The reason for this ban was not so much the mechanical failures, but the way in which Diebold went about doing business with the State of California. The San Jose Mercury News has this article (Reg. Req.'d), as well as this suggestive but somewhat spartan article here (no req req.d).
I'm not registered, but per the second article:
Shelley also told reporters at a press conference in Sacramento that he urged the state Attorney General to pursue criminal and civil charges against Diebold for installing voting machines that had not been certified by the state and then misleading government officials.
In fact, I recall reading the first article in the San Jose Mercury News when it was printed, and evidently the machines Diebold installed were a second-generation set. Their first-gen. machines had been approved a while ago, and so they evidently tried to cut corners, assuming the second-gen. ones would certify as well, and went ahead and installed the machines before they were certified.
On the other hand, I think it's interesting to wonder whether or not they really would've certified. Is it possible that the circumstances that led to the failure of these second generation machines may've also lead to the failure of the first generation machines, as well? I suspect the CA Gov't officials are dodging a bullet here, since Diebold seems to come out as the only fall-guys here (and rightfully so, as far as they're concerned).
I defer to anyone who has read more about this than I, which isn't much to begin with.
Therefore, better comparisons to align themselves would have been BMP for 2d images and WAV for audio... both of which are elementry enough to avoid patent scares which mostly center over compression routines
Oh come on, the point of the analogy was just to bring to light how far they wanted to take adoption, reading anything into the lossiness of the respective formats is trifling and borderline pedantic.
Isn't this why someone keeps minutes during important meetings?
I'm in a smaller, start-up atmosphere, so the bureaucracy is low here - essentially, what I'm getting at is that my experience doesn't tell me much about what these large, allegedly idiot-ridden meetings are all about.
How would the means by which humans experience things not be sufficient?
If the alien makes an alien-pie for its alien-family, and there's only one alien-pie, and two people to eat it, they cut it and end up with a dual set of.. halves (or other such fractions).
Perhaps you'd care to better explain what you mean by experiencing things 'singly', since its pretty darn ambiguous as is?
At heart I think you are very mistaken thinking that "treating" ADD/ADHD is equivalent to "getting rid of" it. If you truly don't believe it should ever be treated, then you certainly don't speak on my behalf. If there was a drug-free way of doing it, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even think twice.
Look, I wouldn't change the way I was born for anything. I, like you, do not feel 'deficient' for having ADD. But you have to accept that most people with ADD/ADHD cannot interact with society as well as their peers. This doesn't mean we don't have friends, just that social mechanisms aren't always 100% compatible with our wiring. I get by, I'm okay, but hardly a day goes by when I don't find myself wishing, in some context, that I could focus more. The miscues, the misunderstandings, all of the subtle things that ADD/ADHD affects that few who don't have it truly understand - they wear on you, and it shouldn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way. This is why we develop coping mechanisms.
You have to cope. It's simply what we do when things don't work out. Even if you don't want to, you cope somehow. This is self-treatment. You can't avoid it. You shouldn't avoid it. You shouldn't want to! It's a GOOD THING.
On that note, when you speak of the evils of amphetamine treatments, I think you're absolutely right. Drug treatment was a horrible part of my life, and I won't go back. I spent 2 and a half years on various mixes of ritalin and dexedrine, and if I felt depressed about life before I started, I can't begin to describe how I felt shortly before I finally decided to stop taking the stuff.
It's been 6 or so years since I got off of it. It took me two just to get over the experience. Like I said, I won't go back, but even from this experience I've learned things I don't want to give up.
Summary: Nobody wants to neuter ADD/ADHD. Just help.
There is such a thing as 'burden of proof', which my (IA)NAL-ness interprets as saying that you can't just passively make an accusation like that and then leave it at that. There is a point where you must prove that what you claim happened actually did. At this point they would then be obligated to show that MPlayer stole the code. Until they do that, it's just FUD-slinging.
One thing I've noticed, as a long-time Windows user who has recently begun working at a company who's primary product involves their own brand of linux, is that movements to suites like OpenOffice can't really work at the grass roots level, because of the very nature of what that suite is - an OFFICE suite. Offices are by their very nature highly bureaucratised, and the main reason, even at my employer, that most of the administrative people use MS products is because thats what everyone else uses.
Seeing someone like the government take the initiative to step away from this deadlock should be highly motivational to advocates and evangelists of Open Source, because it signals that some people in positions of REAL influence are getting the idea.
It should be noted that Austin is a very tech-savvy and liberal-minded (and I don't mean that in the politickal sense, even though it's true there too) city, so this was a likely candidate for such a move, but it's still big.
I really have to think that many, many more significant government organizations will have to undergo changes like this before it really even begins on in the corporate world.
If this tool is made to clone itself and you can't sell tools made with it, then make a clone of this tool with the original Product, then sell/lend/trade the tools you then make with the tool made by the original Product.
In other words, don't sell/trade/lend stuff you make with the Product, sell/trade/lend stuff you make WITH THE THINGS YOU MAKE WITH the Product.
At least according to the quotes given, this should work.
My general practice was not to buy the book until the professor demonstrated we would be needing it. Not strangely, none of them ever questioned my reasonings for doing this, YMMV.
Thankfully I'm through with that, though I never sold most of my books back. Getting 5-10 dollars for a ~$100 book didn't seem worth the prospect of losing that book as a reference should I even so much as grow slightly curious about some topic in an old class I had.
I have since used 4 of these books on several occasions. Figure the time and gas it would've taken me to get to a library just to find a similar book has paid for at least one or two of the lost buyback income.
Also, knowing the school bookstore isn't going to buy my book for 10 bucks then sell it to some OTHER poor sod for 50 is comforting too.
So Bush is the biggest individual weasel, and the country who was most vocal in disagreeing with him in going into Iraq (France) is the biggest weasel country?
www.cougaar.org was where my project team found the documentation and details on the Cougaar architecture. there are also several other architectures, I believe, as the technology is still very fledgling.
It's fascinating stuff, though, because it basically takes the human repetition out of things. For example, if you find yourself making a lot of similar software packages, all slightly different, but similar in key, identifiable ways, agents would be a good framework to do that in. There's nothing an agent can do that normal software CAN'T, but then, agents ARE software, so that's a bit of a tautology. It's similar to the fact that there's nothing OOP can do that other software can't, but its a WHOLE lot easier to conceptualize and design.
These programs don't have general learning capability and they don't improvise if conditions change beyond what they were designed for, things any intelligent entity should be capable of IMHO.
The specifics to various agent architectures will vary wildly, but with my own experience with the Cougaar architecture, the agents are designed to a cognitive model, where they receive a task, break it up into smaller sub-tasks, assign the tasks to whatever other agents are necessary for the accomplishment of the task, then proceed to work on what's left. As they work, they monitor their own progress, and are intended to notify agents that are higher up than them that there is something wrong.
[On a minor tangent, this sounds a lot like middle management, and while middle managers aren't the smartest, they are intelligent entities, and they don't always improvise when conditions change beyond what their job description entails. Nonetheless, we now return you to your regularly scheduled post.]
The point here is that these agents may not be intelligent by your definition, or someone else's, or mine for that matter, but calling them intelligent agents isn't quite so offensive as some other nonsense out there. Plus, the word 'intelligent' fits what they do a lot more than something as basic as 'adaptive' or 'comprehensive'. Perhaps 'Collaborative Comprehensive Adaptive Agents' would be a better term? I'm sure that'll win over the PHBs in a heartbeat!
The IT industry for near on 20 years.. quite a claim.
I'm also curious what skills you've learned that tailed off after a few years only to learn another, over this 20-year span. I'm not sure that 'network security' or 'network administration with 10-15 years experience' is something that really tails off, per se'.
Nonetheless, it seems your 20 years of experience hasn't taught you that while nobody owes anyone else a job, people who have been outsourced owe nobody their platitude in accepting conditions as they are.
Employees have rights, as do corporations, and as such it is their obligation to themselves to pursue their interests as zealously as possible, just as a company would.
Funniest of all, though, how when a company complains about not being able to stay afloat, people tend to understand, but when a person can't pay the bills, there's always someone like you around to tell them how lazy and unflexible they are.
I'm sure deep down its because they're stubborn, judgemental people, who have no tolerance for those in situations other than their own, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not registered, but per the second article:
In fact, I recall reading the first article in the San Jose Mercury News when it was printed, and evidently the machines Diebold installed were a second-generation set. Their first-gen. machines had been approved a while ago, and so they evidently tried to cut corners, assuming the second-gen. ones would certify as well, and went ahead and installed the machines before they were certified.
On the other hand, I think it's interesting to wonder whether or not they really would've certified. Is it possible that the circumstances that led to the failure of these second generation machines may've also lead to the failure of the first generation machines, as well? I suspect the CA Gov't officials are dodging a bullet here, since Diebold seems to come out as the only fall-guys here (and rightfully so, as far as they're concerned).
I defer to anyone who has read more about this than I, which isn't much to begin with.
Therefore, better comparisons to align themselves would have been BMP for 2d images and WAV for audio... both of which are elementry enough to avoid patent scares which mostly center over compression routines
Oh come on, the point of the analogy was just to bring to light how far they wanted to take adoption, reading anything into the lossiness of the respective formats is trifling and borderline pedantic.
Isn't this why someone keeps minutes during important meetings?
I'm in a smaller, start-up atmosphere, so the bureaucracy is low here - essentially, what I'm getting at is that my experience doesn't tell me much about what these large, allegedly idiot-ridden meetings are all about.
How would the means by which humans experience things not be sufficient?
.. halves (or other such fractions).
If the alien makes an alien-pie for its alien-family, and there's only one alien-pie, and two people to eat it, they cut it and end up with a dual set of
Perhaps you'd care to better explain what you mean by experiencing things 'singly', since its pretty darn ambiguous as is?
Laws only effect the law abiding.
And the arrested.
I recommend finding a new cliche' to coin, cuz that one don't float.
l33t 3xpLo145
sorry, but..
leet exploias?
you mean l33t 3xpL0175, or some permutation of standard characters and aforementioned l33tsp33k?
Who really won in this case?
Donno, but I'll tell you soon as I finish studying for my LSATs..
At heart I think you are very mistaken thinking that "treating" ADD/ADHD is equivalent to "getting rid of" it. If you truly don't believe it should ever be treated, then you certainly don't speak on my behalf. If there was a drug-free way of doing it, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even think twice.
Look, I wouldn't change the way I was born for anything. I, like you, do not feel 'deficient' for having ADD. But you have to accept that most people with ADD/ADHD cannot interact with society as well as their peers. This doesn't mean we don't have friends, just that social mechanisms aren't always 100% compatible with our wiring. I get by, I'm okay, but hardly a day goes by when I don't find myself wishing, in some context, that I could focus more. The miscues, the misunderstandings, all of the subtle things that ADD/ADHD affects that few who don't have it truly understand - they wear on you, and it shouldn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way. This is why we develop coping mechanisms.
You have to cope. It's simply what we do when things don't work out. Even if you don't want to, you cope somehow. This is self-treatment. You can't avoid it. You shouldn't avoid it. You shouldn't want to! It's a GOOD THING.
On that note, when you speak of the evils of amphetamine treatments, I think you're absolutely right. Drug treatment was a horrible part of my life, and I won't go back. I spent 2 and a half years on various mixes of ritalin and dexedrine, and if I felt depressed about life before I started, I can't begin to describe how I felt shortly before I finally decided to stop taking the stuff.
It's been 6 or so years since I got off of it. It took me two just to get over the experience. Like I said, I won't go back, but even from this experience I've learned things I don't want to give up.
Summary: Nobody wants to neuter ADD/ADHD. Just help.
There is such a thing as 'burden of proof', which my (IA)NAL-ness interprets as saying that you can't just passively make an accusation like that and then leave it at that. There is a point where you must prove that what you claim happened actually did. At this point they would then be obligated to show that MPlayer stole the code. Until they do that, it's just FUD-slinging.
for shizzle, dogg. big ups to the new language movement, bra. i wit ya all de way. forreals. we be straight-up languafyin' up in dis heezy. hell jeah.
One thing I've noticed, as a long-time Windows user who has recently begun working at a company who's primary product involves their own brand of linux, is that movements to suites like OpenOffice can't really work at the grass roots level, because of the very nature of what that suite is - an OFFICE suite. Offices are by their very nature highly bureaucratised, and the main reason, even at my employer, that most of the administrative people use MS products is because thats what everyone else uses.
Seeing someone like the government take the initiative to step away from this deadlock should be highly motivational to advocates and evangelists of Open Source, because it signals that some people in positions of REAL influence are getting the idea.
It should be noted that Austin is a very tech-savvy and liberal-minded (and I don't mean that in the politickal sense, even though it's true there too) city, so this was a likely candidate for such a move, but it's still big.
I really have to think that many, many more significant government organizations will have to undergo changes like this before it really even begins on in the corporate world.
when economists say that programmers will just need to be "retrained" with new "skill-sets"
Hey, give the economists a break. Let them enjoy the one time they can say someone else is in the same boat as them.
Why not send out spammer reply-to addresses to other spam lists.
Let the poor creatures work against themselves.
if we can inhale them then what's going to prevent a vacuum cleaner from sucking them up into a nice controlled vacuum-baggy space?
If this tool is made to clone itself and you can't sell tools made with it, then make a clone of this tool with the original Product, then sell/lend/trade the tools you then make with the tool made by the original Product.
In other words, don't sell/trade/lend stuff you make with the Product, sell/trade/lend stuff you make WITH THE THINGS YOU MAKE WITH the Product.
At least according to the quotes given, this should work.
My general practice was not to buy the book until the professor demonstrated we would be needing it. Not strangely, none of them ever questioned my reasonings for doing this, YMMV.
Thankfully I'm through with that, though I never sold most of my books back. Getting 5-10 dollars for a ~$100 book didn't seem worth the prospect of losing that book as a reference should I even so much as grow slightly curious about some topic in an old class I had.
I have since used 4 of these books on several occasions. Figure the time and gas it would've taken me to get to a library just to find a similar book has paid for at least one or two of the lost buyback income.
Also, knowing the school bookstore isn't going to buy my book for 10 bucks then sell it to some OTHER poor sod for 50 is comforting too.
So Bush is the biggest individual weasel, and the country who was most vocal in disagreeing with him in going into Iraq (France) is the biggest weasel country?
www.cougaar.org was where my project team found the documentation and details on the Cougaar architecture. there are also several other architectures, I believe, as the technology is still very fledgling.
It's fascinating stuff, though, because it basically takes the human repetition out of things. For example, if you find yourself making a lot of similar software packages, all slightly different, but similar in key, identifiable ways, agents would be a good framework to do that in. There's nothing an agent can do that normal software CAN'T, but then, agents ARE software, so that's a bit of a tautology. It's similar to the fact that there's nothing OOP can do that other software can't, but its a WHOLE lot easier to conceptualize and design.
These programs don't have general learning capability and they don't improvise if conditions change beyond what they were designed for, things any intelligent entity should be capable of IMHO.
The specifics to various agent architectures will vary wildly, but with my own experience with the Cougaar architecture, the agents are designed to a cognitive model, where they receive a task, break it up into smaller sub-tasks, assign the tasks to whatever other agents are necessary for the accomplishment of the task, then proceed to work on what's left. As they work, they monitor their own progress, and are intended to notify agents that are higher up than them that there is something wrong.
[On a minor tangent, this sounds a lot like middle management, and while middle managers aren't the smartest, they are intelligent entities, and they don't always improvise when conditions change beyond what their job description entails. Nonetheless, we now return you to your regularly scheduled post.]
The point here is that these agents may not be intelligent by your definition, or someone else's, or mine for that matter, but calling them intelligent agents isn't quite so offensive as some other nonsense out there. Plus, the word 'intelligent' fits what they do a lot more than something as basic as 'adaptive' or 'comprehensive'. Perhaps 'Collaborative Comprehensive Adaptive Agents' would be a better term? I'm sure that'll win over the PHBs in a heartbeat!
Vote Algernon in 2004!
psst.. VoIP.
There's a reason that most of Intel's chips are manufactured in the US.
.14 microns.
The US has regulations about exporting technology below
Otherwise I imagine Intel would be on the first boat out.
The IT industry for near on 20 years.. quite a claim.
I'm also curious what skills you've learned that tailed off after a few years only to learn another, over this 20-year span. I'm not sure that 'network security' or 'network administration with 10-15 years experience' is something that really tails off, per se'.
Nonetheless, it seems your 20 years of experience hasn't taught you that while nobody owes anyone else a job, people who have been outsourced owe nobody their platitude in accepting conditions as they are.
Employees have rights, as do corporations, and as such it is their obligation to themselves to pursue their interests as zealously as possible, just as a company would.
Funniest of all, though, how when a company complains about not being able to stay afloat, people tend to understand, but when a person can't pay the bills, there's always someone like you around to tell them how lazy and unflexible they are.
I'm sure deep down its because they're stubborn, judgemental people, who have no tolerance for those in situations other than their own, right?
Am I the only one thinking "Don't flatter yourself." here?
how in the hell is [parent] off-topic?
hope someone metamoderates that one wisely