What you are saying is absolutly correct, if the only thing that is to be taken into consideration is the correctness of each vote as it is cast. The essential safeguard that having access to the source code of the machine protects against, and which paper ballots does not (unless there is a recount based ONLY on the paper ballots) is the mallicious injection of votes into the system by an outside souce. If you are going to prevent this, you must either have manditory recounts of all votes (difficult) or have certification of the integrity of the machine at the time of the vote (hard, but not impossible). This is why, for example, most voting machines have some sort of tamper proof seal on them.
You WOULD phsyically check that each machine matches the published source code before you set it out, then you would seal all inputs on the machine (remove drives, plug ports) put a paper seal on the box, and set it up. Not easy, but do-able.
For quite some time now I have been of the opinion that the prohibition of the creation if derivative works that copyright imposes is outside of the understanding of the original concept, and in addition to being insainly dangerious to society, is also unconstituional.... Actually, I should qualify what I just said, I am not just of the opinion that the prohibition is unconstitutional, I believe it is, in fact, a direct violation of the Natural Law. It is, in fact, morally evil on some level to prevent other's from re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts into their own, substantially new ideas.
I may be completely alone in my views, and I appreciate that they do not mess with the common-sense morality of our culture (cf. authors and Movie rights, for example). But I do think it is a place where discussion can begin.
Re:Unfortunately the SHA series seems to be suspec
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Is anyone really surprised by this? In the long run I don't think there is a hash algorithm (or crypto algorithm for that mater) in existence that will not be broken, either by increased computational complexity or some mathematical flaw.
The thing I use these hash algorithms for the most is generating unique ID's without having to think about it too much. I don't believe I am alone either; I don't do a lot of cryptography. Still, I'd like to have a better understanding of the properties of each algorithm, and the class of activities it is good for. A chart along these lines would be neat: "algorithms good for file verification", "algorithms good for password hashing", " algorithms good for higher security needs".
If we start to think of hash algorithms in terms of functional classes, it will be easier to develop drop-in replacements for each of them (something we will need as algorithms keep getting bumped off of the "acceptable" list).
I have several good friends who have been to Uganda on a number of occasion, and have done extensive service work there. (One of them, in fact, earned a Rhodes partly because of his efforts). At one time I was considering setting up a Ugandan-American service organization, and I picked their brains about what is and is not needed in general. This may come as a surprise, but computers (especially junky ones) are firmly in the NOT NEEDED list.
Many American charities and organizations send used equipment to Africa. One of the principle functions to the giant tax write-off foundation that Bill Gates created years ago was to send brand new computers to African schools. The net effect is that computers are not difficult to acquire and your laptop, although probably still appreciated, would be less useful than many other things you could send.
What they really need, as I understand it, are plan, old everyday books. The student-to-textbook ration in most schools is 20 to 1 or greater, and many libraries are downright pathetic. What books they have are arcane, products of the 1950's and 1960's. Since they speak (British) English in Uganda, why don't you do them a favor and ship some of your old textbooks, or some good children's stories instead. These will probably go a lot farther than a half-useable laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are saying is absolutly correct, if the only thing that is to be taken into consideration is the correctness of each vote as it is cast. The essential safeguard that having access to the source code of the machine protects against, and which paper ballots does not (unless there is a recount based ONLY on the paper ballots) is the mallicious injection of votes into the system by an outside souce. If you are going to prevent this, you must either have manditory recounts of all votes (difficult) or have certification of the integrity of the machine at the time of the vote (hard, but not impossible). This is why, for example, most voting machines have some sort of tamper proof seal on them. You WOULD phsyically check that each machine matches the published source code before you set it out, then you would seal all inputs on the machine (remove drives, plug ports) put a paper seal on the box, and set it up. Not easy, but do-able.
For quite some time now I have been of the opinion that the prohibition of the creation if derivative works that copyright imposes is outside of the understanding of the original concept, and in addition to being insainly dangerious to society, is also unconstituional. ... Actually, I should qualify what I just said, I am not just of the opinion that the prohibition is unconstitutional, I believe it is, in fact, a direct violation of the Natural Law. It is, in fact, morally evil on some level to prevent other's from re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts into their own, substantially new ideas.
I may be completely alone in my views, and I appreciate that they do not mess with the common-sense morality of our culture (cf. authors and Movie rights, for example). But I do think it is a place where discussion can begin.
Is anyone really surprised by this? In the long run I don't think there is a hash algorithm (or crypto algorithm for that mater) in existence that will not be broken, either by increased computational complexity or some mathematical flaw.
The thing I use these hash algorithms for the most is generating unique ID's without having to think about it too much. I don't believe I am alone either; I don't do a lot of cryptography. Still, I'd like to have a better understanding of the properties of each algorithm, and the class of activities it is good for. A chart along these lines would be neat: "algorithms good for file verification", "algorithms good for password hashing", " algorithms good for higher security needs".
If we start to think of hash algorithms in terms of functional classes, it will be easier to develop drop-in replacements for each of them (something we will need as algorithms keep getting bumped off of the "acceptable" list).
Oh, and one of that QT movie too.
Here is another mirror, for those who care to use it.
Maybe I'm studip, but isn't it simplier and more elegant to write e^(i*pi) = -1. I mean, whose to say that -1 doesn't deserve a little math lovin'?
I have several good friends who have been to Uganda on a number of occasion, and have done extensive service work there. (One of them, in fact, earned a Rhodes partly because of his efforts). At one time I was considering setting up a Ugandan-American service organization, and I picked their brains about what is and is not needed in general. This may come as a surprise, but computers (especially junky ones) are firmly in the NOT NEEDED list.
Many American charities and organizations send used equipment to Africa. One of the principle functions to the giant tax write-off foundation that Bill Gates created years ago was to send brand new computers to African schools. The net effect is that computers are not difficult to acquire and your laptop, although probably still appreciated, would be less useful than many other things you could send.
What they really need, as I understand it, are plan, old everyday books. The student-to-textbook ration in most schools is 20 to 1 or greater, and many libraries are downright pathetic. What books they have are arcane, products of the 1950's and 1960's. Since they speak (British) English in Uganda, why don't you do them a favor and ship some of your old textbooks, or some good children's stories instead. These will probably go a lot farther than a half-useable laptop.