I bought a Motorola i670 on Sprint because I thought that Sprint was a CDMA carrier, but apparently they use some iDEN handsets, which is very similar to GSM.
I get the "GSM sound" in my car radio, since I store the phone under the head unit.
However, there are NO exceptions for children having naked pictures of anyone under 18. If that person then sends it, they are "distributing child pornography", and could easily be charged with a felony or two. It is all about the age of the person in the photograph, not the age of the person with it, or even the age of the person who took the picture.
Indeed. Child porn wasn't even illegal in the US until 1977. Why should it be illegal?
If a person under 18 takes a nude/suggestive picture of themselves and sends to their girlfriend/boyfriend, why should that be a felony with the long term repercussions of registering on the sex offenders list?
I suggest it would be better if the images were be perfectly legal, but usable by police as evidence of child abuse if that appears in the picture.
In the US we have gotten way to tolerant of censorship: campaign finance reform, the FCC fining people for showing a female nipple (isn't that sexual discrimination, since a male nipple is perfectly OK?), the FCC fining some people for their speech, child porn, "obscenity", using perfectly innocent words like niggardly, and such.
Obviously, the most "enterprisey" way to decide is to see what he can get from the sales people of each company.
If, for example, LeCroy is able to give a 3 day demonstration of the O-scope in Hawaii, and Tektronix is only able to mail a sample for a week, obviously LeCroy is the one to go with.
(Of the ones in the list, I have only used a small portable Tektronix for monitoring some power from a VFD, so I can't say which is the best)
If you can corrupt a representative of the judge who is responsible for declaring if the vote is correct, does it matter if the box is electronic or paper?
Not really, no.
That's *WRONG*, no matter if the ballots were paper or electronic. No part of an electoral process should be left unattended at any time at all.
What about when the stuff is in storage? What if someone replaces the processor with a near duplicate that changes the voting output when certain conditions are true (time, the ID of the election, number of ballots cast, etc?)
You are ready to swear for the honesty of those county officials, yet you don't trust the people who handled the electronic box before the election?
There weren't just election officials, there were poll watchers and other outside groups watching as well. If it was a pure electronic voting, there wouldn't be much to watch, though.
To sum up, you have absolute trust in the paper voting system, because you have absolute trust in the way the paper ballot was handled *AFTER* the election, but you mistrust the electronic vote because you mistrust the way the electronic box is handled *BEFORE* the election.
Somewhat, yeah. I don't trust the computers because it is so easy to change them, change values, have code that doesn't execute for a while, etc. It isn't that I have absolute trust in paper ballots, I just can't think of a better solution. Electronic voting is way down on the list of voting systems I trust.
For me, both systems can be corrupted, but the electronic system is better because, given the same level of precaution before and after the election, the electronic system gives faster results. To cheat, you need physical access to the system, so the quickest system is safer.
Except that it is really hard to corrupt a paper ballot before the election. Faster vote tallying also means faster vote tampering. I don't know why you think fast processing means safe. Paper voting isn't perfectly secure. It is just that almost all tampering will leave evidence. That isn't true at all for pure electronic voting.
Lets change your bet a little bit. The 7 minutes are 2 days before the election. You get private time with the ballot box, I get private time with the voting machine.
What can you do to the ballot box that wouldn't be noticeable 2 days later and still affect the vote?
I was an election judge for Boulder County in 2004. Part of my duties as the head election judge for the precinct was to make sure that there was noting in the ballot box and seal it. From that time until I handed the box to the county officials, it was not left in the presence of any single person, so nobody would have 7 minutes during the election day.
You can't stuff the ballot box 2 days before the election with nobody being able to notice.
**THAT** is what they are complaining about. The machines were left in publicly accessible areas for days before the election. Replace one of the chips with that 7 minutes, and it would take a very detailed examination to notice the problem.
The user isn't going to hack his own computer to get his credit card number. Hope that persons computer doesn't have a virus or key logger.
That insurance company or hospital hopefully will have physical security protecting their machines. That doesn't always work, surely you have seen the articles about x million peoples data lost from (company of the week).
Securing E-voting is really like DRM: you want to distribute a device to potential hackers, and keep it secure from those hackers.
I think you have the perception most people have of computers wrong.
Most people think computers are incapable of being incorrect. Microsoft is trying hard to change that, but they are getting less effective.
If the computer is wrong, it must have been something that the user did incorrect. "I shouldn't have clicked on that link to that page", instead of "The browser is broken, it shouldn't have been vulnerable to the stuff on that page"
I agree that paper ballots should be used, but most people think that if a computer is involved it will not be incorrect.
On a side note - how hard can this stuff be? It's not like they aren't making a fortune from these things - it's seeming like they are barely able to break even so they have to hire "below the barrel" talent...
Making a machine that counts or tallies votes shouldn't be very hard, and should be a first year programming assignment.
Making that whole system *secure*, otoh, is almost impossible, especially when it is something as large and distributed as a national voting system. If a company could actually make a completely secure voting system, they could also have a good DRM system. (Yeah, I did say "good DRM system", which shows how possible I think that is)
From Ken Thompson's essay Reflections on Trusting Trust, he says it isn't enough to check the source code, you also have to check the compiler, the output from that compiler, and I would add, in the context of a voting system, everything that is or could be in the system/network.
Why would my complaining about "illegal aliens from Mexico" be considered racism?
The US needs to protect its sovereignty, and a big part of that is preventing people from crossing its borders without authorization.
I have nothing against legal immigrants, and have a lot of respect for people who go to a new country where the dominant language isn't their first language, and make that home.
The current US immigration policy is almost undoubtedly too hard to go though, and should be loosened up, but that doesn't give people the right to go around it by sneaking in.
The only thing a e-voting machine should be used for is printing a paper ballot.
Count the paper ballots.
Anything else means you have to trust the voting machine, or the people who verified the voting machine. (You have to make sure that there are no hidden things in any of the chips, the software, any memory card that comes into contact with the machine, the network that the machine is connected to, etc. Seriously, who can possibly think that a E-voting machine with a Sprint data card in it is secure?)
The US is nuclear-armed. The Mexican army has, on several occasions, gone into the US and threatened border patrol agents, helped drug runners, and other stuff. Certainly nothing large scale, that is true.
The invasion of the US by illegal aliens from Mexico is a very large scale, and could form a fifth column
MAD doesn't work too well if the enemy is mixed with your own civilians.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a Motorola i670 on Sprint because I thought that Sprint was a CDMA carrier, but apparently they use some iDEN handsets, which is very similar to GSM.
I get the "GSM sound" in my car radio, since I store the phone under the head unit.
Crazy, killing a police dog is a felony, but a police office killing someone else's dog is ... part of the job?
Better would be the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Here it is:
By distributing, I mean if the girl sends the boy a few pictures of herself. (Assuming that both are under 18).
In that case both could be charged with a felony:
The boy with possession of child pornography, and the girl with producing said child pornography.
A couple of example news articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08157/887288-56.stm
True, in many states 2 17 year olds can have sex.
However, there are NO exceptions for children having naked pictures of anyone under 18. If that person then sends it, they are "distributing child pornography", and could easily be charged with a felony or two. It is all about the age of the person in the photograph, not the age of the person with it, or even the age of the person who took the picture.
Even when the person taking the picture is the "kiddie", with no adults involved at all?
Note that I never said that victimizing anyone should be legal.
I was making a (rather poor, apparently) attempt at a joke based on the stereotype that gamers live in the basements of their parents house.
I know that the OP meant exactly what he wrote.
Yeah, English is my first language.
Don't you mean, "does that include floors other than the basement?"
Indeed. Child porn wasn't even illegal in the US until 1977. Why should it be illegal?
If a person under 18 takes a nude/suggestive picture of themselves and sends to their girlfriend/boyfriend, why should that be a felony with the long term repercussions of registering on the sex offenders list?
I suggest it would be better if the images were be perfectly legal, but usable by police as evidence of child abuse if that appears in the picture.
In the US we have gotten way to tolerant of censorship: campaign finance reform, the FCC fining people for showing a female nipple (isn't that sexual discrimination, since a male nipple is perfectly OK?), the FCC fining some people for their speech, child porn, "obscenity", using perfectly innocent words like niggardly, and such.
Obviously, the most "enterprisey" way to decide is to see what he can get from the sales people of each company.
If, for example, LeCroy is able to give a 3 day demonstration of the O-scope in Hawaii, and Tektronix is only able to mail a sample for a week, obviously LeCroy is the one to go with.
(Of the ones in the list, I have only used a small portable Tektronix for monitoring some power from a VFD, so I can't say which is the best)
Use a high power radio jammer, and that HAM club will find you.
So I can sue someone that destroys my ship in EVE?
Light bulbs also emit radiation.
Most of that tends to be in the visible/infrared/ultraviolet depending on the specific bulb.
Not really, no.
What about when the stuff is in storage? What if someone replaces the processor with a near duplicate that changes the voting output when certain conditions are true (time, the ID of the election, number of ballots cast, etc?)
There weren't just election officials, there were poll watchers and other outside groups watching as well. If it was a pure electronic voting, there wouldn't be much to watch, though.
Somewhat, yeah. I don't trust the computers because it is so easy to change them, change values, have code that doesn't execute for a while, etc. It isn't that I have absolute trust in paper ballots, I just can't think of a better solution. Electronic voting is way down on the list of voting systems I trust.
Except that it is really hard to corrupt a paper ballot before the election. Faster vote tallying also means faster vote tampering. I don't know why you think fast processing means safe. Paper voting isn't perfectly secure. It is just that almost all tampering will leave evidence. That isn't true at all for pure electronic voting.
Lets change your bet a little bit. The 7 minutes are 2 days before the election. You get private time with the ballot box, I get private time with the voting machine.
What can you do to the ballot box that wouldn't be noticeable 2 days later and still affect the vote?
I was an election judge for Boulder County in 2004. Part of my duties as the head election judge for the precinct was to make sure that there was noting in the ballot box and seal it. From that time until I handed the box to the county officials, it was not left in the presence of any single person, so nobody would have 7 minutes during the election day.
You can't stuff the ballot box 2 days before the election with nobody being able to notice.
**THAT** is what they are complaining about. The machines were left in publicly accessible areas for days before the election. Replace one of the chips with that 7 minutes, and it would take a very detailed examination to notice the problem.
Because the people with *physical* access aren't (usually) the people trying to hack the systems.
Because those are different cases.
The user isn't going to hack his own computer to get his credit card number. Hope that persons computer doesn't have a virus or key logger.
That insurance company or hospital hopefully will have physical security protecting their machines. That doesn't always work, surely you have seen the articles about x million peoples data lost from (company of the week).
Securing E-voting is really like DRM: you want to distribute a device to potential hackers, and keep it secure from those hackers.
I think you have the perception most people have of computers wrong.
Most people think computers are incapable of being incorrect. Microsoft is trying hard to change that, but they are getting less effective.
If the computer is wrong, it must have been something that the user did incorrect. "I shouldn't have clicked on that link to that page", instead of "The browser is broken, it shouldn't have been vulnerable to the stuff on that page"
I agree that paper ballots should be used, but most people think that if a computer is involved it will not be incorrect.
Making a machine that counts or tallies votes shouldn't be very hard, and should be a first year programming assignment.
Making that whole system *secure*, otoh, is almost impossible, especially when it is something as large and distributed as a national voting system. If a company could actually make a completely secure voting system, they could also have a good DRM system. (Yeah, I did say "good DRM system", which shows how possible I think that is)
From Ken Thompson's essay Reflections on Trusting Trust, he says it isn't enough to check the source code, you also have to check the compiler, the output from that compiler, and I would add, in the context of a voting system, everything that is or could be in the system/network.
Why would my complaining about "illegal aliens from Mexico" be considered racism?
The US needs to protect its sovereignty, and a big part of that is preventing people from crossing its borders without authorization.
I have nothing against legal immigrants, and have a lot of respect for people who go to a new country where the dominant language isn't their first language, and make that home.
The current US immigration policy is almost undoubtedly too hard to go though, and should be loosened up, but that doesn't give people the right to go around it by sneaking in.
An oxymoron.
The only thing a e-voting machine should be used for is printing a paper ballot.
Count the paper ballots.
Anything else means you have to trust the voting machine, or the people who verified the voting machine.
(You have to make sure that there are no hidden things in any of the chips, the software, any memory card that comes into contact with the machine, the network that the machine is connected to, etc. Seriously, who can possibly think that a E-voting machine with a Sprint data card in it is secure?)
The US is nuclear-armed. The Mexican army has, on several occasions, gone into the US and threatened border patrol agents, helped drug runners, and other stuff. Certainly nothing large scale, that is true.
The invasion of the US by illegal aliens from Mexico is a very large scale, and could form a fifth column
MAD doesn't work too well if the enemy is mixed with your own civilians.
In what other field does "tera" mean anything other than 10^12?
How many Hertz in a Kilohertz as it relates to a computer? 1024? 1000?
You mean a Tebibyte, or 1024 Gibibytes?