And how many voters or voting officials will be able to verify the digital signature of the binary that the voting machines run (which would potentially thwart trojan replacement of compiled code with different binaries)?
Ken Thomson proved this won't help, while I don't disagree with your sentiment, remember that all the open source in the world can still be circumvented by a compiler that you didn't write...
I bought one for my girlfriend, cause I got regular for myself for Christmas, if I had it to do over I would get a mini for myself..
Reasons: 1. I have more music than even the biggest iPod can hold (yes it is legal), therefore I don't have the option to always have all of my music with me.
2. If I can't have all of it, what is the difference between 4 gigs and 15? It takes almost no time to resynchronize the ipod, and with smart playlists my favorites are always there, as are a wide range of random stuff.
3. The physical design. Go play with a mini, once I did that I started making up rationalizations like those above. While the regular ipod is small if you have it in your pants pocket, you notice it. The mini you do not.
4. Since I wanted it already and had already rationalized it as being equivalent (or better than a regular ipod) I actually saved $50.
The entire root of the problem is that lawyers have been allowed to make law.
Yeah, and the entire root of the problem with all the bad software out there is that software engineers have been allowed to make software.
Why is it that we moan all day long about engineering decisions being made by people other than engineers, but we don't want the experts in the fields of law to make legal decisions.
This issue is going to occur any time you are dealing with intellectual property type issues.
In the construction business, most aspects of a job are: 1. Not new -- jobs like this have been done before. 2. Require tangible materials -- 60 tons of concrete have the same basic price all the time. And it will be a high part of the total bill. 3. Regulated and Standardized -- Architects, Structural Engineers, and even contractors work within a framework of legal, union, or standardizing body rules.
So these three factors serve to level the playing field when it comes to bids. If someone has a substantially lower bid, than they are either skimping on the material, or the labor, both of which can be extremely problematic for mission critical projects and may even land the owner in legal trouble (i.e. you built a highway bridge using a guy who was half the price, and you are surprised it gaveway killing innocent civilians, to the slammer with you).
Software development for the most part is not bound by these three principles. Every project (including simple database applications) have specificities and subtleties that can have long ranging immplications for budgets and timelines. Material costs are negligible regardless of who gets the bid, and software development is only regulated and standardized in a few industries.
This leaves potential customers with a bewildering array of bid timelines and budgets. If they have experience in other bidding areas they may follow the rule of thumb that low bids should be watched very carefully. Now we all know that this is mostly untrue in software development but how can you prove it? ROI with software is a tricky subject at best, as is performance appraisal. In the end, as with most business decisions it all comes down to sales.
I'm sick of seeing all this anti-american activity in the US government.
In the past 2 months we've seen
Mass round-ups by federal agents, hidden in secrecy and unwilling to tell even how many have been nabbed.
The Congress of the United States cowed into passing a resolution that allows the president to wage war without any more congressional oversite.
The CIA bragging about anti-terrorist activities in Albania where they were only party to torturing 1 wrong person out of 6 people nabbed.
Federal agents given power to enter your home without ever letting you know.
A military campaign where we are proud of the fact that we are supported by China, Pakistan, and an alliance of warlords in Afghanistan.
Implementing racial profiling as anti-terrorist mechanism while the US justice department admits that they believe the most recent terrorist attacks (antrhax in the mail) are from home grown terrorists.
I don't care if you have a flag decal on your car, if you believe that the United States stands for censorship, bullying, military tribunals, and people being dragged away secretly because of their religious beliefs, you are no patriot, you are a traitor.
Your fitness function could handle the "teacher" aspects as well, just because a human didn't introduce you to the new hot track, doesn't mean you won't like it. In fact, the fitness function given enough time and iterations, could get very good at figuring out what the next best track is going to be.
A DJ has to go to the record store, buy the records he can afford (or be given free), go home, listen to the records (in real time), decide if they are going to be a "hit", figure out if they are going to be a big enough "hit" to warrant changing around existing sets, etc.
A computer could download the files, assign them rateings based on previous patterns, filter ratings, add to playlists, try out new play lists based on past patterns etc. In time the computer with the right data/fitness function could become extremely good at "teaching, tour guiding."
Seems like a good tool for human DJ's actually, they can narrow down the list of records much quicker, and maybe find some tracks they never would.
No try brewing beer! Seriously, go now to a homebrew supply place, get into brewing it will save you.
It saves me routinly.
Re:Globalisation for Greed
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
As a poster noted below, the $43 million was given in aid (including food and medicine) through the UN and through non-governmental organizations. The US government did not write a $43 million check paid to the order of "The Taliban, Afghanistan."
I never meant to imply that it wasn't food that we sent. I meant to imply that our reported reason for giving the aid was to fight the war on drugs.
My post was meant to question our motives, and whether or not they are well placed.
The problem is that by rejecting all three of those options, you reject every option. Those three options basically boil down to the three stances we could take: Friendly (send aid), Neutral (ignore), or Hostile (attack).
I didn't reject all three options I said that I didn't know what the correct option is, and that these aren't good. I am not an expert in the area of foreign diplomacy, or foreign aid. I do have a suspision that starting with a "Hostile" response to the recent terrorist attacks is self-defeating and it seems it only takes us down a path of more terrorist attacks, not less.
Yes, but only one of those places hosts a group that murdered 5000 US civilians.
This is categorically untrue. The state dept. lists Sudan as a primary location of the al 'Qaeda network. Cnn notes "Bin Laden is a totally multinational enterprise, said terrorism analyst Magnus Ransdorp. He has tentacles and followers all around the world."
The fbi on their most wanted terrorist lists Lebannon and Pakistan as homes to high level terrorists.
While it is naive to think that Afghanistan is not a good place to go looking for terrorists bases, it is the lack of stability, continuious warfare, and natural landscape that make it good places for bases. There are many other places that have these same traits that will become hotbeds for terrorism training when Afghanistan is no longer plausible.
Re:Globalisation for Greed
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that "humanitarian aid" had nothing to do with starving people. It had to do with the war on drugs. We gave a repressive regime 43 million dollars to do with what they will, because they said they would get rid of poppies, the main crop of the average Afghani.
As far as your three choices none of them are good. I'm not smart enough to figure out what the cure all solution is. I'm more concerned with our motives. The policy we are trying now (toppling the Taliban) does nothing for "the people of Afghanistan who are STARVING TO DEATH", we can either topple the regime and run like we did last time, leaving civil war, and power to he who has the most guns (the Northern Alliance we are so happy to support now, is an Alliance of warlords, one of whom ran an extremely brutal Soviet regime, these guys really enjoyed rounding women up in groups and raping them). We can stay and prop up our own puppet (that's worked well for us in the past, check out Vietnam, Central America, the Phillipines). Regardless, it's not going to help "the people of Afghanistan who are STARVING TO DEATH" because they are starving due to a lack of infastructure, poor harvests, and 30 years of continued warfare. How a few more years of us bombing them will help I don't know.
Besides all that, why are we targeting Afghanistan? There are lots of other places where people are starving. There are lots of other places that support terrorists (like our new favorite ally Pakistan). Not one of the hijackers was Afghani, and when we do rid Afghanistan of terrosist bases and camps (if we can) they will continue to sprout up elsewhere, because there will be just as many, if not more, people willing to do atrocious things to the United States. What does attacking Afghanistan, particularly targetting the Taliban over the Northern Alliance, gain us long term? Why are we not putting pressure on Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria, the countries that are providing the leadership and capitol for these terrorist groups?
These are the things that bother me most about our current policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Ken Thomson proved this won't help, while I don't disagree with your sentiment, remember that all the open source in the world can still be circumvented by a compiler that you didn't write...
I bought one for my girlfriend, cause I got regular for myself for Christmas, if I had it to do over I would get a mini for myself..
Reasons:
1. I have more music than even the biggest iPod can hold (yes it is legal), therefore I don't have the option to always have all of my music with me.
2. If I can't have all of it, what is the difference between 4 gigs and 15? It takes almost no time to resynchronize the ipod, and with smart playlists my favorites are always there, as are a wide range of random stuff.
3. The physical design. Go play with a mini, once I did that I started making up rationalizations like those above. While the regular ipod is small if you have it in your pants pocket, you notice it. The mini you do not.
4. Since I wanted it already and had already rationalized it as being equivalent (or better than a regular ipod) I actually saved $50.
This issue is going to occur any time you are dealing with intellectual property type issues.
In the construction business, most aspects of a job are:
1. Not new -- jobs like this have been done before.
2. Require tangible materials -- 60 tons of concrete have the same basic price all the time. And it will be a high part of the total bill.
3. Regulated and Standardized -- Architects, Structural Engineers, and even contractors work within a framework of legal, union, or standardizing body rules.
So these three factors serve to level the playing field when it comes to bids. If someone has a substantially lower bid, than they are either skimping on the material, or the labor, both of which can be extremely problematic for mission critical projects and may even land the owner in legal trouble (i.e. you built a highway bridge using a guy who was half the price, and you are surprised it gaveway killing innocent civilians, to the slammer with you).
Software development for the most part is not bound by these three principles. Every project (including simple database applications) have specificities and subtleties that can have long ranging immplications for budgets and timelines. Material costs are negligible regardless of who gets the bid, and software development is only regulated and standardized in a few industries.
This leaves potential customers with a bewildering array of bid timelines and budgets. If they have experience in other bidding areas they may follow the rule of thumb that low bids should be watched very carefully. Now we all know that this is mostly untrue in software development but how can you prove it? ROI with software is a tricky subject at best, as is performance appraisal. In the end, as with most business decisions it all comes down to sales.
In the past 2 months we've seen
I don't care if you have a flag decal on your car, if you believe that the United States stands for censorship, bullying, military tribunals, and people being dragged away secretly because of their religious beliefs, you are no patriot, you are a traitor.
No kidding!
Your fitness function could handle the "teacher" aspects as well, just because a human didn't introduce you to the new hot track, doesn't mean you won't like it. In fact, the fitness function given enough time and iterations, could get very good at figuring out what the next best track is going to be.
A DJ has to go to the record store, buy the records he can afford (or be given free), go home, listen to the records (in real time), decide if they are going to be a "hit", figure out if they are going to be a big enough "hit" to warrant changing around existing sets, etc.
A computer could download the files, assign them rateings based on previous patterns, filter ratings, add to playlists, try out new play lists based on past patterns etc. In time the computer with the right data/fitness function could become extremely good at "teaching, tour guiding."
Seems like a good tool for human DJ's actually, they can narrow down the list of records much quicker, and maybe find some tracks they never would.
No try brewing beer! Seriously, go now to a homebrew supply place, get into brewing it will save you.
It saves me routinly.
As a poster noted below, the $43 million was given in aid (including food and medicine) through the UN and through non-governmental organizations. The US government did not write a $43 million check paid to the order of "The Taliban, Afghanistan."
I never meant to imply that it wasn't food that we sent. I meant to imply that our reported reason for giving the aid was to fight the war on drugs.
My post was meant to question our motives, and whether or not they are well placed.
The problem is that by rejecting all three of those options, you reject every option. Those three options basically boil down to the three stances we could take: Friendly (send aid), Neutral (ignore), or Hostile (attack).
I didn't reject all three options I said that I didn't know what the correct option is, and that these aren't good. I am not an expert in the area of foreign diplomacy, or foreign aid. I do have a suspision that starting with a "Hostile" response to the recent terrorist attacks is self-defeating and it seems it only takes us down a path of more terrorist attacks, not less.
Yes, but only one of those places hosts a group that murdered 5000 US civilians.
This is categorically untrue. The state dept. lists Sudan as a primary location of the al 'Qaeda network. Cnn notes "Bin Laden is a totally multinational enterprise, said terrorism analyst Magnus Ransdorp. He has tentacles and followers all around the world." The fbi on their most wanted terrorist lists Lebannon and Pakistan as homes to high level terrorists.
While it is naive to think that Afghanistan is not a good place to go looking for terrorists bases, it is the lack of stability, continuious warfare, and natural landscape that make it good places for bases. There are many other places that have these same traits that will become hotbeds for terrorism training when Afghanistan is no longer plausible.
Actually, that "humanitarian aid" had nothing to do with starving people. It had to do with the war on drugs. We gave a repressive regime 43 million dollars to do with what they will, because they said they would get rid of poppies, the main crop of the average Afghani.
As far as your three choices none of them are good. I'm not smart enough to figure out what the cure all solution is. I'm more concerned with our motives. The policy we are trying now (toppling the Taliban) does nothing for "the people of Afghanistan who are STARVING TO DEATH", we can either topple the regime and run like we did last time, leaving civil war, and power to he who has the most guns (the Northern Alliance we are so happy to support now, is an Alliance of warlords, one of whom ran an extremely brutal Soviet regime, these guys really enjoyed rounding women up in groups and raping them). We can stay and prop up our own puppet (that's worked well for us in the past, check out Vietnam, Central America, the Phillipines). Regardless, it's not going to help "the people of Afghanistan who are STARVING TO DEATH" because they are starving due to a lack of infastructure, poor harvests, and 30 years of continued warfare. How a few more years of us bombing them will help I don't know.
Besides all that, why are we targeting Afghanistan? There are lots of other places where people are starving. There are lots of other places that support terrorists (like our new favorite ally Pakistan). Not one of the hijackers was Afghani, and when we do rid Afghanistan of terrosist bases and camps (if we can) they will continue to sprout up elsewhere, because there will be just as many, if not more, people willing to do atrocious things to the United States. What does attacking Afghanistan, particularly targetting the Taliban over the Northern Alliance, gain us long term? Why are we not putting pressure on Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria, the countries that are providing the leadership and capitol for these terrorist groups?
These are the things that bother me most about our current policies.