Gore voters were more likely to make a mistake due to the design of the ballot.
And you're still ignoring the felon purging which purged non-felons.
Voters on the west coast have always been able to see east coast results before voting.
Finally, you are arguing that the essence of an election is that people vote on the same day, rather than that everyone votes and every vote is counted. That's a... odd... view of democracy.
PostgreSQL has "make check". GCC has a regression test suite.
Most CPAN modules have tests, whether trivial or comprehensive.
And these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Re:THE CIA IS OBVIOUSLY BEHIND THIS
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 2
Um, having unjust laws is wrong, and enforcing them is wrong - both. Nobody should be expected to follow unjust laws or abide by unjust agreements - and breaking these is not wrong.
You expect IBM, Sun, and HP could build something from Windows 95 to compete with 2000? Oh, and they'll then have to work out every bug that Microsoft already fixed - that's a good way to promote the progress of science - not even reinventing the wheel, redebugging the Edsel. That won't work.
The only win from your proposal would be that reverse engineering proprietary formats would be slightly easier - but if other vendors wait 5 years before getting compatibility with M$'s obsolete formats, they have already lost.
And I don't see why you think the market will stop Microsoft in the future, when it has failed for 10 years now.
BTW, why does it matter if a solution is voluntary? Why should Microsoft have any rights at all? We allow corporations (by which I mean LLCs - not just groups of people, but groups of people shielded by limited liability) to exist because they benefit real humans - any rules on them need not be subject to concerns of their rights, since they are artificial creations of the state. Hm, if you want less government intervention, why not just abolish corporations?
Oh, yeah, that's good - give Microsoft an excuse to force upgrades every N years... "But how can we afford to support a product we don't have the copyright on - and anyway, since the source is out there, they might have modified it! Besides, our new version, incompatible by default with previous versions, is so much better!"
Naw, that won't solve M$'s monopoly. Nor will breaking it up divisionwise. Cloning it might help, but it will hurt consumers by spreading M$'s poisonous culture of incompatibilty. So: conduct restrictions - don't *let* them make secret deals with PC manufacturers. Don't *let* them make incompatibility the default behaviour. Don't *let* them buy competitors for N years. Those *might* work against the most evil sofware company ever.
Everyone with a brain tries to justify their actions. If I didn't think something was OK, I would not do it.
But people who refuse to justify their beliefs are worthy of nothing but scorn, because when their beliefs are wrong, there is no way of challenging them, and because, more often than not, they have no rational basis for those beliefs.
Maybe it's off a stock image CD? Maybe it's freely available on the web? Also, I don't recall that background, and I would love to see evidence that this is the same one.
Naw, fuck that. Bandwidth is so cheap these days that if you can't figure out a way to pay for it, then there are plenty of sites to go to when yours dies.
Or, mirror wildly, and you'll never die. Oh, you wanted to make a living running a web site? So, find someone who will pay you for it.
I fail to see where stealing comes into it. As the classic example goes, is taking a piss during adverts on TV stealing? Obviously, nobody would argue that. I'll bet you a buck there's not one TV ad exec who doesn't do that.
Finally, ads don't pay for sites anymore - the market is way too depressed. They just annoy users. That's why we see this move towards uglier, more hateful ads, which make more people block them.
And if you're worried about bandwidth expenditures, well, ads probably take up 90% of your bandwidth, if you run a normal text-based site.
Works fine for me with JavaScript *on*, but with Junkbuster blocking their ads.
Thinking about this gives me an idea, tho: Browsers should have a special mode where you can just set form fields willy-nilly. This would be great for debugging CGIs, and especially great for fucking systems like this. Hm, bugzilla feature request form: here I come!
If you think any client-side methods can force someone to view an ad, think again.
What kind if checksum will you put in Javascript? Great! That means that webmasters who use Javascript responsibly will lose out, because everyone will surf with it off.
You can't force people to view ads. Instead, make ads that don't suck, so people aren't tempted to block them. Like Google - its ads get higher clickthroughs and suck less.
Roddenberry had promised to do something about the complete absense of homosexuality on ST, but then he died. In B5, there was some clearly on the way, but then casting issues fucked it all up. Oh well.
Um, so we gave money to the Taliban, a theocracy which oppresses women, non-muslims, and people who fly kites (really!). That's supposed to be a good thing?
And Saddam doesn't need to commit genocide against the Kurds when he has the US-sponsored Turkish Air Force to do it for him.
Yeah, they also had a "minor" problem which ate my entire inbox, and they fucked up my DNS after I switched to someone else... Um, thanks, PHPWebHosting!
Well, the idea is not to get caught.... But if they are the sort of company that would prosecute you, then they would also stick around long enough to get compensation through ordinary channels. Besides, I think I would be comfortable explaining to a prospective employer that I don't work unless I get paid.
No, wait, I take that back. The employee is justified if management has lied to her in the past and if she feels that normal bankrupcy proceedings will not get her paid (or will not happen). Otherwise, I guess the equiptment could be liquidated to equitably provide for as much of everyone's back wages as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Gore voters were more likely to make a mistake due to the design of the ballot.
... odd ... view of democracy.
And you're still ignoring the felon purging which purged non-felons.
Voters on the west coast have always been able to see east coast results before voting.
Finally, you are arguing that the essence of an election is that people vote on the same day, rather than that everyone votes and every vote is counted. That's a
You are ignoring Choicepoint and the ballot design.
Anyway, it doesn't matter which way they went - the recount should have happened, and it didn't. That's what I'm complaining about.
Irrelevant - the votes should have been counted.
Anyway, you're ignoring the ChoicePoint thing. And the ballots. The only correct solution was a revote.
PostgreSQL has "make check". GCC has a regression test suite.
Most CPAN modules have tests, whether trivial or comprehensive.
And these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Um, having unjust laws is wrong, and enforcing them is wrong - both. Nobody should be expected to follow unjust laws or abide by unjust agreements - and breaking these is not wrong.
No, the Apache license is *not* GPL compatible - read this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
The OpenSSL license has the same incompatible terms as the Apache license.
How do they plan to do SSL? OpenSSL isn't licensed under a GPL-compatible license.
If they've built a whole new SSL library, I'm impressed.
Naw, they just write over more of the surface of the CD - it's technically out of spec, but everyone can read it.
You expect IBM, Sun, and HP could build something from Windows 95 to compete with 2000? Oh, and they'll then have to work out every bug that Microsoft already fixed - that's a good way to promote the progress of science - not even reinventing the wheel, redebugging the Edsel. That won't work.
The only win from your proposal would be that reverse engineering proprietary formats would be slightly easier - but if other vendors wait 5 years before getting compatibility with M$'s obsolete formats, they have already lost.
And I don't see why you think the market will stop Microsoft in the future, when it has failed for 10 years now.
BTW, why does it matter if a solution is voluntary? Why should Microsoft have any rights at all? We allow corporations (by which I mean LLCs - not just groups of people, but groups of people shielded by limited liability) to exist because they benefit real humans - any rules on them need not be subject to concerns of their rights, since they are artificial creations of the state. Hm, if you want less government intervention, why not just abolish corporations?
Oh, yeah, that's good - give Microsoft an excuse to force upgrades every N years... "But how can we afford to support a product we don't have the copyright on - and anyway, since the source is out there, they might have modified it! Besides, our new version, incompatible by default with previous versions, is so much better!"
Naw, that won't solve M$'s monopoly. Nor will breaking it up divisionwise. Cloning it might help, but it will hurt consumers by spreading M$'s poisonous culture of incompatibilty. So: conduct restrictions - don't *let* them make secret deals with PC manufacturers. Don't *let* them make incompatibility the default behaviour. Don't *let* them buy competitors for N years. Those *might* work against the most evil sofware company ever.
He also said copyright. Read the last line.
Everyone with a brain tries to justify their actions. If I didn't think something was OK, I would not do it.
But people who refuse to justify their beliefs are worthy of nothing but scorn, because when their beliefs are wrong, there is no way of challenging them, and because, more often than not, they have no rational basis for those beliefs.
Maybe it's off a stock image CD? Maybe it's freely available on the web? Also, I don't recall that background, and I would love to see evidence that this is the same one.
That's a trademark, not a copyright. Big difference. Anyway,
Naw, fuck that. Bandwidth is so cheap these days that if you can't figure out a way to pay for it, then there are plenty of sites to go to when yours dies.
Or, mirror wildly, and you'll never die. Oh, you wanted to make a living running a web site? So, find someone who will pay you for it.
I fail to see where stealing comes into it. As the classic example goes, is taking a piss during adverts on TV stealing? Obviously, nobody would argue that. I'll bet you a buck there's not one TV ad exec who doesn't do that.
Finally, ads don't pay for sites anymore - the market is way too depressed. They just annoy users. That's why we see this move towards uglier, more hateful ads, which make more people block them.
And if you're worried about bandwidth expenditures, well, ads probably take up 90% of your bandwidth, if you run a normal text-based site.
Works fine for me with JavaScript *on*, but with Junkbuster blocking their ads.
Thinking about this gives me an idea, tho: Browsers should have a special mode where you can just set form fields willy-nilly. This would be great for debugging CGIs, and especially great for fucking systems like this. Hm, bugzilla feature request form: here I come!
If you think any client-side methods can force someone to view an ad, think again.
What kind if checksum will you put in Javascript? Great! That means that webmasters who use Javascript responsibly will lose out, because everyone will surf with it off.
You can't force people to view ads. Instead, make ads that don't suck, so people aren't tempted to block them. Like Google - its ads get higher clickthroughs and suck less.
"where is the part in the constitution that says you have the right to be anonymous."
1st and 9th amendments. See also McIntyre (sp?!) v. Ohio Election Commission
"I understand the right of free speech, and general "freedoms" granted"
The constitution does not grant freedoms. It acknowledges that the gov't will not take them away.
Roddenberry had promised to do something about the complete absense of homosexuality on ST, but then he died. In B5, there was some clearly on the way, but then casting issues fucked it all up. Oh well.
Um, so we gave money to the Taliban, a theocracy which oppresses women, non-muslims, and people who fly kites (really!). That's supposed to be a good thing?
And Saddam doesn't need to commit genocide against the Kurds when he has the US-sponsored Turkish Air Force to do it for him.
OK:
http://www.counterpane.com/rijndael.html
Hm, 15/20 for RC6, as opposed to 8 / 11 or 9 / 13 for Rijndael? Um, OK.
Yeah, they also had a "minor" problem which ate my entire inbox, and they fucked up my DNS after I switched to someone else... Um, thanks, PHPWebHosting!
Well, the idea is not to get caught.... But if they are the sort of company that would prosecute you, then they would also stick around long enough to get compensation through ordinary channels. Besides, I think I would be comfortable explaining to a prospective employer that I don't work unless I get paid.
No, wait, I take that back. The employee is justified if management has lied to her in the past and if she feels that normal bankrupcy proceedings will not get her paid (or will not happen). Otherwise, I guess the equiptment could be liquidated to equitably provide for as much of everyone's back wages as possible.