> name one city in the world where the residents think their public transport runs on time..
Wheeling, WV, USA
Not a big city, but still (barely) a city, and the public transport (granted, buses are the only form) is usually on-time within 3-4 minutes. I think the small size has something to do with it, but your question was pretty open-ended.:)
> maybe all countries should have some say in who becomes president of the US.
Sure thing, as long as all Americans then have an equal say in who is president of France, Germany, etc. What, they wouldn't like that? That's 'cuz it's a stupid idea masquerading as a novel one.
By saying that, you seem to imply that the U.S. is the "World Government," which it isn't. And if it is? Be afraid.
> The world sees America as the upholder and defender of democracy.
What a crock of shit. The world just blames America for everything.
> Another dodgy election could easily spark the next American civil war.
I don't see that happening. A military coup could take over, making this a police state, yet the majority would not care, as long as they can still get a 5lb Quadruple Cheeseburger meal with 10 gallons of fries and a 50oz McShake for 5 bucks. They'd talk a lot about it, like how offended and oppressed they are, but they will not actually DO anything about it. Think I'm cynical? Damned right I am, I have to deal with these idiots every day.
> Also, remember it was a Davis backed lawsuit that the recall be postponed so that even more e-voting machines could be installed.
Are you sure about that? I didn't follow it too closely, but most of the things I heard is that Davis didn't back that because he just wanted to get the crap over with quickly. I thought it was other Democrats (in the CA State Leg.) trying to postpone it.
> Combine the person's voter ID # with a passphrase or some such chosen by the voter and MD5 it to get a unique, but anonymous,
The whole problem with being able to check your vote yourself is that someone can "hold a gun to your head" and force you to check it in their presence. The amount of encryption is not at issue.
> Given that this guy runs our country, surely the democratic thing to do would be to allow us to have some voice in his election.;)
No, surely, the democratic thing to do is to vote for someone who doesn't bow down to the U.S. If you don't like it, don't try to influence us; separate yourselves from us.
> i recall one story during the florida debacle about an all-republican audit committee
You mean a group that was counting ballots that was all Republican? Then you remember incorrectly, as that is not legally possible (in FLA), nor is it remotely likely.
> It seems like writing "there's a sphere of radius 3 centered here" would take less time than waiting for the robot to scan it.
Think about that again. Considering the resolution of a "laser camera," the only things that exist that are spheres are the sun & moon (the robot can't gat far enough away from Earth to recognize it as a sphere). Everything else is complex and would NOT be as simple as saying "there's a sphere of radius 3 centered here."
Think about how long it took computer games to look "realistic" with its millions of polygons? Nature doesn't build itself in polygons that big (if at all) so, no, that would not work well at all.
> Maybe going fully public would be out of some key company's price class
But well within Microsoft's class, which is one of the things it sounds liku Google is trying to avoid. If one person/company was to become a major holder, with 10% ownership, what sort of power do they (legally) hold over the company? Especially if the company owners/president have +80% control?
> the legislation would already be written and the current google would already be complying
Not necessarily. I admit my interpretation may be a bit far-fetched, but as Google is a private entity, the government has very limited control over it. If U.S. Fed tried forcing censorship, everyone would cry foul, because it is a private company. If Google was under U.S. oversight, however, it would be much easier to do. I suppose both a supporting and counter-argument would be the whole deal with "forcing" libraries to censor (keep traffic off unapproved sites) their public Internet connections. The Gov tried to use their might (or if you believe them, morality) to censor content in a public library. You are correct, however, that people were up in arms about it. Any idea where that currently stands? I haven't heard much on it lately.
> You're not going to find radiohead because they are protesting the death of the album.
Now it's time for "Dave's Troll of the Day," brought to you by Napster 2.0!
Radiohead's 4 songs (that they play over and over on each album, just naming them differently) are pretty good, but Radiohead are just whiny little bitches. If they think the album was alive before, listen to some different music. It has rarely EVER been a full concept-per-album, or even music that is remotely related.
Radiohead is REALLY protesting because it will make them look cool just having a cause. Doesn't matter if that cause is valid or not, the little wannabe-hippy, politically clueless-yet-faux-active, lets-all-be-nonconformists-together fanboys will think they're hot shit because they're protesting something.
Don't like where other musicians' music is going? Fuck 'em. Make music that is good and people will buy it (barring, of course, RIAA tactics to ensure that doesn't happen). Stop whining about how everyone else's music doesn't fit your mold and get back to work, you lazy, filthy, corporate lacky whores.
Whew. I suggest a monthly "Troll Day." Maybe even weekly. It releases a lot of stress, ranting nonsensically.
> That's a good point, isn't javascript prior art?
Isn't your empty fucking head prior art? No one (well, very few) seems to understand what this is all about. This saves your computers settings (IE, bookmarks, Control Panel settings, etc). It doesn't install progroms. Just settings. Admittedly, this is due to/. artcile poster ignorance (the inappropriate title).
> > Lawyers are part of the problem, but lawyers don't exist without clients. > So if I hire a hitman and he subsequently shoots someone, the hitman is still a good guy and it wasn't his fault?
I can't figure out what you don't understand. He attributes the problem to both lawyers and clients. Your argument implies that the person making the order & the person doing the work aren't both accountable for the hit? Of course they are. In each example, both (all 4) people involved are at fault.
> how do you possibly expect the government to be able to do so better?
A sort-of nitpick, but the government DOES have the ability to do better. Unfortunately, the inefficiency is what keeps them in control (anyone; not just Reps or Dems). Create the illusion that everything takes years to do (and make it so by using stupid laws & regulations -- red tape) and congratulate yourself and your supporters publicly for passing some things in only a year, but say your "enemies" are horrible people slowing progress when they can't do something insanely complex in a few months.
> if we're left to decide we'll just choose "no censorship, period"
As much as I love to be a U.S. Government apologist, I have to argue this point. They would definitely censor some things. They may not tell you they are, but there will be (if there isn't already) some kind of legislation to make sure you can't get certain things.
> Going IPO would allow hostile take over and reduce the ability to resist
Ah, but they aren't going to be fully publicly traded. The company is worth many billions, but they are only releasing 2 billion in stock. Certainly MUCH less than 50% of the company's net worth.
> You can't see the difference between what two consenting adults do and somebody imposing their will on a minor?
Umm, the latter is called rape. What about the off chance that the child actually wants to have sex (Doubt it ever happens, but it's possible)? Then they are not imposing their will on the child. Is it still wrong? I think so, but I don't have any reason for that view other than the standard cop-out "Think of the children!"
Slashdot Mirror
> name one city in the world where the residents think their public transport runs on time..
:)
Wheeling, WV, USA
Not a big city, but still (barely) a city, and the public transport (granted, buses are the only form) is usually on-time within 3-4 minutes. I think the small size has something to do with it, but your question was pretty open-ended.
> maybe all countries should have some say in who becomes president of the US.
Sure thing, as long as all Americans then have an equal say in who is president of France, Germany, etc. What, they wouldn't like that? That's 'cuz it's a stupid idea masquerading as a novel one.
By saying that, you seem to imply that the U.S. is the "World Government," which it isn't. And if it is? Be afraid.
> The world sees America as the upholder and defender of democracy.
What a crock of shit. The world just blames America for everything.
> Another dodgy election could easily spark the next American civil war.
I don't see that happening. A military coup could take over, making this a police state, yet the majority would not care, as long as they can still get a 5lb Quadruple Cheeseburger meal with 10 gallons of fries and a 50oz McShake for 5 bucks. They'd talk a lot about it, like how offended and oppressed they are, but they will not actually DO anything about it. Think I'm cynical? Damned right I am, I have to deal with these idiots every day.
> Also, remember it was a Davis backed lawsuit that the recall be postponed so that even more e-voting machines could be installed.
Are you sure about that? I didn't follow it too closely, but most of the things I heard is that Davis didn't back that because he just wanted to get the crap over with quickly. I thought it was other Democrats (in the CA State Leg.) trying to postpone it.
> Combine the person's voter ID # with a passphrase or some such chosen by the voter and MD5 it to get a unique, but anonymous,
The whole problem with being able to check your vote yourself is that someone can "hold a gun to your head" and force you to check it in their presence. The amount of encryption is not at issue.
> Given that this guy runs our country, surely the democratic thing to do would be to allow us to have some voice in his election. ;)
No, surely, the democratic thing to do is to vote for someone who doesn't bow down to the U.S. If you don't like it, don't try to influence us; separate yourselves from us.
> What do you mean, not a candidate? He's the President now!
He's no ogre, he's a goblin. Ogres are bigger, he's a little guy.
> i recall one story during the florida debacle about an all-republican audit committee
You mean a group that was counting ballots that was all Republican? Then you remember incorrectly, as that is not legally possible (in FLA), nor is it remotely likely.
> Then I think it would take a very long time to drive to the site.
:)
Sometimes the most obvious answers are the funniest
> It seems like writing "there's a sphere of radius 3 centered here" would take less time than waiting for the robot to scan it.
Think about that again. Considering the resolution of a "laser camera," the only things that exist that are spheres are the sun & moon (the robot can't gat far enough away from Earth to recognize it as a sphere). Everything else is complex and would NOT be as simple as saying "there's a sphere of radius 3 centered here."
Think about how long it took computer games to look "realistic" with its millions of polygons? Nature doesn't build itself in polygons that big (if at all) so, no, that would not work well at all.
> Maybe going fully public would be out of some key company's price class
But well within Microsoft's class, which is one of the things it sounds liku Google is trying to avoid. If one person/company was to become a major holder, with 10% ownership, what sort of power do they (legally) hold over the company? Especially if the company owners/president have +80% control?
> the legislation would already be written and the current google would already be complying
Not necessarily. I admit my interpretation may be a bit far-fetched, but as Google is a private entity, the government has very limited control over it. If U.S. Fed tried forcing censorship, everyone would cry foul, because it is a private company. If Google was under U.S. oversight, however, it would be much easier to do.
I suppose both a supporting and counter-argument would be the whole deal with "forcing" libraries to censor (keep traffic off unapproved sites) their public Internet connections. The Gov tried to use their might (or if you believe them, morality) to censor content in a public library. You are correct, however, that people were up in arms about it. Any idea where that currently stands? I haven't heard much on it lately.
> You're not going to find radiohead because they are protesting the death of the album.
Now it's time for "Dave's Troll of the Day," brought to you by Napster 2.0!
Radiohead's 4 songs (that they play over and over on each album, just naming them differently) are pretty good, but Radiohead are just whiny little bitches. If they think the album was alive before, listen to some different music. It has rarely EVER been a full concept-per-album, or even music that is remotely related.
Radiohead is REALLY protesting because it will make them look cool just having a cause. Doesn't matter if that cause is valid or not, the little wannabe-hippy, politically clueless-yet-faux-active, lets-all-be-nonconformists-together fanboys will think they're hot shit because they're protesting something.
Don't like where other musicians' music is going? Fuck 'em. Make music that is good and people will buy it (barring, of course, RIAA tactics to ensure that doesn't happen). Stop whining about how everyone else's music doesn't fit your mold and get back to work, you lazy, filthy, corporate lacky whores.
Whew. I suggest a monthly "Troll Day." Maybe even weekly. It releases a lot of stress, ranting nonsensically.
> Anything that comes close to Celine Dion is just not safe.
Celine is just a part-time Canadian. Luckily, (or unluckily, if you are in the U.S.) she spends a lot of her time in the States.
> Is he actually gay, or is this just a stupid slashdot troll?
The fact that you have to ask that is disappointing. I don't know Neil's Sex Pref, but that guy's a stupid troll no matter which way you toss him.
> A dog can't perform analytical logic
Maybe YOUR dog, but my dog contemplates algorithmic logic all the time!
> although a java plugin showing a telnet session would again be part of the web.
No, it wouldn't. FTP is not part of the "Web." Telnet is not either. I don't care how YOU define the Web, it is really limited to HTTP(S) traffic.
> That's a good point, isn't javascript prior art?
/. artcile poster ignorance (the inappropriate title).
Isn't your empty fucking head prior art? No one (well, very few) seems to understand what this is all about. This saves your computers settings (IE, bookmarks, Control Panel settings, etc). It doesn't install progroms. Just settings. Admittedly, this is due to
> > Lawyers are part of the problem, but lawyers don't exist without clients.
> So if I hire a hitman and he subsequently shoots someone, the hitman is still a good guy and it wasn't his fault?
I can't figure out what you don't understand. He attributes the problem to both lawyers and clients. Your argument implies that the person making the order & the person doing the work aren't both accountable for the hit? Of course they are. In each example, both (all 4) people involved are at fault.
> What about a more neutral entity, which is supposed to care about us
What, like ICANN? They're such a great, honest, and impartial group...
> how do you possibly expect the government to be able to do so better?
A sort-of nitpick, but the government DOES have the ability to do better. Unfortunately, the inefficiency is what keeps them in control (anyone; not just Reps or Dems). Create the illusion that everything takes years to do (and make it so by using stupid laws & regulations -- red tape) and congratulate yourself and your supporters publicly for passing some things in only a year, but say your "enemies" are horrible people slowing progress when they can't do something insanely complex in a few months.
Just a big shuffle of illusion.
> if we're left to decide we'll just choose "no censorship, period"
As much as I love to be a U.S. Government apologist, I have to argue this point. They would definitely censor some things. They may not tell you they are, but there will be (if there isn't already) some kind of legislation to make sure you can't get certain things.
> Going IPO would allow hostile take over and reduce the ability to resist
Ah, but they aren't going to be fully publicly traded. The company is worth many billions, but they are only releasing 2 billion in stock. Certainly MUCH less than 50% of the company's net worth.
> You can't see the difference between what two consenting adults do and somebody imposing their will on a minor?
Umm, the latter is called rape. What about the off chance that the child actually wants to have sex (Doubt it ever happens, but it's possible)? Then they are not imposing their will on the child. Is it still wrong? I think so, but I don't have any reason for that view other than the standard cop-out "Think of the children!"
> "18% v. 21% for the nation in 2001"
> 21% - 18% = 3%
> As in +/-3% sample error?
Well, more like 1.5%... The true result would be 19.5% +/- 1.5%, no? Granted, I'm no statistician.