You are right, and worse. Soros is a very bad man. He makes money by shorting the currency of third-world nations in financial and political stress. The intention is generally to cause the stress to increase past the breaking point, resulting in the destruction of the economy and often the political system of the target country.
This man profits from the destruction of other nations and uses economic force to make it happen.
I agree with him that Bush needs to go. But in all the world, I can think of no one else but Soros who could compete with Bush for the title of antichrist (e.g. bloodthirsty, greedy and genocidal).
OK, so I know this is/. and I shouldn't expect anyone to RTFA, but so far the majority of comments from the Bush++ crowd are complaining "I call BS! Soros is a liberal!" Although Soros is definitely anti-Bush (calling him a liberal may not be exactly accurate) the point is it doesn't matter. If you don't like what he has to say, refute it! What substantive statements of his thesis do you disagree with?
I agree. I am a republican and I will definitely not vote for Bush. Is allegiance to a political party so strong for most Americans that they cannot see through it to the warmongering, corrupt, lying, freedom stripping madman that sits, unelected, in the White House?
Flying cars will only ever work with automation. There is no chance that we will be allowed to fly around anywhere we want.
Perhaps a little token of control such as flight controls to let us request access (or creation of?) and navigation of "virtual tunnels" that take the place of today's highways. But the air-traffic systems that will actually be controlling traffic patterns and having conversations with your jet-car will not let you change lanes (tunnels?) into someone else, nor will they let you enter restricted airspace, leave the boundaries of a virtual tunnel or any other stupid thing that we will all try to do the moment we get into one of these things...
There will be no "fully manual mode" other than in the case of communication failure with traffic systems or system failure in the air-car...
I just had an interesting thought on traffic pattern management - it could be accomplished with a form of ad-hoc peer-to-peer grid computing where the participants in any local traffic pattern donate resources to resolve traffic patterns at that location - in this way, even remote locations would be managed when more than 1 vehicle were present... Ah well... just a thought...
Also, Movie making is horribly expensive of which Movie sets account for a good chunk of that. I suspect though that we will see a CG actor in about 3 years, where the public will not know it is CG. And I say Thank God. I am tired of the idiots that run around inisiting on huge checks, yet act like total babies.
I agree, on multiple levels. First: The real talent in making a movie exists in the (*) story [e.g. writer], (*) Direction, (*) Composition [edit room] and art [e.g. CG, set-making, etc..]. Actors, who monopolize profits and take credit for everyone elses work are using the most basic skill all humans possess, lying!
Also, wouldn't it be nice to watch a movie and not wonder why the serial killer looks just exactly like the speed-boat captain from the action thriller you saw last week? It sort-of takes away from the movie to have Abe Lincoln be the same person as Batman or whatever [fictional examples]... I for one would like to buy the story, not the face.
However, women do have different opinions about this. They like the "Royalty following, gossip thing" about Hollywood. So I suspect we will see a new class of female oriented movies with conventional movie stars and male oriented movies (action, fantasy, Sci-Fi, etc..) that are 100% CG... Good compromise, if you ask me.
I was thinking about how one would weave a bunch of these into a rope or ribbon for a space elevator and it struck me: Wouldn't a single strand nanotube be essentially like a perfect blade? How would you handle the thing? How would you pick it up without it slicing through the thing you are picking it up with?
Am I wrong or would this stuff not require some seriously bizarre handling?
We should be moving to technology like this in the near future. Get familiar with it, send links to your friends... Stop the established energy complex from supressing technologies like this.
SCO will attempt to argue that OSS is effectively the same as public domain software (e.g. IBM lost rights to software when it released the source to the wild), that the GPL isn't valid and therefore they have the right to do whatever they wish with the code.
I have heard this too often out of that little wart of an outfit. Of course it won't work, but it could complicate the matter enough to trump the summary judgement.
Self-similar means that there at any scale an object has the same properties. Not that it is identical... where did I say that? Please go back and read my posts properly.
Ah... We are getting somewhere... Dozens of nodes with high interconnect rate transmitting information which propagates through the network, each node performing a transformation on inputs : Neural net, cluster of neural nets,... , major processing lobes in the brain,... , left and right hemisphere via Corpus Callosum,... , individuals in a team,... , the corporation... [ Processing and topology is self similar ]
especially when you admit that the term "fractal intelligence" is nothing more than a not 100% acurrate term.
I admit no such thing. You seem to believe that for the term fractal to apply, there must be an exact mathematical formulation for the "fractal" in question. Given your implied definition, we would not be able to describe landscapes, sea-shores, leaves, trees or other natural phenomena as "fractal" because we lack the mathematical formulation for them. But, alas, it is agreed that these items are fractal!
You are making an assertion here, and are presenting no evidence to back it up whatsoever. If you have some kind of proof of your theories then by all means let's hear them... after all it would make you famous as the person who finally cracked the nature of thought!
It turns out that I am a CI researcher (that is Computational Intelligence). Cognitive science is exactly my field. I could spend countless hours spraying you with data, game theory and whatnot. But why?
The point was that all intelligence interacts within the context of vast, dynamic intelligent systems relegating the advent of true CI irrelevant in the grander picture. This irrelevancy wipes away most (if not all) of the singularness of Vinge's singularity event.
Invoking the concept of fractal intelligence is a shortcut to a longwinded discussion that is generally required to pass these concepts on.
I offer you concepts to chew on. I don't have time to provide you with proof. If you are interested enough in the topic then I suggest you spend some time thinking about what I have told you and then go hit google.
Your definition of self-similar is practically meaningless (and not the same as the actual mathematical sense at all). It would mean that anything made from the same components is "self-similar" - trivially true but contributing no real insight into the relationships between those things and their functions.
You appear to be the sort of transitive ego-feeder that believes if you can rip on someone smart then you appear smart yourself... It doesn't fly... You have to know what you are talking about first...
I'm not sure whether you're in fact trying to put across some kind of actual theory here or espouse some New Age pseduo-scientific theory involving vaguely understood concepts from maths.
You don't do dissertations on slashdot. You should know this. For you to request one is ignorant.
Yes, I know all about fractals. However while there are local differences in various fractals they are still self-similar across a range of scales and positions. The brain has a range of unique sub-systems. There's no analogy there at all.
No? So you are saying that because the components specialize they are not self-similar?
It appears that I would need more room than afforded in this comment to crack open your brain to make room for the concept that I am asserting, but here is a clue for you to ponder: I am not making an analogy and I am not asserting that the "physical" attributes of brain are terribly important in this fractal. I am asserting that the dynamic information processing itself is fractal and in fact you and I (as we attempt to share thoughts right now) are forming a higher-order scale of that same fractal.
I believe the idea of a computational intelligence singularity is mostly irrelevant through the invocation of the idea of Fractal Intelligence.
The basic idea is that intelligent systems are fractally self-similar in processing architecture and topology (e.g. lower-order systems network to combine higher-order systems which network to... ). This relationship governs the neural net as well as the human brain and the corporation. It governs clubs, teams, cities and governments.
Through this revelation, we can infer that supra-intelligences already exist in the form of corporations, universities, cities, countries, etc... Given the existence of such supra-intelligences, the idea of an intelligence singularity becomes irrelevant. Artificial or Natural, the intelligences would simply drop into a vast ocean of existing high and low order intelligent systems, absorbed by systems much larger that already exist.
Could such a bifuracation point (AI) speed up or create new efficiencies in the existing systems? Yes, of course. But it is highly doubtful that it will change the human condition much at all. We will be just as unaware of the goings on of higher-order intelligences (be them artificial or naturally collective or both) in the future as we are now.
These are not legal in California. He can work wherever he wants regardless of non-competes. Essentially, it is recognized in California that if he is that critical or his knowledge that thorough then he is probably one of the inventors / principals and the company that is so concerned has probably been profiting off of him rather than the reverse.
I am very much against this form of employment terrorism.
Or are you assuming that the second "vote" doesn't do anything, or reveal anything? If so, what's the point? If the "second vote" counts, then you can buy votes with it, if needed. If the system will verify to the user that his "second vote" matches his first, it can be used to coerce the voter.
The second vote is not a vote - you are correct. It is only used for vote VERIFICATION. So that in the event that foul play is suspected, a govt body may make a request of a voting district to VALIDATE their vote. The idea is to get a statistical measure of the accuracy of the originally collected data. Not to get a re-vote.
I think the only thing coercion could accomplish in this scenario is to slightly skew the statisicts, making it look more likely that either (A) there was some vote tampering or (B) there are alot of people in that district that are not doing what they are supposed to be doing (e.g. validating their original vote). I don't know what the mathematical models would look like off hand, but I'll take a guess that large scale coercion to mess with vote VALIDATION would be largely a waste of time.
I was just contemplating the fact that this will be a cluster of clusters. I find that fact deeply satisfying, actually, as it models complex natural computation systems quite well.
Our brains work very much like that (networks of networks of networks of... you get the point)...
So while you are making a joke, in this case, it is sorta... well... applicable!
I see your point about vote buying. Let's solve it.
New modification to presented idea: 2 Step double-blind vote verification.
First step: 2 passphrases (example: Question / Answer - come up with by the voter). This replaces the single passphrase.
Second step: Verification is accomplished by voter entering first passphrase (e.g Question) and address. Hash is computed. Record is looked up.
Third step: Verification asks for second passphrase (e.g. Answer)
Forth step: Assuming voter passed verification, voter re-enters vote (does not see existing record). This vote is re-recorded for later verification
In this scheme, the voter is never allowed to see his original vote and not allowed to know if his vote was recorded accurately. But it does allow auditors to see if voters have verified with the same vote (without giving away voter identity). There will, of course, be some statistical deviation from 100% due to stupidity or change of mind, but the mathematicians can figure that one out...
See my response, above, to the other poster who suggests this. Think about it carefully. There is NO way that you could be coerced in this model, any more than you could be coerced to tell someone your vote. A simple, "I forgot my passphrase" is enough.
Your 'keyword' system falls to the same problem that people above you have articulated -- not only does it need to be anonymous, you actually need to PREVENT people from being able to access their own voting record. Otherwise you can get people saying 'prove you voted for X and I won't give you this punishment/will give you this reward.' That hurts the voting system immensely, so it should be impossible to walk out and prove that you voted for X.
It does no such thing, really. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of any specific voter connection in the model I presented. It does allow an individual to verify his/her own vote, but provides no record of that same thing. All one has to say under coercion is I don't remember my passphrase. Or they can use some published "abstain" passphrase or whatever. Case closed. Secret is retained.
(As for your 'keyword' system, you don't need to have people pick unique keywords if you use a 'salt' or initialization vector in the encryption.)
Salt of what? I am suggesting the passphrase to maintain anonymity and prevention of coercion and that passphrase is in fact the seed to a cryptographic hash that, when combined with a voting district, results in a unique key into a database of votes.
I'm sure my model can be improved on, but the point is - it has all the characteristics required for unequivical voting security.
Using the Internet and Cryptography, it would be possible to create an anonymous voting system where each voter could verify their vote AND where audits could provide proof of tampering (with the help of some subset of voters providing some mouse clicks).
At the most basic level what would be required is the computerized voting machines asking for a secret keyword at the time of the vote - hash that keyword, bind with the voting district and you have a unique key into a database. If there is a collision, request a different keyword from the voter. Store the vote along with the key. Anonymity is retained because there is no binding between the identity of the voter and the vote, only a secret passphrase.
A voter could hop on the internet, type in their address and keyword and voila, out pops their vote.
Audits could be performed by requesting certain districts to verify that their votes are recorded correctly. Once again, this would involve the secret keyword/passphrase and voting district, and the results would be pretty unambiguous.
The only other fraud that could occur is "additional votes" inserted into the database. Statistical measures could be used to determine this, once again in coordination with volunteers from voting districts - if demographically similar districts have vastly different response percentages for requests to verify under the same amount of coertion (e.g. radio, tv), then it is a strong indication that something is wrong - and further checks need to be made.
This is a basic model - more analysis could lead to a much better one. I did this off the top of my head and I'm just the average slashdot geek (with some security background). Why isn't anything like this being discussed "out there"???
The brain doesn't have to worry about the liver doing a hostile takeover of its functions, and i don't think Big Blue would be too happy about an MS virus, whether good or bad, infecting any of its systems.
You may be surprised by the simbiosis of even those two organs. As for Big Blue / Microsoft, that is why I suggested OVERSIGHT... But hey, it's just an idea - I just think that it may be a good idea to give protection at least as much of an advantage as infiltration.
Instead maybe IBM erects firewalls and proxy servers an closes off most of its network, similar to a human's nose hairs/mucus and skin, and very minimal orifices. When something gets past those, we have white blood cells in the form of tech workers running around fixing things.
I doubt IBM needs white worms to keep them clean - I think they take security pretty seriously. The point of the article and my post was protection for neglected systems that are exploited.
So sure, let's consult nature. Is there any virus out there that will infect me and benefit me? Is there any worm that will grow inside me and give me super powers?
Again, you might be surprised. Nature is full of such things. You have beneficial, simbiotic bacteria and viruses teething through your body. Even beneficial tiny insects on your skin. It is a bizarre place, your body...
By the way, when consulting nature, keep in mind companies mimic an organism that constantly get organ transplants in the form of upgrades and migrations. With a human's immune system, we'd experience much higher rate of organ rejection, e.g. implementing migrations or new products may be a PITA.
Modern day companies do a very poor job of imitating nature. The ones that do a better job seem to be able to keep moving without so much as a hickup when things change inside (take your own cited company, IBM, as an example of that). Aside from that, I don't think there are real viruses that could transplant your liver (but there are some that will destroy it!) - the implication is cool though - a computer virus that could give me a processor upgrade!!! Hey, maybe a transmeta chip white worm upgrade? Hmmm... [scratching on chin]...
Think of the net as a big organism. We have invading viruses and worms [and other nasties], but no real immune system to speak of...
While there are certain to be real dillemas and dragons here, it seems that exploring the idea of white worms and whatnot is a good idea, after all, is there any other solution for the systems that are not managed? However, white worms should have oversight (e.g. registered source code to some oversight body, managed release into the wilderness, etc..) somewhat akin to oversight for the immune system in an organism..
When in doubt, consult how nature does it - the more complex our systems become, the more similar our solutions look to natures.. Very intriguing..
I believe Apple is looking to the future where handheld devices will fuse into single all-purpose devices. This relationship is probably the first stage in a well thought out roadmap towards a handheld device that, frankly, is the successor to the average personal computer.
That might sound strange to many of you, but it really hit me recently when I received my new Nokia 7610 phone. This phone is tiny, has a big color display, has 8Meg of memory, a removable MMC (memory card) that has 64Meg (like a small hard-drive), bluetooth, Java, megapixel camera, video camera, TCP/IP, etc.. You can get a bluetooth keyboard for the thing - hell if you could connect a monitor to it, it could replace a PC for most tasks - it is more powerful than the average PC 10 years ago. Consider where this is going...
It is innevitable that these small devices WILL become powerful enough to replace PCs. You will pop them out of their charging cradles and bring it around in their native mobile mode, or pop them in to their cradles and sit down to a keyboard, mouse, monitor. The PC will go away when these things have matured a bit more.
The iPod will merge with the phone. The computer will merge with the phone. The personal organizer HAS merged with the phone. The camera HAS merged with the phone. The video-camera is IN-PROCESS of merging with the phone.
Apple has a chance here... I think this relationship shows they are going for it.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, and worse. Soros is a very bad man. He makes money by shorting the currency of third-world nations in financial and political stress. The intention is generally to cause the stress to increase past the breaking point, resulting in the destruction of the economy and often the political system of the target country.
This man profits from the destruction of other nations and uses economic force to make it happen.
I agree with him that Bush needs to go. But in all the world, I can think of no one else but Soros who could compete with Bush for the title of antichrist (e.g. bloodthirsty, greedy and genocidal).
Perhaps a little token of control such as flight controls to let us request access (or creation of?) and navigation of "virtual tunnels" that take the place of today's highways. But the air-traffic systems that will actually be controlling traffic patterns and having conversations with your jet-car will not let you change lanes (tunnels?) into someone else, nor will they let you enter restricted airspace, leave the boundaries of a virtual tunnel or any other stupid thing that we will all try to do the moment we get into one of these things...
There will be no "fully manual mode" other than in the case of communication failure with traffic systems or system failure in the air-car...
It doesn't matter how much the film actually cost to make... They always find a way to make a loss in order to avoid taxes.
If you really think they are spending $150-$200 million on a film, wake up and slap yourself in the face.
This is tax evasion, pure and simple.
Also, Movie making is horribly expensive of which Movie sets account for a good chunk of that. I suspect though that we will see a CG actor in about 3 years, where the public will not know it is CG. And I say Thank God. I am tired of the idiots that run around inisiting on huge checks, yet act like total babies.
I agree, on multiple levels. First: The real talent in making a movie exists in the (*) story [e.g. writer], (*) Direction, (*) Composition [edit room] and art [e.g. CG, set-making, etc..]. Actors, who monopolize profits and take credit for everyone elses work are using the most basic skill all humans possess, lying!
Also, wouldn't it be nice to watch a movie and not wonder why the serial killer looks just exactly like the speed-boat captain from the action thriller you saw last week? It sort-of takes away from the movie to have Abe Lincoln be the same person as Batman or whatever [fictional examples]... I for one would like to buy the story, not the face.
However, women do have different opinions about this. They like the "Royalty following, gossip thing" about Hollywood. So I suspect we will see a new class of female oriented movies with conventional movie stars and male oriented movies (action, fantasy, Sci-Fi, etc..) that are 100% CG... Good compromise, if you ask me.
I was thinking about how one would weave a bunch of these into a rope or ribbon for a space elevator and it struck me: Wouldn't a single strand nanotube be essentially like a perfect blade? How would you handle the thing? How would you pick it up without it slicing through the thing you are picking it up with?
Am I wrong or would this stuff not require some seriously bizarre handling?
We should be moving to technology like this in the near future. Get familiar with it, send links to your friends... Stop the established energy complex from supressing technologies like this.
Ahh.. you are bordering on thinking now, but (for the second time) it wasn't an analogy...
You are boring me... last post is yours...
SCO will attempt to argue that OSS is effectively the same as public domain software (e.g. IBM lost rights to software when it released the source to the wild), that the GPL isn't valid and therefore they have the right to do whatever they wish with the code.
I have heard this too often out of that little wart of an outfit. Of course it won't work, but it could complicate the matter enough to trump the summary judgement.
Self-similar means that there at any scale an object has the same properties. Not that it is identical... where did I say that? Please go back and read my posts properly.
... , major processing lobes in the brain, ... , left and right hemisphere via Corpus Callosum, ... , individuals in a team, ... , the corporation ... [ Processing and topology is self similar ]
Ah... We are getting somewhere... Dozens of nodes with high interconnect rate transmitting information which propagates through the network, each node performing a transformation on inputs : Neural net, cluster of neural nets,
Fractal... Get it?
especially when you admit that the term "fractal intelligence" is nothing more than a not 100% acurrate term.
I admit no such thing. You seem to believe that for the term fractal to apply, there must be an exact mathematical formulation for the "fractal" in question. Given your implied definition, we would not be able to describe landscapes, sea-shores, leaves, trees or other natural phenomena as "fractal" because we lack the mathematical formulation for them. But, alas, it is agreed that these items are fractal!
If you like, I will sell you a clue for $3.99...
It turns out that I am a CI researcher (that is Computational Intelligence). Cognitive science is exactly my field. I could spend countless hours spraying you with data, game theory and whatnot. But why?
The point was that all intelligence interacts within the context of vast, dynamic intelligent systems relegating the advent of true CI irrelevant in the grander picture. This irrelevancy wipes away most (if not all) of the singularness of Vinge's singularity event.
Invoking the concept of fractal intelligence is a shortcut to a longwinded discussion that is generally required to pass these concepts on.
I offer you concepts to chew on. I don't have time to provide you with proof. If you are interested enough in the topic then I suggest you spend some time thinking about what I have told you and then go hit google.
You appear to be the sort of transitive ego-feeder that believes if you can rip on someone smart then you appear smart yourself... It doesn't fly... You have to know what you are talking about first...
You don't do dissertations on slashdot. You should know this. For you to request one is ignorant.
Yes, I know all about fractals. However while there are local differences in various fractals they are still self-similar across a range of scales and positions. The brain has a range of unique sub-systems. There's no analogy there at all.
No? So you are saying that because the components specialize they are not self-similar?
It appears that I would need more room than afforded in this comment to crack open your brain to make room for the concept that I am asserting, but here is a clue for you to ponder: I am not making an analogy and I am not asserting that the "physical" attributes of brain are terribly important in this fractal. I am asserting that the dynamic information processing itself is fractal and in fact you and I (as we attempt to share thoughts right now) are forming a higher-order scale of that same fractal.
Continue as you were and enjoy your worldview...
Fractals, while self-similar, are capable of local differences (specialties). Go take a good look at a Julia or Mandlebrot set.
I believe the idea of a computational intelligence singularity is mostly irrelevant through the invocation of the idea of Fractal Intelligence.
... ). This relationship governs the neural net as well as the human brain and the corporation. It governs clubs, teams, cities and governments.
The basic idea is that intelligent systems are fractally self-similar in processing architecture and topology (e.g. lower-order systems network to combine higher-order systems which network to
Through this revelation, we can infer that supra-intelligences already exist in the form of corporations, universities, cities, countries, etc... Given the existence of such supra-intelligences, the idea of an intelligence singularity becomes irrelevant. Artificial or Natural, the intelligences would simply drop into a vast ocean of existing high and low order intelligent systems, absorbed by systems much larger that already exist.
Could such a bifuracation point (AI) speed up or create new efficiencies in the existing systems? Yes, of course. But it is highly doubtful that it will change the human condition much at all. We will be just as unaware of the goings on of higher-order intelligences (be them artificial or naturally collective or both) in the future as we are now.
These are not legal in California. He can work wherever he wants regardless of non-competes. Essentially, it is recognized in California that if he is that critical or his knowledge that thorough then he is probably one of the inventors / principals and the company that is so concerned has probably been profiting off of him rather than the reverse.
I am very much against this form of employment terrorism.
Or are you assuming that the second "vote" doesn't do anything, or reveal anything? If so, what's the point? If the "second vote" counts, then you can buy votes with it, if needed. If the system will verify to the user that his "second vote" matches his first, it can be used to coerce the voter.
The second vote is not a vote - you are correct. It is only used for vote VERIFICATION. So that in the event that foul play is suspected, a govt body may make a request of a voting district to VALIDATE their vote. The idea is to get a statistical measure of the accuracy of the originally collected data. Not to get a re-vote.
I think the only thing coercion could accomplish in this scenario is to slightly skew the statisicts, making it look more likely that either (A) there was some vote tampering or (B) there are alot of people in that district that are not doing what they are supposed to be doing (e.g. validating their original vote). I don't know what the mathematical models would look like off hand, but I'll take a guess that large scale coercion to mess with vote VALIDATION would be largely a waste of time.
I was just contemplating the fact that this will be a cluster of clusters. I find that fact deeply satisfying, actually, as it models complex natural computation systems quite well.
... you get the point)...
Our brains work very much like that (networks of networks of networks of
So while you are making a joke, in this case, it is sorta... well... applicable!
I see your point about vote buying. Let's solve it.
New modification to presented idea: 2 Step double-blind vote verification.
First step: 2 passphrases (example: Question / Answer - come up with by the voter). This replaces the single passphrase.
Second step: Verification is accomplished by voter entering first passphrase (e.g Question) and address. Hash is computed. Record is looked up.
Third step: Verification asks for second passphrase (e.g. Answer)
Forth step: Assuming voter passed verification, voter re-enters vote (does not see existing record). This vote is re-recorded for later verification
In this scheme, the voter is never allowed to see his original vote and not allowed to know if his vote was recorded accurately. But it does allow auditors to see if voters have verified with the same vote (without giving away voter identity). There will, of course, be some statistical deviation from 100% due to stupidity or change of mind, but the mathematicians can figure that one out...
See my response, above, to the other poster who suggests this. Think about it carefully. There is NO way that you could be coerced in this model, any more than you could be coerced to tell someone your vote. A simple, "I forgot my passphrase" is enough.
Your 'keyword' system falls to the same problem that people above you have articulated -- not only does it need to be anonymous, you actually need to PREVENT people from being able to access their own voting record. Otherwise you can get people saying 'prove you voted for X and I won't give you this punishment/will give you this reward.' That hurts the voting system immensely, so it should be impossible to walk out and prove that you voted for X.
It does no such thing, really. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of any specific voter connection in the model I presented. It does allow an individual to verify his/her own vote, but provides no record of that same thing. All one has to say under coercion is I don't remember my passphrase. Or they can use some published "abstain" passphrase or whatever. Case closed. Secret is retained.
(As for your 'keyword' system, you don't need to have people pick unique keywords if you use a 'salt' or initialization vector in the encryption.)
Salt of what? I am suggesting the passphrase to maintain anonymity and prevention of coercion and that passphrase is in fact the seed to a cryptographic hash that, when combined with a voting district, results in a unique key into a database of votes.
I'm sure my model can be improved on, but the point is - it has all the characteristics required for unequivical voting security.
Using the Internet and Cryptography, it would be possible to create an anonymous voting system where each voter could verify their vote AND where audits could provide proof of tampering (with the help of some subset of voters providing some mouse clicks).
At the most basic level what would be required is the computerized voting machines asking for a secret keyword at the time of the vote - hash that keyword, bind with the voting district and you have a unique key into a database. If there is a collision, request a different keyword from the voter. Store the vote along with the key. Anonymity is retained because there is no binding between the identity of the voter and the vote, only a secret passphrase.
A voter could hop on the internet, type in their address and keyword and voila, out pops their vote.
Audits could be performed by requesting certain districts to verify that their votes are recorded correctly. Once again, this would involve the secret keyword/passphrase and voting district, and the results would be pretty unambiguous.
The only other fraud that could occur is "additional votes" inserted into the database. Statistical measures could be used to determine this, once again in coordination with volunteers from voting districts - if demographically similar districts have vastly different response percentages for requests to verify under the same amount of coertion (e.g. radio, tv), then it is a strong indication that something is wrong - and further checks need to be made.
This is a basic model - more analysis could lead to a much better one. I did this off the top of my head and I'm just the average slashdot geek (with some security background). Why isn't anything like this being discussed "out there"???
I doubt IBM needs white worms to keep them clean - I think they take security pretty seriously. The point of the article and my post was protection for neglected systems that are exploited.
Again, you might be surprised. Nature is full of such things. You have beneficial, simbiotic bacteria and viruses teething through your body. Even beneficial tiny insects on your skin. It is a bizarre place, your body...
Modern day companies do a very poor job of imitating nature. The ones that do a better job seem to be able to keep moving without so much as a hickup when things change inside (take your own cited company, IBM, as an example of that). Aside from that, I don't think there are real viruses that could transplant your liver (but there are some that will destroy it!) - the implication is cool though - a computer virus that could give me a processor upgrade!!! Hey, maybe a transmeta chip white worm upgrade? Hmmm... [scratching on chin]...
Think of the net as a big organism. We have invading viruses and worms [and other nasties], but no real immune system to speak of...
While there are certain to be real dillemas and dragons here, it seems that exploring the idea of white worms and whatnot is a good idea, after all, is there any other solution for the systems that are not managed? However, white worms should have oversight (e.g. registered source code to some oversight body, managed release into the wilderness, etc..) somewhat akin to oversight for the immune system in an organism..
When in doubt, consult how nature does it - the more complex our systems become, the more similar our solutions look to natures.. Very intriguing..
I believe Apple is looking to the future where handheld devices will fuse into single all-purpose devices. This relationship is probably the first stage in a well thought out roadmap towards a handheld device that, frankly, is the successor to the average personal computer.
That might sound strange to many of you, but it really hit me recently when I received my new Nokia 7610 phone. This phone is tiny, has a big color display, has 8Meg of memory, a removable MMC (memory card) that has 64Meg (like a small hard-drive), bluetooth, Java, megapixel camera, video camera, TCP/IP, etc.. You can get a bluetooth keyboard for the thing - hell if you could connect a monitor to it, it could replace a PC for most tasks - it is more powerful than the average PC 10 years ago. Consider where this is going...
It is innevitable that these small devices WILL become powerful enough to replace PCs. You will pop them out of their charging cradles and bring it around in their native mobile mode, or pop them in to their cradles and sit down to a keyboard, mouse, monitor. The PC will go away when these things have matured a bit more.
The iPod will merge with the phone. The computer will merge with the phone. The personal organizer HAS merged with the phone. The camera HAS merged with the phone. The video-camera is IN-PROCESS of merging with the phone.
Apple has a chance here... I think this relationship shows they are going for it.