Why should I trust a scantron machine any more than I trust a touch-screen terminal? Why should I trust that the numbers spit out of the scantron machine correspond to the scantron card that was fed in?
That's why the printed paper ballot, after being checked by the voter for accuracy and then fed through the scantron, is retained in good old fashioned ballot boxes.
If someone challenges the electronic tally, the ballot boxes can be opened and the papers recounted, either manually or by being fed through a different scantron machine.
why big tobacco doesn't invest heavily in cancer research
The minute Big Tobacco started investing in anti-cancer remedies, they would be implicitly admitting that smoking causes cancer. Millions of lawsuits would ensue.
As a HP veteran, I can tell you that not all HP (or Agilent) products are always profitable; some products are simply "required" by the market for legitimacy or leverage in related fields
Agreed. HP's dumping of its calculators was a huge mistake, because those little calculators were some of the best marketing tools the company ever had. I still remember the warm and fuzzy feelings I had for HP because of those RPN devices. I would be willing to bet that millions of other people used to feel the same way.
France has been violating UN sanctions for years, in selling to the Iraqis
Guess which company secretly did major business with Saddam during the same UN sanctions? That's right -- Halliburton, whose CEO at the time was none other than Dick Cheney, who is now the Vice President of the United States. What's worse is that Cheney proceeded to lie about his company's participation.
Let's face it, the sanctions were leaking all over, not least because U.S. corporations were violating them with impunity.
Over a period of four years, that included a major attack on the US, and two major wars, 22% is a very modest increase.
Sorry, I see one war, not two. Fiscal Years 2000-2003 cover only Afghanistan, which New York City alone could probably have defeated. Iraq comes under FY 2004, and that is when the budgetary pain will become evident.
I suppose that if you ignore economic growth, and count reconstruction costs in Iraq as defense spending, then you might get to a figure like that, but there is no reason why those costs should count as defense spending when other types of foreign aid do not.
No invasion of Iraq, no reconstruction costs. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to consider the latter as part of the defense budget.
If the neocons have their way, 5% of GDP would be only the beginning of the pressure on the treasury. Syria is evidently next on the program; after that would be an endless series of further conquests and reconstructions, and frequent pacifications and repacifications of rebellious populations. The neverending strain on the treasury is what will eventually break the U.S., just as it broke the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire.
Defense spending as a fraction of GDP has gone up slighlty since 2000. It is now around 3.5% of GDP, which is still far below places like Saudi Arabia.
According to the Annual Defense Report by Donald Rumsfeld, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $310 billion in 1999 to $379 billion in 2003, which is a jump of 22 percent -- hardly "slight".
Furthermore, the report was written before the invasion of Iraq, the costs of which will probably push the defense budget to well over 5% of GDP. This is likely to exceed everybody but the corrupt and insane kleptocracies of the Middle East.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
One final point, what happens when someone wants to run some older (legacy) software which isn't certified? Is it going to be handled the same way, or is there going to be a "backdoor" for currently existing software or some kind of "opt-out" list?
If old software won't run, this will be great for MS: everyone will have to pony up again for another Office upgrade.
The largest corporations are almost countries. According to Robert Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly (sorry, no URL at hand), "Of the world's hundred largest economies, fifty-one are not countries but corporations."
If that is a valid view, then most of the world's biggest dictatorships are corporations.
What really bugs me is that USB is *almost* good! Plug & play, dynamic reconfiguration, simple cable -- great!
Unfortunately, Intel then had to cripple it with a CRC of only 16 bits. This is feeble, but what makes it really bad is that the protocol relies on occasional "jams" -- i.e., deliberately corrupted packets. A 16-bit CRC is just not enough when jams are part of the protocol! (Ethernet uses 48 bits.)
If Microsoft releases source code, it has to **build** and it has to create the **same** binaries as the released ones..... And finally, it has to be the source for **all* of Windows, not just the kernel.
Good idea. If the DOJ requires MS to release source code to all of Windows, I wonder how fast MS will start backpedalling on the issue of whether the Internet Explorer web browser is or is not an integral part of Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why the printed paper ballot, after being checked by the voter for accuracy and then fed through the scantron, is retained in good old fashioned ballot boxes.
If someone challenges the electronic tally, the ballot boxes can be opened and the papers recounted, either manually or by being fed through a different scantron machine.
I think this approach will work.
The minute Big Tobacco started investing in anti-cancer remedies, they would be implicitly admitting that smoking causes cancer. Millions of lawsuits would ensue.
Agreed. HP's dumping of its calculators was a huge mistake, because those little calculators were some of the best marketing tools the company ever had. I still remember the warm and fuzzy feelings I had for HP because of those RPN devices. I would be willing to bet that millions of other people used to feel the same way.
Guess which company secretly did major business with Saddam during the same UN sanctions? That's right -- Halliburton, whose CEO at the time was none other than Dick Cheney, who is now the Vice President of the United States. What's worse is that Cheney proceeded to lie about his company's participation.
Let's face it, the sanctions were leaking all over, not least because U.S. corporations were violating them with impunity.
Sorry, I see one war, not two. Fiscal Years 2000-2003 cover only Afghanistan, which New York City alone could probably have defeated. Iraq comes under FY 2004, and that is when the budgetary pain will become evident.
I suppose that if you ignore economic growth, and count reconstruction costs in Iraq as defense spending, then you might get to a figure like that, but there is no reason why those costs should count as defense spending when other types of foreign aid do not.
No invasion of Iraq, no reconstruction costs. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to consider the latter as part of the defense budget.
If the neocons have their way, 5% of GDP would be only the beginning of the pressure on the treasury. Syria is evidently next on the program; after that would be an endless series of further conquests and reconstructions, and frequent pacifications and repacifications of rebellious populations. The neverending strain on the treasury is what will eventually break the U.S., just as it broke the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire.
According to the Annual Defense Report by Donald Rumsfeld, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $310 billion in 1999 to $379 billion in 2003, which is a jump of 22 percent -- hardly "slight".
Furthermore, the report was written before the invasion of Iraq, the costs of which will probably push the defense budget to well over 5% of GDP. This is likely to exceed everybody but the corrupt and insane kleptocracies of the Middle East.
That chart is for 1999, before Bush II.
Member? Tsien was the primary founder of JPL.
If old software won't run, this will be great for MS: everyone will have to pony up again for another Office upgrade.
If that is a valid view, then most of the world's biggest dictatorships are corporations.
Unfortunately, Intel then had to cripple it with a CRC of only 16 bits. This is feeble, but what makes it really bad is that the protocol relies on occasional "jams" -- i.e., deliberately corrupted packets. A 16-bit CRC is just not enough when jams are part of the protocol! (Ethernet uses 48 bits.)
Even USB 2 uses only 16-bit CRCs. Ugh.
Businesses also WANT to be the sole supplier of anything they sell... Doesn't mean it's good for anyone in the long run.
Some anonymous coward replied:
It doesn't mean it's bad for anyone in the long run, either.
Well, AC, I figure you must have really liked the old Soviet Union, the former paradise of the single-source suppliers.
Good idea. If the DOJ requires MS to release source code to all of Windows, I wonder how fast MS will start backpedalling on the issue of whether the Internet Explorer web browser is or is not an integral part of Windows.