If there's any really democratic economic philosophy in the world, it's communism. The fact that it doesn't work as a form of government and it's only been implemented (or, at least, had some abomination of a political system implemented in its name) by dictators doesn't change what the philosophy is.
The voter looks at the piece of paper and verifies the vote, which is then placed in a lockbox. The computer, not a person, counts all of the votes. For checking, or in the case of a disputed election, the paper ballots can be counted an compared to the computer's results. It's not rocket science.
You can protect your property from someone who you think is overcharging for a good or service by not purchasing that good or service from him. Your analogy is moronic.
If they have probable cause to suspect you've attempted to shoplift, they can in fact detain you, according to a whole pile of case law which overrides anything you personally think they can't do.
Yeah, and I could quit my job right now and next year experience the largest percentage increase in personal income since I entered the workforce. Aren't statistics fun?
Let's talk about how great it is that unemployment is dropping without anyone actually getting jobs, because people who give up on finding a job are no longer considered "unemployed."
Please explain how the voter can verify that the CD burner burned the right thing on the CD, or, alternately, why we should trust a voting machine to burn the right thing on a CD but not trust it to record the right thing in its memory.
The problem is not that the votes might get lost. The problem is that there's no way to verify that the machine is working the way it's supposed to without a voter-verified paper trail.
And it's not just that the software is closed source. Even with open source software there's really no way for a voter to know it can be trusted. Even someone with a clue and a copy of the source code can't be sure that the binary running the machine is actually doing what the source code says it's going to do, unless they can compile the source themselves before using it. With a compiler they bring themself, to prevent the sort of trick used in the first versions of Unix (where the C compiler would insert a backdoor into the login program, and would also insert the code to put the backdoor into the C compiler itself if you compiled a verion with the backdoor-insertion code removed.)
Sure, but if the machine you're attacking is on your local network, it would be easier and more efficient to hijack DNS altogether instead of relying on Verisign to provide one of the 10.0.0.* addresses for themselves. Direct all local traffic meant to go to Verisign to your own box and do whatever it was you were going to do without hoping for the 3 in 7 chance any given machine will hit your box when trying to update.
As with everything in the original Patriot Act, I have a feeling they won't be allowed to file suit to block the law. The Justice Department will assert that they don't have the standing to file the suit, and if the Justice Department these days is overruled by a federal judge on any "national security" matters, they're allowed to appeal to a special appeals court, the sole purpose of which is to overturn judges who get in the way.
To be even more Kafkaesque, they've seen to it that these appeals can't be further appealed to the Supreme Court, as no one but the Justice Department itself is actually a party to the appealed case and no one else has legal standing to appeal.
Salon did a piece on this secret court system a while back; it's truly a scary concept.
That would be the ACLU, but unfortunately King George I made everyone think they're a bunch of bleeding heart liberals despite the fact that the real conservatives in the libertarian wing of the republican party agree with their principles more than most liberal democrats do.
It's worse than that. It's an intelligence appropriations bill, which pretty much goes through Congress secretly without debate. The ethics of slipping stuff into a boring bill no one cares about (or even a demogogued "pass this bill or your children will be raped" type thing) are different than sneaking it into a bill that's supposed to be kept secret to protect national security.
I don't particularly care if they want to keep the details of the NSA's budget secret, but sneaking in stuff that was shot down when it was proposed on its own is just plain evil.
Sure. And if you own a store that keeps credit card receipts in a locked office but someone can break through the door and take them, you shouldn't blame them because you should have had a thicker door.
P2P networks, maybe. But airwaves? Clear Channel isn't about to start broadcasting anything but RIAA-pushed music on the 95% of US stations it will own once the FCC goes through a few more rounds of deregulation. You might as well complain about iMovie leading to lots of crappy home movies showing up at Loews.
Err, yeah. I should use preview. With the space, I mean. Which is not how they use it on their website. The other guys registered without the space for "Recording and production of all types of multimedia, namely compaq discs, downloadable music files, videos, audiocassettes films, and downloadable video files." in 2001.
I'd love to see Apple, when they get sued, mention that their product doesn't work with "Compaq disks." You'd think they'd get someone literate to proofread a trademark application.
Since when is the US budget at all affected by not having enough income? See, the way things work here is that they decide how much they want to spend and what they think is a good tax rate, and leave worrying about the deficit to the someone else. Preferably someone who can't do anything about how much they're spending.
Re:"Neo-Conservative"??? Perish the thought!
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Sure, if you're talking about the American border. But they're all for letting Israelis move into Palestinian territory to settle, as long as it will make Jesus come back sooner.
You shouldn't break into someone's house when they're not home and take all of their valuable possessions. But if you're not hurting anyone, there doesn't need to be a law against it.
Re:People will keep using it, regardless...
on
Windows 98 Phased Out
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Would you buy a car with an onboard computer in it that no one but a highly trained mechanic certified by the car's manufacturer could fix?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and that's just completely different from the philosophy of Open Source.</sarcasm>
If there's any really democratic economic philosophy in the world, it's communism. The fact that it doesn't work as a form of government and it's only been implemented (or, at least, had some abomination of a political system implemented in its name) by dictators doesn't change what the philosophy is.
The voter looks at the piece of paper and verifies the vote, which is then placed in a lockbox. The computer, not a person, counts all of the votes. For checking, or in the case of a disputed election, the paper ballots can be counted an compared to the computer's results. It's not rocket science.
You can protect your property from someone who you think is overcharging for a good or service by not purchasing that good or service from him. Your analogy is moronic.
If they have probable cause to suspect you've attempted to shoplift, they can in fact detain you, according to a whole pile of case law which overrides anything you personally think they can't do.
Why the hell does the US market need more than one Linux distro? Wouldn't all the developers be better served working on just one of them?
So he's hoping the curse of Tehcumseh is still working, even though Reagan became a zombie instead of dying after he was shot?
Let's talk about how great it is that unemployment is dropping without anyone actually getting jobs, because people who give up on finding a job are no longer considered "unemployed."
The problem is not that the votes might get lost. The problem is that there's no way to verify that the machine is working the way it's supposed to without a voter-verified paper trail.
And it's not just that the software is closed source. Even with open source software there's really no way for a voter to know it can be trusted. Even someone with a clue and a copy of the source code can't be sure that the binary running the machine is actually doing what the source code says it's going to do, unless they can compile the source themselves before using it. With a compiler they bring themself, to prevent the sort of trick used in the first versions of Unix (where the C compiler would insert a backdoor into the login program, and would also insert the code to put the backdoor into the C compiler itself if you compiled a verion with the backdoor-insertion code removed.)
Sure, but if the machine you're attacking is on your local network, it would be easier and more efficient to hijack DNS altogether instead of relying on Verisign to provide one of the 10.0.0.* addresses for themselves. Direct all local traffic meant to go to Verisign to your own box and do whatever it was you were going to do without hoping for the 3 in 7 chance any given machine will hit your box when trying to update.
To be even more Kafkaesque, they've seen to it that these appeals can't be further appealed to the Supreme Court, as no one but the Justice Department itself is actually a party to the appealed case and no one else has legal standing to appeal.
Salon did a piece on this secret court system a while back; it's truly a scary concept.
That would be the ACLU, but unfortunately King George I made everyone think they're a bunch of bleeding heart liberals despite the fact that the real conservatives in the libertarian wing of the republican party agree with their principles more than most liberal democrats do.
I don't particularly care if they want to keep the details of the NSA's budget secret, but sneaking in stuff that was shot down when it was proposed on its own is just plain evil.
Sure. And if you own a store that keeps credit card receipts in a locked office but someone can break through the door and take them, you shouldn't blame them because you should have had a thicker door.
404 does NOT mean that your browser could not contact the server. You'd think Slashdot readers could understand this concept.
P2P networks, maybe. But airwaves? Clear Channel isn't about to start broadcasting anything but RIAA-pushed music on the 95% of US stations it will own once the FCC goes through a few more rounds of deregulation. You might as well complain about iMovie leading to lots of crappy home movies showing up at Loews.
I'd love to see Apple, when they get sued, mention that their product doesn't work with "Compaq disks." You'd think they'd get someone literate to proofread a trademark application.
According to USPTO, they did register "Garage Band" (with no space) February 20, 2003.
Uh, no they're not. They specifically say it's got a 4GB hard disk drive.
Since when is the US budget at all affected by not having enough income? See, the way things work here is that they decide how much they want to spend and what they think is a good tax rate, and leave worrying about the deficit to the someone else. Preferably someone who can't do anything about how much they're spending.
This is why you should make backups.
Sure, if you're talking about the American border. But they're all for letting Israelis move into Palestinian territory to settle, as long as it will make Jesus come back sooner.
Yeah, the provision is that the 6'5" guy is not facing a felony charge for aggravated assault instead of a misdemeanor for having a video camera.
You shouldn't break into someone's house when they're not home and take all of their valuable possessions. But if you're not hurting anyone, there doesn't need to be a law against it.
Would you buy a car with an onboard computer in it that no one but a highly trained mechanic certified by the car's manufacturer could fix?