"but like all of Stephenson's books, finishes ugly."
Hmmm... that's a big statement. The ending of Cryptonomicon apparently had a different effect on you than it did on me.
As for The Baroque Cycle.. I've read half of the trilogy so far.. My reaction?.. Each book is way too long, but is OK once I get into it.. If each of the books were cut in half (while keeping the same essence), they'd be better books (IMO).
Yes, I don't think the AMVA/Frogs architecture is perfect as it is presented in that working paper. I can see problems with some of the specifics they lay out also, but those problems are minor and fixable. The core architecture seems quite solid. I've spoken with some of the computer scientists who are out front, pushing paper-based VVAT and even they think the AMVA/Frogs architecture is essentially solid. They just don't talk about it unless you ask them about it directly.
I was impressed with the Chairman, too. All of the Commissioners seemed to be quite knowledgeable on the issues, but the Chairman was especially impressive (IMO). I was in the room when the he (politely) dressed down that vendor. The hearing was relatively calm and dry most of the day, which made that public rebuke mildly stunning.
The EAC didn't start up until January 2004. There was a long delay because the 4 commissioners were not nominated until October 2003 or confirmed by the US Senate until December 2003.
True, but many people in the US elections community use the term "open source" in a generic way - meaning that the source code is openly viewable, not necessarily that the source code is available under an OSI-approved license. The knowledge is slowly spreading that the term "open source" actually does have a specific, defined meaning, but it's going to take time for everyone to learn this. Until they do, it's useful to be aware that people many not actually mean the official, OSI-type of "open source" when they use the term.
e-voting isn't the problem ...
on
Evoting in the News
·
· Score: 2, Informative
E-Voting isn't the problem. It's possible the have secure, verifiable, and recountable e-voting machines. Most people are simply ignorant of that fact. The problem is that the e-voting machines currently in use are not designed to support verifiability or meaningful recounts. The mass hysteria whipped up this past year has most people (including a lot of techies) misunderstanding the problem.
I just got back from seeing it in Georgetown at the 9AM showing.
- Matrix I.. loved it - Matrix II.. thought it was decent, mostly because it fired people's imaginations trying to figure out the ending - Matrix III.. thought it was lame, disappointing
For those who got into the philosophical aspects of Matrix I/II.. prepare to be disappointed. For those who got into trying to figure out all the questions/puzzles left open at the end of Matrix II.. prepare to be disappointed. I thought many of the various theories and speculated endings that people posted on USENET after Matrix II came out were far more interesting than what Matrix III turned out to be. Matrix I is definately the best one (IMO).
If anyone decides to build this, it would be good to find a different name for it.
The terms Votester and Vote-ster have been in use for a few years now, and refer to online vote-selling and/or vote-trading services/technologies. There are none currently in existence. But the term was coined to highlight the possibilities and dangers of large-scale vote-selling, or large-scale vote-trading, if voting systems (for public elections) are attached to the Internet.
Perhaps using some combination of "protest", "protester", and "Napster" would produce a name more closely reflecting the technology this write-up is describing.
OSDN.. thank you for replacing banner ads with a black graphic for 9.11.. a simple, classy, and appropriate way to remember those who lost their lives today..
I see on slashdot that NPR demands people ask permission before people link to pages on its site.
This is outrageous. I listen to NPR every weekday. I have financially supported NPR in the past. The idea that a listener-supported news source is demanding its supporters ask permission to link to its content is unbelievable and stands in arrogant opposition to what the Internet stands for.
I can understand the "don't frame our content" restriction. But the "don't link to us" restriction needs to go. If you don't want content linked to, don't post it on the web.
The slashdot article is at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/19/14 3820 0&mode=nested&tid=96
The CalTech-MIT report lays out a generic "modular voting architecture" called AMVA. In the description of it, the report's authors refer to it as "a new framework". After reading the AMVA section of the report, I realized that the AMVA is almost an exact duplicate of a voting system design I posted online three and a half months ago. I wrote out more details on this here.
... Introduction to Open Source and Free Software, a brief (5 page) introductory paper that is understandable to non-technical people. If your boss doesn't "get it", then maybe your boss's boss will.
There's also a book out called Embracing Insanity. It's an outstanding introduction to Open Source and Free Software that management-types and non-technical people can understand. At only 177 pages, it's a fairly quick and easy read.
NSI squatting on expired domain names is definitely an issue. The other side of the same coin is that they don't delete domain names, either. I bought a domain name a year or so ago to play a prank on a friend. Only needed it a short time. Since NSI sends junk email & snailmail to every domain holder, I wanted to get rid of the no-longer-needed domain - to cut down on junk mail from NSI. I submitted the request to delete the domain weeks ago. It processed through their system okay. Then I got an email that said that it had to be "reviewed" for approval, or some such thing. It's weeks later and the domain name still hasn't been deleted.
Over a year ago I sold a domain name to somebody. I submitted the paper work to NSI to change possession of the domain. They still haven't done it. I eventually just changed the IP addresses on the domain to point to the new owner's hosting service, since NSI didn't do their job.
This is what government-sponsored monopolies get us. It's pretty sad. And maddening. I hope this law suit costs NSI a lot of money.
If a voter gives their feedback, the only way for it to have any impact is for your organization to verify that (a) they are qualified to vote (age, citizenship, etc) and (b) they live within one of the political jurisdictions which you are targeting.
Yet, if you know this infomation *and* you know what their political opinions are, then your databases will become a prized target for system crackers. What type of security processes do you have in place to insure that a system cracker can't tap your database and post everyone's name & vote elsewhere on the Internet?
The Operational Plan posted on your website states that you're looking for $25 million dollars of funding for the year 2000. That's a lot of money, especially considering that $21.8 million of it is to be spent on marketing and only $1.8 million is to be spent on technology. Two questions for you...
(1.) There are a lot of websites that have burned through multi-million dollar marketing budgets and ended up empty handed. Why do you think you can build a recognizable brand by simply throwing a big marketing budget at it, when so many others have failed using that exact same approach?
(2.) It seems that creating an organization which needs $25 million dollars in donations every year to survive is rather unrealistic. Since your organization is totally dependent on contributions, what is your organization going to do to fund itself next year - when there is no election to generate interest in what you're doing?
"when the CTO of a Fortune 100 company is deciding whether to commit to Linux for 50,000 new computers, he (or she) is certainly going to be demanding. They might be a little uncertain where to direct their demands, but the overall ability of the Linux community to meet her needs is going to influence that purchase decision."
Mr. Connell's assertion that it's somehow the Linux community's responsibility to meet the needs of a corporation is evidence that he doesn't quite understand how open-source software works. He's on the right path, but not quite there.
If the "CTO of a Fortune 100" company wants something fixed or changed in a piece of open-source software, they can "direct their demands" to their own staff. If they want something fixed, they're not helpless, they can fix it themself (at least with open-source they can). It's not the Linux community's responsibility to "meet her needs". It's "her" responsibility to "meet her needs".
Open-source is about being empowered to fix it yourself, not about being entitled to have someone else fix it for you.
Anyone who can afford to have "50,000 new computers" can certainly afford to hire a programmer or two to modify the software to "meet her needs".
I work for an Internet start-up which uses MS technology. We converted our production web server over to Win2k in mid-January. When I heard we were going to do that I thought I'd be out of a job within a few weeks -- due to Microsoft's dismal showing in 1999 when they tried to host a "crack our server" contest on a Win2k machine and it crashed so often that no one had a chance to crack it. You can't crack a box that isn't running.
Over the past month our company has also converted an in-house test server and several developer machines over to Win2k, all of which were running a full copy of the website, including SQL Server, Site Server, Commerce Server, CyberCash, and Taxware.
I/we have been suprised that Win2k has held up rather well. Much to my surprise, none of the Win2k boxes have crashed yet. No blue-screen-of-death.
So, the bottom line is... Win2k really does seem to be more realiable than any previous version of Windows, just as MS says -- even if it does still have x thousand outstanding bugs.
This doesn't mean that the same can be said about the software running on top of the OS. Big Bill's whole "zero administration" push doesn't seem to have made it to the Site Server department at MS. While Win2k, by itself, can be cloned and copied onto new machines, don't try that with Site Server. The MS documentation explicitly states "Do not use computer-cloning software to create a Site Server computer". This is due to the fact that Site Server installs "computer-specific information that cannot be cloned". The result of this is that every single developer or test box that needs to be setup with Site Server on it has to be setup manually. Which in turn means that all of the file permissions on all of the files on the entire website have to be setup manually as well. I just converted my developer box to Win2k last week. Win2k installed fine, but manually installing all the other software, manually configuring it, manually setting the file permissions on all the files in the website, etc, etc, etc took a full two days to complete and trouble-shoot -- all thanks to Site Server's inability to be cloned.
So, Big Bill, what happened to "Zero Administration" anyway?
The TechnoDemocracy Project was recently started to create open-source voting software. Open review of the TDP code should make it more secure than the closed-source/proprietary approach traditionally used & recommended by the California task force.
Slashdot Mirror
"but like all of Stephenson's books, finishes ugly."
Hmmm
As for The Baroque Cycle
Yes, I don't think the AMVA/Frogs architecture is perfect as it is presented in that working paper. I can see problems with some of the specifics they lay out also, but those problems are minor and fixable. The core architecture seems quite solid. I've spoken with some of the computer scientists who are out front, pushing paper-based VVAT and even they think the AMVA/Frogs architecture is essentially solid. They just don't talk about it unless you ask them about it directly.
I was impressed with the Chairman, too. All of the Commissioners seemed to be quite knowledgeable on the issues, but the Chairman was especially impressive (IMO). I was in the room when the he (politely) dressed down that vendor. The hearing was relatively calm and dry most of the day, which made that public rebuke mildly stunning.
The EAC didn't start up until January 2004. There was a long delay because the 4 commissioners were not nominated until October 2003 or confirmed by the US Senate until December 2003.
True, but many people in the US elections community use the term "open source" in a generic way - meaning that the source code is openly viewable, not necessarily that the source code is available under an OSI-approved license. The knowledge is slowly spreading that the term "open source" actually does have a specific, defined meaning, but it's going to take time for everyone to learn this. Until they do, it's useful to be aware that people many not actually mean the official, OSI-type of "open source" when they use the term.
You may want to consider
The fact that "electronic" votes can't be audited or recounted is another "feature."
Not true. Electronic votes can be audited - if the machines are designed properly (which, currently, they're not).
E-Voting isn't the problem. It's possible the have secure, verifiable, and recountable e-voting machines. Most people are simply ignorant of that fact. The problem is that the e-voting machines currently in use are not designed to support verifiability or meaningful recounts. The mass hysteria whipped up this past year has most people (including a lot of techies) misunderstanding the problem.
You may want to ask voters with disabilities what they think, then ask Caltech and MIT what they have to say on the topic, then investigate other options. Just a suggestion.
The Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project has done some work in the area of creating secure electronic voting machines for polling places.
Why not push for a solution that could work for everyone, in addition to your current campaign?
There are some links posted at the bottom of the Newsforge article that address the issue of Electronic VVAT.
I just got back from seeing it in Georgetown at the 9AM showing.
.. loved it .. thought it was decent, mostly because it fired people's imaginations trying to figure out the ending .. thought it was lame, disappointing
.. prepare to be disappointed. For those who got into trying to figure out all the questions/puzzles left open at the end of Matrix II .. prepare to be disappointed. I thought many of the various theories and speculated endings that people posted on USENET after Matrix II came out were far more interesting than what Matrix III turned out to be. Matrix I is definately the best one (IMO).
- Matrix I
- Matrix II
- Matrix III
For those who got into the philosophical aspects of Matrix I/II
If anyone decides to build this, it would be good to find a different name for it.
The terms Votester and Vote-ster have been in use for a few years now, and refer to online vote-selling and/or vote-trading services/technologies. There are none currently in existence. But the term was coined to highlight the possibilities and dangers of large-scale vote-selling, or large-scale vote-trading, if voting systems (for public elections) are attached to the Internet.
I first heard Dr. David Jefferson, Chair of the Technical Committee for the California Internet Voting Task Force, use this term back in 2000. Here are links to show the term's usage to date .. National Workshop on Internet Voting (11 Oct 2000), B.K. DeLong's BrainStream (25 Oct 2000), BBC News (28 Oct 2000), David Jefferson Presentation (27 Aug 2001).
Perhaps using some combination of "protest", "protester", and "Napster" would produce a name more closely reflecting the technology this write-up is describing.
OSDN .. thank you for replacing banner ads with a black graphic for 9.11 .. a simple, classy, and appropriate way to remember those who lost their lives today ..
Check out the twitch switch and other assistive technology aids that TelSol makes.
Other related links are here.
Here's the email I sent NPR ..
4 3820 0&mode=nested&tid=96
Dear NPR,
I see on slashdot that NPR demands people ask permission before people link to pages on its site.
This is outrageous. I listen to NPR every weekday. I have financially supported NPR in the past. The idea that a listener-supported news source is demanding its supporters ask permission to link to its content is unbelievable and stands in arrogant opposition to what the Internet stands for.
I can understand the "don't frame our content" restriction. But the "don't link to us" restriction needs to go. If you don't want content linked to, don't post it on the web.
The slashdot article is at
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/19/1
The CalTech-MIT report lays out a generic "modular voting architecture" called AMVA. In the description of it, the report's authors refer to it as "a new framework". After reading the AMVA section of the report, I realized that the AMVA is almost an exact duplicate of a voting system design I posted online three and a half months ago. I wrote out more details on this here.
... Introduction to Open Source and Free Software, a brief (5 page) introductory paper that is understandable to non-technical people. If your boss doesn't "get it", then maybe your boss's boss will.
There's also a book out called Embracing Insanity. It's an outstanding introduction to Open Source and Free Software that management-types and non-technical people can understand. At only 177 pages, it's a fairly quick and easy read.
Over a year ago I sold a domain name to somebody. I submitted the paper work to NSI to change possession of the domain. They still haven't done it. I eventually just changed the IP addresses on the domain to point to the new owner's hosting service, since NSI didn't do their job.
This is what government-sponsored monopolies get us. It's pretty sad. And maddening. I hope this law suit costs NSI a lot of money.
If a voter gives their feedback, the only way for it to have any impact is for your organization to verify that (a) they are qualified to vote (age, citizenship, etc) and (b) they live within one of the political jurisdictions which you are targeting.
Yet, if you know this infomation *and* you know what their political opinions are, then your databases will become a prized target for system crackers. What type of security processes do you have in place to insure that a system cracker can't tap your database and post everyone's name & vote elsewhere on the Internet?
The Operational Plan posted on your website states that you're looking for $25 million dollars of funding for the year 2000. That's a lot of money, especially considering that $21.8 million of it is to be spent on marketing and only $1.8 million is to be spent on technology. Two questions for you...
(1.) There are a lot of websites that have burned through multi-million dollar marketing budgets and ended up empty handed. Why do you think you can build a recognizable brand by simply throwing a big marketing budget at it, when so many others have failed using that exact same approach?
(2.) It seems that creating an organization which needs $25 million dollars in donations every year to survive is rather unrealistic. Since your organization is totally dependent on contributions, what is your organization going to do to fund itself next year - when there is no election to generate interest in what you're doing?
"when the CTO of a Fortune 100 company is deciding whether to commit to Linux for 50,000 new computers, he (or she) is certainly going to be demanding. They might be a little uncertain where to direct their demands, but the overall ability of the Linux community to meet her needs is going to influence that purchase decision."
Mr. Connell's assertion that it's somehow the Linux community's responsibility to meet the needs of a corporation is evidence that he doesn't quite understand how open-source software works. He's on the right path, but not quite there.
If the "CTO of a Fortune 100" company wants something fixed or changed in a piece of open-source software, they can "direct their demands" to their own staff. If they want something fixed, they're not helpless, they can fix it themself (at least with open-source they can). It's not the Linux community's responsibility to "meet her needs". It's "her" responsibility to "meet her needs".
Open-source is about being empowered to fix it yourself, not about being entitled to have someone else fix it for you.
Anyone who can afford to have "50,000 new computers" can certainly afford to hire a programmer or two to modify the software to "meet her needs".
Entitled vs Empowered.
Choose Empowered. Choose Open-Source.
-tgw
I work for an Internet start-up which uses MS technology. We converted our production web server over to Win2k in mid-January. When I heard we were going to do that I thought I'd be out of a job within a few weeks -- due to Microsoft's dismal showing in 1999 when they tried to host a "crack our server" contest on a Win2k machine and it crashed so often that no one had a chance to crack it. You can't crack a box that isn't running.
Over the past month our company has also converted an in-house test server and several developer machines over to Win2k, all of which were running a full copy of the website, including SQL Server, Site Server, Commerce Server, CyberCash, and Taxware.
I/we have been suprised that Win2k has held up rather well. Much to my surprise, none of the Win2k boxes have crashed yet. No blue-screen-of-death.
So, the bottom line is... Win2k really does seem to be more realiable than any previous version of Windows, just as MS says -- even if it does still have x thousand outstanding bugs.
This doesn't mean that the same can be said about the software running on top of the OS. Big Bill's whole "zero administration" push doesn't seem to have made it to the Site Server department at MS. While Win2k, by itself, can be cloned and copied onto new machines, don't try that with Site Server. The MS documentation explicitly states "Do not use computer-cloning software to create a Site Server computer". This is due to the fact that Site Server installs "computer-specific information that cannot be cloned". The result of this is that every single developer or test box that needs to be setup with Site Server on it has to be setup manually. Which in turn means that all of the file permissions on all of the files on the entire website have to be setup manually as well. I just converted my developer box to Win2k last week. Win2k installed fine, but manually installing all the other software, manually configuring it, manually setting the file permissions on all the files in the website, etc, etc, etc took a full two days to complete and trouble-shoot -- all thanks to Site Server's inability to be cloned.
So, Big Bill, what happened to "Zero Administration" anyway?
We're still waiting....
The TechnoDemocracy Project was recently started to create open-source voting software. Open review of the TDP code should make it more secure than the closed-source/proprietary approach traditionally used & recommended by the California task force.