But if that is your explanation to where god came from, then why do you still need a god to explain the universe... If such a complex thing as a god can "grow" out of "nothing", then why can't this universe come in to existence in the same way? That would make god logically redundant, as you don't need god to explain the universe...
the Dutch company Open Office (http://openoffice.nl/) existed and registered the trademark for Open Office in the Benelux before sun renamed StarOffice to Open Office. Hence the OpenOffice.org
The funny thing with a vacuum is that the pressure of it can never go below 0 bar... So if you want a nice internal pressure of 1 bar your maximum pressure difference will be... 1 bar! Not really that drastic don't you think?
They will be late to market. It takes a lot of time to copy and reprint a book that you bought in a store. So the original publisher has that set time to ask for a high price. Once that time is over the original publisher will probably still make more money then copycats because of brand loyalty. Read http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual /against.htm for a nice discussion about it.
True, without copyright anyone can take your "GPLed" code and use it in their commercial product. But once someone buys that product, that person can give you and everyone else a copy.
You then have a binary, and part of the source for that binary (the bit you made). So I guess we would then quickly see reverse compilers that can use partly available source to get all sorts of useful information from binaries.
If the commercial programmer changed so much that the binary is unrecognisable he would lose the advantage of using your code, as he would then have to spend a lot of time maintaining his copy.
So in the end I don't think it would be that much of a problem.
Sure, but without copyright only one person would need to buy MS's version and redistribute it and we all would be able to use it. Microsoft would have to change it's business model.
From the voter's perspective, the top half always determines which hole to mark. The holes with names by them would still have numeric codes assigned, they just wouldn't be printed.
So the bottom half would be the same for everybody, a completely empty sheet, maybe with some markers on them for lining up the sheets. It would just become very important to destroy the correct half, or everybody could see your vote. And you know people are going to mess that up;)
Unless you then used the top-half to link those numbers to letter combinations, all top-halfs would be the same...
I'm suggesting you'd use numbers instead of letter combinations. Either would work, numbers are just more comfortable somehow. And, no, the top-halves wouldn't be the same, each would be shifted by some number of positions [0-274].
You want to list the candidates on the wall, with numbers, then on the ballot link the number to another number, and list those last ones in the holes? That's a mistake waiting to happen, lots of people are not very good with numbers. If you don't bring in that second set of numbers, one of the two halves will be the same for everybody. If you print the numbers next to the holes all bottom halves would be the same, if you print the numbers in the holes, the top-halfs would be the same.
Alternatively, the names could be printed right by the markable positions in alphabetic order with the same sort of rotation
But if you would do that, then any variation in bottom-halves would be meaningless, because the name would be listed next to the hole, so the top-half would determine which hole to mark.
, but it would probably take less space to use numbers and have a separate list (which could be a poster on the wall of the voting booth) that associates names with numbers.
Unless you then used the top-half to link those numbers to letter combinations, all top-halfs would be the same...
So I guess with 275 candidates we'd just have really big ballots:D
No, you open up the right side of 100% of the votes and the left side of 100% of the votes -- but you permute the votes so that they can't be lined up. This is why multiple mapping tables are used.
A.3 The candidates ask to see some of the transformations from the original ballots to the intermediary
forms, and some of the transformation from the intermediary form to the clear form.
So you don't open both the left and right side of one vote, you open either the left OR the right side of one vote, including the left or right mapping table. You can't open up both of those for one vote, because then you could identify the voter. You have to open up 50% of those mapping tables to see they are correct, or you could mess with the mapping tables.
But I now understand you open up (randomly) the left or right side AFTER the total is counted, so after any fraud was committed. Offcourse this has to be done truely random... All sides supply a list numbers containing 50% of all ballots, if an even number of sides picked a number, it's left, if an odd number of sides picked it it's right?
Sure, by opening up the right side of 50% of all votes, and the left side of the other 50% you can verify that the tables are indeed correct. But that still does not mean they are counted correctly. (although if you take a properly random 50%, the totals of that check should match the grand total pretty closely)
Because those tables have a published signature, they can't be changed anymore, so I guess that final count is the only place that could be used for fraud. But since that final count is a very simple straightforward operation it could be done several times, on different hardware, with no writable media installed at all (to avoid stealing of the data)
Though I do wonder what the ballot would look like with the Dutch elections with 275 persons to choose from...
They still fail to account for the fact that the only thing that does the counting is the computer. Computers are programmed by humans. Humans with an interest in commiting fraud.
The only way to check that the computer did not change the order of YOUR ballot AFTER you voted is by publishing the database and checking the actually USED ballots instead of the unused ones.
The database can match your ballot-id to your vote so that can not be published.
Computers can not be trusted. Any voting scheme that has a step that is only done in the computer is therefore flawed untill a way is invented that allows us to verify the software that is actually running on the computer, while it is running.
Paper ballots CAN be counted by hand. They can be counted by an automatic counting machine, but the still CAN be counted by hand... As a check...
if you READ THE POXY PAPER you would understand the auditing process. The candidates can audit 50% of the votes to check that they were counted correctly without violating voter anonymity.
I read the paper. Unless the configuration of ALL the ballots is printed on paper before the election and the check is done against that printout, it is again a problem of trusting the one person who compiled the sourcecode of the machine... As long as there is no way to verify the code that is running on the machine, any step that is pure electronic is a risk.
And the check only really works is that entire 50% of all ballots is actually checked. Against a paper version, as we still don't trust computers.
And if all ballots are printed, that printout can be used to check who you voted for... Or the electronic database can be stolen, to check who you voted for...
A journalist being in danger because of what he writes is a bad situation regarless of the group that is threathening him.
That said, there are lots of minorities in the Netherlands, and plenty of controversion, but people have simply not taken it out on the journalist writing about it.
What is the only sensible thing a list of text items can do when you hit a key? Right, jump to the first item that starts with the letter you just hit. So even though there is no visual cue for that behaviour, it's the only sensible behaviour and thus it's intuitive. The textbox that apears is redundant (unless you can't remember what key you just pressed)
Not everything needs a visual cue to be intuitive.
The thing that might not be intuitive is the fact that a different textbox apears when you start with a /
Really? I thought it was very intuitive... If I get hit with a list I always just start typing to find what I want and I'm always very pissed when the list doesn't support type-to-find.
Yes, stardict has to be running (it minimises itself to the notification area) as there is no central broker yet for things like this. It doesn't have to modify the OS, I suppose it just listens for selection changes (just selecting something in X copies it to the "clipboard")
I guess it's fairly trivial to make a little program that listens for selection changes but that doesn't do a dictionary search but pops up a little menu so you can select what to do. Add an API for other programs to register themselves with this and you've got what you want.
You can do that in Linux as well. Stardict is an example. You can select any text anywhere, even in a terminal, and stardict will pop-up the dictionary lookup for the selected word. Creating a broker that will ask what to do with the selected text is just one step further.
That would be nice, but unfortunately, there is no desktop environment that does this, so it's not a specific Gnome problem.
Any application that displays a list of files should allow me to double click on a file (or press "carriage return" or enter) and launch the default application associated with that file.
Work on a file, want export it to another format... file dialog pops up, select the filename that you previously used for export and hit enter... I would expect my new version of the file I'm working on to overwrite the old existing file, not for the system to open the old file. Enter should allways be "Do whatever this dialog is meant for, with the selected file". If the dialog is for selecting a file for saving, enter should use the selected file for saving. Your suggestion would be highly unintuitive. Adding "open" to the right-click menu would be fine though.
Wherever there's a right mouse button menu this should also be available by pressing the right mouse button on the keyboard.
KEYboad... MOUSE button? My keyboards don't have mousebuttons... If yours does, and it doesn't work, it's probably because you never told X that that strange button on your keyboard is a mousebutton? Did you select the right keyboard in Preferences->Keyboard?
Personalised, "intelligent" menus are simply crap.
Gnome doesn't have intelligent menus. The "paste" option when you right-click on a file is not there, because it doesn't make sense to paste files on a file... The past option is there when you right-click on a directory!
If you don't like spatial mode nautilus, turn off spatial mode, or use something else, like mc in a terminal. Personally, it took me some time to get used to spatial mode, but I really like it now. In spatial mode each location has it's own window, only one window, and always the same window. In spatial mode you don't "browse to a directory in a file manager", no you "open the directory" and it opens in "it's window" in the same place on your monitor you left it last time. If you need a location often, you make a bookmark to it. You can't open a location twice, because that would just clutter the desktop. Instead it shows you the allready opened window. And thanks to GnomeVFS, a location doesn't need to be a directory on your computer, it could be anything.
If it costs $300 a month to get my downloads to me, the one that will have to pay that is me. Making the provider pay for the bandwith I use is just stupid, because my provider has no choice but to roll those costs back to me.
So it's only logical to bill ME for MY downloads and not the content provider. Doing it the other way around is insanity.
There are no root certificates used by TC hardware to verify the signatures of the BIOS and the boot image. There are root certificates, and they are used to verfiy signatures of everything that runs on your computer. If you don't give in to this verification, someone else will be able to deny you access to certain functions. (be it the latest Disney movie, or in the end even access to the internet)
What happens is that the BIOS, OS loader and potentially the OS itself send information to the TPM chip about the hashes of the software that is loading. And how does the TPM chip know that the information that the bios/os loader/os itself sends to it is actually the real information about the bios/os loader/os and not faked information from an unmodified version?
Also, they have a very short page on their Privacy Pilicy, that is good. However, it also has the following line in it:
We maintain strict internal policies against unauthorized disclosure or use of customer information.
So, they have policies about what they do with my personal information, but they don't tell me what those policies are... So maybe those policies say "We won't give your information to anyone", but maybe they include "we authorise ourselves to sell your information to whomever pays us most". There's no way to tell... That makes their privacy policy page Defective by Design. (or not, depending on who's side you're on)
This isn't about the player itself, it's about the codecs. If you as content provider want to distribute something to a large audience you have to choose a codec. So what are you going to choose? A. Real, that isn't installed on just about every computer on the planet, meaning a large part of you audience will have to search for a player and install it. Meaning most won't bother with your content cause it's too much of a hassle. B. WMV, wich directly plays on just about every machine without problems...
Most providers will go for B, don't you think?
This means that Microsoft is using it's dominance in the OS market to get a monopoly in the Codecs market... and that's illegal. That's what they've been convicted for, and they are now trying to get out of the punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
But if that is your explanation to where god came from, then why do you still need a god to explain the universe... If such a complex thing as a god can "grow" out of "nothing", then why can't this universe come in to existence in the same way? That would make god logically redundant, as you don't need god to explain the universe...
Who created your God?
If your God does not need a creator, why does the universe do need one?
God is redundant.
the Dutch company Open Office (http://openoffice.nl/) existed and registered the trademark for Open Office in the Benelux before sun renamed StarOffice to Open Office. Hence the OpenOffice.org
The funny thing with a vacuum is that the pressure of it can never go below 0 bar... So if you want a nice internal pressure of 1 bar your maximum pressure difference will be... 1 bar! Not really that drastic don't you think?
They will be late to market. It takes a lot of time to copy and reprint a book that you bought in a store. So the original publisher has that set time to ask for a high price. Once that time is over the original publisher will probably still make more money then copycats because of brand loyalty. Read http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual /against.htm for a nice discussion about it.
True, without copyright anyone can take your "GPLed" code and use it in their commercial product. But once someone buys that product, that person can give you and everyone else a copy.
You then have a binary, and part of the source for that binary (the bit you made). So I guess we would then quickly see reverse compilers that can use partly available source to get all sorts of useful information from binaries.
If the commercial programmer changed so much that the binary is unrecognisable he would lose the advantage of using your code, as he would then have to spend a lot of time maintaining his copy.
So in the end I don't think it would be that much of a problem.
Sure, but without copyright only one person would need to buy MS's version and redistribute it and we all would be able to use it. Microsoft would have to change it's business model.
It's because the salvia can't get inside the tooth, where your pain is. You should try drilling a hole in it, so the salvia can reach the pain...
So the bottom half would be the same for everybody, a completely empty sheet, maybe with some markers on them for lining up the sheets.
It would just become very important to destroy the correct half, or everybody could see your vote. And you know people are going to mess that up
You want to list the candidates on the wall, with numbers, then on the ballot link the number to another number, and list those last ones in the holes?
That's a mistake waiting to happen, lots of people are not very good with numbers. If you don't bring in that second set of numbers, one of the two halves will be the same for everybody. If you print the numbers next to the holes all bottom halves would be the same, if you print the numbers in the holes, the top-halfs would be the same.
But if you would do that, then any variation in bottom-halves would be meaningless, because the name would be listed next to the hole, so the top-half would determine which hole to mark.
Unless you then used the top-half to link those numbers to letter combinations, all top-halfs would be the same...
So I guess with 275 candidates we'd just have really big ballots
Ehm, Maybe I don't understand it correctly, but from the PDF http://punchscan.org/papers/popoveniuc_hosp_punch
A.3 The candidates ask to see some of the transformations from the original ballots to the intermediary
forms, and some of the transformation from the intermediary form to the clear form.
So you don't open both the left and right side of one vote, you open either the left OR the right side of one vote, including the left or right mapping table. You can't open up both of those for one vote, because then you could identify the voter. You have to open up 50% of those mapping tables to see they are correct, or you could mess with the mapping tables.
But I now understand you open up (randomly) the left or right side AFTER the total is counted, so after any fraud was committed.
Offcourse this has to be done truely random... All sides supply a list numbers containing 50% of all ballots, if an even number of sides picked a number, it's left, if an odd number of sides picked it it's right?
Yep, seems like a pretty fraud-proof system!
Sure, by opening up the right side of 50% of all votes, and the left side of the other 50% you can verify that the tables are indeed correct. But that still does not mean they are counted correctly. (although if you take a properly random 50%, the totals of that check should match the grand total pretty closely)
Because those tables have a published signature, they can't be changed anymore, so I guess that final count is the only place that could be used for fraud. But since that final count is a very simple straightforward operation it could be done several times, on different hardware, with no writable media installed at all (to avoid stealing of the data)
Though I do wonder what the ballot would look like with the Dutch elections with 275 persons to choose from...
What about the machine that reads the mapping table and the votes table and calculates the totals? How is that secured?
I can imagine this step being done several times, with each time another parties supplying the "machine" and yet another operating it...
They still fail to account for the fact that the only thing that does the counting is the computer. Computers are programmed by humans. Humans with an interest in commiting fraud.
The only way to check that the computer did not change the order of YOUR ballot AFTER you voted is by publishing the database and checking the actually USED ballots instead of the unused ones.
The database can match your ballot-id to your vote so that can not be published.
Computers can not be trusted. Any voting scheme that has a step that is only done in the computer is therefore flawed untill a way is invented that allows us to verify the software that is actually running on the computer, while it is running.
Paper ballots CAN be counted by hand. They can be counted by an automatic counting machine, but the still CAN be counted by hand... As a check...
I read the paper. Unless the configuration of ALL the ballots is printed on paper before the election and the check is done against that printout, it is again a problem of trusting the one person who compiled the sourcecode of the machine... As long as there is no way to verify the code that is running on the machine, any step that is pure electronic is a risk.
And the check only really works is that entire 50% of all ballots is actually checked. Against a paper version, as we still don't trust computers.
And if all ballots are printed, that printout can be used to check who you voted for... Or the electronic database can be stolen, to check who you voted for...
A journalist being in danger because of what he writes is a bad situation regarless of the group that is threathening him.
That said, there are lots of minorities in the Netherlands, and plenty of controversion, but people have simply not taken it out on the journalist writing about it.
What is the only sensible thing a list of text items can do when you hit a key? Right, jump to the first item that starts with the letter you just hit. So even though there is no visual cue for that behaviour, it's the only sensible behaviour and thus it's intuitive. The textbox that apears is redundant (unless you can't remember what key you just pressed)
Not everything needs a visual cue to be intuitive.
The thing that might not be intuitive is the fact that a different textbox apears when you start with a /
Really? I thought it was very intuitive... If I get hit with a list I always just start typing to find what I want and I'm always very pissed when the list doesn't support type-to-find.
Yes, stardict has to be running (it minimises itself to the notification area) as there is no central broker yet for things like this.
It doesn't have to modify the OS, I suppose it just listens for selection changes (just selecting something in X copies it to the "clipboard")
I guess it's fairly trivial to make a little program that listens for selection changes but that doesn't do a dictionary search but pops up a little menu so you can select what to do. Add an API for other programs to register themselves with this and you've got what you want.
What other entries do you get?
You can do that in Linux as well. Stardict is an example. You can select any text anywhere, even in a terminal, and stardict will pop-up the dictionary lookup for the selected word.
Creating a broker that will ask what to do with the selected text is just one step further.
That would be nice, but unfortunately, there is no desktop environment that does this, so it's not a specific Gnome problem.
Work on a file, want export it to another format... file dialog pops up, select the filename that you previously used for export and hit enter... I would expect my new version of the file I'm working on to overwrite the old existing file, not for the system to open the old file. Enter should allways be "Do whatever this dialog is meant for, with the selected file". If the dialog is for selecting a file for saving, enter should use the selected file for saving. Your suggestion would be highly unintuitive. Adding "open" to the right-click menu would be fine though.
KEYboad... MOUSE button? My keyboards don't have mousebuttons... If yours does, and it doesn't work, it's probably because you never told X that that strange button on your keyboard is a mousebutton? Did you select the right keyboard in Preferences->Keyboard?
Gnome doesn't have intelligent menus. The "paste" option when you right-click on a file is not there, because it doesn't make sense to paste files on a file... The past option is there when you right-click on a directory!
If you don't like spatial mode nautilus, turn off spatial mode, or use something else, like mc in a terminal. Personally, it took me some time to get used to spatial mode, but I really like it now. In spatial mode each location has it's own window, only one window, and always the same window. In spatial mode you don't "browse to a directory in a file manager", no you "open the directory" and it opens in "it's window" in the same place on your monitor you left it last time. If you need a location often, you make a bookmark to it. You can't open a location twice, because that would just clutter the desktop. Instead it shows you the allready opened window.
And thanks to GnomeVFS, a location doesn't need to be a directory on your computer, it could be anything.
If it costs $300 a month to get my downloads to me, the one that will have to pay that is me.
Making the provider pay for the bandwith I use is just stupid, because my provider has no choice but to roll those costs back to me.
So it's only logical to bill ME for MY downloads and not the content provider.
Doing it the other way around is insanity.
There are no root certificates used by TC hardware to verify the signatures of the BIOS and the boot image.
There are root certificates, and they are used to verfiy signatures of everything that runs on your computer. If you don't give in to this verification, someone else will be able to deny you access to certain functions. (be it the latest Disney movie, or in the end even access to the internet)
What happens is that the BIOS, OS loader and potentially the OS itself send information to the TPM chip about the hashes of the software that is loading.
And how does the TPM chip know that the information that the bios/os loader/os itself sends to it is actually the real information about the bios/os loader/os and not faked information from an unmodified version?
So, they have policies about what they do with my personal information, but they don't tell me what those policies are... So maybe those policies say "We won't give your information to anyone", but maybe they include "we authorise ourselves to sell your information to whomever pays us most".
There's no way to tell... That makes their privacy policy page Defective by Design. (or not, depending on who's side you're on)
This isn't about the player itself, it's about the codecs.
If you as content provider want to distribute something to a large audience you have to choose a codec. So what are you going to choose?
A. Real, that isn't installed on just about every computer on the planet, meaning a large part of you audience will have to search for a player and install it. Meaning most won't bother with your content cause it's too much of a hassle.
B. WMV, wich directly plays on just about every machine without problems...
Most providers will go for B, don't you think?
This means that Microsoft is using it's dominance in the OS market to get a monopoly in the Codecs market... and that's illegal. That's what they've been convicted for, and they are now trying to get out of the punishment.