would buy something that cannot be proven? After all, you could have picked that receipt off the floor, or out of the trash. No one would pay for that.
THERE. The outlines of a simple, foolproof electronic voting system.
Dammit. That was supposed to be:
Aren't we talking about public airports here? My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places
There's just a little difference between 'being overheard while in public', and 'having all your conversations recorded and archived for future use by the State'. If you can't see it....
Aren't we talking about public airports here? My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places
There's just a little difference between 'being overheard while in public', and 'having all your conversations recorded and archived for future use by the State'. If you can't see it....
I'll ask you this question, as I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer from anyone else who claims bad cops are a 'small percentile':
If bad cops are a tiny percentage (let's say 1% for the purpose of this argument) of all cops, then why don't the 'good' cops, who vastly outnumber the 'bad' cops simply have a little chat with the 'bad' cops?
"Hey, Joe? I and my 98 pals have noticed you are breaking the law and departmental policies. And we don't like it. You're giving all of us a bad name. Straighten up, or we'll start documenting the shit you do, and get your ass fired and/or in jail."
And yet, they don't stand up to them. Almost like they were afraid of the 'bad' cops. But that can't be, if the bad cops are actually a tiny, tiny percentage. On the other hand, if 'bad' cops were the majority, then the few 'good' cops would be afraid of them, and not do anything. But, you claim 'bad' cops are a small percentile. Hmm.