You guys have helped spread the dream of free access, open source and non-proprietary software to the everyday consumer. No, they haven't. Very few people have moved to open source systems, and very few have any desire to, or even knowledge of what they are.
You've dared to speak out against the media & industry giants in your quest to unmask the truth of rights-stripping DRM. Ugh, dared to? They're not the mafia, anyone and everyone can say whatever they want whenever they want. And unmasking the truth? It's rather obvious. DRM restricts what you can do with media. That's it. It isn't good, but it isn't really very important.
The government does not own all of the necessary software to make a voting machine. I wouldn't think it would have any. On the other hand, there is a lot of useful open source software that could be used to make it.
Assuming you can trust the people making the machine (and by trust, I mean that they are severely scrutinized to where they cannot get anything by), and those working with it, it is not very hard to secure. Obviously, that is a dangerous assumption, but it goes along with pen/paper and punch cards too.
It would not be hard to secure a system with modern technology. Have a touch-screen with the voting software up. The rest of the machine should be locked up. If the machine is handled, other than touching the screen, ring an alarm.
I was only referring to letting the person who voted see their vote, not everyone else.
If you don't use paper and pencil, you still end up with a lot of votes that aren't done properly and have to be thrown away. replace paper and pencil with optical scanner
Electronic voting machines? An attacker can change thousands of votes in a second. Done properly, no, he can't. A well secured system would be nearly impossible for an attacker to circumvent in a minute with the resources he would have available. And it would not be too difficult to make the machine ring an alarm if someone tried.
Punched cards? An attacker can shove a ten cent piece of steel through the hole for the preferred candidate and invalidate a hundred ballots for the opponent in a few seconds. Not if you let people see what their vote was read as after it read.
If you really want something that's counted fast, use paper ballots scanned into optical scanners (and deposited in locked ballot boxes for later inspection/recounts) in front of the voter. At that point it is exactly the same as punch cards, except pencil markings aren't as easy to read and are far more likely to be improperly marked. All an attacker would have to do is replace the key sheet, or mess with whatever else is used to determine votes. If you don't use paper and pencil, you still end up with a lot of votes that aren't done properly and have to be thrown away.
Canada -- a country geographically even larger than the US with probably even more serious geographic distribution problems and with one tenth the population.
No. Windows comes on almost every computer, so effectively it's free (in that you won't save money by installing another OS). Linux, on the other hand, takes time to install. Time is certainly not free. It also takes more training, which is again, not free.
This software isn't meant to run the car, so of course Ford isn't using it for that. Do the world's most powerful supercomputers suck because they aren't good laptops?
I don't think Microsoft makes embedded systems for running automobiles.
The source code wouldn't help matters. Assuming the machines were rigged, it would be simple to release the the code from a properly functioning codeline. If it was rigged, most of the people at the company wouldn't have access to that code, or someone would report it.
Open source is only open source up to a point. There is no way to verify that what is running on a machine is the same as the code released. Anyone working on the machines can tamper with it: "./configure --all-votes-are-$(myparty) && make && make install". Maybe you could use digital signing on the official builds and restrict the machines to them, but keep in mind that violates the GPLv3, and there are no assurances it won't be hacked. On the other hand, it is very unlikely someone is going to reverse engineer closed source software while they are supposed to be setting up the machines and no one will notice.
First of all, you're not being consistent. First you said it was half a billion dollars just to fly one trip, and then you suggested one million dollars a ride. That's utterly ridiculous. At that price, and the urgency of the mission, you are only going to have one effective passenger. And the trip will need to recoup the initial investment into the aircraft and the likely massive maintenance costs (remember, for fast transport it has to always be in condition to run). You're looking at several billion dollars a trip. You say that if it launched more frequently it would be cheaper, but the costs, many of will never be overcome by volume, won't facilitate at all frequent launches.
Then, you've got the 20 minutes trip time. Since you aren't going to be keeping a shuttle ready to fly in ever place on the world, the person traveling had better happen be in the same area. That's extremely unlikely, since the 20 minute trip time is only really necessary in an emergency. Even so, it would take at least several hours when you include the person getting their and an extremely hurried take off.
There are not many cases that someone would pay billions to travel across the world in a few hours. Certainly not the corporate merger you mentioned. Why would a company waste tons of money to get an exec across the world a little faster? Mergers aren't battles, they take place over a significant period of time. The board would easily have time to go in their yachts, let alone private jets. There is no problem with execs having to get anywhere fast. All they would be doing is ceremonially signing a few sheets of paper, and having some lunch.
A head of state might be more plausible, but it still very unlikely. In would only be worth it in a huge emergency, in which case said head of state would be in a bunker. And there's not much he's going to fly across the world and do in 4 hours rather than a day. Electronic communications would be much faster, and more useful.
You might be willing to go out of your way and pay money to avoid a few, nonintrusive ads (i.e. they're there, but not in your way), but most people aren't. Google/Yahoo/etc. don't cater to you, they cater to everyone. And there is no reason to solve the pay-per-use problem. Even if it was easy, it would still cost money, which would be a major barrier to attracting people to the service no matter how cheap. Ads aren't like that. There's no "fund" where you can only view so many ads, and you don't have to work to view them.
That doesn't sound like very much to me, especially for a laptop made to be tough. The drop is less than 3 feet, and it's not repeated that many times.
Sure, this would easily tear up most laptops, but they aren't made for it.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
If that's truly your opinion, it's quite fearful. The media should report the news, not control the citizens or the government, regardless of whether it has third party influence.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run. If that's truly your opinion, it's quite fearful. The media should report the news, not control the citizens or the government, regardless of whether it has third party influence.
Slashdot Mirror
The government does not own all of the necessary software to make a voting machine. I wouldn't think it would have any. On the other hand, there is a lot of useful open source software that could be used to make it.
Assuming you can trust the people making the machine (and by trust, I mean that they are severely scrutinized to where they cannot get anything by), and those working with it, it is not very hard to secure. Obviously, that is a dangerous assumption, but it goes along with pen/paper and punch cards too.
It would not be hard to secure a system with modern technology. Have a touch-screen with the voting software up. The rest of the machine should be locked up. If the machine is handled, other than touching the screen, ring an alarm.
I was only referring to letting the person who voted see their vote, not everyone else.
The grand parent specifically referred to a single voter tampering with the machine, not systematic tampering.
Pen and paper isn't just slower. There are a lot of problems with votes not being counted properly.
In that case, the entire thing would have to be rewritten from the ground up.
If you really want something that's counted fast, use paper ballots scanned into optical scanners (and deposited in locked ballot boxes for later inspection/recounts) in front of the voter. At that point it is exactly the same as punch cards, except pencil markings aren't as easy to read and are far more likely to be improperly marked. All an attacker would have to do is replace the key sheet, or mess with whatever else is used to determine votes. If you don't use paper and pencil, you still end up with a lot of votes that aren't done properly and have to be thrown away. Canada -- a country geographically even larger than the US with probably even more serious geographic distribution problems and with one tenth the population.
No. Windows comes on almost every computer, so effectively it's free (in that you won't save money by installing another OS). Linux, on the other hand, takes time to install. Time is certainly not free. It also takes more training, which is again, not free.
This software isn't meant to run the car, so of course Ford isn't using it for that. Do the world's most powerful supercomputers suck because they aren't good laptops?
I don't think Microsoft makes embedded systems for running automobiles.
Highly effective? More launches != more effective.
The source code wouldn't help matters. Assuming the machines were rigged, it would be simple to release the the code from a properly functioning codeline. If it was rigged, most of the people at the company wouldn't have access to that code, or someone would report it.
Open source is only open source up to a point. There is no way to verify that what is running on a machine is the same as the code released. Anyone working on the machines can tamper with it: "./configure --all-votes-are-$(myparty) && make && make install". Maybe you could use digital signing on the official builds and restrict the machines to them, but keep in mind that violates the GPLv3, and there are no assurances it won't be hacked. On the other hand, it is very unlikely someone is going to reverse engineer closed source software while they are supposed to be setting up the machines and no one will notice.
That's only a very small part of the 360 million square mile oceans, though. And who knows, perhaps we can make it more efficient.
Does the word "proportion" mean anything to you?
First of all, you're not being consistent. First you said it was half a billion dollars just to fly one trip, and then you suggested one million dollars a ride. That's utterly ridiculous. At that price, and the urgency of the mission, you are only going to have one effective passenger. And the trip will need to recoup the initial investment into the aircraft and the likely massive maintenance costs (remember, for fast transport it has to always be in condition to run). You're looking at several billion dollars a trip. You say that if it launched more frequently it would be cheaper, but the costs, many of will never be overcome by volume, won't facilitate at all frequent launches.
Then, you've got the 20 minutes trip time. Since you aren't going to be keeping a shuttle ready to fly in ever place on the world, the person traveling had better happen be in the same area. That's extremely unlikely, since the 20 minute trip time is only really necessary in an emergency. Even so, it would take at least several hours when you include the person getting their and an extremely hurried take off.
There are not many cases that someone would pay billions to travel across the world in a few hours. Certainly not the corporate merger you mentioned. Why would a company waste tons of money to get an exec across the world a little faster? Mergers aren't battles, they take place over a significant period of time. The board would easily have time to go in their yachts, let alone private jets. There is no problem with execs having to get anywhere fast. All they would be doing is ceremonially signing a few sheets of paper, and having some lunch.
A head of state might be more plausible, but it still very unlikely. In would only be worth it in a huge emergency, in which case said head of state would be in a bunker. And there's not much he's going to fly across the world and do in 4 hours rather than a day. Electronic communications would be much faster, and more useful.
You might be willing to go out of your way and pay money to avoid a few, nonintrusive ads (i.e. they're there, but not in your way), but most people aren't. Google/Yahoo/etc. don't cater to you, they cater to everyone. And there is no reason to solve the pay-per-use problem. Even if it was easy, it would still cost money, which would be a major barrier to attracting people to the service no matter how cheap. Ads aren't like that. There's no "fund" where you can only view so many ads, and you don't have to work to view them.
No. He's complaining about the business model where many web companies put ads on their sites rather than charge people using them.
Why fine them? They should attack the poacher when he shoots them, in such a way that he doesn't realize they are robots.
That doesn't sound like very much to me, especially for a laptop made to be tough. The drop is less than 3 feet, and it's not repeated that many times.
Sure, this would easily tear up most laptops, but they aren't made for it.
Fixed tags:
Many phones can reproduce the sound.
The tones are available for free from the internet. I would think you could just transfer it over on a good phone.
Vibrate mode can still make audible noise, and with some phones, situations, you can't tell it is there.
You can answer text messages silently, and even calls can be answered more discretely than a ring.
The only real problem with it is that many adults can hear it.
So what? Why is that bad? If some find it convenient, good for them.
How about people who can stop themselves from pirating music? Is it really so hard?
If you dislike the major recording companies, don't buy music from them.