> What's so hard about doing it that way and having the ballots just > be big squares of newsprint with boxes you put an X inside?
Nothing, and that's just the way we do it here in Spring Lake Township, Pierce County, Wisconsin. Our "voting machine" is a tin and wood box about 100 years old.
> In all this open source/closed source voting debate people > completely miss the more important question: *why* are you pushing > for voting machines in the first place? What problem are you > trying to solve?
The usual arguments for machines are speed, accuracy, and handicap access. Speed, of course, only matters to the newsies. To hell with them. Well-designed ballots, simple templates, and competent election judges can provide more than adequate accuracy. The handicapped can continue to have someone assist them as they always have.
The strongest argument against electronic machines (and it is a compelling one) is lack of transparency. Ordinary people can completely understand how a paper ballot system works and know with confidence when it is working correctly and honestly. Ordinary people cannot understand how electronic systems work and therefor cannot (and should not) trust them. No amount of reassurance from experts can change this.
> The correct way to implement this would be to not let people keep > their reciepts. You would vote, it would add your vote to a > databse, and then print out a verfication slip. You then look at > it, and verify that it is correct, and then you drop it in a lock > box, which is then kept for a recount.
You're part way there. Now leave out the part about the database and substitute count for recount and you'll almost have it.
> Since the Canadian system doesn't involve huge payoffs, er, > contracts to friends of whichever party is in power at the time > for faulty voting machines, it obviously cannot be used in the US > elections.
Bullshit. Spring lake Township, Pierce County, Wisconsin uses paper ballots in every election. So do many other jurisdictions in the US.
> 'Draft a document and get back to me'. Now what sort of stuff > should I put in it?"
Reserve all rights to anything (not just code) you write or invent on your own time. Have the company assign you the copyright in any software you write on the job while retaining a non-exclusive license.
And, of course, have a lawyer review the document.
> Yeah, unfortunately there is something wrong with that equation. It > does not take into account of the direction of which the asteroid > will be deflected.
p and v are vectors.
> Although I hope that the mathematics used to base the "crash" on > would be calculated so that it does not shift the objects into a > collision course with Earth.
They will choose a target with an orbit such that it is not possible for the maximum amount of momentum that the spacecraft could deliver to change the target's orbit to an Earth collision course. This is not hard as almost all asteroids are in orbits which could not be easily made to collide with the Earth.
US copyright law makes no provision for works to enter the public domain by any means other than expiration of the copyright.
Furthermore, you cannot get rid of your TITLE 17 CH 2 203 "right" of termination. You cannot waive it and it can be exercised against your will by your widow, children, or executor. Thus licensing your work to the public under terms equivalent to public domain cannot have the same effect placing it in the public domain would.
What doofus wrote that headline? I seriously doubt that LimeWire intends to block all works on which the copyright has expired. Hint: copyright is automatic and compulsory.
The new code checks to see if shared material is licensed, if it is not, the LimeWire client will politely inform the user, 'LimeWire can't determine if one or more files have been published under a suitable license. These files will not be shared.'
So no public-domain material can be distributed via Limewire.
Yes. The ribbon has to extend past geosynchronous orbit in order for the counterweight to work. Mass of counterweight v. length is an engineering tradeoff.
> I understand that in the union, the Federal government can overrule > a state's authority.
You do not understand correctly.
> By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends > documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send > them back?
The state will read them with OpenOffice, of course. What do you think?
> Suppose M$ suddenly decides to support OpenDocument, gets the > state's business and then issues a "security patch", that > introduces proprietary extensions as has been in the past?
Either the "extensions" will be turned off or Microsoft will lose the state's business again, and perhaps find itself in court for breach of contract.
The government is now claiming a state-secret privilege, and is refusing to let the inventors sue Lucent for patent infringement, citing national security concerns.
The government is not "refusing to let them sue": it does not have that power (they have, in fact, already sued). It is refusing to let them have access to Lucent documents they may need to prove their case.
Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech.
Well, sure. That's the purpose of campaign finance laws.
The only power that could reasonably be said to be "used for computing" is that required for the concomitant entropy change. That is a miniscule fraction of the power consumed by any cpu.
> Do no evil? Commendable philosophy, but do I want > to be put in a position where I only have your > word to rely on to ensure that you do no evil to > me?
You are in that position every time you turn your back toward anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
> On the other hand, I suppose it's a bit like trademarks - protest
> every unsanctioned use, or (possibly) lose it.
It isn't at all like trademarks. Failing to enforce a copyright does not cause you to lose it.
> Call from the right jurisdiction and laugh at those puny
> do-not-call lists...
Until you tick off so many citizens that the government asks the phone companies to stop accepting connections from that jurisdiction.
> I'm generally a nice guy, but I delight in being rude to
> telemarketers.
Don't be rude to the telemarker. Demand the supervisor and be rude to her. That cost the company more money.
And there is no need to say "Put me on your do not call list" politely. It's just as effective when shouted angrily.
> What's so hard about doing it that way and having the ballots just
> be big squares of newsprint with boxes you put an X inside?
Nothing, and that's just the way we do it here in Spring Lake Township, Pierce County, Wisconsin. Our "voting machine" is a tin and wood box about 100 years old.
> In all this open source/closed source voting debate people
> completely miss the more important question: *why* are you pushing
> for voting machines in the first place? What problem are you
> trying to solve?
The usual arguments for machines are speed, accuracy, and handicap access. Speed, of course, only matters to the newsies. To hell with them. Well-designed ballots, simple templates, and competent election judges can provide more than adequate accuracy. The handicapped can continue to have someone assist them as they always have.
The strongest argument against electronic machines (and it is a compelling one) is lack of transparency. Ordinary people can completely understand how a paper ballot system works and know with confidence when it is working correctly and honestly. Ordinary people cannot understand how electronic systems work and therefor cannot (and should not) trust them. No amount of reassurance from experts can change this.
> The correct way to implement this would be to not let people keep
> their reciepts. You would vote, it would add your vote to a
> databse, and then print out a verfication slip. You then look at
> it, and verify that it is correct, and then you drop it in a lock
> box, which is then kept for a recount.
You're part way there. Now leave out the part about the database and substitute count for recount and you'll almost have it.
> Since the Canadian system doesn't involve huge payoffs, er,
> contracts to friends of whichever party is in power at the time
> for faulty voting machines, it obviously cannot be used in the US
> elections.
Bullshit. Spring lake Township, Pierce County, Wisconsin uses paper ballots in every election. So do many other jurisdictions in the US.
> 'Draft a document and get back to me'. Now what sort of stuff
> should I put in it?"
Reserve all rights to anything (not just code) you write or invent on your own time. Have the company assign you the copyright in any software you write on the job while retaining a non-exclusive license.
And, of course, have a lawyer review the document.
> Yeah, unfortunately there is something wrong with that equation. It
> does not take into account of the direction of which the asteroid
> will be deflected.
p and v are vectors.
> Although I hope that the mathematics used to base the "crash" on
> would be calculated so that it does not shift the objects into a
> collision course with Earth.
They will choose a target with an orbit such that it is not possible for the maximum amount of momentum that the spacecraft could deliver to change the target's orbit to an Earth collision course. This is not hard as almost all asteroids are in orbits which could not be easily made to collide with the Earth.
US copyright law makes no provision for works to enter the public domain by any means other than expiration of the copyright.
Furthermore, you cannot get rid of your TITLE 17 CH 2 203 "right" of termination. You cannot waive it and it can be exercised against your will by your widow, children, or executor. Thus licensing your work to the public under terms equivalent to public domain cannot have the same effect placing it in the public domain would.
What doofus wrote that headline? I seriously doubt that LimeWire intends to block all works on which the copyright has expired. Hint: copyright is automatic and compulsory.
Hint: not everything needs a license.
Seems unlikely, considering that all works on which the copyright has not expired are copyrighted.
Gigabytes have been written on the subject. Look it up yourself.
> we could build a partial one about a few kilometers above see level
What do you think is going to hold it up?
Yes. The ribbon has to extend past geosynchronous orbit in order for the counterweight to work. Mass of counterweight v. length is an engineering tradeoff.
Make hats for your entire family (don't forget the pets!). It has to be real tinfoil, though. Aluminum won't do.
> I understand that in the union, the Federal government can overrule
> a state's authority.
You do not understand correctly.
> By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends
> documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send
> them back?
The state will read them with OpenOffice, of course. What do you think?
> Suppose M$ suddenly decides to support OpenDocument, gets the
> state's business and then issues a "security patch", that
> introduces proprietary extensions as has been in the past?
Either the "extensions" will be turned off or Microsoft will lose the state's business again, and perhaps find itself in court for breach of contract.
The headline on this story is grossly misleading. State-secret privilege is certainly objectionable, but it has nothing to do with eminent domain.
> cut back on ... power ... by as much as 1,000
> times current levels.
"Cut back by 1000 times"? Are these people native speakers of english?
The only power that could reasonably be said to be "used for computing" is that required for the concomitant entropy change. That is a miniscule fraction of the power consumed by any cpu.
> Do no evil? Commendable philosophy, but do I want
> to be put in a position where I only have your
> word to rely on to ensure that you do no evil to
> me?
You are in that position every time you turn your back toward anyone.