The government couldn't care less what your opinion is. As long as you're being a good citizen and watching TV instead of exercising your Constitutional right of free assembly.
Once you start getting motivated to get away from the TV and meet other people who share your views... you become a "problem".
Problems are investigated.
If you're just looking to help those already in power, that's fine. That's acceptable.
If you're assembling to discuss ways of exercising your Constitutional rights to defeat the agenda of those already in power, well, I'm going to have to make a note of that, aren't I?
Good citizens stay at home and watch TV. Be good, citizen.
By 1863, a still pre-pubescent Wales had moved to Chicago and established himself as one of the more morally and physically flexible members of the meat packing scene.
Our solution will adhere to our shared belief that songwriters must be fairly compensated for their work and that legitimate web sites with accurate lyrics must not be undermined by unlicensed web sites.
Emphasis added.
If there is money to be made by "selling" access to lyrics, I think they'll try to get all other sites ruled as "illegal" because they are "unlicensed".
I think they're still focused on getting every last cent they can from the public, in any fashion, for the music / lyrics / art / whatever.
That student just got a whole lot of first hand experience in totalitarianism. The kind that you just can't get from a book or a classroom.
He even refuses to give his name now because he "fears repercussions".
You just can't get that kind of gut-level understanding without a visit from the authorities. That is one kid who will have a deeper understanding of the material now than anyone else in class.
By the time the bloom has worn off of Breezy, Dapper will be in open beta. You'll see lots of articles about it. Then it will be released and you'll see more articles about it.
And so on.
It's the 6 month cycle that feeds the journalists' need for new material.
The best system ever should be as easy as possible for #1 out of the box, but need to be very easily configurable to whatever complex system #3 and #4 need.
Yep. Out of the box, it is game console simple. It is cartoonishly simple. Sure, it has almost no functionality, but ANYONE can "master" it in an hour.
If the system is configurable to extreeme you end up with emacs or vi : the most powerfull tool around you can't ever dream of in your wildest dreams, but you can't do anything without unless you've spent the first year learning it the harsh way.
Again, yep.
So the key would be having the level of complexity selectable by the user. Any functionality not at the current level or below is 100% hidden from the user.
Example: 1st level word processing options would be Re-open something I did before. Save what I'm working on. Uppercase and lowercase letters. Print.
They don't get fonts. They don't get WordArt. They don't get word count. They can't change their margins. It is the very basic functionality.
At level 2 they'd get more options, like bold and italics.
Level 3 would give introduce them to fonts. They'd get ONE optional font.
Level 4, more fonts and the option to change their size. And so on. It's easier for someone who's already learned the concepts to pick up more items so giving the user 5 new items at level 2 would be the same as giving the user 40 new items at level 5 for a total of 75 items (40+20+10+5) beyond level 1.
Then comparing "usability" becomes very, Very, VERY, VERY easy. All you would do is: a. Determine what level the functions you want to test are at. b. Determine what level the user is at. c. Time them to see how fast they can advance to the necessary level and perform the function....and... d. Compare the productivity of two users with the same time spent achieving the same level of expertise on two different systems.
Learning how to do it is not the same a being efficient at it.
But there are lots of countries with people who still haven't used computers.
Not to mention that an interface with settings 1-10 (1=brand new user, 10=expert) would make a lot of non-experts more comfortable with their computers.
An ideal interface would evolve with the user's experience level. Not trap an experienced user with a pre-school interface nor confuse a new user with expert-level options.
Tailor the choices available to the level of the user and let the USER choose how complex the interface he uses is. Just like books. When you started reading, you didn't read the books you read today. Those books followed very careful patterns on what words were used and how often they were repeated.
But since none of the interfaces out there are doing that yet, it really doesn't matter for this discussion.
She plans instead to put categories like WinXP-proficient people,MacOSX-proficient people and total computer noobs (if any still exists) in front of Unix desktop enviroments and see their reactions and if and how they can be proficient with them.
No. All she is "testing" there is how closely the desktop they're being "tested" on resembles the one they're used to.
So, to send email... where's Outlook? Where's Email? What's this "Evolution" thing? That doesn't sound like email. Maybe if I open all the apps I can find, I'll click on the right one.
Linus seemed to be saying that he wants all the functions exposed and available. That's why he didn't like the GNOME approach of hiding what they considered "un-necessary" options.
But... for a user who is unfamiliar with the system, a stipped down interface with only the functions that they'll be using would be the easiest to learn.
We have people at work who are really scared that they'll do something wrong with their computers. If ANYTHING changes, they need to be walked through it for a few days.
IMHO - the "best" interface would be one that starts off at a child's level and allows the user to set the degree of functionality and complexity based upon his/her knowledge and needs.
How about, how many repetitions of instruction does it take for an average user to remember how to perform one action after a week of not using it?
And, once one function is explained, how quickly can the average user deduce/guess at related functions? This is how you select "bold" text. Then let them find "italics" and "underline".
The first thing to understand is that you will have 3 groups of users:
#1. The ignorant users: These have never used a desktop before. These aren't as easy to find anymore. I worked with one woman back in the mid 90's who could not even use a mouse. She had to hold it still with one hand while she clicked the button with her other hand. After a week of solitare, she had the necessary muscle coordination to start learning the system.
#2. The tainted users: These have experience with systems other than the one you're testing. If your system isn't 100% like the one they're used to, they'll waste time clicking around where the functions are on their systems.
#3. Friends: These have worked on the system that they're being evaluated on.
Now, a system that is easy to learn for the "Ignorant" class may be incredibly un-friendly for more advanced "Friends".
Determine what functionality you want to measure and what GROUP you want to measure it for.
The real "ease" on an interface comes down to 2 things: a. Can you quickly guess where a function is based upon your existing experience with it?
b. Once you know where a function is (you guessed at it before, you asked someone, you went to training), how easy is it to remember that 24 hours later, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months later?
If the cost of real, secure online financial transactions is that, then that is what it is.
The question is whether the benefits will be worth that cost. Or whether there is another option that will provide secure transactions without the cost.
Either way, the people most motivated to find the solution would be the banks IF they were held accountable as this seems to say they will be.
You got the right idea, but even with that, what's to ensure that you actually have all the paper ballots, or that the ballots haven't been swapped with a different box between the precinct and the county/parish elections office?
Simple. Have representatives from each party ride along with them.
You don't trust them, they don't trust you. So each side watches to make sure that the other side doesn't swap anything.
Not to mention that they'd have to swap the computer and the ballots or else the number of ballots and the computer's vote total won't match.
Misalignment of the ballot and the holes would cause problems regardless of the ballot design.
No. The simple solution is to not use holes. Have the name of the candidate and the party printed on the ballot when that ballot is cast. That way there's no question of voting incorrectly.
That's why there are holes at the top and the bottom which secure the ballot to the holder via pegs. This prevents a misalignment, so long as the user follows the instructions to press the ballot down over the pegs.
Unless those pegs are not aligned. Again, the easiest way is printing the candidate's name.
The "e-voting" concept should be... the computer prints the ballot and that paper ballot is your vote. That ballot lists ONLY the names you chose. You read that and drop it into the ballot box.
The computer counts the number of paper ballots it has printed for each candidate. This number can be released to the news agencies. But the real vote is the paper ballot.
At the end of the day, the names of the voters who used that machine are counted, the paper ballots are counted and both of those are compared to the total number of votes the machine says were cast. If they don't match, there is a problem.
In case of recount, the paper ballots are hand counted.
A random number of machines should also be checked against the ballots cast at them.
I have a server room filled with HP servers. We lease them for 3 years and then send them back. I have ZERO problems with the software and I get parts (usually drives) replaced in less than 24 hours.
These servers run 24/7 for the 3 years we have them and give us no problems at all.
Methodist churches have different views than Catholic churches.
Who's to say which is "correct"? Except God/Jesus, that is. And neither of them return my calls anymore.
Pay attention to the stories you'll be seeing about this. Check how many local churches publicly condem those actions and how many "Christians" write about how "he deserved what he got". You might have to hit local papers for that last one.
The church is shaped by the preacher and the congregation finds a preacher who shares their view.
Remember, there are a lot of Books in the Bible. Some of the older ones (Old Testament) have a lot of stuff about smiting and even killing or enslaving your enemies.
It all depends upon what part of the Bible the church you attend wants to focus on. There's as much legitimacy in focusing on God's Rightous Wrath as there is in focusing on Jesus Forgiving.
On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were investigating.
Slashdot Mirror
The government couldn't care less what your opinion is. As long as you're being a good citizen and watching TV instead of exercising your Constitutional right of free assembly.
... you become a "problem".
Once you start getting motivated to get away from the TV and meet other people who share your views
Problems are investigated.
If you're just looking to help those already in power, that's fine. That's acceptable.
If you're assembling to discuss ways of exercising your Constitutional rights to defeat the agenda of those already in power, well, I'm going to have to make a note of that, aren't I?
Good citizens stay at home and watch TV. Be good, citizen.
Emphasis added.
If there is money to be made by "selling" access to lyrics, I think they'll try to get all other sites ruled as "illegal" because they are "unlicensed".
I think they're still focused on getting every last cent they can from the public, in any fashion, for the music / lyrics / art / whatever.
That student just got a whole lot of first hand experience in totalitarianism. The kind that you just can't get from a book or a classroom.
He even refuses to give his name now because he "fears repercussions".
You just can't get that kind of gut-level understanding without a visit from the authorities. That is one kid who will have a deeper understanding of the material now than anyone else in class.
By the time the bloom has worn off of Breezy, Dapper will be in open beta. You'll see lots of articles about it. Then it will be released and you'll see more articles about it.
And so on.
It's the 6 month cycle that feeds the journalists' need for new material.
Again, yep.
So the key would be having the level of complexity selectable by the user. Any functionality not at the current level or below is 100% hidden from the user.
Example: 1st level word processing options would be
Re-open something I did before.
Save what I'm working on.
Uppercase and lowercase letters.
Print.
They don't get fonts. They don't get WordArt. They don't get word count. They can't change their margins. It is the very basic functionality.
At level 2 they'd get more options, like bold and italics.
Level 3 would give introduce them to fonts. They'd get ONE optional font.
Level 4, more fonts and the option to change their size. And so on. It's easier for someone who's already learned the concepts to pick up more items so giving the user 5 new items at level 2 would be the same as giving the user 40 new items at level 5 for a total of 75 items (40+20+10+5) beyond level 1.
Then comparing "usability" becomes very, Very, VERY, VERY easy. All you would do is:
a. Determine what level the functions you want to test are at.
b. Determine what level the user is at.
c. Time them to see how fast they can advance to the necessary level and perform the function.
d. Compare the productivity of two users with the same time spent achieving the same level of expertise on two different systems.
Learning how to do it is not the same a being efficient at it.
But there are lots of countries with people who still haven't used computers.
Not to mention that an interface with settings 1-10 (1=brand new user, 10=expert) would make a lot of non-experts more comfortable with their computers.
An ideal interface would evolve with the user's experience level. Not trap an experienced user with a pre-school interface nor confuse a new user with expert-level options.
Tailor the choices available to the level of the user and let the USER choose how complex the interface he uses is. Just like books. When you started reading, you didn't read the books you read today. Those books followed very careful patterns on what words were used and how often they were repeated.
But since none of the interfaces out there are doing that yet, it really doesn't matter for this discussion.
No. All she is "testing" there is how closely the desktop they're being "tested" on resembles the one they're used to.
Novell did this already.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/11
So, to send email
Linus seemed to be saying that he wants all the functions exposed and available. That's why he didn't like the GNOME approach of hiding what they considered "un-necessary" options.
... for a user who is unfamiliar with the system, a stipped down interface with only the functions that they'll be using would be the easiest to learn.
But
We have people at work who are really scared that they'll do something wrong with their computers. If ANYTHING changes, they need to be walked through it for a few days.
IMHO - the "best" interface would be one that starts off at a child's level and allows the user to set the degree of functionality and complexity based upon his/her knowledge and needs.
How about, how many repetitions of instruction does it take for an average user to remember how to perform one action after a week of not using it?
And, once one function is explained, how quickly can the average user deduce/guess at related functions? This is how you select "bold" text. Then let them find "italics" and "underline".
The first thing to understand is that you will have 3 groups of users:
#1. The ignorant users: These have never used a desktop before. These aren't as easy to find anymore. I worked with one woman back in the mid 90's who could not even use a mouse. She had to hold it still with one hand while she clicked the button with her other hand. After a week of solitare, she had the necessary muscle coordination to start learning the system.
#2. The tainted users: These have experience with systems other than the one you're testing. If your system isn't 100% like the one they're used to, they'll waste time clicking around where the functions are on their systems.
#3. Friends: These have worked on the system that they're being evaluated on.
Now, a system that is easy to learn for the "Ignorant" class may be incredibly un-friendly for more advanced "Friends".
Determine what functionality you want to measure and what GROUP you want to measure it for.
The real "ease" on an interface comes down to 2 things:
a. Can you quickly guess where a function is based upon your existing experience with it?
b. Once you know where a function is (you guessed at it before, you asked someone, you went to training), how easy is it to remember that 24 hours later, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months later?
If the cost of real, secure online financial transactions is that, then that is what it is.
The question is whether the benefits will be worth that cost. Or whether there is another option that will provide secure transactions without the cost.
Either way, the people most motivated to find the solution would be the banks IF they were held accountable as this seems to say they will be.
Simple. Have representatives from each party ride along with them.
You don't trust them, they don't trust you. So each side watches to make sure that the other side doesn't swap anything.
Not to mention that they'd have to swap the computer and the ballots or else the number of ballots and the computer's vote total won't match.
No. The simple solution is to not use holes. Have the name of the candidate and the party printed on the ballot when that ballot is cast. That way there's no question of voting incorrectly.
Unless those pegs are not aligned. Again, the easiest way is printing the candidate's name.
The "e-voting" concept should be ... the computer prints the ballot and that paper ballot is your vote. That ballot lists ONLY the names you chose. You read that and drop it into the ballot box.
The computer counts the number of paper ballots it has printed for each candidate. This number can be released to the news agencies. But the real vote is the paper ballot.
At the end of the day, the names of the voters who used that machine are counted, the paper ballots are counted and both of those are compared to the total number of votes the machine says were cast. If they don't match, there is a problem.
In case of recount, the paper ballots are hand counted.
A random number of machines should also be checked against the ballots cast at them.
Multiple checks.
Here's a picture:/ us_elections/glossary/a-b/1037172.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2000
So, if the pages were not perfectly aligned, you would end up voting for someone you didn't want to.
A computer interface would be simple to do. Primarily because only an IDIOT would want one that didn't generate a paper trail.
The paper trail should be the ballot and it should be very clearly printed with the name of the candidate you voted for.
The computers are just to make choosing and counting easier.
There's no money in just providing a service.
If you want to make money, you have to find or make a bottleneck for a desired product/service.
Then you make big bucks off of the bottleneck.
All they're doing right here is trying to build a bottleneck where one doesn't exist today. Whether they succeed or not is another question.
http://www.computerworld.com/news/2000/story/0,112 80,51168,00.html
"A good idea is no match for a bad habit."
"Ninety percent of a system's cost is still training people to use it."
"Old ideas got that way because they proved useful."
"Data isn't information. Information isn't knowledge. Knowledge isn't manageable."
"Systems aren't made from metaphors, paradigms and methodologies. They're made from code, wires and hardware."
Good - Victorias Secret product placement.
Bad - Hemorroid cream product placement.
I've got a couple dozen new people hooked on the TV series since after the movie stopped showing. They didn't even know there was a movie.
The same thing with the entire:
"remake old movies"
"remake old TV series"
"remake old comic books"
"remake remake remake remake remake"
and "sequel"!
You have an automatic audience of people who saw the original and have good memories of it. And Hollywood is all about automatic audiences.
I have a server room filled with HP servers. We lease them for 3 years and then send them back. I have ZERO problems with the software and I get parts (usually drives) replaced in less than 24 hours.
These servers run 24/7 for the 3 years we have them and give us no problems at all.
Methodist churches have different views than Catholic churches.
Who's to say which is "correct"? Except God/Jesus, that is. And neither of them return my calls anymore.
Pay attention to the stories you'll be seeing about this. Check how many local churches publicly condem those actions and how many "Christians" write about how "he deserved what he got". You might have to hit local papers for that last one.
The church is shaped by the preacher and the congregation finds a preacher who shares their view.
Remember, there are a lot of Books in the Bible. Some of the older ones (Old Testament) have a lot of stuff about smiting and even killing or enslaving your enemies.
It all depends upon what part of the Bible the church you attend wants to focus on. There's as much legitimacy in focusing on God's Rightous Wrath as there is in focusing on Jesus Forgiving.
Isn't that just a bit extreme?