> Amicus curiae briefs are, from a legal philosophy standpoint, meant to assist the court in determining the correct approach, not one of the parties or the filer
I'm sorry but I'm not following you.
AFAIK the amicus curiae contacts the court by his/her own will; it's not forced by any force or law. It's implicit that there is a personal motive behind that action. Are there other possible motivations?
Or are you arging that the "correct approach" is never the parties' or filer's?
That makes no sense. You can't tell a judge "I take responsibility for what this application does". Legal responsibility is a very well defined legal concept, and it's not given "on demand".
AFAIK it's reserved for very specific situations, like minors and their tutors, or people under domiciliary arrest.
I question that the population votes reflect the will of the nation. You make it sound as if there are only two options: either democracy, or tyranny. But I see it more like an spectrum. It has to do with choice, and knowledge.
Say I was given a choice: A blue button and a red button. I would not be told what hose buttons do. I would probably push the red one, because I like the color a bit more.
Say the red button put a bullet on my head, and the red button filled the room with water and drowned me. Was I really free when I made my choice?
But let's assume that I knew what those buttons did. I would have chosen the bullet. But that doesn't mean I wanted to die! That was the option I chose with the information I knew.
Say that there was a third option that would allow me to walk away, unharmed. Oh, I would have taken that option. If I knew about it. But if someone deliberately hid it from me. Now I ask you: did I die free?
I think democratic *process* is not enough. To be a real democracy, all the options must be clear to everyone. All the pieces must be in view. Who benefits from what must be easily discernible. But that's not what happens these days.
People are asked to choose between two buttons. What those buttons will do, is unclear. And the buttons they are given, don't really represent the options people would want.
At the end, they choose the color they like the most. And the same ones (which we could call "a ruling body") wins, whatever button they push.
Historically, this is not what happens. The differences between rich and poor increase over time. When the differences are big enough, the majority of poor rebels and kills the minority of rich (which have paid armies on their side, so it is usually a bloodbath).
Then the few people that remain says "we'll do it better this time!" and they start the cycle again.
> In what way does a computer specialist's job rely on the scientific method?
Aliens could use his computer to contact us. And NASA doesn't want him to be the first person answering to them (logically) and calling them "unnatural sons of Satan" or something along those lines.
I can think of lots of ways to hack paper ballots. If you can't, you haven't thought enough.
The "cheapness" works in all areas. Making a traditional vote with paper is *very* expensive. Orders of magnitude higher than a security audit that would have patched the backdoor you mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Not trying to troll here. I'm serious. Consider that you might be simply storing too much stuff.
The Earth our giant Soyuz capsule.
I see. It's kind of funny and sad at the same time. Thanks for clarifying.
I don't need to pirate, or buy, anything else, thank you.
I'm still not following. Can you expand on that? What do you mean by "in theory", exactly?
> Amicus curiae briefs are, from a legal philosophy standpoint, meant to assist the court in determining the correct approach, not one of the parties or the filer
I'm sorry but I'm not following you.
AFAIK the amicus curiae contacts the court by his/her own will; it's not forced by any force or law. It's implicit that there is a personal motive behind that action. Are there other possible motivations?
Or are you arging that the "correct approach" is never the parties' or filer's?
"Our opponents are trying to defend their interests, therefore their request should be denied"
Well played, MPAA lawyers.
Seriously. How much are these guys billing per hour?
It's awesome, it's free( as in freedom and as in beer ), and runs on linux, windows and mac.
That makes no sense. You can't tell a judge "I take responsibility for what this application does". Legal responsibility is a very well defined legal concept, and it's not given "on demand".
AFAIK it's reserved for very specific situations, like minors and their tutors, or people under domiciliary arrest.
I question that the population votes reflect the will of the nation. You make it sound as if there are only two options: either democracy, or tyranny. But I see it more like an spectrum. It has to do with choice, and knowledge.
Say I was given a choice: A blue button and a red button. I would not be told what hose buttons do. I would probably push the red one, because I like the color a bit more.
Say the red button put a bullet on my head, and the red button filled the room with water and drowned me. Was I really free when I made my choice?
But let's assume that I knew what those buttons did. I would have chosen the bullet. But that doesn't mean I wanted to die! That was the option I chose with the information I knew.
Say that there was a third option that would allow me to walk away, unharmed. Oh, I would have taken that option. If I knew about it. But if someone deliberately hid it from me. Now I ask you: did I die free?
I think democratic *process* is not enough. To be a real democracy, all the options must be clear to everyone. All the pieces must be in view. Who benefits from what must be easily discernible. But that's not what happens these days.
People are asked to choose between two buttons. What those buttons will do, is unclear. And the buttons they are given, don't really represent the options people would want.
At the end, they choose the color they like the most. And the same ones (which we could call "a ruling body") wins, whatever button they push.
Nope.
If the victim has lied, she goes to jail. If the app lies, the victim goes free.
Not the same thing.
The sworn statement means "if later it is discovered that I was lying, then I'm committing a crime".
If an app says that my iPad is in a house, and that turns to be false, then I'm not commiting a crime - I'm not "responsible" for what the app says.
> Serving the military of a free nation is as much of an honor as it is a sacrifice
What about a non-free nation?
www.day9.tv - Be a better gamer.
"They will always be rich."
Historically, this is not what happens. The differences between rich and poor increase over time. When the differences are big enough, the majority of poor rebels and kills the minority of rich (which have paid armies on their side, so it is usually a bloodbath).
Then the few people that remain says "we'll do it better this time!" and they start the cycle again.
Windows *Vista* anyone?
> Don't dish it out if you can't take it, kiddo.
I didn't dish anything out. You were arrogant all by yourself.
> Wow, what a convincing, well-thought-out, and thoroughly supported refutation you have there.
The only one you deserve. If you start calling people names, you have automatically lost the argument.
When someone asks me to give a look at their computer, I always ask for a compensation.
Not money.
I ask them that they cook me a paella. Dressed like a chicken.
And when they ask why I send them this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2921512832440775751
They probably can't see it because their PC is broken though.
> Oh, you're so clever! Your mommy must be very proud of you.
Very classy.
> The security problem with electronic voting isn't financial, it's political and legal. blah blah
Bullshit.
This is just a prank.
So they hacked the website of a bunch of illiterate sheep-herders. Big deal.
When they do something *really* meaningful, like bringing down a corrupt bank, or a mass weapon manufacturer, I will be impressed.
> In what way does a computer specialist's job rely on the scientific method?
Aliens could use his computer to contact us. And NASA doesn't want him to be the first person answering to them (logically) and calling them "unnatural sons of Satan" or something along those lines.
Oh, then they will call you "terrorist". Problem solved.
I can think of lots of ways to hack paper ballots. If you can't, you haven't thought enough.
The "cheapness" works in all areas. Making a traditional vote with paper is *very* expensive. Orders of magnitude higher than a security audit that would have patched the backdoor you mentioned.
One word:
Russia.
"Traditional" voting is as insecure as e-voting, if not more. All it takes is money.