Except that this is not a retrial, but an appeals case. A retrial in Norway (and most of Europe) is a completely separate concept. First of all, in an appeals case the trial does not start from scratch - the court will take into account all parts of previously presented evidence and decisions by the lower court that aren't disputed by the parties, and do not generally like to change anything where they don't believe lower court has clearly made a mistake.
Since the Norwegian legal system only has three levels, and appeals will only rarely be heard by the supreme court (the third level) and then normally only regarding matters of law, the burden isn't that great.
Add to that that Norway has a public defender system where private practising attorneys take on cases at the governments cost if you can't afford an attorney (as opposed to having dedicated, underpaid public defenders), AND that it is fairly easy to get awarded damages if you are aquitted and the court finds that the government prosecuted you without good reason, and you have a reasonable compromise.
As an example regarding the public defender system, I was refusing military service (which is mandatory in Norway) years ago. The first step then is for them to get the police to take a statement and ask you to confirm whether or not you will accept the decision from the Department of Justice regarding whether or not to transfer you to civil service. I refused.
The next step then is to ask the court to confirm the decision of the Department of Justice. In that case, I was given a partner in one of Norways most well known and prestigious law firms, with 30 years experience in defending people refusing military service, as my public defender, cost free. (I didn't really need him though - I got the court to throw the case out on a formality on my own accord, but he was a cool guy to talk to anyway:) )
Actually twice, counting the supreme court. But in an appeal to the supreme court the facts of the case as established by the lower courts will usually not be touched, and the only thing at issue will usually be the application of law.
Actually most DO let bot sides appeal to a higher court. Applying double jeopardy to appeals is something limited to a relatively small number of countries, mostly with legal systems based in common law.
Actually most civilized countries, regardless of your definition, does NOT have protection against appeals to a higher court, only against retrial. You have the concept of double jeopardy in Norway as well, but applied to retrials not appeals, as it is throughout most of Europe, and in fact in most countries with a legal system not originating in from English common law.
They could have been holding people responsible for genocide and the treatment would still not be justified.
While Bush may not make use of it, through the laws passed after 9/11 combined with the legal precendent that Guantanamo Bay is not subject to US law, he has effectively created a situation where government agencies can seize anyone they want, prevent them access to lawyers, and move them to a location where they have no rights and no legal protection whatsoever.
Bush might not make full use of them, but having established the situation, a future president, or even lower level government officials can, giving a very strong incentive for people with aspirations to power for seeking out the "right" positions.
If not fascist by itself, it's certainly a gift package to anyone who wish to further limit peoples freedom.
I'm pretty sure it's a statement about 95% of the population. A few years ago I was discussing writing a dating chatterbot for irc with a guy I knew. We were both heavy irc'ers at the time, and used irc primarily to meet women (the shocking this is it worked very well) and we were struck by how easy and predictable it was - if what you were after were getting girls contact details what worked best was sticking to a few successful patterns, and just moving on if you didn't get anywhere (it's not as if I at the time was looking for a lasting relationship;) )
So at some point I set up a few _really_ simple bots.
The first one only responded with the same line over and over again whenever it was msg'd. At least on person kept on messaging it regularly over a period of half an hour, getting more and more upset that it kept on saying the same thing, and after a while getting pissed off that it kept answering even when he asked it to shut up:)
The second one just cycled through 4-5 canned responses and started over. People kept talking to it, and pointing out that it had said the same things before, and started giving details about themselves.
The third one looked for a trigger word in the message it got, and chose a sequence of messages based on that, and then cycled through the sequence. If no trigger word was present, it would choose a random sequence. If a trigger word for a different sequence occured while cycling through a sequence, it would switch sequences.
All in all it had a grand total of 20-25 messages.
The record conversation (based on a run of a couple of days) was one and a half hours... At that point I became disillusioned and dropped the whole thing. I still think that a few weeks of work and I'd easily have a chatterbot capable of picking up real women and getting their phone numbers in droves...
Now, imagine how long people will speak to Eliza or a chatterbot that someone actually make an effort on.
The reason bots fail the Turing test is because the judges know there's a chance they are talking to a machine. In chat rooms, most users are clueless that a bot could be capable of actually engaging them in something that seems like a conversation, and most people make so many mistakes, evade questions, give weird answers, have problems with the language etc., that people are VERY forgiving of the answers they get.
From watching one of the girls I met on IRC years ago chatting, I first realized why that is so: The typical "normal" user often follow conversations very superficially. They switch a lot between different conversations, but often seem not to put any effort in keeping track of the overall flow of a specific conversation. So if your bot get into trouble, it can get itself right out of trouble by simply ignoring "difficult" messages and answering something completely unrelated and randomly changing subjects and a large part of the people it talks to won't react at all, because they do the same thing themselves all the time.
Which still doesn't work. People here can quote the LoTR all they want, but fact is Ian Holm is well beyond 70, and human. Bilbo in the Hobbit was around 50. Frodo was around 50 when he left the shire in FoTR. So either Bilbo looked really old for his age to start with, or Frodo looked ridiculously young for his age, or you should consider the comments about him looking as if he hasn't aged a bit as pure pleasanteries (as the introductory scenes of young Bilbo hints at - Bilbo may not have aged as much as he ought to for his age, but he definitively looks younger there than what he does when Gandalf arrives for the great party)
Uhm, looking 60-80 years younger? The Hobbit starts in III 2941, LoTR starts in III 3001, and Frodo left the shire in III 3018. He was supposed to be around 50 in the Hobbit (and 111 at the great party in FoTR), in other words approximately as old as Frodo was when he left the shire. Do you really think Ian Holm could pull off looking as youtful as Elijah Wood and the rest of his generation of hobbits did in LoTR?
Christopher Lee and Ian McKellen's looks fit their characters. Ian Holm's does not fit the role of a character less than half the age of what he played.
From enclopedia of Arda: "To cover his departure, Frodo sold Bag End to Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and bought a small house at Crickhollow in Buckland, the region where he had been brought up. He departed from Hobbiton with Peregrin Took and Sam Gamgee on 23 September 3018, the day after his fiftieth birthday."
So unless they're wrong (I'm far from any copy of the book at the moment), Elijah did indeed play a 50 year old hobbit in LoTR (though he would've been in his 30's at the time of the great party).
Define travel in time. If you travel at close to light speed relative to another object, then yes you will age slower than people on that other object. But you are still passing through every intermediate time step. You are not "skipping" any time. So you can experience time periods in the other objects timeline that you would be unable to experience if you'd remained stationary relative to the other object.
But is that time travel?
Even so, because the above is a well founded effect of relativity, we can relatively safely assume that any discussion about the merits of time travel center around either travelling forward in time without near light speeds and/or the ability to travel backwards in time.
Re:Am not sure 3-click rule was really *debunked*
on
Web 'Rules' Changing?
·
· Score: 1
Well, it shows that for this particular user population, people are persistent AND they aren't any more likely to be dissatisfied if they need a lot of clicks than they are if they could complete their task in few.
However, there is one big red flag with this article: It doesn't describe the user population. The 3-click rule is VITAL when you are dealing with certain kinds of user populations, and irellevant for others. If you're trying to make a sale of a new type of product for instance, you can expect that 1) most people will fall of before clicking anywhere, 2) most people that click once will only click again if you manage to give a very effective sales pitch, and 3) a large part of people will fall of during the sign up process if it looks to complicated and they weren't completely sold on the product when they reach it.
But for a regular user of a site, it might not make a difference if they need 3 or 25 clicks to reach something. They might be happily exploring the site and feel they are learning something that will be useful next time.
If you don't take into account your audience you're screwed regardless of how few clicks the user needs to get somewhere.
Let me see... The following is a short summary of COMPANIES, foundations, universities and government institutions that have copyright notices in the kernel source currently installed on my machine (by no means complete):
Redhat, IBM, AT&T, Stelias Computing Inc., Turbolinux Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Tacit Networks Inc, Mountain View Data Inc., Cluster File Systems Inc., Axis Communications AB, Transmeta Corporation, Caldera Deutschland GmbH (now SCO), Procom Technology Inc., Conectiva Inc. Qualcomm Inc., Montavista Software Inc., Madge Networks Ltd., Fore Systems Inc., ATecoM GmbH, Sun Microsystems, Telford Tools Inc., Free Software Foundation, ITConsult-Pro Co., Farsite Communications Ltd., Sangoma Technologies Inc., Intel Corporation, SysKonnect, United States Government, Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd., Digital Equipment Corporation (now HP), Silicon Graphics Inc. (now SGI), Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation, PJD Weichmann & SWS Bern, Digi International, D-Link Corporation, DAVICOM Semiconductor Inc., MIPS Technologies Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc., RedCreek Communications Inc.Texas Instruments, University of California, Inside Out Networks Inc., Innosys Inc., Keyspan, Precision Insigth Inc., Va Linux Systems Inc, Broadcom, Hewlett Packard, ARM Ltd., The Victoria University of Manchester, SpellCaster Telecommunications Inc., Eicon Technology Corporation, Cytronics & Melware, QLogic, Perceptive Solutions, Mylex Corporation, LSI Logic Corporation, Compaq Computer Corporation (now HP), Tekram Technology, Seagate, Adaptec Inc., Creative Labs Inc.... Ok, I'm bored now, so that's all I can be bothered entering. Try a "grep -r -i copyright." in your/usr/src/linux, and probably '(c)' as well.
Does that look like college kids to you?
Now, a lot of these companies are small, but quite a few of them are Fortune 500 companies too. There's your weight.
A lot of the above companies own copyrights on specific drivers only, so they may or may not apply in specific configurations, but many key contributors, such as IBM, SGI, Redhat, HP, Novell (SuSE) have their stuff all over the place in the kernel, and have money to go after you when it's their interest to protect their IP.
You can ignore the GPL, but it wouldn't help you. GPL grants you rights you DON'T have by default under copyright law. If you pretend the GPL doesn't exist you DON'T have a right to distribute the work.
The GPL is setting out a set of additional rights that the copyright holders are granting you if you agree to abide by certain rules. If you don't agree to abide by the GPL you can still use the product, but copyright law prevents you from legally distributing it.
Not many companies has that kind of money in cash or cash equivalents, because most established companies don't hoard - they distribute dividends to their shareholders. So I'd guess relatively few companies could afford it without seriously eating into their cash reserves.
The moose story reminds me of an incident in Sweden a few years back, when a flock of geese had been feeding of fermented berries and were completely drunk when they continued their flight, with the result that local police had to warn drivers of falling geese over several heavily trafficked roads. It's not unusual for birds to overeat on berries and get unstable because of the extra weight, so the alcohol level needed to screw them up probably wasn't very high, but it was a pretty unusual incident...
Another thing to be aware of with disk failures: If at all possible USE DISKS FROM DIFFERENT PRODUCTION BATCHES, or even mix disks from different manufacturers. A previous company I worked for had ALL the disks from a specific batch of IBM drives it used in a RAID setup fail one after the other within a short period of time. Now, IBM exchanged them quickly, no questions asked, but that didn't exactly help us when we kept on going days were we were vulnerable because we were one disk down or when IO capacity was shot to hell because the RAID kept on rebuilding the RAID with a replaced disk.
Average failure rates don't mean a thing until you eliminate factors that could make the average higher for the specific equipment you are using.
Which is why all these companies go after the enterprise market, where all of the apps doesn't matter. There are millions of desktops out there that only need a word processor, or a spreadsheet, or a web browser to access some web enabled custom app.
Notice that nobody are talking about starting to preload Linux on millions and millions of consumer desktops, but about providing support programs for enterprise use.
But this IS an important foothold, because there are still millions of people out there that make their computer purchase decisions based on what they have to use at work.
They can just present the bill for changing master/slave into something else as a separate line item on the invoice and leak a copy to the newspapers. I'd love seeing them huge cost increases for IT spending to avoid industry standard terms.
Just imagine how they'd reacted to the Amiga chipsets... Of course some would probably think it was a victory for women that the chips were mostly named after women (Denise, Paula, Agnus, Lisa, perhaps more - I stopped following what happened to them around '91 or so), but considering the engineers were male it must of course be suspect. But imagine the response to poor Agnus, who in successive versions were called fat, super fat and obese....
Almost all modern "supercomputers" ARE clusters, and quite a lot of them ARE upgradable, and ARE sufficient for the needs they are intended for, and have plenty of reuse opportunities once they are done.
If you think they aren't making a revolution in science, try actually researching what these machines have been used for.
As for upgrade paths, look for instance to the recent announcements regarding SGI's single system image super computer sold to NASA, which started out at 128 CPU's was quickly upgraded to 256, and then again to 512.
The problem with loosely coupled clustering solutions is that for many problems it's incredibly hard to parallelise the software well enough without I/O eating up all your gains.
And if you don't realise who wants them to be smaller, you have never been involved with hosting a system of any size. Rack space is expensive, whether you rent it or operate it yourself.
So you do what business class and first class customers can get on some airlines now: You and your luggage is picked up in stretched car suitably equipped for you to work in, or for you to bring a business associate along in for a meeting or for you to hold a phone conference in. Instead of wasting the 1 hour, you work as normal.
You are checked in via priority checkin 30 minutes before departure. Yourluggage is checked in separately. You relax for 2.5 hours. Your luggage is picked up by the priority service, and taken through customs on your behalf (this would be one of the trickier things to handle) while you stroll through priority customs and immigration lanes, possibly aided by biometric registration
It's not as if they're aiming at the "low cost before everything" leisure traveller. At least not initially.
Most of the above are available on certain airlines today. Some of them offer you stuff like steaming your clothes while you take a shower after you arrive, or massage while waiting for the plane, included in your first class tickets. Simply because providing those services is so ridiculously cheap compared to the cost of those tickets.
Re:Heathrow Runway Layout Looks Compatible
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 1
But you miss the point. The reason they want to add yet another runway to Heathrow is that the current ones are running near full capacity. Setting aside take-off and landing slots to planes that would cover two runways would push Heathrows' capacity even further, which simply won't happen unless it's for planes with so massive capacity that the number of flights can be reduced.
That's going to be excessively hard, since it will have to compete with planes like the new Airbus which can take 555 passengers and use normal runways.
Or about 20 minutes by Heathrow Express... Similar amounts of time from Gatwick with Gatwick Express. But in general I agree with you, only it's not so much just the train times in to the centre, but further travelling from/to the train stations, walking to check in, the check in itself, walking to the gates.
I usually assume around 6 hours of travel when I visit Norway (where I'm from) from London (where I live), even though the flight is less than 2 hours, and I can get express trains to Heathrow and from Oslo airport.
That just plain doesn't make sense, since you won't know whether those voters looked at the receipt before leaving the booth. I certainly would, as I wouldn't like people to be able to look at the receipt from I left the booth until I deposited it.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the Norwegian legal system only has three levels, and appeals will only rarely be heard by the supreme court (the third level) and then normally only regarding matters of law, the burden isn't that great.
Add to that that Norway has a public defender system where private practising attorneys take on cases at the governments cost if you can't afford an attorney (as opposed to having dedicated, underpaid public defenders), AND that it is fairly easy to get awarded damages if you are aquitted and the court finds that the government prosecuted you without good reason, and you have a reasonable compromise.
As an example regarding the public defender system, I was refusing military service (which is mandatory in Norway) years ago. The first step then is for them to get the police to take a statement and ask you to confirm whether or not you will accept the decision from the Department of Justice regarding whether or not to transfer you to civil service. I refused.
The next step then is to ask the court to confirm the decision of the Department of Justice. In that case, I was given a partner in one of Norways most well known and prestigious law firms, with 30 years experience in defending people refusing military service, as my public defender, cost free. (I didn't really need him though - I got the court to throw the case out on a formality on my own accord, but he was a cool guy to talk to anyway :) )
Actually twice, counting the supreme court. But in an appeal to the supreme court the facts of the case as established by the lower courts will usually not be touched, and the only thing at issue will usually be the application of law.
Actually most DO let bot sides appeal to a higher court. Applying double jeopardy to appeals is something limited to a relatively small number of countries, mostly with legal systems based in common law.
Actually most civilized countries, regardless of your definition, does NOT have protection against appeals to a higher court, only against retrial. You have the concept of double jeopardy in Norway as well, but applied to retrials not appeals, as it is throughout most of Europe, and in fact in most countries with a legal system not originating in from English common law.
*cough* Innocent until proven guilty *cough... *cough* fair trial *cough* *cough*...
They could have been holding people responsible for genocide and the treatment would still not be justified.
While Bush may not make use of it, through the laws passed after 9/11 combined with the legal precendent that Guantanamo Bay is not subject to US law, he has effectively created a situation where government agencies can seize anyone they want, prevent them access to lawyers, and move them to a location where they have no rights and no legal protection whatsoever.
Bush might not make full use of them, but having established the situation, a future president, or even lower level government officials can, giving a very strong incentive for people with aspirations to power for seeking out the "right" positions.
If not fascist by itself, it's certainly a gift package to anyone who wish to further limit peoples freedom.
So at some point I set up a few _really_ simple bots.
The first one only responded with the same line over and over again whenever it was msg'd. At least on person kept on messaging it regularly over a period of half an hour, getting more and more upset that it kept on saying the same thing, and after a while getting pissed off that it kept answering even when he asked it to shut up :)
The second one just cycled through 4-5 canned responses and started over. People kept talking to it, and pointing out that it had said the same things before, and started giving details about themselves.
The third one looked for a trigger word in the message it got, and chose a sequence of messages based on that, and then cycled through the sequence. If no trigger word was present, it would choose a random sequence. If a trigger word for a different sequence occured while cycling through a sequence, it would switch sequences.
All in all it had a grand total of 20-25 messages.
The record conversation (based on a run of a couple of days) was one and a half hours... At that point I became disillusioned and dropped the whole thing. I still think that a few weeks of work and I'd easily have a chatterbot capable of picking up real women and getting their phone numbers in droves...
Now, imagine how long people will speak to Eliza or a chatterbot that someone actually make an effort on.
The reason bots fail the Turing test is because the judges know there's a chance they are talking to a machine. In chat rooms, most users are clueless that a bot could be capable of actually engaging them in something that seems like a conversation, and most people make so many mistakes, evade questions, give weird answers, have problems with the language etc., that people are VERY forgiving of the answers they get.
From watching one of the girls I met on IRC years ago chatting, I first realized why that is so: The typical "normal" user often follow conversations very superficially. They switch a lot between different conversations, but often seem not to put any effort in keeping track of the overall flow of a specific conversation. So if your bot get into trouble, it can get itself right out of trouble by simply ignoring "difficult" messages and answering something completely unrelated and randomly changing subjects and a large part of the people it talks to won't react at all, because they do the same thing themselves all the time.
Which still doesn't work. People here can quote the LoTR all they want, but fact is Ian Holm is well beyond 70, and human. Bilbo in the Hobbit was around 50. Frodo was around 50 when he left the shire in FoTR. So either Bilbo looked really old for his age to start with, or Frodo looked ridiculously young for his age, or you should consider the comments about him looking as if he hasn't aged a bit as pure pleasanteries (as the introductory scenes of young Bilbo hints at - Bilbo may not have aged as much as he ought to for his age, but he definitively looks younger there than what he does when Gandalf arrives for the great party)
Christopher Lee and Ian McKellen's looks fit their characters. Ian Holm's does not fit the role of a character less than half the age of what he played.
So unless they're wrong (I'm far from any copy of the book at the moment), Elijah did indeed play a 50 year old hobbit in LoTR (though he would've been in his 30's at the time of the great party).
But is that time travel?
Even so, because the above is a well founded effect of relativity, we can relatively safely assume that any discussion about the merits of time travel center around either travelling forward in time without near light speeds and/or the ability to travel backwards in time.
However, there is one big red flag with this article: It doesn't describe the user population. The 3-click rule is VITAL when you are dealing with certain kinds of user populations, and irellevant for others. If you're trying to make a sale of a new type of product for instance, you can expect that 1) most people will fall of before clicking anywhere, 2) most people that click once will only click again if you manage to give a very effective sales pitch, and 3) a large part of people will fall of during the sign up process if it looks to complicated and they weren't completely sold on the product when they reach it.
But for a regular user of a site, it might not make a difference if they need 3 or 25 clicks to reach something. They might be happily exploring the site and feel they are learning something that will be useful next time.
If you don't take into account your audience you're screwed regardless of how few clicks the user needs to get somewhere.
Redhat, IBM, AT&T, Stelias Computing Inc., Turbolinux Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Tacit Networks Inc, Mountain View Data Inc., Cluster File Systems Inc., Axis Communications AB, Transmeta Corporation, Caldera Deutschland GmbH (now SCO), Procom Technology Inc., Conectiva Inc. Qualcomm Inc., Montavista Software Inc., Madge Networks Ltd., Fore Systems Inc., ATecoM GmbH, Sun Microsystems, Telford Tools Inc., Free Software Foundation, ITConsult-Pro Co., Farsite Communications Ltd., Sangoma Technologies Inc., Intel Corporation, SysKonnect, United States Government, Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd., Digital Equipment Corporation (now HP), Silicon Graphics Inc. (now SGI), Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation, PJD Weichmann & SWS Bern, Digi International, D-Link Corporation, DAVICOM Semiconductor Inc., MIPS Technologies Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc., RedCreek Communications Inc.Texas Instruments, University of California, Inside Out Networks Inc., Innosys Inc., Keyspan, Precision Insigth Inc., Va Linux Systems Inc, Broadcom, Hewlett Packard, ARM Ltd., The Victoria University of Manchester, SpellCaster Telecommunications Inc., Eicon Technology Corporation, Cytronics & Melware, QLogic, Perceptive Solutions, Mylex Corporation, LSI Logic Corporation, Compaq Computer Corporation (now HP), Tekram Technology, Seagate, Adaptec Inc., Creative Labs Inc.... Ok, I'm bored now, so that's all I can be bothered entering. Try a "grep -r -i copyright ." in your /usr/src/linux, and probably '(c)' as well.
Does that look like college kids to you?
Now, a lot of these companies are small, but quite a few of them are Fortune 500 companies too. There's your weight.
A lot of the above companies own copyrights on specific drivers only, so they may or may not apply in specific configurations, but many key contributors, such as IBM, SGI, Redhat, HP, Novell (SuSE) have their stuff all over the place in the kernel, and have money to go after you when it's their interest to protect their IP.
The GPL is setting out a set of additional rights that the copyright holders are granting you if you agree to abide by certain rules. If you don't agree to abide by the GPL you can still use the product, but copyright law prevents you from legally distributing it.
Not many companies has that kind of money in cash or cash equivalents, because most established companies don't hoard - they distribute dividends to their shareholders. So I'd guess relatively few companies could afford it without seriously eating into their cash reserves.
The moose story reminds me of an incident in Sweden a few years back, when a flock of geese had been feeding of fermented berries and were completely drunk when they continued their flight, with the result that local police had to warn drivers of falling geese over several heavily trafficked roads. It's not unusual for birds to overeat on berries and get unstable because of the extra weight, so the alcohol level needed to screw them up probably wasn't very high, but it was a pretty unusual incident...
Average failure rates don't mean a thing until you eliminate factors that could make the average higher for the specific equipment you are using.
Notice that nobody are talking about starting to preload Linux on millions and millions of consumer desktops, but about providing support programs for enterprise use.
But this IS an important foothold, because there are still millions of people out there that make their computer purchase decisions based on what they have to use at work.
They can just present the bill for changing master/slave into something else as a separate line item on the invoice and leak a copy to the newspapers. I'd love seeing them huge cost increases for IT spending to avoid industry standard terms.
No, if you use terms that would confuse everyone else in the industry it's just plain old stupidity.
Just imagine how they'd reacted to the Amiga chipsets... Of course some would probably think it was a victory for women that the chips were mostly named after women (Denise, Paula, Agnus, Lisa, perhaps more - I stopped following what happened to them around '91 or so), but considering the engineers were male it must of course be suspect. But imagine the response to poor Agnus, who in successive versions were called fat, super fat and obese....
If you think they aren't making a revolution in science, try actually researching what these machines have been used for.
As for upgrade paths, look for instance to the recent announcements regarding SGI's single system image super computer sold to NASA, which started out at 128 CPU's was quickly upgraded to 256, and then again to 512.
The problem with loosely coupled clustering solutions is that for many problems it's incredibly hard to parallelise the software well enough without I/O eating up all your gains.
And if you don't realise who wants them to be smaller, you have never been involved with hosting a system of any size. Rack space is expensive, whether you rent it or operate it yourself.
You are checked in via priority checkin 30 minutes before departure. Yourluggage is checked in separately. You relax for 2.5 hours. Your luggage is picked up by the priority service, and taken through customs on your behalf (this would be one of the trickier things to handle) while you stroll through priority customs and immigration lanes, possibly aided by biometric registration
It's not as if they're aiming at the "low cost before everything" leisure traveller. At least not initially.
Most of the above are available on certain airlines today. Some of them offer you stuff like steaming your clothes while you take a shower after you arrive, or massage while waiting for the plane, included in your first class tickets. Simply because providing those services is so ridiculously cheap compared to the cost of those tickets.
That's going to be excessively hard, since it will have to compete with planes like the new Airbus which can take 555 passengers and use normal runways.
I usually assume around 6 hours of travel when I visit Norway (where I'm from) from London (where I live), even though the flight is less than 2 hours, and I can get express trains to Heathrow and from Oslo airport.
That just plain doesn't make sense, since you won't know whether those voters looked at the receipt before leaving the booth. I certainly would, as I wouldn't like people to be able to look at the receipt from I left the booth until I deposited it.