No, the ballots that get marked by the machines should be the same ones that a voter could choose to mark themselves by hand. The candidates names and proposals and whatnots would be pre-printed, with ovals or circles or whatever to mark in. Perhaps large marking pens could be used to avoid time-consuming darkening by pencil/etc.
And they would be deposited into, scanned and counted, one at a time as voters completed the ballots and inserted them into the counting machine (which would not be displaying the count 'live', only a total at the end. No need for highspeed scanning.
Have one machine with fancy GUI's that are easy for people to use, which PRINTS a clear paper ballot on which the marks are both human and computer-readable (think of the little ovals you used to fill in with #2 pencil, only bigger ovals) and then a *seperate machine* which does nothing but scan and count the ovals.
The marking machines could be of any complexity, wouldnt require auditing (the names on the ballots would be pre-printed, the machine would only mark in the ovals). Voters could choose to use the machine, or to mark the paper ballots themselves, and in all cases would be able to *look* at the paper ballot and verify their selections before submitting it to be counted. The specs for filling in the ballots could be released (and in fact the ballot specs would be part of the specs for the counting machine), and anyone under the sun could make marking machines, of any design that they wanted. The key is that these machines would record votes only on the paper ballot.
The scanning/counting machine would have to be absolutely auditable, as simple and as transparent as possible. Every aspect of its operation would be required to be public domain, and available to any citizen upon request.
Good for you. But recognize that your linux mailservers are running AV scans on email, to ensure that email is safe for *Windows* users. If absolutely no one that used your mail server used Windows, it wouldnt be remotely necesarry. (Well, ignoring for a moment that the people they sent email to or received it from might be running Windows). Try this - if no one anywhere used MS applications/platforms for email, scanning email for viruses would be unheard of.
Im sorry, but 'knowing to run a virus scan' isn't a qualification I would look for when hiring, well, anyone. I would instead look for 'knows to use an OS/platform that isn't inherently vulnerable to these "viruses" you refer to'. Why would anyone using an OSX machine (or in fact anything not made by MS) consider 'viruses' to be a signifigant concern?
And if you think that 'recognizing that a particular OS/platform is an insecure piece of shit, but thinking that the proper solution is that they need to pay for extra "security" software just to keep it from imploding, instead of CHOOSING A DIFFERENT PLATFORM', well, I've got this bridge for sale, cheap. And I would seriously doubt that a majority of Windows users recognize that in the first place.
Personally, I think Windows viruses are evolution in action. The weak getting taken down by disease, while the strong continue on. The more Windows viruses there are the better! And while I would seriously doubt it, I wouldnt blame them a bit if it was intentional.
Bum cleavage is quite prohibited on US broadcast TV. About all that is shown in soap commercials of women lathering up is the head, back, and lower legs.
only from people who are willing to register and login at their wiki, not from 'the public'.
My two biggest requests would be
1. An option to enable an *ABSOLUTE* restriction on new content windows. Even with the 'pop up blocker' fully enabled some sites still manage to open new windows. I would like these FORCED into new tabs, always, NEVER permitting additional content windows to open (dialogs for FF itself, preferences, etc would still be acceptable)
2. An interative javascript debugger, that includes the ability to run scripts in a 'step mode', override/block the execution of specific js statements (or force conditional branches), and change the contents of variables.
3. An ability to prevent detection of the absence of specific plugins, enabling the user to take control back of media served by websites (eg, "Sorry, you dont have Microsoft DRM-enforcing plugin X, so we wont serve this media to you" - the ability to force the site to just give the URI to the browser, and let the *USER* decide how to retrieve it and what to do with it from there)
MS is a huge legacy goliath that has nowhere to go but down, and is long past its prime. MS is on its way down (yes, it has a very long way to go, but go it will). It has a huge marketshare, becuase it does everything it can to avoid letting anyone make a choice, including doing its best to prevent people from even knowing there is a choice. There are millions of people who only use MS becuase they have no choice.
Google is a fast growing, nimble, newer company that has nowhere to go but *up*. Quite a few notable persons have *LEFT* MS to join Google. No one is forced to use Google (and Im pretty sure Google wouldnt consider it fair to try to so force anyone), and yet millions choose to do so of their own accord.
Is this for a main web site, or for an online banking/etc type site?
Do you know if your site displays/works properly in all of the browsers you listed? (Eg is your site standards compliant)
If this is for your main site, and you have an online banking/etc type site, does *it* work properly with all the browsers you listed?
Becuase if either *doesnt* work, that will be actively pushing away those browsers, which will then naturally tend not to return, which will decrease their showing.
How many people switch *TO* IE from something else, really?
Either:
- you are a member of the drooling masses, accepting without question whatever came on your computer, and may not even be aware of the concept of being able to *choose* software - you have and will continue to use IE exclusively until its no longer the default
-OR-
- you are an MS apoligist, and despite being aware of software other than MS, you stick with it becuase you want to be intentionally ignorant - you will continue to use IE even if its no longer the default
-OR-
- you dont see anything wrong with MS, and you briefly tried something else, but didnt really give it a fair shake, and decided you 'didnt like it' becuase it was different. You *might* try something else if someday the default changes
-OR-
- you are one of the people who have switched from IE to something else - you will probably stick with what you've changed to, although you might consider other options, but unlikely you will ever go back to IE
-OR-
- you are one of the VERY few who don't use MS software for anything, ever
(Note Im only counting what people use on their primary machine for their own use - not developers who have sixteen different browsers installed in 6 different machines [virtual or otherwise] for testing their own sites)
The only problem with going download-only is that there are a massive number of people who either have no computer/no Internet, or only dialup-Internet, but they *do* own a DVD player.
ICANN has no control over http://www.spamhaus.org.uk/ and I'm sure SH either already has, or has begun, making its records available there. Its website already is.
Yes, the solution to driving while celling is easy and obvious to even the bleeping masses.
However, while *I* know the solution to this, and probably you do (although its possible we have different solutions in mind), the bleeping masses probably don't have the slightest clue what *any* solution might be. The best they are likely to do is give their money to BestBuy's Geek Squad or similar, who will happily install the latest and greatest 'software firewalls' on their systems
You know how a turbo on a car works? Takes the power from the exhaust, and uses it to force air in the intake?
Why not apply the same logic to your high rise? Consider all the drains going down - sinks&toilet, heck the roof must have drains for rain. Just install appropriately-sized turbines on everything going down, and use the energy to help pump clean water up. If the rainwater is clean enough, just store it at the top to use. Either way may not complement eliminate the energy cost to pump water up, but surely it could lower it signifigantly.
The guy sounds like PC tech, not a kernel driver developer. And without specs from the HW manufacturer, even someone who was a kernel developer would have a hard time.
As far as your particular issue, how was anyone on the Ubuntu list supposed to know that your wireless card mfr was going to use two different chipsets for the same model of card? Why is that their fault, and not the cardmakers fault? If it was me, I'd take the damn thing back for a refund (Actually, if it was me, Id stick a wired NIC in and not bother with wireless to begin with, but thats a different argument). I dont choose my OS based on what hardware I have, I choose my hardware based on my OS.
FWIW, Cisco routers do NOT have this problem, at least as far as remote access. If the 'line' password for the telnet vty isnt set, it simply doesnt let you telnet in, at all. The only way to access a brand new router is with a physical serial port connection.
Thats assuming that they did specify any particular software to be installed. More likely they just said 'fix my computer'. And quite frankly, IMNSHO, neither installing nor reinstalling an OS from Microsoft could possibly count as 'fixing' anything. Unless you mean 'fix' in the same way as is implied by 'that'll fix em, those dirty rats!'
Slashdot Mirror
No, the ballots that get marked by the machines should be the same ones that a voter could choose to mark themselves by hand. The candidates names and proposals and whatnots would be pre-printed, with ovals or circles or whatever to mark in. Perhaps large marking pens could be used to avoid time-consuming darkening by pencil/etc.
And they would be deposited into, scanned and counted, one at a time as voters completed the ballots and inserted them into the counting machine (which would not be displaying the count 'live', only a total at the end. No need for highspeed scanning.
Have one machine with fancy GUI's that are easy for people to use, which PRINTS a clear paper ballot on which the marks are both human and computer-readable (think of the little ovals you used to fill in with #2 pencil, only bigger ovals) and then a *seperate machine* which does nothing but scan and count the ovals.
The marking machines could be of any complexity, wouldnt require auditing (the names on the ballots would be pre-printed, the machine would only mark in the ovals). Voters could choose to use the machine, or to mark the paper ballots themselves, and in all cases would be able to *look* at the paper ballot and verify their selections before submitting it to be counted. The specs for filling in the ballots could be released (and in fact the ballot specs would be part of the specs for the counting machine), and anyone under the sun could make marking machines, of any design that they wanted. The key is that these machines would record votes only on the paper ballot.
The scanning/counting machine would have to be absolutely auditable, as simple and as transparent as possible. Every aspect of its operation would be required to be public domain, and available to any citizen upon request.
Good for you. But recognize that your linux mailservers are running AV scans on email, to ensure that email is safe for *Windows* users. If absolutely no one that used your mail server used Windows, it wouldnt be remotely necesarry. (Well, ignoring for a moment that the people they sent email to or received it from might be running Windows). Try this - if no one anywhere used MS applications/platforms for email, scanning email for viruses would be unheard of.
Im sorry, but 'knowing to run a virus scan' isn't a qualification I would look for when hiring, well, anyone. I would instead look for 'knows to use an OS/platform that isn't inherently vulnerable to these "viruses" you refer to'. Why would anyone using an OSX machine (or in fact anything not made by MS) consider 'viruses' to be a signifigant concern?
And if you think that 'recognizing that a particular OS/platform is an insecure piece of shit, but thinking that the proper solution is that they need to pay for extra "security" software just to keep it from imploding, instead of CHOOSING A DIFFERENT PLATFORM', well, I've got this bridge for sale, cheap. And I would seriously doubt that a majority of Windows users recognize that in the first place.
Personally, I think Windows viruses are evolution in action. The weak getting taken down by disease, while the strong continue on. The more Windows viruses there are the better! And while I would seriously doubt it, I wouldnt blame them a bit if it was intentional.
You forgot to mention that that is for CrapOSFromRedmond only.
Bum cleavage is quite prohibited on US broadcast TV. About all that is shown in soap commercials of women lathering up is the head, back, and lower legs.
Hardware should be a standardized commodity.
Software should not.
I blame MS, not IBM.
Hrm. I'll try it out and see how effective it is.
n dow.restriction
BTW, I found a better URL for documentation on that pref:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.link.open_newwi
only from people who are willing to register and login at their wiki, not from 'the public'.
My two biggest requests would be
1. An option to enable an *ABSOLUTE* restriction on new content windows. Even with the 'pop up blocker' fully enabled some sites still manage to open new windows. I would like these FORCED into new tabs, always, NEVER permitting additional content windows to open (dialogs for FF itself, preferences, etc would still be acceptable)
2. An interative javascript debugger, that includes the ability to run scripts in a 'step mode', override/block the execution of specific js statements (or force conditional branches), and change the contents of variables.
3. An ability to prevent detection of the absence of specific plugins, enabling the user to take control back of media served by websites (eg, "Sorry, you dont have Microsoft DRM-enforcing plugin X, so we wont serve this media to you" - the ability to force the site to just give the URI to the browser, and let the *USER* decide how to retrieve it and what to do with it from there)
MS is a huge legacy goliath that has nowhere to go but down, and is long past its prime. MS is on its way down (yes, it has a very long way to go, but go it will). It has a huge marketshare, becuase it does everything it can to avoid letting anyone make a choice, including doing its best to prevent people from even knowing there is a choice. There are millions of people who only use MS becuase they have no choice.
Google is a fast growing, nimble, newer company that has nowhere to go but *up*. Quite a few notable persons have *LEFT* MS to join Google. No one is forced to use Google (and Im pretty sure Google wouldnt consider it fair to try to so force anyone), and yet millions choose to do so of their own accord.
Is this for a main web site, or for an online banking/etc type site?
Do you know if your site displays/works properly in all of the browsers you listed? (Eg is your site standards compliant)
If this is for your main site, and you have an online banking/etc type site, does *it* work properly with all the browsers you listed?
Becuase if either *doesnt* work, that will be actively pushing away those browsers, which will then naturally tend not to return, which will decrease their showing.
How many people switch *TO* IE from something else, really?
Either:
- you are a member of the drooling masses, accepting without question whatever came on your computer, and may not even be aware of the concept of being able to *choose* software - you have and will continue to use IE exclusively until its no longer the default
-OR-
- you are an MS apoligist, and despite being aware of software other than MS, you stick with it becuase you want to be intentionally ignorant - you will continue to use IE even if its no longer the default
-OR-
- you dont see anything wrong with MS, and you briefly tried something else, but didnt really give it a fair shake, and decided you 'didnt like it' becuase it was different. You *might* try something else if someday the default changes
-OR-
- you are one of the people who have switched from IE to something else - you will probably stick with what you've changed to, although you might consider other options, but unlikely you will ever go back to IE
-OR-
- you are one of the VERY few who don't use MS software for anything, ever
(Note Im only counting what people use on their primary machine for their own use - not developers who have sixteen different browsers installed in 6 different machines [virtual or otherwise] for testing their own sites)
.org is managed by pir.org
The only problem with going download-only is that there are a massive number of people who either have no computer/no Internet, or only dialup-Internet, but they *do* own a DVD player.
ICANN may well pull spamhaus.org - so what.
ICANN has no control over http://www.spamhaus.org.uk/ and I'm sure SH either already has, or has begun, making its records available there. Its website already is.
Yes, the solution to driving while celling is easy and obvious to even the bleeping masses.
However, while *I* know the solution to this, and probably you do (although its possible we have different solutions in mind), the bleeping masses probably don't have the slightest clue what *any* solution might be. The best they are likely to do is give their money to BestBuy's Geek Squad or similar, who will happily install the latest and greatest 'software firewalls' on their systems
... that while they call attention to an obvious problem, they don't suggest any solution.
"... half a million computer users have installed Vista test software, and 450,000 of the systems have sent crash data ..."
or, "Half a million installs of Vista, and almost half a million have crashed"
I beleive the problem is the cost of *transporting* the (bottled) water in, which the article suggests in $30/gal.
You know how a turbo on a car works? Takes the power from the exhaust, and uses it to force air in the intake?
Why not apply the same logic to your high rise? Consider all the drains going down - sinks&toilet, heck the roof must have drains for rain. Just install appropriately-sized turbines on everything going down, and use the energy to help pump clean water up. If the rainwater is clean enough, just store it at the top to use. Either way may not complement eliminate the energy cost to pump water up, but surely it could lower it signifigantly.
A properly tuned diesel emits only water and carbon particles, niether of which is toxic.
Locked out how? I'm pretty sure that the iPod can play/import standard MP3 files, and its pretty well known how to produce those.
Ooooh. You mean they want a DRM format. Well fuck em, I *DONT* want a DRM format, and I dont give a damn wether its from Apple or anyone else.
The guy sounds like PC tech, not a kernel driver developer. And without specs from the HW manufacturer, even someone who was a kernel developer would have a hard time.
As far as your particular issue, how was anyone on the Ubuntu list supposed to know that your wireless card mfr was going to use two different chipsets for the same model of card? Why is that their fault, and not the cardmakers fault? If it was me, I'd take the damn thing back for a refund (Actually, if it was me, Id stick a wired NIC in and not bother with wireless to begin with, but thats a different argument). I dont choose my OS based on what hardware I have, I choose my hardware based on my OS.
FWIW, Cisco routers do NOT have this problem, at least as far as remote access. If the 'line' password for the telnet vty isnt set, it simply doesnt let you telnet in, at all. The only way to access a brand new router is with a physical serial port connection.
Thats assuming that they did specify any particular software to be installed. More likely they just said 'fix my computer'. And quite frankly, IMNSHO, neither installing nor reinstalling an OS from Microsoft could possibly count as 'fixing' anything. Unless you mean 'fix' in the same way as is implied by 'that'll fix em, those dirty rats!'