Don't worry, Biblical literalists - the creationists are all positive that every one of those skulls is either an ape or a man, and none is an ape-man. They seem to have a little trouble agreeing on which is which, but that's surely not relevant to the problem.
If anything, the shuttle program has proven that reusiable spacecraft are a bad idea. They're not cost effective.
Just how reusable is the shuttle? The expendable external tank costs about $60 million to build from scratch; refueling a solid rocket booster (particularly one that's been dumped in salt water) is about as hard as building one from scratch, and the orbiter isn't ready to fly again until at least the thermal protection and engines have been pretty heavily rebuilt.
When most people talk about reusable rockets, they're imagining something like the DC-X or SpaceShip One: land it, do an inspection, refuel it and launch it again the next day. Even the Falcon rockets will never quite be in that class, since their landing procedure includes being fished out of the ocean. Their reusability is very much an experiment, too, from what I've read - SpaceX has said that they're pricing launches high enough to make a profit without reusing anything, and if it turns out that they can successfully use the same lower stage for several launches, that's just more profit for now and more room to lower their prices later.
Maybe like you say, resusing the lower stage would work out ok.
Reusable launch vehicle naysayers used to believe that making any rocket conveniently reusable isn't practical. DC-X disproved that for low performance rockets, but maybe they're right and it's too hard to make a high performance rocket conveniently reusable with current materials technology. Well, it used to be too hard to make even expendable rockets with past materials technology, and they got around it by stacking lower performance rockets on top of each other. I hope the same trick will work again.
You have to admit, subjecting these claims to the marketplace should prove whether or not there's anything to them. The number of people willing to believe their houses are warm when they are cold is probably a lot smaller than the number of people willing to believe they've been cured by quack medicine.
Don't these cold fusion devices supposedly require electrical input to initiate fusion? If you run current through a resistor, it will generate heat, and how many people hook their space heaters up to calorimeters and multimeters to see if power out exceeds power in?
Elon Musk has said he can take up to three ruined launches before having to reconsider his financial support... but if he had a budget the size of, say, the suborbital X-33 project that never got out of the hangar, he'd be able to afford a couple hundred more launch attempts first.
Actually it is the "partially" in the sense that the first stage should parachute and be reused, but the second stage is space junk.
This is the right way to do it, too. Lower stages are larger, so you can save more money making them reusable. They're less important for overall rocket performance, so when making them reusable reduces their performance it's not so bad. They don't reach orbital speeds, so you can recover them without reentry shields or even without flyback capability. If we're going to move toward reusable rockets (which could be a very good idea) at a gradual pace (which the Shuttle program has proved is a good idea), the way to start is from the bottom up.
Just as bizarre was that they had a payload on their first launch attempt.
The payload cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, true, but lifting it into orbit costs millions. As long as they had a better than 10% chance of success, it was a good risk to take.
Systrace (assuming you're talking about this systrace; the link you gave me was broken) looks very impressive. I'd worry that there may be applications for which slowing double checking every system call would be a real performance hit, but the worst-case example the systrace developers benchmarked was a find command where running through ~60,000 files took 42 seconds instead of 30, and a web browser doesn't need to access ten thousand files per second.
I hope systrace gets taken up by more Unixes and Linux distributions soon, though; any sort of capability-reduction policy is best written by the programmers of the software it applies to, but that won't happen until systrace is as common as chmod. Remember my example of letting an application create a new subuser to run as? It wouldn't be hard for any system administrator to make that possible, but because it's not a standard Unix feature there aren't any programs written to utilize it.
This just goes to show that if you give MS enough time, they'll eventually be able to reinvent UNIX-like security.
Oh, really? What user is your copy of Firefox running as right now?
I thought so.
Although UNIX kernels certainly make it possible for users to run processes as other user ids, I've never seen a *nix installation make it easy, much less make it the default. Even the foundations aren't there - imagine what it could do for security if process ID 5860 running as user john automatically had the ability to create subuser john-5860 and run child processes as that unprivileged subuser, with read/write access to only a directory created for that subuser.
It know it's fun to gloat that Unix security was better than Windows security years ago, but I'd be happier if Unix security stayed better than Windows security months from now.
They call the GPL viral, but what if in the networking code for this "shared source" game they have all sorts of stuff that would help the SAMBA team?
I doubt it.
Can they use it?
Probably not. They could legally copy small bits of code and reimplement interfaces, but it's a good bet that anything large enough to be useful would be too large to be used legally.
Hell, can they even look at it and still be able to contribute to SAMBA?
Of course they can. I can see why people are paranoid about being "contaminated" by other's intellectual property (wasn't clean room reverse engineering how Compaq successfully defended itself from IBM's lawsuits?), but legally copyright is copyright. Reporters are still allowed to read other newspapers, authors are still allowed to read other books, musicians are still allowed to listen to other songs, screenwriters are still allowed to watch other movies, and yes, programmers are still allowed to read other source code.
You start with one character each (by having one of you either generate a second character or control the girl Imoen who joins you soon after the game starts), at a low enough level that the gameplay is simple to learn, and it only gets more complex gradually. The game can be paused at any time and new orders can be given while it's paused, so if your girlfriend needs to take her time she can.
It's all cooperative play; you're not competing with her. This means that you spend a lot of time talking while you play and that many of your game actions will be saving each other's characters from mortal peril. It's a fun bonding experience.
When you pick up more characters along the way, she can take half of your party of 6 to be fair, or control just 1 or 2 players if she doesn't want to do as much micromanagement as you.
There's a long, interesting story line that gets continued in the sequel games.
One pitfall: in BG2 there's a potential love story involving the main character, and (assuming you're the male main character, like I was) the love interest possibilities aren't good. Do you make your girlfriend think you like ditzes or bitches?
The only other problem: these games take dozens of hours to complete. If your girlfriend is up for playing dozens of hours of D&D with you (can mine have a round of applause?) that's fantastic, but you may be looking for something more casual.
I was never the best player at college, but then I came home for the summer to deathmatch with a group of friends whose previous FPS experience was limited to games with autoaim and no mouselook.
Eventually I had enough of a lead they decided to stop fighting amongst themselves and just gang up on me. That did nothing but freeze their frag counts in place, and even their attempts to coordinate strategy weren't very helpful.
"Where is he, where is he?!" "He's over by the water!" "He can't be by the water, he just killed me by the elevator!" "Oh my God, he's behind me, he's behind me!" *splat*
Well, considering that a private citizen filing suit against Google could request information of this nature as part of discovery in a trial.
Who is on trial here? It's not Google. It's not any of Google's customers. I could certainly request information like this during discovery, but a judge wouldn't give it to me.
Aside from that your just getting yourself all tied up in legal jargon and misinterpretations of the Constitution.
I am? You're the one insisting "search" doesn't mean to search.
The government made an information request of a coporation.
Exactly. And the request was denied. That should be that.
Since this request does not involve a criminal complaint or prosecution than the issue isn't warrant versus no warrant since no warrant can be obtained.
Exactly: no warrant can be obtained. And when no warrant can be obtained, unreasonable searches (e.g. searches which would be illegal for private citizens to perform and which require judges and armed law enforcement officers for governments to perform) are prohibited by the fourth amendment.
Just listen to yourself: the government has less reason for performing this search than they would if they were investigating a criminal case, and you think that gives them more right to order the search? That's ridiculous!
if they want us destroyed and Bush is bad for us, why don't they like him?
If Hitler wanted us destroyed and Stalin was bad for us, why didn't they like each other? (Yes, this is an extreme example, not an analogy)
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. If Bush has gotten thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Muslims killed on false pretenses, it's natural for him to be disliked by both Americans and the Muslim extremists who hate us.
It isn't in the spirit of the game to mechanically complete tasks for hours on end without paying any heed to the game
Actually, that's exactly the spirit of the game - if it wasn't, then using macros to get through the game would be as pointless as trying to macro your way through reading a novel or as dangerous as trying to macro your way through a game of chess.
Perhaps repetitive tasks shouldn't be the spirit of the game (they're one reason I quit before level 60, and this guy doesn't sound like he was having a lot of fun either), but that's something that ought to be fixed by working on game mechanics and content, not by banning players who notice the flaws.
The 4th Ammendment protects against unreasonable search not all unwarranted searches.
And what makes a search reasonable or unreasonable? Here's a hint: if a private citizen would be legally allowed to perform the same search, it is reasonable. If a private party would be charged with a felony, as you or I would be if we obtained Google search data by force or subterfuge, then the search is unreasonable.
The issue in this case is that the information request in question isn't really a search as it's not being used in a criminal case.
There is no dictionary, legal or otherwise, that says "search" doesn't mean to search unless it's to provide evidence for a criminal case. It is true that courts have refused to admit evidence obtained by illegal searches as a way of discouraging them, but that doesn't mean the search was legal until a prosecutor tried to use the evidence. That court rule also may not mean as much today as it used to, since an accused criminal's right to see a court and see the evidence against him is under attack as well from this same administration.
Sort of clever, but it'd be infinitely easier and more efficient to put that in a network drive, then put "./mnt/thatthingy/etc/aliases.sh" in their ~/.bash_profile. Pulling the thing with Lynx is kind of silly.
I agree, but the requirement that you can't install your script on the servers you administer is pretty weird to begin with. If he's not allowed to install a script, he probably isn't supposed to edit.bash_profile or mount network drives either - besides, if he could edit.bash_profile he could just put alias commands in there!
So, I tried to come up with solutions that don't require changing anything in the accounts' config files. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
Altair is supposed to be big enough so nobody will suggest launching it on a commercial rocket (those were Not Invented Here, you know!), and it's supposed to use hydrogen engines instead of methane so long-term propellant storage in space and propellant manufacture on Mars will be out of the question.
I liked the name "Apollo on Steroids", personally. It reflected the fact that NASA is just doing the same thing again a little bigger, and that they're losing their balls.
Lets not think about what would happen if someone else ever had write access to that remote script...
The same thing that would happen if someone else ever had write access to a special ssh client binary you use, or even to your local configuration files: he'd then be able to take over any account you logged into. If you have reason to think your ssh client computer is more secure than any file service you can write to, you don't have to paste a "run this alias script" command, you can just copy and paste the whole script from a file on the client.
It makes you realize just how fast multi-Gigahertz processors are, doesn't it? Look over at your computer - by the time the light from it reaches your eyes, it's probably already working on it's next instruction.
Fedora Core 4 is massively misconfigured. This stuff *does* "just work" on every other major desktop distro.
It does "just work" on Fedora Core 4, too - and cdrecord (a build which works on IDE drives without ide-scsi), nautilus-cd-burner, xcdroast and k3b all come with the distribution.
Perhaps the grandparent post has some particularly weird hardware, but I suspect he just tried to follow an out-of-date HOWTO without realizing it was unnecessary. The CD burner bearing computers I've used with FC4 all worked with no hand-tweaking after the install.
If you'd read the whole of this thread you would see that someone did in fact install Adobe Reader on a bank machine to show an assistant his financial records
I must have missed a post - I see where someone ran Adobe Reader (which most computers are likely to have already installed) to read.PDF files on his USB disk; I don't see where anyone ran an installer from a USB disk.
I don't get the obsession with USB devices anyway. When Microsoft starts trying to autorun executables after a USB disk is plugged in, then I'll be scared - your USB ports will now be as dangerous as your CD and DVD drives.
What if they just want to be free to one day move the OS they own from an old Apple/Intel computer to a new Dell/Intel PC? What if they're used to moving all their existing software onto a new computer from a new vendor, just like copyright law and the free market allows? What if they've seen Apple, Inc. financially saved by customers exercising free use rights to copy CDs onto iPods, and they're pissed off that Apple wants to take those rights away when someone else might see the benefit?
There once were some vendors who thought They still owned what their customers bought. Were there contracts we signed? Cause if not, never mind. I don't agree, so their EULAs are not.
These situations will not improve until people learn to count higher than two.
Unfortunately, the problems with plurality voting are described by game theory, not arithmetic. Everybody knows how to count higher than two; not so many people know the differences between instant runoff, Condorcet, and approval voting.
What's worse: the biggest problem with democracy in America today is apathy, not ignorance. People get furious at anyone who voted for "the other guy"; yet for some reason they take it easy on the more numerous group who couldn't be bothered to vote at all.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll point out scornfully that you now have TWO missing links where previously you jst had the one.
Just the one? I counted at least a dozen.
Don't worry, Biblical literalists - the creationists are all positive that every one of those skulls is either an ape or a man, and none is an ape-man. They seem to have a little trouble agreeing on which is which, but that's surely not relevant to the problem.
If anything, the shuttle program has proven that reusiable spacecraft are a bad idea. They're not cost effective.
Just how reusable is the shuttle? The expendable external tank costs about $60 million to build from scratch; refueling a solid rocket booster (particularly one that's been dumped in salt water) is about as hard as building one from scratch, and the orbiter isn't ready to fly again until at least the thermal protection and engines have been pretty heavily rebuilt.
When most people talk about reusable rockets, they're imagining something like the DC-X or SpaceShip One: land it, do an inspection, refuel it and launch it again the next day. Even the Falcon rockets will never quite be in that class, since their landing procedure includes being fished out of the ocean. Their reusability is very much an experiment, too, from what I've read - SpaceX has said that they're pricing launches high enough to make a profit without reusing anything, and if it turns out that they can successfully use the same lower stage for several launches, that's just more profit for now and more room to lower their prices later.
Maybe like you say, resusing the lower stage would work out ok.
Reusable launch vehicle naysayers used to believe that making any rocket conveniently reusable isn't practical. DC-X disproved that for low performance rockets, but maybe they're right and it's too hard to make a high performance rocket conveniently reusable with current materials technology. Well, it used to be too hard to make even expendable rockets with past materials technology, and they got around it by stacking lower performance rockets on top of each other. I hope the same trick will work again.
You have to admit, subjecting these claims to the marketplace should prove whether or not there's anything to them. The number of people willing to believe their houses are warm when they are cold is probably a lot smaller than the number of people willing to believe they've been cured by quack medicine.
Don't these cold fusion devices supposedly require electrical input to initiate fusion? If you run current through a resistor, it will generate heat, and how many people hook their space heaters up to calorimeters and multimeters to see if power out exceeds power in?
Elon Musk has said he can take up to three ruined launches before having to reconsider his financial support... but if he had a budget the size of, say, the suborbital X-33 project that never got out of the hangar, he'd be able to afford a couple hundred more launch attempts first.
Actually it is the "partially" in the sense that the first stage should parachute and be reused, but the second stage is space junk.
This is the right way to do it, too. Lower stages are larger, so you can save more money making them reusable. They're less important for overall rocket performance, so when making them reusable reduces their performance it's not so bad. They don't reach orbital speeds, so you can recover them without reentry shields or even without flyback capability. If we're going to move toward reusable rockets (which could be a very good idea) at a gradual pace (which the Shuttle program has proved is a good idea), the way to start is from the bottom up.
Just as bizarre was that they had a payload on their first launch attempt.
The payload cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, true, but lifting it into orbit costs millions. As long as they had a better than 10% chance of success, it was a good risk to take.
Systrace (assuming you're talking about this systrace; the link you gave me was broken) looks very impressive. I'd worry that there may be applications for which slowing double checking every system call would be a real performance hit, but the worst-case example the systrace developers benchmarked was a find command where running through ~60,000 files took 42 seconds instead of 30, and a web browser doesn't need to access ten thousand files per second.
I hope systrace gets taken up by more Unixes and Linux distributions soon, though; any sort of capability-reduction policy is best written by the programmers of the software it applies to, but that won't happen until systrace is as common as chmod. Remember my example of letting an application create a new subuser to run as? It wouldn't be hard for any system administrator to make that possible, but because it's not a standard Unix feature there aren't any programs written to utilize it.
This just goes to show that if you give MS enough time, they'll eventually be able to reinvent UNIX-like security.
Oh, really? What user is your copy of Firefox running as right now?
I thought so.
Although UNIX kernels certainly make it possible for users to run processes as other user ids, I've never seen a *nix installation make it easy, much less make it the default. Even the foundations aren't there - imagine what it could do for security if process ID 5860 running as user john automatically had the ability to create subuser john-5860 and run child processes as that unprivileged subuser, with read/write access to only a directory created for that subuser.
It know it's fun to gloat that Unix security was better than Windows security years ago, but I'd be happier if Unix security stayed better than Windows security months from now.
They call the GPL viral, but what if in the networking code for this "shared source" game they have all sorts of stuff that would help the SAMBA team?
I doubt it.
Can they use it?
Probably not. They could legally copy small bits of code and reimplement interfaces, but it's a good bet that anything large enough to be useful would be too large to be used legally.
Hell, can they even look at it and still be able to contribute to SAMBA?
Of course they can. I can see why people are paranoid about being "contaminated" by other's intellectual property (wasn't clean room reverse engineering how Compaq successfully defended itself from IBM's lawsuits?), but legally copyright is copyright. Reporters are still allowed to read other newspapers, authors are still allowed to read other books, musicians are still allowed to listen to other songs, screenwriters are still allowed to watch other movies, and yes, programmers are still allowed to read other source code.
You start with one character each (by having one of you either generate a second character or control the girl Imoen who joins you soon after the game starts), at a low enough level that the gameplay is simple to learn, and it only gets more complex gradually. The game can be paused at any time and new orders can be given while it's paused, so if your girlfriend needs to take her time she can.
It's all cooperative play; you're not competing with her. This means that you spend a lot of time talking while you play and that many of your game actions will be saving each other's characters from mortal peril. It's a fun bonding experience.
When you pick up more characters along the way, she can take half of your party of 6 to be fair, or control just 1 or 2 players if she doesn't want to do as much micromanagement as you.
There's a long, interesting story line that gets continued in the sequel games.
One pitfall: in BG2 there's a potential love story involving the main character, and (assuming you're the male main character, like I was) the love interest possibilities aren't good. Do you make your girlfriend think you like ditzes or bitches?
The only other problem: these games take dozens of hours to complete. If your girlfriend is up for playing dozens of hours of D&D with you (can mine have a round of applause?) that's fantastic, but you may be looking for something more casual.
I was never the best player at college, but then I came home for the summer to deathmatch with a group of friends whose previous FPS experience was limited to games with autoaim and no mouselook.
Eventually I had enough of a lead they decided to stop fighting amongst themselves and just gang up on me. That did nothing but freeze their frag counts in place, and even their attempts to coordinate strategy weren't very helpful.
"Where is he, where is he?!"
"He's over by the water!"
"He can't be by the water, he just killed me by the elevator!"
"Oh my God, he's behind me, he's behind me!"
*splat*
Well, considering that a private citizen filing suit against Google could request information of this nature as part of discovery in a trial.
Who is on trial here? It's not Google. It's not any of Google's customers. I could certainly request information like this during discovery, but a judge wouldn't give it to me.
Aside from that your just getting yourself all tied up in legal jargon and misinterpretations of the Constitution.
I am? You're the one insisting "search" doesn't mean to search.
The government made an information request of a coporation.
Exactly. And the request was denied. That should be that.
Since this request does not involve a criminal complaint or prosecution than the issue isn't warrant versus no warrant since no warrant can be obtained.
Exactly: no warrant can be obtained. And when no warrant can be obtained, unreasonable searches (e.g. searches which would be illegal for private citizens to perform and which require judges and armed law enforcement officers for governments to perform) are prohibited by the fourth amendment.
Just listen to yourself: the government has less reason for performing this search than they would if they were investigating a criminal case, and you think that gives them more right to order the search? That's ridiculous!
if they want us destroyed and Bush is bad for us, why don't they like him?
If Hitler wanted us destroyed and Stalin was bad for us, why didn't they like each other? (Yes, this is an extreme example, not an analogy)
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. If Bush has gotten thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Muslims killed on false pretenses, it's natural for him to be disliked by both Americans and the Muslim extremists who hate us.
It isn't in the spirit of the game to mechanically complete tasks for hours on end without paying any heed to the game
Actually, that's exactly the spirit of the game - if it wasn't, then using macros to get through the game would be as pointless as trying to macro your way through reading a novel or as dangerous as trying to macro your way through a game of chess.
Perhaps repetitive tasks shouldn't be the spirit of the game (they're one reason I quit before level 60, and this guy doesn't sound like he was having a lot of fun either), but that's something that ought to be fixed by working on game mechanics and content, not by banning players who notice the flaws.
The 4th Ammendment protects against unreasonable search not all unwarranted searches.
And what makes a search reasonable or unreasonable? Here's a hint: if a private citizen would be legally allowed to perform the same search, it is reasonable. If a private party would be charged with a felony, as you or I would be if we obtained Google search data by force or subterfuge, then the search is unreasonable.
The issue in this case is that the information request in question isn't really a search as it's not being used in a criminal case.
There is no dictionary, legal or otherwise, that says "search" doesn't mean to search unless it's to provide evidence for a criminal case. It is true that courts have refused to admit evidence obtained by illegal searches as a way of discouraging them, but that doesn't mean the search was legal until a prosecutor tried to use the evidence. That court rule also may not mean as much today as it used to, since an accused criminal's right to see a court and see the evidence against him is under attack as well from this same administration.
Sort of clever, but it'd be infinitely easier and more efficient to put that in a network drive, then put ". /mnt/thatthingy/etc/aliases.sh" in their ~/.bash_profile. Pulling the thing with Lynx is kind of silly.
.bash_profile or mount network drives either - besides, if he could edit .bash_profile he could just put alias commands in there!
I agree, but the requirement that you can't install your script on the servers you administer is pretty weird to begin with. If he's not allowed to install a script, he probably isn't supposed to edit
So, I tried to come up with solutions that don't require changing anything in the accounts' config files. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
Altair is supposed to be big enough so nobody will suggest launching it on a commercial rocket (those were Not Invented Here, you know!), and it's supposed to use hydrogen engines instead of methane so long-term propellant storage in space and propellant manufacture on Mars will be out of the question.
I liked the name "Apollo on Steroids", personally. It reflected the fact that NASA is just doing the same thing again a little bigger, and that they're losing their balls.
Lets not think about what would happen if someone else ever had write access to that remote script...
The same thing that would happen if someone else ever had write access to a special ssh client binary you use, or even to your local configuration files: he'd then be able to take over any account you logged into. If you have reason to think your ssh client computer is more secure than any file service you can write to, you don't have to paste a "run this alias script" command, you can just copy and paste the whole script from a file on the client.
If they've got a command line HTTP or FTP client installed, then you don't need to "install" your alias script, just paste a command like
`lynx -source http://someserver.com/with/my/script`
(note the backticks) when you first log in.
I believe the light travels about 12 inches in a nanosecond.
Google agrees.
It makes you realize just how fast multi-Gigahertz processors are, doesn't it? Look over at your computer - by the time the light from it reaches your eyes, it's probably already working on it's next instruction.
Fedora Core 4 is massively misconfigured. This stuff *does* "just work" on every other major desktop distro.
It does "just work" on Fedora Core 4, too - and cdrecord (a build which works on IDE drives without ide-scsi), nautilus-cd-burner, xcdroast and k3b all come with the distribution.
Perhaps the grandparent post has some particularly weird hardware, but I suspect he just tried to follow an out-of-date HOWTO without realizing it was unnecessary. The CD burner bearing computers I've used with FC4 all worked with no hand-tweaking after the install.
If you'd read the whole of this thread you would see that someone did in fact install Adobe Reader on a bank machine to show an assistant his financial records
.PDF files on his USB disk; I don't see where anyone ran an installer from a USB disk.
I must have missed a post - I see where someone ran Adobe Reader (which most computers are likely to have already installed) to read
I don't get the obsession with USB devices anyway. When Microsoft starts trying to autorun executables after a USB disk is plugged in, then I'll be scared - your USB ports will now be as dangerous as your CD and DVD drives.
Good god, these "I deserve to run OS X any way I like" arguments are tiresome.
Really? Imagine how exhausting "You'll run OS X only in the ways we like, or go to jail" arguments must feel.
What if they just want to be free to one day move the OS they own from an old Apple/Intel computer to a new Dell/Intel PC? What if they're used to moving all their existing software onto a new computer from a new vendor, just like copyright law and the free market allows? What if they've seen Apple, Inc. financially saved by customers exercising free use rights to copy CDs onto iPods, and they're pissed off that Apple wants to take those rights away when someone else might see the benefit?
There once were some vendors who thought
They still owned what their customers bought.
Were there contracts we signed?
Cause if not, never mind.
I don't agree, so their EULAs are not.
These situations will not improve until people learn to count higher than two.
Unfortunately, the problems with plurality voting are described by game theory, not arithmetic. Everybody knows how to count higher than two; not so many people know the differences between instant runoff, Condorcet, and approval voting.
What's worse: the biggest problem with democracy in America today is apathy, not ignorance. People get furious at anyone who voted for "the other guy"; yet for some reason they take it easy on the more numerous group who couldn't be bothered to vote at all.