This machine is simply a PC with clever packaging and flash added.
The machine I speak of is a Linux computer. Motherboard and integrated hardware that is all supported by Linux. The BIOS directly loads the Linux kernel and is open.
A machine like this would not run win32 at all, would not use an industry bios. That's the expensive part.
computer. Not a computer that can run Linux, but one that is built specifically to run Linux. Ideally, this computer would not run win32 out of the box.
Call it the Open Station, or some other thing.
The way I see it, corporations are rapidly gaining more rights than we, as individuals, are. In order to realistically put our hat in the ring, we need a corporation that works to do our bidding. Better to start building one now than later.
There is another side benefit here as well in that some of the benefit Apple brings to the table could also happen in Linux land. Control over the hardware, or at the least, solid known minimum specifications would allow developers to target the known environment, making support and the user experience more cohesive than it is now.
Expensive to start? Sure, but necessary IMHO.
Personally, I would support this effort. Say a nice machine hits the $300 - $600 mark w/o monitor. That price point would put it in reach of a lot of folks.
We can make our voice heard in a more powerful way while bringing some credence to the whole OSS movement in a new way.
I know Linux and the BSDs run on almost anything. That's a good thing; however, I believe if people see Linux computers as a choice, their perception of Linux might change for the better. The whole thing would become a little less leach like. (I don't believe this, but I have heard others lean this way from time to time.)
I am totally ok with companies making money, but not ok with the current status quo. They are assured that right for far too long. We lose (the potential fruits of innovation) as a result.
one cannot give something away that is patented? Is it really illegal to make something that is patented, but GIVE IT AWAY?
Of course in the context of real devices, this would not be practical because materials have to come from somewhere, but isn't software different?
Has anyone interpeted the law in this way? Maybe it would end up being illegal to sell patented software, but not illegal to simply make it available to others.
Have there been decisions in the courts along these lines?
I would like to throw out a couple of observations here:
I have found the very best programs are those built into two parts; namely, the command line part and the GUI wrapper part. Take a look at the SGI Indigo Magic desktop utilities and programs for very good examples of this. Of particular note is their software manager application. The command line is 'inst'. It is text based and can do everything from a terminal. The GUI portion is 'swmgr'. It simply wraps around 'inst' and presents a good interface.
The nice thing about this is the choice the user has. Running remote on low bandwidth, or want to script something? Use the text only portion. Perhaps a number of advanced operations need to be performed, such as new installations, or upgrades that break the GUI. Also use the text version.
Have a nicely running box and just want to organize and manage some software, perhaps install something new. Use the GUI and perform the task with ease.
Don't like the GUI? Well, write another one that does what you want in ways you want it to. Nothing breaks as a result and you don't have to talk with the people who wrote 'inst' in the first place.
Sure there are exceptions, like OpenOffice.org, so lets set those aside for a moment. I am not sure how well this approach would work for a large application like this.
However, most of the little programs people want to use are easily done in two parts. Doing this splits the work in that the geek developers can get the technical part done. Nothing really gets in the way of their innovation because they can leave the equaly hard GUI development to others.
Distributions, and corporations can build GUI interfaces that make sense without having to directly involve the core developers of the project.
Seems to me this fits in with both UNIX and FS/OSS core ideals.
This is exactly what drives me toward OSS. I want to see the change because, as it stands now, we can plot our futures on the corporate roadmaps and that sucks.
I agree, for the most part. Interestingly enough, I happen to fall into the #4 catagory more often these days. Doing without is an interesting option. Sometimes software does not get you anywhere faster or better, just differently. I think it is important to make the effort to try and recognize that and react accordingly.
Could it be that the overall value proposition of most closed software today is declining? We hear this same noise over music. Today it is possible for groups to make their own music of good quality and distribute it directly to listeners. That is true for most kinds of software people need today.
Closed software is perfectly ok, so long as it runs in an Open Envronment. But, buying that software only happens when it is clear the producer has something of value in the solution beyond the usual lock-in sorts of value we see typically today. (CAD software, Analysis, and other specialized solutions qualify for this where office suites, and such clearly do not.)
I know I won't buy software anymore, unless I really need it. If I do, it had better run under Linux. Last resort, VMWare...)
These things together keep a lot of software out of my wallet. (And that is a good thing.) Most of us do not need all of the software we have now as it is!
I don't buy the warez arguements either. I know plenty of people who have tons of software. They don't use it, would never buy it. They have it only because they can get it. (Which does nobody any good.) Used to be one of these as recenty as a few years ago.
OSS, plus a broadband connection has really changed that for the better. (Thanks elflord for pointing that out long ago!)
Skipping the software purchases basically pays for the broadband. The broadband brings me more software and skill than I can find time to make use of. It only gets better from here.
Every friend I turn onto this catches the fever pretty quickly. No legal hassles, no bad feelings, just lots of rapidly improving software for the taking. Sure, they are not giving back just yet, but give that time. At least a growing user base helps us all win the numbers game in the short term.
Realistically, the software industry is beginning to lose out because their core values are being disrupted right now. The more they squeeze, the more people look for alternatives. Personally, I hope they squeeze hard because I stand to make a nice living helping people make a valuable transition.
The truth is a bit different from their little horror story in that the value is not going away. It is being redistributed. Instead of huge companies making all the money, folks like you and me all get to make more money than we did before, with a few of us hitting home runs.
IMHO, that's a damn good thing, given what I stated above.
Normally I just ignore. Sometimes I am in a bit of a mood, so I reply, then ignore. You hooked me.
The name has little to do with the merit of the argument. It's about trust really. The AC can see my posting history while I cannot. Then there are identity issues. Are you the same or not? I don't know.
I like having the ability to post AC because there are plenty of good reasons to do so. However, posts like the one that started this little thread are hitting below the belt.
None of this indicates the Moore comment has any merit at all, BTW.
I have responded to good AC posts in the past --will continue to do so. This one was crap from the cheap seats that's all.
See my journal for details. Cheap shots from the anonymous cheap seats do nothing but add noise to an otherwise entertaining discussion.
Pretty shallow of you to discount my point because you have a problem with Moore. So, if I surround key MOORE info with MOORE placed in key MOORE places, will you MOORE not MOORE you are an ass MOORE read that either?
Piracy is not an issue any more than it has been in the past. The dirty secret is that most people really don't care. They know it's wrong, or just want to avoid the dirty feel of it.
Why do all of this then?
Control. This is the primary issue. It is not about dollars, though they stand to make a bunch of them if we cannot easily archive things.
If we cannot easily produce and distribute our own content, they will continue to profit from being the only ones to do so. Today it is possible to make music on your own, distribute it and perform it, with results on par with the big productions. This is quickly becoming true for movies as well.
What happens when we start enjoying our own stories and music again? The megamedia corps lose plain 'n simple. Prior to the electronic age, this is how things were. I believe we are headed back that direction, if they don't suppress the movement first via legal and technological means.
Think about governments too. Don't you just love what Michael Moore has recently done with F911. How about when people call their leaders in their lies and manupulations and bad calls with actual published proof. Controlling what gets recorded and what does not puts the megamedia companies in control of our culture, expression and access to recent history.
All of these things limit the voice of dissent. All of these things make it easier for those in a position to govern to do so without the proper checks and balances.
There is a growing movement toward both openness and closedness in our society today. It it beginning to trancend the technology issues. Make no mistake, dollars are behind it, but control is at the root.
I own a ton of DVD media. As far as I am concerned, DVD is pretty damn open, just like CD is. In a short time, DVD authoring tools based on open software will be perfectly useable. The megamediacorps are looking *hard* to prevent this mistake from happening again.
They will continue their attempts at legal means to close the door for us until they succeed in getting a platform to profit from. They will never stop because they know their longer term days are numbered due to increasingly powerful technology solutions being delivered to the masses.
If this flag is not neutered, they will lock open technologies out of the next round of hardware developments. If that happens, we all begin to lose our freedom of expression and basic rights to control our own computing environments. Look at DVD. CSS was not a big deal. I play media on Linux every day because its easy and it works. Why don't the distros put in DVD support? Because of legal entanglements. Look at cell phones and how content is handled there. I wrote this:
http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&na me =News&file=article&sid=946&mode=thread&order=0&tho ld=0
[google search for "Closed Computing a Future Look Today" if the link is too mangled.]
Coming to hardware near you simply because they think they can.
This flag will prevent us from easily building our own solutions. Now the geeks will continue to do what they do and will likely be affected little, if at all, but they will never be able to compete with the established interests.
Why not? Every last one of these established interests was started by some geeks in a garage. All of them know their demise is cooking in a garage near you. Rather than compete, they would kill the innovation we all deserve.
Sucks doesn't it?
Get pissed, donate to the EFF, write your leaders, tell your friends and buy open technology. Work hard to understand the differences between open and closed. --You will be glad you did.
Having the machines provide an interface to more easily cast the vote has advantages for the blind, old and handicapped, and this is a good thing. For most of us, the paper method works just fine.
I love tech, but if there is one aspect of live that deserves the luddite treatment, this is it. Why?
Trust is one of the pillars of democracy. Participation is another.
The transient nature of electronic bits combined with our inability to actually see them move and change breaks the chain of trust we need to be assured our system actually works. We can see paper move, we can know the persons who perform the tally. With bits, we simply have to hope the machine does what its creator says. Given our history, we are fools to place our trust into such a system. Concentrations of power have always proven bad, why would this be any different.
The rush to speed the process is counter to the goal of participation and political discourse over the issues. Voting is not supposed to be quick. Voting takes time because it takes time to make the hard decisions. Since these decisions largely affect all of us, we should be taking the time to make them correctly. Coolness factor aside, the current push to modernize voting actually marginalizes the process. This is not healthy.
Early in life, I saw the political process as being messy and time consuming. I did not always vote. Having gotten a bit older and wiser (thanks GW for getting me involved!) I see now the true value of the process.
The last 4 years have shown me the result of hasty decisions made with broken trust and I don't want to experience any more.
On a side note, why doesn't Kerry push this HARD! I don't get it. Somebody please explain this to me. Seriously. why not?
GW has motivated me to stay involved and perform my civic duty. Not everyone agrees, but there are an awful lot of people who do. Why be lazy? Isn't this stuff important to you? To put this in/. terms: Remember when Lessig said, "Why won't they fight?" This is the same apathy on a broader scale with the same consequenses.
I am going to perform my civic duty. My state, Oregon, has a mail in ballot system with its own problems. Still I call and write letters and tell people how electronic bits really work. I mailed a copy of "Black Box Voting" to my representitive along with a call to action on reforming the process.
You folks living in the swing states should get off your duff and do the same because it directly affects you!
Good results take hard work. This means casting your vote with due consideration over the issues, preferably with your peers prior to the vote. Some of us have to tally the votes cast, make sure you are one of them. Work hard to build trust with others doing the same. Ask to watch the process --it is public, afterall. Somebody said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilence". (ok, so I need to work at spelling --civics first!)
Ask your peers and representitives to see the process and show their trust with an open voting process. If they argue it's too much work, let them know there are plenty of unemployed and senior citizens willing and able to get that work done. If they don't understand the trust issue, talk about the machine and their inability to know what happens inside the wires.
We need to close the circle of trust. The last election and its 4 year result should motivate a large enough percentage of us to make this a non-issue. The fact that it hasn't disturbs me. Do we really not give a fuck? Maybe we do need a bit more punishment and loss of freedom to make the point perfectly clear.
I get it now, will you before it's too late to live long enough to see the damage undone?
if we are building things right, the GUI stuff should be building on improved solid console applications.
We run the risk of falling into the same trap our win32 counterparts are in by focusing totally on the GUI. Sure, some things are going to be GUI only, but most things should not be. A well designed application can be driven from the command line just as it can be driven from a GUI wrapper intended to make life easier.
Scripting, low bandwidth access, access for the blind and voice operation are all things the command line facillitates easily. We need to continue to respect that.
mozilla is getting too good. With the advent of xul and fast, safe, standards complient browsing, IE is beginning to look pretty sad.
Now, once another browser gets a foothold again, people will have the option of building web applications that feature nice interfaces (xul!) that don't need a win32 client to run properly.
They don't actually give a shit, they just want to preserve their bloated monopoly.
I have no love for Diebold. After this fiasco, they should be fined in to submission. However, the prices of these things would easily allow someone to build the machines and make a bit of money doing it.
We have been handling votes for the sight-impared for a while now. That is not a reason to continue with electronic voting for the masses. Funny, Oregon has a mail in vote, they also run a limited number of ballot drop points if you miss the mail. There are no polling places and we manage to get the vote done, and we can get a recount.
Seriously, there are plenty of us willing and able to do the work of democracy. Why spend all this money on a system that gets us nothing in return?
Keeping people directly involved is a good thing. It's not like we are making hamburgers or something. The manual process is good enough, plus it can be trusted to a much higher degree than any electronic one will.
Besides, what else are the older folks going to do? They can at least vote and be a respected part of the process.
You make good points, but I am not sure I see the return to society overall with electronic voting systems.
All of this really makes me happy. If I am forced to use Microsoft products, then I have a decent shot at a better deal because of the FS/OSS products I make most use of today.
It hardly gets better than that. Thanks to everyone who has worked hard to get us this far. For everyone else, myself included, please consider contributing in some fashion. You can write docs, test, pass the word along, purchase some software and get a nice box, etc...
OSS: You get more than you contribute in return. How cool is that!
many people have been duped about how and why it matters exactly.
How many companies continue to pay for the same damn software year after year, even though the stuff they are using today will do the job just fine?
Do those new features really address core problems?
All of this spending trades people for pre-packaged solutions. This is a mistake in that everyone uses them, nobody is totally happy with them. (one size fits all problem)
I have been watching OSS for years now, waiting for more companies to "get it". They can hire people who can assemble good solutions to tough problems out of thin air. Those same folks can be around year after to year to make it specifically better for their business, not just all businesses.
You won't find your strategic advantage in a box, even though the company that sells it says you will.
Slashdot Mirror
This machine is simply a PC with clever packaging and flash added.
The machine I speak of is a Linux computer. Motherboard and integrated hardware that is all supported by Linux. The BIOS directly loads the Linux kernel and is open.
A machine like this would not run win32 at all, would not use an industry bios. That's the expensive part.
Gotta like the name though!
computer. Not a computer that can run Linux, but one that is built specifically to run Linux. Ideally, this computer would not run win32 out of the box.
Call it the Open Station, or some other thing.
The way I see it, corporations are rapidly gaining more rights than we, as individuals, are. In order to realistically put our hat in the ring, we need a corporation that works to do our bidding. Better to start building one now than later.
There is another side benefit here as well in that some of the benefit Apple brings to the table could also happen in Linux land. Control over the hardware, or at the least, solid known minimum specifications would allow developers to target the known environment, making support and the user experience more cohesive than it is now.
Expensive to start? Sure, but necessary IMHO.
Personally, I would support this effort. Say a nice machine hits the $300 - $600 mark w/o monitor. That price point would put it in reach of a lot of folks.
We can make our voice heard in a more powerful way while bringing some credence to the whole OSS movement in a new way.
I know Linux and the BSDs run on almost anything. That's a good thing; however, I believe if people see Linux computers as a choice, their perception of Linux might change for the better. The whole thing would become a little less leach like. (I don't believe this, but I have heard others lean this way from time to time.)
Something to think about anyway...
that does cover it, sadly.
Dammit we do need reform.
I am totally ok with companies making money, but not ok with the current status quo. They are assured that right for far too long. We lose (the potential fruits of innovation) as a result.
one cannot give something away that is patented? Is it really illegal to make something that is patented, but GIVE IT AWAY?
Of course in the context of real devices, this would not be practical because materials have to come from somewhere, but isn't software different?
Has anyone interpeted the law in this way? Maybe it would end up being illegal to sell patented software, but not illegal to simply make it available to others.
Have there been decisions in the courts along these lines?
I would like to throw out a couple of observations here:
I have found the very best programs are those built into two parts; namely, the command line part and the GUI wrapper part. Take a look at the SGI Indigo Magic desktop utilities and programs for very good examples of this. Of particular note is their software manager application. The command line is 'inst'. It is text based and can do everything from a terminal. The GUI portion is 'swmgr'. It simply wraps around 'inst' and presents a good interface.
The nice thing about this is the choice the user has. Running remote on low bandwidth, or want to script something? Use the text only portion. Perhaps a number of advanced operations need to be performed, such as new installations, or upgrades that break the GUI. Also use the text version.
Have a nicely running box and just want to organize and manage some software, perhaps install something new. Use the GUI and perform the task with ease.
Don't like the GUI? Well, write another one that does what you want in ways you want it to. Nothing breaks as a result and you don't have to talk with the people who wrote 'inst' in the first place.
Sure there are exceptions, like OpenOffice.org, so lets set those aside for a moment. I am not sure how well this approach would work for a large application like this.
However, most of the little programs people want to use are easily done in two parts. Doing this splits the work in that the geek developers can get the technical part done. Nothing really gets in the way of their innovation because they can leave the equaly hard GUI development to others.
Distributions, and corporations can build GUI interfaces that make sense without having to directly involve the core developers of the project.
Seems to me this fits in with both UNIX and FS/OSS core ideals.
This is exactly what drives me toward OSS. I want to see the change because, as it stands now, we can plot our futures on the corporate roadmaps and that sucks.
Personally, I strongly agree with you.
I agree, for the most part. Interestingly enough, I happen to fall into the #4 catagory more often these days. Doing without is an interesting option. Sometimes software does not get you anywhere faster or better, just differently. I think it is important to make the effort to try and recognize that and react accordingly.
Could it be that the overall value proposition of most closed software today is declining? We hear this same noise over music. Today it is possible for groups to make their own music of good quality and distribute it directly to listeners. That is true for most kinds of software people need today.
Closed software is perfectly ok, so long as it runs in an Open Envronment. But, buying that software only happens when it is clear the producer has something of value in the solution beyond the usual lock-in sorts of value we see typically today. (CAD software, Analysis, and other specialized solutions qualify for this where office suites, and such clearly do not.)
I know I won't buy software anymore, unless I really need it. If I do, it had better run under Linux. Last resort, VMWare...)
These things together keep a lot of software out of my wallet. (And that is a good thing.) Most of us do not need all of the software we have now as it is!
I don't buy the warez arguements either. I know plenty of people who have tons of software. They don't use it, would never buy it. They have it only because they can get it. (Which does nobody any good.) Used to be one of these as recenty as a few years ago.
OSS, plus a broadband connection has really changed that for the better. (Thanks elflord for pointing that out long ago!)
Skipping the software purchases basically pays for the broadband. The broadband brings me more software and skill than I can find time to make use of. It only gets better from here.
Every friend I turn onto this catches the fever pretty quickly. No legal hassles, no bad feelings, just lots of rapidly improving software for the taking. Sure, they are not giving back just yet, but give that time. At least a growing user base helps us all win the numbers game in the short term.
Realistically, the software industry is beginning to lose out because their core values are being disrupted right now. The more they squeeze, the more people look for alternatives. Personally, I hope they squeeze hard because I stand to make a nice living helping people make a valuable transition.
The truth is a bit different from their little horror story in that the value is not going away. It is being redistributed. Instead of huge companies making all the money, folks like you and me all get to make more money than we did before, with a few of us hitting home runs.
IMHO, that's a damn good thing, given what I stated above.
Who is who?
(It is obvious from the posting times and my comment who the new AC posts are from, but maybe this helps illustrate my point a little.)
Cheap shots from the anon seats are not worth dealing with, leaving most AC posts read only...
Normally I just ignore. Sometimes I am in a bit of a mood, so I reply, then ignore. You hooked me.
The name has little to do with the merit of the argument. It's about trust really. The AC can see my posting history while I cannot. Then there are identity issues. Are you the same or not? I don't know.
I like having the ability to post AC because there are plenty of good reasons to do so. However, posts like the one that started this little thread are hitting below the belt.
None of this indicates the Moore comment has any merit at all, BTW.
I have responded to good AC posts in the past --will continue to do so. This one was crap from the cheap seats that's all.
See my journal for details. Cheap shots from the anonymous cheap seats do nothing but add noise to an otherwise entertaining discussion.
Pretty shallow of you to discount my point because you have a problem with Moore. So, if I surround key MOORE info with MOORE placed in key MOORE places, will you MOORE not MOORE you are an ass MOORE read that either?
*plonk*
However, I say it is a very safe bet given the relative apathy we see today in most ordinary people.
Piracy is not an issue any more than it has been in the past. The dirty secret is that most people really don't care. They know it's wrong, or just want to avoid the dirty feel of it.
a me =News&file=article&sid=946&mode=thread&order=0&tho ld=0
Why do all of this then?
Control. This is the primary issue. It is not about dollars, though they stand to make a bunch of them if we cannot easily archive things.
If we cannot easily produce and distribute our own content, they will continue to profit from being the only ones to do so. Today it is possible to make music on your own, distribute it and perform it, with results on par with the big productions. This is quickly becoming true for movies as well.
What happens when we start enjoying our own stories and music again? The megamedia corps lose plain 'n simple. Prior to the electronic age, this is how things were. I believe we are headed back that direction, if they don't suppress the movement first via legal and technological means.
Think about governments too. Don't you just love what Michael Moore has recently done with F911. How about when people call their leaders in their lies and manupulations and bad calls with actual published proof. Controlling what gets recorded and what does not puts the megamedia companies in control of our culture, expression and access to recent history.
All of these things limit the voice of dissent. All of these things make it easier for those in a position to govern to do so without the proper checks and balances.
There is a growing movement toward both openness and closedness in our society today. It it beginning to trancend the technology issues. Make no mistake, dollars are behind it, but control is at the root.
I own a ton of DVD media. As far as I am concerned, DVD is pretty damn open, just like CD is. In a short time, DVD authoring tools based on open software will be perfectly useable. The megamediacorps are looking *hard* to prevent this mistake from happening again.
They will continue their attempts at legal means to close the door for us until they succeed in getting a platform to profit from. They will never stop because they know their longer term days are numbered due to increasingly powerful technology solutions being delivered to the masses.
If this flag is not neutered, they will lock open technologies out of the next round of hardware developments. If that happens, we all begin to lose our freedom of expression and basic rights to control our own computing environments. Look at DVD. CSS was not a big deal. I play media on Linux every day because its easy and it works. Why don't the distros put in DVD support? Because of legal entanglements. Look at cell phones and how content is handled there. I wrote this:
http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&n
[google search for "Closed Computing a Future Look Today" if the link is too mangled.]
Coming to hardware near you simply because they think they can.
This flag will prevent us from easily building our own solutions. Now the geeks will continue to do what they do and will likely be affected little, if at all, but they will never be able to compete with the established interests.
Why not? Every last one of these established interests was started by some geeks in a garage. All of them know their demise is cooking in a garage near you. Rather than compete, they would kill the innovation we all deserve.
Sucks doesn't it?
Get pissed, donate to the EFF, write your leaders, tell your friends and buy open technology. Work hard to understand the differences between open and closed. --You will be glad you did.
Having the machines provide an interface to more easily cast the vote has advantages for the blind, old and handicapped, and this is a good thing. For most of us, the paper method works just fine.
/. terms: Remember when Lessig said, "Why won't they fight?" This is the same apathy on a broader scale with the same consequenses.
I love tech, but if there is one aspect of live that deserves the luddite treatment, this is it. Why?
Trust is one of the pillars of democracy. Participation is another.
The transient nature of electronic bits combined with our inability to actually see them move and change breaks the chain of trust we need to be assured our system actually works. We can see paper move, we can know the persons who perform the tally. With bits, we simply have to hope the machine does what its creator says. Given our history, we are fools to place our trust into such a system. Concentrations of power have always proven bad, why would this be any different.
The rush to speed the process is counter to the goal of participation and political discourse over the issues. Voting is not supposed to be quick. Voting takes time because it takes time to make the hard decisions. Since these decisions largely affect all of us, we should be taking the time to make them correctly. Coolness factor aside, the current push to modernize voting actually marginalizes the process. This is not healthy.
Early in life, I saw the political process as being messy and time consuming. I did not always vote. Having gotten a bit older and wiser (thanks GW for getting me involved!) I see now the true value of the process.
The last 4 years have shown me the result of hasty decisions made with broken trust and I don't want to experience any more.
On a side note, why doesn't Kerry push this HARD! I don't get it. Somebody please explain this to me. Seriously. why not?
GW has motivated me to stay involved and perform my civic duty. Not everyone agrees, but there are an awful lot of people who do. Why be lazy? Isn't this stuff important to you? To put this in
I am going to perform my civic duty. My state, Oregon, has a mail in ballot system with its own problems. Still I call and write letters and tell people how electronic bits really work. I mailed a copy of "Black Box Voting" to my representitive along with a call to action on reforming the process.
You folks living in the swing states should get off your duff and do the same because it directly affects you!
Good results take hard work. This means casting your vote with due consideration over the issues, preferably with your peers prior to the vote. Some of us have to tally the votes cast, make sure you are one of them. Work hard to build trust with others doing the same. Ask to watch the process --it is public, afterall. Somebody said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilence". (ok, so I need to work at spelling --civics first!)
Ask your peers and representitives to see the process and show their trust with an open voting process. If they argue it's too much work, let them know there are plenty of unemployed and senior citizens willing and able to get that work done. If they don't understand the trust issue, talk about the machine and their inability to know what happens inside the wires.
We need to close the circle of trust. The last election and its 4 year result should motivate a large enough percentage of us to make this a non-issue. The fact that it hasn't disturbs me. Do we really not give a fuck? Maybe we do need a bit more punishment and loss of freedom to make the point perfectly clear.
I get it now, will you before it's too late to live long enough to see the damage undone?
Fucking do something.
if we are building things right, the GUI stuff should be building on improved solid console applications.
We run the risk of falling into the same trap our win32 counterparts are in by focusing totally on the GUI. Sure, some things are going to be GUI only, but most things should not be. A well designed application can be driven from the command line just as it can be driven from a GUI wrapper intended to make life easier.
Scripting, low bandwidth access, access for the blind and voice operation are all things the command line facillitates easily. We need to continue to respect that.
mozilla is getting too good. With the advent of xul and fast, safe, standards complient browsing, IE is beginning to look pretty sad.
Now, once another browser gets a foothold again, people will have the option of building web applications that feature nice interfaces (xul!) that don't need a win32 client to run properly.
They don't actually give a shit, they just want to preserve their bloated monopoly.
I have no love for Diebold. After this fiasco, they should be fined in to submission. However, the prices of these things would easily allow someone to build the machines and make a bit of money doing it.
We have been handling votes for the sight-impared for a while now. That is not a reason to continue with electronic voting for the masses. Funny, Oregon has a mail in vote, they also run a limited number of ballot drop points if you miss the mail. There are no polling places and we manage to get the vote done, and we can get a recount.
make use of them. Leave the rest of us able to vote and confident in the process used.
Seriously, there are plenty of us willing and able to do the work of democracy. Why spend all this money on a system that gets us nothing in return?
Keeping people directly involved is a good thing. It's not like we are making hamburgers or something. The manual process is good enough, plus it can be trusted to a much higher degree than any electronic one will.
Besides, what else are the older folks going to do? They can at least vote and be a respected part of the process.
You make good points, but I am not sure I see the return to society overall with electronic voting systems.
please don't call it a receipt. It is a record of the vote cast. Small distinction I know, but one that will save a lot of wasted discussion.
in action.
All of this really makes me happy. If I am forced to use Microsoft products, then I have a decent shot at a better deal because of the FS/OSS products I make most use of today.
It hardly gets better than that. Thanks to everyone who has worked hard to get us this far. For everyone else, myself included, please consider contributing in some fashion. You can write docs, test, pass the word along, purchase some software and get a nice box, etc...
OSS: You get more than you contribute in return. How cool is that!
about the laundry angle. It was late, during one of their: "we won't go home until we sell 100 cars" deals.
More in my journal... (OT, and all that)
Did this a while back. Went in talking financing, worked the deal to get the price low knowing they would attempt to make it back on the contract.
At signing, paid the debt in full. No questions asked at all. We counted the money, I left with the car.
Never underestimate the power of cash to sway a car salesman.
many people have been duped about how and why it matters exactly.
How many companies continue to pay for the same damn software year after year, even though the stuff they are using today will do the job just fine?
Do those new features really address core problems?
All of this spending trades people for pre-packaged solutions. This is a mistake in that everyone uses them, nobody is totally happy with them. (one size fits all problem)
I have been watching OSS for years now, waiting for more companies to "get it". They can hire people who can assemble good solutions to tough problems out of thin air. Those same folks can be around year after to year to make it specifically better for their business, not just all businesses.
You won't find your strategic advantage in a box, even though the company that sells it says you will.
Open hardware is getting to be burden, I believe Microsoft would rather lose at this point.
This machine simply makes it easier to extend their control.
Problem is the userbase and applications. Getting the gamers on board is smart, but won't quite do the job for apps.