> Simon, a pathetic candidate. Riordan would have had a good chance of beating Davis, where as Simon had no chance.
California democrats made a similar mistake a while back. They wanted to run against the extremist Republican because they knew he wouldn't stand a chance in the general election. Pat Brown was really surprised when Reagan won.
Kenneth Arrow proved mathematically that all elections will fail at least one of these minimal definition of fairness:
Unrestricted Domain: Any preferences are allowed.
Undifferentiatedness: different permutations of the same preferences must not lead to different outcomes.
Neutrality: the voting method does not favor any outcome.
Condorcet Criterion: if an alternative beats or ties all other alternatives in a pair-wise match, it ought to win.
Consistency: if the electorate is divided into subsets, and if one outcome is favored or indifferent in all subsets, the union of those subsets should lead to the same outcome.
A fair election *must* not lose to a Condorcet preference, but a Condorcet decision is not guaranteed to be fair. You will inherently limit the rational choices that people may make.
For example, when Barry Goldwater was running for president, his preferences for the Vietnam war were: (1) full-scale war; (2) immediate withdrawl and defeat; (3) limited warfare.
His view was that if we were going to fight, we should fight to win. If we weren't going to do that, we should withdraw sooner rather than the inevitable later.
The moderate view one, the war was prolonged and eventually lost.
There are 17 voters and 3 choices (call them X, Y and Z).
The 17 voters are split into 4 factions with the following preferences:
6 voters prefer X over Y over Z 2 voters prefer Y over X over Z * 4 voters prefer Y over Z over X 5 voters prefer Z over X over Y
In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:
X gets 6 votes; Y gets 6 votes; Z gets 5 votes, and is eliminated.
In the second election, everyone votes for X or Y:
X gets 11 votes; Y gets 6 votes; X wins!
Now assume that the 2 voters (*) with preferences (Y,X,Z) had decided that "X" really was the best candidate and change their preferences to (X,Y,Z). All other preferences remain the same:
6 voters prefer X over Y over Z 2 voters prefer X over Y over Z * 4 voters prefer Y over Z over X 5 voters prefer Z over X over Y
In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:
X gets 8 votes; Y gets 4 votes, and is eliminated; Z gets 5 votes.
In the second election, everyone votes for X or Z:
X gets 8 votes; Z gets 9 votes; Z wins!
The only change between the first and second cases was that X was more preferred by 2 voters. Because of the additional support, X lost.
I'm using ACLs under ext3. It supports "default" ACLs, just not the same way Solaris does. Actually, the Solaris 2.6 man page for setfacl says:
If a file is
created in a directory that contains default ACL entries,
the newly created file will have permissions generated
according to the intersection of umask(1), the default ACL
entries, and the permissions requested at creation time.
However, the setfacl man page under Solaris 9 say:
The
umask(1) will not be applied if the directory contains
default ACL entries.
Despite the fact the 2.6 and 9 have opposite descriptions of their behavior, both 2.6 and 9 behave as described in the Sol 9 man page. Linux behaves as the Sol 2.6 man page describes.
It's not like FreeBSD is the first to have ACLs. Solaris and Linux both support them as well.
One thing I like under Solaris ACLs is you can set a "default" permission. I always have my default umask set to 027, but I do some collaborative work in some shared directories and it's nice to be able to force any files created in that directory to be writeable by the group. ACLs on Solaris completely ignore the umask.
Under Linux, however, the ACLs work with the umask. I can set default permissions for a directory to be group read-only and files created by someone with a 007 umask will be set to read-only, but I can't do the opposite.
I believe Linux is doing the POSIXly correct thing, but I don't find it very useful.
> So, where is the evidence which leads you to believe?
It's pure speculation, but consider:
Yesterday, SCO announces a Fortune 500 bought Linux licenses.
Today, SCO/CA announce that they have settled their outstanding dispute.
No one can figure out who would be silly enough to buy a license to use Linux from SCO. But SCO desperately needs naive investors to think that they have some legitimate claims, and selling a license would (and did) help their stock price. So here they are in negotions with CA for a settlement. They could easily say to CA: "Since you're about to give us $40 mil anyways, why don't we say part of that is for a Linux runtime license. Doesn't cost you any more, and you won't have to deal with us again."
This is an unrelated case (remember, Canopy Group makes a living suing people). However, given the timing, I am now lead to believe that part of the settlement was that CA agreed to buy some of SCO's phony "Linux Licenses".
there is no mention in IBM's counterclaim that it has the right to sell derivative software created by it.
From the CNET article:
SCO has argued that IBM doesn't have the right to take Unix software IBM created--so-called derivative works--and move that software into Linux. IBM, however, labeled as "frivolous" SCO's argument that it has ownership rights with respect to all of the code in AIX.
Can't remember where I heard it, but there are two types of people: those that come in a room and turn OFF a TV, and those that come in and turn ON the TV.
I am the latter. I also have a TV tuner card on my computer and spend most of my time with a TV window running. MythTV captures the twice daily broadcasts of the Simpsons and M*A*S*H, all of which I've seen several times before. The only time TV can be distracting is if it's a show that I haven't seen before...
> As I have told many clients, anybody can sue anybody, it doesn't mean they will win.
And that's what is so cool about this law. You don't have to sue anyone or take anyone to court. You just file some paperwork at the clerk's office and violate their right to privacy.
Exactly. According to the DoJ, it is perfectly legal to claim someone is violating your copyrights and force their website down and get their personal information, even if you KNOW that they are not violating your copyrights.
If I want, I can now legally get your name. I just need to subpoena slashdot for the IP address of whoever posted your message, claiming it to be an infringement of my copyright, and then I can subpoena your ISP and find out where you live.
Maybe people will start being more polite online now...
That's how I read has answer. Now I can get the name and address of anyone with a website just by filing a document in court claiming that the person is violating my copyright on "XYZ", just as long as I actually own the copyright to "XYZ". The Justice Department seems to think that this is just fine and will not prosecute you.
I'm just going to guess at what your problem is since you didn't really tell us. I'm assuming that your application needs to load the entire DOM tree 20 times for 20 concurrent requests and that's taking either too much CPU or too much memory.
The solution would be to load the DOM in the backend and have front-end applications access it.
You could try using AOLserver as a multi-threaded web server and tDOM as your DOM processor.
It's reaching end of life, and all of the new standards that have come out in the last 20 years have really made it long in the tooth. Unicode,
PostScript, XML, Hypertext, and the now-ubiquitous Gui all came to age post-LaTex, and any replacement is going to take these developments into account.
Yeah, lots of people sit down with their text editors and write journal articles in raw PostScript.
Slashdot Mirror
> Simon, a pathetic candidate. Riordan would have had a good chance of beating Davis, where as Simon had no chance.
California democrats made a similar mistake a while back. They wanted to run against the extremist Republican because they knew he wouldn't stand a chance in the general election. Pat Brown was really surprised when Reagan won.
> the lack of 2 front-runners, which is a given in our current two-major-party system.
I think you're forgetting that the two parties both have primary elections just to narrow it down to the two front-runners.
Kenneth Arrow proved mathematically that all elections will fail at least one of these minimal definition of fairness:
Unrestricted Domain: Any preferences are allowed.
Undifferentiatedness: different permutations of the same preferences must not lead to different outcomes.
Neutrality: the voting method does not favor any outcome.
Condorcet Criterion: if an alternative beats or ties all other alternatives in a pair-wise match, it ought to win.
Consistency: if the electorate is divided into subsets, and if one outcome is favored or indifferent in all subsets, the union of those subsets should lead to the same outcome.
A fair election *must* not lose to a Condorcet preference, but a Condorcet decision is not guaranteed to be fair. You will inherently limit the rational choices that people may make.
For example, when Barry Goldwater was running for president, his preferences for the Vietnam war were: (1) full-scale war; (2) immediate withdrawl and defeat; (3) limited warfare.
His view was that if we were going to fight, we should fight to win. If we weren't going to do that, we should withdraw sooner rather than the inevitable later.
The moderate view one, the war was prolonged and eventually lost.
Back in his day, Clinton was the long-shot in a large field of democrats.
And since we're talking about the Californina gubernatorial election, remember that there are 135 candidates on the ballot.
The 17 voters are split into 4 factions with the following preferences:In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:
X gets 6 votes; Y gets 6 votes; Z gets 5 votes, and is eliminated.
In the second election, everyone votes for X or Y:
X gets 11 votes; Y gets 6 votes; X wins!
Now assume that the 2 voters (*) with preferences (Y,X,Z) had decided that "X" really was the best candidate and change their preferences to (X,Y,Z). All other preferences remain the same:In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:
X gets 8 votes; Y gets 4 votes, and is eliminated; Z gets 5 votes.
In the second election, everyone votes for X or Z:
X gets 8 votes; Z gets 9 votes; Z wins!
The only change between the first and second cases was that X was more preferred by 2 voters. Because of the additional support, X lost.
I'm beginning to get worried that Art Buchwald will send me a letter demanding $1 from me because I saw Coming to America in 1988.
It's not like FreeBSD is the first to have ACLs. Solaris and Linux both support them as well.
One thing I like under Solaris ACLs is you can set a "default" permission. I always have my default umask set to 027, but I do some collaborative work in some shared directories and it's nice to be able to force any files created in that directory to be writeable by the group. ACLs on Solaris completely ignore the umask.
Under Linux, however, the ACLs work with the umask. I can set default permissions for a directory to be group read-only and files created by someone with a 007 umask will be set to read-only, but I can't do the opposite.
I believe Linux is doing the POSIXly correct thing, but I don't find it very useful.
> So, where is the evidence which leads you to believe?
It's pure speculation, but consider:
Yesterday, SCO announces a Fortune 500 bought Linux licenses.
Today, SCO/CA announce that they have settled their outstanding dispute.
No one can figure out who would be silly enough to buy a license to use Linux from SCO. But SCO desperately needs naive investors to think that they have some legitimate claims, and selling a license would (and did) help their stock price. So here they are in negotions with CA for a settlement. They could easily say to CA: "Since you're about to give us $40 mil anyways, why don't we say part of that is for a Linux runtime license. Doesn't cost you any more, and you won't have to deal with us again."
This is an unrelated case (remember, Canopy Group makes a living suing people). However, given the timing, I am now lead to believe that part of the settlement was that CA agreed to buy some of SCO's phony "Linux Licenses".
As George Costanza would say, "It's not a lie if you believe it."
> Microsoft doesn't sell Linux...
The license is a runtime-use only license and NOT a license for redistribution. We also know that MS runs Linux in its test labs.
One of the charges against Marth Stewart was that she was attempting to influence the stock in her company merely by proclaiming her innocence.
I find mailman to be annoying. By default, I can view all the subscribers, but the archive is private.
From the CNET article:
If you have Samba on a Linux box, LinPopUp will store messages sent via "net send".
Q: What's going to happen if the other guy isn't logged on when the "net send" message is sent?
A: He'll never see the message and not know the database is in use.
If "units shipped" is the only measure of success, then the CueCat was also an unqualified success.
Can't remember where I heard it, but there are two types of people: those that come in a room and turn OFF a TV, and those that come in and turn ON the TV.
I am the latter. I also have a TV tuner card on my computer and spend most of my time with a TV window running. MythTV captures the twice daily broadcasts of the Simpsons and M*A*S*H, all of which I've seen several times before. The only time TV can be distracting is if it's a show that I haven't seen before...
> As I have told many clients, anybody can sue anybody, it doesn't mean they will win.
And that's what is so cool about this law. You don't have to sue anyone or take anyone to court. You just file some paperwork at the clerk's office and violate their right to privacy.
Exactly. According to the DoJ, it is perfectly legal to claim someone is violating your copyrights and force their website down and get their personal information, even if you KNOW that they are not violating your copyrights.
If I want, I can now legally get your name. I just need to subpoena slashdot for the IP address of whoever posted your message, claiming it to be an infringement of my copyright, and then I can subpoena your ISP and find out where you live.
Maybe people will start being more polite online now...
That's how I read has answer. Now I can get the name and address of anyone with a website just by filing a document in court claiming that the person is violating my copyright on "XYZ", just as long as I actually own the copyright to "XYZ". The Justice Department seems to think that this is just fine and will not prosecute you.
The solution would be to load the DOM in the backend and have front-end applications access it.
You could try using AOLserver as a multi-threaded web server and tDOM as your DOM processor.