Just to clear this one up: In the Norwegian tests, there were no dedicated voting machines. The voters used their own computers, voting from home. Using dedicated voting machines instead of paper was never an option.
you are wrong or lying. there was a "virtual" voting machine implementation. it was not used, like a bunch of other funny stuff, but it always was an option, that's the reason it was fucking implemented in the first place. you can look it up in the sourcecode since it is public. who the fuck are you anyway spilling all this bullshit?
The fact that voters have no way of verifying that the vote is anonymous also contribute to the decision.
paper voters have no way of verifying that either, you are simply talking nonsense.
by the way increased turnout is not at all the benefit, you not only do know nothing about the system, you fail to grasp what democracy is about. if turnout is a matter of comfort or marketing, democracy is worth a crap.
the central aspect about evoting is that it can drastically improve the technical capacity of governments to submit stuff for question. turnout is a totally different issue which should depend on the quality of citicenship, not on user experience in some process. you promptly bought the politician's simplistic explanations = you have no clue -> stop talking nonsense.
this could be it. i was involved in this experiment as a developer. i'd say that besides some specific flaws the experiment was a success. i do now know for sure and first hand that secure, private and verifiable evoting over inet is feasible, because we did it, never mind any particular quirks. i have to say i was never really sure, now i am. is it a priority? probably not. it is definitely an improvement and a good tool but for me there are many other issues that would need to be tackled first if democracy is to be taken seriously, voting electronically or on paper being just secondary. i can't help but also applaud the iniciative of those norse politicians who made this experiment possible, however i'm absolutely not confident in that opting out now accounts for minding that very same priorities.
i thought you'd came up with some conclussive scientific study showing irrefutable evidence that black humans are more prone to violent behaviour than white.
instead you're just babbling about crime statistics around the ghettos in your little corner of the world were you happened to threw some blacks in a while back. so now you have a problem with them? don't tell...
i guess with such a display of skewed naiveness there's no point in even bothering to talk about civilization. have a nice day, keep enjoying your "commonly accepted definitions", you racist scumbag:-)
note - "saying those things offends me and that makes you a bad person and a big meanie head!" is not a rebuttal against anything i said.
saying those things can only offend yourself because in absence of a clear definition of "violence" and "civilization" in context it just exposes you as ignorant and racist (what a coincidence!).
Now, does anyone seriously believe the government is anything but a bureaucratic monster, gorging itself via wars (on terrorism, on poverty, on drugs, etc) to the end of enlarging itself and shrinking everyone else's pie? I mean seriously?
me. actually government is just a proxy for enlarging the pie of a few. it's just a coverup for private tyrants.
"we the people" should oppose this, uphold our rights etc. we don't because we are mostly dumb and lazy, but anyway if we tried hard enough to be taken seriously they would simply kill enough of us to keep the rest in line.
So with SteamOS delayed, what was Alienware supposed to do?'
alienware can do as they please. all i'm saying is that i will not buy any m$-infested hardware.
my point being (sorry for repeating myself but i guess it wasn't clear to everybody) that if we all abstained from buying dishonest crap, better alternatives would naturally get a boost. i.e, as weird as it sounds, you can effectively stop crap from invading everything by simply not buying it.:-)
And frankly, if you are going to blacklist any company that sells Microsoft-powered computers then you must have very limited range from which to choose
in all modesty, i do, i've been doing it for years and i'm perfectly fine with what i get. needless to say, i like games a lot, but not at any cost. of course not at the cost of being stick-carroted around by corporations. that just isn't fair game.
if more people did the same we would all benefit from better technology and entertainment. yes, you can! start now!:-)
wondering what those two circa 5-billion/year spikes mean in the "maximum effective effort" curve. that's about doubling the budget of "accelerated" just for 3 years hurry.
Open source is no better or worse than closed source
since it is opensource you can know now with absolute certainty where the bug was and for how long it has been there, and you can check exactly how it is fixed. with closed source you would know next to nothing. definitely worse.
There are plenty of embedded systems that are "unpatchable": those that have their programs burned into ROM instead of Flash or EEPROM.
replacing that ROM is a straightforward form of "patching" a device. at the very extreme, replacing the whole device could be seen as a patch. ergo doable. it may not be cost effective, though, so industry might be tempted to shove the cost on the customer by coercing him to buy a new device. whatever justification, this boils down to the provider refusing to take responsibility over his own work, and this alone should promptly disqualify him, but it seems to be common accepted practice. still nonsense!:-)
this makes no sense. nothing is unpatchable. where you read "unpatchable" you should read: "we will not patch it because it isn't profitable, so please upgrade to our new shiny shit which we obviously won't patch either".
of course folks with malicious intent can find a way to patch it, and will. there is nothing adding to security here, quite the contrary. it's just a big clusterfuck. industry is only interested in perceived security. then of course people get what they pay for.
time to take opensource software and hardware seriously, already? not yet? ooooooook...
thank you. i already missed an inflamated post about wtf "mpg" should mean.
now that i know, i'm still struggling to understand why this should be posted on a tech category, and why the fuck should i care about how much drivers have to pay for happily keeping on polluting our planet. ah, slashdot! hang them all!
A regular computer user who just plays games / browses the internet
that's not a regular computer user. it's more like a regular tv-watcher. computers should make us smarter, not dumber.
of course, everybody seems to endorse getting everybody dumber. governments, industry and preachers of all sorts, for good reasons. even the users, although their opinion is pretty irrelevant. they have very much proven to be eager to eat whatever shit they get served.
if this is some sort of joke it' clearly woooshed me.
please someone explain what's funny in this ignorant nonsense. this guy has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about, and makes it evident on every single sentence. i don't even unterstand how this gets published here. is it a parody?
developing something for them (the cited mysql/django approach) is cool but will make them dependent on you. do it only if you reasonably expect you'll be around for a while and are up for the compromise:-)
some ideas just to not rule this option completely out: - make it public, host it in github or similar. someone might volunteer to help maintain it. i could. - contact unicef. as a peer in the workflow they might be able to help with resources, tools, knowhow or specifications.
The charity staff have a few computers running Windows 7
why on earth does a charity run w7? were those computers a gift?
But it needs to be understandable by the non-geeks in the charity
average computer illiterate users can do absolutely nothing with ms-access. specially smart average computer illiterate users can do utter crap with ms-access in which they themselves will get lost very soon. geeks can use ms-access as they would use any other relational engine (just a very limited one). in short: ms-acces offers zero, it's not really an alternative in this case.
developing something for them (the cited mysql/django approach) is cool but will make them dependent on you. do it only if you reasonably expect you'll be around for a while and are up for the compromise:-)
i second the spreadsheet suggestion. and i would add that probably the best contribution you could make is to train someone in that staff to be self-sufficient in this kind of tasks. it might be substantially more effort but definitely worth it, specially if you make sure he/she passes the knowledge on before quitting. of course, first thing to do is to ask if there's another bizarre requirement for having commercial software. if not, promptly format those bitches and grab free software for them, show them how to start using it.
i made no complaint at all. it was just laughing off the ceo's discourse. trying to justify this while claiming to strive for an open web will always be hilarious..
i also stated that drm is crap, but that's just an opinion, and even the whole world buying into it wouldn't change it.
this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby.
No it is a feature the that the content producers make use of, if you don't have it you can't view their content so Mozilla are providing users the option. If you don't like it don't use it and if you are really paranoid then Firefox is open source and you can remove it completely and you would be no better or worse off than before.
i'm fine with that. and there are already forks that stay away from this and many other sneaky marketing stuff (see iceweasel for example). i expect that as firefox becomes more and more a marketing trojan horse those forks will just take its place. it's the circle of life!:D my comment was just about the moronic explanation and hypocritical excuses from the ceo. no big deal!
Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.
Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.
and yours is a good example of rethorical tautology. people also pay bank bailouts and it doesn't mean they demand them.
interestingly, if you read through the thread for this bug, you will have a clue about who is actually requesting this crap: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
but that really is an issue you should be taking up with the content provider. If you don't like it, just avoid all DRM'd content.
true. but this is only true the moment a major browser indulges in suporting this drm crap. this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby. and doing so is in total contradiction with any form of advocacy for an open web. it is clear that mozilla, under present management, has more important priorities than an open web, so all this ceo-talk is just the usual bullshit you'd expect from... well, a ceo. oh wonder.
That way I don't have to trust your crappy POS system your restaurant bought on ebay to secure my credit card data. I can choose from a number of trusted vendors to secure my data and handle the transaction.
what you all seem to fail to note is that you can trust that shiny phone in your pocket even less, and that's probably why this model doesn't work (and shouldn't work).
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clear this one up: In the Norwegian tests, there were no dedicated voting machines. The voters used their own computers, voting from home. Using dedicated voting machines instead of paper was never an option.
you are wrong or lying. there was a "virtual" voting machine implementation. it was not used, like a bunch of other funny stuff, but it always was an option, that's the reason it was fucking implemented in the first place. you can look it up in the sourcecode since it is public. who the fuck are you anyway spilling all this bullshit?
The fact that voters have no way of verifying that the vote is anonymous also contribute to the decision.
paper voters have no way of verifying that either, you are simply talking nonsense.
by the way increased turnout is not at all the benefit, you not only do know nothing about the system, you fail to grasp what democracy is about. if turnout is a matter of comfort or marketing, democracy is worth a crap.
the central aspect about evoting is that it can drastically improve the technical capacity of governments to submit stuff for question. turnout is a totally different issue which should depend on the quality of citicenship, not on user experience in some process. you promptly bought the politician's simplistic explanations = you have no clue -> stop talking nonsense.
this could be it. i was involved in this experiment as a developer. i'd say that besides some specific flaws the experiment was a success. i do now know for sure and first hand that secure, private and verifiable evoting over inet is feasible, because we did it, never mind any particular quirks. i have to say i was never really sure, now i am. is it a priority? probably not. it is definitely an improvement and a good tool but for me there are many other issues that would need to be tackled first if democracy is to be taken seriously, voting electronically or on paper being just secondary. i can't help but also applaud the iniciative of those norse politicians who made this experiment possible, however i'm absolutely not confident in that opting out now accounts for minding that very same priorities.
i thought you'd came up with some conclussive scientific study showing irrefutable evidence that black humans are more prone to violent behaviour than white.
instead you're just babbling about crime statistics around the ghettos in your little corner of the world were you happened to threw some blacks in a while back. so now you have a problem with them? don't tell ...
i guess with such a display of skewed naiveness there's no point in even bothering to talk about civilization. have a nice day, keep enjoying your "commonly accepted definitions", you racist scumbag :-)
blacks: the most violent uncivilized race
note - "saying those things offends me and that makes you a bad person and a big meanie head!" is not a rebuttal against anything i said.
saying those things can only offend yourself because in absence of a clear definition of "violence" and "civilization" in context it just exposes you as ignorant and racist (what a coincidence!).
Now, does anyone seriously believe the government is anything but a bureaucratic monster, gorging itself via wars (on terrorism, on poverty, on drugs, etc) to the end of enlarging itself and shrinking everyone else's pie? I mean seriously?
me. actually government is just a proxy for enlarging the pie of a few. it's just a coverup for private tyrants.
"we the people" should oppose this, uphold our rights etc. we don't because we are mostly dumb and lazy, but anyway if we tried hard enough to be taken seriously they would simply kill enough of us to keep the rest in line.
I get LinkedIn spam from people I've never heard of.
me too and i'm not even in there. but plenty fuckwitts who have my email are.
So with SteamOS delayed, what was Alienware supposed to do?'
alienware can do as they please. all i'm saying is that i will not buy any m$-infested hardware.
my point being (sorry for repeating myself but i guess it wasn't clear to everybody) that if we all abstained from buying dishonest crap, better alternatives would naturally get a boost. i.e, as weird as it sounds, you can effectively stop crap from invading everything by simply not buying it. :-)
And frankly, if you are going to blacklist any company that sells Microsoft-powered computers then you must have very limited range from which to choose
in all modesty, i do, i've been doing it for years and i'm perfectly fine with what i get. needless to say, i like games a lot, but not at any cost. of course not at the cost of being stick-carroted around by corporations. that just isn't fair game.
if more people did the same we would all benefit from better technology and entertainment. yes, you can! start now! :-)
The MIT fusion project made this graph to illustrate: https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
wondering what those two circa 5-billion/year spikes mean in the "maximum effective effort" curve. that's about doubling the budget of "accelerated" just for 3 years hurry.
Open source is no better or worse than closed source
since it is opensource you can know now with absolute certainty where the bug was and for how long it has been there, and you can check exactly how it is fixed. with closed source you would know next to nothing. definitely worse.
There are plenty of embedded systems that are "unpatchable": those that have their programs burned into ROM instead of Flash or EEPROM.
replacing that ROM is a straightforward form of "patching" a device. at the very extreme, replacing the whole device could be seen as a patch. ergo doable. it may not be cost effective, though, so industry might be tempted to shove the cost on the customer by coercing him to buy a new device. whatever justification, this boils down to the provider refusing to take responsibility over his own work, and this alone should promptly disqualify him, but it seems to be common accepted practice. still nonsense! :-)
this makes no sense. nothing is unpatchable. where you read "unpatchable" you should read: "we will not patch it because it isn't profitable, so please upgrade to our new shiny shit which we obviously won't patch either".
of course folks with malicious intent can find a way to patch it, and will. there is nothing adding to security here, quite the contrary. it's just a big clusterfuck. industry is only interested in perceived security. then of course people get what they pay for.
time to take opensource software and hardware seriously, already? not yet? ooooooook ...
mpg is "miles per gallon"
thank you. i already missed an inflamated post about wtf "mpg" should mean.
now that i know, i'm still struggling to understand why this should be posted on a tech category, and why the fuck should i care about how much drivers have to pay for happily keeping on polluting our planet. ah, slashdot! hang them all!
A regular computer user who just plays games / browses the internet
that's not a regular computer user. it's more like a regular tv-watcher. computers should make us smarter, not dumber.
of course, everybody seems to endorse getting everybody dumber. governments, industry and preachers of all sorts, for good reasons. even the users, although their opinion is pretty irrelevant. they have very much proven to be eager to eat whatever shit they get served.
if this is some sort of joke it' clearly woooshed me.
please someone explain what's funny in this ignorant nonsense. this guy has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about, and makes it evident on every single sentence. i don't even unterstand how this gets published here. is it a parody?
developing something for them (the cited mysql/django approach) is cool but will make them dependent on you. do it only if you reasonably expect you'll be around for a while and are up for the compromise :-)
some ideas just to not rule this option completely out:
- make it public, host it in github or similar. someone might volunteer to help maintain it. i could.
- contact unicef. as a peer in the workflow they might be able to help with resources, tools, knowhow or specifications.
The charity staff have a few computers running Windows 7
why on earth does a charity run w7? were those computers a gift?
But it needs to be understandable by the non-geeks in the charity
average computer illiterate users can do absolutely nothing with ms-access. specially smart average computer illiterate users can do utter crap with ms-access in which they themselves will get lost very soon. geeks can use ms-access as they would use any other relational engine (just a very limited one). in short: ms-acces offers zero, it's not really an alternative in this case.
developing something for them (the cited mysql/django approach) is cool but will make them dependent on you. do it only if you reasonably expect you'll be around for a while and are up for the compromise :-)
i second the spreadsheet suggestion. and i would add that probably the best contribution you could make is to train someone in that staff to be self-sufficient in this kind of tasks. it might be substantially more effort but definitely worth it, specially if you make sure he/she passes the knowledge on before quitting. of course, first thing to do is to ask if there's another bizarre requirement for having commercial software. if not, promptly format those bitches and grab free software for them, show them how to start using it.
i made no complaint at all. it was just laughing off the ceo's discourse. trying to justify this while claiming to strive for an open web will always be hilarious..
i also stated that drm is crap, but that's just an opinion, and even the whole world buying into it wouldn't change it.
this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby.
No it is a feature the that the content producers make use of, if you don't have it you can't view their content so Mozilla are providing users the option. If you don't like it don't use it and if you are really paranoid then Firefox is open source and you can remove it completely and you would be no better or worse off than before.
i'm fine with that. and there are already forks that stay away from this and many other sneaky marketing stuff (see iceweasel for example). i expect that as firefox becomes more and more a marketing trojan horse those forks will just take its place. it's the circle of life! :D my comment was just about the moronic explanation and hypocritical excuses from the ceo. no big deal!
Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.
Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.
and yours is a good example of rethorical tautology. people also pay bank bailouts and it doesn't mean they demand them.
i see nobody demanding drm support here: https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... nor here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/b...
do you?
interestingly, if you read through the thread for this bug, you will have a clue about who is actually requesting this crap:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
but that really is an issue you should be taking up with the content provider. If you don't like it, just avoid all DRM'd content.
true. but this is only true the moment a major browser indulges in suporting this drm crap. this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby. and doing so is in total contradiction with any form of advocacy for an open web. it is clear that mozilla, under present management, has more important priorities than an open web, so all this ceo-talk is just the usual bullshit you'd expect from ... well, a ceo. oh wonder.
That way I don't have to trust your crappy POS system your restaurant bought on ebay to secure my credit card data. I can choose from a number of trusted vendors to secure my data and handle the transaction.
what you all seem to fail to note is that you can trust that shiny phone in your pocket even less, and that's probably why this model doesn't work (and shouldn't work).
you're just not ready for a future dominated by retards.
but resistance is futile. you will be UXed.
You do realize that encryption is security through obscurity ... right?
i don't think this quote means what you think it does.
Please don't quote shit that you utterly fail to understand.
ditto.
ActiveX is just a plugin system,
as much as a shotgun against your head is just a metal tube.
the ignorance runs deep here.
don't be so modest. you just contributed a fair share.