As a long time reader of comp.risks, and having a professional interest in security (as a sysadmin), I'll take this opportunity to say that anyone who is promoting online voting as a replacement for paper ballots is (in my opinion) one or more of a)Hopelessly naive, b)Frighteningly optimistic, c)Woefully ignorant of the problems of authentication combined with anonymity, d)Ignoring the problems of coercion, or (worst of all) e) Willing to accept vote tampering. I do not seriously think that the Electoral Commissioner would be willing to accept vote tampering, but every electronic or online system has been demonstrated to be vulnerable to it. Worse, such attacks can occur at any point, be it in corrupt coding, interference with the ballots, or by injecting forged ballots. All of these have be proven to be possible in every practical and theoretical system proposed to date. This is ignoring the problem of d) - if the voting is not occurring in a public place, how do you prove that t...
LOL,, love it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a metallurgist, so I have to ask...
ReplyDeleteIsn't that 20% difference in temperature significant to the claim he's debunking? I mean 20% is a lot. If we're talking about water, 20% is the difference between not boiling at all , and completely vaporised.
I'm not a truth-er, but I am a through-and-through sceptic. If you're trying to debunk a claim with very specific parameters, knowingly going 20% outside of those parameters doesn't help your credibility.
Nah the difference is not that huge. You can forge steel down through red hot at 800 C.
ReplyDeleteIf you took it down 300 degrees, he would have had to use two fingers instead of one.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why people bother trying to debunk the conspiracy theorists. They are not interested in the facts, they are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in making noise. And it is like a religion to them. No proof will ever be enough proof for them. None. So don't bother.