That's not the way I read the polls. "Fifty-seven percent say Gore should concede the election, about the same as the 60 percent on Nov. 26, the night of the certification.... At the same time, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say the two counties that didn't complete the hand counts that Gore requested -- Miami-Dade and Palm Beach -- should do so, and should have those tallies counted in the final total. That's the central issue in Gore's contest of the Florida results, being heard in Tallahassee.
This isn't a change in opinion; back on Nov. 16 about the same number, 56 percent, favored including hand counts in the final tally."
The fact that many Gore supporters want Gore to concede does not seem to me to be that they don't agree with Gore, just that they feel that he isn't going to win. Just as if Bush were holding a gun to the head of the Democratic Party, demanding the presidency, many Gore supporters would be agree with the VP, but hope he concedes for the sake of the party.
The Democrats want it both ways -- flexibility when counting ballots that favor them, and inflexibility when it favors the Republicans. And the Republicans want it both ways too -- flexibility when counting ballots that favor them, and inflexibility when it favors the Democrats. That's why I'm proud to have voted for neither of them. Hypocrisy gets you everywhere, honesty gets you 2% of the vote.
I've seen this happen at companies that I've worked for over and over and over again. You make a client, and a server, talking to each other over a proprietary protocol, and you forget that the client is inherently untrusted. Security through obscurity breeds in these proprietary environments. I've had heated arguments with programmers who insisted that the server was secure because the client was unable to perform certain actions. I've had managers ask me to prove that these problems were security holes by exploiting them, but without modifying the client source code because "the public doesn't have the client source code, so if you need the source code, it can't be exploited". The fact is, if you have any plans of being as big as AOL, your protocol will be reverse engineered, alternate clients will be created, and your security holes will be found.
Warning: No real spoilers here, but if you haven't seen the movie yet I suggest you don't read any of these posts. The less you know about this movie, the better.
Perhaps very true. I had heard the hype about Sixth Sense for months, and saw it on dvd several months after it came out. I knew it was supposed to have a surprise ending, and figured out what that ending was going to be about 20 minutes into the movie. The only suspense was whether or not (what I thought the ending was) really was that obvious, or if that was just supposed to throw you off. Well, I was right, and the movie completely blew.
I saw Unbreakable opening night. I didn't even know it was from the same director as Sixth Sense. I had never seen a preview, had never heard any of the hype. I loved the movie, although I thought the ending was somewhat weak (and if it's true that there's a sequel, well then either Shyamalan is a genius, or it's going to suck even worse in retrospect).
Hmm, i could have sworn I've done this before, I haven't had a problem with the 3c905 since somewhere around 2.2.6. I strongly agree that a customizable boot floppy would be of extreme use though, I've been forced to buy a linksys dsl router due to PPPOE not being compiled into the boot floppy, and I will never know for the life of me why serial console isn't supported in the standard boot floppy. I didn't think many others had problems, but if a lot of us do maybe we should get together and try to find someone on the kernel team to take up our cause. Or maybe there's already a solution out there. Anyone?
Gee, these are the people who are worried about people scanning them, so they send their logs about the scan to a site that doesn't even have enough money to withstand the slashdot effect? Can you say stooooooooopid?
If we were using the popular vote, we wouldn't have this problem, of course, we would have different problems. Third Parties screw up plurality elections. That's why in America we don't have direct plurality elections. If no one wins a majority in the electoral college, the vote goes to the house. If there is still no majority there is a runoff of the top three candidates. The problem is that there is no such runoff for the states to choose their electors. This is because it is infeasible to ask everyone in a state to come back and vote again, but with new technologies instant runoff elections would solve this problem. You mark from 1 through whatever for each candidate in the order of preference. In the first count, you look at only the #1s. If there is a majority, you declare those electors the winner. If there is no majority, you eliminate all candidates except for the top two, and tabulate the votes again, the lower number winning that vote. If any candidates are completly unacceptable, you need not vote for them, and that number will be presumed infinity. If all the remaining candidates left are unvoted on your ballot, that ballot is ignored. In this past election, presumably this would have helped Gore and Nader (but also would have helped Bush and Perot in 1992). It would have helped Gore, because he probably would have won Florida in the instant runoff, with the Buchanan and Nader votes thrown out. But it also would have helped Nader, who would have surely gotten closer to his 5% with people free to vote out of principle and not out of fear. Perhaps best of all, punch card ballots would probably not be used in this type of election, only OCR and electronic. I'm not trying to whine here. If Bush wins, he won fair and square. But we should consider fixing this problem in the future. Hopefully it can be done on a state by state basis, but some have raised constitutional issues with it. If it's unconstitutional, we need to consider getting an amendment together.
Most firewalls will allow UDP replies for a certain period of time after an initial UDP request is sent. In this way, one side sends a UDP request (which gets thrown out on the other time). The other side then replies (presumably a central server is needed to note the initial request). That reply is received since it is a UDP reply. The two sides may now have a UDP conversation. This isn't completely decentralized, but only requires a couple of packets from an agreed upon server (you could even have this simply be an agreed upon peer with a less restrictive firewall).
I believe you could trick a firewall into allowing the connection, by creating a simultaneous connection. Basically, both computers send a SYN packet simultaneously, using the appropriate source and destination ports. Both firewalls would see the SYN going out, and while they will deny the SYN coming in, they will allow the further ACKs going out. This is allowed in the TCP stack, though you might have to use raw IP packets to achieve it.
I hope the child wasn't "conceived on company time or using company equipment". That would fall under a work for hire. So think twice people before you have those office romances.
I've been wondering for a long time why Microsoft hasn't done this before. This is a great way to stop email virii such as iloveyou right in their tracks. Sysadmins of major corporations can turn it on, probably on the domain server so it can't be turned off, and can rest assured that they won't pay the millions in damage for their employees stupidity. This is *more* power for those employees, as sysadmins don't have to resort to tactics such as disallowing all attachments, or all attachments of certain types.
Attachments don't kill people, people kill people.
Yeah, and what about competitive upgrades? If I bough a new New Kids on the Block CD 5 years ago, shouldn't I get a discounted competitive upgrade to the new Backstreet Boys CD?
this is already possible with absentee ballots, though. it's also illegal and after leaving your job or disowning your parents you can sue them. on the other hand, it is much easier to bribe 3 members of the vote counting committee than it is to bribe the thousands of individual votes they represent. in any case, though i disagree with your argument, i guess you have pointed out a good reason why this isn't a clearly better way of doing things, just arguably better.
Give every voter a unique number and a hard copy receipt. Publish all the votes on the internet. All voters can then tally the votes for themselves, and check that their votes are represented accurately.
Was the author using BDB tables? If so, that's probably the problem. MySQL allows you to use BDB tables, which support transactions, but they are much slower. It is also possible that transactions, which are somewhat new to MySQL, are not yet well optimized. Either optimize your database to make transactions unnecessary, or use postgresql, at least for now. Why MySQL made the mistake of supporting transactions, I will never understand.
much better... I don't want to buy the CD without at least getting a list of the other songs first! (so I can try them out using napster, of course) For all I know it's from the soundtrack of Really Boring Movie Except For That One Song.
Give every person in the United States a unique number for each election. Publish the full vote tally on the internet and in public locations. Anyone who wants can 1) run the vote tally through her own counting program, and 2) check that her own vote is recorded correctly by matching it up with her unique number. Print a receipt complete with cryptographic signiture/fingerprint which can be checked before you leave the polls. If you discover your vote is screwed up, you can simply present your receipt and have it fixed. If you didn't look at your receipt before leaving the polls, tough luck for you. Not only is this faster and more efficient, it's much harder to "accidently lose" hundreds or thousands of votes.
Florida is seperated by about 2000 votes. If a mouse farted, Gore would have won. In fact, by the same argument, if Bush had lost by 2000 votes, Harry Browne could be blamed for Bush's loss.
Read the exit polls on cnn.com. They asked the question in Florida "Who would you vote for in a Bush/Gore two-way race?" 1/3 of Nader voters answered Gore, 1/3 answered Bush, 1/3 answered that they would not have voted.
CNN was probably more to blame for Gore's loss than Nader was. They announced Florida as a Gore win 1 hour before some of the polls closed. How many Gore voters didn't bother after that? How many Nader/Gore voters went for Nader after that? How many extra last ditch Gore propaganda would have been put out in that last hour? We'll never know, because CNN won't tell us *those* statistics.
Besides, this whole election could be the greatest thing for the Democratic party in a long time. Republicans know their lead is narrow (some claim non-existent considering Nader), and if they overstep their bounds by just a little bit, the backlash from the right-center will be huge. Meanwhile, with a Republican congress and president, Bush and the current republicans will lose most of their right-wing votes if major changes don't start happening. And maybe *that* will be enough to get us some real candidates in 2001-2004.
Actually, the only problem I have with this is that the database isn't open for anyone to use. I hope it someday is. I already knew that my location could be identified based on my IP address. Frankly, I wish companies would use that to automatically fill in my zip code when I visit a site, to save me the trouble. If I didn't want the company to know my zip code, I'd use anonymizer or some such proxy. The information is there. The "bad guys" are already using it. Now lets open it up to everyone so the "good guys" can use it to, and the less technical who don't want to give out the information can realize it's there in the first place. Blocking the database is merely security through obscurity.
umm, so what you're saying is, "yes"? (it will be doomed to create in-breeding of links)? Oh well, I guess "yes" wouldn't have gotten you as many karma points...
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the way I read the polls. "Fifty-seven percent say Gore should concede the election, about the same as the 60 percent on Nov. 26, the night of the certification.... At the same time, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say the two counties that didn't complete the hand counts that Gore requested -- Miami-Dade and Palm Beach -- should do so, and should have those tallies counted in the final total. That's the central issue in Gore's contest of the Florida results, being heard in Tallahassee. This isn't a change in opinion; back on Nov. 16 about the same number, 56 percent, favored including hand counts in the final tally."
The fact that many Gore supporters want Gore to concede does not seem to me to be that they don't agree with Gore, just that they feel that he isn't going to win. Just as if Bush were holding a gun to the head of the Democratic Party, demanding the presidency, many Gore supporters would be agree with the VP, but hope he concedes for the sake of the party.
The Democrats want it both ways -- flexibility when counting ballots that favor them, and inflexibility when it favors the Republicans. And the Republicans want it both ways too -- flexibility when counting ballots that favor them, and inflexibility when it favors the Democrats. That's why I'm proud to have voted for neither of them. Hypocrisy gets you everywhere, honesty gets you 2% of the vote.
I've seen this happen at companies that I've worked for over and over and over again. You make a client, and a server, talking to each other over a proprietary protocol, and you forget that the client is inherently untrusted. Security through obscurity breeds in these proprietary environments. I've had heated arguments with programmers who insisted that the server was secure because the client was unable to perform certain actions. I've had managers ask me to prove that these problems were security holes by exploiting them, but without modifying the client source code because "the public doesn't have the client source code, so if you need the source code, it can't be exploited". The fact is, if you have any plans of being as big as AOL, your protocol will be reverse engineered, alternate clients will be created, and your security holes will be found.
Warning: No real spoilers here, but if you haven't seen the movie yet I suggest you don't read any of these posts. The less you know about this movie, the better.
Perhaps very true. I had heard the hype about Sixth Sense for months, and saw it on dvd several months after it came out. I knew it was supposed to have a surprise ending, and figured out what that ending was going to be about 20 minutes into the movie. The only suspense was whether or not (what I thought the ending was) really was that obvious, or if that was just supposed to throw you off. Well, I was right, and the movie completely blew.
I saw Unbreakable opening night. I didn't even know it was from the same director as Sixth Sense. I had never seen a preview, had never heard any of the hype. I loved the movie, although I thought the ending was somewhat weak (and if it's true that there's a sequel, well then either Shyamalan is a genius, or it's going to suck even worse in retrospect).
Hmm, i could have sworn I've done this before, I haven't had a problem with the 3c905 since somewhere around 2.2.6. I strongly agree that a customizable boot floppy would be of extreme use though, I've been forced to buy a linksys dsl router due to PPPOE not being compiled into the boot floppy, and I will never know for the life of me why serial console isn't supported in the standard boot floppy. I didn't think many others had problems, but if a lot of us do maybe we should get together and try to find someone on the kernel team to take up our cause. Or maybe there's already a solution out there. Anyone?
Another country? The news is from right here in our own country of Japan. Are you referring to the fact that Yahoo is an American company?
In other news, -1 Flaimbait gets modded as a 4...
Gee, these are the people who are worried about people scanning them, so they send their logs about the scan to a site that doesn't even have enough money to withstand the slashdot effect? Can you say stooooooooopid?
If we were using the popular vote, we wouldn't have this problem, of course, we would have different problems. Third Parties screw up plurality elections. That's why in America we don't have direct plurality elections. If no one wins a majority in the electoral college, the vote goes to the house. If there is still no majority there is a runoff of the top three candidates. The problem is that there is no such runoff for the states to choose their electors. This is because it is infeasible to ask everyone in a state to come back and vote again, but with new technologies instant runoff elections would solve this problem. You mark from 1 through whatever for each candidate in the order of preference. In the first count, you look at only the #1s. If there is a majority, you declare those electors the winner. If there is no majority, you eliminate all candidates except for the top two, and tabulate the votes again, the lower number winning that vote. If any candidates are completly unacceptable, you need not vote for them, and that number will be presumed infinity. If all the remaining candidates left are unvoted on your ballot, that ballot is ignored. In this past election, presumably this would have helped Gore and Nader (but also would have helped Bush and Perot in 1992). It would have helped Gore, because he probably would have won Florida in the instant runoff, with the Buchanan and Nader votes thrown out. But it also would have helped Nader, who would have surely gotten closer to his 5% with people free to vote out of principle and not out of fear. Perhaps best of all, punch card ballots would probably not be used in this type of election, only OCR and electronic. I'm not trying to whine here. If Bush wins, he won fair and square. But we should consider fixing this problem in the future. Hopefully it can be done on a state by state basis, but some have raised constitutional issues with it. If it's unconstitutional, we need to consider getting an amendment together.
actually, the democratic party only requested recounts in counties they won.
Most firewalls will allow UDP replies for a certain period of time after an initial UDP request is sent. In this way, one side sends a UDP request (which gets thrown out on the other time). The other side then replies (presumably a central server is needed to note the initial request). That reply is received since it is a UDP reply. The two sides may now have a UDP conversation. This isn't completely decentralized, but only requires a couple of packets from an agreed upon server (you could even have this simply be an agreed upon peer with a less restrictive firewall).
I believe you could trick a firewall into allowing the connection, by creating a simultaneous connection. Basically, both computers send a SYN packet simultaneously, using the appropriate source and destination ports. Both firewalls would see the SYN going out, and while they will deny the SYN coming in, they will allow the further ACKs going out. This is allowed in the TCP stack, though you might have to use raw IP packets to achieve it.
I hope the child wasn't "conceived on company time or using company equipment". That would fall under a work for hire. So think twice people before you have those office romances.
some argue that the kernel should have no say in the "kill" issue, because any commands should be left to the soverignty of the distros
I've been wondering for a long time why Microsoft hasn't done this before. This is a great way to stop email virii such as iloveyou right in their tracks. Sysadmins of major corporations can turn it on, probably on the domain server so it can't be turned off, and can rest assured that they won't pay the millions in damage for their employees stupidity. This is *more* power for those employees, as sysadmins don't have to resort to tactics such as disallowing all attachments, or all attachments of certain types.
Attachments don't kill people, people kill people.
Yeah, and what about competitive upgrades? If I bough a new New Kids on the Block CD 5 years ago, shouldn't I get a discounted competitive upgrade to the new Backstreet Boys CD?
this is already possible with absentee ballots, though. it's also illegal and after leaving your job or disowning your parents you can sue them. on the other hand, it is much easier to bribe 3 members of the vote counting committee than it is to bribe the thousands of individual votes they represent. in any case, though i disagree with your argument, i guess you have pointed out a good reason why this isn't a clearly better way of doing things, just arguably better.
Give every voter a unique number and a hard copy receipt. Publish all the votes on the internet. All voters can then tally the votes for themselves, and check that their votes are represented accurately.
Was the author using BDB tables? If so, that's probably the problem. MySQL allows you to use BDB tables, which support transactions, but they are much slower. It is also possible that transactions, which are somewhat new to MySQL, are not yet well optimized. Either optimize your database to make transactions unnecessary, or use postgresql, at least for now. Why MySQL made the mistake of supporting transactions, I will never understand.
much better... I don't want to buy the CD without at least getting a list of the other songs first! (so I can try them out using napster, of course) For all I know it's from the soundtrack of Really Boring Movie Except For That One Song.
Give every person in the United States a unique number for each election. Publish the full vote tally on the internet and in public locations. Anyone who wants can 1) run the vote tally through her own counting program, and 2) check that her own vote is recorded correctly by matching it up with her unique number. Print a receipt complete with cryptographic signiture/fingerprint which can be checked before you leave the polls. If you discover your vote is screwed up, you can simply present your receipt and have it fixed. If you didn't look at your receipt before leaving the polls, tough luck for you. Not only is this faster and more efficient, it's much harder to "accidently lose" hundreds or thousands of votes.
- Florida is seperated by about 2000 votes. If a mouse farted, Gore would have won. In fact, by the same argument, if Bush had lost by 2000 votes, Harry Browne could be blamed for Bush's loss.
- Read the exit polls on cnn.com. They asked the question in Florida "Who would you vote for in a Bush/Gore two-way race?" 1/3 of Nader voters answered Gore, 1/3 answered Bush, 1/3 answered that they would not have voted.
- CNN was probably more to blame for Gore's loss than Nader was. They announced Florida as a Gore win 1 hour before some of the polls closed. How many Gore voters didn't bother after that? How many Nader/Gore voters went for Nader after that? How many extra last ditch Gore propaganda would have been put out in that last hour? We'll never know, because CNN won't tell us *those* statistics.
Besides, this whole election could be the greatest thing for the Democratic party in a long time. Republicans know their lead is narrow (some claim non-existent considering Nader), and if they overstep their bounds by just a little bit, the backlash from the right-center will be huge. Meanwhile, with a Republican congress and president, Bush and the current republicans will lose most of their right-wing votes if major changes don't start happening. And maybe *that* will be enough to get us some real candidates in 2001-2004.400ms isn't enough for gaming, what would it be like to telnet over a satellite connection?
Actually, the only problem I have with this is that the database isn't open for anyone to use. I hope it someday is. I already knew that my location could be identified based on my IP address. Frankly, I wish companies would use that to automatically fill in my zip code when I visit a site, to save me the trouble. If I didn't want the company to know my zip code, I'd use anonymizer or some such proxy. The information is there. The "bad guys" are already using it. Now lets open it up to everyone so the "good guys" can use it to, and the less technical who don't want to give out the information can realize it's there in the first place. Blocking the database is merely security through obscurity.
umm, so what you're saying is, "yes"? (it will be doomed to create in-breeding of links)? Oh well, I guess "yes" wouldn't have gotten you as many karma points...
I use different computers too, but I use companion.yahoo.com for my bookmarks...