if the FCC took a stroll out through the city of DC alone at night, they'd probably get mugged. If they meandered through the streets of Darfur in Sudan, they'd get shot. If they stepped out into the neighborhoods of Fallujah, they'd be blown up.
Depends on the area. In Adams Morgan, you're probably ok. Walk around most of SE at night and you'll be lucky to see morning (if you're white).
Nothing more needs be said, really. We mutilate our male children's genitals and recoil in horror when told that African tribes cauterize their female children's genitals.
The difference is that I, as a circumcised male can still enjoy sex.
That old Cray could still kick the Pentium-4's ass around the block a few times when it came to memory bandwidth and making efficient use of the floating point hardware with large data sets.
That's why you go buy a dual Opteron - SC-level memory busses, although it doesn't scale to 1024 nodes just yet.
Possible bad example- all I'd do with this is create a virtual shared memory store on a gigabit network and use a reasonable data engine such as MySQL in SQL Server Mode to create a shared memory space. To make it really handy, put the whole thing on a terabyte ramdisk with battery backup.
You haven't addressed anything. You're still limited to Gbit ethernet, which has crappy latency compared to a proper interconnect. Look for something on the order of 1-10Gbyte channels that scale to over 256 nodes.
If there were "verification booths" at the city hall that would let you go in (alone) and verify your vote. You don't have someone looking over your shoulder when you vote, you don't get one looking over your shoulder when you verify.
How do you tie the receipt to a person without also tieing the voting record to that one person. You could have a serial number for each vote, but now you have to guard against people getting access to the serial number and also deal with fake ID (mostly the former). You also have the problem of recording devices and crooked people in city hall.
Since you don't like Diebold, you are anti-electronic voting, even if someone (other than Diebold) could come up with a system more reliable and cheaper than the current system?
No, I don't trust the current system, and I doubt that what you describe is possible. Prove me wrong.
Fact: electronic voting can have verifiable, yet anonymous, paper recipts.
Until you provide an example, it's just conjecture.
Re:I think is was said somewhere else...
on
P2P Leaks Surprises
·
· Score: 1
at this point what should the guy do?
Call up some of the Marines from the spreadsheet and tell them where he got their number?
Ah, but you snipped the ones that I wrote that were medium specific, then implied that because I didn't list any specific to the medium that there weren't any. A blatent lie through omission. Care to address the points I brought up, or are you only going to snip them out to promote your agenda?
Wah. I only asserted that there are no problems with dead people voting that are specific to paper. My agenda is clear: I don't trust Diebold, as they have a vested interest in Bush being elected.
No, as I stated and you obviously could not comprehend, I do not. Electronic bank statements. Electronic credit card statements. Electronic transfers for house/car payments. Electronic payments for utility bills. Electronic statements/bills for utilities.
Ok, fine, you have electronic receipts that you can verify at month's end. Doesn't really matter.
Electronic is good enough for the money that buys the politicians, so it should be good enough (when done right) to hold the elections to choose between Kang and Kodos.
Unless they suspend the elections. Then people will start voting with lead. I'll be in some other country, god willing.
I can conceive of a recipt that would not be usable for voting fraud/blackmail that you could walk away with. That you can not does not mean it is not possible.
That you have not cared to mention how this would happen does little to inspire confidence. Or were you hoping to sell the idea to Diebold?
But you seem to have made up your mind and are ignoring everything that doesn't support your conclusion.
I'm happy to change my mind. Just come up with something factual.
Of course, everyone seems to be comparing the absolute worst electronic voting machines with the best non-electronic means and declaring that the medium is the cause. Try the best of both or the worst of both and see how it comes out.
Or we could compare the tried and true paper ballots to currently used electronic voting (yay Diebold) and decide which we'd rather use in November. It's not about proving that E-voting could work. It's all about choosing the most reliable method for the next election.
But asking people to know this difference is asking a bit much of them. What might be interesting would be a "Phisher Identifier" built into mail clients that could identify bogus or unauthorized URLs based on a very carefully maintained database of legitimate URLs.
How about this: track which sites you do business with online and only go to their official site. No clicky clicky on email links either!
This is an excellent quiz to send to your friends who are less internet-savvy.
This is a joke. In the real world I can use simple heuristics to eliminate most phishing out of hand (why would paypal send me stuff when I don't have a paypal account?), and the rest is solved by just going to the (known good) actual site.
And, my other opinion is that "verification" of me ensuring that my vote is what I wanted it to be does not require that the government know what my vote was or that any 3rd party be able to verify my vote
Nobody cares about your opinion, only what you can prove. Besides, if you can verify your vote, then so can the guy buying it.
Drop the straw men about some poorly implimented idea being abused.
They aren't straw men - the systems in place for the recent CA election were poorly implemented and very open to abuse. CA is currently suing Diebold.
Would you like a way for you (and only you) to verify that the governemnt counted your vote in the manner you intended?
Sure, so long as it doesn't allow for vote buying. Unfortunately, that pretty much makes it impossible.
So there are no problems with dead people voting on paper and pencil?
No problems associated with the medium itself. Dead people voting is a matter of verifying ID, which won't be affected by electronic voting.
I have to assume your premise is wrong. I get paid electronically. The vast majority of my expendatures are electronic, many automated. I write less than one check a month, and I spend less than $100 cash a month. More than 95% of my mothly finances are handled electronically (though I get recipts for about half of that). Electronic systems, properly designed and administered, are much more trusted and trustworthy than you assert.
You have a printed receipt to verify your purchases at the end of the month, whereas voting cannot do that. And frankly, choosing the next president is more important than your checkbook - too bad it's being implemented by a bunch of assclowns.
Maybe the high-end brands are getting the A-grade stuff and the low-end brands are selling the borderline-grade stuff that doesn't score as high at quality inspection time
If they're anything like Sony, they don't inspect their products at all - the build process is so refined that it costs more to inspect the product than it does to deal with returns.
Going beyond that, why listen to anything right-leaning pundits say about Kerry or left-leaning pundits say about Bush? They clearly have a vested interest in denigrating their opponent.
When they say the same damn thing they've said for the past 4 years, you're damn right.
The best way to make an informed opinion is not to shut everyone else out, but rather consider all sides of the debate.
The company that started this whole thing is not interested in a debate - they just want to spread fear about their competitor.
But you are here responding to the article. In the time you took calling his opinions biased and thus worthless couldn't you have taken the time to consider it without regard to who was making the criticism?
Actually, I read the assertions (not opinions) that he made, read the bits where his assertions were shown to be false, irrelevant, or disingenious, then I flipped the bozo bit. I won't be listening to anything he has to say, just like I won't be listening to Darl talk about Linux or GW talk about integrity.
So you admit you are labeling this propaganda without even considering what he said? That is the very essence of an ad hominem fallacy.
Nope. I am saying that it is probably propaganda based on a vested interest in denigrating Linux's reputation. I can't fully respond to every wingnut that spouts off about stuff I'm interested in - I'd have no time for anything else, so I filter based on probabilities. It's not like he's open to debate anyways.
Pseudoscience debaters use a similar tactic on anybody stupid to debate them: they overwhelm the opponent with already-debunked assertions and claims so that the opponent spends all his time responding to attacks rather than making his own points.
From the side of logical debaters, the source is very much irrelevant.
In the real world, identifying the source is a great way to separate valid debate from propaganda. The former is usually worth the time to consider and debate, while the latter is usually not.
Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Actually, when the Patriot act was passed, there was no discussion. That only came after it was passed.
ssurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Yeah, they always do that. Then, when the furor dies down, they push it as far as it will go.
Powdered plutonium is a serious carcinogen. There were major worries when Cassini was launched, with a few kilos of the stuff and you're suggesting sending TONS up?
So don't powder the stuff - armored radioisotope generators are a solved problem.
rony is, he was the good support guy, not the one who rebooted live servers without warning, installed unauthorized software or loosened permissions on machines outside his department, causing us to scramble fixing the damage.
Simple solution: lock him out of your department. If he logs into your box, kill the connection. Put a special rule for his desktop IP in your router. When he complains, tell him to go away.
Lucky for me, pulling stunts like you describe would
mean Felony prosecution around here.
Slashdot Mirror
if the FCC took a stroll out through the city of DC alone at night, they'd probably get mugged. If they meandered through the streets of Darfur in Sudan, they'd get shot. If they stepped out into the neighborhoods of Fallujah, they'd be blown up.
Depends on the area. In Adams Morgan, you're probably ok. Walk around most of SE at night and you'll be lucky to see morning (if you're white).
you got a problem with the A-Team fool?
Yeah - what're you going to do, shoot me? You guys are worse than Imperial stormtroopers.
Nothing more needs be said, really. We mutilate our male children's genitals and recoil in horror when told that African tribes cauterize their female children's genitals.
The difference is that I, as a circumcised male can still enjoy sex.
That old Cray could still kick the Pentium-4's ass around the block a few times when it came to memory bandwidth and making efficient use of the floating point hardware with large data sets.
That's why you go buy a dual Opteron - SC-level memory busses, although it doesn't scale to 1024 nodes just yet.
Possible bad example- all I'd do with this is create a virtual shared memory store on a gigabit network and use a reasonable data engine such as MySQL in SQL Server Mode to create a shared memory space. To make it really handy, put the whole thing on a terabyte ramdisk with battery backup.
You haven't addressed anything. You're still limited to Gbit ethernet, which has crappy latency compared to a proper interconnect. Look for something on the order of 1-10Gbyte channels that scale to over 256 nodes.
If there were "verification booths" at the city hall that would let you go in (alone) and verify your vote. You don't have someone looking over your shoulder when you vote, you don't get one looking over your shoulder when you verify.
How do you tie the receipt to a person without also tieing the voting record to that one person. You could have a serial number for each vote, but now you have to guard against people getting access to the serial number and also deal with fake ID (mostly the former). You also have the problem of recording devices and crooked people in city hall.
Since you don't like Diebold, you are anti-electronic voting, even if someone (other than Diebold) could come up with a system more reliable and cheaper than the current system?
No, I don't trust the current system, and I doubt that what you describe is possible. Prove me wrong.
Fact: electronic voting can have verifiable, yet anonymous, paper recipts.
Until you provide an example, it's just conjecture.
at this point what should the guy do?
Call up some of the Marines from the spreadsheet and tell them where he got their number?
Ah, but you snipped the ones that I wrote that were medium specific, then implied that because I didn't list any specific to the medium that there weren't any. A blatent lie through omission. Care to address the points I brought up, or are you only going to snip them out to promote your agenda?
Wah. I only asserted that there are no problems with dead people voting that are specific to paper. My agenda is clear: I don't trust Diebold, as they have a vested interest in Bush being elected.
No, as I stated and you obviously could not comprehend, I do not. Electronic bank statements. Electronic credit card statements. Electronic transfers for house/car payments. Electronic payments for utility bills. Electronic statements/bills for utilities.
Ok, fine, you have electronic receipts that you can verify at month's end. Doesn't really matter.
Electronic is good enough for the money that buys the politicians, so it should be good enough (when done right) to hold the elections to choose between Kang and Kodos.
Unless they suspend the elections. Then people will start voting with lead. I'll be in some other country, god willing.
I can conceive of a recipt that would not be usable for voting fraud/blackmail that you could walk away with. That you can not does not mean it is not possible.
That you have not cared to mention how this would happen does little to inspire confidence. Or were you hoping to sell the idea to Diebold?
But you seem to have made up your mind and are ignoring everything that doesn't support your conclusion.
I'm happy to change my mind. Just come up with something factual.
Of course, everyone seems to be comparing the absolute worst electronic voting machines with the best non-electronic means and declaring that the medium is the cause. Try the best of both or the worst of both and see how it comes out.
Or we could compare the tried and true paper ballots to currently used electronic voting (yay Diebold) and decide which we'd rather use in November. It's not about proving that E-voting could work. It's all about choosing the most reliable method for the next election.
You can't prove that. That is only your flawed opinion.
It is my assertion, not opinion. Learn English, please.
- Guy demands that you vote for Bush.
- You vote.
- You verify that you voted for Bush.
- Guy from step 1 verifies your vote.
How does step 3 not allow step 4?I can conceive of at least one way that will let you verify your vote without being able to prove your vote.
Go right ahead.
But asking people to know this difference is asking a bit much of them. What might be interesting would be a "Phisher Identifier" built into mail clients that could identify bogus or unauthorized URLs based on a very carefully maintained database of legitimate URLs.
How about this: track which sites you do business with online and only go to their official site. No clicky clicky on email links either!
This is an excellent quiz to send to your friends who are less internet-savvy.
This is a joke. In the real world I can use simple heuristics to eliminate most phishing out of hand (why would paypal send me stuff when I don't have a paypal account?), and the rest is solved by just going to the (known good) actual site.
And, my other opinion is that "verification" of me ensuring that my vote is what I wanted it to be does not require that the government know what my vote was or that any 3rd party be able to verify my vote
Nobody cares about your opinion, only what you can prove. Besides, if you can verify your vote, then so can the guy buying it.
Drop the straw men about some poorly implimented idea being abused.
They aren't straw men - the systems in place for the recent CA election were poorly implemented and very open to abuse. CA is currently suing Diebold.
Would you like a way for you (and only you) to verify that the governemnt counted your vote in the manner you intended?
Sure, so long as it doesn't allow for vote buying. Unfortunately, that pretty much makes it impossible.
So there are no problems with dead people voting on paper and pencil?
No problems associated with the medium itself. Dead people voting is a matter of verifying ID, which won't be affected by electronic voting.
I have to assume your premise is wrong. I get paid electronically. The vast majority of my expendatures are electronic, many automated. I write less than one check a month, and I spend less than $100 cash a month. More than 95% of my mothly finances are handled electronically (though I get recipts for about half of that). Electronic systems, properly designed and administered, are much more trusted and trustworthy than you assert.
You have a printed receipt to verify your purchases at the end of the month, whereas voting cannot do that. And frankly, choosing the next president is more important than your checkbook - too bad it's being implemented by a bunch of assclowns.
On another side note, the new Saab 9-3 is the same as the new Chevy Malibu. Sad what GM has done to Saab.
So much for buying a Saab, then. Guess I'll be getting a 2.5rs.
Just to add another datapoint, the new Saab 9-2x is apparently a rebadged Impreza wagon.
Maybe the high-end brands are getting the A-grade stuff and the low-end brands are selling the borderline-grade stuff that doesn't score as high at quality inspection time
If they're anything like Sony, they don't inspect their products at all - the build process is so refined that it costs more to inspect the product than it does to deal with returns.
The bigger difference is that Mac users still don't mind paying for a product, Linux users have never cared for paying for a product...
I've got news for you: most computer users would prefer not to pay for anything. It's mainly corporations that by stuff like office.
Linux is not a competitor
It most certainly is. Using Linux instead of their own product makes it easier for customers to walk away.
Why read those? The /.ers who posted those were most likely Linux users and thus had a vested interest in shutting him down.
Why? Because they hate making money?
Thus by your logic, are their opinions not worthless?
I know nothing of their opinions, nor do I care. Verifiable facts, on the other hand, I am quite intersted in.
Going beyond that, why listen to anything right-leaning pundits say about Kerry or left-leaning pundits say about Bush? They clearly have a vested interest in denigrating their opponent.
When they say the same damn thing they've said for the past 4 years, you're damn right.
The best way to make an informed opinion is not to shut everyone else out, but rather consider all sides of the debate.
The company that started this whole thing is not interested in a debate - they just want to spread fear about their competitor.
But you are here responding to the article. In the time you took calling his opinions biased and thus worthless couldn't you have taken the time to consider it without regard to who was making the criticism?
Actually, I read the assertions (not opinions) that he made, read the bits where his assertions were shown to be false, irrelevant, or disingenious, then I flipped the bozo bit. I won't be listening to anything he has to say, just like I won't be listening to Darl talk about Linux or GW talk about integrity.
So you admit you are labeling this propaganda without even considering what he said? That is the very essence of an ad hominem fallacy.
Nope. I am saying that it is probably propaganda based on a vested interest in denigrating Linux's reputation. I can't fully respond to every wingnut that spouts off about stuff I'm interested in - I'd have no time for anything else, so I filter based on probabilities. It's not like he's open to debate anyways.
Pseudoscience debaters use a similar tactic on anybody stupid to debate them: they overwhelm the opponent with already-debunked assertions and claims so that the opponent spends all his time responding to attacks rather than making his own points.
From the side of logical debaters, the source is very much irrelevant.
In the real world, identifying the source is a great way to separate valid debate from propaganda. The former is usually worth the time to consider and debate, while the latter is usually not.
Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Actually, when the Patriot act was passed, there was no discussion. That only came after it was passed.
ssurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Yeah, they always do that. Then, when the furor dies down, they push it as far as it will go.
Powdered plutonium is a serious carcinogen. There were major worries when Cassini was launched, with a few kilos of the stuff and you're suggesting sending TONS up?
So don't powder the stuff - armored radioisotope generators are a solved problem.
rony is, he was the good support guy, not the one who rebooted live servers without warning, installed unauthorized software or loosened permissions on machines outside his department, causing us to scramble fixing the damage.
Simple solution: lock him out of your department. If he logs into your box, kill the connection. Put a special rule for his desktop IP in your router. When he complains, tell him to go away.
Lucky for me, pulling stunts like you describe would mean Felony prosecution around here.