Heh, exactly. #1 complaint I've always heard about Macs? "Oh, you have to drag the disk to the Trash to eject it, that's not intuitive."
This complaint is crap. You don't have to drag the disk to the Trash to eject it.
In Mac OS X you can also eject a disk by clicking the eject button in the Finder. Which makes good sense as a UI operation, especially since you "eject" other mediums (shares, usb disk, iPods,...) the same way. The morphing Trash icon in the Dock is simply a short cut. If you use the Desktop a lot, it's actually quite handy.
GnomeMeeting doesn't need a version on MacOSX or on windows as it respects a protocol, unlike Skype. So any softphone respecting the same protocol will be compatible.
So far I haven't heard of any.
Also I read they were looking for a Mac OS X machine, so if you are ready to contribute, feel free to contact them.
Are you suggesting, that I'd donate a Mac machine to them, so in turn I get a OS X version? Boy, I am ready to contribute to the project, but certainly not in this way.
I really like The Streets, but I had my first exposure to him at a festival in Germany. He simply rocked the crowd. Awesome concert. So, whenever I hear his music, the good memories of this festival come back.
Try hitting the key in Photoshop, it hides all the floating windows. Then learn the keyboard shortcuts for the various tools. They are shown in the tooltip for a quick reminder, too.
Evolution is not merely a theory, but a fact that has been observed in real life. Evolution is the overall concept that unifies the biological sciences and is about as disputed as gravity.
What is discussed in the in the scientific community are the actual workings of evolution. The first theory was Darwin's (Survival Of The Fittest), but other mechanism have been proposed.
I find it interesting that computer geeks reject evolution as a concept when applied to life, when it has been successfully applied to software, i.e. genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation.
The first part of the article is so utter bullshit. It's either pure propaganda or Declan McCullagh is totally out of his mind. I stopped reading any further.
Just because the routes from Japan to UK go through America right now (probably for performance reasons), doesn't mean that different routes do not exist. There are backup links all over the place (including the backbones), albeit not as speedy.
> Furthermore, since we have no trust in 4, > we should need some sort of physical > representation of the vote that the VOTER > can use to verify that the vote was cast as > he wanted.
This contradicts your second point that the vote is secret/anonymous. Also it is not the case right now with paper and pencil voting. Once you stuff you vote in the ballot box you have no way of identifying it other then secretly marking it. Good luck then.
So, how is this different from printing out (possibly screwed with) electronic data?
I do agree that the the code should be open sourced though. I also think that producing the code should not be a corporate effort, ie. other than paying the programmer, no company should get a profit from providing the software.
My biggest beef with electronic voting so far has been the lack of a paper trail. I've come to think that this argument is flawed though. To find out whether the election has been tampered with you use exit polls. It doesn't matter then whether the votes are counted on paper or electronically. (I haven't really thought this all through yet, maybe I overlooked something.)
I still do think that electronic voting is a solution looking for a problem, though. I helped in a federal election once in Germany and judging from the fact that the all of the (western) world manages to do just fine with paper and pencil voting, I don't see the significant benefits that electronic voting could provide.
Some posters have suggested that electronic voting was rushed in these primaries because of the problems you had in the 2000 elections. I'm talking of the punchcard problems and so on. What I don't understand is that you had to implement a whole new system on an almost nationwide scale instead of looking around for solutions that have proven themselves for decades in the rest of the world? You're essentially in a huge beta-testing program right now.
Regarding the bias: In all the instances where the voter did not really follow the instructions but the vote is counted anyway, the people doing the counting, vote (d'uh!) on how to handle that vote. Also all these questionable votes (along with non-valid votes) are put into an extra box, and the public can demand to see them at any time up two the point were the official result is announced (usually two weeks after the election).
Your point that it's sometimes (should I say often?) hard to figure out what another person meant is very valid. But I would argue that voting on a ballot is an inherently incomplex system. Your 2nd amendment on the other hand -- entirely different category.
Look at it this way: To grade a multiple choice test is easy. To grade an essay is not.
> But, there are things computers are really > good at - such as counting. And things humans > are bad at, such as deciding what counts as a > dimple versus a handing chad.
One thing were humans are better than computers is figuring out what another human meant to do as opposed to what he actually did. The computer always does what you tell him to do, not what you meant to tell him to do.
To clarify: The voting procedures in Germany state that the will of the person voting has to be clear. So, if for example the person crosses out all candidates, but one, that vote is counted towards the candidate not crossed out. How do you a program a computer to do that, deterministically?
> A receipt that displays your voter id number, > the vote you cast in clear text then maybe even > the hash value just to be sure.
That way your vote can be bought by people that you are dependant off. Eg, you're boss tells you: "If you want to keep your job, show me you voted for [insert-candidate-name-here]." And for those of you who think I'm overly against corparations (which I am), it could also be a very authoritarien father telling his children: "As long as you put your feet under my table, you'll vote for..."
That's why elections are secret: There's no way to prove that you voted for a particular candidate.
The reason this works are exit polls. If a large enough random group of a population is sampled, the margin of error is insignifantly small. This does work with electronic voting as well (I think), but I still prefer a paper trail.
BTW, I once helped in a federal election in Germany (1998). It was the easiest job I ever had: I was sitting next to the ballot box and had to cross off a number each time a vote was dropped into the box. I used the six hours I sat next to the box to study for a history exam next day.
We (six or so people) needed about two hours to count all some-thousand votes in our box. Very rewarding experience. I got paid 50 Marks (about 25 Dollars) for the effort. Yeah, shitty pay, but think about it that way: I got paid for studying for school.
It is not verboten, it's just not sung anymore in public. And our national anthem is usually just the melody of the "Lied der Deutschen" without any of the text.
Nope. SCO can't distribute any versions of nmap anymore. The statement by Fyodor is not an alteration of the GPL. He simply states that SCO, by not accepting the GPL as a distribution license, have no right to distribute nmap at all.
Of course, unless Fyodor sues SCO, they might simply continue to distribute it, just to even more piss everybody off.
Especially, when you consider that fetchmailconf is his proof that's it's so easy to write good programs in Python.
I'm not trying to say that Python sucks, quite the opposite. I'm just glad that I'm smart enough to figure out the fetchmailrc syntax by reading the manuals. That way I don't have to figure out that GUI monstrosity of a configuration tool.
> You speak of tolerance, but none of the anti-racists is tolerant.
Huh? Your so-called anti-racists only extend tolerance to people who extend this tolerance in return. It's an application of the Golden Rule. Thus your anti-racists have no tolerance towards racists. I mean, that's the whole point.
Also regarding your fear about political correctness in what you're writing: If you say e.g. "women can't drive", then I can assure you that this is not racist.
Slashdot Mirror
This complaint is crap. You don't have to drag the disk to the Trash to eject it.
In Mac OS X you can also eject a disk by clicking the eject button in the Finder. Which makes good sense as a UI operation, especially since you "eject" other mediums (shares, usb disk, iPods,
So far I haven't heard of any.
Are you suggesting, that I'd donate a Mac machine to them, so in turn I get a OS X version? Boy, I am ready to contribute to the project, but certainly not in this way.
Until gnomemeeting gets popular and puts out a useful Mac OS X version, gnomemeeting is hype.
I find it very unfortunate, but right now there is no free software solution for voice over ip that Just Works, the way Skype Just Works.
When there is one I will switch immediately.
I really like The Streets, but I had my first exposure to him at a festival in Germany. He simply rocked the crowd. Awesome concert. So, whenever I hear his music, the good memories of this festival come back.
Damnit. I meant the -key. I know, should've used Preview, bla bla bla.
Try hitting the key in Photoshop, it hides all the floating windows. Then learn the keyboard shortcuts for the various tools. They are shown in the tooltip for a quick reminder, too.
1 cm = 10 mm, so 417 mm = 41.7 cm. Nice try.
Evolution is not merely a theory, but a fact that has been observed in real life. Evolution is the overall concept that unifies the biological sciences and is about as disputed as gravity.
What is discussed in the in the scientific community are the actual workings of evolution. The first theory was Darwin's (Survival Of The Fittest), but other mechanism have been proposed.
I find it interesting that computer geeks reject evolution as a concept when applied to life, when it has been successfully applied to software, i.e. genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation.
The first part of the article is so utter bullshit. It's either pure propaganda or Declan McCullagh is totally out of his mind. I stopped reading any further.
Why would you raid a place and alert the world to your presence if the goal is to monitor ongoing traffic?
Reverse psychology?
Hitler was born in Austria, but in 1925 he dropped Austrian citizenship. Later, in 1932, he got the Germany citizenship.
Yeah, but it's missing the 'ß' (sharp s).
Simple. Ein großer Nazi. It's easier if you have a German keyboard in front of you.
Just because the routes from Japan to UK go through America right now (probably for performance reasons), doesn't mean that different routes do not exist. There are backup links all over the place (including the backbones), albeit not as speedy.
> Furthermore, since we have no trust in 4,
> we should need some sort of physical
> representation of the vote that the VOTER
> can use to verify that the vote was cast as
> he wanted.
This contradicts your second point that the vote is secret/anonymous. Also it is not the case right now with paper and pencil voting. Once you stuff you vote in the ballot box you have no way of identifying it other then secretly marking it. Good luck then.
So, how is this different from printing out (possibly screwed with) electronic data?
I do agree that the the code should be open sourced though. I also think that producing the code should not be a corporate effort, ie. other than paying the programmer, no company should get a profit from providing the software.
My biggest beef with electronic voting so far has been the lack of a paper trail. I've come to think that this argument is flawed though. To find out whether the election has been tampered with you use exit polls. It doesn't matter then whether the votes are counted on paper or electronically. (I haven't really thought this all through yet, maybe I overlooked something.)
I still do think that electronic voting is a solution looking for a problem, though. I helped in a federal election once in Germany and judging from the fact that the all of the (western) world manages to do just fine with paper and pencil voting, I don't see the significant benefits that electronic voting could provide.
Some posters have suggested that electronic voting was rushed in these primaries because of the problems you had in the 2000 elections. I'm talking of the punchcard problems and so on. What I don't understand is that you had to implement a whole new system on an almost nationwide scale instead of looking around for solutions that have proven themselves for decades in the rest of the world? You're essentially in a huge beta-testing program right now.
Regarding the bias: In all the instances where the voter did not really follow the instructions but the vote is counted anyway, the people doing the counting, vote (d'uh!) on how to handle that vote. Also all these questionable votes (along with non-valid votes) are put into an extra box, and the public can demand to see them at any time up two the point were the official result is announced (usually two weeks after the election).
Your point that it's sometimes (should I say often?) hard to figure out what another person meant is very valid. But I would argue that voting on a ballot is an inherently incomplex system. Your 2nd amendment on the other hand -- entirely different category.
Look at it this way: To grade a multiple choice test is easy. To grade an essay is not.
> But, there are things computers are really
> good at - such as counting. And things humans
> are bad at, such as deciding what counts as a
> dimple versus a handing chad.
One thing were humans are better than computers is figuring out what another human meant to do as opposed to what he actually did. The computer always does what you tell him to do, not what you meant to tell him to do.
To clarify: The voting procedures in Germany state that the will of the person voting has to be clear. So, if for example the person crosses out all candidates, but one, that vote is counted towards the candidate not crossed out. How do you a program a computer to do that, deterministically?
> A receipt that displays your voter id number,
..."
> the vote you cast in clear text then maybe even
> the hash value just to be sure.
That way your vote can be bought by people that you are dependant off. Eg, you're boss tells you: "If you want to keep your job, show me you voted for [insert-candidate-name-here]." And for those of you who think I'm overly against corparations (which I am), it could also be a very authoritarien father telling his children: "As long as you put your feet under my table, you'll vote for
That's why elections are secret: There's no way to prove that you voted for a particular candidate.
The reason this works are exit polls. If a large enough random group of a population is sampled, the margin of error is insignifantly small. This does work with electronic voting as well (I think), but I still prefer a paper trail.
BTW, I once helped in a federal election in Germany (1998). It was the easiest job I ever had: I was sitting next to the ballot box and had to cross off a number each time a vote was dropped into the box. I used the six hours I sat next to the box to study for a history exam next day.
We (six or so people) needed about two hours to count all some-thousand votes in our box. Very rewarding experience. I got paid 50 Marks (about 25 Dollars) for the effort. Yeah, shitty pay, but think about it that way: I got paid for studying for school.
It is not verboten, it's just not sung anymore in public. And our national anthem is usually just the melody of the "Lied der Deutschen" without any of the text.
Nope. SCO can't distribute any versions of nmap anymore. The statement by Fyodor is not an alteration of the GPL. He simply states that SCO, by not accepting the GPL as a distribution license, have no right to distribute nmap at all.
Of course, unless Fyodor sues SCO, they might simply continue to distribute it, just to even more piss everybody off.
fetchmail itself is written in C, but fetchmailconf is written in Python.
Especially, when you consider that fetchmailconf is his proof that's it's so easy to write good programs in Python.
I'm not trying to say that Python sucks, quite the opposite. I'm just glad that I'm smart enough to figure out the fetchmailrc syntax by reading the manuals. That way I don't have to figure out that GUI monstrosity of a configuration tool.
> All Orks are green ;-]
Are you from Germany? Because here all Orks are, in fact, green.
> You speak of tolerance, but none of the anti-racists is tolerant.
Huh? Your so-called anti-racists only extend tolerance to people who extend this tolerance in return. It's an application of the Golden Rule. Thus your anti-racists have no tolerance towards racists. I mean, that's the whole point.
Also regarding your fear about political correctness in what you're writing: If you say e.g. "women can't drive", then I can assure you that this is not racist.