I will back this up. I am "working" on a pair of them at this very moment. I replaced a pair of 21" CRTs and have never been happier. Additionally, my office is measurably cooler without the large CRT displays.
Not to mention it is the ultimate military "high ground." The US goverment will keep a "gentle eye" on these developments and provide more "help" than anyone will probably request.
I am not arguing that you can make a mathematically sound system. I am arguing that you cannot make a practically sound system.
If I manage to gain access to the system, I can add thousands of votes in a few seconds, but how rapidly could I stuff optical ballots?
Once I enter fake voters, how hard will it be to find this issue? Of course if the system truely anonymous you will be completely unable to verify which keys in your database are valid or fake? So now you can audit the vote, but you cannot audit your database -- how secure is it?
If voting is anonymous it cannot be completely auditable and secure. The same can be said about paper ballots; however, it is harder to physically stuff a ballot with the required number of paper ballots compared to electronic tampering (once you are in, you can easily generate the required number of votes to tip the scale).
Optical scan ballots that are verified by the voter seem like a reasonable middle ground. When voting I know immediately if the machine accepted my ballot and the totals are electronically gathered for rapid accumulation; however, there remains a paper trail that can be used for recounts and an audit trail.
Existing battlefield raidio uses freq hopping spread spectrum bursts to accomplish this -- I would assume that this would utilize a similar methodology. Downstream comm could be data rich from a secured source that was not "hidden." Using a more bandwidth rich medium.
According to Humans for Sale I am worth 2.3 million dollars (not that I could come up with it if you forced me to pay). What did the last major virus cost?
How much did Ford Motor Company and/or Firestone end up paying out to compensate families for their loss (often but not always due to user error)? How much did Microsoft pay for the last virus out break?
It is not nice to think about, but big (and small) companies regularly decide upon a monatary value for a human life -- and they pay for it in the courts -- why is Microsoft (and other software vendors) safe from liability?
How about when (against any reasonable recommendation), an important system (e.g. 911, medical equipment, etc) is some day compromised by a remote exploit and someone does die as a result? I know Microsoft does not accept that their software should be used in these capacities; however, auto companies do not certify that their vehicles will perform with under inflated tires -- but that does not save them in the courts.
And when applying a patch breaks something, who is then responsible? If I took my car in for a recall and the change had a detrimental effect upon the vehicle, I would have cause for legal action. When a service pack comes out that breaks other programs, who pays?
When the user reinstalls Win98 (without a firewall), it has so many issues that it is very likely infected before they can apply the patches -- who shoulders the responsibility for repairing that system?
When a manufacture decides to send a product to market knowing it is likely to have material defects that can and will cause serious failures (even if those failures can to some extent be shared to poor owner maintance) -- who is responsible -- is there cause for a class action law suit (ask Ford Motor Company).
I was trying to ignore the car analogy, but you just made me think of something. When an auto maker (or any product manufacturer), recognizes a safety problem in their product (even if it is generally caused by user ignorance). They send out postal mail to registered consumers, post notices at places where the product is sold and absorb the cost of updating and replacing the defective product. The auto company will pay for the expense of the recall.
Where would microsoft be if they were required to send a patch CD to every registered customer for every security patch (and you thought AOL CDs were annoying) and if requested pay for a technician to apply the patch or replace the product?
I agree about the hard links, but there is no equivalent to a symbolic link -- which is a bit of a pain if you like to have multiple drives / partitions. Yes junctions help, but they cannot cross physical/network boundries like a symlink. Mount points also help, but junctions cannot cross there either.
I am also in SE Michigan. I was an investor in WebVan (so kill me I am a better programmer than investor). And would love to have this service in my neighborhood. I have three small children and taking them to the grocery store inevitably leads to purchasing junk (which of course I also eat:-), which would be much easier to avoid if I just filled out an online order form. I would pay a reasonable fee for this service, and also just wish it were available.
But if I am ACME.com I might still want to own the other ACME.??? domains so someone cannot setup a ACME.org and talk about how terriable my rocket shoes are.
I understand your needs, but for me (I run a simple web server, host my own domain mail and do not play (m)any games) this is not a problem. Different solutions for different people. Of course some of the newer routers are running Linux and you can reflash them and have the best of both worlds (low power and flexibility).
I also work for a small privately owned company and love it. We have our issues, but the owner/boss is a good person who treats his employees like people. Go figure:-)
Well I cannot comment for the grandparent post; however, I do a lot of multi-thread and multi-process programming and I have found that in these cases a nice tracing/logging system to be invaluable (as compared to debuggers, which outside of core dump type errors are almost worthless to find thread type error).
Yes your trace code has to be thread safe and will effect the timing (sometimes hiding the bug you were search for, other times causing a bug that would not have otherwise occur -- but is still a bug none the less), but I do not know of a better way to understand the "flow" of threaded applications.
Ok then take string theory, it cannot currently be proven, but the number of people who believe to be true or false has no bearing upon its actual merit. That is and was my point, the number (or percent) of people who believe in something has no bearing upon its correctness (although is a rational world we optimistically hope they correlate).
I was trying to keep the discussion from drifting too far a field, not trying to cop-out. I believe that you can determine an objective right and wrong, without an argument to authority (i.e. some holy book). This has been a major source of discourse through out the history of philosophy. Take your pick, from Marx to Rand and hundreds in between, it is an interesting (and sometimes fruitful) topic, but off topic, so I will again "cop-out."
I guess my point is there is no right or wrong. It's what the majority believes to be right or wrong. And saying that if 99% of the world had a belief, you could still claim "it was wrong", is only based on the fact you were taught by said majority your whole life.
So everything is relative and ruled by the mob? If 99% of the people believe slavery is moral, then slavery is moral? Nope don't buy it. There are many ways to find an ethical compass, and I will not argue the positive (right now); however, you having chosen the mob as basis for all morality must provide the justification. Your current position is the same as saying, "the world is flat, because 99% of the people say so."
Slashdot Mirror
Wait till you have a house and she starts to decorate -- then even a relatively heavy computer habit can look cheap :-)
I will back this up. I am "working" on a pair of them at this very moment. I replaced a pair of 21" CRTs and have never been happier. Additionally, my office is measurably cooler without the large CRT displays.
Not to mention it is the ultimate military "high ground." The US goverment will keep a "gentle eye" on these developments and provide more "help" than anyone will probably request.
Anyone want a peanut?
We need a +1 Sad, but true moderation.
I am not arguing that you can make a mathematically sound system. I am arguing that you cannot make a practically sound system.
If I manage to gain access to the system, I can add thousands of votes in a few seconds, but how rapidly could I stuff optical ballots?
Once I enter fake voters, how hard will it be to find this issue? Of course if the system truely anonymous you will be completely unable to verify which keys in your database are valid or fake? So now you can audit the vote, but you cannot audit your database -- how secure is it?
If voting is anonymous it cannot be completely auditable and secure. The same can be said about paper ballots; however, it is harder to physically stuff a ballot with the required number of paper ballots compared to electronic tampering (once you are in, you can easily generate the required number of votes to tip the scale).
Optical scan ballots that are verified by the voter seem like a reasonable middle ground. When voting I know immediately if the machine accepted my ballot and the totals are electronically gathered for rapid accumulation; however, there remains a paper trail that can be used for recounts and an audit trail.
Existing battlefield raidio uses freq hopping spread spectrum bursts to accomplish this -- I would assume that this would utilize a similar methodology. Downstream comm could be data rich from a secured source that was not "hidden." Using a more bandwidth rich medium.
According to Humans for Sale I am worth 2.3 million dollars (not that I could come up with it if you forced me to pay). What did the last major virus cost?
How much did Ford Motor Company and/or Firestone end up paying out to compensate families for their loss (often but not always due to user error)? How much did Microsoft pay for the last virus out break?
It is not nice to think about, but big (and small) companies regularly decide upon a monatary value for a human life -- and they pay for it in the courts -- why is Microsoft (and other software vendors) safe from liability?
How about when (against any reasonable recommendation), an important system (e.g. 911, medical equipment, etc) is some day compromised by a remote exploit and someone does die as a result? I know Microsoft does not accept that their software should be used in these capacities; however, auto companies do not certify that their vehicles will perform with under inflated tires -- but that does not save them in the courts.
It is an analogy, but it still has value.
And when applying a patch breaks something, who is then responsible? If I took my car in for a recall and the change had a detrimental effect upon the vehicle, I would have cause for legal action. When a service pack comes out that breaks other programs, who pays?
When the user reinstalls Win98 (without a firewall), it has so many issues that it is very likely infected before they can apply the patches -- who shoulders the responsibility for repairing that system?
When a manufacture decides to send a product to market knowing it is likely to have material defects that can and will cause serious failures (even if those failures can to some extent be shared to poor owner maintance) -- who is responsible -- is there cause for a class action law suit (ask Ford Motor Company).
I was trying to ignore the car analogy, but you just made me think of something. When an auto maker (or any product manufacturer), recognizes a safety problem in their product (even if it is generally caused by user ignorance). They send out postal mail to registered consumers, post notices at places where the product is sold and absorb the cost of updating and replacing the defective product. The auto company will pay for the expense of the recall.
Where would microsoft be if they were required to send a patch CD to every registered customer for every security patch (and you thought AOL CDs were annoying) and if requested pay for a technician to apply the patch or replace the product?
I agree about the hard links, but there is no equivalent to a symbolic link -- which is a bit of a pain if you like to have multiple drives / partitions. Yes junctions help, but they cannot cross physical/network boundries like a symlink. Mount points also help, but junctions cannot cross there either.
Well it is common knowledge that they run their system off of (lots and lots of) Linux servers. So maybe that is what they mean by "give back"
mailinator.com
know it, use it, love it...
I am also in SE Michigan. I was an investor in WebVan (so kill me I am a better programmer than investor). And would love to have this service in my neighborhood. I have three small children and taking them to the grocery store inevitably leads to purchasing junk (which of course I also eat :-), which would be much easier to avoid if I just filled out an online order form. I would pay a reasonable fee for this service, and also just wish it were available.
But if I am ACME.com I might still want to own the other ACME.??? domains so someone cannot setup a ACME.org and talk about how terriable my rocket shoes are.
Check out Applied Digital they make a line of controllers (8-bit based) that will probabably handle your needs and ben be found for low cost.
I understand your needs, but for me (I run a simple web server, host my own domain mail and do not play (m)any games) this is not a problem. Different solutions for different people. Of course some of the newer routers are running Linux and you can reflash them and have the best of both worlds (low power and flexibility).
Yeah but I want my 24/7 Linux box behind the firewall too. So now I need two machines one (cheap) firewall box, and a second dedicated server.
I did this for a while, but I have to agree with the grandparent post -- a cheap hardware router is just so much easier.
I also work for a small privately owned company and love it. We have our issues, but the owner/boss is a good person who treats his employees like people. Go figure :-)
I hope not, because I don't want my boss coming to me to say you are only working at 0.1 Linus and you need to have at least 1.0 Linus to get a bonus.
50 patches a day - that is amazing.
Sometimes Spoofee has a good find.
Well I cannot comment for the grandparent post; however, I do a lot of multi-thread and multi-process programming and I have found that in these cases a nice tracing/logging system to be invaluable (as compared to debuggers, which outside of core dump type errors are almost worthless to find thread type error).
Yes your trace code has to be thread safe and will effect the timing (sometimes hiding the bug you were search for, other times causing a bug that would not have otherwise occur -- but is still a bug none the less), but I do not know of a better way to understand the "flow" of threaded applications.
Ok then take string theory, it cannot currently be proven, but the number of people who believe to be true or false has no bearing upon its actual merit. That is and was my point, the number (or percent) of people who believe in something has no bearing upon its correctness (although is a rational world we optimistically hope they correlate).
I was trying to keep the discussion from drifting too far a field, not trying to cop-out. I believe that you can determine an objective right and wrong, without an argument to authority (i.e. some holy book). This has been a major source of discourse through out the history of philosophy. Take your pick, from Marx to Rand and hundreds in between, it is an interesting (and sometimes fruitful) topic, but off topic, so I will again "cop-out."