What is it with America's love of voting machines? The vast majority of countries don't use then, including most of the OECD - really the only reason for the US using machines is because they're stupid & vote on Tuesday, not Saturday.
Well that and the fact that we vote for one hell of a lot of different things. Hell, there are places where we still vote for the dog catcher, not to mention 1000 half baked propositions on each ballot.
Yet they wonder why they have the lowest voter turnout in the world, afterall what percentage of people with minimum wage jobs get paid time off to vote?
There is still time before work, after work and during lunch. If a person actually wants to vote they can, if not then good riddens.
This means no bloody machines, period !!! If Australia (& most of the OECD) can do hand counted paper ballots, then so can the US.
You're obviously not familiar with our educational system.....
The only reason they use machine systems in the US is to cut costs, but the simple fact is they arn't as good
Do you actually have any evidence that counting machines make more mistakes than human counters?
Look at the mess, as well as the fucked up punch card machines you have counties with lever machines, other with optical machines, toggle switch machines, push button machines & also touch screen systems too.
So what, it's not like any one person has to use them all.
Look at all the people that are intimidated by machines & even now still refuse to use Automatic Teller Machines, & there are plenty more people like that then just the illiterate, the elderly & immigrants that have poor 2nd language skills.
And we want even more of these people voting?
If people can't even figure out that they can only vote for 1 person for each office what exactly makes you think these people can count? The real reason that Americans don't vote (aside from lazyness) is that our system is setup such that only the worst possible candidates seem to make it onto the ballot in the first place. When we go to vote we can either:
A: Vote for a jerk who might win B: Vote for the other jerk who might win. c: Vote for a lesser jerk who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
THAT'S why Americans don't vote. Frankly the only reason I even bother is because of the state and local candidates who are sometimes a bit a bit better.
Did you miss a link or something? I looked at both of the links you posted and I couldn't find any sign that the KDE developers had changed the KDE license nor where they (as a group) had demanded anything. Sure some of the KDE folks don't like some of the changes RH has made but so what? Those developers are entitled to their opinion and RH is within their rights to change their version of KDE however they see fit, even if some of the changes are dumb. Please explain why the FSF should get involved.
Err. I think the "rednec" thing was a joke. If you took it seriousl you might want to consider getting out more.
I mean sure it's easy to dismiss buyers in rural areas as just a bunch of ignorant yokels unable to RTFM or even the description on the box to realize that they are not getting a pre-packaged Windows system with Microsoft Works.
The average computer user doesn't even know what a browser is or that MS Office doesn't come with Windows. That has absolutely nothing to do with being rural though.
But, then again, perhaps I'm overestimating my computer acumen.
No, you're just overestimating the average user's need to set up an e-commerce site.
You've spent years and years learning the M$ way of doing things so you can't expect to just jump in and be an expert. That's like an English teacher complaining that Spanish sucks just because they can't start speaking it perfectly on the very first day.
Trying to get at this kind of information through cell phones, while a compelling idea, is ultimately slightly off track. The Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) is a program under FHA (part of DOT I believe) that is attempting to solve a number of problems like this. Essentially, cars and roads should be equipped with devices that will enable "the system" to give drivers and others the kind of information they need. For now cell phones are a good proxy for these devices, but in order to truly work the cars themselves should be equipped with a device that will transmit location information to the system.
I'm not sure I understand why it would be necessary (or even good) to rely on each car to transmit it's status/identity/whatever. Shouldn't sensors in/around the road be able to sense the presence, speed etc. of cars and simply broadcast that information?
Well, it's at least partly true and even made it to Slashdot a while back. It's not going to use GPS but rather a system similar to the one being discussed in this thread (ie using the distance from various towers. I don't think it's clear yet if it will be an "allways on" sort of thing or a "just on when you dial 911" sort of thing though.
I looked around a fair bit but I couldn't find any real details on what the Millers' attorney actually argued nor anything about the actual outcome of the case. On the surface this really sounds more like a trademark case than copyright. I have to admit though I'm not sure how copyright works with phisical objects. Is taking a picture of a statue copyright infringment?
I think maybe it's been a while since you've actually purchased consumer software. These days it is common for the EULA to be presented ONLY at the time of installation so you have to break the seal on the CD as well BEFORE you get to read it and at that point the store will generally not take it back. Even when a paper copy of the EULA is available, the click through version is sometimes different and allways claims to supercede all others. To make matters worse, it's getting pretty common for software to require "services" from the author in order to be of any real use and usually require yet another agreement with still different terms.
Hey, if you read that on your bed and You STILL lay on it BEFORE checking out what is on their website - that you your own fault. Because you were forewarened about this.
How exactly is an agreement that is presented AFTER the purchase considered "forewarned"? If these EULAs were presented before the purchased then you'd have a point.
Now I agree, they can't ask absurd things
Why not, is this an agreement or isn't it? The whole point of written agreements and written laws is so that we don't have to constantly guess at what what we can and cannot do.
Unfortunately the article was pretty much content free when it comes to actual details of what they are doing.
(4) They don't use 802.11b, they've hacked it with a p2p solution to the home. Their secret weapon is a technology known as a "software-designed radio," which has permitted them to create an inexpensive repeater antenna that can be attached to the outside of a customer's home. The device, which the Etherlinx executives said they believe can be built in quantity for less than $150 each, would communicate with a central antenna and then convert the signals into the industry-standard Wi-Fi, or wireless fidelity, signal for reception inside the home.
Someone is being VERY optomistic about the costs here. This "repeater antenna" really sounds like a SBC with one "normal" 802.11b card and one with a customized firmware plus an external antenna and mast. The SBC will have to be enclosed in a weatherproof box. There is no way this is going to cost anything like $150. Don't forget that the customer is going to need yet another wireless card and adapter inside their house too.
2-3) They don't use repeaters, (see above comment).
Today, while most of the Wi-Fi industry is working on a more complex technology known as "mesh routing," which involves lashing together hundreds or even thousands of short-range transceivers, the Etherlinx developers believe they have found a crude, cost-effective approach that is capable of leapfrogging the last-mile problem.
Unfortunately this "cost-effective approach" is nothing more than some sort of magical firmware....
(1) They don't require line of sight.
Etherlinx is by no means alone in its approach. Several other companies are also beginning to explore alternatives not requiring line-of-sight that they believe will be more resistant to interference and will be easy for customers to install without expensive on-site help.
While they may be able improve things somewhat by taking advantage of multipath and/or improving error correction to improve matters in situations where you have short distances and lots of solid objects in the way but there's not a thing they can do about trees and hills, at least not with magic software alone.
The technique in the article relies on the fact that the signal will be bouncing off of various solid objects such as cars, buildings etc. It's not going to help you get over a hill or through trees (which mostly absorb rather than reflect).
As someone else mentioned, in your case the solution is to either get your antenna up higher or make your trees a lot shorter:)
Not likely. The technique in the article relies on the fact that the signal will be bouncing off of various solid objects such as cars, buildings etc. It's not going to help you get over a hill or through trees (which mostly absorb rather than reflect).
This wireless network gear (at least the unlicensed stuff) is VERY low power (typically in the mW range). I'd be more worried about commercial radio and tv stations, ham operators, cell phones etc. I wonder what the effect of a subway full of commuters all with cell phones is anyway.
We're now at 6 billion. Every single mind added to that tally makes us that much smarter as a race
First time on Slashdot eh.:)
On the galactic timescale, 10,000 years is an increment barely worth discussing. And our sun isn't particularly old--the bleak truth is that if there were ANY life in any state of advancement anywhere else in the galaxy (this is charitable--really, the universe), it would not only have evolved far beyond us, but would have colonized us long ago.
You're assuming (among other things) that travel (much) faster than the speed of light is possible. If not then colinization of the galaxy might not be practical and colinization of the entire universe would be impossible.
What I find interesting is that you're arguement is just as valid (possibly moreso) if we consider just the earth. The earth has been around for billions of years, so why didn't some other creature do what we did a billion years ago?
Interestingly enough the main cost of most small market software I've seen is in the form of support and services. Most of the remaining cost comes from having to jump through hoops to get around bugs or limitations in the software that would be trivial to deal with if the software were Free. There may well be cases where Free Software just doesn't work but I don't think just being in a small market is it.
Most of RMS's early Free Software was written on and for non-free systems. His view basically is that if he hadn't then his Free Software wouldn't exist at all and therefore it was a worthy trade-off. His eventual goal however was to replace the entire OS with a free OS so this wasn't considered a long term solution so much as a necessary evil.
It depends on the software. In some cases you could offer to provide customized versions to businesses who need that. You could charge for updated versions of the manual. You could charge for support services. You could dual licence it to companies who want to include a modified version of your program in their own product. You will probably NOT ever become the next M$ by selling shrink wrapped Free Software to Joe consumer but that opportunity is mostly gone anyway.
I don't know about you but many of the programs I use would not have even been ported to the platforms I use them on if they had not been Free Software.
Every day we have opportunities to do things that are "Wrong" but would be to our advantage from a purely practical point of view. Do you take advantage of all such opportunities? If not then why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Well that and the fact that we vote for one hell of a lot of different things. Hell, there are places where we still vote for the dog catcher, not to mention 1000 half baked propositions on each ballot.
There is still time before work, after work and during lunch. If a person actually wants to vote they can, if not then good riddens.
You're obviously not familiar with our educational system.....
Do you actually have any evidence that counting machines make more mistakes than human counters?
So what, it's not like any one person has to use them all.
And we want even more of these people voting?
If people can't even figure out that they can only vote for 1 person for each office what exactly makes you think these people can count? The real reason that Americans don't vote (aside from lazyness) is that our system is setup such that only the worst possible candidates seem to make it onto the ballot in the first place. When we go to vote we can either
A: Vote for a jerk who might win
B: Vote for the other jerk who might win.
c: Vote for a lesser jerk who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
THAT'S why Americans don't vote. Frankly the only reason I even bother is because of the state and local candidates who are sometimes a bit a bit better.
Well, there is NO non-Intel upgrade worth putting into that motherboard. You're only real options are either:
A: Buy the fastest Coppermine based PIII you can find.
or
B: Buy a Tualatin based PIII and an adapter from PowerLeap.
Neither of these chips includes DRM so at least you wouldn't be spending $ on that particular tech.
BTW the PIIIs came in both socketed and slot form so make sure you know which type you have before you purchase an upgrade.
Did you miss a link or something? I looked at both of the links you posted and I couldn't find any sign that the KDE developers had changed the KDE license nor where they (as a group) had demanded anything. Sure some of the KDE folks don't like some of the changes RH has made but so what? Those developers are entitled to their opinion and RH is within their rights to change their version of KDE however they see fit, even if some of the changes are dumb. Please explain why the FSF should get involved.
The average computer user doesn't even know what a browser is or that MS Office doesn't come with Windows. That has absolutely nothing to do with being rural though.
No, you're just overestimating the average user's need to set up an e-commerce site.
You've spent years and years learning the M$ way of doing things so you can't expect to just jump in and be an expert. That's like an English teacher complaining that Spanish sucks just because they can't start speaking it perfectly on the very first day.
Anyone who has any business flashing their bios can find a solution, those who cannot are better off leaving their clothes on.
I'm not sure I understand why it would be necessary (or even good) to rely on each car to transmit it's status/identity/whatever. Shouldn't sensors in/around the road be able to sense the presence, speed etc. of cars and simply broadcast that information?
Well, it's at least partly true and even made it to Slashdot a while back. It's not going to use GPS but rather a system similar to the one being discussed in this thread (ie using the distance from various towers. I don't think it's clear yet if it will be an "allways on" sort of thing or a "just on when you dial 911" sort of thing though.
I looked around a fair bit but I couldn't find any real details on what the Millers' attorney actually argued nor anything about the actual outcome of the case. On the surface this really sounds more like a trademark case than copyright. I have to admit though I'm not sure how copyright works with phisical objects. Is taking a picture of a statue copyright infringment?
No that only works for patents.
At least one of your competitors (the one that's not closing half their stores) has a similar policy.
I think maybe it's been a while since you've actually purchased consumer software. These days it is common for the EULA to be presented ONLY at the time of installation so you have to break the seal on the CD as well BEFORE you get to read it and at that point the store will generally not take it back. Even when a paper copy of the EULA is available, the click through version is sometimes different and allways claims to supercede all others. To make matters worse, it's getting pretty common for software to require "services" from the author in order to be of any real use and usually require yet another agreement with still different terms.
How exactly is an agreement that is presented AFTER the purchase considered "forewarned"? If these EULAs were presented before the purchased then you'd have a point.
Why not, is this an agreement or isn't it? The whole point of written agreements and written laws is so that we don't have to constantly guess at what what we can and cannot do.
Someone is being VERY optomistic about the costs here. This "repeater antenna" really sounds like a SBC with one "normal" 802.11b card and one with a customized firmware plus an external antenna and mast. The SBC will have to be enclosed in a weatherproof box. There is no way this is going to cost anything like $150. Don't forget that the customer is going to need yet another wireless card and adapter inside their house too.
Unfortunately this "cost-effective approach" is nothing more than some sort of magical firmware....
While they may be able improve things somewhat by taking advantage of multipath and/or improving error correction to improve matters in situations where you have short distances and lots of solid objects in the way but there's not a thing they can do about trees and hills, at least not with magic software alone.
Check out a company called Superpass. They specialize more in pannels than dishes but their prices and services are good.
The technique in the article relies on the fact that the signal will be bouncing off of various solid objects such as cars, buildings etc. It's not going to help you get over a hill or through trees (which mostly absorb rather than reflect).
:)
As someone else mentioned, in your case the solution is to either get your antenna up higher or make your trees a lot shorter
Not likely. The technique in the article relies on the fact that the signal will be bouncing off of various solid objects such as cars, buildings etc. It's not going to help you get over a hill or through trees (which mostly absorb rather than reflect).
TV is one way and uses MUCH higher transmit power.
This wireless network gear (at least the unlicensed stuff) is VERY low power (typically in the mW range). I'd be more worried about commercial radio and tv stations, ham operators, cell phones etc. I wonder what the effect of a subway full of commuters all with cell phones is anyway.
First time on Slashdot eh.
You're assuming (among other things) that travel (much) faster than the speed of light is possible. If not then colinization of the galaxy might not be practical and colinization of the entire universe would be impossible.
What I find interesting is that you're arguement is just as valid (possibly moreso) if we consider just the earth. The earth has been around for billions of years, so why didn't some other creature do what we did a billion years ago?
Interestingly enough the main cost of most small market software I've seen is in the form of support and services. Most of the remaining cost comes from having to jump through hoops to get around bugs or limitations in the software that would be trivial to deal with if the software were Free. There may well be cases where Free Software just doesn't work but I don't think just being in a small market is it.
Most of RMS's early Free Software was written on and for non-free systems. His view basically is that if he hadn't then his Free Software wouldn't exist at all and therefore it was a worthy trade-off. His eventual goal however was to replace the entire OS with a free OS so this wasn't considered a long term solution so much as a necessary evil.
It depends on the software. In some cases you could offer to provide customized versions to businesses who need that. You could charge for updated versions of the manual. You could charge for support services. You could dual licence it to companies who want to include a modified version of your program in their own product. You will probably NOT ever become the next M$ by selling shrink wrapped Free Software to Joe consumer but that opportunity is mostly gone anyway.
I don't know about you but many of the programs I use would not have even been ported to the platforms I use them on if they had not been Free Software.
Every day we have opportunities to do things that are "Wrong" but would be to our advantage from a purely practical point of view. Do you take advantage of all such opportunities? If not then why not?