"Amercians" is short for "United States of America-ians"; It's.. logical
It's precisely *not* logical. That's the problem. Logically, The United States is a subset *of* America. What America comprises, of course, is open to debate.
And, people do sound like dumbasses when they assume otherwise.
They are, however, from "the states" and not the "US".
Absolutely correct. I don't live in the United States. I live in Oklahoma. The United States comprises about a block of the downtown of major cities, a couple of Army bases scattered around near small towns, the country formerly known as Iraq, and ten miles square in Virginia.
I'm going to take the advice in your sig and pick your argument apart based on your poor presentation, rather than on it's merit, since I think we're mostly in agreement.
Premise: I would say the main problem *is* a technical one, and that it's intractable.
Assertion #1: technology is inherently opaque Rebuttal: unless you have a great deal of specialized training
Assertion #2: you can never really be sure Rebuttal: unless you're allowed to disassemble the device.
Straw man: there are ways you can build systems that can be verified, and processes to verify them Attack on straw man: the costs are huge Defense of straw man: The costs can't be larger than manual ballot-counting.
I think what he was saying is that it's the *implementations* that are faulty, not the concept.
Perhaps the current incarnations are faulty because they involve insecure proprietary software made by inept, politically-motivated companies; but that doesn't mean that e-voting is inherently impossible to do correctly.
There's a real feeling among "regular people" that computers aren't to be trusted. It will only hurt OSS and proponents of universal computing when Microsoft capitalizes on this mistrust (that they helped create) by introducing "Trustworthy" computers that only run Windows.
The technologically informed must make it clear that the problems with e-voting (and secure computing in general) are not technical ones and will not be solved by blindly trusting faceless corporations or closed-source government voting booths.
That is one option that I hope never makes it to Linux.
If you really need to know whether someone got your e-mail, ask them.
If you can't be bothered to do that, it wasn't that important anyways.
If you think they're lying when they say they didn't get it, ask your e-mail server admin; It's just as reliable to look at server logs to find out if a message was received.
documenting yet more ways our local government is... inept
They don't have to try very hard. I remember a couple of years ago the local news had a shot of a police car that had run into a postal truck. No comment necessary, just ten seconds worth of footage. That image is with me every time I vote.
Mozilla has a Calendar that uses the standard iCal format. I haven't used it very much, but it was very easy to install! It looks like it doesn't work seamlessly with Outlook or Exchange, though.
There could be. Lawyers have consultants who help them with all sorts of stuff, including software. It wouldn't be so hard to have an expert verify the source code by compiling and comparing it against the binary software released.
It's not that I don't believe you, but why on earth would anyone want that? I would think that they would want to talk *directly* to the person who will fix the problem, (RedHat, Mandrake, whatever) rather than try to explain what's wrong with their Linux distro with some phone-jockey from HP or Dell. I know in all the situations where I've had to have a problem resolved, the first two or three people I've had to talk to have been *utterly* useless to the point of wasting my time.
Yeah, no one is seriously considering Firebird at this point; but, like KDE, it would be folly to completely ignore it.
*When* Firebird reaches a stable state, it will be a force to be reckoned with. Who knows, UserLinux may even still be vaporware by then. It would be dumb to choose something else now only to have everyone demand Firebird a year from now.
This licensing discussion seems like an ideological smokescreen
It is. He originally had mysql as the default database, even while he was making his "free commercial development" licensing arguments. He didn't change to postgresql until someone pointed out that this was somewhat hypocritical.
Because it doesn't make sense. It sounds like he's more interested in proprietary, commercial development than Open Source or Free Software, or even, (god forbid) choosing the best software for the job.
Businesses tend to want more than just phone support. Having a local rep in town is what RedHat is missing. Having a network of independent providers is the easiest way for a community-based distro like UserLinux to get that.
Advocates usually point to well networked operations like Wal-mart, UPS, et al. as poster children for what could be done
And that, ladies & gentlemen, is the reason that Wal-Mart will *own* the entire retail market in the US within the decade. They already get $1000/yr from every man, woman, and child in the US.
I did some consulting for a niche retailer last year. After assessing their current technology, I unilaterally recommended that they copy Wal-Mart in every one of their IT decisions. I even called the plan "Operation: Copy Wal-Mart".
The only problem is: it will never work. Small-time retailers can't deal in the inventory levels that Wal-Mart handles. It's hard to automatically reorder stock when you can only carry *two* of an item at a time.
Like I said: I give it 'till 2010 before either 'Brown' is running their business for them or Wal-Mart decides to add a shelf to their stores that puts them out of business.
If you read through the 'User'Linux list archives, you'll see that the way it happened was:
1) Bruce released his whitepaper.
2) People began discussing the possibility of a standard DE, including the benefits/downsides of each and the benefits/downsides of supporting both.
3) *One* person stated that a $1500/year developer license for QT was cost-prohibitive.
4) After a week of discussion, Bruce *declared* that Gnome would be the choice because of this undue burden on proprietary developers and that the discussion was "over".
5) Lots of people pointed out that this only makes sense in comparison to the slave-wages of offshore development. They also pointed at the fact that KDE has a better IDE, better documentation, commercial support, and a larger developer following, even among commercial developers. Trolltech people said that they were willing to work with commercial developers who *seriously* couldn't afford their licensing fees.
6) More than a few complained that Bruce was dictatorial in his decision.
7) Bruce defended his decision by disclosing that, among his prospective clients, 4 out of 5 were leaning towards Gnome.
8) The KDE proponents realized what was going on began to talk of a split.
9) Most people generally realized that *users* had no bearing on 'User'Linux and talked of a name change.
Slashdot Mirror
It's precisely *not* logical. That's the problem. Logically, The United States is a subset *of* America. What America comprises, of course, is open to debate.
And, people do sound like dumbasses when they assume otherwise.
Absolutely correct. I don't live in the United States. I live in Oklahoma. The United States comprises about a block of the downtown of major cities, a couple of Army bases scattered around near small towns, the country formerly known as Iraq, and ten miles square in Virginia.
"Time to check on the free-range children!" -Skinner
Does anyone else find it humorous that:
KDE users want Gnome apps like Evolution, Gaim, Gimp and Win/Lin cross-platform apps like OpenOffice and Mozilla and generally eschew the KDE apps.
OSX users seem to want KDE apps (Safari, KOffice).
I'm beginning to think it's just a ploy to sell more RAM.
I'm going to take the advice in your sig and pick your argument apart based on your poor presentation, rather than on it's merit, since I think we're mostly in agreement.
Premise:
I would say the main problem *is* a technical one, and that it's intractable.
Assertion #1:
technology is inherently opaque
Rebuttal:
unless you have a great deal of specialized training
Assertion #2:
you can never really be sure
Rebuttal:
unless you're allowed to disassemble the device.
Straw man:
there are ways you can build systems that can be verified, and processes to verify them
Attack on straw man:
the costs are huge
Defense of straw man:
The costs can't be larger than manual ballot-counting.
Potentially valid assertions:
1) Cost
2) Voter confidence (or lack thereof)
Valid assertions in support of premise:
None
Conclusion:
No technical problems in sight.
I think what he was saying is that it's the *implementations* that are faulty, not the concept.
Perhaps the current incarnations are faulty because they involve insecure proprietary software made by inept, politically-motivated companies; but that doesn't mean that e-voting is inherently impossible to do correctly.
There's a real feeling among "regular people" that computers aren't to be trusted. It will only hurt OSS and proponents of universal computing when Microsoft capitalizes on this mistrust (that they helped create) by introducing "Trustworthy" computers that only run Windows.
The technologically informed must make it clear that the problems with e-voting (and secure computing in general) are not technical ones and will not be solved by blindly trusting faceless corporations or closed-source government voting booths.
Such a distro would also be a great way of advertising the many Linux-based point-of-sale solutions available.
In fact, (before they lost their minds), our buddies at SCO were touting a Linux POS distribution that would run on similar equipment.
It's not really the read receipts that are the problem, it's how idiots like to (ab)use them. Personally, I just fetch my email with pine.
read recipts
That is one option that I hope never makes it to Linux.
If you really need to know whether someone got your e-mail, ask them.
If you can't be bothered to do that, it wasn't that important anyways.
If you think they're lying when they say they didn't get it, ask your e-mail server admin; It's just as reliable to look at server logs to find out if a message was received.
I think you're just showing how little you know about the profit motives of big hardware manufacturers.
They want to kludge the software to make it work with their hardware, not the other way around.
I saw that too.
Then I saw Posted by michael and everything was better.
They don't have to try very hard. I remember a couple of years ago the local news had a shot of a police car that had run into a postal truck. No comment necessary, just ten seconds worth of footage. That image is with me every time I vote.
Mozilla has a Calendar that uses the standard iCal format. I haven't used it very much, but it was very easy to install! It looks like it doesn't work seamlessly with Outlook or Exchange, though.
There could be. Lawyers have consultants who help them with all sorts of stuff, including software. It wouldn't be so hard to have an expert verify the source code by compiling and comparing it against the binary software released.
If that were really true, it would just end up with them making a usable ext2 driver for Windows.
Between 4 big manufacturers, that would be *much* cheaper than handing MS a million $ every year.
They should be more worried about Microsoft's DRM media formats becoming the defacto standard.
It's not that I don't believe you, but why on earth would anyone want that?
I would think that they would want to talk *directly* to the person who will fix the problem, (RedHat, Mandrake, whatever) rather than try to explain what's wrong with their Linux distro with some phone-jockey from HP or Dell.
I know in all the situations where I've had to have a problem resolved, the first two or three people I've had to talk to have been *utterly* useless to the point of wasting my time.
like unemployment?
Give an example of a company that can afford to do in-house development but can't afford to purchase Qt.
Yeah, no one is seriously considering Firebird at this point; but, like KDE, it would be folly to completely ignore it.
*When* Firebird reaches a stable state, it will be a force to be reckoned with. Who knows, UserLinux may even still be vaporware by then. It would be dumb to choose something else now only to have everyone demand Firebird a year from now.
It is. He originally had mysql as the default database, even while he was making his "free commercial development" licensing arguments. He didn't change to postgresql until someone pointed out that this was somewhat hypocritical.
Because it doesn't make sense. It sounds like he's more interested in proprietary, commercial development than Open Source or Free Software, or even, (god forbid) choosing the best software for the job.
Businesses tend to want more than just phone support. Having a local rep in town is what RedHat is missing. Having a network of independent providers is the easiest way for a community-based distro like UserLinux to get that.
And that, ladies & gentlemen, is the reason that Wal-Mart will *own* the entire retail market in the US within the decade. They already get $1000/yr from every man, woman, and child in the US.
I did some consulting for a niche retailer last year. After assessing their current technology, I unilaterally recommended that they copy Wal-Mart in every one of their IT decisions. I even called the plan "Operation: Copy Wal-Mart".
The only problem is: it will never work. Small-time retailers can't deal in the inventory levels that Wal-Mart handles. It's hard to automatically reorder stock when you can only carry *two* of an item at a time.
Like I said: I give it 'till 2010 before either 'Brown' is running their business for them or Wal-Mart decides to add a shelf to their stores that puts them out of business.
how would we benefit from a standardized language?
the system as a whole would be more prone to hacks and abuse.
I think that's what they're talking about. Just because you don't have a use for all your personal data, doesn't mean nobody does.
Think "cookies for real life".
If you read through the 'User'Linux list archives, you'll see that the way it happened was:
1) Bruce released his whitepaper.
2) People began discussing the possibility of a standard DE, including the benefits/downsides of each and the benefits/downsides of supporting both.
3) *One* person stated that a $1500/year developer license for QT was cost-prohibitive.
4) After a week of discussion, Bruce *declared* that Gnome would be the choice because of this undue burden on proprietary developers and that the discussion was "over".
5) Lots of people pointed out that this only makes sense in comparison to the slave-wages of offshore development. They also pointed at the fact that KDE has a better IDE, better documentation, commercial support, and a larger developer following, even among commercial developers. Trolltech people said that they were willing to work with commercial developers who *seriously* couldn't afford their licensing fees.
6) More than a few complained that Bruce was dictatorial in his decision.
7) Bruce defended his decision by disclosing that, among his prospective clients, 4 out of 5 were leaning towards Gnome.
8) The KDE proponents realized what was going on began to talk of a split.
9) Most people generally realized that *users* had no bearing on 'User'Linux and talked of a name change.