Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:41:48AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > It's not that contrived [1]. In any case, are you saying that you > > don't care whether people can use software to do extreme ironing? > > Debian makes sure that terrorists, nuclear bomb makers, wall street > > analysts, and the IRS can use the software, but we suddenly don't care > > about elections and extreme ironing? > > The question is not whether simple-interface voting machines are plausible > or useful or posses some other virtue. > > > [1] http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/vtp_WP2.pdf > > I don't see anything in that report indicating that the voting machines > should be tuning or creating the file system underlying the files.
That is what "initializing the frog" might do. > More generally, I do believe that there are practical problems created > by the "must display credits" license. For example, consider a general > purpose OS environment designed for the deaf (where reducing the number > of phonemes spewed by programs is a driving issue). > > The problem with the voting machine example is that voting machines are > special purpose devices -- they should have any file systems (possibly > redundant file systems) created before they're deployed, and if something > goes wrong with the file system it should NOT be manipulated in the field. > That kind of manipulation could lead to fraud, and so should be conducted > in a highly controlled and auditable environment. This is not the voting machine. It is the frog (small hardware token). Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
