From what I've read, he didn't even really want to go to Martha's Vinyard. Rather, his wife insisted because her sister wanted to go there... And so he agreed, but wanted to leave earlier. But the sister had to work and couldn't leave early, which is why they left so late...
I think the main advantage this has over disk druid (or cfdisk) is that you don't need to wipe out old partitions. So if you've already got that legacy OS from Redmond, you can repartition and make room for Linux and you won't need to reinstall the original OS.
I read somewhere that they already found the capsule, they were just looking for a way to bring it to the surface.
I read that too. In the article!
Newport located the spacecraft on May 1, about 300 miles southeast of Cape Canaveral. But he had to leave it there when the cable to the expedition's robot vessel snapped in rough seas.
Your example seems to assume that X, Y, and Z are all acceptable to all voters. This is not often the case.
Well, the sole point of that argument was to show that increasing support for choice X resulted in X losing. There are several other voting schemes, and while others might meet this criterion of fairness, they will fail in others.
Something that occurs more often, is for a minority to win by splitting the majority. If there are 10 voters, and X gets 4, Y gets 3, and Z gets 3. X wins with the most votes, but the majority of 6 did not want X to win.
In the case of Rogers Rules of Order (which dictates the orders of amendments and amendments to amendments), it is actually possible for an outcome to lose that would be UNANIMOUSLY favored. This fails Kenneth Arrows "Condorcet Criterion" of fairness.
And of course, this all assumes that the results of elections have ANY effect on things. Occasionally, a vocal minority can push their POV to the forefront. But we all know that the most influential voter is the one who makes large campaign contributions.
The last time I voted was in a presidential election. I voted for a third party candidate. My vote was not counted for 2 weeks. Literally. All non-Democrat/Republican votes were set aside and counted after they found out who won.
Meanwhile, they "normalized" the returns as they ran on TV. If you added up the percent that voted for D or R, it would always equal 100%. Even if 5% voted for something else.
A good book on the topic of voting is _Liberalism Against Populism_. He expands Arrow's Theorem (1963) and proves that ALL voting mechanisms violate some minimal criterion of fairness.
Here's my favorite example. Single-runoff elections violate the principle of monotonicity. That is to say, INCREASING support for a candidate should not result in LOWERING his final outcome.
Let's pretend we have three candidates, X, Y and Z. And assume four voting factions with the following preferences:
Assuming everyone always votes for their highest preference, the first election will result in:
6 votes for X 6 votes for Y 5 votes for Z, who is eliminated.
In the runoff election, you can only vote for X or Y. X gets 11 votes to Y's 6 and X wins.
Now assume that the 2 voters in the first faction above had changed their minds. They now prefer X>Y>Z (just like the second faction). The only difference is that they have RAISED the preference for X.
In the first election: 8 votes for X 4 votes for Y, who is now eliminated 5 votes for Z
In the runoff election, X gets 8 votes and Z gets 9 votes.
Those 2 voters who changed their minds and decided to vote for X resulted in X losing an election he would have won if they had not supported him.
Other voting schemes will violate other principles of fairness. Rogers Rules of Order, for example, can result in a final outcome that would be unanimously defeated by another outcome if each possible outcome were paired against each other.
Whom the local sherrif knew and had visited before. But when the BATF decided to make an example out of him, they went gestapo-style into his house. And when he wouldn't come out, they gassed him (with a gas that would violate the Geneva convention if we dropped it in Serbia).
> So becuase New York police are violent... um, what does this have to do with privacy again?
Being beaten until one confesses is a violation of ones right against self incrimination. But actually, we moved on and we were talking about freedom in general. As long is it is a crime to Drive While Black, we (everyone) will not be free. "First they came for..."
> Packet Storm was broght down becuase it voilated the TOS of its Host, maybe the threat of legal action helped this along, but that is irrelavant.
And the right to a fair hearing is reserved only for those with the money to sue.
> Again, NYC can fall into the ocean for all I care.
Ok, what about Los Angeles? Florida? Washington DC? Chicago?
> Probably, if the public defender had gotten 12 more juriors who had the intellegence of the common carrot.
Any you really believe this? Either way, picking the jury IS part of the lawyers job. Would a PD be as good as picking a jury?
Ken Starr tried to subpoena Monica Lewinsky's book purchases at a local book store. Just because the book store isn't the FBI doesn't mean that they won't cooperate.
I don't believe the book store owner cooperated, though.
So I guess you missed the whole "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" went right over your head?
I think the most significant part of the book is not the surveilance state, but that they are re-inventing language with the express purpose of making it impossible to express dissent. "War is Peace" is a common slogan. Once everyone uses the double-plus good dictionary, documents like the Declaration of Independence would be untranslateable.
As with the surveilance state, Orwell was dead on with his analysis of language. People are no longer "handicapped," they're "differently abled". I heard George Carlin once call them "handicapable".
Actually, aside from Orwell, I think George Carlin is one of the most astute observers of language. One of his bits was the transformation of the "Shell Shocked" (WWI- direct and to the point), to "Battle Fatigue" (WWII- they're just tired), and eventually to "Post Tramautic Distress Disorder" (Vietnam- so long it has become meaningless).
1) Yeah, it wasnt't he potshots that took at the ATF or anything like that...
Who were coming in unannounced through an open window without identifying themselves. And why were they there in the first case? Because he was a religious gun nut.
2) I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm sure its bullshit anyway.
So you don't think the NYPD are capable of brutality? An NYPD office (Volpe) recently plead guilty to shoving a broomstick up someone's ass... Other NYPD offices shot at an unarmed man (Diallo) 41 times!
3) Sure, a kid born in poverty has as much freedom of speech as anyone else. No one is going to listen to him, but that isn't that point.
But that IS the point. It's easy nowadays to put up a web page and express yourself however you like, but if you don't have the money to defend yourself, a single threat of legal action can usually shut you up. That's what took Packet Storm down.
4) Bullshit, the cops can't do their job becuase every criminal cliamns they've been beaten if the cops do so much as look at them funny.
Let's talk about NYPD again. According the the NY Times:
It [NYPD] routinely pays out tens of thousands of dollars to people who say the police abused them, but the Police Department rarely formally investigates their allegations, and the officers named in their lawsuits almost always continue working without scrutiny or punishment.
5) Every lawyer who represents someone has passed the bar, so is by definition competent.
So you think that OJ would have done just as well if he'd relied on a public defender?
Thanks for the liberal propaganda though.
Once you can label someone, it's so easy to dismiss them. Usually people who mention David Koresh are labeled as conservatives, but I guess that doesn't matter. As long as you can tie up their philosophy with a single word, you can easily dismiss whatever they have to say.
Apparently you didn't listen to Ollie North testifying before Congress where he openly admitted that he developed plans to use FEMA in case the anti-Contra campaigns heated up like the anti-Vietnam war campaigns. Ollie personally drew up the plans for Marshal Law in the US and FEMA was the arm that would enforce it.
For those that haven't been back, Woz has been constantly updating his feedback about Pirates at http://www.woz.org/woz/presponses/commets.html . Yes, he still has "comments" misspelled. He's even added some flames...
Anyways, his basic take has been that while they certainly mixed up times and places, they did accurately portray the personalities. He even said that yes, he would skip the meal at those fancy shin digs and go to Dennys later. He didn't know how they knew that. It cracked me up when he said that in the movie, and I busted a gut when I found it it was actually true.
Slashdot Mirror
So... what was the joke? The only one I've heard was that the last thing he said before he left was "you feed the cat, I'll feed the fishes".
Sorry. I didn't say it was a funny joke...
From what I've read, he didn't even really want to go to Martha's Vinyard. Rather, his wife insisted because her sister wanted to go there... And so he agreed, but wanted to leave earlier. But the sister had to work and couldn't leave early, which is why they left so late...
I think the main advantage this has over disk druid (or cfdisk) is that you don't need to wipe out old partitions. So if you've already got that legacy OS from Redmond, you can repartition and make room for Linux and you won't need to reinstall the original OS.
Not to be too nit picky, but it was the Discovery Channel that footed the bill for the recovery, so they are the ones that deserve the 3 cheers...
I read that too. In the article!
Newport located the spacecraft on May 1, about 300 miles southeast of Cape Canaveral. But he had to leave it there when the cable to the expedition's robot vessel snapped in rough seas.
So when will the white-tipped black feathers become available?
http://slashdot.org /article.pl?sid=99/07/08/2047257&mode=thread
> Isn't W2k supposed to be the OS that you buy once and pay for the rest of you life.
No. They had proposed that, but, so far as I know, they have NOT yet implemented it.
Simple. Today, no one is allowed in the voting booth with you. Voting over the web would make it impossible to enforce that kind of privacy.
Your example seems to assume that X, Y, and Z are all acceptable to all voters. This is not often the case.
Well, the sole point of that argument was to show that increasing support for choice X resulted in X losing. There are several other voting schemes, and while others might meet this criterion of fairness, they will fail in others.
Something that occurs more often, is for a minority to win by splitting the majority. If there are 10 voters, and X gets 4, Y gets 3, and Z gets 3. X wins with the most votes, but the majority of 6 did not want X to win.
In the case of Rogers Rules of Order (which dictates the orders of amendments and amendments to amendments), it is actually possible for an outcome to lose that would be UNANIMOUSLY favored. This fails Kenneth Arrows "Condorcet Criterion" of fairness.
And of course, this all assumes that the results of elections have ANY effect on things. Occasionally, a vocal minority can push their POV to the forefront. But we all know that the most influential voter is the one who makes large campaign contributions.
The last time I voted was in a presidential election. I voted for a third party candidate. My vote was not counted for 2 weeks. Literally. All non-Democrat/Republican votes were set aside and counted after they found out who won.
Meanwhile, they "normalized" the returns as they ran on TV. If you added up the percent that voted for D or R, it would always equal 100%. Even if 5% voted for something else.
A good book on the topic of voting is _Liberalism Against Populism_. He expands Arrow's Theorem (1963) and proves that ALL voting mechanisms violate some minimal criterion of fairness.
Here's my favorite example. Single-runoff elections violate the principle of monotonicity. That is to say, INCREASING support for a candidate should not result in LOWERING his final outcome.
Let's pretend we have three candidates, X, Y and Z. And assume four voting factions with the following preferences:
2 voters prefer Y>X>Z
6 voters prefer X>Y>Z
4 voters prefer Y>Z>X
5 voters prefer Z>X>Y
Assuming everyone always votes for their highest preference, the first election will result in:
6 votes for X
6 votes for Y
5 votes for Z, who is eliminated.
In the runoff election, you can only vote for X or Y. X gets 11 votes to Y's 6 and X wins.
Now assume that the 2 voters in the first faction above had changed their minds. They now prefer X>Y>Z (just like the second faction). The only difference is that they have RAISED the preference for X.
In the first election:
8 votes for X
4 votes for Y, who is now eliminated
5 votes for Z
In the runoff election, X gets 8 votes and Z gets 9 votes.
Those 2 voters who changed their minds and decided to vote for X resulted in X losing an election he would have won if they had not supported him.
Other voting schemes will violate other principles of fairness. Rogers Rules of Order, for example, can result in a final outcome that would be unanimously defeated by another outcome if each possible outcome were paired against each other.
> Because he was an religious unlicensed gun nut.
Whom the local sherrif knew and had visited before. But when the BATF decided to make an example out of him, they went gestapo-style into his house. And when he wouldn't come out, they gassed him (with a gas that would violate the Geneva convention if we dropped it in Serbia).
> So becuase New York police are violent... um, what does this have to do with privacy again?
Being beaten until one confesses is a violation of ones right against self incrimination. But actually, we moved on and we were talking about freedom in general. As long is it is a crime to Drive While Black, we (everyone) will not be free. "First they came for..."
> Packet Storm was broght down becuase it voilated the TOS of its Host, maybe the threat of legal action helped this along, but that is irrelavant.
And the right to a fair hearing is reserved only for those with the money to sue.
> Again, NYC can fall into the ocean for all I care.
Ok, what about Los Angeles? Florida? Washington DC? Chicago?
> Probably, if the public defender had gotten 12 more juriors who had the intellegence of the common carrot.
Any you really believe this? Either way, picking the jury IS part of the lawyers job. Would a PD be as good as picking a jury?
Ken Starr tried to subpoena Monica Lewinsky's book purchases at a local book store. Just because the book store isn't the FBI doesn't mean that they won't cooperate.
I don't believe the book store owner cooperated, though.
Echelon has been in the mainstream press recently. Here's an NY Times article (user/pw = cypherpunks):
w eb?getdoc+site+site+76922+0+wAAA+echelon
http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fast
Note: I tried to do this in HTML, but it always put a space in the URL...
So I guess you missed the whole "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" went right over your head?
I think the most significant part of the book is not the surveilance state, but that they are re-inventing language with the express purpose of making it impossible to express dissent. "War is Peace" is a common slogan. Once everyone uses the double-plus good dictionary, documents like the Declaration of Independence would be untranslateable.
As with the surveilance state, Orwell was dead on with his analysis of language. People are no longer "handicapped," they're "differently abled". I heard George Carlin once call them "handicapable".
Actually, aside from Orwell, I think George Carlin is one of the most astute observers of language. One of his bits was the transformation of the "Shell Shocked" (WWI- direct and to the point), to "Battle Fatigue" (WWII- they're just tired), and eventually to "Post Tramautic Distress Disorder" (Vietnam- so long it has become meaningless).
1) Yeah, it wasnt't he potshots that took at the ATF or anything like that...
Who were coming in unannounced through an open window without identifying themselves. And why were they there in the first case? Because he was a religious gun nut.
2) I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm sure its bullshit anyway.
So you don't think the NYPD are capable of brutality? An NYPD office (Volpe) recently plead guilty to shoving a broomstick up someone's ass... Other NYPD offices shot at an unarmed man (Diallo) 41 times!
3) Sure, a kid born in poverty has as much freedom of speech as anyone else. No one is going to listen to him, but that isn't that point.
But that IS the point. It's easy nowadays to put up a web page and express yourself however you like, but if you don't have the money to defend yourself, a single threat of legal action can usually shut you up. That's what took Packet Storm down.
4) Bullshit, the cops can't do their job becuase every criminal cliamns they've been beaten if the cops do so much as look at them funny.
Let's talk about NYPD again. According the the NY Times:
It [NYPD] routinely pays out tens of thousands of dollars to people who say the police abused them, but the Police Department rarely formally investigates their allegations, and the officers named in their lawsuits almost always continue working without scrutiny or punishment.
Here's the link.
5) Every lawyer who represents someone has passed the bar, so is by definition competent.
So you think that OJ would have done just as well if he'd relied on a public defender?
Thanks for the liberal propaganda though.
Once you can label someone, it's so easy to dismiss them. Usually people who mention David Koresh are labeled as conservatives, but I guess that doesn't matter. As long as you can tie up their philosophy with a single word, you can easily dismiss whatever they have to say.
Apparently you didn't listen to Ollie North testifying before Congress where he openly admitted that he developed plans to use FEMA in case the anti-Contra campaigns heated up like the anti-Vietnam war campaigns. Ollie personally drew up the plans for Marshal Law in the US and FEMA was the arm that would enforce it.
I got the "real" 1.1.1 off Red Hat's update site.
Look at www.sas.com. I think they'll need to change their name. SAS is pretty good at protecting their name...
http://www.gcn.com/gcn/1998/July13/cov2.htm
> I submitted that article almost a week ago [...]
Interesting. The date on the article is July 6.
You don't have to read any other Tech sites. It was posted on /. already. In fact, today is the one-month anniversary of the story:
h tml
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/02/1436210.s
Maybe when I get around to it I'll submit a story I saw about there being a prequel to Star Wars coming out...
Anyways, his basic take has been that while they certainly mixed up times and places, they did accurately portray the personalities. He even said that yes, he would skip the meal at those fancy shin digs and go to Dennys later. He didn't know how they knew that. It cracked me up when he said that in the movie, and I busted a gut when I found it it was actually true.
Certainly your language is much more clear. Now let me ask you this: when was the last time you ever read anything that clear from a lawyer?