Really, I don't see anything really "interesting" about the article other than the fact it is in Newsweek. I don't think any slashdotter should be surprised by anything said in the article, other than the fact that Newsweek made many mistakes they had to correct at the end of the article. Even this isn't really interesting, as well hey, people make mistakes.
We learned: a) Open Source People think SCO is evil b) IBM sells hardware and support c) SCO is going after IBM d) Absolutly Nothing
So can we somehow moderate front page stores -1: Redundent?
I fail to see where this is insightfull, even if it is just one moderation point. Sure, lets have new movies go to pay-per-view where the viewer can rip the movie all he wants in higher quality than he could have done with a camcorder. I mean, yea, it is a great way to keep the cams out of the movie theaters, it is also a great way to hurt the theater industy, and a great way to make it easier for bootlegers.
Some voters noticed the problem and were able to get workers to give them access codes for the proper ballots. But many voters did not. The result was that turnout figures in some precincts were pushed artificially -- even impossibly -- high, while turnout figures for neighboring precincts that voted at the same polling place were artificially low.
This is the part that really makes me wonder. The problem isn't that some precincts were artifically high, this is really secondary. From how this is worded, I don't know what percentage of people couldn't figure it out, but I bet it is rather high. It is one thing for the people who don't vote to not know who is running, but if more than 50% of those who did vote couldn't understand that they had the wrong ballet, well, that just shows how well the candidates made them selves known.
I shouldn't be too surprised at this though, I mean, you are dealing with the land of the implants, and you are still in the disUnited States, but really, if you don't know who is running in the primaries, should you even be voting?
Of course, it isn't only just for candidates. "I didn't know we needed a new sewer system for the skate rink... oh well."
It isn't that you could be sued directly (that was always possible) the question would be if you could potentially be the one to sue. Now, This would be stupid on your part, unless you were just trying to get your money taken away.
A p2p client wouldn't be enough, but perhaps if you created your own service and provided email accounts to go along with it (or a memoserv type aparatus) then you would have more potential
Slashdot Mirror
Really, I don't see anything really "interesting" about the article other than the fact it is in Newsweek. I don't think any slashdotter should be surprised by anything said in the article, other than the fact that Newsweek made many mistakes they had to correct at the end of the article. Even this isn't really interesting, as well hey, people make mistakes.
We learned:
a) Open Source People think SCO is evil
b) IBM sells hardware and support
c) SCO is going after IBM
d) Absolutly Nothing
So can we somehow moderate front page stores -1: Redundent?
I fail to see where this is insightfull, even if it is just one moderation point. Sure, lets have new movies go to pay-per-view where the viewer can rip the movie all he wants in higher quality than he could have done with a camcorder. I mean, yea, it is a great way to keep the cams out of the movie theaters, it is also a great way to hurt the theater industy, and a great way to make it easier for bootlegers.
You kidding? Who ever reads those types of comments?
"It says this side up, must be directions from Tokyo"
Some voters noticed the problem and were able to get workers to give them access codes for the proper ballots. But many voters did not. The result was that turnout figures in some precincts were pushed artificially -- even impossibly -- high, while turnout figures for neighboring precincts that voted at the same polling place were artificially low.
This is the part that really makes me wonder. The problem isn't that some precincts were artifically high, this is really secondary. From how this is worded, I don't know what percentage of people couldn't figure it out, but I bet it is rather high. It is one thing for the people who don't vote to not know who is running, but if more than 50% of those who did vote couldn't understand that they had the wrong ballet, well, that just shows how well the candidates made them selves known.
I shouldn't be too surprised at this though, I mean, you are dealing with the land of the implants, and you are still in the disUnited States, but really, if you don't know who is running in the primaries, should you even be voting?
Of course, it isn't only just for candidates. "I didn't know we needed a new sewer system for the skate rink... oh well."
This is slashdot, what's a social skill?
It isn't that you could be sued directly (that was always possible) the question would be if you could potentially be the one to sue. Now, This would be stupid on your part, unless you were just trying to get your money taken away.
A p2p client wouldn't be enough, but perhaps if you created your own service and provided email accounts to go along with it (or a memoserv type aparatus) then you would have more potential