Consumer Electronics > Nova Content
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
Today Sony Corporation announced that it has named Kazuro Hirai as President and Chief Executive Officer, replacing Sir Howard Stringer who is to become Chairman of... Read More »
Samsung has won a battle against Apple this week in the Netherlands, where a Dutch court has denied Apple's bid to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. This ruling... Read More »
Apple spent a lot of 2011 in court (either directly, or in disguise), attempting to keep competitors’ smartphones and tablets off the market. If patent... Read More »
Comments
Zhi PengApple needs to relax with this, just get over the fact the touchscreen smartphone is way of future.
Jan 27, 2012
Engineers at Brown University have designed a biochip that could mean a less invasive method of testing glucose levels for people living with diabetes. A new sensor... Read More »
The Board of Directors of BlackBerry® maker Research In Motion (RIM) today announced that, acting on the recommendation of its Co-Chief Executive Officers to... Read More »
Comments
Andrei IvanovSeems that RIM is struggling to bandage its wounds after several missteps this year. Given the rise of Android and iPhones, I'm curious how Blackberry will try and remain relevant given its archaic keyboard and touchscreen tech.
Jan 23, 2012
Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute have combined two worlds --quantum physics and nano physics -- and this has led to the discovery of a new method for laser... Read More »
Samsung's continued international patent war with Apple has resulted in both victories and losses for the smartphone giant who recently passed Apple in the third... Read More »
Apple® today announced iBooks® 2 for iPad®, featuring iBooks textbooks, a dynamic kind of textbook. iBooks textbooks offer iPad users fullscreen textbooks ... Read More »
The Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is one of the most ballyhooed events in the world of tech. CES has gained a reputation over the years as the place where new... Read More »
At the Consumer Electronics Show, there’s always one technology or product line that seems to rocket to the top of the market. At last year’s CES, tablet... Read More »
At the 2012 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, CNET announced its "Best of CES 2012" award winners. Here are the top innovations in... Read More »
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
French antitrust regulator, Autorite de la Concurrence, rejected HP's request that Oracle be forced to adjust pricing on database software that uses Itanium... Read More »
Imagine an iPad application that allows a soldier to pilot an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) fitted with an inexpensive metal detector several inches off the ground... Read More »
On Dec 19, 2011, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in Apple v HTC. In the original complaint, Apple had claimed that HTC (currently the largest... Read More »
When one tiny circuit within an integrated chip cracks or fails, the whole chip – or even the whole device – is often lost. But what if the circuit could... Read More »
In the future, you won’t crack open your wallet and pull out a card. This formerly cutting edge method of payment will fall by the wayside in favor of the... Read More »
The surprising discovery of a new way to change thermal conductivity – a basic property generally considered fixed for any specific material – gives... Read More »
Scientists from the University of Washington in Seattle have actually developed a functioning bionic contact lens prototype with a built-in antenna and a single LED... Read More »