Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Urgh...I hated that book. (Score 1) 227

I don't know how Heinlen gets so much credit for this's was a rambling, shambolic pulp thing with sex and politics wedged into it at every opportunity in a vain attempt to perk it up a bit. It's not a book that has "stood the test of time" at all. If there's money for classic SciFi, we need someone to get off their butts and make "RingWorld". It's time.

Comment Victim of a troll? Not how I'd see it. (Score 1) 820

I take it you haven't seen the so-called Pied Piper memo?

It wasn't Daddy's money and influence propelling Trump over the past year, it was Hillary's. As disturbing as that revelation was to me, I can only imagine how Trump took it. He must feel like the victim of the world's most elaborate troll.

I don't think the president-elect feels like a victim of anything. The Democrats thought they were being clever when they had their media allies pump him up in the primaries, but they ended up only helping him win the election in the end.

Comment Re:Paper... (Score 2) 209

The "dye a finger" thing has some concerns. In some elections, you really want a certain class of person to just not vote. The dyed finger is proof that you voted - and it's hard to wash off (intentionally, obviously). So the bad guy can threaten to beat the crap out of people who voted and still gain an edge. This isn't a theoretical problem.

Of course, you can achieve a similar effect by simply hanging out outside the voting location and noting which people went inside.

But the easier you make it, the more chance of abuse.

Comment Universal Hack (Score 1) 209

So to pull this off you need (a) a voting machine to play with to learn the techniques and (b) physical access to every voting machine you need to influence.

My approach is to make a completely fake voting machine, with the same interfaces as the real thing - and just swap the whole machine out when I have physical access to it.

This thought-experiment shows that with those two things (a machine to play with and physical access) there is no conceivable security measure that'll be 100% effective. So control access to the physical machines and your problem is solved.

Comment Put a picture of Mickey Mouse on the ballot paper. (Score 1) 248

So, this is easy. We just have to turn this over to the public sector. We pay Disney a small fee to put a picture of Mickey Mouse on every ballot paper. If people photograph it and post the pictures then Disney can sue the pants off them for copyright violation.

Problem solved - and as a plus we can subtly reinforce the idea that voting for Mickey Mouse as a write-in candidate might be a better idea than any of the other choices!

Comment Re:Take photo: yes - Post photo:no (Score 1) 248

You have it backwards. You can't ban the posting of the photo without infringing the constitutional right to free speech. You CAN ban the talking of the photo in the first place by the simple expedient of banning the use of cameras in the polling station. We already ban photography in courts and on military bases and in some other government facilities. The polling station is no different in principle to those other places. It's ridiculously easy (and constitutional) to ban the use of cameras in polling stations - it would be wildly unconstitutional to ban the sharing of those photos.

Comment Re:Right problem, wrong solution (Score 1) 248

The law should prevent TAKING the photograph - not SHARING a photograph that you already took. A law preventing people from sharing the photo would (arguably) be a violation of free speech...and would be blown away as unconstitutional. A law preventing people from taking photographs inside the polling station would be no different than the laws preventing you from taking photos during a trial or on a military base - no different than the copyright laws - no different than the child pornography laws. All of those limit your right to take a photograph - and the constitution says nothing about any special rights in that regard.

If someone were to take a photo of their ballot (illegally) and share it on Facebook - the crime would be of having taken the photo - not of sharing it. Sharing it would be evidence that you broke the law by taking the selfie in the first making it illegal to take the photo would be a strong disincentive to share it if you did.

We don't have to make this any harder than it already is. "No Photography within the bounds of a polling station" is a perfectly good law with ZERO downsides.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?