If I have a gun in my hand and you don't then I can do what I want. Including shooting your kneecaps crippling you for life.
We're talking about what you "should" do not what you "can" do. Sadly under this administration many US agencies have been displaying an eager "can-do" attitude.
I don't buy that one. I pay an agency to come and clean my house, the women they send has keys, she comes and goes while I'm at work. That's an arrangement I made with her. Is that supposed to mean that federal agents may now come and search my house any time they want without a warrant? I gave up my privacy to google so they can perform specific tasks for me. (specifically, cleaning my email) I don't see the logical reasoning that leads from that to granting the FBI access to my email.
From the 'Best OS' category: (Vista) "But the product unquestionably brings new features and capabilities to solution providers that in turn promise new revenue generation dialogues with end users."
Holy corporate shilling batman. This list seems to have been written by marketing droids, I wouldn't put too much stock in their determinations of the relative merit of this year's tech products.
No, you're wrong. This is the very misunderstanding that I am lamenting. Refining crude oil is basically a cleaning/concentrating process. The molecules we want are already there. Splitting the hydrogen out of h2o is a fundamentally different process, it is not refining. We aren't harvesting any stored energy from the water as we are with fossil fuels. Rather we are exerting energy to seperate hydrogen and oxygen then later recovering a portion of THAT SAME ENERGY later/elsewhere by recombining the hydrogen with oxygen.
Maybe someone else can explain this better than I.
Maybe it is the terminology that is confusing. We talk about "getting hydrogen from water" which kinda makes it sound like there is hydrogen mixed in with the water like salt in the ocean or hydrocarbons in crude oil. In fact when we talk about "getting hydrogen from water" we are talking about actually turning H2O INTO hydrogen and oxygen by splitting the water molecules. Then we confuse things further by talking about "hydrogen as a source of energy" which is I think a little misleading when what we mean is that combining hydrogen with oxygen is our source of energy. Maybe that is the key: stop saying that we can make energy from hydrogen, instead say that we can make energy by combining hydrogen with oxygen. That should lead the inquisitive mind to ask "where can we get the hydrogen and oxygen for these generators?" When the answer is "we can get the hydrogen by splitting hydrogen and oxygen." a better understanding should result.
How is it that in 2006 we still have so many prognosticators getting published with this sort of fundamental misunderstanding of hydrogen-based energy systems?
For the farking 1 millionth time: THERE ARE NO HYDROGEN DEPOSITS ON EARTH!!! Comparing hydrogen to fuel oil is inane. What's next weeks subject? "the many reasons why oranges will never be used to make apple pies"?!?!?!?!
Hydrogen energy systems as they exist on earth today are only BATTERIES. How many times do we have to say this? We can manufacture hydrogen from water or other materials, store it, and harvest energy later by turning it into water. This is basically equivalent to charging your re-chargable battery and then using the battery the next day.
Now when we're out exploring the universe we may well find hydrogen to be a wonderfull SOURCE of energy as there are lots of hydrogen 'deposits' out there. In the mean time we have: solar, nuclear, hydrothermal, moon energy(tidal), fossil fuels and biomass-based energy sources.
>> Only now is universal health care finally taking hold as a mainstream Democratic idea. > Maybe it's because most Americans are waiting for another country to implement a system that actually works. > Government is notoriously inefficient compared to private enterprise in most endeavors
??? efficiency? Surely you are not suggesting that the US healthcare system is more efficient than the existing nationalized health-care systems in other OECD countries? The USA has one of the least efficient health-care systems in the world by almost any measure. There is nowhere to go but up. The Canadian system is vastly more efficient.
Farking tailgaters should be tasered along with the ticket.
oh, and while we're on the subject... - turn on your damn headlights@!!! (no, your farking daytime running lights are NOT your headlights dumbass) - learn how to farking merge onto a farking highway damnit!!! Stop trying to merge going 20kph slower than the highway traffic!
Also, regarding issue #1, the number of ballot issues... I would like to suggest reducing that number. For starters, you vote for your judges?!?! that just makes no sense to me. Judges are supposed to be impartial, intelligent, rational interpreters of the written law. Elections don't select for those qualities. In fact, elections tend to select away from those qualities. That being said, I can't say I have much faith in the ability of the US administration to make those selections... maybe you could put the DOJ in charge of it, or the bar association?
uh what? indeed. my reading of the part of the document you posted clearly states that passenger lists must be submitted to DHS prior to boarding... Furthermore it asserts that the purpose of this transmission is to give DHS a chance to block a passenger from departing the USA. There's nothing new here about privacy, all this information was being sent already, it is a matter of timing. It used to be sent as a matter of record, now it is sent before the flight departs thus giving DHS a chance to stop the flight before it takes off.
Do you not agree with this reading? Did I misunderstand something here?? (i don't think so)
So the DHS now has (if this is passed) prior notice of who is leaving the country and the capability to stop them. So now I'm wondering why you are calling bullshit on this? This is a new power to restrict people's movements that appears to come with no new checks, balances or oversight. So unless one believes that the DHS will always do the "right thing" with this new power (for ever and ever through whatever administrations may come) then you have to write in restrictions on what the information can be used for and/or you need oversight.
Still, this is nothing new for this adminisitration. You guys used to have habeous corpus, rights to swift and fair trials... all that silly freedom and democracy stuff. Now your government kidnaps "suspects", holds them indefinitely without charges and sometimes tortures them in secret prisons. This is the government you are implicitly trusting with new powers to restrict your movement.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Diebold is somewhere between criminally negligent and treasonous. Ditto for anyone who has signed off on Accuvote orders since '04
Nothing in the article that I can see supports the supposition that datacentres will become obsolete. At most it suggests that there ought to be fewer humans in datacentres and that money could be saved by not making them human-friendly environments. This appears to be nothing more than a case of poor reporting by m0smithslash and CmdrTaco.
I just happened to be working on the same thing this weekend! My version is slighty different.
Rather than the mediocre onboard audio you get on those via boards I used an m-audio card. That gives me multiple different audio inputs including xlr for nicer audio. I also used a mini-itx case that has a 5/14" bay for my CrystalFontz lcd display. The display lets me show audio levels (very helpfull to know if "the damn thing is working or not"). The crystalfontz display also has buttons which I use to start/stop the recording. The USB key idea is interesting but I didn't have any requirement to restrict access to the device so a button is just easier (you can't lose it or leave it at home). Finally, I'm also transcoding the captured wav files to mp3, aac and realmedia before uploading them using rsync over ssh. I just built my first demo unit so I don't yet have any info about it on my website www.isiglobal.ca. I haven't decided on pricing yet but it will certainly match or beat the PIAB pricing. (and it'll be in canadian dollars) I'm definitely going to want to post something about it on linuxdevices like these guys did. hurray for free advertising!
The question is not whether to reocunt, but how many times do you do it? Under what conditions? If there is a 12% difference
Yes, I agree that it is not as simple as I suggested. Still, I would argue that the simplest case is one we can probably all agree on. That is to say that when there is widespread doubt about the results that at least one recount would be in order.
Am I the only one here who thinks that fighting to stop a ballot recount should be a criminal offence? Probably. And that is a good thing.
I admit that comment is a little extreme... I'm not certain I would write such a law if I were "king for a day" but I stand by the principle that opposing a recount (and I'll narrow it to say 'opposing the first recount') consitutes an open attempt to reduce the accuracy and effectiveness of our elections.
It is another thing entirely to actually work to reduce the problems with the system.
yes but it's soooo much easier to just bitch and moan...;) Now, in this case I have an easy-out: I'm not a US citizen so I can't really intervene directly...All I can do is bitch and moan to americans. That's probably just an excuse though... there are problems up here in the free world (canada) aswell and I'm not out fixing them.
Here's a thought: I've been told that these US election ballots are very complicated and thus cannot be effectively counted by hand as we do here in canada. This page (point number 5) shows an example of a canadian federal election ballot. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/look/look-17e .html It is wonderfully simple. easy to understand and easy to count by hand. Why are US ballots so complicated? If you are running multiple elections simultaneously would it be possible to seperate the ballots? Have one simple ballot for each election taking place that day... Or, one ballot-"book" where each page is a stand-alone simple ballot for one election...
I don't understand, you call bullshit then proceed to agree with him completely!?!?
I can only assume you are calling bullshit on something you think he meant to say or imply...
The Diebold machines are clearly NOT built to reliably record and tally votes. Speculation about the intentions of the designers is interesting but ultimately only a sideshow. The point is that the machines, as they exist today, compromise the election results. There are two very simple conclusions that follow from this. One, the machines cannot be used in upcoming elections (thus a replacement system must be built) and Two, the company that built these machines should not be contracted to build the replacements. (that's just simple capitalism, when a vendor fails to deliver you offer the work to other vendors)
All these arguments about who's more biased or who has "sour grapes" are anti-intellectual clap-trap that serve only to stiffle open discussion of vitally important issues.
Evidence of Democratic fraud does not invalidate evidence of Republican fraud. It is not "OK" if both sides cheated. Evidence that both sides cheated re-inforces the conclusion that the election was invalid.
Why do people keep doing that? countering accusations of fraud with counter-accusations of fraud? It does not follow from that argument that the election result was an accurate tally of voter intentions, quite the contrary. Are people seriously suggesting that we make an assumption that the level of fraud was "probably about even repub/dem" so we don't need to recount?
I also don't understand why there is any opposition to counting ballots. If results are very close and/or if anyone doubts the validity of the results I can think of no legitimate reason to refuse to count the paper ballots. Except one: cost. I have a hard time believing that americans are willing to forgo double-checking their election results because it would cost too much. Am I the only one here who thinks that fighting to stop a ballot recount should be a criminal offence?
Dear Americans, your leaders are deliberately violating your highest laws over and over again. I have to ask, Has the rule of law been suspended in the U.S.A.?
Seriously. I don't understand why arrests are not being made.
If your law enforcement and judicial systems are unable to make the necessary arrests what will happen?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, your congressmen and senators are violating your constitution with impunity. Is it the will of the people that your laws not apply to them?
What changes can be made to your institutions to ensure the even and consistent application of the law?
Is it even possible at this point?
Your government has silently suspended your constition. What are you going to do about it?
Do enough of you have the courage to stand up and fight for The Constitution of the United States of America?
Dear Mr. Stevens, I recently read your speech to the house in which you related your reasons for voting against 'Net Neutrality'. I would like to respectfully beg you to consult with someone who is familiar with the Internet before your next vote on Internet related issues. Your comments made it clear that you do not understand how the Internet works or why the Telecom companies are asking for control over the content we access using the Internet.
If you are unable to find any experts (no, lobbyists don't count) please don't hesistate to contact me, I will be happy to walk you through the use of an Internet search engine to find the information and expert opinions that you seek.
"Overexaggerated"? So you're saying that it should have been exaggerated but was in fact exaggerated a little to much? I see you've mastered george bush's english. It's deja-vue all over again! (whimpers as the language part of my brain dies a little)
I'm sorry, i mean you no harm, I'm just in a bad mood 'cause my freedom is being whittled away.
carefull, talking about a "hand of god" "obliterating" corporate headquarters is dangerous speech in the "free world". If they ever let you out let me know what's it's like in those secret prisons.
Slashdot Mirror
I concur.
I would totally "hit that" as the kids say.
Bush's "Signing statements".
If I have a gun in my hand and you don't then I can do what I want. Including shooting your kneecaps crippling you for life.
We're talking about what you "should" do not what you "can" do.
Sadly under this administration many US agencies have been displaying an eager "can-do" attitude.
I don't buy that one.
I pay an agency to come and clean my house, the women they send has keys, she comes and goes while I'm at work.
That's an arrangement I made with her. Is that supposed to mean that federal agents may now come and search my house any time they want without a warrant?
I gave up my privacy to google so they can perform specific tasks for me. (specifically, cleaning my email) I don't see the logical reasoning that leads from that to granting the FBI access to my email.
From the 'Best OS' category:
(Vista)
"But the product unquestionably brings new features and capabilities to solution providers that in turn promise new revenue generation dialogues with end users."
Holy corporate shilling batman.
This list seems to have been written by marketing droids, I wouldn't put too much stock in their determinations of the relative merit of this year's tech products.
No, you're wrong. This is the very misunderstanding that I am lamenting.
Refining crude oil is basically a cleaning/concentrating process. The molecules we want are already there.
Splitting the hydrogen out of h2o is a fundamentally different process, it is not refining. We aren't harvesting any stored energy from the water as we are with fossil fuels. Rather we are exerting energy to seperate hydrogen and oxygen then later recovering a portion of THAT SAME ENERGY later/elsewhere by recombining the hydrogen with oxygen.
Maybe someone else can explain this better than I.
Maybe it is the terminology that is confusing.
We talk about "getting hydrogen from water" which kinda makes it sound like there is hydrogen mixed in with the water like salt in the ocean or hydrocarbons in crude oil.
In fact when we talk about "getting hydrogen from water" we are talking about actually turning H2O INTO hydrogen and oxygen by splitting the water molecules. Then we confuse things further by talking about "hydrogen as a source of energy" which is I think a little misleading when what we mean is that combining hydrogen with oxygen is our source of energy.
Maybe that is the key: stop saying that we can make energy from hydrogen, instead say that we can make energy by combining hydrogen with oxygen. That should lead the inquisitive mind to ask "where can we get the hydrogen and oxygen for these generators?" When the answer is "we can get the hydrogen by splitting hydrogen and oxygen." a better understanding should result.
How is it that in 2006 we still have so many prognosticators getting published with this sort of fundamental misunderstanding of hydrogen-based energy systems?
For the farking 1 millionth time: THERE ARE NO HYDROGEN DEPOSITS ON EARTH!!!
Comparing hydrogen to fuel oil is inane. What's next weeks subject? "the many reasons why oranges will never be used to make apple pies"?!?!?!?!
Hydrogen energy systems as they exist on earth today are only BATTERIES. How many times do we have to say this?
We can manufacture hydrogen from water or other materials, store it, and harvest energy later by turning it into water. This is basically equivalent to charging your re-chargable battery and then using the battery the next day.
Now when we're out exploring the universe we may well find hydrogen to be a wonderfull SOURCE of energy as there are lots of hydrogen 'deposits' out there. In the mean time we have: solar, nuclear, hydrothermal, moon energy(tidal), fossil fuels and biomass-based energy sources.
>> Only now is universal health care finally taking hold as a mainstream Democratic idea.
> Maybe it's because most Americans are waiting for another country to implement a system that actually works.
> Government is notoriously inefficient compared to private enterprise in most endeavors
??? efficiency? Surely you are not suggesting that the US healthcare system is more efficient than the existing nationalized health-care systems in other OECD countries?
The USA has one of the least efficient health-care systems in the world by almost any measure.
There is nowhere to go but up.
The Canadian system is vastly more efficient.
Farking tailgaters should be tasered along with the ticket.
oh, and while we're on the subject...
- turn on your damn headlights@!!! (no, your farking daytime running lights are NOT your headlights dumbass)
- learn how to farking merge onto a farking highway damnit!!! Stop trying to merge going 20kph slower than the highway traffic!
Ok, I know you're a troll but I'll bite...
Commands you to love:
Qur'an - check
Bible - check
Commands you to kill:
Qur'an - check
Bible - check
What was your point?
Only the Qur'an says that "religion" is a good thing.
Have you even read the bible?
whose land they stole hundreds or thousands of years before
I took your skateboard 25 years ago. It is still in my basement.
My late grandfather stole your late gradfather's pogo-stick.
You don't see the difference there?
also, reparation shmeparations, just give me back my skateboard.
Damn straight.
Also, regarding issue #1, the number of ballot issues...
I would like to suggest reducing that number.
For starters, you vote for your judges?!?! that just makes no sense to me.
Judges are supposed to be impartial, intelligent, rational interpreters of the written law. Elections don't select for those qualities. In fact, elections tend to select away from those qualities.
That being said, I can't say I have much faith in the ability of the US administration to make those selections... maybe you could put the DOJ in charge of it, or the bar association?
uh what? indeed.
my reading of the part of the document you posted clearly states that passenger lists must be submitted to DHS prior to boarding...
Furthermore it asserts that the purpose of this transmission is to give DHS a chance to block a passenger from departing the USA.
There's nothing new here about privacy, all this information was being sent already, it is a matter of timing. It used to be sent as a matter of record, now it is sent before the flight departs thus giving DHS a chance to stop the flight before it takes off.
Do you not agree with this reading? Did I misunderstand something here?? (i don't think so)
So the DHS now has (if this is passed) prior notice of who is leaving the country and the capability to stop them.
So now I'm wondering why you are calling bullshit on this?
This is a new power to restrict people's movements that appears to come with no new checks, balances or oversight.
So unless one believes that the DHS will always do the "right thing" with this new power (for ever and ever through whatever administrations may come) then you have to write in restrictions on what the information can be used for and/or you need oversight.
Still, this is nothing new for this adminisitration.
You guys used to have habeous corpus, rights to swift and fair trials... all that silly freedom and democracy stuff.
Now your government kidnaps "suspects", holds them indefinitely without charges and sometimes tortures them in secret prisons. This is the government you are implicitly trusting with new powers to restrict your movement.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Diebold is somewhere between criminally negligent and treasonous.
Ditto for anyone who has signed off on Accuvote orders since '04
Amazon's mechanical turk service could be used to decode elite speak.
How is "topping out at 100mb/s" even remotely "as fast as fiber"?
6 231
Here's a recent slashdot article reporting 14Tb/s over fiber...
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/30/18
Nothing in the article that I can see supports the supposition that datacentres will become obsolete.
At most it suggests that there ought to be fewer humans in datacentres and that money could be saved by not making them human-friendly environments.
This appears to be nothing more than a case of poor reporting by m0smithslash and CmdrTaco.
I just happened to be working on the same thing this weekend!
My version is slighty different.
Rather than the mediocre onboard audio you get on those via boards I used an m-audio card. That gives me multiple different audio inputs including xlr for nicer audio.
I also used a mini-itx case that has a 5/14" bay for my CrystalFontz lcd display. The display lets me show audio levels (very helpfull to know if "the damn thing is working or not"). The crystalfontz display also has buttons which I use to start/stop the recording. The USB key idea is interesting but I didn't have any requirement to restrict access to the device so a button is just easier (you can't lose it or leave it at home).
Finally, I'm also transcoding the captured wav files to mp3, aac and realmedia before uploading them using rsync over ssh.
I just built my first demo unit so I don't yet have any info about it on my website www.isiglobal.ca. I haven't decided on pricing yet but it will certainly match or beat the PIAB pricing. (and it'll be in canadian dollars)
I'm definitely going to want to post something about it on linuxdevices like these guys did. hurray for free advertising!
The question is not whether to reocunt, but how many times do you do it? Under what conditions? If there is a 12% difference
;)
e .html
Yes, I agree that it is not as simple as I suggested.
Still, I would argue that the simplest case is one we can probably all agree on. That is to say that when there is widespread doubt about the results that at least one recount would be in order.
Am I the only one here who thinks that fighting to stop a ballot recount should be a criminal offence?
Probably. And that is a good thing.
I admit that comment is a little extreme... I'm not certain I would write such a law if I were "king for a day" but I stand by the principle that opposing a recount (and I'll narrow it to say 'opposing the first recount') consitutes an open attempt to reduce the accuracy and effectiveness of our elections.
It is another thing entirely to actually work to reduce the problems with the system.
yes but it's soooo much easier to just bitch and moan...
Now, in this case I have an easy-out: I'm not a US citizen so I can't really intervene directly...All I can do is bitch and moan to americans.
That's probably just an excuse though... there are problems up here in the free world (canada) aswell and I'm not out fixing them.
Here's a thought: I've been told that these US election ballots are very complicated and thus cannot be effectively counted by hand as we do here in canada.
This page (point number 5) shows an example of a canadian federal election ballot.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/look/look-17
It is wonderfully simple. easy to understand and easy to count by hand.
Why are US ballots so complicated? If you are running multiple elections simultaneously would it be possible to seperate the ballots? Have one simple ballot for each election taking place that day...
Or, one ballot-"book" where each page is a stand-alone simple ballot for one election...
I don't understand, you call bullshit then proceed to agree with him completely!?!?
I can only assume you are calling bullshit on something you think he meant to say or imply...
The Diebold machines are clearly NOT built to reliably record and tally votes.
Speculation about the intentions of the designers is interesting but ultimately only a sideshow.
The point is that the machines, as they exist today, compromise the election results. There are two very simple conclusions that follow from this. One, the machines cannot be used in upcoming elections (thus a replacement system must be built) and Two, the company that built these machines should not be contracted to build the replacements. (that's just simple capitalism, when a vendor fails to deliver you offer the work to other vendors)
All these arguments about who's more biased or who has "sour grapes" are anti-intellectual clap-trap that serve only to stiffle open discussion of vitally important issues.
Evidence of Democratic fraud does not invalidate evidence of Republican fraud.
It is not "OK" if both sides cheated. Evidence that both sides cheated re-inforces the conclusion that the election was invalid.
Why do people keep doing that? countering accusations of fraud with counter-accusations of fraud? It does not follow from that argument that the election result was an accurate tally of voter intentions, quite the contrary. Are people seriously suggesting that we make an assumption that the level of fraud was "probably about even repub/dem" so we don't need to recount?
I also don't understand why there is any opposition to counting ballots.
If results are very close and/or if anyone doubts the validity of the results I can think of no legitimate reason to refuse to count the paper ballots.
Except one: cost. I have a hard time believing that americans are willing to forgo double-checking their election results because it would cost too much.
Am I the only one here who thinks that fighting to stop a ballot recount should be a criminal offence?
What changes can be made to your institutions to ensure the even and consistent application of the law?
Is it even possible at this point?
Your government has silently suspended your constition. What are you going to do about it?
Do enough of you have the courage to stand up and fight for The Constitution of the United States of America?
Dear Mr. Stevens, I recently read your speech to the house in which you related your reasons for voting against 'Net Neutrality'.
I would like to respectfully beg you to consult with someone who is familiar with the Internet before your next vote on Internet related issues. Your comments made it clear that you do not understand how the Internet works or why the Telecom companies are asking for control over the content we access using the Internet.
If you are unable to find any experts (no, lobbyists don't count) please don't hesistate to contact me, I will be happy to walk you through the use of an Internet search engine to find the information and expert opinions that you seek.
"Overexaggerated"? So you're saying that it should have been exaggerated but was in fact exaggerated a little to much? I see you've mastered george bush's english.
It's deja-vue all over again! (whimpers as the language part of my brain dies a little)
I'm sorry, i mean you no harm, I'm just in a bad mood 'cause my freedom is being whittled away.
carefull, talking about a "hand of god" "obliterating" corporate headquarters is dangerous speech in the "free world".
If they ever let you out let me know what's it's like in those secret prisons.