But in your example, the candidates are extremely evenly matched, to the point that it doesn't really matter who wins: in any case, a third of the voters are going to be happy, a third are going to be satisfied, and a third are going to be outraged.
Furthermore, the "circular preferences" you list are unlikely to occur in a real world election. A better example of the weakness of IRV is:
41% like A, tolerate B, dislike C
39% like C, tolerate B, dislike A
10% like B, tolerate A, dislike C
10% like B, tolerate C, dislike A
In this example, B is the obvious compromise candidate (being liked by 20% and tolerated by everybody else) but IRV eliminates him in the first round.
Condorcet (ranked pairs) voting would divide the race up into three one-on-one races, ranking A over B at 41%, A over C at 51%, and B over C at 61%. Since B wins in all (both) his one-on-one races, he would be elected.
Condorcet voting has its problems too (see Arrow's Theorem), but it's probably one of the best algorithms for achieving compromise.
They all run Windows 2000 and are connected to a network, through which we can access printers, other systems, and the Internet. You would be *amazed* at how many people come in a day with problems printing, getting the Internet to work, or just getting a certain program to run.
Okay, so you acknowledge that your Windows systems are confusing and buggy. How exactly does this make it a bad idea to switch to a system that is not confusing and buggy?
You want infantrymen who at least have some familiarty with office and windows to try learning bash or mutt?
No, I wouldn't try to teach them to use bash or mutt. They don't need that. But I think they could probably handle the standard Red Hat desktop, Mozilla, OpenOffice, and the like without too many problems.
If my Mom can use it, the Infantry should be able to figure it out.
I noticed similar problems. My RH 2.4.18 works fine, but 2.4.20 was dog slow. After some investigation, I found out that I can't turn on dma on a 2.4.20 kernel. (I forget the error message, but I remembed hdparm -d1/dev/hda barfed.) Anyone else notice this?
I seem to remember hearing that IPv6 includes support for prioritizing packets. Could that be used to solve this problem?
If your ISP charged a fee based on the kind of packets you send (for example, high-priority packets are billed at $.01/MB, but low-priority packets are free), that would take care of this problem fairly quickly. Low-bandwidth users would enjoy high speeds for a small fee, and high-bandwidth users could either pay for fast service (by setting their packets to be high-priority), or wait until the lines are idle (by setting their packets to be low-priority).
Then there's the added bonus that this would encourage the rollout of IPv6, so I can stop having to do NAT.:)
I do know two things about the true motive of the war:
It has something to do with Israel.
It has something to do with oil.
You're very close. I'll give you a hint.
Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of a company called Halliburton. Cheney is still receiving large payments from that company. Halliburton has a subsidary called Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR).
KBR was recently offered a contract for putting out oil fires in Iraq, without Congressional approval. The contract has an estimated value of $7 billion, but has no maximum "ceiling" cost. These types of contracts are normally discouraged in the Executive Branch, as they are quite prone to cost padding.
KBR has also recently been awarded other lucrative contracts related to post-war construction in Iraq. These contracts were awarded after KBR was fined $2 million for excessive charges in prior government contracts. KBR and Halliburton also did millions of dollars of shady business with Saddam Hussein in the 90's (while Dick Cheney was at the wheel).
Why would the White House start a war, then in the ensuing chaos award lots of money to companies which in turn are paying money back to those in the White House? Hmmm...you tell me.
I tried suing MerrickBank (a telespamming operation operating out of Utah) in California (where I received their telespam). While California was happy to take my filing fee, I was informed that there was no way to serve an out-of-state party with a summons to small-claims court.
It seems that various people have managed to do so, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule.
Visa would be extremely neglectful if they didn't take every action at their disposal to minimize damage in the wake of an intrusion. This means reissuing all the compromised cards, reinstalling every machine even remotely related to the one compromised, implementing new policies to detect a similar intrusion in the future. None of this is cheap.
Sure, but why is this the responsibility of the cracker? If the cracker had not broken in, would the Visa system somehow be more secure? Of course not, the vulnerabilities still exist. There could easily have been previous intruders who didn't get caught: if Visa discovers a vulnerability, they should assume somebody *did* exploit it and do all that expensive security stuff anyways.
If a bank keeps valuable information in a shoebox outside the front door, and some homeless guy comes along and opens up the shoebox and looks inside, should the homeless guy be responsible for building the bank a new vault?
Why is it that these things always contain a loophole for charities? Is it really that important that charities be able to harrass people who have already expressed a preference not to be interrupted during dinner?
While I would much rather see a law saying that telemarketing lists must be opt-in only, I'm willing to settle for an enforced opt-out list, as long as that list has:
A very long expiry period. Five years is acceptable; one year is not.
Companies with which I have done business are allowed to call me, as long as I have not requested that they not do so. Other than those, no other companies are allowed to call.
No exemption for charities. As another poster pointed out, these loopholes just invite calls from "Bob's Aluminum Siding, Oh And We Feed The Orphans Too" companies. Besides, charity calls are no less distracting than other telemarketers; they should be treated similarly.
Substantial penalties for violating the rules. If private citizens are expected to take care of enforcement, then they should be awarded sums sufficient to make it worth their while to prosecute.
I've tried suing under California's telemarketing laws before, and I found out that they are next to useless. So, legislators, please pass useful, enforceable anti-telemarketing laws, or don't pass any at all.
It was when the infantry were getting "Death from Above" tattooed on themselves. Now, ICBW, but when infantry is involved in a DFA, aren't they usually the recipients?
Then again, it could have just been foreshadowing...
Let's see...the guy listed an auction, which was mistakenly canceled. So, instead of writing them back and saying, "Hey, you made a mistake.", he lists it again. Surprise! It's canceled again! (What did he expect?) Finally, he clues in and sends them a mail saying, "Hey, what's up?", to which they respond with, "Oops, we screwed up, please relist." This should have been the end of it.
However, this guy (who apparently has had his honor besmirched or something) starts complaining about ebay using form letters. Give them a break! They list thousands of auctions per day! What kind of response do you expect for your 30 cents? CEO's prostrating themselves at your doorstep? Ebay made a mistake, and they fixed it. What's the problem?
He goes on to talk about how he then deliberately violated their listing policies, dropped a mailbomb on their customer service, etc. etc. Is it any wonder he had further problems with them? If somebody mailbombed me, I'd tell them to FOAD...in my opinion, the folks at Ebay showed considerable restraint in this case.
Ebay has its problems (including their refusal to allow auctions of legitimately purchased Microsoft products), but from what I've read, this isn't one of them.
Yes, I've noticed. It kinda makes you wonder just how cash-strapped that supposedly cash-strapped inner city ER is, when they can afford nice big LCD displays...
First of all, just because "keywords" tags can be fraudulently specified, doesn't mean that they are useless. I can publish pr0n in a book titled "Undergraduate Physics"; does that make book titles useless? The fault is not in the "keywords" tag; the fault is in naively trusting unverified data. It's okay to put lollipops from the store in your mouth, but it's not okay to do the same with lollipops that you pick out of the gutter.
OK, my turn now. I wish somebody would call a moratorium on printing an entire webpage in a teensy weensy font. I have carefully specified my default font size, because that is the size which is most appropriate for reading long pages of text on my monitor with my eyes. It's okay to make stuff smaller if it's supposed to be "the fine print", but for whole articles, please use the default font size.
In a case like this, where you know it's just a big misunderstanding and all you want is to make it go away, why not talk to a mediator? Mediators are trained to help disputants work out their problems outside of court. And in the event that it does later end up in court, nothing you say during a confidential mediation can be used as evidence in court.
Often you can get mediation services for free; for example, the Los Angeles City Attourney's office provides free mediators for any dispute in which at least one party lives in LA county. Try a google search; you may be able to find one that will handle your case.
What Starbucks did is the wireless equivalent of walking onto a beach, empty except for one couple enjoying the peace and quiet, and sitting down right in front of them and making noise. There's plenty of space available, but Starbucks chose to pick the one place where they would be annoying.
Sure, it's legal. It's also excessively rude. Starbucks should move their service and then apologize to the people to whom they were rude.
Slashdot Mirror
So I go to a theater, pay my ten dollars, and they make me sit through yet another frickin' commercial?
And they wonder why I'd rather download a movie off the net than go see it in a theater?
Of course, there is always the issue of information (in this case DNA) being misabused
I hate it when my data gets misabused. I think people are just too lazy to abuse it properly.
But in your example, the candidates are extremely evenly matched, to the point that it doesn't really matter who wins: in any case, a third of the voters are going to be happy, a third are going to be satisfied, and a third are going to be outraged.
Furthermore, the "circular preferences" you list are unlikely to occur in a real world election. A better example of the weakness of IRV is:
41% like A, tolerate B, dislike C
39% like C, tolerate B, dislike A
10% like B, tolerate A, dislike C
10% like B, tolerate C, dislike A
In this example, B is the obvious compromise candidate (being liked by 20% and tolerated by everybody else) but IRV eliminates him in the first round.
Condorcet (ranked pairs) voting would divide the race up into three one-on-one races, ranking A over B at 41%, A over C at 51%, and B over C at 61%. Since B wins in all (both) his one-on-one races, he would be elected.
Condorcet voting has its problems too (see Arrow's Theorem), but it's probably one of the best algorithms for achieving compromise.
They all run Windows 2000 and are connected to a network, through which we can access printers, other systems, and the Internet. You would be *amazed* at how many people come in a day with problems printing, getting the Internet to work, or just getting a certain program to run.
Okay, so you acknowledge that your Windows systems are confusing and buggy. How exactly does this make it a bad idea to switch to a system that is not confusing and buggy?
You want infantrymen who at least have some familiarty with office and windows to try learning bash or mutt?
No, I wouldn't try to teach them to use bash or mutt. They don't need that. But I think they could probably handle the standard Red Hat desktop, Mozilla, OpenOffice, and the like without too many problems.
If my Mom can use it, the Infantry should be able to figure it out.
I noticed similar problems. My RH 2.4.18 works fine, but 2.4.20 was dog slow. After some investigation, I found out that I can't turn on dma on a 2.4.20 kernel. (I forget the error message, but I remembed hdparm -d1 /dev/hda barfed.) Anyone else notice this?
I seem to remember hearing that IPv6 includes support for prioritizing packets. Could that be used to solve this problem?
If your ISP charged a fee based on the kind of packets you send (for example, high-priority packets are billed at $.01/MB, but low-priority packets are free), that would take care of this problem fairly quickly. Low-bandwidth users would enjoy high speeds for a small fee, and high-bandwidth users could either pay for fast service (by setting their packets to be high-priority), or wait until the lines are idle (by setting their packets to be low-priority).
Then there's the added bonus that this would encourage the rollout of IPv6, so I can stop having to do NAT. :)
I assume this won't happen, but can anyone explain why?
Gosh, I thought the guy who wrote the article did a pretty good job of explaining it.
How'd this question make Score 5?
I do know two things about the true motive of the war:
You're very close. I'll give you a hint.
Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of a company called Halliburton. Cheney is still receiving large payments from that company. Halliburton has a subsidary called Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR).
KBR was recently offered a contract for putting out oil fires in Iraq, without Congressional approval. The contract has an estimated value of $7 billion, but has no maximum "ceiling" cost. These types of contracts are normally discouraged in the Executive Branch, as they are quite prone to cost padding.
KBR has also recently been awarded other lucrative contracts related to post-war construction in Iraq. These contracts were awarded after KBR was fined $2 million for excessive charges in prior government contracts. KBR and Halliburton also did millions of dollars of shady business with Saddam Hussein in the 90's (while Dick Cheney was at the wheel).
Why would the White House start a war, then in the ensuing chaos award lots of money to companies which in turn are paying money back to those in the White House? Hmmm...you tell me.
I've only scratched the surface here; Representative Waxman gives some more information at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_ contracts.htm. The Houston Chronicle has a decent story about recent developments.
Voice of experience here...
I tried suing MerrickBank (a telespamming operation operating out of Utah) in California (where I received their telespam). While California was happy to take my filing fee, I was informed that there was no way to serve an out-of-state party with a summons to small-claims court.
It seems that various people have managed to do so, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule.
Sure, but why is this the responsibility of the cracker? If the cracker had not broken in, would the Visa system somehow be more secure? Of course not, the vulnerabilities still exist. There could easily have been previous intruders who didn't get caught: if Visa discovers a vulnerability, they should assume somebody *did* exploit it and do all that expensive security stuff anyways.
If a bank keeps valuable information in a shoebox outside the front door, and some homeless guy comes along and opens up the shoebox and looks inside, should the homeless guy be responsible for building the bank a new vault?
If she really wants to be able to eat herself, there are easier ways. I recommend some stretching exercises to start...
Why is it that these things always contain a loophole for charities? Is it really that important that charities be able to harrass people who have already expressed a preference not to be interrupted during dinner?
While I would much rather see a law saying that telemarketing lists must be opt-in only, I'm willing to settle for an enforced opt-out list, as long as that list has:
I've tried suing under California's telemarketing laws before, and I found out that they are next to useless. So, legislators, please pass useful, enforceable anti-telemarketing laws, or don't pass any at all.
Uh...do you have a URL for that?
I clicked on the above link, and glanced at the story...I could have sworn it said, "There are human feces behind the direct marketing campaigns..."
Right, yeah, I remember that.
It was when the infantry were getting "Death from Above" tattooed on themselves. Now, ICBW, but when infantry is involved in a DFA, aren't they usually the recipients?
Then again, it could have just been foreshadowing...
Hey, check it out, you can see the fire elementals!
Let's see...the guy listed an auction, which was mistakenly canceled. So, instead of writing them back and saying, "Hey, you made a mistake.", he lists it again. Surprise! It's canceled again! (What did he expect?) Finally, he clues in and sends them a mail saying, "Hey, what's up?", to which they respond with, "Oops, we screwed up, please relist." This should have been the end of it.
However, this guy (who apparently has had his honor besmirched or something) starts complaining about ebay using form letters. Give them a break! They list thousands of auctions per day! What kind of response do you expect for your 30 cents? CEO's prostrating themselves at your doorstep? Ebay made a mistake, and they fixed it. What's the problem?
He goes on to talk about how he then deliberately violated their listing policies, dropped a mailbomb on their customer service, etc. etc. Is it any wonder he had further problems with them? If somebody mailbombed me, I'd tell them to FOAD...in my opinion, the folks at Ebay showed considerable restraint in this case.
Ebay has its problems (including their refusal to allow auctions of legitimately purchased Microsoft products), but from what I've read, this isn't one of them.
Yes, I've noticed. It kinda makes you wonder just how cash-strapped that supposedly cash-strapped inner city ER is, when they can afford nice big LCD displays...
Dont'cha just hate it when the carpet doesn't match the drapes?
First of all, just because "keywords" tags can be fraudulently specified, doesn't mean that they are useless. I can publish pr0n in a book titled "Undergraduate Physics"; does that make book titles useless? The fault is not in the "keywords" tag; the fault is in naively trusting unverified data. It's okay to put lollipops from the store in your mouth, but it's not okay to do the same with lollipops that you pick out of the gutter.
OK, my turn now. I wish somebody would call a moratorium on printing an entire webpage in a teensy weensy font. I have carefully specified my default font size, because that is the size which is most appropriate for reading long pages of text on my monitor with my eyes. It's okay to make stuff smaller if it's supposed to be "the fine print", but for whole articles, please use the default font size.
In a case like this, where you know it's just a big misunderstanding and all you want is to make it go away, why not talk to a mediator? Mediators are trained to help disputants work out their problems outside of court. And in the event that it does later end up in court, nothing you say during a confidential mediation can be used as evidence in court.
Often you can get mediation services for free; for example, the Los Angeles City Attourney's office provides free mediators for any dispute in which at least one party lives in LA county. Try a google search; you may be able to find one that will handle your case.
...I'd buy you a thousand green dresses (but not a thousand real green dresses, that would be cruel).
Well, they're aware of it now.
What Starbucks did is the wireless equivalent of walking onto a beach, empty except for one couple enjoying the peace and quiet, and sitting down right in front of them and making noise. There's plenty of space available, but Starbucks chose to pick the one place where they would be annoying.
Sure, it's legal. It's also excessively rude. Starbucks should move their service and then apologize to the people to whom they were rude.
It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape. -- Wil Wheaton
ROFL
What do you mean no sound? All the flipbooks I ever watched made that delightful "pffffft" sound as the pages slid from your finger.
I only wish Ep. 3 had been made as a flipbook...then we wouldn't have had to put up with that annoying "Yippee!!!"