Come on, I think I will make my children write a thousand times on a blackboard "DRM does not work", so at least _they_ won't bother trying when they grow up.
Even when they secure the path all the way from the UV-ray disc to each dot in the LCD/plasma/OLED display in 2038, all one needs to get the color of each pixel with greater than 99.999% accuracy is half a dozen US$ 100 cheap cameras, some tripods and a calibrating movie... [and a 64-bit timestamp:-)]
How can you know the frauds decreased? How are you so sure that it's not because the _detection_ of frauds decreased drastically?
More challenging (ie, non-incumbent) candidates winnning is almost a sure way of differentiating the cases. And yes, we are having an unprecedent number of challenging candidates wins.
Proper procedures, proper procedures. The electoral prosecutors and judges are required, down here, to test the machines simulating one or more normal voting days, so, it's difficult to have a "widespread accident", too. If one machine behaves badly in the simulation, it's casted out. The partial numbers (for each machine) are posted in the election places just after the closing of the machines, so it's difficult/impossible to rig the sums, either.
If they rigged the elections, they did it to guarantee that their candidates (and themselves, in case of incumbency) lost ?? Because that happened in, like, 60% of the cities?
Wow! Incredible! I never thought something like that would be possible with a computer!
Wow! Incredible! I never thought something like that would be possible without a computer!
There, fixed that for you. Speaking of fixing: Why fix something that ain't broken? Voting with Pen&Paper has worked for centuries, there is no need to fix anything.
Voting with Pen&Paper has NOT worked for centuries,...
There. Fixed for you. Pen and paper elections have been rigged for centuries; man, there are still doubts casted over GWB's first election.
Machine voting is neither best nor worse than pen and paper, security-wise. Proper auditing and proper procedures are what guarantee a clean, non-rigged election.
Actually, the "#" (hex 23) symbol is the octothorpe, the sharp symbol is "" (slashed by slash..., hex 266f)... to see them in your terminal, you just do perl -C127 -le 'print chr hex $_ for @ARGV' 23 266f
There was a time, long ago, when everything wasn't about the money.
No there was not. Never. It was always everything about the money. Before money existed, it was everything about comforts: food, shelter, not being eaten, reproducing. After money existed, you just trade all of them for money, so... it always was everything about the money. Get over it. There were never "better times". There always have being wars, and wars were ever about the money. People kill and abuse it other, most of the times for money, but sometimes just out of plain meanness. We suck.
As you seem to live in another planet, and one where facts do speak volumes nonetheless, I friendly request that you take me to your leader -- after asserting that your homeworld environment is livable for my pitiful lifeform.
The reason to want to be anonymous is not cowardice.
You are right, there are sound reasons to be anonymous.
But cowardice is not the opposite of courage/bravery. Bravery is standing up to something, facing the consequences, and thinking that the consequences for one are worth the greater good. Courage is shitting in your pants but _still_ jumping in front of the bullet.
That's why I argumented that _real_ brave people do not hide behind anonymity.
Even the bravest individual will hold back when their identity is known or potentially discoverable.
You don't know a lot of brave people, do you? I can even see the dollar bill with a big (?) inside the oval and Anonymous Brave Man written in the ribbon below:-) If someone hides below anonymity, then it is not brave. And it's ok, it's not everyone's job to be brave. But it was Ghandi's, Washington's, Tiradentes' job/life to be brave. And _that_ is why we know their names and faces.
This website has given us no proof of who they really are. All secure (https) websites are encrypted to protect against eavesdropping, and the vast majority of them also provide proof of their identity. This one is encrypted, but there's no way we can ensure that they are who they say they are.
I would add:
Unless you know beyond any doubt that this website is the one you think it is, do not proceed. But if you do know, click _here_ and add an exception, so you won't see this message again.
Now, all we have to do is send the patch to mozilla...:-) Do you know if there is an already open bug?
I disagree that the message is one "that non-tech people will not have a chance of understanding." The message says: "The certificate can't be trusted because it's self-signed." Things do not get much simpler than that. Remember that self-signed certificates are the basis for man-in-the-middle attacks in https:/// sites.
What if the pain start while inside the plane? Do you happen to carry some morph or oxycodone with you all the time? Don't be silly. My argument is: even non-lazy parents can have a tough time taming noisy but normally quiet kids. One of the hazards of a plane travel is putting up with some hours of kid noise. Live with it or don't fly, it's your choice -- just please don't whine and don't pass judgment in something you don't know jack about.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM does not work.
Mathematically speaking.
Come on, I think I will make my children write a thousand times on a blackboard "DRM does not work", so at least _they_ won't bother trying when they grow up.
Even when they secure the path all the way from the UV-ray disc to each dot in the LCD/plasma/OLED display in 2038, all one needs to get the color of each pixel with greater than 99.999% accuracy is half a dozen US$ 100 cheap cameras, some tripods and a calibrating movie... [and a 64-bit timestamp :-)]
How can you know the frauds decreased? How are you so sure that it's not because the _detection_ of frauds decreased drastically?
More challenging (ie, non-incumbent) candidates winnning is almost a sure way of differentiating the cases. And yes, we are having an unprecedent number of challenging candidates wins.
Proper procedures, proper procedures.
The electoral prosecutors and judges are required, down here, to test the machines simulating one or more normal voting days, so, it's difficult to have a "widespread accident", too. If one machine behaves badly in the simulation, it's casted out.
The partial numbers (for each machine) are posted in the election places just after the closing of the machines, so it's difficult/impossible to rig the sums, either.
If they rigged the elections, they did it to guarantee that their candidates (and themselves, in case of incumbency) lost ?? Because that happened in, like, 60% of the cities?
Wow! Incredible! I never thought something like that would be possible without a computer!
There, fixed that for you. Speaking of fixing: Why fix something that ain't broken? Voting with Pen&Paper has worked for centuries, there is no need to fix anything.
Voting with Pen&Paper has NOT worked for centuries, ...
There. Fixed for you. Pen and paper elections have been rigged for centuries; man, there are still doubts casted over GWB's first election.
Machine voting is neither best nor worse than pen and paper, security-wise. Proper auditing and proper procedures are what guarantee a clean, non-rigged election.
Was it the same Jeep or two distinct Jeeps?
Actually, the "#" (hex 23) symbol is the octothorpe, the sharp symbol is "" (slashed by slash..., hex 266f)...
to see them in your terminal, you just do
perl -C127 -le 'print chr hex $_ for @ARGV' 23 266f
Yeah, it would be nice if nobody crapflooded /. ever, so they didn't have to come up with such restrictions...
who had the monopoly on destroying entire systems.
s/these // :-)
Why does every discussion on Slashdot devolve to partisan attacks on one of the American political parties?
s/on one of/on one or more of/ :-)
There, corrected for you
(and left an s/more/both/ overture for continuing jokes...)
There was a time, long ago, when everything wasn't about the money.
No there was not. Never. It was always everything about the money. Before money existed, it was everything about comforts: food, shelter, not being eaten, reproducing. After money existed, you just trade all of them for money, so... it always was everything about the money. Get over it. There were never "better times". There always have being wars, and wars were ever about the money. People kill and abuse it other, most of the times for money, but sometimes just out of plain meanness. We suck.
Facts speak volumes.
As you seem to live in another planet, and one where facts do speak volumes nonetheless, I friendly request that you take me to your leader -- after asserting that your homeworld environment is livable for my pitiful lifeform.
Because, in this planet:
But facts were never and will never be on the list. Not even close.
I fail to see DVD copying could be done simpler than with k9copy.
Insert DVD, click "make DVD copy", wait, done.
Actually, the link you gave says:
"lack of courage or resolution"
which is a completely different thing from
"the opposite of courage".
Jumping in front of a bullet when it was avoidable isn't courageous, its stupid.
Not if you are trying to save someone else's life.
can design on a sane model with sane tools, deploy the plugin when the users are IE.
The reason to want to be anonymous is not cowardice.
You are right, there are sound reasons to be anonymous.
But cowardice is not the opposite of courage/bravery. Bravery is standing up to something, facing the consequences, and thinking that the consequences for one are worth the greater good. Courage is shitting in your pants but _still_ jumping in front of the bullet.
That's why I argumented that _real_ brave people do not hide behind anonymity.
Even the bravest individual will hold back when their identity is known or potentially discoverable.
You don't know a lot of brave people, do you? :-)
I can even see the dollar bill with a big (?) inside the oval and Anonymous Brave Man written in the ribbon below
If someone hides below anonymity, then it is not brave. And it's ok, it's not everyone's job to be brave. But it was Ghandi's, Washington's, Tiradentes' job/life to be brave. And _that_ is why we know their names and faces.
Eeeew!
openSUSE is a good KDE, then you are a lost cause :-)
disclaimer: Kubuntu user, for a relatively long time now.
This website has given us no proof of who they really are. All secure (https) websites are encrypted to protect against eavesdropping, and the vast majority of them also provide proof of their identity. This one is encrypted, but there's no way we can ensure that they are who they say they are.
I would add:
Unless you know beyond any doubt that this website is the one you think it is, do not proceed. But if you do know, click _here_ and add an exception, so you won't see this message again.
Now, all we have to do is send the patch to mozilla... :-) Do you know if there is an already open bug?
You are acting like an idiot and I am thru talking to you.
You won a solitary place in my killfile.
Congrats.
I disagree that the message is one "that non-tech people will not have a chance of understanding." The message says: "The certificate can't be trusted because it's self-signed." Things do not get much simpler than that. Remember that self-signed certificates are the basis for man-in-the-middle attacks in https:/// sites.
Won't anyone think of the children?? :-)
What if the pain start while inside the plane? Do you happen to carry some morph or oxycodone with you all the time? Don't be silly. My argument is: even non-lazy parents can have a tough time taming noisy but normally quiet kids. One of the hazards of a plane travel is putting up with some hours of kid noise. Live with it or don't fly, it's your choice -- just please don't whine and don't pass judgment in something you don't know jack about.