If people could just learn to I prefer replying write their replies BELOW on the SIDE of what they're quoting. what I am quoting, myself. Top posting is just wrong. Side posting r00ls, w00t!!
The fact asserted by the parent is that Fox News was the first to call Florida for Bush. The site you linked to does not dispute that fact. From your link:
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
Also, I tend to believe CNN and PBS more than the obviously partisian site you linked to.
I think I understand what you were saying. That specific instance of the EC would end, not the process of using the EC for every election. i.e. the instance is deleted, but the class library lives on.
But of course I still don't understand your point. Isn't every election "one time use" by definition?
Unfortunately, that brings about problems of its own. The usefulness of the Electoral College is that it's a one-time-use safety fuse on the American Presidency. It means that if an extremely dangerous figure won an election, the electors could decide to give the election to somebody else. This would of course end the electoral college, hence the reason it's a one-time-use mechanism in the contemporary period.
Why it is one-time use? Why would the EC "of course end" if they choose someone else? I've never heard this before and don't understand the justification. You just state it. Can you tell me why this is so?
Thanks.
I found a reference for you. (Albeit from a lefty source, rather than a right). Still partisan, but a little less shrill and I think a little more believeable.
"Same thing with those infamous military ballots: On Friday the GOP trotted out Bob Dole to a rally demanding that undated overseas ballots be counted, when days earlier Joe Lieberman had called for the same thing, and when Palm Beach election officials were turning up only a fraction of the discarded military ballots claimed by the GOP. There was so little basis to the claim of widespread military disfranchisement that by Saturday night Bush's lawyers had withdrawn his suit."
FraudFactor.com is a very partisan site. This link you give just states that Gore/Lieberman tried to discount military ballots, but they do not cite any evidence. It even says "more information to come," but hasn't been updated for 4 years. Do you have links to more reputable sites? Sites which actually reference the events?
Your analogy is, err, not analogous. When you eat a burrito you are doing something (possibly) unheathly to yourself. And even then it takes a long time and many burritos to do any real damage. When someone drives irresponsibly, everyone on the road near them may die instantly. The two situations are radically different.
When one goes in-depth into the "end user license agreement" that we all say "I agree" to, it becomes apparent that you actually do warrant them to install such an application.
so slashdot should fix how they display comment threads here, because it is misleading, and indicates a train of thought which does not exist, and only encourages insanity;-P
That's why it's a good idea to cut'n'paste the portion of the message you are reposnding to. Just like I've done here. Woot!
Oh, by tying the source code to a key, which makes it impossible to change the source code and use the same key... but the verification is against the key. By tying the binary to a key, and making it impossible to modify the binary? So, rebuild the binary, and key use is lost.
Hmmm. To be honest, I hadn't thought through the entire chain of events. The idea from a high level though it this: imagine the worst possible nightmare scenario for music distribution. Now music is just data and source code is just data. So any DRM used to distribute and control music distribution *should* be able to be used to protect source code distribution as well. You would have to update and limit compilers and editors just as they would have to update and limit audio players. But it should be possible. USing NGSCB it should be possible to totally control your own source code. Whether or not that is enforcing GPL, I don't know.
A poster below states that by restricting the code, then it would no longer be GPL. Fair enough. I don't know the fine details of teh GPL. The point is that if they can lock is out we can lock them out as well. If they control their data distribution, then so can we.
Microsoft dropping this is good in every way, except that it's ghost will return in other forms for sure...
People always forget that this is just a tool. It can be used for good or ill. Hospitals could've used it to secure your medical records. You could have used it to secure and authenticate your tax returns before you sent it to the IRS. People who use the GPL could've used it to enforce the GPL! No more guessing if someone has stolen your GPL'd code - you'd know. NGSCB is just a tool. Both NGSCB and Palladium are security projects, it's just that the DRM/RIAA/MPAA use of the tool is objectionable. IT does not mean that the technology is worthless or "evil".
Slashdot Mirror
If people could just learn to I prefer replying
write their replies BELOW on the SIDE of
what they're quoting. what I am quoting, myself.
Top posting is just wrong. Side posting r00ls, w00t!!
What's your point again?
That gratitious Fox bashing does nothing to help anyone, least of all the Fox basher? I think we can all agree on that.
Now, please, get back to the unreasoned yelling and screaming that make up Slashdot discourse or I'll have to ask to you leave....
Also, I tend to believe CNN and PBS more than the obviously partisian site you linked to.
Uh sure. Will you take a cashier's check?
(replying to self)
I think I understand what you were saying. That specific instance of the EC would end, not the process of using the EC for every election. i.e. the instance is deleted, but the class library lives on.
But of course I still don't understand your point. Isn't every election "one time use" by definition?
Why it is one-time use? Why would the EC "of course end" if they choose someone else? I've never heard this before and don't understand the justification. You just state it. Can you tell me why this is so? Thanks.
Why are stories on slashdot always so Euro Centric? What about us poor US geeks? We get almost no coverage here on slashdot. :(
Shut up you moron. Go back to Russia where you belong!
The Nation link
"Same thing with those infamous military ballots: On Friday the GOP trotted out Bob Dole to a rally demanding that undated overseas ballots be counted, when days earlier Joe Lieberman had called for the same thing, and when Palm Beach election officials were turning up only a fraction of the discarded military ballots claimed by the GOP. There was so little basis to the claim of widespread military disfranchisement that by Saturday night Bush's lawyers had withdrawn his suit."
FraudFactor.com is a very partisan site. This link you give just states that Gore/Lieberman tried to discount military ballots, but they do not cite any evidence. It even says "more information to come," but hasn't been updated for 4 years. Do you have links to more reputable sites? Sites which actually reference the events?
Your analogy is, err, not analogous. When you eat a burrito you are doing something (possibly) unheathly to yourself. And even then it takes a long time and many burritos to do any real damage.
When someone drives irresponsibly, everyone on the road near them may die instantly. The two situations are radically different.
Where is this bucket? I can't find it on eBay. Link please....
So I can stop paying my cable bill then? Cool, thanks!
And the slogan? - "A HardMan is good to find."
Well, that and moving my home PC to Gentoo.
Burma Shave.
There is no EULA for an audio CD.
That's fine as long as you remember to stay away from the stairs!!!
That's why it's a good idea to cut'n'paste the portion of the message you are reposnding to. Just like I've done here. Woot!
Oh, by tying the source code to a key, which makes it impossible to change the source code and use the same key... but the verification is against the key. By tying the binary to a key, and making it impossible to modify the binary? So, rebuild the binary, and key use is lost.
Hmmm. To be honest, I hadn't thought through the entire chain of events. The idea from a high level though it this: imagine the worst possible nightmare scenario for music distribution. Now music is just data and source code is just data. So any DRM used to distribute and control music distribution *should* be able to be used to protect source code distribution as well. You would have to update and limit compilers and editors just as they would have to update and limit audio players. But it should be possible. USing NGSCB it should be possible to totally control your own source code. Whether or not that is enforcing GPL, I don't know.
A poster below states that by restricting the code, then it would no longer be GPL. Fair enough.
I don't know the fine details of teh GPL. The point is that if they can lock is out we can lock them out as well. If they control their data distribution, then so can we.
--
Cain.
Microsoft dropping this is good in every way, except that it's ghost will return in other forms for sure...
People always forget that this is just a tool. It can be used for good or ill. Hospitals could've used it to secure your medical records. You could have used it to secure and authenticate your tax returns before you sent it to the IRS. People who use the GPL could've used it to enforce the GPL! No more guessing if someone has stolen your GPL'd code - you'd know. NGSCB is just a tool. Both NGSCB and Palladium are security projects, it's just that the DRM/RIAA/MPAA use of the tool is objectionable. IT does not mean that the technology is worthless or "evil".
--
Cain.
They don't need to track 'em. WalMart knows where they are as they get locked in the store every night.
Try the waitresses. And don't forget to tip the veal.
--
Cain.
Say -- haven't we met before?
--
Cain.
...can be found here.
--
Cain.