I'll ignore your opening comment in hopes that despite it, we may be able to have an intelligent discussion, which is sort of the point here, isn't it?
I totally agree that if you buy a commercial product at a fair price, you have the right to do whatever you want with it because you paid for the hardware and own it.
However, the business model of providing a product at cost or a loss in order to sell consumables or service is (IMHO) vital to getting technology and higher ticket items into the hands of those who cannot afford it and don't have the credit to finance it. Now inkjets are a bad example because (again, IMO) they try to make too much on the cartridges. But what about broadband? How far would we be if ISP's hadn't ponied up the $$$ for the cable and dsl modems? It was easy for them, because of the "last mile" monopolies, there was little chance the hardware would be used for any other service or purpose. But Ritz tried to bring this business model into an area where consumers are paying more than they need to for film and developing, in many cases because they can't afford a digital camera and printer.
Now please, spare me the BS about pissing off customers. A "customer" that pays $10.99 for a $100 to $200 camera and then doesn't bring their processing business to Ritz is a customer they can do without.
I can't help but laugh at all the people that are trying to apply the pro-p2p and pro-XBox hacking arguements to this one. P2P can be used to share legal downloads (free samples from indie bands) and even sample music you might buy once you decide you like it. An XBox is sold for a respectable profit, what you do with it is your business. The only arguement I hear (and keep hearing) for hacking these camera's being ok is that it's Ritz fault for making them hackable. I'm sorry, but that's the lamest excuse I've heard in a long time. Just because some states have drive-through liquor stores that will sell you a pint of whiskey, can of coke and cup of ice doesn't mean it's not your fault if you mix your drink in the parking lot and then run over a kid on a bike.
And I didn't say anything about Ritz using the DMCA- I doubt they will, unless someone starts hacking and selling the camera's in quantity (I suppose that's ok, too?). What I said was that this is a perfect argument for the a''hole lobbyists from the RIAA and MPAA to convince politicians that don't know any better that we need the DMCA and even stricter "Super-DMCA" laws. And that would hurt us all.
A few geeks hacking these cameras isn't a big deal- I'd probably do it myself if I had the time and didn't already have a decent camera. My fear is that hacked cameras are going to start showing up on ebay, and then Ritz will no longer offer them, nor will anyone else. Then a huge population of people who don't have a computer and a photo printer, or who can't afford a digital camera will loose this option for cheaper, faster and more flexible photography.
But hey, screw them, we'll still have our digital cameras because we can afford them. Let them use $15 disposable cameras, pay $8 for developing and another $12 for a PhotoCD, and fill our landfills with plastic cameras. And screw Ritz for thinking that if they provided enough value, people wouldn't bother them too much. And screw ethics, I'm going to change my eBay ID to 20dollarDIGIcam so I can profit from other's work and innovation. Perfectly moral, and I can count on the majority of/.'ers to come to my defense when Ritz sues me.
Excuse me, but my main point was that it is not ethical, moral or harmless as the post I was replying to stated. And my secondary point was this us just more fuel for the Pro-DMCA crowd.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that it's ok to rape a girl if she's "dressed like she wants it". Poor judgement or decisions may be a factor in becoming vicitimized, but it doesn't mean it's ok to be the victimizer.
At least with "filesharing", some might claim that it's ok to steal copyrighted music because the recording industry has been ripping everyone off for so long and their product is overpriced and not available in a consumer-friendly format (you have to buy 8+ crap songs to get the 1 or 2 you want on the CD). But Ritz actually stepped up and came out with a very consumer-friendly product. As cheap as a disposable film camera, as cheap or cheaper to "process" and get prints, and you get an enhanced end result- prints and a CD for a fraction of what prints and a "PhotoCD" would cost you with a disposable camera. My guess is they made it "easily hacked" because 1) They knew no matter what they did it would get hacked eventually by someone and 2) The harder they made it to hack, the more expensive it would be, and they're already selling it at a loss.
I mean, come on, they aren't even screwing people on developing like the printer companies do with ink cartridges (where ink is more expensive than Dom Perignon).
So yes, I do feel sorry for them, although that was totally not the point of my post. And I certainly don't think that offering a much better product at a much better cost is a bad business plan. Do all business plans have to include a "how to we keep from getting f*cked by geeks" section? Maybe theirs did- maybe they thought if they offered enough value, the hackers would leave them alone and go after people they hate like MS and the RIAA. This certainly isn't a case of championing the rights of the consumer - this will hurt consumers if it becomes widespread. Now that's something to feel bad about.
I know I'll probably be kicked off/. for saying this, but I don't see how you can say hacking this is not immoral, unethical, harmful or wrong. They are selling this camera at below wholesale cost so they can make their money on the back end, in the prints. As I understand it from when I first read about these cameras (this may have changed), they even give you a CD-r with your pictures on it when you get the camera "developed", so you can even print more copies without going through them. I think their approach is the most consumer-friendly yet- certainly more consumer friendly then a PhotoCD, where you pay an outrageous price for low-res files.
By hacking this camera, you're not only hurting Ritz by negating their ROI, but also hurting other digital camera manufacturers by making a $10.99 digital camera do what a $199 one will.
Now obviously everyone isn't going to hack the camera's, and hopefully enough non-geeks will buy and use them as intended to make it a viable product. But consider this- would it also be moral, ethical, harmless and right if someone bought 100 if these, hacked them, and sold them for say $50 each on the street or on eBay?
This is exactly the type of thing that the ludite politicians will use to keep the DMCA in place, and to introduce "Super DMCA" legislation in the future. Would you consider that harmless as well?
...for framing their enemies.
In another stunning development, worlds biggest Spammer collects $250k from Microsoft for turning in author of SpamAssassin....or...
Local Kinko's manager arrested for releasing SoBig virus. "No need to look any further, we have our scapego... er... virus author." Says MS Spokesman.
Do you think being represented by an organization that puts millions into suing your customers on your behalf is going to help you get rich? Most struggling musicians I know embrace file trading as a way to get their music out there. If the RIAA succeeded in shutting down open p2p programs and scaring people away from downloading free music, the smaller musicians without big label backing would have a harder time getting the music out, just like they have a harder time getting it out on Internet and commercial radio stations since we've legislated our way out of choice and diversity. There's hardly any small stations online or on the air that you can actually go knock on a door and talk to someone about playing your music. It's not about all musicians being rich- it's about the RIAA only representing the outdated distribution channel, which only benefits the richest artists, if any. Even the "rich" ones aren't always rich - ever wonder how many of those Hummers, Jets and Mansions are either owned by the record label or a bank? By the time the artist has the promotional and production costs taken out of their royalties, there often isn't anything left. The big labels own their asses.
I don't think his comment was meant to imply that all musicians are rich - I think it more likely that he was making the point that the majority of artists that are backing the RIAA and anti-customer actions are filthy, stinking rotten rich, or at least so they think.
If you missed it Wednesday night, be sure to check it out when it re-runs (Sunday night I think). Hillarious spoof on the RIAA and the impoverished artists.
That makes it blatantly obvious who didn't RTFA. All these people saying that they can just leave the card in their desk or use someone else's are showing their true colors.
The cards are worn around the neck, with the kid's picture on it. When they enter the school, their picture comes up on the screen and they touch it. There's someone watching to make sure there aren't any problems.
And since when did kids get the same right to privacy as adults? Haven't we all heard local stories about kids getting left on the bus, or accidentally counted as being somewhere when they weren't? Happens all the time. I'd be willing to bet the majority of people complaining about this don't have kids, and certainly don't have kids that go to school in a "tough" neighborhood.
And I'd certainly rather have my kid carrying an ID card with just their picture and a RFID tag with only their student number on it, rather than an ID card that has their name and vital stats. Sure, all that info's in a database, but that info's going to be in that database no matter what- this doesn't make it any less secure.
Oh I know- I don't have that problem at home. But at work, I need to know what the average user is experiencing, and unfortunatley that means IE with no POP blockers. I do, however, keep it pretty locked-down with things like SpyBot S&D to keep my settings from being changed and such.
Besides, getting a pop-under on an article about the king of pop-unders is so amusing it's almost worth using a crap browser:-)
I'm all for technology that will make broadcasters and copyright holders allow more, higher quality programming out over the airwaves. And the arguement that it's ok to make people buy new DVD players, because that happens when new technology comes out, is not too hard to swallow when I spent less than $100 on my last DVD player, and expect to replace it soon with one that has more features.
However, in the article they talk about TV's that will read the new copy protection bit. Now I buy about 2 or 3 CARS for every TV I buy. Any I just plunked down about $2500 on a TV and accessories this past weekend. The ONLY reason I spent that much is because A) The long life-cycle of a TV and B) I was able to get all the latest features (HDTV, DVI w/ HDCP). If I can't watch anything I want on this TV for at least the next 5 years, I'm going to be very, very ticked off.
Thankfully, it probably won't be implemented as soon as they'd like - just like how everyone's talking about analog broadcasting ceasing to exist after 2006, I just don't see it happening. Part of the deal before that happens is that 85% of households have to be able to receive Digital broadcasts. I just don't see it happening that quickly.
There's going to have to be a fundimental change in the protocol and how people use e-mail if it's going to ever become remotely secure. Sure, there's always PGP, but how many average users even know what PGP stands for? And I doubt they'll disable both cut and paste and screen capture programs - if someone wants to forward your e-mail bad enough, they'll find a way.
This was way off IMHO. Color Lasers and Inkjets are like Dot Matrix and Laser - 2 totally different applications.
For Photo quality, you can't touch Inkjets. The ink bleeds, and with controlled bleeding and photo paper, the inkjets produce results far better than a color laser, with its precise dots.
If all you're printing are bar-graphs and spot-color vector graphics, or if you're doing high volume stuff without a need for high-quality photos, color lasers are much faster and the cost per page much less.
So for home use, I can't see color lasers ever becoming practical. You just can't get fine enough dots to get the quality of ink for photos. I use a Tally T8406 color laser at the office, but that's because when we do our 400+ page catalog, the savings in time and consumables costs for printing proofs pays for the printer.
Of course, if you need to have somewhat water proof prints, you'll need to use a laser. I remember when inkjets first hit the scene, legal documents had to be printed on laser printers because they're more durable. Now you see inkjets even in courthouses.
One last note- I don't know what they were smoking when they said inkjets are messier than lasers - I've never had an ink cartridge leak, and I've never had a laser printer (color or black) not leak toner. Inkjets are messy if you recharge your cartridges, but recharging laser cartridges yourself isn't even an option (it's actually dangerous because you might inhale toner). Granted, if toner does spill, it's easier to clean off your hands (as long as you use COLD water so you don't melt it to your skin), but unless you grab the cartridge in the wrong spot, you won't get ink on your hands anyhow.
What's so hard about authentication
on
Another Whack at Spam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Wasn't the post office supposed to start a service to give people some sort of certificate to authenticate people in the virtual world? It seems to me the only viable solution (and a simple one at that) is some form of authentication. Even if certificates are too much hassle, why is it so hard to change the protocol to verify IP addresses before allowing mail in or out? If you couldn't spoof IP's in e-mail, then you could reliably blacklist spam-friendly ISP's and easily track down who sent the spam.
Take it a step further, and tie IP addresses to an organization or individual. Then if you never wanted another e-mail from ZD Net, you could block the organization and it wouldn't allow any mail from any of their IP addresses.
Even at under a tenth of a second, if it senses acceleration (you drop it) and the heads are in the process of moving across the platter to the park position at impact (it hits the floor), wouldn't that increase the chances of a large scratch as opposed to a small nick?
Isn't the Bush campaign releasing software for both touch-screen and online voting? Ok, so they're not releasing it, just making sure the companies who are don't have any competition. Or have to bid. Or make it secure. Still, it's going to have a way bigger impact than anything Dean does.;-P
They're a HUGE boon to the litigation industry! The lawyers pretty much always get more than the plantiffs. But not to worry, our fearless politicians will put a stop to it- it's not like most of them were lawyers before entering politics!:-O
Good point - I was thinking of it more as a publicity stunt for Lindows, but it definitely has the added benefit of raising awareness. Most companies facing a class action will do the absolute minimum required by the settlement when it comes to publishing it. Like putting an ad in Reader's Digest instead of Wired. This kinda blows that strategy:-)
Yeah, you're right. Nobody reads anything before signing it, so why waste 2k of their server's drive to provide it. Silly me. And for the record, I don't believe it's MS that puts you through the BS, I believe it's the claims administrator appointed by and following the direction of the court. But then again, I could be wrong.:-)
Reading the article would do you no good, because, you see, I'm an idiot. I RTFA too, but somehow everytime my eyes saw VeriSign, the voices in my head were saying Diebold. Do dee dum dee doot dee do.
Sorry about that - I'm just still so freaked about the Diebold BS and I want to see more press about it, so I'm projecting Diebold into stories that have nothing to do with them, apparently.
But still, I think we need to take a big step back from the whole electronic voting thing until we can have an unbiased audit of the touch screen machines' security without all the coverups. Diebold is keeping their software versions secret and suing people to keep them from publishing internal memos that show they're ignoring the security issues instead of fixing the problems and showing us their fixed.
All they have to do is have the machines spit out a barcoded ballot that can be machine counted and compared with the data collected by the touch screen machines, and take the master computer off the Internet. They brag about the touch screen machines not being on the 'net, but the main one is. What's the problem with reading the results off the screen and then releasing the data to the press? You can't hack something you can't access.
There's some pretty scary stuff about the whole thing at blackboxvoting.com. And while some may consider this offtopic, I'd like to propose the analogy that if you're having problems with getting hacked through your dial up connection, you might want to hold off on adding a broadband connection until you've secured the first method.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll ignore your opening comment in hopes that despite it, we may be able to have an intelligent discussion, which is sort of the point here, isn't it?
/.'ers to come to my defense when Ritz sues me.
I totally agree that if you buy a commercial product at a fair price, you have the right to do whatever you want with it because you paid for the hardware and own it.
However, the business model of providing a product at cost or a loss in order to sell consumables or service is (IMHO) vital to getting technology and higher ticket items into the hands of those who cannot afford it and don't have the credit to finance it. Now inkjets are a bad example because (again, IMO) they try to make too much on the cartridges. But what about broadband? How far would we be if ISP's hadn't ponied up the $$$ for the cable and dsl modems? It was easy for them, because of the "last mile" monopolies, there was little chance the hardware would be used for any other service or purpose. But Ritz tried to bring this business model into an area where consumers are paying more than they need to for film and developing, in many cases because they can't afford a digital camera and printer.
Now please, spare me the BS about pissing off customers. A "customer" that pays $10.99 for a $100 to $200 camera and then doesn't bring their processing business to Ritz is a customer they can do without.
I can't help but laugh at all the people that are trying to apply the pro-p2p and pro-XBox hacking arguements to this one. P2P can be used to share legal downloads (free samples from indie bands) and even sample music you might buy once you decide you like it. An XBox is sold for a respectable profit, what you do with it is your business. The only arguement I hear (and keep hearing) for hacking these camera's being ok is that it's Ritz fault for making them hackable. I'm sorry, but that's the lamest excuse I've heard in a long time. Just because some states have drive-through liquor stores that will sell you a pint of whiskey, can of coke and cup of ice doesn't mean it's not your fault if you mix your drink in the parking lot and then run over a kid on a bike.
And I didn't say anything about Ritz using the DMCA- I doubt they will, unless someone starts hacking and selling the camera's in quantity (I suppose that's ok, too?). What I said was that this is a perfect argument for the a''hole lobbyists from the RIAA and MPAA to convince politicians that don't know any better that we need the DMCA and even stricter "Super-DMCA" laws. And that would hurt us all.
A few geeks hacking these cameras isn't a big deal- I'd probably do it myself if I had the time and didn't already have a decent camera. My fear is that hacked cameras are going to start showing up on ebay, and then Ritz will no longer offer them, nor will anyone else. Then a huge population of people who don't have a computer and a photo printer, or who can't afford a digital camera will loose this option for cheaper, faster and more flexible photography.
But hey, screw them, we'll still have our digital cameras because we can afford them. Let them use $15 disposable cameras, pay $8 for developing and another $12 for a PhotoCD, and fill our landfills with plastic cameras. And screw Ritz for thinking that if they provided enough value, people wouldn't bother them too much. And screw ethics, I'm going to change my eBay ID to 20dollarDIGIcam so I can profit from other's work and innovation. Perfectly moral, and I can count on the majority of
Excuse me, but my main point was that it is not ethical, moral or harmless as the post I was replying to stated. And my secondary point was this us just more fuel for the Pro-DMCA crowd.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that it's ok to rape a girl if she's "dressed like she wants it". Poor judgement or decisions may be a factor in becoming vicitimized, but it doesn't mean it's ok to be the victimizer.
At least with "filesharing", some might claim that it's ok to steal copyrighted music because the recording industry has been ripping everyone off for so long and their product is overpriced and not available in a consumer-friendly format (you have to buy 8+ crap songs to get the 1 or 2 you want on the CD). But Ritz actually stepped up and came out with a very consumer-friendly product. As cheap as a disposable film camera, as cheap or cheaper to "process" and get prints, and you get an enhanced end result- prints and a CD for a fraction of what prints and a "PhotoCD" would cost you with a disposable camera. My guess is they made it "easily hacked" because 1) They knew no matter what they did it would get hacked eventually by someone and 2) The harder they made it to hack, the more expensive it would be, and they're already selling it at a loss.
I mean, come on, they aren't even screwing people on developing like the printer companies do with ink cartridges (where ink is more expensive than Dom Perignon).
So yes, I do feel sorry for them, although that was totally not the point of my post. And I certainly don't think that offering a much better product at a much better cost is a bad business plan. Do all business plans have to include a "how to we keep from getting f*cked by geeks" section? Maybe theirs did- maybe they thought if they offered enough value, the hackers would leave them alone and go after people they hate like MS and the RIAA. This certainly isn't a case of championing the rights of the consumer - this will hurt consumers if it becomes widespread. Now that's something to feel bad about.
I know I'll probably be kicked off /. for saying this, but I don't see how you can say hacking this is not immoral, unethical, harmful or wrong. They are selling this camera at below wholesale cost so they can make their money on the back end, in the prints. As I understand it from when I first read about these cameras (this may have changed), they even give you a CD-r with your pictures on it when you get the camera "developed", so you can even print more copies without going through them. I think their approach is the most consumer-friendly yet- certainly more consumer friendly then a PhotoCD, where you pay an outrageous price for low-res files.
By hacking this camera, you're not only hurting Ritz by negating their ROI, but also hurting other digital camera manufacturers by making a $10.99 digital camera do what a $199 one will.
Now obviously everyone isn't going to hack the camera's, and hopefully enough non-geeks will buy and use them as intended to make it a viable product. But consider this- would it also be moral, ethical, harmless and right if someone bought 100 if these, hacked them, and sold them for say $50 each on the street or on eBay?
This is exactly the type of thing that the ludite politicians will use to keep the DMCA in place, and to introduce "Super DMCA" legislation in the future. Would you consider that harmless as well?
...for framing their enemies. In another stunning development, worlds biggest Spammer collects $250k from Microsoft for turning in author of SpamAssassin. ...or...
Local Kinko's manager arrested for releasing SoBig virus. "No need to look any further, we have our scapego... er... virus author." Says MS Spokesman.
LOL - That explains so much! :-)
...before moderating. I still don't understand how I can be modded redundant when I posted the comment at the same time as the "original" one. Redundant -- Redundant posts are ones which add no new information, but instead take up space with repeating information either in the Slashdot post, the attached links, or lots of previous comments [my emphasis]. For instance, some posters cut and paste otherwise legitimate comments in multiple places in the same discussion; the pasted versions are Redundant.
Do you think being represented by an organization that puts millions into suing your customers on your behalf is going to help you get rich? Most struggling musicians I know embrace file trading as a way to get their music out there. If the RIAA succeeded in shutting down open p2p programs and scaring people away from downloading free music, the smaller musicians without big label backing would have a harder time getting the music out, just like they have a harder time getting it out on Internet and commercial radio stations since we've legislated our way out of choice and diversity. There's hardly any small stations online or on the air that you can actually go knock on a door and talk to someone about playing your music. It's not about all musicians being rich- it's about the RIAA only representing the outdated distribution channel, which only benefits the richest artists, if any. Even the "rich" ones aren't always rich - ever wonder how many of those Hummers, Jets and Mansions are either owned by the record label or a bank? By the time the artist has the promotional and production costs taken out of their royalties, there often isn't anything left. The big labels own their asses. I don't think his comment was meant to imply that all musicians are rich - I think it more likely that he was making the point that the majority of artists that are backing the RIAA and anti-customer actions are filthy, stinking rotten rich, or at least so they think.
If you missed it Wednesday night, be sure to check it out when it re-runs (Sunday night I think). Hillarious spoof on the RIAA and the impoverished artists.
...or are you just... oh nevermind.
That makes it blatantly obvious who didn't RTFA. All these people saying that they can just leave the card in their desk or use someone else's are showing their true colors. The cards are worn around the neck, with the kid's picture on it. When they enter the school, their picture comes up on the screen and they touch it. There's someone watching to make sure there aren't any problems. And since when did kids get the same right to privacy as adults? Haven't we all heard local stories about kids getting left on the bus, or accidentally counted as being somewhere when they weren't? Happens all the time. I'd be willing to bet the majority of people complaining about this don't have kids, and certainly don't have kids that go to school in a "tough" neighborhood. And I'd certainly rather have my kid carrying an ID card with just their picture and a RFID tag with only their student number on it, rather than an ID card that has their name and vital stats. Sure, all that info's in a database, but that info's going to be in that database no matter what- this doesn't make it any less secure.
Oh I know- I don't have that problem at home. But at work, I need to know what the average user is experiencing, and unfortunatley that means IE with no POP blockers. I do, however, keep it pretty locked-down with things like SpyBot S&D to keep my settings from being changed and such.
:-)
Besides, getting a pop-under on an article about the king of pop-unders is so amusing it's almost worth using a crap browser
I RTFA, closed the window and found what? A Pop-Under ad!
I'm all for technology that will make broadcasters and copyright holders allow more, higher quality programming out over the airwaves. And the arguement that it's ok to make people buy new DVD players, because that happens when new technology comes out, is not too hard to swallow when I spent less than $100 on my last DVD player, and expect to replace it soon with one that has more features.
However, in the article they talk about TV's that will read the new copy protection bit. Now I buy about 2 or 3 CARS for every TV I buy. Any I just plunked down about $2500 on a TV and accessories this past weekend. The ONLY reason I spent that much is because A) The long life-cycle of a TV and B) I was able to get all the latest features (HDTV, DVI w/ HDCP). If I can't watch anything I want on this TV for at least the next 5 years, I'm going to be very, very ticked off.
Thankfully, it probably won't be implemented as soon as they'd like - just like how everyone's talking about analog broadcasting ceasing to exist after 2006, I just don't see it happening. Part of the deal before that happens is that 85% of households have to be able to receive Digital broadcasts. I just don't see it happening that quickly.
There's going to have to be a fundimental change in the protocol and how people use e-mail if it's going to ever become remotely secure. Sure, there's always PGP, but how many average users even know what PGP stands for? And I doubt they'll disable both cut and paste and screen capture programs - if someone wants to forward your e-mail bad enough, they'll find a way.
This was way off IMHO. Color Lasers and Inkjets are like Dot Matrix and Laser - 2 totally different applications.
For Photo quality, you can't touch Inkjets. The ink bleeds, and with controlled bleeding and photo paper, the inkjets produce results far better than a color laser, with its precise dots.
If all you're printing are bar-graphs and spot-color vector graphics, or if you're doing high volume stuff without a need for high-quality photos, color lasers are much faster and the cost per page much less.
So for home use, I can't see color lasers ever becoming practical. You just can't get fine enough dots to get the quality of ink for photos. I use a Tally T8406 color laser at the office, but that's because when we do our 400+ page catalog, the savings in time and consumables costs for printing proofs pays for the printer.
Of course, if you need to have somewhat water proof prints, you'll need to use a laser. I remember when inkjets first hit the scene, legal documents had to be printed on laser printers because they're more durable. Now you see inkjets even in courthouses.
One last note- I don't know what they were smoking when they said inkjets are messier than lasers - I've never had an ink cartridge leak, and I've never had a laser printer (color or black) not leak toner. Inkjets are messy if you recharge your cartridges, but recharging laser cartridges yourself isn't even an option (it's actually dangerous because you might inhale toner). Granted, if toner does spill, it's easier to clean off your hands (as long as you use COLD water so you don't melt it to your skin), but unless you grab the cartridge in the wrong spot, you won't get ink on your hands anyhow.
Wasn't the post office supposed to start a service to give people some sort of certificate to authenticate people in the virtual world? It seems to me the only viable solution (and a simple one at that) is some form of authentication. Even if certificates are too much hassle, why is it so hard to change the protocol to verify IP addresses before allowing mail in or out? If you couldn't spoof IP's in e-mail, then you could reliably blacklist spam-friendly ISP's and easily track down who sent the spam.
Take it a step further, and tie IP addresses to an organization or individual. Then if you never wanted another e-mail from ZD Net, you could block the organization and it wouldn't allow any mail from any of their IP addresses.
Even at under a tenth of a second, if it senses acceleration (you drop it) and the heads are in the process of moving across the platter to the park position at impact (it hits the floor), wouldn't that increase the chances of a large scratch as opposed to a small nick?
...Council for Wasted Citizens Against Government? I'll have what they're smoking.
Well he was, until they outlived their usefulness :-)
Isn't the Bush campaign releasing software for both touch-screen and online voting? Ok, so they're not releasing it, just making sure the companies who are don't have any competition. Or have to bid. Or make it secure. Still, it's going to have a way bigger impact than anything Dean does. ;-P
You're speaking Relatively, right?
They're a HUGE boon to the litigation industry! The lawyers pretty much always get more than the plantiffs. But not to worry, our fearless politicians will put a stop to it- it's not like most of them were lawyers before entering politics! :-O
Good point - I was thinking of it more as a publicity stunt for Lindows, but it definitely has the added benefit of raising awareness. Most companies facing a class action will do the absolute minimum required by the settlement when it comes to publishing it. Like putting an ad in Reader's Digest instead of Wired. This kinda blows that strategy :-)
Yeah, you're right. Nobody reads anything before signing it, so why waste 2k of their server's drive to provide it. Silly me. And for the record, I don't believe it's MS that puts you through the BS, I believe it's the claims administrator appointed by and following the direction of the court. But then again, I could be wrong. :-)
Reading the article would do you no good, because, you see, I'm an idiot. I RTFA too, but somehow everytime my eyes saw VeriSign, the voices in my head were saying Diebold. Do dee dum dee doot dee do.
Sorry about that - I'm just still so freaked about the Diebold BS and I want to see more press about it, so I'm projecting Diebold into stories that have nothing to do with them, apparently.
But still, I think we need to take a big step back from the whole electronic voting thing until we can have an unbiased audit of the touch screen machines' security without all the coverups. Diebold is keeping their software versions secret and suing people to keep them from publishing internal memos that show they're ignoring the security issues instead of fixing the problems and showing us their fixed.
All they have to do is have the machines spit out a barcoded ballot that can be machine counted and compared with the data collected by the touch screen machines, and take the master computer off the Internet. They brag about the touch screen machines not being on the 'net, but the main one is. What's the problem with reading the results off the screen and then releasing the data to the press? You can't hack something you can't access.
There's some pretty scary stuff about the whole thing at blackboxvoting.com. And while some may consider this offtopic, I'd like to propose the analogy that if you're having problems with getting hacked through your dial up connection, you might want to hold off on adding a broadband connection until you've secured the first method.