What the hell? This is a case of someone inflating the article title and supposition to get an article posted on slashdot. From the article:
The primary author of the legislation, State Sen. Larry Mumper, told the paper the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay.
That's pretty clear that the intent of the legislation was to affect "normal" auctioneers. Modifications are pending to make that clear. And:
Hani Durzy, eBay spokesman, said the company has reviewed Ohio's law and is not concerned.
"We do not believe the law applies to people who sell items on eBay or to eBay itself," he told the paper.
End of story. At least until the lawmakers make their revisions.
I see where you're coming from. I guess I'm still a bit skeptical.
For email, your argument makes a lot of sense. There are lots of email servers where a legitimate email would leave a trace. While it's simple to forge an email, the traces it leaves would let one track where it came from.
But other documents might not have as strong of an audit trail. For example, Photoshop only recently got the ability to store a history of what actions were performed by whom on a document for exactly these audit purposes. Other applications don't have systems like this, and one would have to rely on other mechanisms (backup records, for instance).
I guess it all comes down to the burden of proof that the prosecution or defense would have to overcome in a court of law. If they want an electronic document to be seen as valid, they have to produce convincing evidence of authenticity, whatever form that would take. Though IANAL, I would expect that the same would hold true for physical documents and evidence as well.
Hm. Most of your argument has to do with copies and backups.
What if a document were created on a computer that was not included in the backup schedule, or was somehow excluded from regular backup?
For instance, if someone wanted to forge a document, they could operate on a removable USB drive. I won't say that I'm familar with the average backup system of the industry at large, but I'd guess that such drives would be excluded from the backup schedule.
If that's the case, then the forged document would appear to be an "original" by the method of checking copies and backup tapes.
Not quite how I want it to work, but _extremely_ useful in any case. Thanks much for the tip!
You're welcome. Yeah, there are a couple nits I have with the iPod UI, but it's pretty good.
Now that I'm thinking of it, lemme see if I can list some of my nits:
No access to information other than Title/Artist/Album/Rating
No ability to add a song to an on-the-go playlist while looking at the "playing" screen
Though the title scrolls horizontally if it's too long, the artist and the album do not. If they're too long, I just get ellipses (...). Bleah.
Have to manually create "A", "B", "C", etc. playlists if I want to browse Artists/Albums/Titles that way.
And my biggest nit:
Rating is the only thing I can change (other than the automatically updated play count). I want some ability to "mark" a song if it has problems (skipping CD, bad sound quality, cut off song) other than giving it a 1-star rating. I'd like to use the stars for real song rating, rather than having to reserve one of my 5 for the "special" case.
Speaking of playlists. Is it possible to create one on the iPod? On the karma one can create playlists on the karma itself.
Yes. They're called "On the go" playlists, can you can create as many as you like, one at a time. In the menu system, when you are on a song/artist/genre/etc., you press and hold the selection button. The entry flashes and is added to the current "On the go" playlist. When you're done creating the playlists, you can save it off and begin a new one. These "On the go" playlists are synced back into iTunes when you get back to your computer so you can mess about with them.
There's a little animation at the top of this page.
You can't survive without external sustenance. Why should I consider you alive? A newborn baby has to be warmed, fed, its wastes removed, etc. Basically, a similar job to that of the proposed artificial womb, at some level.
In your mind, what is the difference? And why does such a difference form the basis of the definition of "life"?
you're doing some serious 3d work you should have some professional SGI style equipment.
Last decade's technology. No one doing serious 3D work is using SGIs any more, at least not in the DoE. More precisely, SGI is in bed with nVidia and ATI at this stage of the game, so a good number of people are "rolling their own," as it were. Simple fact, a cluster of Linux nodes with nVidia 6800s can toast an SGI any day. And it's a lot cheaper. Check out this article for more information.
Well, kinda. They are rather flat, and could use some improvements. But I think this is primarily in the world model. You didn't have mip-mapped textured polygons in the 80s. You certainly didn't have projected shadows and accurate sky simulations back in the 80s. There are still parts of the graphics that are nice.
Income producers (of which you are one, presumably) are not split into two groups, "wealthy elite" who can buy a personal computer, and the "general population" who cannot. A Macintosh computer does not cost an order of magnitude more than a Windows-based one, so we can combine the two classes to make statements. The average household in the U.S. has a computer. I'd have to do some research to find an exact number, but it's certainly not in the small minority. By your logic, then the "general population" is part of the "wealthy elite". Something doesn't match here.
Macintoshes and Dells and HPs are not "luxury" items on the caliber of Porsches and Gulfstreams that are bought by a relatively small number of people. Personal computers are relatively low-price commodity items that millions of people purchase with their "disposable" income. Some people consider them to be important enough communication devices that they spend "non-disposable" income on them. Coming up with $2000 to spend certainly does not make you part of the "wealthy elite".
And if marketing people "understand" your point that the "general population" wouldn't buy an Apple, why are Macintoshes marketed to the general population?
Just because a judge says something, does not make it true
Very insightful. However, you'll note that, if the Findings of Fact were in dispute, such would have been noted by the appellate court. They did not do so. They didn't call the FoF into question at all. It was the remedy portion, Jackson's action taken after the declaration of the Findings of Fact, that they differed with.
When an appelate court does not contest a lower court's ruling, such ruling stands. Consequently, Microsoft remains a convicted monopolist.
The United States Justice Department disagrees with you. Here's a simpler roundup of the facts. While the enforcement of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned (mostly because of his stupid spouting off to the press), his Findings of Fact were not. Microsoft remains a convincted monopolist. Once a company is deemed a monopoly, a different set of business rules apply to them.
What it says is that world leaders, nobel prize winners, and other highly intelligent people have decried Bush as the worst president in American history,
That fine. I'm not going to argue whether or not some people think he's horrible. I could point out notable leaders, scientists, and other "highly intelligent" people who support Bush. But that's entirely not the point.
I simply want to point out that the volume or amplitude of the criticism does not constitute "widespread."
I'm not sure I'm communicating my point well, as we seem to keep saying the same things over and over. There are a lot of people who think Bush is evil and horrid. They're pretty vocal about it, as we heard over the last two years. However, to constitute such condemnation as firm proof that "Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted and discussed," as you mentioned in your original post, is simply erroneous.
a huge percentage of Amercians voted for him anyway because they see him as a fundamentalist christian with high morals.
Or maybe they believe he's a good leader. The only real data from which we have to draw conclusions are the election results and the exit polls. The exit polls probably give the most information, though you have to make sure you account for error. They give, in broad strokes, why people voted the way they do.
In basic terms, people who were concerned with terrorism thought Bush would be a better leader than Kerry. People who were concerned with the economy thought Kerry would be a better leader than Bush. As you point out, people who are concerned about social issues were more likely to support Bush. There are lots more demographics and nuances here that we could discuss.
You can't point to a simple thing such as "fundamentalist Christian with high morals" as the reason that people voted for Bush. The actual answer is much more complicated than that.
And there have been numerous well-known, well-respected people calling the Bush administration the worst in US history. You don't see this often--or ever.
What that says is that the country is very strongly divided and polarized. What it does not say is that the belief that Bush is the "worst in US history" is "widely accepted." The two points are distinct and separate.
The question is one of whether you consider the entities of States to be important or not. Most people I talk to who believe the EC should be abolished in favor of a direct popular vote seem to believe that there are no real distinctions between the states, that the country really should be treated as a uniform whole.
That's not quite what the founding fathers had in mind. Originally, the country was a loose conglomeration of mostly independent States, where the borders between them really did make a difference. However, in consideration of population differences, all States cannot be treated equal in terms of representation, which is why we have the EC. It's a nice compromise between the ideas of equal States and proportional population representation. Basically the same compromise that forms the balance of the House and the Senate.
I'm certainly not arguing that the EC is the best possible system. I'm arguing that it's better than a direct popular vote. I provide that URL as a mathematical basis for further debate and discussion.
That's a fine article, but it doesn't support preserving the Electoral College.
I agree. I mention the article so that people can be sure to educate themselves about the EC so that an intelligent debate can ensue. Merely complaining that the popular vote should be the one that counts isn't enough.
I would like to see a national debate about other voting systems. I believe things like instant runoff voting or other methods that encode more detailed voter preference would provide more information about the desires of the electorate and would provide a more fair system.
(Of course, agreeing on a definition of "fair" is a prerequisite, and probably difficult.)
This is yet another case where I wish America was on the popular vote system rather than the electoral vote system.
It all depends on whether you believe the United States of America really is a group of independent States, or if it's a uniform mass of people with mostly artificial state boundaries drawn through them.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating - all participants in a discussion about reforming the Electoral College should be required to read this article
Basically, no greater electorate percentage of young people came out this year than any other election. People voted in droves, including young people. But young people didn't get out any more or less than anyone else.
This was the biggest young voter turnout, ever.
Yep. And the biggest (insert demographic of choice) voter turnout, ever, as well.
Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted
That's a novel definition of "wide."
One could argue that a poll could be taken to determine just how widely such an opinion is held. Oh wait, we just did. 51% of the country disagrees with your statement.
While Bush certainly isn't the best person in the country to be president, apparently most people thought he was the best one of the people offered. I don't buy the argument that people are misguided, vote blindly, or didn't hear the opposing message. I think the Democratic party got out its message better than it ever has before. Consider Moveon.org, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bruce Springsteen. People heard the message and decided that they wanted someone other than Kerry.
I'm a strong conservative, one of those vilified people here on slashdot. But I hate it when I hear my conservative friends lump all people left of center as "evil" or "stupid" or "dishonest." Both sides have had their fair share of moments that they shouldn't be very proud of.
The blind hate needs to stop. On both sides.
In the interests of trying to heal the divisions of this country, I think all of us (me included) need to try and remember to view those on the "other side," those who voted other than we did, as intelligent people, as people who are worthy to listen to. I couldn't stand Kerry. I was very happy to see him concede the election. But I have to respect that he is doing, and has been doing, what he believes is right for his country. And that's very honorable and worthy of my respect, even if I disagree with his actions and positions.
I want to elaborate on this point for a minute. Where I work we have a number of people who spend a period of time in Washington, D.C., interacting with congresscritters and other Legislative and Executive staffers. After their stint there (1-2 years), they come back here. Every person I've ever talked to who has worked in Washington has said that they now have a different view of the people who work at that level of government. That every single person, agree with them or not, takes their job seriously and does what they believe is right for the good of the country. That's important. That says that the people we elect, and the people who help them, really are trying to be honest with us, trying to do their best to make this country strong.
We need to respect that sentiment.
This is a good argument for changing how a president is elected. For a good read, see...
Slashdot Mirror
You need to leave your mark at ``/''.
I read that as "You need to leave your mark at slashdot."
I see where you're coming from. I guess I'm still a bit skeptical.
For email, your argument makes a lot of sense. There are lots of email servers where a legitimate email would leave a trace. While it's simple to forge an email, the traces it leaves would let one track where it came from.
But other documents might not have as strong of an audit trail. For example, Photoshop only recently got the ability to store a history of what actions were performed by whom on a document for exactly these audit purposes. Other applications don't have systems like this, and one would have to rely on other mechanisms (backup records, for instance).
I guess it all comes down to the burden of proof that the prosecution or defense would have to overcome in a court of law. If they want an electronic document to be seen as valid, they have to produce convincing evidence of authenticity, whatever form that would take. Though IANAL, I would expect that the same would hold true for physical documents and evidence as well.
Hm. Most of your argument has to do with copies and backups.
What if a document were created on a computer that was not included in the backup schedule, or was somehow excluded from regular backup?
For instance, if someone wanted to forge a document, they could operate on a removable USB drive. I won't say that I'm familar with the average backup system of the industry at large, but I'd guess that such drives would be excluded from the backup schedule.
If that's the case, then the forged document would appear to be an "original" by the method of checking copies and backup tapes.
Thoughts?
"Caution: Missing letter 't'."
You're welcome. Yeah, there are a couple nits I have with the iPod UI, but it's pretty good.
Now that I'm thinking of it, lemme see if I can list some of my nits:
- No access to information other than Title/Artist/Album/Rating
- No ability to add a song to an on-the-go playlist while looking at the "playing" screen
- Though the title scrolls horizontally if it's too long, the artist and the album do not. If they're too long, I just get ellipses (...). Bleah.
- Have to manually create "A", "B", "C", etc. playlists if I want to browse Artists/Albums/Titles that way.
And my biggest nit:Speaking of playlists. Is it possible to create one on the iPod? On the karma one can create playlists on the karma itself.
Yes. They're called "On the go" playlists, can you can create as many as you like, one at a time. In the menu system, when you are on a song/artist/genre/etc., you press and hold the selection button. The entry flashes and is added to the current "On the go" playlist. When you're done creating the playlists, you can save it off and begin a new one. These "On the go" playlists are synced back into iTunes when you get back to your computer so you can mess about with them.
There's a little animation at the top of this page.
$0 is less than $200, so it still fits, no? ;-)
You can't survive without external sustenance. Why should I consider you alive? A newborn baby has to be warmed, fed, its wastes removed, etc. Basically, a similar job to that of the proposed artificial womb, at some level.
In your mind, what is the difference? And why does such a difference form the basis of the definition of "life"?
Describe them by what they do or what their expertise is in, rather than by what they aren't. "Geek" isn't a very descriptive term, either.
Well, I think a mass of cells is a "child" when it's able to survive outside of it's womb--ie with no direct support from the body that grew it..
Okay.
you're doing some serious 3d work you should have some professional SGI style equipment.
Last decade's technology. No one doing serious 3D work is using SGIs any more, at least not in the DoE. More precisely, SGI is in bed with nVidia and ATI at this stage of the game, so a good number of people are "rolling their own," as it were. Simple fact, a cluster of Linux nodes with nVidia 6800s can toast an SGI any day. And it's a lot cheaper. Check out this article for more information.
Also, for the love of god, be very gentle. My machine is very old and it's connection very poor.
+5 moderation? Goodbye, old machine!
The graphics look like they date from the 80s
Well, kinda. They are rather flat, and could use some improvements. But I think this is primarily in the world model. You didn't have mip-mapped textured polygons in the 80s. You certainly didn't have projected shadows and accurate sky simulations back in the 80s. There are still parts of the graphics that are nice.
Income producers (of which you are one, presumably) are not split into two groups, "wealthy elite" who can buy a personal computer, and the "general population" who cannot. A Macintosh computer does not cost an order of magnitude more than a Windows-based one, so we can combine the two classes to make statements. The average household in the U.S. has a computer. I'd have to do some research to find an exact number, but it's certainly not in the small minority. By your logic, then the "general population" is part of the "wealthy elite". Something doesn't match here.
Macintoshes and Dells and HPs are not "luxury" items on the caliber of Porsches and Gulfstreams that are bought by a relatively small number of people. Personal computers are relatively low-price commodity items that millions of people purchase with their "disposable" income. Some people consider them to be important enough communication devices that they spend "non-disposable" income on them. Coming up with $2000 to spend certainly does not make you part of the "wealthy elite".
And if marketing people "understand" your point that the "general population" wouldn't buy an Apple, why are Macintoshes marketed to the general population?
Just because a judge says something, does not make it true
Very insightful. However, you'll note that, if the Findings of Fact were in dispute, such would have been noted by the appellate court. They did not do so. They didn't call the FoF into question at all. It was the remedy portion, Jackson's action taken after the declaration of the Findings of Fact, that they differed with.
When an appelate court does not contest a lower court's ruling, such ruling stands. Consequently, Microsoft remains a convicted monopolist.
[Microsoft] is not a monopoly
The United States Justice Department disagrees with you. Here's a simpler roundup of the facts. While the enforcement of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned (mostly because of his stupid spouting off to the press), his Findings of Fact were not. Microsoft remains a convincted monopolist. Once a company is deemed a monopoly, a different set of business rules apply to them.
What it says is that world leaders, nobel prize winners, and other highly intelligent people have decried Bush as the worst president in American history,
That fine. I'm not going to argue whether or not some people think he's horrible. I could point out notable leaders, scientists, and other "highly intelligent" people who support Bush. But that's entirely not the point.
I simply want to point out that the volume or amplitude of the criticism does not constitute "widespread."
I'm not sure I'm communicating my point well, as we seem to keep saying the same things over and over. There are a lot of people who think Bush is evil and horrid. They're pretty vocal about it, as we heard over the last two years. However, to constitute such condemnation as firm proof that "Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted and discussed," as you mentioned in your original post, is simply erroneous.
a huge percentage of Amercians voted for him anyway because they see him as a fundamentalist christian with high morals.
Or maybe they believe he's a good leader. The only real data from which we have to draw conclusions are the election results and the exit polls. The exit polls probably give the most information, though you have to make sure you account for error. They give, in broad strokes, why people voted the way they do.
In basic terms, people who were concerned with terrorism thought Bush would be a better leader than Kerry. People who were concerned with the economy thought Kerry would be a better leader than Bush. As you point out, people who are concerned about social issues were more likely to support Bush. There are lots more demographics and nuances here that we could discuss.
You can't point to a simple thing such as "fundamentalist Christian with high morals" as the reason that people voted for Bush. The actual answer is much more complicated than that.
30 of 35 countries favor Kerry (GlobeScan/PIPA poll).
t e2004/countymap.htm
And something like 80% of the counties in the United States favor Bush: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vo
And there have been numerous well-known, well-respected people calling the Bush administration the worst in US history. You don't see this often--or ever.
What that says is that the country is very strongly divided and polarized. What it does not say is that the belief that Bush is the "worst in US history" is "widely accepted." The two points are distinct and separate.
The question is one of whether you consider the entities of States to be important or not. Most people I talk to who believe the EC should be abolished in favor of a direct popular vote seem to believe that there are no real distinctions between the states, that the country really should be treated as a uniform whole.
That's not quite what the founding fathers had in mind. Originally, the country was a loose conglomeration of mostly independent States, where the borders between them really did make a difference. However, in consideration of population differences, all States cannot be treated equal in terms of representation, which is why we have the EC. It's a nice compromise between the ideas of equal States and proportional population representation. Basically the same compromise that forms the balance of the House and the Senate.
I'm certainly not arguing that the EC is the best possible system. I'm arguing that it's better than a direct popular vote. I provide that URL as a mathematical basis for further debate and discussion.
That's a fine article, but it doesn't support preserving the Electoral College.
I agree. I mention the article so that people can be sure to educate themselves about the EC so that an intelligent debate can ensue. Merely complaining that the popular vote should be the one that counts isn't enough.
I would like to see a national debate about other voting systems. I believe things like instant runoff voting or other methods that encode more detailed voter preference would provide more information about the desires of the electorate and would provide a more fair system.
(Of course, agreeing on a definition of "fair" is a prerequisite, and probably difficult.)
This is yet another case where I wish America was on the popular vote system rather than the electoral vote system.
It all depends on whether you believe the United States of America really is a group of independent States, or if it's a uniform mass of people with mostly artificial state boundaries drawn through them.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating - all participants in a discussion about reforming the Electoral College should be required to read this article
Uh, did you look at the numbers?
Here are some of the numbers: 2004 not the breakout year for youth vote after all
Basically, no greater electorate percentage of young people came out this year than any other election. People voted in droves, including young people. But young people didn't get out any more or less than anyone else.
This was the biggest young voter turnout, ever.
Yep. And the biggest (insert demographic of choice) voter turnout, ever, as well.
Mr. Mill's opinion aside, the word "conservative" means very different things today versus over a century ago.
Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted
That's a novel definition of "wide."
One could argue that a poll could be taken to determine just how widely such an opinion is held. Oh wait, we just did. 51% of the country disagrees with your statement.
While Bush certainly isn't the best person in the country to be president, apparently most people thought he was the best one of the people offered. I don't buy the argument that people are misguided, vote blindly, or didn't hear the opposing message. I think the Democratic party got out its message better than it ever has before. Consider Moveon.org, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bruce Springsteen. People heard the message and decided that they wanted someone other than Kerry.
I'm a strong conservative, one of those vilified people here on slashdot. But I hate it when I hear my conservative friends lump all people left of center as "evil" or "stupid" or "dishonest." Both sides have had their fair share of moments that they shouldn't be very proud of.
The blind hate needs to stop. On both sides.
In the interests of trying to heal the divisions of this country, I think all of us (me included) need to try and remember to view those on the "other side," those who voted other than we did, as intelligent people, as people who are worthy to listen to. I couldn't stand Kerry. I was very happy to see him concede the election. But I have to respect that he is doing, and has been doing, what he believes is right for his country. And that's very honorable and worthy of my respect, even if I disagree with his actions and positions.
I want to elaborate on this point for a minute. Where I work we have a number of people who spend a period of time in Washington, D.C., interacting with congresscritters and other Legislative and Executive staffers. After their stint there (1-2 years), they come back here. Every person I've ever talked to who has worked in Washington has said that they now have a different view of the people who work at that level of government. That every single person, agree with them or not, takes their job seriously and does what they believe is right for the good of the country. That's important. That says that the people we elect, and the people who help them, really are trying to be honest with us, trying to do their best to make this country strong.
We need to respect that sentiment.
This is a good argument for changing how a president is elected. For a good read, see...
For another good read, see this article.