Which is why GM shouldn't be unregulated. It's possible to modify crops to evade contamination, but then there would be nobody to sue. I think most people would be ok with GM if it was bound by proper regulations.
If that's the way to get countries to fund science projects than what's the problem? The cost increase isn't that much, and that extra money would be wasted otherwise anyway.
We need to unplug, go outside, and actually meet and interact with people, not sit in front of a screen all the time and lie to ourselves that we're "connecting", because we are NOT.
Why? Because a random psychologist told us so? Some people aren't as social as others, and being alone from time to time is just as much of a need as being with people.
Another advantage of electronic voting is that client-side programs can make the whole process easier. Online voting doesn't need specialized machine for the counting, and of course any system should be thoroughly tested by whitehats before use. We should use paper until digital voting is absolutely secure: unlike you, I'm pretty sure that parties exploit any opportunity they get to gain advantage.
True, but in IP land it's impossible to know what is legal and what is not, even experienced lawyers and judges make different statements about a case.
But if you don't trust the humans operating the machines then why do you trust the humans counting the votes in a paper-based election? The human factor in online voting would be smaller. Also, in electronic voting there are methods to bring verifiability to the vote. I didn't say that current voting systems are secure, in fact they have been proven otherwise a number of times. I just didn't rule out the possibility of developing a secure one.
What the hell, what does the developer of a site has to do with how its owners operate it? That's like making employees criminally responsible if their company does something unethical.
It's not a legal point but a moral one, there are many communists who believe that digital works should be distributed freely and noone should make money off of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but that figure is with Hollywood accounting.
Only if it's in your genes. If you have developed that personality by yourself that doesn't count.
You don't need to actually run the scripts, most of the time it's enough to just scrape the strings and links out of them.
Which is why GM shouldn't be unregulated. It's possible to modify crops to evade contamination, but then there would be nobody to sue. I think most people would be ok with GM if it was bound by proper regulations.
If that's the way to get countries to fund science projects than what's the problem? The cost increase isn't that much, and that extra money would be wasted otherwise anyway.
This, it's a cloud of gas and defining its surface based on a given brightness (I guess, since this is an optical measurement) is pretty arbitrary.
We need to unplug, go outside, and actually meet and interact with people, not sit in front of a screen all the time and lie to ourselves that we're "connecting", because we are NOT.
Why? Because a random psychologist told us so? Some people aren't as social as others, and being alone from time to time is just as much of a need as being with people.
It would be useful if there was anyone on it.
Google has been doing predictive search and result display for a while now. There's nothing new in this, just keeping up with the competition.
I'm gonna sue that fucking horse!
And today the same people have Facebook pages. Was that really worse?
I did not say the votes should be public, what I did say is that the system should be open source.
It varies from person to person. I have 700GB storage and don't even use all of it.
Or 3D.
The counting machines could also be operated by similar committees.
Exactly, any secure voting system has to be totally open. Which is why it shouldn't be developed by private companies.
Another advantage of electronic voting is that client-side programs can make the whole process easier. Online voting doesn't need specialized machine for the counting, and of course any system should be thoroughly tested by whitehats before use. We should use paper until digital voting is absolutely secure: unlike you, I'm pretty sure that parties exploit any opportunity they get to gain advantage.
True, but in IP land it's impossible to know what is legal and what is not, even experienced lawyers and judges make different statements about a case.
But if you don't trust the humans operating the machines then why do you trust the humans counting the votes in a paper-based election? The human factor in online voting would be smaller. Also, in electronic voting there are methods to bring verifiability to the vote. I didn't say that current voting systems are secure, in fact they have been proven otherwise a number of times. I just didn't rule out the possibility of developing a secure one.
What the hell, what does the developer of a site has to do with how its owners operate it? That's like making employees criminally responsible if their company does something unethical.
It's not a legal point but a moral one, there are many communists who believe that digital works should be distributed freely and noone should make money off of them.
Online voting could be made secure, assuming that political will actually wants a secure system.
FUD was always good for the AV market.
So now the copyright industry can afford their private copyright police? Strange considering how piracy is driving them bankrupt.
In some places people are cheaper than robots.