Someone vested with authority to perform marriages is not neccisarily a government official. Those conducting a marriage have been licensed to perform marriages.
The one handing out the licenses, however, is an official of the state. That btw, is why Gavin Newsome is not in as much hot water as his city officials who granted the licenses in San Fransisco of late.
Sometimes it also involves a mandatory health check-up and/or education courses.
Again, here I can only conclude that you are talking about the issuence of a license, not performing the marriage since that is a requirement for being granted a license only. After that a couple with a license is not married until the ceremony is performed by someone vested with the authority by the state. And (hopefully) they can choose to marry whom they will.
And the issuance of a license is nothing that religions have a part in now (except that their members vote like everyone else).
All I'm saying, is that the state should "subsidize" all loving couples, who raise children -- regardless of their sexuality and stop subsidizing childless loving couples -- also without regard for their sexuality. I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
This is rather confusing then. Are you saying that couples that have children should be subsidized? How?
What about childless couples that want children? Should they be subsidized? How? And why?
Again, love and commitment is nothing the state has an interest in. Its a kind of justice is blind thing. Some areas we simply do not expect the state to find out, either becuase it is entirely too invasive, impossible to determine without a thought reader/crystal ball to read the future. And in this case its both.
All the state asks is "do you do this on your own accord(/by your own free will and choice)". Meaning do you really want to get married? Thats all it does to try to get inside the heads of the participants. The contract specifies other criteria, like both sexes need to be represented, health and other concerns based on the (assumed) capacity of the two entering into the contract to have children.
So what is it you wish to change?
It is thus foolish to reward the Marriage itself, merely because of its potential for child bearing and raising,
There is no foolishness in rewarding people for respecting their procreative powers (whether excersized or not) by commiting to marriage. But you do provide an interesting perspective. However, as a marriage is a display that two people are willing to work with each other in a condition where children are possible, for the sake of the children, I see the move to reward marriage as wisdom. It acts as a more against the illegitimacy, single-parenting, and other problems that invoke a social cost on the child, and in turn on the society that has to deal with that child. Indeed, to fall-back from that more to simple after children are born sows the wind and reaps the whirlwind.
I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
This is unimporant to me. You suggest it should be subsidized, and that is the point I've spoken to in this thread. Granted the subsidy I'm speaking to is adoption and various third party techniques in having children, not raising them. In that way we may be (but I don't think we are) talking past each other.
But be warned, one of the most heinous acts I've ever been privy to was a mother who demanded her 14 year old daughter get pregnant so they could increase their welfare income! Any step you or others take to encouraging this type of behaviour by only giving money to child bearers will meet with stiff opposition from myself and others on grounds entirely different than we have presented so far.
Its not what is neccisary for a family, but what is optimal for a family. The state regognizes marriages so that it can help foster the optimal environemnt for families (as the creation of family is one of the greatest expressions of individuality that we hold to as a society).
I can just see the confusion that happens if we start trying to constitution what is or what is not a family. Someone starts walking across the landscape of scenarios asking "Am I a family now? Am I a family now?"
My idea is that it is the child-rearing by a couple and not their marriage per se, that is important to the Society.
If by marriage you mean "a love and commitment relationship between two people" then I couldn't agree with you more. The state, that I know of, expresses no interest in a couple's love and commitment (although two people getting married will). As discussed in the 800lb gorilla link, it would most certainly be impossible and unconstitutional for the state to even try.
However, marriage means more than that to many people. Marriage as the foundation for a family and potential for child bearing and raising (as its always been understood to be by the people making and sustaining the laws we have) is just the interest you are speaking to. As you said, "My idea is that it is the child-rearing by a couple... that is important to the Society."
Also, we will simply disagree in that I do not find homosexuality something that the state has interest in subsidising. However I will note that it is contradictory to argue that "any couple involved in child-rearing deserves the 'subsidy' -- regardless of their sexual orientation," and suggest that homosexuality should be subsidised as it is most definately regarding sexual orientation. Asking the state to regard homosexuality (a sexual orientation) worthy of subsidy is asking the state to regard sexual orientation! In contrast, infertility (a handicap) is worthy of subsidy and does not consider sexual orientation as handicaps are considered worthy of compensation regardless of sexual orientation.
I'm not proposing the Law redefines marriage or, indeed, its consummation. I suggest, these definitions are left to people with their religious beliefs, convictions, and prejudices and have no legal meaning.
As they are currently. In this point we seem agree that nothing that needs to change. Whats important is that marriage is the entrance to a family, and we acnkowledge that procreative power has been bestowed by whatever forces created us to heterosexual couples.
We agree, that two adults are better for a child's development than one,
I appreciate this effort in comprimise. As your statements and my statements both seem to say that I can give you that as a true statement. However that does not mean that I believe that any two adults are better than any other two. Indeed a family based with representatives of both genders is clearly advantaged.
In our society raising your own children is the norm (and even a sought after goal), and while that goal exists homosexuals who are incapable of producing "their own" children will be disadvantaged. That is not solely due to social stigma as research suggests that homosexual couples are only about as good as single parent families or divorced couples. Which we would both agree are only intermediary fall-back positions for people who have not obtained the goal of a solid family.
and that the adults' homosexuality does not seem to be inherently detrimental to the child's development...
Your word "inherently" is useful here. As you say "does not seem to inherently" only speaks to the ambigiuty of current studies to pinpoint if sexual orientation of parents determins much of an outcome as the consequences of their lifestyle choice shout much clearer in the compendium of research. For instance, it is argued that the research that shows homosexual couples as about as good a parents as single-parent or divorced couples are a contravance that homosexual couples with children fit in either of the afore mentioned categories.
What this means to some is that homosexual couples are just not given a fair shake in the study. And that ambiguity leads to the conclusion that "the adults' homosexuality does not seem to be inherently detrimental to the child's development." However, in the
There are no statistics that show, children in homosexual couples grow better or worse off.
One of the problems is that you have such a wide gammut of heterosexual couples to compare too. When it comes down to it, the current research seems to indicate that a homosexual couple is slightly more successful in raising children than single parent families. Your suggestion that actual child birth (or adoption) consumates a marriage is interesting, and certainly speaks to the need for marriage.
However Adoption should be considered as a way to help infertile couples overcome a handicapp. There is a value to the state in helping people compensate for things they naturally would be capable of. Its demonstrated in the parking spaces, ramps, wheelchairs around us. However I do not support what would amount to being a subsidy for homosexuality (debated in sig).
The actual acts of marriage should stop being administered by the State
Actually the state just recognizes marriages. Well not entirely true, the State does provide a purely secular "Justice of the Peace" that performs marriages. The 800lb gorilla dictates that the state has a deep secular interest in marriage (just in case you feel the state should get out of the "marriage" business as in getting out of the religious morass of marriage). Besides, pushing the debate from marriage to "Civil Unions" does not remove the morass it just plays a shell game with the confusion. Its like arranging the deck chairs in the Titanic.
This way, the Society will reward exactly those it should want to, regardless of their sexual orientation, which is not, regretfully, a voluntary choice, it seems.
This is where the question turns. Is Homosexuality a disability or not? Is it a handicap? It certainly has the elements. One, the person can not choose out of their condition (as you suggest is true for homosexuals). Second it is diabilitating (as homosexual couples cannot reproduce). Yet no where is homosexuality considered a handicap. In my review, the strongest indicator of ones sexual preference is their personal choice. People can change.
I liken it to hypocondria, another condition where the person feels it is in their body not in their mind (even though hypocondria may in fact be determined in part by genetic and environmental factors also). While hypocondria (as with homosexualiy) appears to be changeable (I don't use the word cured because one isn't cured of a choice) they find that a large portion of them simply walk away whenever it is suggested in the discussion that they have the power to change their outlook on life. They leave when it is suggested that "its in your mind".
Funny enough this is discussed in my Journal, right now at this moment.
Fortunately for the moment, this procedure and same-gender unions are different subjects. Unless one of those in the same-gender union was a genetically engineered mutant newborn (becuase they didn't expect to live more than a few years). No, not remotely will we see this entering the debate of homosexual unions.
And you are right. Whether the labratory or simply hiring a prostitute, same-sex couples can pretend to have the same capabilities as heterosexual couples. This capability has been around for a very long time. Not this or IVF or any other advancement will alter that debate.
Funny, I didn't think it was flaimbait or trolling when I wrote it. Nor did I think NPR was trolling when they reported it.
I personally think a congestion charge is a good thing. Here where I live we have lanes we can use to bypass traffic, for a charge. As traffic increases that charge goes up. It is free however for people with more than one person in the car. Its so successful that they are widening it to equal to the number of "freeway" lanes.
It seems to me that any settlement on behalf of the people should result in compensation going directly to the people involved. And compensation is always half of a rememdy.
I've just got to say, I think Marcello's done a great job on the 2.4 series. For having to be part political leader, part CS genious, and part referee he's not given many people a reason to complain.
You bring up an interesting point. I wonder what it would take to create a whole house AC/DC converter. Once in DC its an easy step up or down to the proper voltage for a PC, or any other number of little gadgets that incorporate transformers on them.
Hmm, I only now electronics from one class in Physics so I coudn't comment on it much now. I should look into it though.
I can imagine a 45V supply running through to outlets that support the circle jacks of DC/DC converters. Maybe 12V? Most devices that use bulky transformer plugs probably standardize on 9V or less because they are meant to use batteries anyway. PC's run on 5V, no?
In my limited knowlege it seems that down in the 9V range should be pretty safe.
I don't know. And by the end of this I may or may not wind up agreeing with you.
I've been to plenty of custom car shows with truely top line participants. And their work is pretty good. I remember a Hurtz in the dB drag racing competition that had a better custom integrated G4 than the one shown on slashdot here a few months ago. The workmanship was pretty nice, for the $30,000 price tag.
But even then you could tell it was "custom". Wavey plastic that didn't meet the seems well, etc... All to often shoddy plastic work is covered up with carpet (yuck!). Doing plastic work has been the bain of car customization. I think that is why the really cool custom cars do steel, wood, etc... Natural materials that look cooler than plastic but are also much easier to work with. And you know what? It shows.
This person has obviously spent a lot of time on the one piece that he did. Any parts manufacturer could have done this, easier and maybe even cheaper. But the fact is he did it, and it looks (from the pictures) to be better than most custom plastic pieces I've seen. I didn't like his choice of paint, but it looks well done.
And, as for geek quotient, I only wish he wrote up more on his procedure. The coolness of something like this on slashdot is that I can go home and do it too. Only I really don't have an interest in iPods. Its like JunkYard wars v Monster Garage. I like JYW becuase they do things with so little as this guy did. Monster Garage has its own appeal, but geek quotient for makeing me feel like I can do it too, it has very little of.
with two different companies, while this is still possible, it is much more difficult.
I was thinking about this when I was reading Federalist #51 (I've written on this in my journal which is linked in my sig). There Madison speculates that certain combinations of cause by motivations other than community threaten the rebublic more than everyone keeping after their own cause and establishing distinctive communities.
Immediately the Cola Wars come to mind, and our hopelessly two party system (read Pudge's journal about how the two party system locks out third parties). I'm not sure any number of companies can really guarantee that they don't combine against some weaker entity.
That said, more companies would probably provide more security. But probably not as much as a truely transparent and hard-tooled voting mechanism.
I guess what I really like about paper voting is not only the paper trail but the fact that the whole process is viewable and hard-tooled.
"Soft" ware is too changable to quickly. If there was a hardware only voting system (tres expensive!) with no firm or software I'd be all for it. It should not be changable except in very transparent ways.
Or tech support. Many machines were stuck in a wierd default state, having their firmware batteries run out for being so long in storage.
There was not adequate tech support, and many districts had techie, unauthorized voters pitching in to help get the machines up. While I'm glad for their service (they could have just walked away) I worry about how problematic that could be in the future.
I don't know that the different companies are neccisary, just the paper trail.
One more thing about a paper trail is that it needs to be one-way. In other words they shouldn't be able to determine how you voted, but you should be able to verify your vote was counted correctly. I wonder how absentee ballots do that.
I didn't vote in San Diego, but I am close by and did vote on a Die-Bold system. I have to admit I was tempted to go to the registrars office and vote manually or pick up an absentee ballot. Just so I could have a verifyable paper trail. Its interesting to learn that the absentee's could get messed over just as well.
I was suprised though while standing in line that the two people in front of me had absentee ballots and chose to vote via touch screen anyway.
That fix, be-it an actual removal of the userid/password, or a paranoid password change, is just as installable, either way.
Upgrading firmware or substantive software is always a process of weighing costs v benefits. The costant cost of upgrade is that something breaks and renders years of investment at risk. Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion is almost as true for computers as physical bodies with mass.
So while "just as installable" may be an accurate way of saying a password change is just as installable as a username/password removale, what you are not addressing is the alert that is often needed to light the fire of sysadmins to apply that fix. In this case, anything less than disclosure would have been seen as disengenious as many would not have been given accurate enough information to perform the cost benefit analysis of upgrading.
And a post on/. isn't exactly what would qualify as a secret now, is it?
I'm not seeing where you are comeing from or where you are going with this. But it seems important, you may wish to elucidate.
Yeah, I remember working for a company that made network storage devices. We had to make sure that we not only didn't have a back door, but that we didn't even know the root password. Lest we be implicated in any information leaked from the company.
Yet we wanted to be able to fix a device even if they forgot their root password. What we settled for was a root password reset that was entirely visible to them at the time so if someone malicious did try to get their information they would at least know as it happened.
wouldn't Cisco's fix simply change the password? I highly doubt that they will be embarassed enough to have learned a powerful life-lesson.
Assuming the word has gotten out somehow, I'm not sure how they can change the password on all those systems that are currently out there, without raising the public awareness to the level that motivates them to apply the neccisary patches.
America has no more right to dictate to it's countrymen about their gambling policy than other countries have to dictate America's policy.
As I recall its not an "america" issue, its a states rights issue. Like so many other moral judgement calls its up to the states to decide for themselves, publically and legislatively.
That is what is meant and protection of free-association of like-minded people. People think other's gambling will hurt them (and hopefully can show good reason) so why not give the cities and states they can establish that as a rule?
Also as someone I remember posting in my journal can I give you a specific invitation to participate in a survey I'm conducting? Details are in the link in the sig.
Slashdot Mirror
A marriage is conducted by a government official
Someone vested with authority to perform marriages is not neccisarily a government official. Those conducting a marriage have been licensed to perform marriages.
The one handing out the licenses, however, is an official of the state. That btw, is why Gavin Newsome is not in as much hot water as his city officials who granted the licenses in San Fransisco of late.
Sometimes it also involves a mandatory health check-up and/or education courses.
Again, here I can only conclude that you are talking about the issuence of a license, not performing the marriage since that is a requirement for being granted a license only. After that a couple with a license is not married until the ceremony is performed by someone vested with the authority by the state. And (hopefully) they can choose to marry whom they will.
And the issuance of a license is nothing that religions have a part in now (except that their members vote like everyone else).
All I'm saying, is that the state should "subsidize" all loving couples, who raise children -- regardless of their sexuality and stop subsidizing childless loving couples -- also without regard for their sexuality. I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
This is rather confusing then. Are you saying that couples that have children should be subsidized? How?
What about childless couples that want children? Should they be subsidized? How? And why?
Again, love and commitment is nothing the state has an interest in. Its a kind of justice is blind thing. Some areas we simply do not expect the state to find out, either becuase it is entirely too invasive, impossible to determine without a thought reader/crystal ball to read the future. And in this case its both.
All the state asks is "do you do this on your own accord(/by your own free will and choice)". Meaning do you really want to get married? Thats all it does to try to get inside the heads of the participants. The contract specifies other criteria, like both sexes need to be represented, health and other concerns based on the (assumed) capacity of the two entering into the contract to have children.
So what is it you wish to change?
It is thus foolish to reward the Marriage itself, merely because of its potential for child bearing and raising,
There is no foolishness in rewarding people for respecting their procreative powers (whether excersized or not) by commiting to marriage. But you do provide an interesting perspective. However, as a marriage is a display that two people are willing to work with each other in a condition where children are possible, for the sake of the children, I see the move to reward marriage as wisdom. It acts as a more against the illegitimacy, single-parenting, and other problems that invoke a social cost on the child, and in turn on the society that has to deal with that child. Indeed, to fall-back from that more to simple after children are born sows the wind and reaps the whirlwind.
I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
This is unimporant to me. You suggest it should be subsidized, and that is the point I've spoken to in this thread. Granted the subsidy I'm speaking to is adoption and various third party techniques in having children, not raising them. In that way we may be (but I don't think we are) talking past each other.
But be warned, one of the most heinous acts I've ever been privy to was a mother who demanded her 14 year old daughter get pregnant so they could increase their welfare income! Any step you or others take to encouraging this type of behaviour by only giving money to child bearers will meet with stiff opposition from myself and others on grounds entirely different than we have presented so far.
you would not argue, that
Its not what is neccisary for a family, but what is optimal for a family. The state regognizes marriages so that it can help foster the optimal environemnt for families (as the creation of family is one of the greatest expressions of individuality that we hold to as a society).
I can just see the confusion that happens if we start trying to constitution what is or what is not a family. Someone starts walking across the landscape of scenarios asking "Am I a family now? Am I a family now?"
My idea is that it is the child-rearing by a couple and not their marriage per se, that is important to the Society.
... that is important to the Society."
If by marriage you mean "a love and commitment relationship between two people" then I couldn't agree with you more. The state, that I know of, expresses no interest in a couple's love and commitment (although two people getting married will). As discussed in the 800lb gorilla link, it would most certainly be impossible and unconstitutional for the state to even try.
However, marriage means more than that to many people. Marriage as the foundation for a family and potential for child bearing and raising (as its always been understood to be by the people making and sustaining the laws we have) is just the interest you are speaking to. As you said, "My idea is that it is the child-rearing by a couple
Also, we will simply disagree in that I do not find homosexuality something that the state has interest in subsidising. However I will note that it is contradictory to argue that "any couple involved in child-rearing deserves the 'subsidy' -- regardless of their sexual orientation," and suggest that homosexuality should be subsidised as it is most definately regarding sexual orientation. Asking the state to regard homosexuality (a sexual orientation) worthy of subsidy is asking the state to regard sexual orientation! In contrast, infertility (a handicap) is worthy of subsidy and does not consider sexual orientation as handicaps are considered worthy of compensation regardless of sexual orientation.
I'm not proposing the Law redefines marriage or, indeed, its consummation. I suggest, these definitions are left to people with their religious beliefs, convictions, and prejudices and have no legal meaning.
As they are currently. In this point we seem agree that nothing that needs to change. Whats important is that marriage is the entrance to a family, and we acnkowledge that procreative power has been bestowed by whatever forces created us to heterosexual couples.
We agree, that two adults are better for a child's development than one,
I appreciate this effort in comprimise. As your statements and my statements both seem to say that I can give you that as a true statement. However that does not mean that I believe that any two adults are better than any other two. Indeed a family based with representatives of both genders is clearly advantaged.
In our society raising your own children is the norm (and even a sought after goal), and while that goal exists homosexuals who are incapable of producing "their own" children will be disadvantaged. That is not solely due to social stigma as research suggests that homosexual couples are only about as good as single parent families or divorced couples. Which we would both agree are only intermediary fall-back positions for people who have not obtained the goal of a solid family.
and that the adults' homosexuality does not seem to be inherently detrimental to the child's development...
Your word "inherently" is useful here. As you say "does not seem to inherently" only speaks to the ambigiuty of current studies to pinpoint if sexual orientation of parents determins much of an outcome as the consequences of their lifestyle choice shout much clearer in the compendium of research. For instance, it is argued that the research that shows homosexual couples as about as good a parents as single-parent or divorced couples are a contravance that homosexual couples with children fit in either of the afore mentioned categories.
What this means to some is that homosexual couples are just not given a fair shake in the study. And that ambiguity leads to the conclusion that "the adults' homosexuality does not seem to be inherently detrimental to the child's development." However, in the
There are no statistics that show, children in homosexual couples grow better or worse off.
One of the problems is that you have such a wide gammut of heterosexual couples to compare too. When it comes down to it, the current research seems to indicate that a homosexual couple is slightly more successful in raising children than single parent families. Your suggestion that actual child birth (or adoption) consumates a marriage is interesting, and certainly speaks to the need for marriage.
However Adoption should be considered as a way to help infertile couples overcome a handicapp. There is a value to the state in helping people compensate for things they naturally would be capable of. Its demonstrated in the parking spaces, ramps, wheelchairs around us. However I do not support what would amount to being a subsidy for homosexuality (debated in sig).
The actual acts of marriage should stop being administered by the State
Actually the state just recognizes marriages. Well not entirely true, the State does provide a purely secular "Justice of the Peace" that performs marriages. The 800lb gorilla dictates that the state has a deep secular interest in marriage (just in case you feel the state should get out of the "marriage" business as in getting out of the religious morass of marriage). Besides, pushing the debate from marriage to "Civil Unions" does not remove the morass it just plays a shell game with the confusion. Its like arranging the deck chairs in the Titanic.
This way, the Society will reward exactly those it should want to, regardless of their sexual orientation, which is not, regretfully, a voluntary choice, it seems.
This is where the question turns. Is Homosexuality a disability or not? Is it a handicap? It certainly has the elements. One, the person can not choose out of their condition (as you suggest is true for homosexuals). Second it is diabilitating (as homosexual couples cannot reproduce). Yet no where is homosexuality considered a handicap. In my review, the strongest indicator of ones sexual preference is their personal choice. People can change.
I liken it to hypocondria, another condition where the person feels it is in their body not in their mind (even though hypocondria may in fact be determined in part by genetic and environmental factors also). While hypocondria (as with homosexualiy) appears to be changeable (I don't use the word cured because one isn't cured of a choice) they find that a large portion of them simply walk away whenever it is suggested in the discussion that they have the power to change their outlook on life. They leave when it is suggested that "its in your mind".
Funny enough this is discussed in my Journal, right now at this moment.
Fortunately for the moment, this procedure and same-gender unions are different subjects. Unless one of those in the same-gender union was a genetically engineered mutant newborn (becuase they didn't expect to live more than a few years). No, not remotely will we see this entering the debate of homosexual unions.
And you are right. Whether the labratory or simply hiring a prostitute, same-sex couples can pretend to have the same capabilities as heterosexual couples. This capability has been around for a very long time. Not this or IVF or any other advancement will alter that debate.
if they can really trust the data gathered from something built by products of one of the supposedly worst education systems in the world :P
Hey, but at least it is the most expensive...
Funny, I didn't think it was flaimbait or trolling when I wrote it. Nor did I think NPR was trolling when they reported it.
I personally think a congestion charge is a good thing. Here where I live we have lanes we can use to bypass traffic, for a charge. As traffic increases that charge goes up. It is free however for people with more than one person in the car. Its so successful that they are widening it to equal to the number of "freeway" lanes.
Isn't it London that has some sort of tax for people traveling into downtown with a car? If I remember right they said it works wonderfully.
Heh, I can tell when my phone is about to ring becuase I hear a sort of drum-beat in every set of speakers (on or off) that are around me.
Actually, most people I know of that are happiest with dial-up have access to broadband and a CD-Burner at work.
Between Gentoo, a personal website, Desert Combat its a habit I can't kick. The good news though is that now I feel I have no need for Cable TV.
I was left wondering what about Windows95 (as opposed to say Windows 3.1) that it was where sound card support started working.
Score one for the little guy? I doubt it.
It seems to me that any settlement on behalf of the people should result in compensation going directly to the people involved. And compensation is always half of a rememdy.
I've just got to say, I think Marcello's done a great job on the 2.4 series. For having to be part political leader, part CS genious, and part referee he's not given many people a reason to complain.
You bring up an interesting point. I wonder what it would take to create a whole house AC/DC converter. Once in DC its an easy step up or down to the proper voltage for a PC, or any other number of little gadgets that incorporate transformers on them.
Hmm, I only now electronics from one class in Physics so I coudn't comment on it much now. I should look into it though.
I can imagine a 45V supply running through to outlets that support the circle jacks of DC/DC converters. Maybe 12V? Most devices that use bulky transformer plugs probably standardize on 9V or less because they are meant to use batteries anyway. PC's run on 5V, no?
In my limited knowlege it seems that down in the 9V range should be pretty safe.
I don't know. And by the end of this I may or may not wind up agreeing with you.
I've been to plenty of custom car shows with truely top line participants. And their work is pretty good. I remember a Hurtz in the dB drag racing competition that had a better custom integrated G4 than the one shown on slashdot here a few months ago. The workmanship was pretty nice, for the $30,000 price tag.
But even then you could tell it was "custom". Wavey plastic that didn't meet the seems well, etc... All to often shoddy plastic work is covered up with carpet (yuck!). Doing plastic work has been the bain of car customization. I think that is why the really cool custom cars do steel, wood, etc... Natural materials that look cooler than plastic but are also much easier to work with. And you know what? It shows.
This person has obviously spent a lot of time on the one piece that he did. Any parts manufacturer could have done this, easier and maybe even cheaper. But the fact is he did it, and it looks (from the pictures) to be better than most custom plastic pieces I've seen. I didn't like his choice of paint, but it looks well done.
And, as for geek quotient, I only wish he wrote up more on his procedure. The coolness of something like this on slashdot is that I can go home and do it too. Only I really don't have an interest in iPods. Its like JunkYard wars v Monster Garage. I like JYW becuase they do things with so little as this guy did. Monster Garage has its own appeal, but geek quotient for makeing me feel like I can do it too, it has very little of.
with two different companies, while this is still possible, it is much more difficult.
I was thinking about this when I was reading Federalist #51 (I've written on this in my journal which is linked in my sig). There Madison speculates that certain combinations of cause by motivations other than community threaten the rebublic more than everyone keeping after their own cause and establishing distinctive communities.
Immediately the Cola Wars come to mind, and our hopelessly two party system (read Pudge's journal about how the two party system locks out third parties). I'm not sure any number of companies can really guarantee that they don't combine against some weaker entity.
That said, more companies would probably provide more security. But probably not as much as a truely transparent and hard-tooled voting mechanism.
I guess what I really like about paper voting is not only the paper trail but the fact that the whole process is viewable and hard-tooled.
"Soft" ware is too changable to quickly. If there was a hardware only voting system (tres expensive!) with no firm or software I'd be all for it. It should not be changable except in very transparent ways.
Or tech support. Many machines were stuck in a wierd default state, having their firmware batteries run out for being so long in storage.
There was not adequate tech support, and many districts had techie, unauthorized voters pitching in to help get the machines up. While I'm glad for their service (they could have just walked away) I worry about how problematic that could be in the future.
I don't know that the different companies are neccisary, just the paper trail.
One more thing about a paper trail is that it needs to be one-way. In other words they shouldn't be able to determine how you voted, but you should be able to verify your vote was counted correctly. I wonder how absentee ballots do that.
I didn't vote in San Diego, but I am close by and did vote on a Die-Bold system. I have to admit I was tempted to go to the registrars office and vote manually or pick up an absentee ballot. Just so I could have a verifyable paper trail. Its interesting to learn that the absentee's could get messed over just as well.
I was suprised though while standing in line that the two people in front of me had absentee ballots and chose to vote via touch screen anyway.
That fix, be-it an actual removal of the userid/password, or a paranoid password change, is just as installable, either way.
/. isn't exactly what would qualify as a secret now, is it?
Upgrading firmware or substantive software is always a process of weighing costs v benefits. The costant cost of upgrade is that something breaks and renders years of investment at risk. Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion is almost as true for computers as physical bodies with mass.
So while "just as installable" may be an accurate way of saying a password change is just as installable as a username/password removale, what you are not addressing is the alert that is often needed to light the fire of sysadmins to apply that fix. In this case, anything less than disclosure would have been seen as disengenious as many would not have been given accurate enough information to perform the cost benefit analysis of upgrading.
And a post on
I'm not seeing where you are comeing from or where you are going with this. But it seems important, you may wish to elucidate.
Yeah, I remember working for a company that made network storage devices. We had to make sure that we not only didn't have a back door, but that we didn't even know the root password. Lest we be implicated in any information leaked from the company.
Yet we wanted to be able to fix a device even if they forgot their root password. What we settled for was a root password reset that was entirely visible to them at the time so if someone malicious did try to get their information they would at least know as it happened.
wouldn't Cisco's fix simply change the password? I highly doubt that they will be embarassed enough to have learned a powerful life-lesson.
Assuming the word has gotten out somehow, I'm not sure how they can change the password on all those systems that are currently out there, without raising the public awareness to the level that motivates them to apply the neccisary patches.
America has no more right to dictate to it's countrymen about their gambling policy than other countries have to dictate America's policy.
As I recall its not an "america" issue, its a states rights issue. Like so many other moral judgement calls its up to the states to decide for themselves, publically and legislatively.
That is what is meant and protection of free-association of like-minded people. People think other's gambling will hurt them (and hopefully can show good reason) so why not give the cities and states they can establish that as a rule?
Also as someone I remember posting in my journal can I give you a specific invitation to participate in a survey I'm conducting? Details are in the link in the sig.
At this point AMC Gremlins are "Classics".