Oh RTFA and stop being so alarmist. They simply didn't allow the Centrino trademarks be used with laptops whose OS didn't take advantage of the low power consumption profile associated with the Centrino chipset.
They spent marketing money pushing the power usage of the Centrino, they didn't want to have to add "* Microsoft Windows only" to all their ads. Imagine how twisted your knickers would have been then.
Better had they spent the money developing the drivers for Linux, but that's life.
They never stopped people running Linux with the Centrino, and now that it does work properly, they are happy to have their brand associated with it.
What? You're only going to watch it once? First three trips will be to see her pole-dancing, after that I'll stop drooling and watch the rest of the movie...
As with any problem, there are many approaches that need to be taken together. No single approach will work. We need to criminalise and prosecute malicous crackers and spammers. We need to educate users to reduce the risk of their machines being used as zombie nodes. ISPs need to take responsibility by identifying compromised hosts on their network and taking preventative action.
However, we also need to criminalise the act of using spam as an advertising medium. Thus far, there is no action being taken on this front, and it would probably be one of the most fruitful strategies. It is much easier to follow the financial trail than to follow a crackers trail.
Sure, it'll lead to zombies running the websites also, but somebody still has to process the payments eventually. Prosecute them, and you will reduce the spammers market.
As for vigilantism - if you feel the need to pester somebody, I suggest your local representative would be a much better person to annoy.
Sadly, I had this thought on Monday whilst ranting about date handling. Although I reckoned a 700 day year would be better - fix the pensions funding problem at the same time, and cut the number of times you have to put up with crappy Christmas jingles. Although age-of-consent leglislation would want to be changed...
That's a fair point. In my experience however, most of the clients who come to us with an existing domain have forgotten their registrar username and password, and have to get it resent to them, via email.
If Joe Public valued such things as they should, then the losing registrar would certainly be in a better position to authenticate things.
Having said that, the issue at hand isn't authentication: it's the problem of registrars blocking their customers from moving to the competition by (mis)use of the procedures.
If your email address is with a non-US entity, the DoJ can go swivel.
Therefore, if anybody wanst a prestigous yourname@the.prosecutor.has.herpes.and.a.leaky.ass.helgrim.com email address, provided free here in Ireland, contact me through my site.
I'd love to see a video from the courtroom as the charges are read...
we're supposed to have the best of everything at the mere cost of selling our souls. So how come I don't get free wireless internet?
Sadly, souls aren't the valued commodity they once were. Too many people selling, the market is over-supplied. Now mini-iPods, you sell yours, you'll get your free wireless...
Neither Fergal or John deal with the random distribution of transfers. Both make the assumption that 'pure' PR-STV will be imlemented - something that the Nedap system isn't doing at the moment.
I take your point about the serial number though. Once you can verify that the numbers of each permutation match up, there isn't a need to uniquely identify any ballot.
It's not that easy when you have tens of thousands of ballots.
Note that you shouldn't be able to identify the order in which votes were cast, so each vote should have a unique random serial on it - making the manual sort even more time consuming.
I agree with you though, it can be done. The main point however is that e-voting offers an opportunity to eliminate this randomness by counting all the next preference votes and distributing them fractionally. That for me is the main advantage which e-voting offers. Remember, the randomness is only there in the first place to make the manual count easier.
Incidentally, I was just looking over the request for tender from 2000, and noted that they anticipated a larger trial for the 2004 elections, and that a decision on full implemention would be taken at the end of 2004. Kind of implies they were trying to implement it before even *they* thought they should.
The 'e' component refers to 'electronic', not 'exposed to the internet', or 'easily connected to through use of TCP/IP', not even 'evidently we do not know what e stands for, but we like to think it stands for Internet'.
Just like e-mail is electronic mail.
It's an easy mistake to make, tellingly though it was a mistake also made by the Minister responsible.
He stated that he did not consider the system to be 'e-voting' as it was not connected to the internet, and suggested people were calling it that to prey on the fears of the public. I emailed the Minister advising him of his mistake, but received no response funnily.
Will some marketing fuckwit please explain how 'e' means connected to the internet?
As another Irish person, please find out, and complain loudly!:)
First off, The system was called Nedap/Powervote, Nedap is a company based in the Netherlands.
Secondly, there was not going to be any paper trail, and this was one of the main reasons for objections. Most of the objectors agreed in principle with the concept of electronic voting, but not the Nedap implementation.
There are obstacles to having a paper trail due to the quirks of our system of voting, which I'll try to explain.
What this means is that the voter marks his preference 1,2,3 etc, and more than one candidate can be elected per voting area.
A quota of votes establishes how many votes a candidate requires to be elected.
When a candidate is elected, the excess (no. of votes over the quota) is transferred to other candidates in another round of voting, according to the next preferences indicated on the ballot.
Now in Ireland, we do this by taking a random sample of those votes, and distributing those next preferences proportionally. This causes a problem with using a paper trail, as you cannot guarantee that the random sample you pick in your manual count is the same random sample chosen by the computer.
This also means that your vote may not actually be counted as such - you second preference may only be counted in the statistical sense.
Ideally, you would count each vote in each round of voting - however, with Irish elections often going to 7/8 rounds of voting, it was considered too time consuming to do this in general elections. It's a close enough compromise, and means we can usually get the results within 24 hours or so.
E-voting offered an opportunity to change this, and to count each and every transfer. However, the government screwed up, and ruled this out, effectively ruling out an independent paper trail.
Incidentally, €40 million was spent so far by the Irish government, and this is the best they could come up with.
Is there any reason you are against e-voting in principle? Given that you admit to not being aware of the situation, I'm guessing this is not a considered viewpoint, one which you should consider.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh RTFA and stop being so alarmist. They simply didn't allow the Centrino trademarks be used with laptops whose OS didn't take advantage of the low power consumption profile associated with the Centrino chipset.
They spent marketing money pushing the power usage of the Centrino, they didn't want to have to add "* Microsoft Windows only" to all their ads. Imagine how twisted your knickers would have been then.
Better had they spent the money developing the drivers for Linux, but that's life.
They never stopped people running Linux with the Centrino, and now that it does work properly, they are happy to have their brand associated with it.
Ye Gods! A morse code pun. Time for slashdot to commit communal suicide.
(You first)
How does a wireless SSID possess a you've?
If you're going to submit a lame story, at least check your apostrophes.
Just wait until you see the "Best Wireless SSIDs?" story...
THIS_IS_A_SHIT_STORY
Easy, we paint it at nighttime.
What? You're only going to watch it once? First three trips will be to see her pole-dancing, after that I'll stop drooling and watch the rest of the movie...
As with any problem, there are many approaches that need to be taken together. No single approach will work. We need to criminalise and prosecute malicous crackers and spammers. We need to educate users to reduce the risk of their machines being used as zombie nodes.
ISPs need to take responsibility by identifying compromised hosts on their network and taking preventative action.
However, we also need to criminalise the act of using spam as an advertising medium. Thus far, there is no action being taken on this front, and it would probably be one of the most fruitful strategies. It is much easier to follow the financial trail than to follow a crackers trail.
Sure, it'll lead to zombies running the websites also, but somebody still has to process the payments eventually. Prosecute them, and you will reduce the spammers market.
As for vigilantism - if you feel the need to pester somebody, I suggest your local representative would be a much better person to annoy.
Sadly, I had this thought on Monday whilst ranting about date handling. Although I reckoned a 700 day year would be better - fix the pensions funding problem at the same time, and cut the number of times you have to put up with crappy Christmas jingles. Although age-of-consent leglislation would want to be changed...
"VI VI VI The editor of the beast."
So what - C++ - The language of Orwell?
You left out Tidal Power. Obviously only of value in coastal regions, and technology is quite immature at present.
That's a fair point. In my experience however, most of the clients who come to us with an existing domain have forgotten their registrar username and password, and have to get it resent to them, via email.
If Joe Public valued such things as they should, then the losing registrar would certainly be in a better position to authenticate things.
Having said that, the issue at hand isn't authentication: it's the problem of registrars blocking their customers from moving to the competition by (mis)use of the procedures.
If your email address is with a non-US entity, the DoJ can go swivel.
s .helgrim.com email address, provided free here in Ireland, contact me through my site.
Therefore, if anybody wanst a prestigous yourname@the.prosecutor.has.herpes.and.a.leaky.as
I'd love to see a video from the courtroom as the charges are read...
Minor correction, the X-Prize is not government sponsored.
I still would, assuming I had the required test-pilot experience, which I don't.
The problem is, I'm not sure there's enough walls to put all those deserving up against...
<flame>
American law?
</flame>
Nobody expects the Roman Rectification!
You've the honour(?) of being the first to say so...
we're supposed to have the best of everything at the mere cost of selling our souls. So how come I don't get free wireless internet?
Sadly, souls aren't the valued commodity they once were. Too many people selling, the market is over-supplied. Now mini-iPods, you sell yours, you'll get your free wireless...
Neither Fergal or John deal with the random distribution of transfers. Both make the assumption that 'pure' PR-STV will be imlemented - something that the Nedap system isn't doing at the moment.
I take your point about the serial number though. Once you can verify that the numbers of each permutation match up, there isn't a need to uniquely identify any ballot.
It's not that easy when you have tens of thousands of ballots.
Note that you shouldn't be able to identify the order in which votes were cast, so each vote should have a unique random serial on it - making the manual sort even more time consuming.
I agree with you though, it can be done. The main point however is that e-voting offers an opportunity to eliminate this randomness by counting all the next preference votes and distributing them fractionally. That for me is the main advantage which e-voting offers. Remember, the randomness is only there in the first place to make the manual count easier.
Incidentally, I was just looking over the request for tender from 2000, and noted that they anticipated a larger trial for the 2004 elections, and that a decision on full implemention would be taken at the end of 2004. Kind of implies they were trying to implement it before even *they* thought they should.
You are wrong.
The 'e' component refers to 'electronic', not 'exposed to the internet', or 'easily connected to through use of TCP/IP', not even 'evidently we do not know what e stands for, but we like to think it stands for Internet'.
Just like e-mail is electronic mail.
It's an easy mistake to make, tellingly though it was a mistake also made by the Minister responsible.
He stated that he did not consider the system to be 'e-voting' as it was not connected to the internet, and suggested people were calling it that to prey on the fears of the public. I emailed the Minister advising him of his mistake, but received no response funnily.
Will some marketing fuckwit please explain how 'e' means connected to the internet?
At least tell me what the 'e' stands for?
Please?
As another Irish person, please find out, and complain loudly! :)
First off, The system was called Nedap/Powervote, Nedap is a company based in the Netherlands.
Secondly, there was not going to be any paper trail, and this was one of the main reasons for objections. Most of the objectors agreed in principle with the concept of electronic voting, but not the Nedap implementation.
There are obstacles to having a paper trail due to the quirks of our system of voting, which I'll try to explain.
In Ireland, we use a particular method of proportional representation (PR) known as Proportional Representation through the Single Transferable Vote (PR-STV), and we use this in a multi-candidate election.
What this means is that the voter marks his preference 1,2,3 etc, and more than one candidate can be elected per voting area.
A quota of votes establishes how many votes a candidate requires to be elected.
When a candidate is elected, the excess (no. of votes over the quota) is transferred to other candidates in another round of voting, according to the next preferences indicated on the ballot.
Now in Ireland, we do this by taking a random sample of those votes, and distributing those next preferences proportionally. This causes a problem with using a paper trail, as you cannot guarantee that the random sample you pick in your manual count is the same random sample chosen by the computer.
This also means that your vote may not actually be counted as such - you second preference may only be counted in the statistical sense.
Ideally, you would count each vote in each round of voting - however, with Irish elections often going to 7/8 rounds of voting, it was considered too time consuming to do this in general elections. It's a close enough compromise, and means we can usually get the results within 24 hours or so.
E-voting offered an opportunity to change this, and to count each and every transfer. However, the government screwed up, and ruled this out, effectively ruling out an independent paper trail.
Incidentally, €40 million was spent so far by the Irish government, and this is the best they could come up with.
Is there any reason you are against e-voting in principle? Given that you admit to not being aware of the situation, I'm guessing this is not a considered viewpoint, one which you should consider.
Why are elections under the jurisdiction of the Minsiter for the Environment?
The full title of his department is "The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government."