Could you explain a bit more about T9 type text? I have never heard of it before. Thanks!:-)
I have (and do) use Microsoft Word at work. It does pop up small boxes with the word I am typing sometimes. Usually I ignore them because of the fact that I am already almost through typing the word by the time I realize it has popped up.
The reason I can type so fast (other than motor skills) is because before I start to type I make sure I have everything in my head straight. Then I just start typing. Right now I'm just letting the words flow as they will. But it has taken me less than a minute to type all of the above and probably all of what is to follow will take up the rest of that minute. However, when I am working on a program there are sometimes hours which go by without me typing anything and I just stare at the screen. Once I have everything in my head correctly - then, as I said, I just type. So I do a lot of thinking up front and then just let everything flow without impeding it.
But don't get me wrong. Although I am a touch typer (which I learned using non-electric typewriters and that is when I first achieved 110wpm) I do still make mistakes. The thing I like is that you can erase mistakes rather than having to white-out them. (It is always funny to watch MS-Word red underline something and then have to remove the red line because I've already fixed the misspelling.:-)
White-out. Heh. That reminds me of the Monkees. Michael Nesmith is the heir to the White-out fortune. His mom invented it.:-) Made from simple talcum powder and water originally.:-)
I used to type over 110wpm. Keyboards still can not keep up with how fast I can type. (Or is it I'm just not hitting the keys correctly anymore?:-O Oh well!) Arthritis is beginning to have an impact on how fast and how long I can type also. The repetitive strain on my tendons and muscles (after typing more than 30 years) is also making it harder and harder to type very quickly for long periods of time.
Although it will be a great boon to be able to talk to your computer and have it type out whatever it is you are saying - I can still type faster than I can talk.
I have also shown people, in the past just how quickly I can type. I have them say a sentence and I type it in verbatim, just as they said it. Usually, I finish at the same time they finish speaking (like a second or so afterwards to be truthful). However, as I said above, age is beginning to show and I am not now as fast as I used to be.
However, it has always frustrated me that computers, which are supposed to be so much faster than a preson at doing anything - can't accept input faster than it presently can. I have heard that this is done on purpose. Seems a shame that keyboard manufacturers feel that they have the right to slow everyone down.:-/
Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Makes no difference where the guy worked. If your thoughts aren't free then you are nothing more than a slave.
Listen, late last night, I heard the screen door slam And a big yellow taxi took away my old man Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
And here I thought we abolished slavery years ago.
I don't wanna give it Why you wanna give it Why you wanna giving it all away
Wave by-by to your freedom to think. Next will be your freedom to have an opinion which differs from where you work. Then to vote how you want while working for someone.
Hey, hey, hey Now you wanna give it I should wanna give it Now you wanna giving it all away Hey, paved paradise to put up a parking lot
The uniform from the waist down will have a robotic-powered system that is connected directly to the soldier.
Psssst! Wanna see my gun?;-)
This just really does beg to be joked about. And as for the nano-technology; I see lots of problems. For instance - how does the nanobots know the difference between the person and the clothing? Will they accidentally convert the person's skin from one thing to another? Think about it - one of the reasons crimes get solved is because all things leave traces of themselves on other things - like bodies. So the clothing you are wearing is actually leaving small amounts of itself on you as you wear them. If the nanobots are keyed to convert all of X into Y won't they then, just maybe, convert skin into....what? Or even if they just collect around the point of impact to solidify the cloth-like substance into an Ironman outfit - won't the speed of the bullet mean that by the time the nanobots converted the cloth that the bullet would have already partially penetrated the person's body? I mean, after all, they may be fast, but a bullet is travelling at an extremely high rate of speed. Thus, for every 1/10 or 1/100th of a second they attempt to converge on and stop the bullet - the bullet will have traveled some distance. And that distance is not a millimeter but maybe as much as a centimeter or decimeter. So suddenly the nanobots are attempting to stop the bullet after it has penetrated the skin. Wouldn't that mean that they might just enter the blood stream? If they are keyed to react to heat they might suddenly decide that the blood stream needs to be stopped.
So in reality, the nanobots would have to recognize that something was moving towards the target at a high rate of speed which, when the calculations are done, would show that the item would hit the target. Then the nanobots would all have to be told to go to the potential impact area so they could build up against the impact (or convert the cloth in that area to whatever material is going to be used to resist the impact). This doesn't account for exposed areas such as the head, hands, or other areas exposed by the nanobots rushing to one particular area (and possibly leave something hanging out for everyone else to see).
Last, but not least is the fact that multiple shots being fired from multiple locations at the same target could also confuse the nanobots leaving the person to look like a zebra or maybe a cheetah as the nanobots try to protect the person within the suit.
My money would be on a more classical outfit with a PDA for a brain, greater memory so it can handle the increased needs, some kind of multitasking OS so it can handle all of the requirements, and a networking/cellphone interface so it can handle that as well. Probably less than ten pounds altogether. If they used current laser technologies on transmitting data they'd just need one fiber to do all of the i/o and visuals. PDAs are already used to do sensing in classrooms, to do fingerprinting, and will very soon probably be able to run another display.
As for power - I see fuel cells as the way of the future with PDAs. Today's bulky fuel cells are going to be replaced by slimmer, lighter fuel cells. Thus, the PDA suit could be powered for an entire day if necessary via a fuel cell which conforms to the soldier's body.
Other methods to generate electricity for the suit could include light weight, piston based, energy generators. These generators are situated on the outside of the arms and legs. They are not heavy, bulky metallic rods but are instead smaller light weight polycarbon rods. The rods are hollow and have wires running back up to the helmet/neck region. (Or down to the lower back.) As the rods are pulled
Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.
I do not think this is quite true. The Patriot Act does not say to throw out all of your 1960's equipment and to buy new equipment created in the 21st century. Nor does it say to stop using the laws which were written in the 1960s. It simply broadens those laws as well as loosens the restrictions on when and how the laws can be applied.
Such as wire taps. It used to be that all wire taps (because of Watergate) had to be requested - now they do not. The reason being that in Watergate (1970s if I remember correctly) wiretaps were used by the republicans against the democrats illegally and I believe it was the FBI who did it under direction of the White House staff and/or president.
Now, not thirty years later, wiretaps can again be done without restraint so long as it can be construed to be in defense of the nation. (Which is strange because the republicans are again in office and it means we can have another Watergate and say it is justified because of a terrorist threat.) Also, suspected terrorists can be taken in and held without recourse for an indeterminate amount of time. (As hasalready happened.)
So basically, we want the cops to be restricted so that they play by the same rules we would have to play by if we were playing at being cops. That being - that there should be equitable checks and balances between the need to investigate possible problems as well as to retain our liberties. "And how," you ask, "do we do that?" Simple - we need a check and balance system which allows someone (say a judge) to decide if a certain action should or should not be taken. Which is (more or less) what we had before the Patriot Act came along.
To be fair though, we could use some changes. The FBI, CIA, NSI, CG, DPS, PDs, FDs, armed forces, and all other emergency agencies should all operate under one system. The reason they didn't was to make it harder to create a Police State. The reason they should is so known offenders can not disappear as easily as they can. So some changes - yes. Police State - no. Yanking people into who-knows-where who say things outside of what someone else considers to be the norm - no. Arresting people who steal - yes. Not using standard practices to do so - no. (ie: Sending Certified, Return Receipt letters to people when dealing with cease and desist matters [instead of E-MAIL!] or a courier if the person refuses to sign for the letter.) And the most controversial part - involving the FBI - yes - IF, as in this case, the person or persons were trafficing across state boundaries. When that happens - it becomes a federal offense and a matter for the FBI. With or without the Patriot Act.
This is not to mention the fact that many times our knowledge has increased by accident. Columbus found America by accident, Magellan found the way around the world by accident, Lewis and Clark found a lot of things by accident. Lost people, entire civilizations, new technologies, all of these caused changes to how we looked at everything because of a need to know. The driving force behind human existence is that we want to, as Gene Rodenberry once said: "To explore where no man has gone before."
This isn't to say that NASA is the way to do this. It isn't to say that NASA is not the way to do this. There are more efficient ways to get into space and we are starting to see them come into existence. Eventually, we might even have a Army, Navy, Air, and Space Force.
However, I do agree with Mr. Van Allen that we are spending a lot of money on a space station which is taking forever to be built. According to the timetable put forth by the government of China, they plan on having someone on the moon by 2010. (A year or two before the space station is to be completed.) At the rate they are going - I think they may just make it. They have already put a ship into orbit and that ship is going to be carrying someone into orbit very soon. (If they haven't already done so.) Now all they have to do is to just not stop, but to continue pushing further and further into space. It might actually motivate other governments to get their act in gear. I, for one, would like to die on the Moon and be one of those who's body is shot into the sun than live and die here on earth.
In any event, if SpaceshipOne makes it - the above will have gotten just that one step closer to being a possibility. And maybe we will accidentally do what Mr. Van Allen doesn't think we should do.:-)
F.P. had a great story about people who were sucked up into a gigantic pyramid and then their brains hooked together in the ultimate Open Source effort (ie: multiple eyes did indeed look at various problems!).
SIGGRAPH in Chicago: Several years back there was this guy who had a computer hooked up to a metal band. People could sit in the chair, put the band on their heads, and attempt to move the history of the universe forwards and backwards. Two people (myself being one of them) was able to, just by thinking, move the animation forwards and backwards. The other person was a 5th degree black belt Judo expert.
My problem was not moving the scenes forwards but in getting them to go backwards. It turned out that if you could calm your mind the thing would go forwards rather quickly - but I couldn't get it to go backwards. Then I hit upon the idea that if calming thoughts went one way, then anger might make it go the other way. We finally hit on something to make me mad - the IRS! After that the big bang went in extreme reverse.
So I nominate the IRS to be test subjects. I understand there are lots of them out there and that they multiply quite rapidly anyway. So if we lose a few - it should be ok.;-)
Even though I too am considering laser eye surgery, I have this to think about:
My mom burst a blood vessel in one of her eyes. Upon examination the eye doctor suggested laser surgery to correct her slight near sightedness. Today, my mom can not see out of her right eye because the doctor accidentally burned her cornea on that side. Upon completion of the left eye surgery she now sees worse than before the surgery. In fact, she can no longer drive a car or see at night.
Even though the new techniques have come along and the process is more and more automated, there are still those who know next to nothing about performing eye surgery. Yet they are allowed to practice this art only because they got a degree in some profession or other. Hopefully not in basket weaving but in being an opthamologist. Even then, as seen on 60 minutes, 20/20, Primetime, and other shows - you have to be careful because most of the time the doctors have only practiced on ----- oranges. That's right - fruit is the preferred object to practice the art of laser eye surgery on.
As also shown on these shows, you have to ask (and in some cases demand) to not only talk to those the doctor helped, but those the doctor did not help. Get to know both the good as well as the bad aspects of what the doctor has done. It is within your right to ask for how many people have been harmed by the doctor as well as helped. The doctor might refuse to let you know but you then have the right to refuse to let him tinker with your eyeballs as well.
And as for my mom - well, she sits at home now with the TV on. She says it is like in her youth when you listened to the radio. She can't really see the screen very well anymore. But she doesn't want to sue the doctor either. "It wasn't really his fault," she says. "It was just an accident." Yeah. Right. Just an accident she has to live with the rest of her life.
I've talked about this very problem in the past with friends. Here were our questions:
1. At what point should the big corporations be broken up?
2. How would you go about doing it?
3. Where would the two companies reside?
4. Can the two companies work together?
My answers were:
A-1. $1 Billion dollars.
A-2. The companies would split, open a second office, share resources for the first three years, share contacts for the next two years, and then be on their own.
A-3. The two companies can not reside within the same state.
A-4. Only during the first five years of separation. After that - no.
What do you think? Personally, I know there would be good and bad things to the above. The good things would be like Apple Computer having to compete against a competitor (which would most probably mean the price for a Mac would drop considerably). The bad thing is that it could mean the death of some companies because of the competition. Still, I do not think it would harm as much as help the economy and it would make it a lot harder for any one group or company to influence the government the way they do presently.
Before the White House came out with it's controversial white paper on why America should be allowed to blow anyone up who might be a threat - we had the panderings of certain corporations lamenting that they had to follow the same kinds of rules that everyone else in the world had to follow. But then they had this wonderful idea: Why not try to use spin doctors, kick-backs, soft money, lobbiest, and any other underhanded method they could think of to convince lawmakers that what is sold to the consumer isn't really sold to the consumer. Since it isn't sold it must be leased. Since it's leased the companies still have the right to say what you can do with the item.
Therefore, so long as everyone agrees that you don't really own what you bought - you can't do what you want with it.
The underlying problem, therefore, isn't the mod manufacturers but the fact that companies have hit on a novel way to present their claims. So first, you have to break their claim of leasing before you can fix any of the other problems.
Here is the key: When you lease something it is for a limited time basis (not forever) and you have to continue to pay for the item in some way, shape, or forma such as a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly manner. Otherwise - you bought it and have a right to do whatever it is you want to do with the item (within normal limitations) no matter what anyone else says.
Remember: Just because there are words on a piece of paper - it doesn't make those words the law unless you agree they are valid and just laws. It also does NOT mean that you can just go out and kill someone because you don't think the laws against murder are just laws. But it does mean you can fight to get them revoked if you want to do so.
I think everyone else in the lawsuit should sue SCO for harassment. After all, how many times is someone allowed to change what it is they are claiming in a lawsuit? Maybe we should have a law (if there isn't one already) that says you get two tries to stake your claim and if you can't get it right then the lawsuit is thrown out.
How many times is it now that they have changed what they are claiming everyone has done? Ten? Fifteen? I believe the term is fishing. They are just trying to see what they can catch.
I also feel that a full blown OS does not need to be implemented or is not necessary. As you have said - plain old DOS came with the ability to display 16 colors and there were lots of drivers to allow a computer to display more than the 16 colors. (VESA comes to mind as well.)
For years now, stores such as Randall's, Krogers, Safeway, and the like have used DOS based computers to run their registers without a problem. (Well, other than maybe a few crashes every now and then mainly from thunder storms or power outages.) So why is it so hard to make a machine work as reliably as these machines?
Well, after having looked at and tinkered with one voting piece of software (I forget the name) I can say that those who wish to put together voting machines really and truly want to control almost every aspect of how people vote for things. Just like in big business where commericals are targeted for a specific audience - various people currently in power want their people to vote for them. So they want to make sure their names appear in a certain order on the ballots. I find this to be reprehensible that even something as simple as casting a ballot is being manipulated behind the scenes by others. Usually for some kind of payment.
I say we should give the voter to the choice to see the names in a random order (if possible since some slots only have one name in them), alphabetical, and reverse alphabetical. I also do not see why we can not have a picture of each person running for an office next to their name. Their picture is all over the place - why not require a picture on the ballots? In this way - those people who can not read can still vote. And do not forget the blind. There should be an audio plug for headphones (bring your own) or use what's there.
As for other things such as the creation of new laws or the changing of certain laws there should be a definition, pro, and con section to each issue. After all - we aren't using up paper - just electricity. Tell us what the law is (in English at least and maybe some other language if there are enough volunteers to do the conversion and then to check the conversion for accuracy), what it will gain us, and what it will lose us. By being totally above board about things people can make informed decisions. Hiding the fact that a bill is going to raise our taxes, force us to have to do something repugnant, or allow some company to destroy something in the name of progress should be stated so we know what we are getting ourselves into. No spins, no bs, just the truth or as close to the truth as can be done. Because people do not have a lot of time to really consider these matters I would suggest a single line for all three categories: Definition, Pro, and Con. Each line not to exceed X number of words. (Like 50.) Most tax issues would fall into:
Tax Issue #34-5678: A tax (introduced by the Wig Manufacturers of America) on how long your hair is. Pros: People would go around with shorter hair. Cons: A lot of people would be really upset - but wig manufacturers would be very happy.
The simplest and easiest OS to use in that regards would be something like CP/M or maybe DOS 3.3 from the Apple ][+. Although slow as Moses in their day - they are lightening fast on today's computers (via emulators). Still - perhaps they are a bit too old for what is needed today. However, to do justice to the CP/M OS - DRI has a version of CP/M which will work on today's computers (and there is always DR DOS which is multi-tasking as well as able to interface to the Internet). These (and possibly a stripped down Unix OS - Linux, BSD, or other) could be used and used easily. It all depends upon on how you wish to go about it. The thing is - just because you use a stripped down OS - it doesn't mean that someone would not be able to figure out how to break into it.
The only real advantage to a stripped down OS is that at least it is easier for you to figure out what is going wrong and perhaps to stop that something faster than with a full blown OS where the problem can hide in a million places.
Nobody said that paper ballots were perfect, but a manual system is a lot harder to rig.
Actually - it isn't. In this last election thousands of paper ballots were found in the swamps in Florida, At least two states (if I recall correctly) had thousands of fake ballots sent in via the US Mail (a felony by the way to do this) from dead people and people who only found out this had been done when they went to the polls to vote and were turned away. In some parts of the country race haters still wait near polls and intimidate voters not to vote. TV news systems erroneously tell people it is all over and that one candidate or the other has won. Or that the polls are now closed when they are still open.
It does not work - it only seems to work. But it is more rigged than you probably believe it to be. Further, the two party system stinks. It should be at least three and - a certain number of seats should be reserved for each party based upon its size. (At this time it would be the Democrats, the Republicans, and then everyone else because the Dems and Reps have a vast majority of people and the rest do not. But do not confuse what I'm saying. I am not saying that the Dems or Reps should get MORE seats - only that they constitute the two largest parties so each should get 1/3 of all of the seats to be handed out.) This would allow a more balanced outlook to everything rather than just having one party in power in all of the houses. Basically, a small minority of seats should be free (such as the original number of seats per state - And I am talking Congress here and not the Senate since you only get two seats there no matter what) but the rest should be split up to allow for three different parties. This would create a triumvirate of equality. Basically, the two main parties and all of the rest of the smaller parties. By maintaining a stable balance all voices have a greater chance of being heard. The main seats of the houses can still be fought over but at least the minor voices could possibly be heard. One further step would be to make it a law that the third parties can not be associated with the other two parties in any way, shape, or form (like a front company for one of the other two).
The problem with our current system of elections isn't just at the ballot box. It is the sickness called greed that has infested us. That one must win at all costs. So rather than use the archaic gentlemen rules of engagement we now have guerilla warfare in politics. The ends justify the means and all of that cr*p. So the truth is that no one will play fairly unless the laws say they have to play fairly. And even then someone would try to rewrite the rules to their advantage or try an end-run around them.
And this is why things are the way they are. There are enough dollars in one coffer to pay enough people to do these terrible things to the people of America - just to win an election. Why else would you need over a $100 million dollars for an election campaign?
And you know what the strange thing is? Both the Democratic and Republican groups do not deny these things are happening or that they have had a hand in doing them. Strange. Very strange.
As has been shown repeatedly in the past - paper ballots are just as shoddy at determining the winner as electronic ballots are showing to be.
It does not come down to what solution you offer - it comes down to how well the solution is implemented and how much trouble a person or persons are going to be in should they tamper with the solution.
For instance, let's say we just draw straws. Who is going to hold them? Or what type of container? Will the person hold one straw higher than the others even though the others are longer? Will the person bend the longest straw so it will fit into the container like the others? Will there be a lid? And so on...
Let's throw a stone and see how many skips it makes - that is who is the winner. Ok - are we going to use the same stone?
Tiddly-winks? Personally I think this would be a great way to vote. Just tie all of the containers together - you get to keep trying until the piece goes into one of the containers. The first container to fill up wins. It would probably be fairly random and - Mickey Mouse would probably be the winner. Or some dead guy everyone knows is dead but still elect to be in office.;-)
So basically - there is no practical solution. Everything has a flaw which can probably be exploited by someone. So we just need to up the ante on people who knowingly try to abuse the system. I'm in favor of death. Stoning is a good practice for this. When someone is found to have tampered with the voting process everyone around them just gets to pick up any old stone and chunk it at the person until their dead. I know it sounds grisely but it's late, I've been up for almost 24 hours, and it seems like a good idea. Of course with the mob mentality of some people once the stoning got to going you just don't know where it might end. So maybe this isn't a good idea after all. I know! Let's do witch trial tests. We can tie the offenders to a log and dunk them under water. If they drown - they were innocent - if they live - they were guilty and can be stoned. Sorry - I mean burned at the stake.
All kidding aside - there is no system you can devise that can not be undone by someone else. The idea isn't to keep creating new systems - the idea is that you have to stop those who try to mess it up. They (meaning the person or persons) who try to mess things up should be severely punished. I really do not care how - just stop them from being able to do it in the future. The punishment should be sufficiently severe since they are trying to cripple the democratic process for whatever reason. (This means money is not an option. Making a person or persons pay money just doesn't do anything. It is sort of like absolution in the Dark Ages. "Oh! Killed so-and-so did you? 1000GP and the lord will shine upon thee once again." Thank you but no thank you.) Not only that, but should it be proven to have been done on purpose by some larger agency then that agency should suffer as well. (Sort of like Microsoft buying into SCO so they can try to get around the ban on them attacking other companies head on. Instead, they have SCO do their dirty work and Microsoft can say "Who? Me? I didn't do anything! I have no control over what SCO does." As I've said before: Yeah. Right.
Still, I think I've made my point. I've also read many articles from ACM.org because I was (up until recently) a voting member. I decided to drop mainly because I lost my job. Only now they've hired me back again - so I might start taking it again. Unknown. Mr. Thompson has a lot of good points. However, even if the computer doesn't execute my code exactly - 1+1 still should equal 2. Especially when it comes to counting votes.
With PGP though, the answer is no. You are assuming that everyone needs a personal PGP id. In truth, a single, randomly generated PGP id could be generated the day/week before the election and could be the basis of all of the encryptions. What is encrypted is the id number of the voter. Only the main voting people need to know the PGP private key. All of the numbers, if encrypted, could be put onto the barcode. No one gets to know their id number really (although, at the polls, when you sign the sheet and they give it to you both you and that person would know - so no system is perfect but at least it does make it harder for someone to find out).
However, even if the PGP were used, a second barcode would have to be placed next to your name. This is because the voting system requires proof that the proper person used that vote. Because of this oxymoronic anomaly - you can never truly have anonymous voting. True anonymous voting opens another whole bag of worms. If there are 3 million people living in a state and 8 million votes are cast - which are the true votes and which are the bogus ones? The only way to tell is by knowing who sent in which votes. But this negates anonymity. So which votes do you use and which do you throw out? You can't do it. So how do you fix it? Well, that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
But the partial answer is that you have to, somehow, encode who voted when, where, why, and how. PGP can aid in this but isn't the end-all, be-all of how to fix the problem. It is just another tool that can be used to help the process along.
Yeah right (again). Just because I said "Use Linux" doesn't mean you shouldn't or have to. It is just (as I pointed out in one of my other replies) that, from what I have seen and experienced, I do not believe a Unix based OS is being used in them. And, as I also said, the last voting we did the machines used a version of Windows CE (from what I read). I was not impressed. So why not try someone else's OS (like Linux). We are on v9.x here at the lab and it appears to be fairly stable and only crashes when we push the graphics too much to do too many things at one time. So I am not even sure if it is Linux's problem - it might be the nVidia software we have. Or it might just be we need to upgrade our graphics cards.
But in any case - any Unix OS would probably operate a lot better than what is currently being used to operate the machines.
So - since you obviously do not like Linux - what OS would you suggest?
Yeah right. It is not a question of SAFER voting. It is just that it would be more stable than - say Windows. Further, if you really wanted to feel safer - use the MacOS X. Of all of the OSs out there (according to another SlashDot story), it only had 36 exploits versus the 40-50 for Linux last year.
So if you want a SAFER OS - go Mac. Mac is BSD, BSD is just another flavor of Unix. So maybe I should have just said Unix. The ones we used this last year ran something like Windows CE. They were ok but two of the systems crashed while I was trying to vote. Both on either side of me. It doesn't give you a good feeling when they start crashing. You tend to wonder if you are going to make it all the way through all of the sections. It also made me wonder if, after the crash, all of the prior votes were just thrown out. Or maybe the unit was experiencing a hard drive failure. Unknown but it doesn't give one warm fuzzy feelings to have that happen.
In any event - it question isn't about SAFER - it would be more on whether or not it is more STABLE.
As for the "CURE ALL diseases!!" it might just do that. But we will just have to wait and see - won't we? Besides, some diseases have already been cured. So as much as you may want to use this as sarcasm - maybe you'd like to use some other example instead? Like maybe it will get us to the stars. But then - at NASA they do use Linux to help do this. I know because I work there.:-)
PGP is an encryption technology. Anonymous voting would be protected by PGP not exposed by it.
Anonymous voting is not in effect today with the current system. In the current system, when you go to vote they have you sign your name stating that you voted and they give you a number to use on the electronic machines. At least in our part of Texas they did that.
Before the machines were around you still had to sign in (non-anonymous), got a piece of paper to either punch (chad) or to mark with a pencil, a booth with your ballot information, and the piece of paper still had a number on it (not anonymous).
How does PGP change this? Well, it can encrypt your choices so no one but the other computer would be able to decode for whom you voted. (Or, of course, someone who may also have the encryption/decryption information.)
But does it change whether or not you did it anonymously? No. No matter what it can always be found out when, where, and how you voted. (Although the "how" part would be harder with PGP.) If nothing else, simply because you showed up and had to sign a book saying you voted.
So PGP is good only to help hide how you voted in the election - but not whether or not you voted, or where you voted, or when you voted.
It was a paper based system that got ol' George elected. Thus, going back to a system where you can take the votes and lose them in the swamps, canyon, river, ocean, tar pits, volcanoes, geysers, or even the trash dumps - doesn't get us anywhere closer to a system which will work and keep the crooks from trying to rig things so they work in their favor.
The only way, as far as I can see, to keep things above board and honest is to:
1. Put a qualified person in charge of developing things.
2. Use secure lines to do everything. (Just like if you were going to buy something over the net.)
3. Have a centralized server/set of servers to handle the incoming votes.
4. Use Linux to drive the system.
5. Use a browser to do the voting. 5a. Modify/create a driver so it equates the spin wheel to a mouse's movement or just use a touchpad. 5b. Use a secure line back to the main server. 5c. You use a server/browser set up because most schools and libraries now have an internet connection and because it keeps all of the voting software in one location which is more secure than having it scattered all over the place.
6. Use PGP to encode who is voting. 6a. Use labels which are just peeled out of the voting book (you have to sign) and stuck onto a 3x5 index card. 6b. The labels from 6a are then scanned at the voting booth by a scanner. (New scanners can read barcodes from almost any direction and it makes it a lot easier to ensure that voter #123456 doesn't put in #213456.)
7. The language used doesn't matter.
Anyway, the usage of paper is wrought with just as many problems as an electronic system. In some ways more problems (chads anyone?). Common sense will tell you that any system will have problems but at least with the new electronic systems we are trying to move forwards rather than back. All we need to do now is just to learn the correct way to write the software.
I'm surprised they aren't using a barcode of some sort. Then all letters are usable including the extended ASCII character set.
But to tell the truth - the extended character set is really hard to read sometimes. After all, how would you tell if the vertical line were on the left, middle, or right? What's a square mean?
I'm also surprised that they only allocated one digit for the year. Didn't we learn anything from Y2K? Why not use two letters and have 1024 years? By the time the numbers rolled over the original cars would be nothing but piles of rust.
If you pick up your phone and talk into it your voice is stored in the digital memory of your phone, then converted to ditigal signals, then sent to the box down the street where it is stored and checked to ensure accuracy, then sent to the larger box down the street where it is stored and checked for accuracy, then finally sent to the main system, then back down the line to your connection at the other end. When the phone system went from analog to digital (starting about 20 years ago) no one used the south end of a north bound donkey to say the transmission could be intercepted anywhere along the path from Person A to Person B.
Now we have a judge who is kissing the south end of a north bound donkey and saying that just because we are talking about private e-mail that goes through tens (if not hundreds) of different boxes (just like a phone call does) that it is somehow unique or different from any other electronic transmission.
I realize that justice is slow - I just didn't know it was all that stupid. You don't need new laws - you need judges who can use common sense and apply it to those laws which are already on the book. That is the idea behind many laws. That they are general enough and broad enough to give a judge the leeway to apply them properly. But there always has to be some jerk who just has to go against everything just because "if it isn't a part of the law - that means it doesn't work that way." Well, that is what is called a "Rules Lawyer." A term coined from when D&D first started out. There were these jerks who tried to torque around the rules of D&D as much as they could "Because it wasn't written down in the book that you couldn't do it this way."
Get real! Use common sense! I know that means actually thinking about the issues - but use common sense! Equate! If it works like A for one thing - then it should work in a similar manner for B, C, D, E, and the rest of the alphabet.
And I know! This is a flame! But Damn! How many idiot people are there out? I'm sure where ever his teachers are out there they are just groaning over this destruction of the fundamental rights which were already fought over and won by the people of the U.S.. Why not just rip out the Bill of Rights and flush them down the toilet. Man - I guess this means another letter to my Congressman and Senator.
While reading the article I got to the part where it says:
Several leaked Microsoft memos (known as the Halloween documents) provide some insight into Microsoft's plans to combat Open Source. Comparing their research, into the best messages to use against Open Source with the arguments used by the think tanks is rather interesting.
And I had to stop and think for a moment. The holiday mentioned (ie: Halloween) is a time when children dress up as someone else and go door to door for tricks or treats. It seems to me that that is what Microsoft is doing. They are creating companies which are nothing more than a cover to help cover up their tricks and the treat is to get rid of Open Source.
Rather obvious I know but no one else has put the two together before this and it makes me wonder what other letters might have more than one meaning. Eh?
Robby the Robot not only showed up in Forbidden Planet but he also put in an appearance in several other films and TV Shows. He showed up in "Lost in Space" (TV), and "Back to the Future" (Movie - in the museum).
The other robot from "Lost in Space" (TV) should also go into the museum.
Androids should probably get their own museum as they are a bit different from plain robots. My favorite to go into an Android museum would be BladeRunner's Roy.
There have been so many robots used (both good and badly designed) in movies - it is probably really hard to decide just whom should go into the hall of fame.
Vega from StarTrek-the Movie would be another good one. Only, they would have to build an entire planet to accommodate it.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Could you explain a bit more about T9 type text? I have never heard of it before. Thanks! :-)
:-)
:-) Made from simple talcum powder and water originally. :-)
I have (and do) use Microsoft Word at work. It does pop up small boxes with the word I am typing sometimes. Usually I ignore them because of the fact that I am already almost through typing the word by the time I realize it has popped up.
The reason I can type so fast (other than motor skills) is because before I start to type I make sure I have everything in my head straight. Then I just start typing. Right now I'm just letting the words flow as they will. But it has taken me less than a minute to type all of the above and probably all of what is to follow will take up the rest of that minute. However, when I am working on a program there are sometimes hours which go by without me typing anything and I just stare at the screen. Once I have everything in my head correctly - then, as I said, I just type. So I do a lot of thinking up front and then just let everything flow without impeding it.
But don't get me wrong. Although I am a touch typer (which I learned using non-electric typewriters and that is when I first achieved 110wpm) I do still make mistakes. The thing I like is that you can erase mistakes rather than having to white-out them. (It is always funny to watch MS-Word red underline something and then have to remove the red line because I've already fixed the misspelling.
White-out. Heh. That reminds me of the Monkees. Michael Nesmith is the heir to the White-out fortune. His mom invented it.
Yeah, I know. I've got it and the repeat period set to their fastest settings. :-)
I used to type over 110wpm. Keyboards still can not keep up with how fast I can type. (Or is it I'm just not hitting the keys correctly anymore? :-O Oh well!) Arthritis is beginning to have an impact on how fast and how long I can type also. The repetitive strain on my tendons and muscles (after typing more than 30 years) is also making it harder and harder to type very quickly for long periods of time.
:-/
Although it will be a great boon to be able to talk to your computer and have it type out whatever it is you are saying - I can still type faster than I can talk.
I have also shown people, in the past just how quickly I can type. I have them say a sentence and I type it in verbatim, just as they said it. Usually, I finish at the same time they finish speaking (like a second or so afterwards to be truthful). However, as I said above, age is beginning to show and I am not now as fast as I used to be.
However, it has always frustrated me that computers, which are supposed to be so much faster than a preson at doing anything - can't accept input faster than it presently can. I have heard that this is done on purpose. Seems a shame that keyboard manufacturers feel that they have the right to slow everyone down.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Makes no difference where the guy worked. If your thoughts aren't free then you are nothing more than a slave.
Listen, late last night, I heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow taxi took away my old man
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
And here I thought we abolished slavery years ago.
I don't wanna give it
Why you wanna give it
Why you wanna giving it all away
Wave by-by to your freedom to think. Next will be your freedom to have an opinion which differs from where you work. Then to vote how you want while working for someone.
Hey, hey, hey
Now you wanna give it
I should wanna give it
Now you wanna giving it all away
Hey, paved paradise to put up a parking lot
The uniform from the waist down will have a robotic-powered system that is connected directly to the soldier.
;-)
Psssst! Wanna see my gun?
This just really does beg to be joked about. And as for the nano-technology; I see lots of problems. For instance - how does the nanobots know the difference between the person and the clothing? Will they accidentally convert the person's skin from one thing to another? Think about it - one of the reasons crimes get solved is because all things leave traces of themselves on other things - like bodies. So the clothing you are wearing is actually leaving small amounts of itself on you as you wear them. If the nanobots are keyed to convert all of X into Y won't they then, just maybe, convert skin into....what? Or even if they just collect around the point of impact to solidify the cloth-like substance into an Ironman outfit - won't the speed of the bullet mean that by the time the nanobots converted the cloth that the bullet would have already partially penetrated the person's body? I mean, after all, they may be fast, but a bullet is travelling at an extremely high rate of speed. Thus, for every 1/10 or 1/100th of a second they attempt to converge on and stop the bullet - the bullet will have traveled some distance. And that distance is not a millimeter but maybe as much as a centimeter or decimeter. So suddenly the nanobots are attempting to stop the bullet after it has penetrated the skin. Wouldn't that mean that they might just enter the blood stream? If they are keyed to react to heat they might suddenly decide that the blood stream needs to be stopped.
So in reality, the nanobots would have to recognize that something was moving towards the target at a high rate of speed which, when the calculations are done, would show that the item would hit the target. Then the nanobots would all have to be told to go to the potential impact area so they could build up against the impact (or convert the cloth in that area to whatever material is going to be used to resist the impact). This doesn't account for exposed areas such as the head, hands, or other areas exposed by the nanobots rushing to one particular area (and possibly leave something hanging out for everyone else to see).
Last, but not least is the fact that multiple shots being fired from multiple locations at the same target could also confuse the nanobots leaving the person to look like a zebra or maybe a cheetah as the nanobots try to protect the person within the suit.
My money would be on a more classical outfit with a PDA for a brain, greater memory so it can handle the increased needs, some kind of multitasking OS so it can handle all of the requirements, and a networking/cellphone interface so it can handle that as well. Probably less than ten pounds altogether. If they used current laser technologies on transmitting data they'd just need one fiber to do all of the i/o and visuals. PDAs are already used to do sensing in classrooms, to do fingerprinting, and will very soon probably be able to run another display.
As for power - I see fuel cells as the way of the future with PDAs. Today's bulky fuel cells are going to be replaced by slimmer, lighter fuel cells. Thus, the PDA suit could be powered for an entire day if necessary via a fuel cell which conforms to the soldier's body.
Other methods to generate electricity for the suit could include light weight, piston based, energy generators. These generators are situated on the outside of the arms and legs. They are not heavy, bulky metallic rods but are instead smaller light weight polycarbon rods. The rods are hollow and have wires running back up to the helmet/neck region. (Or down to the lower back.) As the rods are pulled
Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.
I do not think this is quite true. The Patriot Act does not say to throw out all of your 1960's equipment and to buy new equipment created in the 21st century. Nor does it say to stop using the laws which were written in the 1960s. It simply broadens those laws as well as loosens the restrictions on when and how the laws can be applied.
Such as wire taps. It used to be that all wire taps (because of Watergate) had to be requested - now they do not. The reason being that in Watergate (1970s if I remember correctly) wiretaps were used by the republicans against the democrats illegally and I believe it was the FBI who did it under direction of the White House staff and/or president.
Now, not thirty years later, wiretaps can again be done without restraint so long as it can be construed to be in defense of the nation. (Which is strange because the republicans are again in office and it means we can have another Watergate and say it is justified because of a terrorist threat.) Also, suspected terrorists can be taken in and held without recourse for an indeterminate amount of time. (As has already happened.)
So basically, we want the cops to be restricted so that they play by the same rules we would have to play by if we were playing at being cops. That being - that there should be equitable checks and balances between the need to investigate possible problems as well as to retain our liberties. "And how," you ask, "do we do that?" Simple - we need a check and balance system which allows someone (say a judge) to decide if a certain action should or should not be taken. Which is (more or less) what we had before the Patriot Act came along.
To be fair though, we could use some changes. The FBI, CIA, NSI, CG, DPS, PDs, FDs, armed forces, and all other emergency agencies should all operate under one system. The reason they didn't was to make it harder to create a Police State. The reason they should is so known offenders can not disappear as easily as they can. So some changes - yes. Police State - no. Yanking people into who-knows-where who say things outside of what someone else considers to be the norm - no. Arresting people who steal - yes. Not using standard practices to do so - no. (ie: Sending Certified, Return Receipt letters to people when dealing with cease and desist matters [instead of E-MAIL!] or a courier if the person refuses to sign for the letter.) And the most controversial part - involving the FBI - yes - IF, as in this case, the person or persons were trafficing across state boundaries. When that happens - it becomes a federal offense and a matter for the FBI. With or without the Patriot Act.
This is not to mention the fact that many times our knowledge has increased by accident. Columbus found America by accident, Magellan found the way around the world by accident, Lewis and Clark found a lot of things by accident. Lost people, entire civilizations, new technologies, all of these caused changes to how we looked at everything because of a need to know. The driving force behind human existence is that we want to, as Gene Rodenberry once said: "To explore where no man has gone before."
:-)
This isn't to say that NASA is the way to do this. It isn't to say that NASA is not the way to do this. There are more efficient ways to get into space and we are starting to see them come into existence. Eventually, we might even have a Army, Navy, Air, and Space Force.
However, I do agree with Mr. Van Allen that we are spending a lot of money on a space station which is taking forever to be built. According to the timetable put forth by the government of China, they plan on having someone on the moon by 2010. (A year or two before the space station is to be completed.) At the rate they are going - I think they may just make it. They have already put a ship into orbit and that ship is going to be carrying someone into orbit very soon. (If they haven't already done so.) Now all they have to do is to just not stop, but to continue pushing further and further into space. It might actually motivate other governments to get their act in gear. I, for one, would like to die on the Moon and be one of those who's body is shot into the sun than live and die here on earth.
In any event, if SpaceshipOne makes it - the above will have gotten just that one step closer to being a possibility. And maybe we will accidentally do what Mr. Van Allen doesn't think we should do.
F.P. had a great story about people who were sucked up into a gigantic pyramid and then their brains hooked together in the ultimate Open Source effort (ie: multiple eyes did indeed look at various problems!).
;-)
SIGGRAPH in Chicago: Several years back there was this guy who had a computer hooked up to a metal band. People could sit in the chair, put the band on their heads, and attempt to move the history of the universe forwards and backwards. Two people (myself being one of them) was able to, just by thinking, move the animation forwards and backwards. The other person was a 5th degree black belt Judo expert.
My problem was not moving the scenes forwards but in getting them to go backwards. It turned out that if you could calm your mind the thing would go forwards rather quickly - but I couldn't get it to go backwards. Then I hit upon the idea that if calming thoughts went one way, then anger might make it go the other way. We finally hit on something to make me mad - the IRS! After that the big bang went in extreme reverse.
So I nominate the IRS to be test subjects. I understand there are lots of them out there and that they multiply quite rapidly anyway. So if we lose a few - it should be ok.
Even though I too am considering laser eye surgery, I have this to think about:
My mom burst a blood vessel in one of her eyes. Upon examination the eye doctor suggested laser surgery to correct her slight near sightedness. Today, my mom can not see out of her right eye because the doctor accidentally burned her cornea on that side. Upon completion of the left eye surgery she now sees worse than before the surgery. In fact, she can no longer drive a car or see at night.
Even though the new techniques have come along and the process is more and more automated, there are still those who know next to nothing about performing eye surgery. Yet they are allowed to practice this art only because they got a degree in some profession or other. Hopefully not in basket weaving but in being an opthamologist. Even then, as seen on 60 minutes, 20/20, Primetime, and other shows - you have to be careful because most of the time the doctors have only practiced on ----- oranges. That's right - fruit is the preferred object to practice the art of laser eye surgery on.
As also shown on these shows, you have to ask (and in some cases demand) to not only talk to those the doctor helped, but those the doctor did not help. Get to know both the good as well as the bad aspects of what the doctor has done. It is within your right to ask for how many people have been harmed by the doctor as well as helped. The doctor might refuse to let you know but you then have the right to refuse to let him tinker with your eyeballs as well.
And as for my mom - well, she sits at home now with the TV on. She says it is like in her youth when you listened to the radio. She can't really see the screen very well anymore. But she doesn't want to sue the doctor either. "It wasn't really his fault," she says. "It was just an accident." Yeah. Right. Just an accident she has to live with the rest of her life.
I've talked about this very problem in the past with friends. Here were our questions:
1. At what point should the big corporations be broken up?
2. How would you go about doing it?
3. Where would the two companies reside?
4. Can the two companies work together?
My answers were:
A-1. $1 Billion dollars.
A-2. The companies would split, open a second office, share resources for the first three years, share contacts for the next two years, and then be on their own.
A-3. The two companies can not reside within the same state.
A-4. Only during the first five years of separation. After that - no.
What do you think? Personally, I know there would be good and bad things to the above. The good things would be like Apple Computer having to compete against a competitor (which would most probably mean the price for a Mac would drop considerably). The bad thing is that it could mean the death of some companies because of the competition. Still, I do not think it would harm as much as help the economy and it would make it a lot harder for any one group or company to influence the government the way they do presently.
Before the White House came out with it's controversial white paper on why America should be allowed to blow anyone up who might be a threat - we had the panderings of certain corporations lamenting that they had to follow the same kinds of rules that everyone else in the world had to follow. But then they had this wonderful idea: Why not try to use spin doctors, kick-backs, soft money, lobbiest, and any other underhanded method they could think of to convince lawmakers that what is sold to the consumer isn't really sold to the consumer. Since it isn't sold it must be leased. Since it's leased the companies still have the right to say what you can do with the item.
Therefore, so long as everyone agrees that you don't really own what you bought - you can't do what you want with it.
The underlying problem, therefore, isn't the mod manufacturers but the fact that companies have hit on a novel way to present their claims. So first, you have to break their claim of leasing before you can fix any of the other problems.
Here is the key: When you lease something it is for a limited time basis (not forever) and you have to continue to pay for the item in some way, shape, or forma such as a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly manner. Otherwise - you bought it and have a right to do whatever it is you want to do with the item (within normal limitations) no matter what anyone else says.
Remember: Just because there are words on a piece of paper - it doesn't make those words the law unless you agree they are valid and just laws. It also does NOT mean that you can just go out and kill someone because you don't think the laws against murder are just laws. But it does mean you can fight to get them revoked if you want to do so.
I think everyone else in the lawsuit should sue SCO for harassment. After all, how many times is someone allowed to change what it is they are claiming in a lawsuit? Maybe we should have a law (if there isn't one already) that says you get two tries to stake your claim and if you can't get it right then the lawsuit is thrown out.
How many times is it now that they have changed what they are claiming everyone has done? Ten? Fifteen? I believe the term is fishing. They are just trying to see what they can catch.
Ah. Sorry - didn't catch the joke. My fault. :-/
:-)
I also feel that a full blown OS does not need to be implemented or is not necessary. As you have said - plain old DOS came with the ability to display 16 colors and there were lots of drivers to allow a computer to display more than the 16 colors. (VESA comes to mind as well.)
For years now, stores such as Randall's, Krogers, Safeway, and the like have used DOS based computers to run their registers without a problem. (Well, other than maybe a few crashes every now and then mainly from thunder storms or power outages.) So why is it so hard to make a machine work as reliably as these machines?
Well, after having looked at and tinkered with one voting piece of software (I forget the name) I can say that those who wish to put together voting machines really and truly want to control almost every aspect of how people vote for things. Just like in big business where commericals are targeted for a specific audience - various people currently in power want their people to vote for them. So they want to make sure their names appear in a certain order on the ballots. I find this to be reprehensible that even something as simple as casting a ballot is being manipulated behind the scenes by others. Usually for some kind of payment.
I say we should give the voter to the choice to see the names in a random order (if possible since some slots only have one name in them), alphabetical, and reverse alphabetical. I also do not see why we can not have a picture of each person running for an office next to their name. Their picture is all over the place - why not require a picture on the ballots? In this way - those people who can not read can still vote. And do not forget the blind. There should be an audio plug for headphones (bring your own) or use what's there.
As for other things such as the creation of new laws or the changing of certain laws there should be a definition, pro, and con section to each issue. After all - we aren't using up paper - just electricity. Tell us what the law is (in English at least and maybe some other language if there are enough volunteers to do the conversion and then to check the conversion for accuracy), what it will gain us, and what it will lose us. By being totally above board about things people can make informed decisions. Hiding the fact that a bill is going to raise our taxes, force us to have to do something repugnant, or allow some company to destroy something in the name of progress should be stated so we know what we are getting ourselves into. No spins, no bs, just the truth or as close to the truth as can be done. Because people do not have a lot of time to really consider these matters I would suggest a single line for all three categories: Definition, Pro, and Con. Each line not to exceed X number of words. (Like 50.) Most tax issues would fall into:
Tax Issue #34-5678: A tax (introduced by the Wig Manufacturers of America) on how long your hair is.
Pros: People would go around with shorter hair.
Cons: A lot of people would be really upset - but wig manufacturers would be very happy.
You get the idea.
The simplest and easiest OS to use in that regards would be something like CP/M or maybe DOS 3.3 from the Apple ][+. Although slow as Moses in their day - they are lightening fast on today's computers (via emulators). Still - perhaps they are a bit too old for what is needed today. However, to do justice to the CP/M OS - DRI has a version of CP/M which will work on today's computers (and there is always DR DOS which is multi-tasking as well as able to interface to the Internet). These (and possibly a stripped down Unix OS - Linux, BSD, or other) could be used and used easily. It all depends upon on how you wish to go about it. The thing is - just because you use a stripped down OS - it doesn't mean that someone would not be able to figure out how to break into it.
:-)
The only real advantage to a stripped down OS is that at least it is easier for you to figure out what is going wrong and perhaps to stop that something faster than with a full blown OS where the problem can hide in a million places.
But it isn't a bad idea!
Nobody said that paper ballots were perfect, but a manual system is a lot harder to rig.
Actually - it isn't. In this last election thousands of paper ballots were found in the swamps in Florida, At least two states (if I recall correctly) had thousands of fake ballots sent in via the US Mail (a felony by the way to do this) from dead people and people who only found out this had been done when they went to the polls to vote and were turned away. In some parts of the country race haters still wait near polls and intimidate voters not to vote. TV news systems erroneously tell people it is all over and that one candidate or the other has won. Or that the polls are now closed when they are still open.
It does not work - it only seems to work. But it is more rigged than you probably believe it to be. Further, the two party system stinks. It should be at least three and - a certain number of seats should be reserved for each party based upon its size. (At this time it would be the Democrats, the Republicans, and then everyone else because the Dems and Reps have a vast majority of people and the rest do not. But do not confuse what I'm saying. I am not saying that the Dems or Reps should get MORE seats - only that they constitute the two largest parties so each should get 1/3 of all of the seats to be handed out.) This would allow a more balanced outlook to everything rather than just having one party in power in all of the houses. Basically, a small minority of seats should be free (such as the original number of seats per state - And I am talking Congress here and not the Senate since you only get two seats there no matter what) but the rest should be split up to allow for three different parties. This would create a triumvirate of equality. Basically, the two main parties and all of the rest of the smaller parties. By maintaining a stable balance all voices have a greater chance of being heard. The main seats of the houses can still be fought over but at least the minor voices could possibly be heard. One further step would be to make it a law that the third parties can not be associated with the other two parties in any way, shape, or form (like a front company for one of the other two).
The problem with our current system of elections isn't just at the ballot box. It is the sickness called greed that has infested us. That one must win at all costs. So rather than use the archaic gentlemen rules of engagement we now have guerilla warfare in politics. The ends justify the means and all of that cr*p. So the truth is that no one will play fairly unless the laws say they have to play fairly. And even then someone would try to rewrite the rules to their advantage or try an end-run around them.
And this is why things are the way they are. There are enough dollars in one coffer to pay enough people to do these terrible things to the people of America - just to win an election. Why else would you need over a $100 million dollars for an election campaign?
And you know what the strange thing is? Both the Democratic and Republican groups do not deny these things are happening or that they have had a hand in doing them. Strange. Very strange.
As has been shown repeatedly in the past - paper ballots are just as shoddy at determining the winner as electronic ballots are showing to be.
;-)
It does not come down to what solution you offer - it comes down to how well the solution is implemented and how much trouble a person or persons are going to be in should they tamper with the solution.
For instance, let's say we just draw straws. Who is going to hold them? Or what type of container? Will the person hold one straw higher than the others even though the others are longer? Will the person bend the longest straw so it will fit into the container like the others? Will there be a lid? And so on...
Let's throw a stone and see how many skips it makes - that is who is the winner. Ok - are we going to use the same stone?
Tiddly-winks? Personally I think this would be a great way to vote. Just tie all of the containers together - you get to keep trying until the piece goes into one of the containers. The first container to fill up wins. It would probably be fairly random and - Mickey Mouse would probably be the winner. Or some dead guy everyone knows is dead but still elect to be in office.
So basically - there is no practical solution. Everything has a flaw which can probably be exploited by someone. So we just need to up the ante on people who knowingly try to abuse the system. I'm in favor of death. Stoning is a good practice for this. When someone is found to have tampered with the voting process everyone around them just gets to pick up any old stone and chunk it at the person until their dead. I know it sounds grisely but it's late, I've been up for almost 24 hours, and it seems like a good idea. Of course with the mob mentality of some people once the stoning got to going you just don't know where it might end. So maybe this isn't a good idea after all. I know! Let's do witch trial tests. We can tie the offenders to a log and dunk them under water. If they drown - they were innocent - if they live - they were guilty and can be stoned. Sorry - I mean burned at the stake.
All kidding aside - there is no system you can devise that can not be undone by someone else. The idea isn't to keep creating new systems - the idea is that you have to stop those who try to mess it up. They (meaning the person or persons) who try to mess things up should be severely punished. I really do not care how - just stop them from being able to do it in the future. The punishment should be sufficiently severe since they are trying to cripple the democratic process for whatever reason. (This means money is not an option. Making a person or persons pay money just doesn't do anything. It is sort of like absolution in the Dark Ages. "Oh! Killed so-and-so did you? 1000GP and the lord will shine upon thee once again." Thank you but no thank you.) Not only that, but should it be proven to have been done on purpose by some larger agency then that agency should suffer as well. (Sort of like Microsoft buying into SCO so they can try to get around the ban on them attacking other companies head on. Instead, they have SCO do their dirty work and Microsoft can say "Who? Me? I didn't do anything! I have no control over what SCO does." As I've said before: Yeah. Right.
Still, I think I've made my point. I've also read many articles from ACM.org because I was (up until recently) a voting member. I decided to drop mainly because I lost my job. Only now they've hired me back again - so I might start taking it again. Unknown. Mr. Thompson has a lot of good points. However, even if the computer doesn't execute my code exactly - 1+1 still should equal 2. Especially when it comes to counting votes.
I agree about the $0.50 marker.
With PGP though, the answer is no. You are assuming that everyone needs a personal PGP id. In truth, a single, randomly generated PGP id could be generated the day/week before the election and could be the basis of all of the encryptions. What is encrypted is the id number of the voter. Only the main voting people need to know the PGP private key. All of the numbers, if encrypted, could be put onto the barcode. No one gets to know their id number really (although, at the polls, when you sign the sheet and they give it to you both you and that person would know - so no system is perfect but at least it does make it harder for someone to find out).
However, even if the PGP were used, a second barcode would have to be placed next to your name. This is because the voting system requires proof that the proper person used that vote. Because of this oxymoronic anomaly - you can never truly have anonymous voting. True anonymous voting opens another whole bag of worms. If there are 3 million people living in a state and 8 million votes are cast - which are the true votes and which are the bogus ones? The only way to tell is by knowing who sent in which votes. But this negates anonymity. So which votes do you use and which do you throw out? You can't do it. So how do you fix it? Well, that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
But the partial answer is that you have to, somehow, encode who voted when, where, why, and how. PGP can aid in this but isn't the end-all, be-all of how to fix the problem. It is just another tool that can be used to help the process along.
Yeah right (again). Just because I said "Use Linux" doesn't mean you shouldn't or have to. It is just (as I pointed out in one of my other replies) that, from what I have seen and experienced, I do not believe a Unix based OS is being used in them. And, as I also said, the last voting we did the machines used a version of Windows CE (from what I read). I was not impressed. So why not try someone else's OS (like Linux). We are on v9.x here at the lab and it appears to be fairly stable and only crashes when we push the graphics too much to do too many things at one time. So I am not even sure if it is Linux's problem - it might be the nVidia software we have. Or it might just be we need to upgrade our graphics cards.
But in any case - any Unix OS would probably operate a lot better than what is currently being used to operate the machines.
So - since you obviously do not like Linux - what OS would you suggest?
Yeah right. It is not a question of SAFER voting. It is just that it would be more stable than - say Windows. Further, if you really wanted to feel safer - use the MacOS X. Of all of the OSs out there (according to another SlashDot story), it only had 36 exploits versus the 40-50 for Linux last year.
:-)
So if you want a SAFER OS - go Mac. Mac is BSD, BSD is just another flavor of Unix. So maybe I should have just said Unix. The ones we used this last year ran something like Windows CE. They were ok but two of the systems crashed while I was trying to vote. Both on either side of me. It doesn't give you a good feeling when they start crashing. You tend to wonder if you are going to make it all the way through all of the sections. It also made me wonder if, after the crash, all of the prior votes were just thrown out. Or maybe the unit was experiencing a hard drive failure. Unknown but it doesn't give one warm fuzzy feelings to have that happen.
In any event - it question isn't about SAFER - it would be more on whether or not it is more STABLE.
As for the "CURE ALL diseases!!" it might just do that. But we will just have to wait and see - won't we? Besides, some diseases have already been cured. So as much as you may want to use this as sarcasm - maybe you'd like to use some other example instead? Like maybe it will get us to the stars. But then - at NASA they do use Linux to help do this. I know because I work there.
Hmmmm.... a very strange statement to make.
PGP is an encryption technology. Anonymous voting would be protected by PGP not exposed by it.
Anonymous voting is not in effect today with the current system. In the current system, when you go to vote they have you sign your name stating that you voted and they give you a number to use on the electronic machines. At least in our part of Texas they did that.
Before the machines were around you still had to sign in (non-anonymous), got a piece of paper to either punch (chad) or to mark with a pencil, a booth with your ballot information, and the piece of paper still had a number on it (not anonymous).
How does PGP change this? Well, it can encrypt your choices so no one but the other computer would be able to decode for whom you voted. (Or, of course, someone who may also have the encryption/decryption information.)
But does it change whether or not you did it anonymously? No. No matter what it can always be found out when, where, and how you voted. (Although the "how" part would be harder with PGP.) If nothing else, simply because you showed up and had to sign a book saying you voted.
So PGP is good only to help hide how you voted in the election - but not whether or not you voted, or where you voted, or when you voted.
It was a paper based system that got ol' George elected. Thus, going back to a system where you can take the votes and lose them in the swamps, canyon, river, ocean, tar pits, volcanoes, geysers, or even the trash dumps - doesn't get us anywhere closer to a system which will work and keep the crooks from trying to rig things so they work in their favor.
The only way, as far as I can see, to keep things above board and honest is to:
1. Put a qualified person in charge of developing things.
2. Use secure lines to do everything. (Just like if you were going to buy something over the net.)
3. Have a centralized server/set of servers to handle the incoming votes.
4. Use Linux to drive the system.
5. Use a browser to do the voting.
5a. Modify/create a driver so it equates the spin wheel to a mouse's movement or just use a touchpad.
5b. Use a secure line back to the main server.
5c. You use a server/browser set up because most schools and libraries now have an internet connection and because it keeps all of the voting software in one location which is more secure than having it scattered all over the place.
6. Use PGP to encode who is voting.
6a. Use labels which are just peeled out of the voting book (you have to sign) and stuck onto a 3x5 index card.
6b. The labels from 6a are then scanned at the voting booth by a scanner. (New scanners can read barcodes from almost any direction and it makes it a lot easier to ensure that voter #123456 doesn't put in #213456.)
7. The language used doesn't matter.
Anyway, the usage of paper is wrought with just as many problems as an electronic system. In some ways more problems (chads anyone?). Common sense will tell you that any system will have problems but at least with the new electronic systems we are trying to move forwards rather than back. All we need to do now is just to learn the correct way to write the software.
I'm surprised they aren't using a barcode of some sort. Then all letters are usable including the extended ASCII character set.
But to tell the truth - the extended character set is really hard to read sometimes. After all, how would you tell if the vertical line were on the left, middle, or right? What's a square mean?
I'm also surprised that they only allocated one digit for the year. Didn't we learn anything from Y2K? Why not use two letters and have 1024 years? By the time the numbers rolled over the original cars would be nothing but piles of rust.
As others have said:
If you pick up your phone and talk into it your voice is stored in the digital memory of your phone, then converted to ditigal signals, then sent to the box down the street where it is stored and checked to ensure accuracy, then sent to the larger box down the street where it is stored and checked for accuracy, then finally sent to the main system, then back down the line to your connection at the other end. When the phone system went from analog to digital (starting about 20 years ago) no one used the south end of a north bound donkey to say the transmission could be intercepted anywhere along the path from Person A to Person B.
Now we have a judge who is kissing the south end of a north bound donkey and saying that just because we are talking about private e-mail that goes through tens (if not hundreds) of different boxes (just like a phone call does) that it is somehow unique or different from any other electronic transmission.
I realize that justice is slow - I just didn't know it was all that stupid. You don't need new laws - you need judges who can use common sense and apply it to those laws which are already on the book. That is the idea behind many laws. That they are general enough and broad enough to give a judge the leeway to apply them properly. But there always has to be some jerk who just has to go against everything just because "if it isn't a part of the law - that means it doesn't work that way." Well, that is what is called a "Rules Lawyer." A term coined from when D&D first started out. There were these jerks who tried to torque around the rules of D&D as much as they could "Because it wasn't written down in the book that you couldn't do it this way."
Get real! Use common sense! I know that means actually thinking about the issues - but use common sense! Equate! If it works like A for one thing - then it should work in a similar manner for B, C, D, E, and the rest of the alphabet.
And I know! This is a flame! But Damn! How many idiot people are there out? I'm sure where ever his teachers are out there they are just groaning over this destruction of the fundamental rights which were already fought over and won by the people of the U.S.. Why not just rip out the Bill of Rights and flush them down the toilet. Man - I guess this means another letter to my Congressman and Senator.
While reading the article I got to the part where it says:
Several leaked Microsoft memos (known as the Halloween documents) provide some insight into Microsoft's plans to combat Open Source. Comparing their research, into the best messages to use against Open Source with the arguments used by the think tanks is rather interesting.
And I had to stop and think for a moment. The holiday mentioned (ie: Halloween) is a time when children dress up as someone else and go door to door for tricks or treats. It seems to me that that is what Microsoft is doing. They are creating companies which are nothing more than a cover to help cover up their tricks and the treat is to get rid of Open Source.
Rather obvious I know but no one else has put the two together before this and it makes me wonder what other letters might have more than one meaning. Eh?
Robby the Robot not only showed up in Forbidden Planet but he also put in an appearance in several other films and TV Shows. He showed up in "Lost in Space" (TV), and "Back to the Future" (Movie - in the museum).
:-)
The other robot from "Lost in Space" (TV) should also go into the museum.
Androids should probably get their own museum as they are a bit different from plain robots. My favorite to go into an Android museum would be BladeRunner's Roy.
There have been so many robots used (both good and badly designed) in movies - it is probably really hard to decide just whom should go into the hall of fame.
Vega from StarTrek-the Movie would be another good one. Only, they would have to build an entire planet to accommodate it.