Assuming it WAS a time issue upon crossing the International Dateline...
Design problem? Why should navigation software require "local time"? They knew they were crossing the international dateline, so they must be linked to GPS timing systems... why not just use GPS' universal time? (Sure, you want local time eventually for your displays but that's a "view" calculation, not one intrinsic to the navigation software)
Bug tracking problem? Did the testers not think of testing about a time zone change? Did they assume the above that everything would be on a universal time and therefore didn't see the need for crossing time zones?
Why wasn't this a stock reusable code module in Lockheed Martin's labs?!?
(And for a media look at this issue, check out the anime Geneshaft or the movie The Pentagon Wars)
So let me get this straight...
on
DRM Causes Piracy
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Stealing of Wii's can only occur under 3 conditions...
1> They are hard to find and thus valuable. 2> They are high priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them. 3> It's much easier to steal them than it is to wait and purchase a new one.
Guess what, LOCKS ON DOORS create these conditions in the first place! Oh, if only we lived in a socialist utopia where everybody could just print what they want and then there would be no crime.
Facetious?
You bet. But he's rationalizing theft of property because it's...ultimately... too inconvenient. If Sony wants to throw away their lead by making their products uber-expensive, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.
If Metallica wants to throw away their popularity by over DRM'ing their music and supporting draconian copy rights, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.
What's next, it's not right for the grocery stores to demand money for food? So it's okay to steal from them? Because that's what this guy is saying; That it's ok to steal if you feel that you're being shortchanged.
"There's the girl that I like.... Now it appears that she likes another guy... it must be because he's political and stuff.... I bet I can be political too!"
"Is it so hard to conceive of an imperfect world where people don't want to play by the rules, that election fraud is relegated to just another unfounded conspiracy theory in you mind?."
Is it so hard to realize that the paper ballots/trails are just as susceptible to election fraud as electronic ballots such that electronic voting is just another unfounded conspiracy theory in your mind?
"I consider paper ballots as where the person actually makes a mark with ink on a piece of paper, not some weird misconceived contraption where you punch holes in the paper with a poker."
Oh well then, let me update my rant:
"This circle is half colored in. Obviously the voter intended to vote for my candidate." "No, it's not completely filled in. Therefore this ballot is in error and doesn't count." "This guy voted for Pat Buchanan, obviously his vote is incorrect."
While it's true that paper trails are the only mechanism to provide for recounting they're still susceptible to election fraud and, in some cases, create it.
Whole ballot boxes of paper ballots appear and disappear in every election. Even when we had a recount in Florida the ballots were INTERPRETED according to different rules (which, btw was what the Supreme Court originally ruled on...)
My point to all this is that I voted in a county that had mechanical voting machines for nearly 50 years. They didn't have a paper trail. The only thing that was updated was a mechanical counter inside the machine that kept the tallies. These machines were opened during the day to check the counts (at which point they could also be tampered with) and at the end of the day these counts were read off and phoned to the central office then the counts were reset.
In 50 years there was never one incidence of fraud on these machines. Ohh, there were plenty of problems... Sometimes certain ballots wouldn't get tallied due to mechanical error and on some machines the Party lever didn't work for one party so you had to manually pull down the entire row.
What's the difference between the mechanical and the evoting ones? Ultimately nothing. Ultimately you have to trust the people running the system because otherwise Democracy means nothing because you don't trust your fellow man to properly vote or check your vote. I realize that's difficult when Bush is trying to orchestrate a coup to overthrow Democracy, especially after all those Diebold machines gave the vote to Republicans in this last mid-term election. But hey, that's how it goes.
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to make a more secure voting system. But just saying "paper trail = secure voting" aint it. Personally I'd go for the "more eyes" approach where more people could check the counts on each machine. But the more people you put into the process, the easier it is for somebody to change the results.
"The only people who oppose paper ballots are the ones who want to rig elections."
Oh yeah because paper ballots were used so well to confirm the Florida elections in 2000 and sparking a constitutional crisis.
"Ooh lookee, it's half a punched chad... that's definitely a vote for my guy" "No it's not, it's obviously a mistake, he voted for my guy." "Look! This is a clearly punched ballot for Pat Buchanan! This is obviously an incorrect vote."
Not quite, your secretary is your employee and there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you've entered into a contract with a third party and the contract states that they won't automatically turn over such information to outside interests then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But you'll find that most typical ISP contracts/user agreements don't grant you that.
Even then that's not a good analogy for this case, really. We're talking about somebody sending your ISP a gajillion spams in bulk and the ISP is turning them over to the feds to get them to knock it off.
But in the case of email they're specifically looking at CONTENT. (for spam) Even in an automated fashion. The USPS is allowed to shake/x-ray/sniff/etc; the package but they're not normally allowed to look INSIDE the package unless it has some problem.
Contrast that with photo developing shops that handle photos on a daily basis where they're always looking at the content. The courts have found that it's perfectly legal for those employees to turn over the photos with possibly illegal content to authorities in those situations. (IE there's no right to privacy there)
The question is: Does automated email scanning fall under the photo analogy?
If so, the government wins. If not, the spammers win because then they can successfully sue ISP's to NOT SCAN for spam.
Aha! You say, the ISP's can just charge an extra service fee for spam scanning to deflect the spammer's suit. THEN you have given up your expectation of privacy and THEN the government wins under the photo analogy.
Either way, it'll be up to the legislators to craft the law specifically to block the government from getting email in this fashion.
Any judicial decision won't correct the problem properly.
"E-mail providers also routinely screen messages for spam, viruses and child pornography. That further undermines claims to the privacy of e-mail, government attorneys say."
Good point here. If you're allowing a company to snoop your email for spam/viruses then you're already negating the privacy issue. If the judges decide that privacy wins out then the spam companies can sue to say that the big ISP's have no right to snoop their mail for spam before reaching your computer.
On the one side you've got the phone-call analogy (where the government can't eavesdrop on your phone calls even though they go through a public system) and on the other you've got the photo developing places which can turn over photos to the government if they deem something they see is illegal.
The "State" shouldn't recognize ANY form of relationship (if 2, 3, 5, 20 adults want to live together in love go for it). The State SHOULD recognize anyone who wants to rear a child/children as a family and grant them tax credits accordingly. (Be it through childbearing, artificial insemination or adoption) (Because the state always needs people...)
His party didn't sponsor "anti-gay" ballot measures... they sponsored "anti-gay-marriage" ballot measures.
And before you say you can't distinguish between the two, might I point out that Bill Maher (a self-proclaimed heterosexual) is against heterosexual marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nobody's being herded into trains and relocated."
;)
Well there's that whole desegregation/school busing issue... but generally, no.
I've got that issue... It was going to be a massive collector's item...
Then they brought him back...
[[ BATTLESTAR GALACTICA SPOILERS ]]
Of course I'm not sure what the big deal is... Starbuck just died and there's no media hoopla about that.
YOU!
ARE!
A!
TOY!
Why? Because it's "Democrat" controlled?
Who signed the DMCA bill into law, btw?
Assuming it WAS a time issue upon crossing the International Dateline...
Design problem? Why should navigation software require "local time"? They knew they were crossing the international dateline, so they must be linked to GPS timing systems... why not just use GPS' universal time? (Sure, you want local time eventually for your displays but that's a "view" calculation, not one intrinsic to the navigation software)
Bug tracking problem? Did the testers not think of testing about a time zone change? Did they assume the above that everything would be on a universal time and therefore didn't see the need for crossing time zones?
Why wasn't this a stock reusable code module in Lockheed Martin's labs?!?
(And for a media look at this issue, check out the anime Geneshaft or the movie The Pentagon Wars)
Stealing of Wii's can only occur under 3 conditions...
1> They are hard to find and thus valuable.
2> They are high priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them.
3> It's much easier to steal them than it is to wait and purchase a new one.
Guess what, LOCKS ON DOORS create these conditions in the first place! Oh, if only we lived in a socialist utopia where everybody could just print what they want and then there would be no crime.
Facetious?
You bet. But he's rationalizing theft of property because it's...ultimately... too inconvenient. If Sony wants to throw away their lead by making their products uber-expensive, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.
If Metallica wants to throw away their popularity by over DRM'ing their music and supporting draconian copy rights, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.
What's next, it's not right for the grocery stores to demand money for food? So it's okay to steal from them? Because that's what this guy is saying; That it's ok to steal if you feel that you're being shortchanged.
So it's neeevveeerrr happpened.
Right.
With apologies to South Park...
"There's the girl that I like....
Now it appears that she likes another guy...
it must be because he's political and stuff....
I bet I can be political too!"
Oh... sorry... we were looking for 1HotLuv99874... We didn't realize you were 1HotLuv9874. Our bad...
Yeah.. uh... just contact city services to fix the door for you...
Because I've never heard of this "Geoff Keighley", let alone watched his show on Spike TV.
"Is it so hard to conceive of an imperfect world where people don't want to play by the rules, that election fraud is relegated to just another unfounded conspiracy theory in you mind?."
Is it so hard to realize that the paper ballots/trails are just as susceptible to election fraud as electronic ballots such that electronic voting is just another unfounded conspiracy theory in your mind?
"I consider paper ballots as where the person actually makes a mark with ink on a piece of paper, not some weird misconceived contraption where you punch holes in the paper with a poker."
Oh well then, let me update my rant:
"This circle is half colored in. Obviously the voter intended to vote for my candidate."
"No, it's not completely filled in. Therefore this ballot is in error and doesn't count."
"This guy voted for Pat Buchanan, obviously his vote is incorrect."
While it's true that paper trails are the only mechanism to provide for recounting they're still susceptible to election fraud and, in some cases, create it.
Whole ballot boxes of paper ballots appear and disappear in every election. Even when we had a recount in Florida the ballots were INTERPRETED according to different rules (which, btw was what the Supreme Court originally ruled on...)
My point to all this is that I voted in a county that had mechanical voting machines for nearly 50 years. They didn't have a paper trail. The only thing that was updated was a mechanical counter inside the machine that kept the tallies. These machines were opened during the day to check the counts (at which point they could also be tampered with) and at the end of the day these counts were read off and phoned to the central office then the counts were reset.
In 50 years there was never one incidence of fraud on these machines. Ohh, there were plenty of problems... Sometimes certain ballots wouldn't get tallied due to mechanical error and on some machines the Party lever didn't work for one party so you had to manually pull down the entire row.
What's the difference between the mechanical and the evoting ones? Ultimately nothing. Ultimately you have to trust the people running the system because otherwise Democracy means nothing because you don't trust your fellow man to properly vote or check your vote. I realize that's difficult when Bush is trying to orchestrate a coup to overthrow Democracy, especially after all those Diebold machines gave the vote to Republicans in this last mid-term election. But hey, that's how it goes.
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to make a more secure voting system. But just saying "paper trail = secure voting" aint it. Personally I'd go for the "more eyes" approach where more people could check the counts on each machine. But the more people you put into the process, the easier it is for somebody to change the results.
"The only people who oppose paper ballots are the ones who want to rig elections."
Oh yeah because paper ballots were used so well to confirm the Florida elections in 2000 and sparking a constitutional crisis.
"Ooh lookee, it's half a punched chad... that's definitely a vote for my guy"
"No it's not, it's obviously a mistake, he voted for my guy."
"Look! This is a clearly punched ballot for Pat Buchanan! This is obviously an incorrect vote."
Yeah... paper ballots solve ALL the problems...
Financial records are protected by pre-established credit/finance law. Same with medical records.
Emails are not.
Not quite, your secretary is your employee and there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you've entered into a contract with a third party and the contract states that they won't automatically turn over such information to outside interests then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But you'll find that most typical ISP contracts/user agreements don't grant you that.
Even then that's not a good analogy for this case, really. We're talking about somebody sending your ISP a gajillion spams in bulk and the ISP is turning them over to the feds to get them to knock it off.
But in the case of email they're specifically looking at CONTENT. (for spam) Even in an automated fashion. The USPS is allowed to shake/x-ray/sniff/etc; the package but they're not normally allowed to look INSIDE the package unless it has some problem.
Contrast that with photo developing shops that handle photos on a daily basis where they're always looking at the content. The courts have found that it's perfectly legal for those employees to turn over the photos with possibly illegal content to authorities in those situations. (IE there's no right to privacy there)
The question is: Does automated email scanning fall under the photo analogy?
If so, the government wins.
If not, the spammers win because then they can successfully sue ISP's to NOT SCAN for spam.
Aha! You say, the ISP's can just charge an extra service fee for spam scanning to deflect the spammer's suit. THEN you have given up your expectation of privacy and THEN the government wins under the photo analogy.
Either way, it'll be up to the legislators to craft the law specifically to block the government from getting email in this fashion.
Any judicial decision won't correct the problem properly.
"E-mail providers also routinely screen messages for spam, viruses and child pornography. That further undermines claims to the privacy of e-mail, government attorneys say."
Good point here. If you're allowing a company to snoop your email for spam/viruses then you're already negating the privacy issue. If the judges decide that privacy wins out then the spam companies can sue to say that the big ISP's have no right to snoop their mail for spam before reaching your computer.
On the one side you've got the phone-call analogy (where the government can't eavesdrop on your phone calls even though they go through a public system) and on the other you've got the photo developing places which can turn over photos to the government if they deem something they see is illegal.
Definitely an interesting case.
Forcing software sales along with hardware ones?
Hey don't go against Slashdot's truthiness here!
The Nintendo 64 controller.
It only makes sense. If the "animal" is intelligent to overcome its primal instincts it can avoid "evolutionary" dangers.
Are we not doing seeing this now in humans with antibiotics? Genetic manipulation?
How many people on Slashdot have said that the gene pool has become watered down due to the protections of civilization?
"I don't know of a single HDTV out there with digital inputs that doesn't handle 720p,"
:(
Panasonic Plasma 42PX20...
A whopping THREE years old...
(But I knew that it didn't have 720p going in... I just got a really good deal on it at the time)
The "State" shouldn't recognize ANY form of relationship (if 2, 3, 5, 20 adults want to live together in love go for it). The State SHOULD recognize anyone who wants to rear a child/children as a family and grant them tax credits accordingly. (Be it through childbearing, artificial insemination or adoption) (Because the state always needs people...)
It's not THAT at all.
The COMMENT was essentially "all gay Republicans are hypocrites"
There are PLENTY of Catholics who are Democrats which supports Abortion (a no-no when you're a Catholic).
Does that make all Catholic Democrats hypocrites unable to deal with their own self-hatred and loathing?
But of course, that's not a bigoted statement on Slashdot... that's the TRUTH!
Oh, if only slashdot had a paper trail for mod voting... ;)
His party didn't sponsor "anti-gay" ballot measures... they sponsored "anti-gay-marriage" ballot measures.
And before you say you can't distinguish between the two, might I point out that Bill Maher (a self-proclaimed heterosexual) is against heterosexual marriage.