Ok, so you could also throw 10 cellphones into the backpack, add some kind of IP multiplexing protocol, and have (very expensive) lowish bandwidth connectivity to the Internet + high bandwidth between the computers in wifi range. So you could, for example, hold a meeting in a park, or whatever.
I definitely remember using such a thing in X windows 15 years ago or so.
I've always said: "The Art is in the Audacity." This applies both to modern art, and to Microsoft.
- The audacity of patenting a 15 year old idea.
- The audacity of hijacking the name ".net" which as far as I remember is one of the more common generic top-level internet domain names and is clearly in the public domain.
- The audacity of releasing the software they do with basic usability flaws all over it, and not fixing the flaws in 10 years of product upgrades.
A few points:
1. The source code should be open source, so it can
be inspected by all and any security flaws OR vote counting logic flaws "outed"
as soon as possible. This makes it LESS risky than
supposed but doubtful and never provable secrecy of the code.
2. We have to be careful what we're comparing.
As long as we have open source, secure code on the
voting machines, we almost certainly have more
accuracy in vote counting than a manual system.
People handling pieces of paper are going to be subject to various psychological or physical errors or biases when counting votes. And mechanical machines are
subject to physical errors (e.g chad-counting
errors). Also, in some jurisdictions (some developing countries for example), most people
believe there is wholesale vote rigging such
as ballot stuffing and soldiers/hoodlums
stealing ballot boxes. How can you imagine
that an open-source software based net voting
system (with public security audit) will be
less accurate than that everyday cheatery?
I think the net voting system will eliminate
many opportunities for cheating that exist
today. Granted, it may open a few new avenues
for cheating, but with open code review, those
avenues can be controlled.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man (sic), and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature.
Well said. And who am I to go against nature.
100KBytes per logon is ridiculous, and
shows that the architecture/design of the
dynamic page was poor and didn't consider
scalability, resource-caching and sharing etc.
Also, java with free application servers on
linux x86 boxes is pretty cost effective.
We use prevayler and it's pretty good,
but you still have to distort your Java code
to accommodate the Command pattern to use it.
I think the real solution is a well-designed
new O-O programming language that provides
fully transparent persistence via some kind
of underlying object-relational db
implementation.
A language like Java, with a carefully designed
JVM implementation, is not subject to buffer
overflow/heap overflow exploits.
Is it maybe time to rewrite all of the
higher level OS apps in Java? Sure, keep
a microkernel in some blazing fast C/assembly
code if you must, but there's not reason
something like SSH can't be written in Java
(in fact it has been.)
Why not all of the high-level Linux
apps (i.e. the GNU stuff)? If you don't like
Java's license, then do as MS did with C#,
and clean-room rewrite Java under a GNU
project first.
I'd do it myself but I'm still trying to figure
out how to make a living in this damn
business.
And publish the source on the distributed, encrypted, anonymous blacknet. Screw em.
The test of whether a patent is valid or not ought to have something to do with whether I could've thought up the idea myself after removing half my paltry wits by self-inflicted lobotomy. This one fails that lobotmus test.
No wait, I think I'll patent translation of rude posts on slashdot.
Some of the oganizing principles: 1. All (non-imported) pieces of one app/library are under a single parent directory (modularity). 2. There is a single standard name for the root of all apps/libs. 3. A given app/lib has to be in a dir named according to its proper name and its provenance (as in java class/package/dir-location restrictions.) 4. There must also be a standard URI (includes mirrors) at which the "official" version of any app/lib's code lives on the net. 5. Versioning will be handled in a standard naming convention added to the above rules. 6. OS can operate with multiple versions of given apps/libs in filesystem. Apps/libs that need to link/interoperate with different versions of other apps/libs can happily co-exist. If the version they need isn't on local disk, the OS automatically grabs it from the appropriate standard URI, caches it in standard location on local disk, and links it.
by having one's idea bastardized into another badly designed Microsoftware product which needs a bookshelf of 300 page 3rd-party manuals to comprehend it. The fame, the glory, the riches...
I don't know about you, but I have 5 or 6 browser windows (with 1 to 5 tabs each) + the mail client window open all the time that my computer's on, (and it's on all the time of course, to preserve my working context.)
So I don't give a fig how long it takes to start up the browser (within reason) as long as it's great, all-functional, and stable when it's there.
Two-stroke engines are heavy polluters,
much worse than conventional 4-stroke
engines.
This is no environmental solution.
It's part of the problem.
Plus it probably whines like a banshee.
Hydrogen fuel cell bikes are the way to
go, with the hydrogen embedded in a
solid/liquid "clathrate" medium.
Sign up now for yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so you could also throw 10 cellphones into the backpack, add some kind of IP multiplexing protocol, and have (very expensive) lowish bandwidth connectivity to the Internet + high bandwidth between the computers in wifi range. So you could,
for example, hold a meeting in a park, or
whatever.
I definitely remember using such a thing in X windows 15 years ago or so.
I've always said: "The Art is in the Audacity."
This applies both to modern art, and
to Microsoft.
- The audacity of patenting a 15 year old idea.
- The audacity of hijacking the name ".net" which
as far as I remember is one of the more common
generic top-level internet domain names and is clearly in the public domain.
- The audacity of releasing the software they
do with basic usability flaws all over it, and
not fixing the flaws in 10 years of product
upgrades.
High art indeed. Bravissimo.
A few points: 1. The source code should be open source, so it can be inspected by all and any security flaws OR vote counting logic flaws "outed" as soon as possible. This makes it LESS risky than supposed but doubtful and never provable secrecy of the code. 2. We have to be careful what we're comparing. As long as we have open source, secure code on the voting machines, we almost certainly have more accuracy in vote counting than a manual system. People handling pieces of paper are going to be subject to various psychological or physical errors or biases when counting votes. And mechanical machines are subject to physical errors (e.g chad-counting errors). Also, in some jurisdictions (some developing countries for example), most people believe there is wholesale vote rigging such as ballot stuffing and soldiers/hoodlums stealing ballot boxes. How can you imagine that an open-source software based net voting system (with public security audit) will be less accurate than that everyday cheatery? I think the net voting system will eliminate many opportunities for cheating that exist today. Granted, it may open a few new avenues for cheating, but with open code review, those avenues can be controlled.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man (sic), and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Well said. And who am I to go against nature.
100KBytes per logon is ridiculous, and shows that the architecture/design of the dynamic page was poor and didn't consider scalability, resource-caching and sharing etc. Also, java with free application servers on linux x86 boxes is pretty cost effective.
We use prevayler and it's pretty good, but you still have to distort your Java code to accommodate the Command pattern to use it. I think the real solution is a well-designed new O-O programming language that provides fully transparent persistence via some kind of underlying object-relational db implementation.
A language like Java, with a carefully designed JVM implementation, is not subject to buffer overflow/heap overflow exploits. Is it maybe time to rewrite all of the higher level OS apps in Java? Sure, keep a microkernel in some blazing fast C/assembly code if you must, but there's not reason something like SSH can't be written in Java (in fact it has been.) Why not all of the high-level Linux apps (i.e. the GNU stuff)? If you don't like Java's license, then do as MS did with C#, and clean-room rewrite Java under a GNU project first. I'd do it myself but I'm still trying to figure out how to make a living in this damn business.
And publish the source on the distributed,
encrypted, anonymous blacknet. Screw em.
The test of whether a patent is valid or
not ought to have something to do with whether
I could've thought up the idea myself after
removing half my paltry wits by self-inflicted
lobotomy. This one fails that lobotmus test.
No wait, I think I'll patent translation
of rude posts on slashdot.
Merde, Je suis un sale de bain.
(It's an early prototype.)
I see. Yes. There is much insight in:
"Sorry, you don't have permission to see comments in the queue."
Some of the oganizing principles:
1. All (non-imported)
pieces of one app/library are under a single parent directory (modularity).
2. There is a single standard name for the
root of all apps/libs.
3. A given app/lib has to be in a dir named according
to its proper name and its provenance (as in java class/package/dir-location restrictions.)
4. There must also be a standard URI (includes mirrors) at which the "official" version
of any app/lib's code lives on the net.
5. Versioning will be handled in a standard
naming convention added to the above rules.
6. OS can operate with multiple versions of
given apps/libs in filesystem. Apps/libs that
need to link/interoperate with different
versions of other apps/libs can happily
co-exist. If the version they need isn't on
local disk, the OS automatically grabs it
from the appropriate standard URI, caches
it in standard location on local disk, and
links it.
by having one's idea bastardized
into another badly designed
Microsoftware product which needs
a bookshelf of 300 page 3rd-party manuals
to comprehend it.
The fame, the glory, the riches...
I don't know about you, but I have
5 or 6 browser windows (with 1 to 5 tabs each)
+ the mail client window open all the time that
my computer's on, (and it's on all the time of
course, to preserve my working context.)
So I don't give a fig how long it takes to
start up the browser (within reason) as long
as it's great, all-functional, and stable when
it's there.
Two-stroke engines are heavy polluters, much worse than conventional 4-stroke engines. This is no environmental solution. It's part of the problem. Plus it probably whines like a banshee. Hydrogen fuel cell bikes are the way to go, with the hydrogen embedded in a solid/liquid "clathrate" medium. Sign up now for yours.