I think it was Bev Harris who suggested that we should use electronic systems with a paper-trail. It should not be too hard to make an electronic system that gives a print out, which can be automatically sorted and counted.
As a simple example, we could have an ancient impact type printer (for a simple and inexpensive architecture, inexpensive ink) that gives a print out (one and only one) to a voter. The voter can verify that her vote is correct and either decide to put it in the ballot box or throw it away (if she has made a mistake, too bad for her - she should have changed it before getting a print-out). Later, an automatic sorting machine scans the print-outs in the ballot box and sorts them based on a bar code containing all the info, such as party, voting measures, etc., and then be automatically counted.
This way, there is transparency and automation. We can even have a manual recount, if we want to. I suspect the Diebold executives will be against this, as this will reduce our dependency on them. I think this is worth fighting for, because the very survival of democracy depends on a transparent voting infrastructure.
I got the following from the first few paras of "Explanation":
The proposal under consideration is not revolutionary. The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not new. Indeed, patents involving use of software have been applied for and granted since the earliest days of the European patent system . . .
Is this really true ? Does this mean that the European patent system started in 1980s ? Or that software patents were in existence before that ?
I might have forgotten to mention it, but this would hardly be in their list. Commercial Unixes are more expensive than XP. Also, I know many banking institutions that prefer proprietary to "Open Systems" (conventional Unixes are "Open System").
I guess you're wrong. Bankers are the ones who live on making money from money, the more they can make with the least ammount of money, the better.
True, they like to save as much money as possible, but in my experience in the financial industry, saving $100 per ATM (which is the cost of a retail XP - much more than the cost of XP sold on the large scale to ATM manufacturers) is not worth the "risk" of "choosing the wrong OS". Windows is an OS that can never be the "wrong OS" (in the minds of many bankers). This is FUD at its best.
The ATMs of Banrisul I saw even showed Tux with an Emboss effect in the Background.
I am absolutely thrilled that someone is doing this, but I know this is not the majority. Bankers, typically, would rather take the safe path than the adventureous path - that is what I meant by "Obvious Choice".
He concluded the banking industry is ready to scrap IBM's OS/2 operating system, which powers most ATMs today.
If they are replacing IBM's OS/2, I think this is an obvious choice. Bankers won't like to move into Linux. They have money to burn, and they would much rather use something very conventional. As far as I see, Linux, BSD, Mac OS, etc. don't fit this image. If I am right, there is not much development going on in OS/2 anymore. This leaves only one option.
Unfortunately, I don't see a change in Microsoft as a monopoly.
The best explanation I can think of is generation gap. Someone once told me that things that were in fashion during someone's time tend to go out of fashion in their children's time. Also, they are likely to come back in fashion, during their grandchildren's time.
I also want to point out that/.ers seem anti-Ham, but Linux is not. Linux has special features for packet radio. I kind of believe that/.ers don't represent the Linux community anymore.
I see a lot of parallels between "Free Software" and Ham radio. Ham is about using barebones, non-proprietary "technology" to do what cellphones and other radio devices do. "Helping your neighbor"
There are some advantages:
1. Education - people are encouraged to know about the technology, rather than blindly using the technology
2. Transparency - from Education, the users get to see what the technology is capable of/in capable of.
3. Reliability - from Transparency, the users are able to use the technology more appropiately.
More than anything, Ham brings together a lot of like minded people - people who are interested in radio communication, it is great fun - just like a lot of people have fun using Linux, or doing any other amateur activity - which some other group would find very "ancient".
Working with "barebone stuff" can be a lot more satisfying than working with cool-looking, pseudo-hi-tech gadgets.
I was just wondering the same thing. My first Linux Kernel was 1.2.3, and I was absolutely thrilled with it. If I am right, the threading and memory management was greatly improved with the 2.4 versions. I am sure we can still do a lot of hacking with the pre 2.4 versions, though.
I think we can look at the changes that went into 2.4, and try to figure out what code is actually infringing (or seems to be infringing) the SCO contracts. If we could "reverse engineer" this information that SCO has, we might be able to change all the code so that their lawsuit goes nowhere. The problem with SCO is that they are being extremely unfair by not saying "Hey, this file, lines xxx to yyy infringe, please change it". If they had done that, the story would have been over.
If someone has access to Unix code (proprietary licensed code), s/he can do a comparision search to figure out which of these 2.4 kernel changes also exist in the Unix code. The problem could be that we don't even know where this "2.4 version" came from - it could be a magic number (may not indicate the exact version in which the "infringing" changes were introduced). I think it is surely worth a try.
Not just the U.S. and Canada, but virtually the whole wide world is governed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty . I know there are other treaties also, but I forgot their names.
This is not quite like e-voting - I don't think there is any computer involved (except in the very basic sense of the term). I got this FAQ from the Election Comission's website. Apparently, there has been a phased approach towards the use of electronic voting machines, for some time now.
I would still worry about ballot rigging, etc. I can still see ways in which such things can be manipulated. Other than ballot rigging, my other fear would be privacy. Maybe you could find ways to deduce who voted for which candidate.
There is some information at the WPC website. According to the website there are plans for delicensing "Within the single contiguous campus of an individual, duly recognized organization/institution"
However, I see people using wireless everywhere. You can buy wireless routers and network cards in the market. It might have been difficult for organisations to do so. This delicensing, seems to be for the benefit of such organisations.
Individuals can continue breaking the law, I suppose. I doubt that the government can "crack down" on individual WiFi usage - I am trying to imagine a government inspector with a directional antenna trying to find a 5 inch by 5 inch WiFi ethernet card.
Slashdot Mirror
As a simple example, we could have an ancient impact type printer (for a simple and inexpensive architecture, inexpensive ink) that gives a print out (one and only one) to a voter. The voter can verify that her vote is correct and either decide to put it in the ballot box or throw it away (if she has made a mistake, too bad for her - she should have changed it before getting a print-out). Later, an automatic sorting machine scans the print-outs in the ballot box and sorts them based on a bar code containing all the info, such as party, voting measures, etc., and then be automatically counted.
This way, there is transparency and automation. We can even have a manual recount, if we want to. I suspect the Diebold executives will be against this, as this will reduce our dependency on them. I think this is worth fighting for, because the very survival of democracy depends on a transparent voting infrastructure.
I might have forgotten to mention it, but this would hardly be in their list. Commercial Unixes are more expensive than XP. Also, I know many banking institutions that prefer proprietary to "Open Systems" (conventional Unixes are "Open System").
True, they like to save as much money as possible, but in my experience in the financial industry, saving $100 per ATM (which is the cost of a retail XP - much more than the cost of XP sold on the large scale to ATM manufacturers) is not worth the "risk" of "choosing the wrong OS". Windows is an OS that can never be the "wrong OS" (in the minds of many bankers). This is FUD at its best.
The ATMs of Banrisul I saw even showed Tux with an Emboss effect in the Background.
I am absolutely thrilled that someone is doing this, but I know this is not the majority. Bankers, typically, would rather take the safe path than the adventureous path - that is what I meant by "Obvious Choice".
Unfortunately, I don't see a change in Microsoft as a monopoly.
I also want to point out that /.ers seem anti-Ham, but Linux is not. Linux has special features for packet radio. I kind of believe that /.ers don't represent the Linux community anymore.
There are some advantages:
1. Education - people are encouraged to know about the technology, rather than blindly using the technology
2. Transparency - from Education, the users get to see what the technology is capable of/in capable of.
3. Reliability - from Transparency, the users are able to use the technology more appropiately.
More than anything, Ham brings together a lot of like minded people - people who are interested in radio communication, it is great fun - just like a lot of people have fun using Linux, or doing any other amateur activity - which some other group would find very "ancient".
Working with "barebone stuff" can be a lot more satisfying than working with cool-looking, pseudo-hi-tech gadgets.
. . . for the bacteria.
It is entirely believable, knowing how journalists tend to exaggerate things.
Yawn !
This is courtesy the Scientific American website. There is more information out there.
I think we can look at the changes that went into 2.4, and try to figure out what code is actually infringing (or seems to be infringing) the SCO contracts. If we could "reverse engineer" this information that SCO has, we might be able to change all the code so that their lawsuit goes nowhere. The problem with SCO is that they are being extremely unfair by not saying "Hey, this file, lines xxx to yyy infringe, please change it". If they had done that, the story would have been over.
If someone has access to Unix code (proprietary licensed code), s/he can do a comparision search to figure out which of these 2.4 kernel changes also exist in the Unix code. The problem could be that we don't even know where this "2.4 version" came from - it could be a magic number (may not indicate the exact version in which the "infringing" changes were introduced). I think it is surely worth a try.
Not just the U.S. and Canada, but virtually the whole wide world is governed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty . I know there are other treaties also, but I forgot their names.
I would still worry about ballot rigging, etc. I can still see ways in which such things can be manipulated. Other than ballot rigging, my other fear would be privacy. Maybe you could find ways to deduce who voted for which candidate.
Someone, please mod this up to "awefully funny".
However, I see people using wireless everywhere. You can buy wireless routers and network cards in the market. It might have been difficult for organisations to do so. This delicensing, seems to be for the benefit of such organisations.
Individuals can continue breaking the law, I suppose. I doubt that the government can "crack down" on individual WiFi usage - I am trying to imagine a government inspector with a directional antenna trying to find a 5 inch by 5 inch WiFi ethernet card.