Computer Science > Nova Content
Continental has developed an electronic aid as part of its ContiGuard safety concept. The Rear Cross Traffic Alert (RCTA) system uses the same radar... Read More »
The Siemens Building Technologies Division has added a unified communications solution for control centers to its Siveillance portfolio. The Siveillance Command... Read More »
A team of physicists at UC Santa Barbara has seen the light, and it comes in many different colors. By aiming high- and low-frequency laser beams at a semiconductor... Read More »
AMD today announced a collaboration with Green Hills Software, an independent vendor of embedded software, that brings its INTEGRITY real-time operating system (RTOS) ... Read More »
Agilent Technologies today released GeneSpring 12.0, a major expansion of its popular bioinformatics software designed to enable a new level of medical science... Read More »
Intel Corporation today advanced its highest-end six-core processor family with the introduction of two new processors: the Intel Core i7-3960X processor Extreme ... Read More »
University of Cincinnati researchers have been conducting real-world tests of new predictive software that increases efficiency and lowers costs when it comes to... Read More »
The Boeing Company and Elbit Systems are collaborating on a joint distributed simulation project expected to be completed this summer that will link a Boeing... Read More »
University at Buffalo computer scientists are exploring how machines can read the visual cues that give away deceit. Results so far are promising: In a... Read More »
Today, NEC Corporation of America (NEC) announced its plans to launch UNIVERGE Cloud Services, a set of enhanced Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings recently... Read More »
Today, Cisco announced that a new IT infrastructure based on Cisco Solutions has been implemented in the new office building of NTV, Russia's leading television... Read More »
We’ve seen countless real-world examples of havoc unleashed upon web sites, databases and other digital systems. However, taking control of the physical... Read More »
SAP AG today announced the availability of SAP Visual Enterprise applications, which represent the initial offerings resulting from the acquisition of Right... Read More »
Xerox and McAfee are teaming up to design a security system to help companies protect against threats to confidential data. By integrating embedded McAfee... Read More »
HP today unveiled the world’s first all-in-one workstation with a 27-inch diagonal display. The display of the new HP Z1 Workstation snaps open... Read More »
Intel has entered into a $120 million deal with RealNetworks, with the chipmaker acquiring 190 patents, 170 patent applications and a video codec development team --... Read More »
Comments
Ryan GreyInteresting article. Truly wondering where RealNetworks is heading. I wasn't even sure if they were still around.
Feb 1, 2012
The last 20 years have seen unprecedented advances in the realm of computer science and engineering. One area that remains remarkably traditional, however, is voting.
... Read More »
Comments
Nicholas PellI'm sort of confused by this response. My intention in writing this piece was to present a balanced account of the issues surrounding electronic vs. paper ballots. To that end, I even included innovations suggested by Dr. Mercuri regarding how to improve paper balloting. I further drew attention to present challenges in the field.
While I wholeheartedly agree that there are difficult challenges ensuring both transparency and accountability with regard to electronic voting, I find it hard to believe that such challenges are insurmountable. In fairness, Dr. Mercuri knows more about this than I do, but then again, so does Mr. Wallach.
As I expressed privately in an email, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would come out of this thinking electronic voting is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Little content seems to indicate that present technologies are up to the task. Indeed, if anything, I think this article presents electronic voting as a sort of boondoggle -- taxpayers are overcharged for ineffective services that don't deliver what they promise.
I am, of course, always unhappy when an interview subject is displeased with an article. In this case, however, I'm not clear on what I could have done to please Dr. Mercuri, short of trashing the entire concept of electronic voting in toto.
While I wholeheartedly agree that there are difficult challenges ensuring both transparency and accountability with regard to electronic voting, I find it hard to believe that such challenges are insurmountable. In fairness, Dr. Mercuri knows more about this than I do, but then again, so does Mr. Wallach.
As I expressed privately in an email, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would come out of this thinking electronic voting is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Little content seems to indicate that present technologies are up to the task. Indeed, if anything, I think this article presents electronic voting as a sort of boondoggle -- taxpayers are overcharged for ineffective services that don't deliver what they promise.
I am, of course, always unhappy when an interview subject is displeased with an article. In this case, however, I'm not clear on what I could have done to please Dr. Mercuri, short of trashing the entire concept of electronic voting in toto.
Jan 10, 2012
RT MercuriWow, what an amazingly incorrect piece!
Electronic voting machines are considerably MORE difficult to audit than traditional methods, since they can be programmed to delete their own code so that it is very hard (if not impossible) to catch if they are cheating.
There is absolutely nothing simple in the design of a microprocessor-based system with millions of transistors. Dan's example of the older microprocessors as somehow obsolete is incorrect -- the less complicated devices have stood the test of time (we call it "debugged") and offer FEWER features that can be exploited to insert back-door attacks into the system.
Larger ballots INCREASE both programming, setup, and pre-election testing costs on computers, as well as increase complexity in checking for correctness.
It has been proven that ballot tracking using computers can be thwarted and spoofed -- what does it mater if the ballot is tracked if it is recorded incorrectly by the computer to begin with? -- so this is a false assurance.
The same is true about multiple voting machines keeping copies -- computer scientists call this GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out -- if the ballot is incorrectly recorded on one machine it will be replicated with the same incorrectness on multiple others.
What is actually obsolete, is the idea that self-auditing electronic voting systems are somehow secure or an improvement over paper-based methods. Heck, even Homer Simpson experienced a "vote flip" -- press for one candidate, the machine records your vote for someone else. This is no joke, it does happen. We even have a video showing machines being tested in a Pennsylvania certification where the vote flipped right before the eyes of the examiner -- guess what, the machines were passed and allowed to be purchased!
And as for those talking voting machines -- well we've seen those do an audio vote flip too -- say one thing, record another (happens for the foreign language ballots as well). Unfortunately, the voter doesn't know it's happening.
I continue to fail to understand how presumably intelligent people are able to convince themselves that somehow the computer, with all of its known complexity and flaws and viruses and glitches, is in any way capable of providing the transparency and independent auditability that is required for government elections. Perhaps it is because voting is really a religion, so faith-based electronic solutions will continue to be promoted, and writers will be hypnotized into spreading the fantasy that a new crop of devices, just around the corner, somehow will really will work as advertised. Dream on.
I'm looking forward to reading Nicholas Pell's article on global warming.
R. Mercuri
Electronic voting machines are considerably MORE difficult to audit than traditional methods, since they can be programmed to delete their own code so that it is very hard (if not impossible) to catch if they are cheating.
There is absolutely nothing simple in the design of a microprocessor-based system with millions of transistors. Dan's example of the older microprocessors as somehow obsolete is incorrect -- the less complicated devices have stood the test of time (we call it "debugged") and offer FEWER features that can be exploited to insert back-door attacks into the system.
Larger ballots INCREASE both programming, setup, and pre-election testing costs on computers, as well as increase complexity in checking for correctness.
It has been proven that ballot tracking using computers can be thwarted and spoofed -- what does it mater if the ballot is tracked if it is recorded incorrectly by the computer to begin with? -- so this is a false assurance.
The same is true about multiple voting machines keeping copies -- computer scientists call this GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out -- if the ballot is incorrectly recorded on one machine it will be replicated with the same incorrectness on multiple others.
What is actually obsolete, is the idea that self-auditing electronic voting systems are somehow secure or an improvement over paper-based methods. Heck, even Homer Simpson experienced a "vote flip" -- press for one candidate, the machine records your vote for someone else. This is no joke, it does happen. We even have a video showing machines being tested in a Pennsylvania certification where the vote flipped right before the eyes of the examiner -- guess what, the machines were passed and allowed to be purchased!
And as for those talking voting machines -- well we've seen those do an audio vote flip too -- say one thing, record another (happens for the foreign language ballots as well). Unfortunately, the voter doesn't know it's happening.
I continue to fail to understand how presumably intelligent people are able to convince themselves that somehow the computer, with all of its known complexity and flaws and viruses and glitches, is in any way capable of providing the transparency and independent auditability that is required for government elections. Perhaps it is because voting is really a religion, so faith-based electronic solutions will continue to be promoted, and writers will be hypnotized into spreading the fantasy that a new crop of devices, just around the corner, somehow will really will work as advertised. Dream on.
I'm looking forward to reading Nicholas Pell's article on global warming.
R. Mercuri
Jan 10, 2012
The surprising discovery of a new way to change thermal conductivity – a basic property generally considered fixed for any specific material – gives... Read More »
Back in the day, the United States – when it came to the automotive industry – was in the driver's seat.
But this is no longer the... Read More »
It’s official -- two of the most powerful people in tech are women. Perhaps more interestingly, they’re also bitter rivals. As of January 1, 2012, Ginni... Read More »