the board of elections in your local municipality (depending on state, etc) is responsible for choosing the machines and the software. These are either elected officials or are appointed by elected officials, and therefore responsible for representing your interests.
The Board of Elections is responsible for ensuring that the correct software is loaded, and you, as a voter, will check the Board of Elections.
Elections don't just happen, they are overseen by people you put there, directly or indirectly.
The open source element just ensures that even if the Board of Elections has no idea about what the computer code is actually doing, that the greater community will be able to make that check and balance.
With a punch card or even a mechanical voting machine, you can see and understand how it works. By making the code for these machines open source, that same consumer/voter check and balance is being provided-- or, at least, that's the idea.
This does not address the other tampering that can happen. If you want to ensure that your elections are clean and untampered, then make sure you pay attention next time your local board of elections is up for appointment or election.
I think that any idea can be embraced by almost anyone given no opposition. If Stalin and Hitler hadn't silenced their opposition, the masses would not have latched onto their every word like they did. It takes a uniquely strong and confident individual to be the only dissenter among millions.
The difference is that you didn't include everything necessary here... it should be:
Bug in a web application? Millions of users are exposed to the bug until a patch is released. Bug in a locally run application? Millions of users are exposed to the bug until a patch is released and they hear about it and they actually apply it.
Their trademark application was filed under "intent to use," in which case they have about three years to use the mark in commerce somewhere before they would have to reapply. Upon using it (and they don't even need the domain to use it), they will instantly* be given a registration number, and the rights to the mark as of their original ITU filing date.
In the meantime, no one else can register that mark, even if they are using it...
Meeting legal requirements for contests limited just to the United States is often a very difficult chore. I see how much work the attorneys in the advertising/competition group in my firm go to for each such proposed contest, and am glad I'm not in that group.
It gets exponentially more difficult when you go into other countries, with completely different rules and regulations.
So in contrast, I am impressed that they went to the trouble of making it as international as they feasibly could without bankrupting themselves on legal fees and delaying the contest for another year while it was approved.
What makes those different than the so called "astroturfing" that is mentioned in the grandparent? Quite simply, it is that these are overt and obvious attempts by a campaign to sway your opinion. Astroturfing and blogs (at present) don't have the same kind of restrictions.
I have absolutely no problem with a campaign trying to sway your opinion. That's what they are supposed to do.
What I may have a problem with is taking a limited resource (time on the airwaves, signs in Times Square, for instance) and consuming a large percentage of that, when the consumers aren't making the choice to become consumers of that information.
Actually, I would be perfectly fine with a campaign being given a television channel all to themself, where they could put up propaganda 24 hours a day. You'd have to seek it out and actively choose to partake in viewing it. It would be a flop-- no one would watch it, no one would care about it.
Blogs are the same to me. It's an unlimited resource. You're not walking down the street and seeing a major storefront plastered with campaign signs. You're not taking up one fifth of the available commercial time during Monday Night Football. It's just another site, one of billions, and a practically infinite number more can be made by almost anyone. People will seek it out and read it if they care, and if they don't, they'll never know that it was there in the first place.
People aren't given the opportunity to read a blog, they seek the opportunity. So who cares?
I agree with most of what you just said, even though I don't really mind this "astroturfing."
The only possible objection I would have to removing the limitations on print media, etc. is that there are certain kids and styles of media that actively engage the consumer, and others that passively wait to be engaged by the consumer.
When you're watching television, and a political advertisement comes on, you did not opt into receiving that communication. You did not seek it out, you did not take the initiative to view it. The same is true of direct mail-- it came into your mailbox, and so you're going to at least give it a cursory look.
Blogs and many other types of print media are of the passive variety. Rarely do you actually stumble onto a blog, or feel compelled to go searching the blogworld for political rantings. This is the kind of stuff you actively seek out, and I don't mind there being no limitations on that kind of thing, since its value as a mass marketing tool is far weaker than the more active kinds of media.
So yeah, I would be in favor of removing limitations on blogging, handing out leaflets, publishing pamphlets and such that are handed out at booths or left in accessible places for people to take if they want one.
I can see the harm in one candidate spending millions on television advertising and the other spending thousands, and likewise with direct mail, telephone solicitations, and radio advertising. But I can't see someone saying "damn, he won because he had sixteen blogs going, and we only had four!" Nor can I see someone saying "those leaflets that he was handing out left and right really just killed our chances!"
Passive media* is just not effective enough to have a drastic effect on an election, in my opinion. Things may change, and I might reconsider at that time, but right now, I'd advocate the removal of such restrictions.
*(I'm just making that term up, it may be an actual term that I've consistently used incorrectly throughout, and apologize if that's the case)
He's Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the order of succession to the Presidency (after the Vice President), and the single most powerful legislator in the United States government.
If he were a Senator, he might be angering his colleagues. But since he's Speaker of the House, it's a message that nothing supporting oil company profits will be making its way through the House on his watch. And since the Speaker controls the rules committee and just about everything else in the House, he can ensure that his words are noted.
Your demotion doesn't reflect the fact that what he thinks, as Speaker, almost certainly becomes the party line for the House Republicans.
not pertinent in this case, but in a public school, there is a definite right to free speech, as public education is overseen by the states in concert with local governments, and the fourteenth amendment applies the constitution to the states.
That assumes that the promotion of democracy is indeed his interest in the middle east, and not just a front for other motives. Not saying I disagree, but just that many would not accept your premise.
Many top-tier firms, including the one for which I am currently employed, require all associates to perform a percentage of billable hours on a pro-bono basis. In my case, it is at least sixty hours per attorney per year, or three percent of billable hours. That is approximately equal to a week's work.
Hmm, too bad you were modded down. Posing a question about targeting audiences that relates to recent national news stories in a way that could yield an interesting answer. It's the kind of question I'd like to hear answered.
Regarding the notion that Debian might not want to "have a trademark at all," they really don't have any choice, strictly speaking.
Trademarks aren't trademarks simply because they've been successfully registered. They're trademarks anyway, but registration affords some ADDITIONAL protections, beyond what a non-registered trademark gets.
Any mark that's used in commerce is automatically given trademark rights and protections under common law in almost every western nation, including the US and Australia.
The real issue in this case is that trademark protections are weakened when they are not protected by the owner of the mark. So if Debian lets anyone use "DEBIAN" for commercial purposes whenever they like, it will be hard for them to then go and protect that mark in the future.
Hell, depending on the examiner, it may already be unregisterable due to lack of protection.
And since copyright holders are almost invariably the record labels and not the artists themselves, why are the artists getting compensated in this case?
The requirements for a specimen provided to foreign trademark associates are rather strict, and need to demonstrate (generally) that a mark is being actively used in commerce and in the way that is described in the trademark application.
In this case, it looks like they registered in classes 9 (basically computer programs), 16 (printed matter), and 42 (computer programming services).
So they would usually need at least three specimens that show a commercial use of the mark (LINUX) in each class. Probably the best way of doing this would be for the applicant (Linus) to show a web page of his own ownership that sells/provides these services and goods directly. Advertisements and brochures are good as well.
Now, there are some parts of his app that specify use of the mark in things like " Computer programs, data processing apparatus and devices, peripheral devices for computer systems, apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of signals, magnetical and optical data carriers "... in which case he'd need to show examples of most to all of these or amend that part of the application.
All he would have to do is make/produce a brochure and he'd have been golden, provided that his app didn't ask for retroactive protection (the Oz IP site doesn't go into that much detail in its preliminary searches).
Things that (perhaps surprisingly to many) almost NEVER work as a specimen are things like letterhead, business cards, many types of advertising, and even certain presentations of packaging.
Now, a refusal doesn't mean that a mark is dead. Linus will now have the opportunity to provide a substitute specimen that will satisfy the requests and requirements of the examiner.
No, being unable to block subscribers' access to content and applications doesn't (to my reading) mean that they aren't able to block others' access to subscribers. Then again, I haven't read the draft yet, so that may not be the exact wording.
As you suggested, the ability of ISPs to block ports is, in many cases, a seemingly-necessary evil, and I'm sure that the Telecom committee would hear from many leading ISPs that this is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Please no! Not another segue to an abortion discussion!
the board of elections in your local municipality (depending on state, etc) is responsible for choosing the machines and the software. These are either elected officials or are appointed by elected officials, and therefore responsible for representing your interests.
The Board of Elections is responsible for ensuring that the correct software is loaded, and you, as a voter, will check the Board of Elections.
Elections don't just happen, they are overseen by people you put there, directly or indirectly.
The open source element just ensures that even if the Board of Elections has no idea about what the computer code is actually doing, that the greater community will be able to make that check and balance.
With a punch card or even a mechanical voting machine, you can see and understand how it works. By making the code for these machines open source, that same consumer/voter check and balance is being provided-- or, at least, that's the idea.
This does not address the other tampering that can happen. If you want to ensure that your elections are clean and untampered, then make sure you pay attention next time your local board of elections is up for appointment or election.
I think that any idea can be embraced by almost anyone given no opposition. If Stalin and Hitler hadn't silenced their opposition, the masses would not have latched onto their every word like they did. It takes a uniquely strong and confident individual to be the only dissenter among millions.
ding ding.
where are my mod points when I need them?
Depending on your definitions, banning malware could mean banning Windows!
The difference is that you didn't include everything necessary here... it should be:
Bug in a web application? Millions of users are exposed to the bug until a patch is released.
Bug in a locally run application? Millions of users are exposed to the bug until a patch is released and they hear about it and they actually apply it.
No, because the article's focus is that it may be the birth of an ocean. Ignoring that in the title would be misrepresenting the aim of the article.
Their trademark application was filed under "intent to use," in which case they have about three years to use the mark in commerce somewhere before they would have to reapply. Upon using it (and they don't even need the domain to use it), they will instantly* be given a registration number, and the rights to the mark as of their original ITU filing date.
In the meantime, no one else can register that mark, even if they are using it...
You don't put that on a resume... you detail that you performed routine maintenance on a Microsoft server, of course.
Even my stupid IT Director thinks that IPv4 is sufficient...what a loser.
Meeting legal requirements for contests limited just to the United States is often a very difficult chore. I see how much work the attorneys in the advertising/competition group in my firm go to for each such proposed contest, and am glad I'm not in that group.
It gets exponentially more difficult when you go into other countries, with completely different rules and regulations.
So in contrast, I am impressed that they went to the trouble of making it as international as they feasibly could without bankrupting themselves on legal fees and delaying the contest for another year while it was approved.
What makes those different than the so called "astroturfing" that is mentioned in the grandparent? Quite simply, it is that these are overt and obvious attempts by a campaign to sway your opinion. Astroturfing and blogs (at present) don't have the same kind of restrictions.
I have absolutely no problem with a campaign trying to sway your opinion. That's what they are supposed to do.
What I may have a problem with is taking a limited resource (time on the airwaves, signs in Times Square, for instance) and consuming a large percentage of that, when the consumers aren't making the choice to become consumers of that information.
Actually, I would be perfectly fine with a campaign being given a television channel all to themself, where they could put up propaganda 24 hours a day. You'd have to seek it out and actively choose to partake in viewing it. It would be a flop-- no one would watch it, no one would care about it.
Blogs are the same to me. It's an unlimited resource. You're not walking down the street and seeing a major storefront plastered with campaign signs. You're not taking up one fifth of the available commercial time during Monday Night Football. It's just another site, one of billions, and a practically infinite number more can be made by almost anyone. People will seek it out and read it if they care, and if they don't, they'll never know that it was there in the first place.
People aren't given the opportunity to read a blog, they seek the opportunity. So who cares?
I agree with most of what you just said, even though I don't really mind this "astroturfing."
The only possible objection I would have to removing the limitations on print media, etc. is that there are certain kids and styles of media that actively engage the consumer, and others that passively wait to be engaged by the consumer.
When you're watching television, and a political advertisement comes on, you did not opt into receiving that communication. You did not seek it out, you did not take the initiative to view it. The same is true of direct mail-- it came into your mailbox, and so you're going to at least give it a cursory look.
Blogs and many other types of print media are of the passive variety. Rarely do you actually stumble onto a blog, or feel compelled to go searching the blogworld for political rantings. This is the kind of stuff you actively seek out, and I don't mind there being no limitations on that kind of thing, since its value as a mass marketing tool is far weaker than the more active kinds of media.
So yeah, I would be in favor of removing limitations on blogging, handing out leaflets, publishing pamphlets and such that are handed out at booths or left in accessible places for people to take if they want one.
I can see the harm in one candidate spending millions on television advertising and the other spending thousands, and likewise with direct mail, telephone solicitations, and radio advertising. But I can't see someone saying "damn, he won because he had sixteen blogs going, and we only had four!" Nor can I see someone saying "those leaflets that he was handing out left and right really just killed our chances!"
Passive media* is just not effective enough to have a drastic effect on an election, in my opinion. Things may change, and I might reconsider at that time, but right now, I'd advocate the removal of such restrictions.
*(I'm just making that term up, it may be an actual term that I've consistently used incorrectly throughout, and apologize if that's the case)
He's Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the order of succession to the Presidency (after the Vice President), and the single most powerful legislator in the United States government.
If he were a Senator, he might be angering his colleagues. But since he's Speaker of the House, it's a message that nothing supporting oil company profits will be making its way through the House on his watch. And since the Speaker controls the rules committee and just about everything else in the House, he can ensure that his words are noted.
Your demotion doesn't reflect the fact that what he thinks, as Speaker, almost certainly becomes the party line for the House Republicans.
not pertinent in this case, but in a public school, there is a definite right to free speech, as public education is overseen by the states in concert with local governments, and the fourteenth amendment applies the constitution to the states.
that was his point... imagine if they did away with that rule, as well.
That assumes that the promotion of democracy is indeed his interest in the middle east, and not just a front for other motives. Not saying I disagree, but just that many would not accept your premise.
Many top-tier firms, including the one for which I am currently employed, require all associates to perform a percentage of billable hours on a pro-bono basis. In my case, it is at least sixty hours per attorney per year, or three percent of billable hours. That is approximately equal to a week's work.
The Rampmaster Regenerator... perpetual motion machine?
Hmm, too bad you were modded down. Posing a question about targeting audiences that relates to recent national news stories in a way that could yield an interesting answer. It's the kind of question I'd like to hear answered.
Regarding the notion that Debian might not want to "have a trademark at all," they really don't have any choice, strictly speaking.
Trademarks aren't trademarks simply because they've been successfully registered. They're trademarks anyway, but registration affords some ADDITIONAL protections, beyond what a non-registered trademark gets.
Any mark that's used in commerce is automatically given trademark rights and protections under common law in almost every western nation, including the US and Australia.
The real issue in this case is that trademark protections are weakened when they are not protected by the owner of the mark. So if Debian lets anyone use "DEBIAN" for commercial purposes whenever they like, it will be hard for them to then go and protect that mark in the future.
Hell, depending on the examiner, it may already be unregisterable due to lack of protection.
The cache is one thing, but excerpts are consistent with fair use.
And since copyright holders are almost invariably the record labels and not the artists themselves, why are the artists getting compensated in this case?
The requirements for a specimen provided to foreign trademark associates are rather strict, and need to demonstrate (generally) that a mark is being actively used in commerce and in the way that is described in the trademark application.
... in which case he'd need to show examples of most to all of these or amend that part of the application.
In this case, it looks like they registered in classes 9 (basically computer programs), 16 (printed matter), and 42 (computer programming services).
So they would usually need at least three specimens that show a commercial use of the mark (LINUX) in each class. Probably the best way of doing this would be for the applicant (Linus) to show a web page of his own ownership that sells/provides these services and goods directly. Advertisements and brochures are good as well.
Now, there are some parts of his app that specify use of the mark in things like " Computer programs, data processing apparatus and devices, peripheral devices for computer systems, apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of signals, magnetical and optical data carriers "
All he would have to do is make/produce a brochure and he'd have been golden, provided that his app didn't ask for retroactive protection (the Oz IP site doesn't go into that much detail in its preliminary searches).
Things that (perhaps surprisingly to many) almost NEVER work as a specimen are things like letterhead, business cards, many types of advertising, and even certain presentations of packaging.
Now, a refusal doesn't mean that a mark is dead. Linus will now have the opportunity to provide a substitute specimen that will satisfy the requests and requirements of the examiner.
No, being unable to block subscribers' access to content and applications doesn't (to my reading) mean that they aren't able to block others' access to subscribers. Then again, I haven't read the draft yet, so that may not be the exact wording.
As you suggested, the ability of ISPs to block ports is, in many cases, a seemingly-necessary evil, and I'm sure that the Telecom committee would hear from many leading ISPs that this is the case.