It's about how someone will steal the election... It's not our fault that everyone immediately jumps to the Republicans as the theives.
Let's not pretend that Diebold is non-partisan, okay?
To which party is Walden O'Dell (Diebold CEO) a major fundraiser? To which party does Diebold itself make large contributions? Of which candidate did O'Dell say: "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to [candidate] next year", in 2003?
It's not exactly a stretch to guess which party Diebold would attempt to swing the election toward, if given the opportunity. Oh wait, they already gave themselves the opportunity!
It isn't a bug at all, according to the article. Diebold apparently put it there on purpose. I'm sure they merely want to be able to correct the votes of people who, um, "acccidentally" voted for the wrong candidate.
No, the solar eclipse just allows you to measure the positions of stars which are very close to the Sun in the sky. Light from these stars is bent as it passes the Sun on its way to the Earth, due to the Sun's gravitational field.
Ironically, this was hailed as a proof of Einstein's relativity in the early 20th century, since the angle of deflection observed is much closer to the relativistic prediction, than to the Newtonian prediction.
Actually, I've seen on the mailing lists that if we decide not to do 3.4, then we may unlock the usual restrictions against features in future 3.3.x releases.
4.0 is going to be a huge step, so yeah, I'm sure it's going to be quite a while before we see the release.
What are you talking about? Whom am I being intolerant of, other than the moronic script kiddies who are threatening the DDOS? I was being sarcastic when I said I didn't think this was a free speech issue, sorry it wasn't more clear.
The fact that these groups are trying to silence the Republican Party, and are unabashedly announcing their intent to do so should frighten any true advocate of free speech.
This is not a free speech issue. As the corporate apologists are so fond of reminding us, free speech is about limiting government's control of speech.
In light of such actions, how can one associate "liberty" with "liberal" anymore?
Perhaps it's possible, and I am only speculating here, that someone, somewhere may consider himself a "liberal" and at the same time may also disapprove of such vandalism as this. Shocking, I know.
If the smart people are in power, you get Communism.
Hardly. What about the cultural revolution in China? Mao Zedong essentially criminalized intelligence! For ten years, educated Chinese were brutalized for merely being educated.
I agree that communist philosophy has intellectual roots, but the core of the philosophy is giving power to the working class, not the "smart people". (Yes, I know the working class don't really get political power in communist regimes; I'm talking about the theory.)
How about this?:
If the military is in power, you get fascism. If the workers are in power, you get communism. If everyone is in power, you get democracy. If no one is in power, you get America.
The main fuel tank (the big cylinder in the center) is filled with liquid hydrogen. It is topped off until moments before launch, and since its boiling point is far colder than 300K, I imagine it gets a bit violent when it touches the "hot" rim of the tank, so some may splash out and dribble down the side of the tank.
As for why it doesn't evaporate immediately, I refer you to the Leidenfrost effect.
And how long do you think it would take before HST's mirror was rendered useless by condensation from the "atmosphere" of rocket propellant, CO2, and human piss surrounding the ISS? I'd give it about 25 minutes.
What, exactly, is your point? You give four examples where a corporation did not or could not block a new development that would kill their business. Are we to conclude from these examples that corporations are incapable of doing so, or that they at least would refrain from doing something so selfish or "evil" as you put it, even if they could?
First of all, I remind you again that corporations are required by law to behave selfishly, in a manner that increases their own profit. This is a fact.
Second of all, I'd like to ask why you omitted the well-known cases in history where a corporation has tried to block the "greater good", often with what can only be described as exuberant success. I can only assume you are either unaware of such cases, or are willfully withholding them because it makes your untenable opinion more palatable. Here are three examples. There are many more.
Cigarette companies repeatedly presented their pseudoscience to congress over decades of effort to keep their addictive poisons on the market
Lead companies used their influence to shut down research labs at public universities which were finding disturbing effects of lead on the health and development of children
A consortium of automobile, tire, and gasoline companies bought out the electric trains operating in 45 U.S. cities, and immediately shut them down, replacing them with less efficient, far-more-polluting, internal-combustion buses. For this conspiracy, they were convicted in court and fined: $5000. We get to choke on diesel fumes the rest of our lives, and they get fined $5000.
When Asimov imagined powerful, artificial beings living among us, he invented The Three Laws, because without such a fundamental regulation on their behavior, how could we avoid being subjugated and enslaved by our mechanical superiors?
Well, we have invented artificial entities of our own (the corporations), but I fear our regulations over them are not as foolproof as Dr. Asimov's Three Laws.
Interest move - sounds like Novell are interested in dodging the case without having the issue of copyrights decided.
Why?
Simple, because Novell have been sued for slander of title, not for copyright infringement. They have to defend against the case brought against them in court, not the case brought against them in the press.
I find it helps a lot to stop listening to what SCO say, and pay exclusive attention to what they do.
'm sure that at $1-$1.6 billion to repair the Hubble, many who are not directly affected by the Hubble's latest problems will wonder why we're throwing so much money into something that, to them, is just a big, expensive camera.
I would remind these people that $1 billion souunds like a lot, but it's equal to the cost for 2-3 shuttle launches, and probably not much more than we've spent on previous HST servicing missions. It's certainly far less than has been wasted^W spent on the ISS.
So, as an apparent free-marketeer, what is your opinion on the situations where what is good for the pharmaceutical company is bad for humanity?
For example, pharmaceuticals are currently making a huge profit on "drug cocktails" which do a very good job of removing the symptoms of AIDS, but without actually curing the disease.
Now, let us suppose that some researcher somewhere (say, in a public university) is making very promising progress toward a bona fide cure for AIDS, and that if her research pans out, the revenue stream of the drug cocktails will dry up, and the much cheaper (one-time cost) cure will take over the "market" of AIDS patients.
Would it not be in these companies' best interest to use their formidable influence in government and over the research budgets of universities to suppress this research? By law, would these companies not be *required* to do everything in their power to see that the true cure was not developed and brought to "market"? After all, a corporation *must* do everything it can to maximize its profits. Any other consideration could get the executives sued by the shareholders.
This is just an example; it can easily be generalized. Don't you think that the inherent amorality and narrow-mindedness of corporate entities must be taken into consideration when we're dealing with something as important as the development of life-saving medications?
Let's not focus on the marginal increase in efficiency provided by private-sector research, and lose sight of the fact that we may not be getting what we want from the total privatization of everything. Particularly when there's a disconnect between the corporations' goals and the goals of society, as is so obviously the case in medical research.
The drugs protected by patents wouldn't even exist to save anyone if the pharmaceutical companies didn't think they could profit from developing them.
Perhaps. But should we not question the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in existence? Profit motive, okay. But at some point, they are fleecing people and unethically manufacturing a false scarcity of something that could save people's lives. Besides, buried in the industry's inflated cost estimates is their hugely aggresive advertising campaigns. Personally, I think it should be illegal to market prescription drugs, and the "payola" that goes on between pharmaceuticals and doctors is totally unethical, IMHO.
And I am going to bring up public funding. The companies' research is heavily assisted by university researchers who use NIH grants. NIH research consistently plays a critical role in developing important drugs, which are then given over to pharmaceutical companies to "bring to market". This is one of the worst exampes of corporate welfare.
Usually, after a few years, a computer product is considered obsolete. iPod seems to be one of the few exceptions to this rule.
But the "iPod" isn't a product, it is a product line. The original iPod of a few years ago is indeed obsolete. Apple is just riding the wave of tech progress by coming out with new versions every year (as most non-suicidal hardware companies do). I don't see that the iPod is an exception in this regard.
This from the company founded by the two Steves, whose first endeavor was selling "Blue Boxes" which allowed people to make free long distance phone calls.
The only problem I see is the possibility for machine cheating. You could program your machine to put 1 in 1000 votes for A into B's total.
I agree that this potential for abuse exists in the grandparent's proposal. However, we should understand that the same risk of abuse already exists in machine-counted manual ballots. We have always had to trust a computer to count our votes accurately. The security comes in the possibility for a human-scrutinized manual recount if "irregularities" are suspected. The proposed system allows for the same kind of recount.
Open software would also be very helpful in preventing cheating.
Yes. But an interesting problem is, how can you be sure that the code which the voting booth is executing is the same as the source code which you scrutinized the night before? Short of allowing voters access to the booth's executable so that they can hash it with their own copy of md5sum, can it be done? Perhaps a voting official can cryptographically sign the executable after verifying its integrity, but again, it would be easy to hack in the "this voting booth has been verified" message.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about how someone will steal the election... It's not our fault that everyone immediately jumps to the Republicans as the theives.
Let's not pretend that Diebold is non-partisan, okay?
To which party is Walden O'Dell (Diebold CEO) a major fundraiser? To which party does Diebold itself make large contributions? Of which candidate did O'Dell say: "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to [candidate] next year", in 2003?
It's not exactly a stretch to guess which party Diebold would attempt to swing the election toward, if given the opportunity. Oh wait, they already gave themselves the opportunity!
It isn't a bug at all, according to the article. Diebold apparently put it there on purpose. I'm sure they merely want to be able to correct the votes of people who, um, "acccidentally" voted for the wrong candidate.
Read the fine article, it is NOT a bug. It's a "double-booking" exploit which Diebold apparently put in on purpose.
From TFA:
This program is not "stupidity" or sloppiness. It was designed and tested over a series of a dozen version adjustments.
Programmers are Morlocks, users are Eloi
yeah, what (void*) said!
The linked article has nothing to do with what I was talking about, and seems much more bizarre than gravitational lensing.
That will teach me to not RTFA.
No, the solar eclipse just allows you to measure the positions of stars which are very close to the Sun in the sky. Light from these stars is bent as it passes the Sun on its way to the Earth, due to the Sun's gravitational field.
Ironically, this was hailed as a proof of Einstein's relativity in the early 20th century, since the angle of deflection observed is much closer to the relativistic prediction, than to the Newtonian prediction.
yeah, heh, that one was pretty good wasn't it...
They just don't make the K jokes like that anymore. Kids today, they just swap k's for c's and call it a day. Lame, just totally lame.
No, the stupid "K" joke stopped being funny three years ago when it was posted for the 10 thousandth time.
Actually, I've seen on the mailing lists that if we decide not to do 3.4, then we may unlock the usual restrictions against features in future 3.3.x releases.
4.0 is going to be a huge step, so yeah, I'm sure it's going to be quite a while before we see the release.
What are you talking about? Whom am I being intolerant of, other than the moronic script kiddies who are threatening the DDOS? I was being sarcastic when I said I didn't think this was a free speech issue, sorry it wasn't more clear.
(I was being facetious)
The fact that these groups are trying to silence the Republican Party, and are unabashedly announcing their intent to do so should frighten any true advocate of free speech.
This is not a free speech issue. As the corporate apologists are so fond of reminding us, free speech is about limiting government's control of speech.
In light of such actions, how can one associate "liberty" with "liberal" anymore?
Perhaps it's possible, and I am only speculating here, that someone, somewhere may consider himself a "liberal" and at the same time may also disapprove of such vandalism as this. Shocking, I know.
If the smart people are in power, you get Communism.
Hardly. What about the cultural revolution in China? Mao Zedong essentially criminalized intelligence! For ten years, educated Chinese were brutalized for merely being educated.
I agree that communist philosophy has intellectual roots, but the core of the philosophy is giving power to the working class, not the "smart people". (Yes, I know the working class don't really get political power in communist regimes; I'm talking about the theory.)
How about this?:
If the military is in power, you get fascism.
If the workers are in power, you get communism.
If everyone is in power, you get democracy.
If no one is in power, you get America.
Just guessing, but:
The main fuel tank (the big cylinder in the center) is filled with liquid hydrogen. It is topped off until moments before launch, and since its boiling point is far colder than 300K, I imagine it gets a bit violent when it touches the "hot" rim of the tank, so some may splash out and dribble down the side of the tank.
As for why it doesn't evaporate immediately, I refer you to the Leidenfrost effect.
OP said "I'd have PCI Express, if...", a contraction for "I would have PCI Express, if..."
And how long do you think it would take before HST's mirror was rendered useless by condensation from the "atmosphere" of rocket propellant, CO2, and human piss surrounding the ISS? I'd give it about 25 minutes.
First of all, I remind you again that corporations are required by law to behave selfishly, in a manner that increases their own profit. This is a fact.
Second of all, I'd like to ask why you omitted the well-known cases in history where a corporation has tried to block the "greater good", often with what can only be described as exuberant success. I can only assume you are either unaware of such cases, or are willfully withholding them because it makes your untenable opinion more palatable. Here are three examples. There are many more.
When Asimov imagined powerful, artificial beings living among us, he invented The Three Laws, because without such a fundamental regulation on their behavior, how could we avoid being subjugated and enslaved by our mechanical superiors?
Well, we have invented artificial entities of our own (the corporations), but I fear our regulations over them are not as foolproof as Dr. Asimov's Three Laws.
Interest move - sounds like Novell are interested in dodging the case without having the issue of copyrights decided.
Why?
Simple, because Novell have been sued for slander of title, not for copyright infringement. They have to defend against the case brought against them in court, not the case brought against them in the press.
I find it helps a lot to stop listening to what SCO say, and pay exclusive attention to what they do.
'm sure that at $1-$1.6 billion to repair the Hubble, many who are not directly affected by the Hubble's latest problems will wonder why we're throwing so much money into something that, to them, is just a big, expensive camera.
I would remind these people that $1 billion souunds like a lot, but it's equal to the cost for 2-3 shuttle launches, and probably not much more than we've spent on previous HST servicing missions. It's certainly far less than has been wasted^W spent on the ISS.
So, as an apparent free-marketeer, what is your opinion on the situations where what is good for the pharmaceutical company is bad for humanity?
For example, pharmaceuticals are currently making a huge profit on "drug cocktails" which do a very good job of removing the symptoms of AIDS, but without actually curing the disease.
Now, let us suppose that some researcher somewhere (say, in a public university) is making very promising progress toward a bona fide cure for AIDS, and that if her research pans out, the revenue stream of the drug cocktails will dry up, and the much cheaper (one-time cost) cure will take over the "market" of AIDS patients.
Would it not be in these companies' best interest to use their formidable influence in government and over the research budgets of universities to suppress this research? By law, would these companies not be *required* to do everything in their power to see that the true cure was not developed and brought to "market"?
After all, a corporation *must* do everything it can to maximize its profits. Any other consideration could get the executives sued by the shareholders.
This is just an example; it can easily be generalized. Don't you think that the inherent amorality and narrow-mindedness of corporate entities must be taken into consideration when we're dealing with something as important as the development of life-saving medications?
Let's not focus on the marginal increase in efficiency provided by private-sector research, and lose sight of the fact that we may not be getting what we want from the total privatization of everything. Particularly when there's a disconnect between the corporations' goals and the goals of society, as is so obviously the case in medical research.
The drugs protected by patents wouldn't even exist to save anyone if the pharmaceutical companies didn't think they could profit from developing them.
Perhaps. But should we not question the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in existence? Profit motive, okay. But at some point, they are fleecing people and unethically manufacturing a false scarcity of something that could save people's lives. Besides, buried in the industry's inflated cost estimates is their hugely aggresive advertising campaigns. Personally, I think it should be illegal to market prescription drugs, and the "payola" that goes on between pharmaceuticals and doctors is totally unethical, IMHO.
And I am going to bring up public funding. The companies' research is heavily assisted by university researchers who use NIH grants. NIH research consistently plays a critical role in developing important drugs, which are then given over to pharmaceutical companies to "bring to market". This is one of the worst exampes of corporate welfare.
Usually, after a few years, a computer product is considered obsolete. iPod seems to be one of the few exceptions to this rule.
But the "iPod" isn't a product, it is a product line. The original iPod of a few years ago is indeed obsolete. Apple is just riding the wave of tech progress by coming out with new versions every year (as most non-suicidal hardware companies do). I don't see that the iPod is an exception in this regard.
This from the company founded by the two Steves, whose first endeavor was selling "Blue Boxes" which allowed people to make free long distance phone calls.
Rip, mix, burn. Burn, baby, burn.
The only problem I see is the possibility for machine cheating. You could program your machine to put 1 in 1000 votes for A into B's total.
I agree that this potential for abuse exists in the grandparent's proposal. However, we should understand that the same risk of abuse already exists in machine-counted manual ballots. We have always had to trust a computer to count our votes accurately. The security comes in the possibility for a human-scrutinized manual recount if "irregularities" are suspected. The proposed system allows for the same kind of recount.
Open software would also be very helpful in preventing cheating.
Yes. But an interesting problem is, how can you be sure that the code which the voting booth is executing is the same as the source code which you scrutinized the night before? Short of allowing voters access to the booth's executable so that they can hash it with their own copy of md5sum, can it be done? Perhaps a voting official can cryptographically sign the executable after verifying its integrity, but again, it would be easy to hack in the "this voting booth has been verified" message.