The various "disinterestd parties" would have to colaborate on thier tallies.
And if all of the groups don't collaborate (probable), or all of the voters don't provide their stubs to one of the groups (even more probable), you're still talking about a self-selected sample of voters, which makes any apparent trends meaningless.
The stub itself need not be human readable.
Huh? You said "I still say that the voter should have several human readable stubs to send to various vote counting groups.". Why the flip-flop?
but it shoudl be machine readable. And then it only releases the info to the voter himself (password...) or the disinterestd party.
And how does the "disinterested party" get access to the info? If the government sets standards for outside groups to get access to the votes, then we're back in the same situation where only the groups in power receive access.
The county with a 12% error rate was Gadsden County, and it did not have optical scanners at the precincts. Rather, the ballots were counted only at a central location, so there was no opportunity to permit an invalid ballot to be corrected.
Just because something is "profitable", that doesn't mean that it makes business sense to continue. If the profit is 1% of the cost to generate the profit, a business has to take a hard look at whether or not the effort to generate the profit could be redirected to a more profitable endeavor.
And what is more important, will Oracle only be supported with Enterprise versions in the future.
Well, that's an Oracle decision, not a Red Hat decision, but my guess? Yes, Oracle, and other enterprise software vendors, will support their applications on RHEL, not Fedora. Likewise, they're probably only going to suppport the Red Hat-built packages, not packages built with custom options from SRPMs or tarballs. That doesn't mean that you can't run on custom-configured systems, just that when you call for support, they're going to want to know if the problem also occurs on the supported configuration. Why? An application vendor cannot afford to test every possible combination of configuration options, so limiting support to a set of options blessed by Red Hat makes support practical. When a problem occurs with a custom configuration but not a "blessed" configuration, the application vendor may not even have the expertise available to determine if the problem is due to a Linux bug, rather than an application bug.
I thought the official line from Red Hat was the Linux Desktop is Dying?
You thought wrong. Matthew Szulik said that while a Linux desktop can exceed expectations for corporate users, it doesn't meet the expectations of home users. In a corporate environment, IT can (and, in most cases, needs to) control what software is loaded on corporate workstations. That allows them to install Linux applications which meet the needs for most desktops, and install Windows systems when there are specialized applications which are only available on Windows. Home users expect to be able to walk into Wal*Mart, pick up a box from the PC section, and install it on their PC. Until Windows emulation on Linux is seamless, or most PC applications are developed for both Windows and Linux, the expectations of the typical home user will not be met. Slashdot readers better resemble corporate users than home users, so a Linux desktop may be appropriate for us, but it is not representative of the typical home user.
My favorite example of this sort of crossover, actually, is the way the famous author Isaac Asimov combined his Robots series with his Foundation series. There, I imagine most fans of one were already fans of the other, so it wasn't a "come on" like on TV series, but more of a real sense of closure in the last years of his writing.
We're off-topic, but while I loved the Foundation trilogy and the Robot novels, I found the linkage between the Robots, Empire, and Foundation novels to be forced. Certainly, there were commonalities between the series, but I don't think anything was gained by retrofitting close linkages between the series that really added to my enjoyment of the stories.
The return of Guy Berkeley Breathed
on
The Opus Interview
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The Austin American-Statesman also has a story about the return, recounting the incident with the Daily Texan which helped lead to the start of Bloom County.
If I had a stub that was proof of how I voted, and I sent my stub to a group that I trusted for a paralel count that would go al long way for trust.
How? Unless that group was sent stubs by all (or a sizable percentage) of the voters, all they can do is establish a floor on how many votes a candidate should have. They wouldn't be able to argue voting trends, because the self-selecting sample of voters who would send them their stubs would make their trends different from the electorate as a whole.
No, the alleged point was to avoid errors caused by people confused by the notion that "vote for only one candidate" meant that they should only one candidate, and confused by the concept that a candidate's name on the same line as a spot to indicate a vote meant that in order to vote for that candidate, they should mark/punch out the spot on the same line. The "butterfly" ballot gets all of the bad press, but other paper ballots caused similar problems, if not to the same degree. Now, I'm not sure how anyone who has had errors in their bank/credit card/telephone/etc statement would think that computerized voting would avoid errors, but...
AT&T sold all rights on the source code in question to Novell, who then sold it (with strings) to the company that is now SCO.
Not quite. Novell sold rights to Classic SCO, which then sold rights to Pod SCO.
Well, if they didn't get from AT&T what they thought they were getting, they can ask for their money back from AT&T and get licenses.
No, because Pod SCO didn't buy anything from AT&T. If they didn't get what they thought they were getting from Classic SCO, and Classic SCO misrepresented what they were selling to Pod SCO, then Pod SCO might have a case agsinst Classic SCO.
Is here. At the time of the article, Linus had been served, but RMS hadn't. I thought RMS's comment was interesting:
"I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says.
And the final Forbes comment:
What's the point of hassling people who make chips and set-top boxes? Don't ask SCO's top execs. They don't know anything about this stuff, remember?
Here are "Clarke's Three Laws", including "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". In "Magic", Asmiov was speculating on whether the reverse was true, but Asimov was hardly the first to reverse Clarke's quote.
Ignorance of the law may not be a valid defense, it can be a mitigating factor in determining the punishment, and presumed understanding of the law may be an aggravating factor.
Leagues with a salary cap, like the NFL, the owners are raking in money hand-over-fist.
Players receive at least 58% of the NFL's "defined gross revenues" (you can find a definition here, with a cap of 64%. That leaves only 36-42% of the revenue to pay the coaching staff, the trainers, travel expenses, whatever facilities costs they haven't foisted on the taxpayers, etc. After all that's done, I'm sure that owners are making a fair amount, but the documents entered into the Oakland Raiders-NFL suit in 2001 only reflected an average profit of $10 million.
Huge investment? Next time you see a commercial airline pilot, ask him where he/she got their training and you will find that a majority of them will say either the Air Force or the Navy.
Only about half, actually.
Cost to former military pilot for training: Almost $0.00.
Aside from about 10 years of their lives, after training, with the added opportunity of being shot at.
And it's not like becoming a doctor-which IS a much bigger investment in time and money than training to become a commercial airline pilot after being trained in the military.
UK residents are 5 times less likely to be victims of violent crime than US ones
False - or, at least, that isn't what the image you linked to shows. It compares murder rates between the US and England (including Wales), not the violent crime rate between the US and the UK. When you look at the violent crimes covered in the report you cited (murder, rape, robbery, and assault), they're almost equal - 6.684 per 1,000 for the US versus 6.033 for England.
Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies.
Dead is dead, and while US murder (and violent crime) rates decline with wide availablity of firearms, English rates increase without it. I suppose that you missed this in the report:
Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England. (All references to England include Wales.) According to 1995 victim surveys -- which measure robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft -- crime rates are all higher in England than the United States (figures 1-4 of the report beginning on page 1). According to latest (1996) police statistics -- which measure incidents reported to police of murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft -- crime rates are higher in England for three crimes: assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft (figures 5-10). The 1996 crime rate for a fourth crime (robbery) would have been higher in England than the United States had English police recorded the same fraction of robberies that came to their attention as American police (figure 15).
All crimes are not created equal, of course, but in 1996 you were significantly more likely to be the victim of a "serious" crime (adding burglary and motor vehicle theft to violent crimes) in England than you were in the United States.
These are *old* stats, I know, but your DOJ doesn't have any newer ones:(
Unless, of course, you actually look for recentstats (why do you expect the US DOJ to provide new English crime statistics?). It's understandable that you wouldn't want to find the data, of course, because it isn't favorable to you. The FBI report cites 1,439,480 violent offenses in 2002, for a rate of 5.045 per 1,000. The RDS report, on the other hand, cites 991,800 violent crimes between March 2002/2003. It's a bit difficult to compare that with the 1996 numbers, because there were "new rules" for reporting violent crime with the 1998/1999 report, but there was a 4% drop between the 1996 and the "old rules" 1998/1999 numbers, and a 63% increase between the "new rules" 1998/1999 figures and 2002/2003 (using the 1996 and 1998/1999 figures from the 2001/2002 RDS report), for a net 57% increase! I couldn't find crime rate information in the RDS report, but I doubt that the English population jumped enough to keep from exceeding the US violent crime rate. Even focusing on rape and murder works against you - reported rapes were about even in the US between 1996 and 2002, while murders dropped 18%, while reported rapes jumped 113% and murders jumped 53% (28% excluding the Shipman Inquiry) in England, significantly closing the gap on both fronts.
Looking at the trends, I'd think that it would be the English failure to protect their citizens while restricting their ability to protect themselves with increasing gun controls which is indecent and obscene. I realize that the image of the peaceful, disarmed England versus the violent, armed to the teeth US is important to you, but the image simply doesn't withstand contact with reality.
They also had an SR-71, and I think it's predecessor, which I can't remember the name of (there are only like 3 in existence). The YF-12A?
There were only 3 YF-12As built, but it's not the rarest Blackbird. That would be the M-21, with only 2 built and only 1 surviving. The SR-71, YF-12A, and the M-21 all based on the A-12.
No, he made the statement to the effect that he didn't want to waste so much of his time trying to get commits into the XFree CVS and if they didn't see fit to give him CVS access, he'd go someplace where he COULD get it. This is obviously a matter he has discussed before with these guys,
He said today that until Sunday, he didn't know who to ask for access, and it had never mattered to him. How much time could he have spent if he didn't even find out who to ask? What's obvious is that he didn't care to find out who he should discuss it with, or how.
Slashdot Mirror
The county with a 12% error rate was Gadsden County, and it did not have optical scanners at the precincts. Rather, the ballots were counted only at a central location, so there was no opportunity to permit an invalid ballot to be corrected.
Just because something is "profitable", that doesn't mean that it makes business sense to continue. If the profit is 1% of the cost to generate the profit, a business has to take a hard look at whether or not the effort to generate the profit could be redirected to a more profitable endeavor.
The Austin American-Statesman also has a story about the return, recounting the incident with the Daily Texan which helped lead to the start of Bloom County.
No, the alleged point was to avoid errors caused by people confused by the notion that "vote for only one candidate" meant that they should only one candidate, and confused by the concept that a candidate's name on the same line as a spot to indicate a vote meant that in order to vote for that candidate, they should mark/punch out the spot on the same line. The "butterfly" ballot gets all of the bad press, but other paper ballots caused similar problems, if not to the same degree. Now, I'm not sure how anyone who has had errors in their bank/credit card/telephone/etc statement would think that computerized voting would avoid errors, but...
No, Pod SCO only bought the operating systems division from Classic SCO. Classic SCO is now known as Tarentella.
or 3) the oral arguments on IBM's Motions to Compel.
Here are "Clarke's Three Laws", including "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". In "Magic", Asmiov was speculating on whether the reverse was true, but Asimov was hardly the first to reverse Clarke's quote.
Ignorance of the law may not be a valid defense, it can be a mitigating factor in determining the punishment, and presumed understanding of the law may be an aggravating factor.
Since many viruses are written outside the US, it's quite likely that they "can legally drink" already.
Looking at the trends, I'd think that it would be the English failure to protect their citizens while restricting their ability to protect themselves with increasing gun controls which is indecent and obscene. I realize that the image of the peaceful, disarmed England versus the violent, armed to the teeth US is important to you, but the image simply doesn't withstand contact with reality.