The technical community may have invented the Internet, but it was the users who made it valuable by entrusting to it their time, money, and content. The users made a huge investment, and while that investment has paid off handsomely, let's not pretend that technologists invented all that valuable content.
Actually, there is a big vault with money waiting in the wings for PRIVATE enterprise. The private sector creates new things and services and sells them at a profit, and that money does, indeed pile up.
There isn't any money in the wings for the public sector because it lives off of the private sector. It doesn't make things or services for profit, it's 100% an expense. Even if the government "creates" a job, it does it with money from the private sector. It isn't truly creating that job, it's simply redistributing the taxpayer's money.
It would all be fine if government were as efficient as the private sector at spending money, but that is sadly very much not the case.
For three years, I used a Poqet PC running Forefront's Framework Office Suite. A PC you could fit into a coat pocket. Ran for a full week on 2 AA batteries. Had the best outliner I've ever used, even to this day. A fabulously productive platform.
The very first time I saw an on-screen keyboard, I knew it would never be more than a low-throughput device. I rooted for other screen-based input solutions, but Apple never let them be used as the default interface. Some of them actually worked quite well: I was able to get to 50wpm using the IBM SHARK input method with an afternoon's practice.
@MacDork, I don't think we'll find out in 30 or even 300 years that bias against one's race is anything like disagreeing with one's sexual practices. That is an entirely false equivalency. I fervently hope that heterosexuality never dies out as a practice, and you should, too. The survival of mankind sorta depends on it.
Let me play the devil's advocate with you about access to rights of way. The way I understand it, the municipality owns the rights of way, and anyone who has a cable they want to run must get their permission and follow their rules. Public roadways work the same: the municipality controls them, but anyone can use them provided they get permission (in the form of licenses, inspections, etc.) and follow the rules.
No one, however, expects that automobile drivers have to act in the public interest because they use public roadways. It's their car, they own it, they control it. How is that not like a cable operator who runs a line down Main Street?
Granted, not everyone has the funds to be a cable operator, but then not everyone can afford a car either.
His point is that this Separation protects religion from the state as much as the state from religion. The distinction he drew was between "actions" and "opinions", one of which is open to reason, debate and consensus, and the other only to the individual's conscience.
Would that we made the same distinction between "science" and "creation", but then we'd have nothing left to talk about on/.
Is IS possible to secure an election. The things that make an election secure are: 1) Everything must take place in the open, 2) There must be a strong chain of custody of election equipment and materials, 3) All election equipment (not just voting machines) must be verified every time before use, and 4) Results must be stored in multiple formats by multiple parties.
Everyone is focused on voting machine security, but that is only one link in the chain. It's like focusing on just the PC to provide security against viruses and spam. In any distributed system, the entire ecosystem needs to participate in making things secure.
An insightful comment. This does seem to put a stake in the ground regarding both the Commerce and Proper and Necessary clauses, a "this far and no further."
The point about "bootstrapping" isn't about the method -- taxation vs. regulation -- it's about expanding the scope of power BEYOND what is enumerated in the Constitution by passing a tax and then claiming that in order to collect the tax, you have to exercise the expanded power.
If you read all the way to the end, there's a great question about whether ISPs ought to market the privacy features of their VPN/Proxy solutions, and his response is that this kind of "privacy" is really just a cover for piracy. If you were a Chinese dissident, you'd be using something like Tor, not a private-label VPN. So, he cannot even market his policy of short-term logs, because he doesn't want to become a magnet for pirates.
I'm really beginning to hate piracy. It has messed up so many things.
The difference appears to be that, like in a chaotic system, knuckleballs depend sensitively on the initial conditions, so that small changes can cause randomly different forces at the start of the pitch which determine the resultant trajectory.
I know this is being picky, but if A "causes" B, that is not a "random" chain of events. A chaotic system may be unpredictable by an observer such as a Major League batter, but it is not in any sense of the word, "random".
Another extraordinary thing abt that sequence was the sound effects of the gunfire. Most movie gunfire sounds way too obviously souped-up, especially in the lower registers. The gunfire in Heat is enormously loud and cracking, echoing all over the buildings, and completely disorienting. The weapons also have a great deal of kick back, very realistic.
I think what the FX guys did was load full blank charges in real guns, and let the actors have at it. Best gun sequence ever.
On first blush, the thought of using an app like this sounds good: it keeps the police on their best behavior, because they know they're being recorded. The problem is this app doesn't just record, it aggregates recordings, and as we all know, once you have aggregate data, you can do all sorts of useful things with it, such as predict where the police are, a handy thing to know if you are trying to avoid them. The more data is aggregated, the more valuable a target it becomes.
A better solution would be for the app to record police actions only on the device, and to have any reporting go through ordinary, public communication channels to lower its profile.
I think he means the following from the website link:
"Implied consent is a valid form of consent and can be used in the context of compliance with the revised rules on cookies.
If you are relying on implied consent you need to be satisfied that your users understand that their actions will result in cookies being set. Without this understanding you do not have their informed consent.
FTA, " amusingly even the governments own websites aren't ready."
I'd be in favor of an Eat-Your-Own-Dogfood law that stipulates that a) laws that apply to private businesses also apply to the government, and b) no law need be implemented by the private sector until implemented by the government.
As a lay person, I have honestly tried to follow all the arguments and counter-arguments about catastrophic AGW, the only kind of climate change that matters -- and that we could do anything about. One thing is clear to me: claims of imminent catastrophic changes such as 50-foot elevations in sea level are all highly exaggerated. Yes, the climate is changing -- as it ever has -- but it is doing so much more slowly than predicted: my layman's sense of it is that for each foot of claimed rise there's been a half-inch actually observed.
The other Chicken Little angle on this is that yes, there have been huge changes in climate -- but not caused by Man (at least, not yet). The cafe where I'm writing this comment was under a mile of ice not too long ago, in geologic terms. It has never been shown to my satisfaction that the last ice age was caused by CO2. There are a lot of competing theories, and CO2 is just one of them. Until there is clear proof regarding the mechanism for ice ages, why should we believe anyone who claims to know the mechanism for warming ages?
These WERE paper ballots. The thing most people don't realize is that machines are going to be used to count ballots. If the ballots are paper, those machines will be scanners, as in this case in the Bronx. No one is going to count every ballot by hand. Why? Because hand-counting is far more inaccurate than machine counting.
So, here's the thing: if you're going to use a machine to count anyway, it's better to use a machine with no moving parts because they have lower rates of failure. That's how the election officials in Brazil are doing it.
Also, it's worth nothing that according to the report only one machine in the entire district was malfunctioning, election officials were alerted during the vote, and the votes were not close enough for the voided over-votes to have made a difference.
I have a retrofitted PixelQi display in my netbook, and it extends my PC usage by about 25%. This really surprised me; I didn't think being able to read in sunlight would matter so much. Actually, "sunlight readable" doesn't quite capture it: the more light you throw at it, the BETTER it reads.
The thing about logic is it's no respecter of the content of an argument, it is concerned with form only. It can be reliably used in any conversation, whether God is the topic or not. Like an algorithm in code, one's logic either works, or it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
The technical community may have invented the Internet, but it was the users who made it valuable by entrusting to it their time, money, and content. The users made a huge investment, and while that investment has paid off handsomely, let's not pretend that technologists invented all that valuable content.
Actually, there is a big vault with money waiting in the wings for PRIVATE enterprise. The private sector creates new things and services and sells them at a profit, and that money does, indeed pile up.
There isn't any money in the wings for the public sector because it lives off of the private sector. It doesn't make things or services for profit, it's 100% an expense. Even if the government "creates" a job, it does it with money from the private sector. It isn't truly creating that job, it's simply redistributing the taxpayer's money.
It would all be fine if government were as efficient as the private sector at spending money, but that is sadly very much not the case.
For three years, I used a Poqet PC running Forefront's Framework Office Suite. A PC you could fit into a coat pocket. Ran for a full week on 2 AA batteries. Had the best outliner I've ever used, even to this day. A fabulously productive platform.
The very first time I saw an on-screen keyboard, I knew it would never be more than a low-throughput device. I rooted for other screen-based input solutions, but Apple never let them be used as the default interface. Some of them actually worked quite well: I was able to get to 50wpm using the IBM SHARK input method with an afternoon's practice.
@MacDork, I don't think we'll find out in 30 or even 300 years that bias against one's race is anything like disagreeing with one's sexual practices. That is an entirely false equivalency. I fervently hope that heterosexuality never dies out as a practice, and you should, too. The survival of mankind sorta depends on it.
What makes the minority more deserving than the majority?
I'm fine with Google being free to promote homosexuality as long as I am free to disagree with them and promote heterosexuality. Vive la difference!
Mod parent up. One must think sideways.
Let me play the devil's advocate with you about access to rights of way. The way I understand it, the municipality owns the rights of way, and anyone who has a cable they want to run must get their permission and follow their rules. Public roadways work the same: the municipality controls them, but anyone can use them provided they get permission (in the form of licenses, inspections, etc.) and follow the rules.
No one, however, expects that automobile drivers have to act in the public interest because they use public roadways. It's their car, they own it, they control it. How is that not like a cable operator who runs a line down Main Street?
Granted, not everyone has the funds to be a cable operator, but then not everyone can afford a car either.
His point is that this Separation protects religion from the state as much as the state from religion. The distinction he drew was between "actions" and "opinions", one of which is open to reason, debate and consensus, and the other only to the individual's conscience. Would that we made the same distinction between "science" and "creation", but then we'd have nothing left to talk about on /.
Is IS possible to secure an election. The things that make an election secure are: 1) Everything must take place in the open, 2) There must be a strong chain of custody of election equipment and materials, 3) All election equipment (not just voting machines) must be verified every time before use, and 4) Results must be stored in multiple formats by multiple parties.
Everyone is focused on voting machine security, but that is only one link in the chain. It's like focusing on just the PC to provide security against viruses and spam. In any distributed system, the entire ecosystem needs to participate in making things secure.
An insightful comment. This does seem to put a stake in the ground regarding both the Commerce and Proper and Necessary clauses, a "this far and no further."
The point about "bootstrapping" isn't about the method -- taxation vs. regulation -- it's about expanding the scope of power BEYOND what is enumerated in the Constitution by passing a tax and then claiming that in order to collect the tax, you have to exercise the expanded power.
The Federal Government must not allowed to bootstrap powers merely by passing a tax. That is a horrible precedent that muddies things even further.
If you read all the way to the end, there's a great question about whether ISPs ought to market the privacy features of their VPN/Proxy solutions, and his response is that this kind of "privacy" is really just a cover for piracy. If you were a Chinese dissident, you'd be using something like Tor, not a private-label VPN. So, he cannot even market his policy of short-term logs, because he doesn't want to become a magnet for pirates. I'm really beginning to hate piracy. It has messed up so many things.
I know this is being picky, but if A "causes" B, that is not a "random" chain of events. A chaotic system may be unpredictable by an observer such as a Major League batter, but it is not in any sense of the word, "random".
Another extraordinary thing abt that sequence was the sound effects of the gunfire. Most movie gunfire sounds way too obviously souped-up, especially in the lower registers. The gunfire in Heat is enormously loud and cracking, echoing all over the buildings, and completely disorienting. The weapons also have a great deal of kick back, very realistic. I think what the FX guys did was load full blank charges in real guns, and let the actors have at it. Best gun sequence ever.
On first blush, the thought of using an app like this sounds good: it keeps the police on their best behavior, because they know they're being recorded. The problem is this app doesn't just record, it aggregates recordings, and as we all know, once you have aggregate data, you can do all sorts of useful things with it, such as predict where the police are, a handy thing to know if you are trying to avoid them. The more data is aggregated, the more valuable a target it becomes. A better solution would be for the app to record police actions only on the device, and to have any reporting go through ordinary, public communication channels to lower its profile.
Wait, wait: you're knowledgeable and informed about the science and you still don't agree with us on climate change?! You must be a Republican ...
I think he means the following from the website link:
FTA, " amusingly even the governments own websites aren't ready." I'd be in favor of an Eat-Your-Own-Dogfood law that stipulates that a) laws that apply to private businesses also apply to the government, and b) no law need be implemented by the private sector until implemented by the government.
As a lay person, I have honestly tried to follow all the arguments and counter-arguments about catastrophic AGW, the only kind of climate change that matters -- and that we could do anything about. One thing is clear to me: claims of imminent catastrophic changes such as 50-foot elevations in sea level are all highly exaggerated. Yes, the climate is changing -- as it ever has -- but it is doing so much more slowly than predicted: my layman's sense of it is that for each foot of claimed rise there's been a half-inch actually observed.
The other Chicken Little angle on this is that yes, there have been huge changes in climate -- but not caused by Man (at least, not yet). The cafe where I'm writing this comment was under a mile of ice not too long ago, in geologic terms. It has never been shown to my satisfaction that the last ice age was caused by CO2. There are a lot of competing theories, and CO2 is just one of them. Until there is clear proof regarding the mechanism for ice ages, why should we believe anyone who claims to know the mechanism for warming ages?
These WERE paper ballots. The thing most people don't realize is that machines are going to be used to count ballots. If the ballots are paper, those machines will be scanners, as in this case in the Bronx. No one is going to count every ballot by hand. Why? Because hand-counting is far more inaccurate than machine counting.
So, here's the thing: if you're going to use a machine to count anyway, it's better to use a machine with no moving parts because they have lower rates of failure. That's how the election officials in Brazil are doing it.
Also, it's worth nothing that according to the report only one machine in the entire district was malfunctioning, election officials were alerted during the vote, and the votes were not close enough for the voided over-votes to have made a difference.
I have a retrofitted PixelQi display in my netbook, and it extends my PC usage by about 25%. This really surprised me; I didn't think being able to read in sunlight would matter so much. Actually, "sunlight readable" doesn't quite capture it: the more light you throw at it, the BETTER it reads.
The thing about logic is it's no respecter of the content of an argument, it is concerned with form only. It can be reliably used in any conversation, whether God is the topic or not. Like an algorithm in code, one's logic either works, or it doesn't.