Think about it. If a person wants the cheapest possible system, he/she will start with cheap hardware and use free (unlicensed) software. Expensive hardware systems are less likely to host pirated software, because people who want cheap (unlicensed) software also tend to want cheap hardware. People who don't mind paying for things are the ones who buy expensive hardware, and are willing to pay for software. Making the hardware even cheaper will not affect this.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why governments regulate. The operative concept is not "technology". The operative concepts are "money" and "power". The problem is, precisely, that it is not their business. They want it to be their business, so that they can have power over it and make money from it.
Efficient? By which you mean faster? Cheaper? Is it cheaper and faster? Even if it is, does it justify the lack of reliability? Does it justify the lack of transparency? Could anything justify it?
The electronic systems are indeed an easier, cheaper, faster, and more reliable means to rig the results of an election. That, alone, justifies the other problems in the minds of the people who own this country.
I have a Ph.D. in computer science. I have been researching methods for creating verifiably correct software for the past 25 years. Proving correctness is an incredibly hard problem, even for very simple programs written in well-defined programming languages.
Even if the entire source code for these voting systems were made public, I'm sure it would not be possible to prove that every vote will be recorded and counted correctly.
Rather than arguing endlessly about which is the best machinery for elections, perhaps it would be better to address the real problem. The real issue is: how to be certain that the votes are cast freely and counted accurately.
Suppose we were to place the burden of proof on the election supervisor to prove that the votes are counted honestly and accurately. If the election supervisor fails to prove this (in court, with adversaries, experts and a jury) then the election supervisor is executed for treason.
I suspect very few election supervisors would be willing to use anything other than paper ballots.
Further, it should be a paid holiday for people who vote, but an unpaid holiday for those who don't.
(When you vote, you should get some sort of receipt to prove that you voted. Not how or for whom, just that you voted. Turn that receipt in to your employer to get paid for the day.)
Here in Florida, almost every week, there is an article about an old person who drove a car at full throttle into a building. Usually, the building is a bank or beauty salon, which then has a "drive-through" lobby. Recently, a man drove his brand new Mercury 4-door through the back wall of his own garage and into his swimming pool.
In almost every case, the driver swears he/she was pushing hard on the brake pedal, but the car kept accelerating anyway. Of course, in reality, the driver is just pushing on the wrong pedal.
Jefferson added that he doesn't believe that the vulnerabilities show deliberate malice... But the vulnerabilities do show incompetence and indicate that Diebold programmers simply don't know how to design a secure system.
I call bullshit!
I'm sure the Diebold people do understand security, very well. Security is their main business. Clearly, the absense of security in the voting systems is not a result of accident, oversight, or incompetence. I am sure the absense of security is absolutely intentional.
These machines are designed, from the start, to rig elections.
You'd think a company who's been making ATMs since their inception, would have a good understanding of cryptographic security and the "gotchas" inherent in such systems
I'm sure Diebold poeple do understand security, very well. Clearly, the complete absense of security in the voting systems is not a result of accident, oversight, or incompetence.
I am sure the absense of security is absolutely intentional.
These machines are designed, from the start, to rig elections.
Always (or at least most of the time) remember the reason you are there -- to get an education. There's no point in paying for it and not getting it. Of course, there are two major parts to an education. Academics is one half. Social is the other. Both are important.
Take your courses seriously, but don't overload yourself during first-year. 12 or 15 hours is plenty.
Treat your school work like a full-time job. Work at it all day, six days a week. Then take the evenings off. Take one full day off each week. The evenings you take off from shool work are when you get the _other_ half of your education.
There is an easy way to get A's. All you have to do is pay attention to what the prof says is required, and then do it. It is easier to kick-ass for the first part of a semester, get those things done, and then be able to coast a little at the end. It is much more stressful to coast at the beginning of a term, and then try to catch up later.
The social education is important too.
Choose your friends carefully. Pick good, loyal, trustworthy people. The best and surest way to make a friend is to be a friend. If you are lucky, you will have them for the rest of your life.
I'm saying these things from hindsight, of course. I didn't do it this way in my own freshman year. I wish I had. But, I guess it worked out ok anyway.
There is a very easy way to get the no-fly list repealed. Just put the names of all 535 congressmen, and all of the federal judges, on the list. It will be repealed in just a few days.
Constantine "Peopleware Papers" is also a MUST READ! (A previous volume of similar content was
Constantine "On Peopleware".)
Private offices, natural light, fresh air, enough space, and doors to shut out distractions, are all essential for doing "imersive" work such as software development.
But, technical work also involves a lot of collaboration. So provide extra chairs, and enough space at each desk so that two or three people can work together. Provide enough common spaces so that small meetings can occur naturally.
Pleasant suroundings, with natural light, fresh air, low noise levels, privacy, all contribute to hiring, retention, and productivity of talented people. Good chairs and ergonomic accessories are also necessary, and should suit the individual person.
Technical aspects of the space, such as electrical power, network access, and coffee are also necessary, obviously. But no amount of that stuff can make up for unpleasant surroundings.
AS I understand it, the notion of convergence is that multiple technologies or capabilities will be present on one device. If they interact to do something useful, then the converged device could be more useful than the two separate devices. But, so far, most of the ideas for interaction strike me as being less than useful. I don't need or want a toaster that surfs the web, or any other such nonsense.
Give me clocks that set themselves to the correct time. That would be useful. Then I wouldn't mind that my toaster also includes a clock.
Give me a dishwasher that clears the table, actually washes the dishes, and then puts them away in the cabinets. That would really be useful.
Many mathematicians, myself included, think the curriculum for computer science should be begin with Finite-State machines, and then Turing Machines.
After writing a few little programs for TM's, the student develops a real appreciation for assembly. After writing a few little programs in asembly (for just about any model of machine), the student develops a real understanding of higher-level languages. And, if we're lucky, some understanding of theory and a sense of history.
I don't know about a curriculum for coding, though. That must be in a different school.
Step three (making sure it will be a win-win result) is really the essential idea.
If the purpose is to place blame, it can only lead to anxiety, fear, and non-cooperation. If the purpose really is to help, without any blame, then everyone can relax and cooperate.
There is a huge difference between:
"We intend to fire the person whose machine is vulnerable."
and
"We need to find the machines that are broken, so we can fix them before there is a serious problem."
I expect he would say somthing like, "In principle, there is no difference."
Mathematicians are fond of saying "in principle, there is no difference" when the differences are only a matter of detail, and do not affect the abstraction. Essentially, the input (and output) of a Turing machine is a sequence of symbols. The input (and output) of a modern computer is a sequence of symbols. The nature of one (concrete) symbol is somewhat different, of course, but the fact that it is just a symbol is the same.
The input to a TM is a sequence of abstract symbols. The input to a modern computer is a sequence of concrete symbols. We have 'mickeys', which are symbols that each represent a mouse-movement. We have 'clicks', which are symbols that each represent a mouse-click. We have 'characters', which are symbols that represent key strokes. And, we have 'ticks', which are symbols that represent the passage of time. But, in abstract principle, every one of these is just a symbol.
On the output side, a TM produces a tape containing a sequence of abstract symbols. A modern computer produces a time-sequence of screen images. Each screen image may have quite a lot of information, but the aggregate of all of the pixels can still, in principle, be considered as one symbol.
Having a Ph.D. in Computer Science, I can say with some authority that Computer Science is a subfield of Mathematics. Every well-defined programming language is, literally, a kind of an algebra. Every computing device (a.k.a. computer) is a finite-state automaton. Every program, method, or function is an implementation of (one or more) algorithms. Every class (of objects) is an implementation of some abstract data type, and defines a class of algebras. Every object instance is, literally, an algebra.
There is a reason why "algebra" and "algorithm"
have the same root.
At a "high level", there are really only two requirements for a voting system.
(1) The voting system must be fair and accurate.
(2) An average person, with no special training, must be able to verify that the voting system is both fair and accurate.
It might eventually be possible to meet the first requirement by a very strict engineering process involving formal verification. However, I believe the only technology that can possibly meet the second requirement is "paper ballots."
It must be possible for a person who has zero understanding of technology to convince themselves that the votes were correctly counted. Hence, it must be possible to manually count the votes, if only to verify the original count. Hence, the original votes must be recorded on some media that a human can read without any machinery at all.
Technology can be used to print the paper ballots, and perhaps to mark the ballots in the voting booth. Technology can be legitimately used to count the paper ballots. But, the paper ballots cannot be eliminated.
I've been a *nix geek for about 20 years, and have used Mac at home for almost that long...
When I first got OS-X, it took me about 20 minutes to find the damn shell window. Then, it took about 3 seconds to realize it was a BSD system.
The 'terminal' application now lives in my dock.
If you have never learned to run at a steady, aerobic pace, a heart monitor may be very helpful. Most beginners try to run too fast, and need some help to learn what "aerobic" means. If you run too fast, it will be painful, and you will give up before two months... By using a heart rate monitor (HRM), you can learn to pace yourself, avoid the pain, and get through the first several months.
Basic HRMs are under $100, and can't be connected to a computer, so I guess they really don't qualify as "geek gear". Of course, if you want to upgrade later on, you can spend upwards of $500 for a high-end, geeky HRM.
I think many people have missed a very important point. For voting systems, there are really two fundamental requirements: 1. The voting system must be fair and accurate. 2. The voting system must be seen to be fair and accurate.
Meeting the first of those two requirements might eventually be possible by purely electronic means. (We aren't there, yet. Maybe, using formal methods, we might eventually be able to produce such a system.)
But, the second requirement means that the results of every election must be verifiable by an extremely low-tech means -- like manually recounting the paper ballots. Such audits, observed by all interested persons, are essential so that ordinary people can have confidence that elections are not rigged.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it. If a person wants the cheapest possible system, he/she will start with cheap hardware and use free (unlicensed) software. Expensive hardware systems are less likely to host pirated software, because people who want cheap (unlicensed) software also tend to want cheap hardware. People who don't mind paying for things are the ones who buy expensive hardware, and are willing to pay for software. Making the hardware even cheaper will not affect this.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why governments regulate. The operative concept is not "technology". The operative concepts are "money" and "power". The problem is, precisely, that it is not their business. They want it to be their business, so that they can have power over it and make money from it.
The electronic systems are indeed an easier, cheaper, faster, and more reliable means to rig the results of an election. That, alone, justifies the other problems in the minds of the people who own this country.
Even if the entire source code for these voting systems were made public, I'm sure it would not be possible to prove that every vote will be recorded and counted correctly.
Suppose we were to place the burden of proof on the election supervisor to prove that the votes are counted honestly and accurately. If the election supervisor fails to prove this (in court, with adversaries, experts and a jury) then the election supervisor is executed for treason.
I suspect very few election supervisors would be willing to use anything other than paper ballots.
(When you vote, you should get some sort of receipt to prove that you voted. Not how or for whom, just that you voted. Turn that receipt in to your employer to get paid for the day.)
Now, that would increase turnout at the polls!
In almost every case, the driver swears he/she was pushing hard on the brake pedal, but the car kept accelerating anyway. Of course, in reality, the driver is just pushing on the wrong pedal.
Operator error. Not mechanical failure.
I call bullshit!
I'm sure the Diebold people do understand security, very well. Security is their main business. Clearly, the absense of security in the voting systems is not a result of accident, oversight, or incompetence. I am sure the absense of security is absolutely intentional.
These machines are designed, from the start, to rig elections.
I'm sure Diebold poeple do understand security, very well. Clearly, the complete absense of security in the voting systems is not a result of accident, oversight, or incompetence. I am sure the absense of security is absolutely intentional.
These machines are designed, from the start, to rig elections.
Take your courses seriously, but don't overload yourself during first-year. 12 or 15 hours is plenty. Treat your school work like a full-time job. Work at it all day, six days a week. Then take the evenings off. Take one full day off each week. The evenings you take off from shool work are when you get the _other_ half of your education.
There is an easy way to get A's. All you have to do is pay attention to what the prof says is required, and then do it. It is easier to kick-ass for the first part of a semester, get those things done, and then be able to coast a little at the end. It is much more stressful to coast at the beginning of a term, and then try to catch up later.
The social education is important too. Choose your friends carefully. Pick good, loyal, trustworthy people. The best and surest way to make a friend is to be a friend. If you are lucky, you will have them for the rest of your life.
I'm saying these things from hindsight, of course. I didn't do it this way in my own freshman year. I wish I had. But, I guess it worked out ok anyway.
Stephen Hansen, Ph.D.
There is a very easy way to get the no-fly list repealed. Just put the names of all 535 congressmen, and all of the federal judges, on the list. It will be repealed in just a few days.
Constantine "Peopleware Papers" is also a MUST READ! (A previous volume of similar content was Constantine "On Peopleware".)
Private offices, natural light, fresh air, enough space, and doors to shut out distractions, are all essential for doing "imersive" work such as software development. But, technical work also involves a lot of collaboration. So provide extra chairs, and enough space at each desk so that two or three people can work together. Provide enough common spaces so that small meetings can occur naturally.
Pleasant suroundings, with natural light, fresh air, low noise levels, privacy, all contribute to hiring, retention, and productivity of talented people. Good chairs and ergonomic accessories are also necessary, and should suit the individual person.
Technical aspects of the space, such as electrical power, network access, and coffee are also necessary, obviously. But no amount of that stuff can make up for unpleasant surroundings.
Give me clocks that set themselves to the correct time. That would be useful. Then I wouldn't mind that my toaster also includes a clock.
Give me a dishwasher that clears the table, actually washes the dishes, and then puts them away in the cabinets. That would really be useful.
After writing a few little programs for TM's, the student develops a real appreciation for assembly. After writing a few little programs in asembly (for just about any model of machine), the student develops a real understanding of higher-level languages. And, if we're lucky, some understanding of theory and a sense of history.
I don't know about a curriculum for coding, though. That must be in a different school.
If the purpose is to place blame, it can only lead to anxiety, fear, and non-cooperation. If the purpose really is to help, without any blame, then everyone can relax and cooperate.
There is a huge difference between: "We intend to fire the person whose machine is vulnerable." and "We need to find the machines that are broken, so we can fix them before there is a serious problem."
Mathematicians are fond of saying "in principle, there is no difference" when the differences are only a matter of detail, and do not affect the abstraction. Essentially, the input (and output) of a Turing machine is a sequence of symbols. The input (and output) of a modern computer is a sequence of symbols. The nature of one (concrete) symbol is somewhat different, of course, but the fact that it is just a symbol is the same.
The input to a TM is a sequence of abstract symbols. The input to a modern computer is a sequence of concrete symbols. We have 'mickeys', which are symbols that each represent a mouse-movement. We have 'clicks', which are symbols that each represent a mouse-click. We have 'characters', which are symbols that represent key strokes. And, we have 'ticks', which are symbols that represent the passage of time. But, in abstract principle, every one of these is just a symbol.
On the output side, a TM produces a tape containing a sequence of abstract symbols. A modern computer produces a time-sequence of screen images. Each screen image may have quite a lot of information, but the aggregate of all of the pixels can still, in principle, be considered as one symbol.
There is a reason why "algebra" and "algorithm" have the same root.
It might eventually be possible to meet the first requirement by a very strict engineering process involving formal verification. However, I believe the only technology that can possibly meet the second requirement is "paper ballots."
It must be possible for a person who has zero understanding of technology to convince themselves that the votes were correctly counted. Hence, it must be possible to manually count the votes, if only to verify the original count. Hence, the original votes must be recorded on some media that a human can read without any machinery at all.
Technology can be used to print the paper ballots, and perhaps to mark the ballots in the voting booth. Technology can be legitimately used to count the paper ballots. But, the paper ballots cannot be eliminated.
I've been a *nix geek for about 20 years, and have used Mac at home for almost that long... When I first got OS-X, it took me about 20 minutes to find the damn shell window. Then, it took about 3 seconds to realize it was a BSD system. The 'terminal' application now lives in my dock.
If you have never learned to run at a steady, aerobic pace, a heart monitor may be very helpful. Most beginners try to run too fast, and need some help to learn what "aerobic" means. If you run too fast, it will be painful, and you will give up before two months... By using a heart rate monitor (HRM), you can learn to pace yourself, avoid the pain, and get through the first several months. Basic HRMs are under $100, and can't be connected to a computer, so I guess they really don't qualify as "geek gear". Of course, if you want to upgrade later on, you can spend upwards of $500 for a high-end, geeky HRM.
I think many people have missed a very important point. For voting systems, there are really two fundamental requirements:
1. The voting system must be fair and accurate.
2. The voting system must be seen to be fair and accurate.
Meeting the first of those two requirements might eventually be possible by purely electronic means. (We aren't there, yet. Maybe, using formal methods, we might eventually be able to produce such a system.)
But, the second requirement means that the results of every election must be verifiable by an extremely low-tech means -- like manually recounting the paper ballots. Such audits, observed by all interested persons, are essential so that ordinary people can have confidence that elections are not rigged.