Ok so if you count two related books that arn't even officialy part of the LORD OF THE RINGS you come out with five. How in the name of Gandalf do you get 6 books? Or were you thinking of a different series of books that you have never read?
No, popular doesn't equal better. For example, VHS beat out betamax because VHS was more popular, not because it was better. In solviet russia (sorry, had to say it) the official government brands were the most popular of just about everything (as anything else was illegal) but that does not make them a better product than the free-market alternitives. Need more examples, consult any elementry logic textbook. (Look under logical fallicies)
Not to mention that the salary of a entry-level airline pilot makes them eligable for foodstamps, except some airline companies have gone so far to prohibit their pilots from applying, because it looks bad on the company image. No, pilots might be on the list of most UNDER-paid jobs, but not on the list of most overpaid. (Although the long time pilots do tend to make quite a bit more than the entry-level pilots).
Um what I think the article is saying is that 2/3 of the sites on the World Wide Web are run by Apache software. In the English Language this is equivalant to saying "Apache [Software] Runs 2/3 Of the [World Wide] Web."
The article doesn't claim that Apache is neccicary for the web, simply that it is well utilized.
Going beyond the article however, without Apache there would be a fairly noticable difference in the Web to the users. Fewer low-end sites would have the capasity for advanced features as there are few other free (as in Beer, although Apache qualifies by both meanings of the word) Web Servers with the advanced features Apache can incorperate. Thus, the sites that wouldn't be able/willing to shell out for commercial web server software would use less-featured servers and have to redo their pages in a less sophisitacated form to run.
Hrmm I reread my own post and want to clarify a few points of mine and further support the others.
What is scary about biological warfare is once the toxin is developed, it requires little funding and the president could deploy it without informing congress or getting additional funding.
Yes I really beleive that, but there is still a point in talking, really, we won't change each others minds, but we might find some common ground. When I said he had no problem, I am refering to Bush's statements that he can sleep peacefully and has no qualms about the thousands of innocent lives he has cut short. He started a war on insufficient cause (I freely admit that this point is open for debate and don't see any reason to rehash it once again here) and thousands died. He did, I'll grant, take steps to reduce the civilian casualties, but he had no problems bombing civilian targets in the hope of getting high level administration personel. This, to me, is murder of innocents. To others it might be "acceptable collateral damage" but I can't stomach the latter viewpoint even when I try.
Wow, I agree. I think I need to clarify what I mean here. I am not saying that Hussain or Bin Laden would be safer in the White house. In my threat assesment I am taking into consideration the fact that G.W. Bush is Commander-in-Cheif of an army that is larger than any other, better equipted and has neculear and thermoneculear weapons in enough quantity to destroy the planet. Thus Bush is a greater danger in the same way a tame lion with my head in its jaws as part of a show would be a greater threat to my welfare than an untrained, rabid lion seperated from me by several miles of Safari. Hussain or Bin Laden cannot start a World War without the USA, GW Bush could start a World War by giving a single order. (Though he is more likly to take the slow route and give several compounding orders.) Is that a little more clear? (My anology is a little off because I don't consider Bush tame, but you get the idea, right?)
Your point, unless I'm wrong, is that we have no hope of knowing what is good untill it has withstood the test of time. As my body won't withstand the same test of time I humbaly reserve the right to offer my temporaly limited opinion that Tolkien will be considered one of the greats long after we are dust.
If I am wrong and you're simply saying that no modern authors have near godlike status to their fans, look at both Tolkien (again) and Rowling. They are probably more worshiped icons than anything the Catholic Church has to offer.
Hrmm think of a better word than "masters" for me to use then and still get off a similar point?
I think that even with four examples my point is made, just remove the other names from the list in your mind and reread the post:) Many decently talented people are actualy recognized in their own time, we just hear more about the ones that wern't.
Oh and on a personal level I really don't give a damn about what the people with "serious backgrounds in English lit" say, I like good books because they are good, not because they are generaly regaurded as being good. This is, of course a digression from the topic at hand in which your point is intirely relavant and well taken.
For the record, William Shakespeare was well regaurded in his own time and wrote plays his monarch. His abilities alone got him accepted into the royal court with a position of favour. Yes he was considered an icon.
Many other "masters" were also recognized in their own time including, but not limited to:
Motzart
Michalangelo (spelling?)
Leonardio da Vinci
Beatoven (spelling?)
Goethe
Edgar Allen Poe
Christopher Columbous (surprized, no he didn't die in poverty, and he knew he discovered a new world, sorry if he's a bit off topic though)
J.K. Rowling
C.S. Lewis
J.R.R. Tolkien
Me (in my own mind at least)
I'm not sure though if the problem now isn't just that we have to much talent for the best to filter through? That is an intrepretation of the data that was never considered.
Yet there are some intresting parallels between what is in the bible and what has been discovered through scientific inquery. For instance the order of creation: First there was darkness and no oceans (gas clouds blocked light from getting to primordial earth, before it cooled enough to support liquid water) Later life begins IN THE SEA, and then moves to land, then to intelligent life (man) at the end. I find it intresting that a people so self-oriented that they think themselves the center of the universe don't assume that they were created first and all other life created FOR them. (They try to fudge this one sometimes buy saying that it was created for them beforehand, but this doesn't flow as well.)
There arn't to many similarities for it to be beyond coinsidence, but there are enough similarities to make the atheistic position a simple preponderence of evidence, rather than an open-shut case. The spiritual/religious movement does have a decent point, so long as they put away a literal interpretation of their religious works as being incomplete renditions of what a primitive mind could understand of the truth thousands of years ago, not a verbatum transcript of the Truth.
Um, true the president can't declare war without an act of congress, but he can order special ops without even alerting congress, and a biological attack would probably be a covert/special ops mission anyway. Oh, and G.W. Bush doesn't drop americans into the "chipper shredder" because it would loose him his job, but he has NO problem murdering thousands of non-american civilians who didn't even voice discontent with his policy. He has no problems violating the Geneva acords on afgani POW's (something even Hussain never sunk to). I think I am far from alone when I say that G.W. Bush is a greater threat to world peace and civilian life than Saddam Hussain, Osama bin Laden, or the entire country of France. Indeed I think much of the world, with the exception of Isreal which the US allows and encourages to engage in racialy and religiously based terrorism, and a few countries we've managed to buy, agrees with me.
No, nobody should have access to biological weapons, the possible ramificataions are greater than the ramifications of thermoneculear warheads, because with bad enough luck, a single biological attack could spread a plague and annahilate the human race, a single H-bomb, (or A-Bomb, or N-bomb) couldn't destroy even the enirity of the Uninted States.
However, I agree, some rogue nations probably do it anyway and there needs to be a controlled experimental group to figure out how to combat this problem. But this group should be international and extremly well guarded and isolated so they cannot spread what they are working on accidently or intentionaly. (The International Space Station sounds like a good place to do the work).
No silly-willy that was supposed to be Diebold (No Text) not a merger between microsoft's old server software and a voting machine that is as secure as a paranoid scitzophrenic during a bad acid trip.
Lawyer
MS Programmer
RIAA Spokesperson
Spammer
Prostitute
Stripper
Night Club Owner
Used Car Dealer
Food Service employee
Food Service manager
Local resteraunt owner
Teacher
Professor
Doctor
Lawyer
goto MS... etc.
Hello, I am nobody. Although I agree that the bigger concern is diebold (or whoever) "Giving" the a state to Bush (or whoever) I think it is still neccicary to protect against the local cracker giving the election to Linus Torvalds (or whoever). Not that I don't think that Torvalds would make a wonderfull president (were he eligable), but we really need to have the person elected be the person in office.
I agree that GPL!=Open Source btw. But I still don't think Open Source is the only right path, a commercial closed source (or free(as in beer) closed source solution!) could offer the neccicary accountability if it had a papertrail that the voter would see getting printed.
On a complete side note, wouldn't it be pretty funny if diebold (or whoever) does try to rig an election and some kid hacks the terminal software to deliver another person to the office? What could diebold do? They know their systems were comprimised only because they didn't dilever the intended result.
Ok I digress a bit much here, but that's ok, because I'm tired of the origional subject already:)
I think you're getting close, except who's to say the checksums on display are actualy the checksums of the program being used? Still not perfect. A paper trail that the voter can SEE being printed out is still better, and the only way, open or closed source, to be sure that what you actually voted for is reportable.
Oh and who's to say that what is installed on the systems is the same thing as what people are allowed the code to? Unless EVERYBODY has the right to inspect EVERY machine down to the hardware level you won't have to the tinfoil hat level, any more than you do if the ballots are signed in blood (could have a dishonest technition run a DNA testing system). If you want complete acountability the only way is to have votor ID numbers printed on the paper trail, and then we have the huge security risk of somebody finding out who voted how, and making it an issue. Exactly what secret ballots are designed to prevent. If you want certenty, you've been born into the wrong world.
I do not advocate Closed Source. Quite the contrary. However my point is that, in all rationality, it is not the ONLY solution. Let me simplify my point for you a little bit:
In order to have a fair voting system it needs to be accountable so that voters can verrify that the votes they cast are accuratly tallied.
A commercial solution with a paper trail that is printed in view of the voter offers accountability which can ensure the voters that any discrepencies between what they voted and the electronicly reported votes can be identified.
Therefore a commercial solution can be used for a fair voting system.
I know, and agree with, most of the arguments why an open source solution is superior, however, please, give a good reason why a closed solution with paper trail isn't an acceptable solution. And please, give some justification for your assertions. Saying the only way for X, isn't justification unless you say WHY this is the ONLY way.
I've read/. even longer, and it used to be a lot less focused on one thing. Articles and responces used to be fairly intelligent. At one time you could get more usefull information from replies than from the article. We began to change about the time I got my user ID.../me sighs I guess I sometimes still expect such a community.
Agreed (mostly) OS has an advantage, although I'm not sure I'd call it huge THAT is probably an argument of semantics. However CS also has a few minor advantages (security through obscurtity is an advantage just a very small one that shouldn't be your sole security system and a CS solution allows less people to have the opertunity to find the critical exploits and use them.) The advantage of OS, of course is that CS also allows fewer people to see the critical problems and fix them.
My point was not to say OS is evil, wrong, or even the lesser solution. My point, quite simply is that open source projects are not the only way to have fair, accountable electronic voting systems.
With a paper trail on a closed source system the system is equaly subject to review as if it were a pure paper system. Or did you read past my title on my origional article?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok so if you count two related books that arn't even officialy part of the LORD OF THE RINGS you come out with five. How in the name of Gandalf do you get 6 books? Or were you thinking of a different series of books that you have never read?
No, popular doesn't equal better. For example, VHS beat out betamax because VHS was more popular, not because it was better. In solviet russia (sorry, had to say it) the official government brands were the most popular of just about everything (as anything else was illegal) but that does not make them a better product than the free-market alternitives. Need more examples, consult any elementry logic textbook. (Look under logical fallicies)
Not to mention that the salary of a entry-level airline pilot makes them eligable for foodstamps, except some airline companies have gone so far to prohibit their pilots from applying, because it looks bad on the company image. No, pilots might be on the list of most UNDER-paid jobs, but not on the list of most overpaid. (Although the long time pilots do tend to make quite a bit more than the entry-level pilots).
The article doesn't claim that Apache is neccicary for the web, simply that it is well utilized.
Going beyond the article however, without Apache there would be a fairly noticable difference in the Web to the users. Fewer low-end sites would have the capasity for advanced features as there are few other free (as in Beer, although Apache qualifies by both meanings of the word) Web Servers with the advanced features Apache can incorperate. Thus, the sites that wouldn't be able/willing to shell out for commercial web server software would use less-featured servers and have to redo their pages in a less sophisitacated form to run.
What is scary about biological warfare is once the toxin is developed, it requires little funding and the president could deploy it without informing congress or getting additional funding.
Yes I really beleive that, but there is still a point in talking, really, we won't change each others minds, but we might find some common ground. When I said he had no problem, I am refering to Bush's statements that he can sleep peacefully and has no qualms about the thousands of innocent lives he has cut short. He started a war on insufficient cause (I freely admit that this point is open for debate and don't see any reason to rehash it once again here) and thousands died. He did, I'll grant, take steps to reduce the civilian casualties, but he had no problems bombing civilian targets in the hope of getting high level administration personel. This, to me, is murder of innocents. To others it might be "acceptable collateral damage" but I can't stomach the latter viewpoint even when I try.
Wow, I agree. I think I need to clarify what I mean here. I am not saying that Hussain or Bin Laden would be safer in the White house. In my threat assesment I am taking into consideration the fact that G.W. Bush is Commander-in-Cheif of an army that is larger than any other, better equipted and has neculear and thermoneculear weapons in enough quantity to destroy the planet. Thus Bush is a greater danger in the same way a tame lion with my head in its jaws as part of a show would be a greater threat to my welfare than an untrained, rabid lion seperated from me by several miles of Safari. Hussain or Bin Laden cannot start a World War without the USA, GW Bush could start a World War by giving a single order. (Though he is more likly to take the slow route and give several compounding orders.) Is that a little more clear? (My anology is a little off because I don't consider Bush tame, but you get the idea, right?)
If I am wrong and you're simply saying that no modern authors have near godlike status to their fans, look at both Tolkien (again) and Rowling. They are probably more worshiped icons than anything the Catholic Church has to offer.
I think that even with four examples my point is made, just remove the other names from the list in your mind and reread the post :) Many decently talented people are actualy recognized in their own time, we just hear more about the ones that wern't.
Oh and on a personal level I really don't give a damn about what the people with "serious backgrounds in English lit" say, I like good books because they are good, not because they are generaly regaurded as being good. This is, of course a digression from the topic at hand in which your point is intirely relavant and well taken.
I do that every night.
Many other "masters" were also recognized in their own time including, but not limited to:
I'm not sure though if the problem now isn't just that we have to much talent for the best to filter through? That is an intrepretation of the data that was never considered.
There arn't to many similarities for it to be beyond coinsidence, but there are enough similarities to make the atheistic position a simple preponderence of evidence, rather than an open-shut case. The spiritual/religious movement does have a decent point, so long as they put away a literal interpretation of their religious works as being incomplete renditions of what a primitive mind could understand of the truth thousands of years ago, not a verbatum transcript of the Truth.
No, nobody should have access to biological weapons, the possible ramificataions are greater than the ramifications of thermoneculear warheads, because with bad enough luck, a single biological attack could spread a plague and annahilate the human race, a single H-bomb, (or A-Bomb, or N-bomb) couldn't destroy even the enirity of the Uninted States.
However, I agree, some rogue nations probably do it anyway and there needs to be a controlled experimental group to figure out how to combat this problem. But this group should be international and extremly well guarded and isolated so they cannot spread what they are working on accidently or intentionaly. (The International Space Station sounds like a good place to do the work).
No silly-willy that was supposed to be Diebold (No Text) not a merger between microsoft's old server software and a voting machine that is as secure as a paranoid scitzophrenic during a bad acid trip.
(please tell me that on /. at least one person knows what the heck I'm talking about.)
bullshit check your physics!
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you must be a virgin.
This message was brought to you by The Computer. Have a nice daycycle!
Oh, wait, nevermind.
Lawyer
MS Programmer
RIAA Spokesperson
Spammer
Prostitute
Stripper
Night Club Owner
Used Car Dealer
Food Service employee
Food Service manager
Local resteraunt owner
Teacher
Professor
Doctor
Lawyer
goto MS... etc.
Frightening no?
I agree that GPL!=Open Source btw. But I still don't think Open Source is the only right path, a commercial closed source (or free(as in beer) closed source solution!) could offer the neccicary accountability if it had a papertrail that the voter would see getting printed.
On a complete side note, wouldn't it be pretty funny if diebold (or whoever) does try to rig an election and some kid hacks the terminal software to deliver another person to the office? What could diebold do? They know their systems were comprimised only because they didn't dilever the intended result.
Ok I digress a bit much here, but that's ok, because I'm tired of the origional subject already :)
I think you're getting close, except who's to say the checksums on display are actualy the checksums of the program being used? Still not perfect. A paper trail that the voter can SEE being printed out is still better, and the only way, open or closed source, to be sure that what you actually voted for is reportable.
Oh and who's to say that what is installed on the systems is the same thing as what people are allowed the code to? Unless EVERYBODY has the right to inspect EVERY machine down to the hardware level you won't have to the tinfoil hat level, any more than you do if the ballots are signed in blood (could have a dishonest technition run a DNA testing system). If you want complete acountability the only way is to have votor ID numbers printed on the paper trail, and then we have the huge security risk of somebody finding out who voted how, and making it an issue. Exactly what secret ballots are designed to prevent. If you want certenty, you've been born into the wrong world.
I know, and agree with, most of the arguments why an open source solution is superior, however, please, give a good reason why a closed solution with paper trail isn't an acceptable solution. And please, give some justification for your assertions. Saying the only way for X, isn't justification unless you say WHY this is the ONLY way.
I've read /. even longer, and it used to be a lot less focused on one thing. Articles and responces used to be fairly intelligent. At one time you could get more usefull information from replies than from the article. We began to change about the time I got my user ID... /me sighs I guess I sometimes still expect such a community.
My point was not to say OS is evil, wrong, or even the lesser solution. My point, quite simply is that open source projects are not the only way to have fair, accountable electronic voting systems.
With a paper trail on a closed source system the system is equaly subject to review as if it were a pure paper system. Or did you read past my title on my origional article?