That's why all the serious proposals use cryptography to keep the "verifiability" property but keep the data selectively anonymous. Yes, cryptography can do that. A lot of people responding to this post can't seem to wrap their heads around this.
And there are people in Las Vegas who have built multi-million dollar stage shows out of their ability to confound the exact observation techniques you're relying on.
There is no sleight-of-hand that can solve NP-hard factorisation problems in less time than it takes to compute them.
it's easier to flip a few bits and give myself 1 million extra votes Why not learn something about some of the proposed systems which you're certain you could subvert effortlessly?
If the paper trail existed, were you likely to get to verify it for yourself? I bet that most of us, in a "paper trail" verified election, are still stuck with taking someone else's word for it that the paper trail exists, and leads where they say it does.
Online voting, if it were done right, would give me much more confidence than any number of safeguards you might put on a physical chain of custody. At the bottom of it, very large prime numbers are way harder to forge than anything you might make out of paper.
But a patent licenser is just a patent troll who got what he wanted. The entire reason people seek licenses is so they can implement the technology without getting sued. Right?
Well, at that time in history, the "rights and freedoms" of white people included the right to their own exclusive water fountains and bus seats, so, yes. The civil rights movement was a coordinated and deliberate attack on their freedoms.
It doesn't have to be eternally static, like car MAC addresses. The unique ID could change incrementally over time, along with notification broadcasts, in a way that would allow you to differentiate between cars currently within range, but doesn't allow you to recognize a car as the same one from yesterday.
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
The same reason that Safeway doesn't get to forcibly insert the free swiss-cheese sample in your mouth after you accept it from the lady at the kiosk.
If you're giving something away for free, you can deny it on any basis you like (which means, of course, if you've determined by your own methods that someone's dropping your ads you're always fine to decline them service in the first place), but once it's given out, there are actually some strings you can't attach. One of those strings, is whether the person chooses to consume any part of your content or discard it without looking at it. That choice is inalienably up to them, and there's no EULA which can sign it away.
Or, it speeds their decline from relevance if (big if) this functionality turns out to create a noticeably better browsing experience, and the sandlot browser-makers are able to provide a killer feature which the big two refuse to support.
This is only true if delta-sigma modulation is performed with infinite time-resolution. If, as in almost all digital systems, we're dealing with synchronous clock-strobed circuits, the signal's amplitude resolution is limited by the sampling rate.
The difference between one kind of job and the other is entirely nominal and not substantive. From the perspective of the server, say, "searching a nonlinear hash space for collisions" and "cracking crypto" are exactly the same math problem.
Look, what 'solution' are climatologists selling, exactly? The very few Real Scientists on the skeptic side of this debate are nearly all extremely well-compensated by the powerhouse industry which makes daily profits from the economic status quo.
I realize you're talking about conflicts of interests on the other side of the fence, and I'll quite readily admit that Al Gore has lots of his money invested in technologies which would become more profitable if more people took global warming seriously. I get that, and I get that that's a reason for Al to tell us about GW whether it's real or not. But do you honestly believe the vast majority of atmospheric scientists and climatologists who fall into the "we're causing it" camp are getting anything near the kind of research-bending fundraising opportunities from a bunch of small, hungry engineering startups, that they could be getting from well-entrenched, multi-billion-dollar energy cartels?
If you're going to distrust people's evidence on the basis that they're "selling something", I'm afraid one side gives you a lot more to be skeptical about than the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Not very likely.
That's why all the serious proposals use cryptography to keep the "verifiability" property but keep the data selectively anonymous. Yes, cryptography can do that. A lot of people responding to this post can't seem to wrap their heads around this.
And there are people in Las Vegas who have built multi-million dollar stage shows out of their ability to confound the exact observation techniques you're relying on.
There is no sleight-of-hand that can solve NP-hard factorisation problems in less time than it takes to compute them.
it's easier to flip a few bits and give myself 1 million extra votes
Why not learn something about some of the proposed systems which you're certain you could subvert effortlessly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting#Cryptographic_verification
If the paper trail existed, were you likely to get to verify it for yourself? I bet that most of us, in a "paper trail" verified election, are still stuck with taking someone else's word for it that the paper trail exists, and leads where they say it does.
Online voting, if it were done right, would give me much more confidence than any number of safeguards you might put on a physical chain of custody. At the bottom of it, very large prime numbers are way harder to forge than anything you might make out of paper.
But a patent licenser is just a patent troll who got what he wanted. The entire reason people seek licenses is so they can implement the technology without getting sued. Right?
Well, at that time in history, the "rights and freedoms" of white people included the right to their own exclusive water fountains and bus seats, so, yes. The civil rights movement was a coordinated and deliberate attack on their freedoms.
How much is a ton, in Courics?
Dude, don't you know what happens when you type CYBERjack?
Cuz I don't but from the rumours it ai^X
NO CARRIER
I heard the sorta-clever portmanteau "techsperts" once. It ain't TOO too bad and it's actually real ungendered instead of pretend.
Like the civil rights movement, for instance. Hard to find a soul alive today who thinks those had any legitimac...
hang on
Incredible injoke. Well played.
from the and-nothing-of-value-was-lost department...
because
So, are you proposing that if the damages were hypothetically paid, the victims would get more than $0?
It doesn't have to be eternally static, like car MAC addresses. The unique ID could change incrementally over time, along with notification broadcasts, in a way that would allow you to differentiate between cars currently within range, but doesn't allow you to recognize a car as the same one from yesterday.
And post about it anonymously on the internet, in the middle of entirely unrelated conversations. Yeah, damn those man-haters.~
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
The same reason that Safeway doesn't get to forcibly insert the free swiss-cheese sample in your mouth after you accept it from the lady at the kiosk.
If you're giving something away for free, you can deny it on any basis you like (which means, of course, if you've determined by your own methods that someone's dropping your ads you're always fine to decline them service in the first place), but once it's given out, there are actually some strings you can't attach. One of those strings, is whether the person chooses to consume any part of your content or discard it without looking at it. That choice is inalienably up to them, and there's no EULA which can sign it away.
Or, it speeds their decline from relevance if (big if) this functionality turns out to create a noticeably better browsing experience, and the sandlot browser-makers are able to provide a killer feature which the big two refuse to support.
This is only true if delta-sigma modulation is performed with infinite time-resolution. If, as in almost all digital systems, we're dealing with synchronous clock-strobed circuits, the signal's amplitude resolution is limited by the sampling rate.
Next week, on Mythbusters.
because BadAnalogyGuy isn't here at the moment to show us all how it's done?
The difference between one kind of job and the other is entirely nominal and not substantive. From the perspective of the server, say, "searching a nonlinear hash space for collisions" and "cracking crypto" are exactly the same math problem.
http://www.sharethetruth.info/article/method-for-secure-obfuscation-of-algorithms This is an arms race that EC2 can't win even in principle. We should acknowledge this rather than trying to hold them accountable for the enforcement of an unenforceable rule.
"TELL US HOW YOU CHEATED." "Okay fine, there's a chess-playing Turk concealed inside the cabinet."
Look, what 'solution' are climatologists selling, exactly? The very few Real Scientists on the skeptic side of this debate are nearly all extremely well-compensated by the powerhouse industry which makes daily profits from the economic status quo.
I realize you're talking about conflicts of interests on the other side of the fence, and I'll quite readily admit that Al Gore has lots of his money invested in technologies which would become more profitable if more people took global warming seriously. I get that, and I get that that's a reason for Al to tell us about GW whether it's real or not. But do you honestly believe the vast majority of atmospheric scientists and climatologists who fall into the "we're causing it" camp are getting anything near the kind of research-bending fundraising opportunities from a bunch of small, hungry engineering startups, that they could be getting from well-entrenched, multi-billion-dollar energy cartels?
If you're going to distrust people's evidence on the basis that they're "selling something", I'm afraid one side gives you a lot more to be skeptical about than the other.
IR imaging would make this tech even cooler.