Voters don't care how they vote, as long as it's easy and they can have confidence that their vote will be counted.
Considering that these states implemented relatively untested systems in a slap-dash manner that showed no regard for the integrity of the vote, I don't think it's fair to blame this on "academics and computer scientists".
Done properly (as in, with a physical record), electronic voting is a good alternative to our increasingly antiquated voting systems. However, the combination of unscrupulous businessmen and ethically/intellectually-challenged election officials led these states to spend oodles of money on sub-standard products.
The predictable (and predicted) end result was a process built more around satisfying the vendors desire to push units than satisfying the public's need for a reliable vote. Then the manure hit the wind-blowing machine and vote tallies came out screwy. People started to notice this particular gov't boondoggle and what we're seeing is elected officials starting to sweat.
Unfortunately it appears the lesson they took from this was that e-voting is bad bad bad (look away and never mention it again) and they're going Luddite.
Maybe in 10 years they'll get the nerve to try again, this time with an open, verifiable system that we can trust. Or, more likely. some other snake-oil salesman will take the opportunity to bilk the public trust for more millions of dollars.
Not that I don't sympathize with the plight of the trucking industry, but it sounds like the business model you're describing is no longer profitable.
The problem with the trucking industry is not illegal immigrants or unscrupulous competitors. The business you describe should, in theory, be able to attract clients willing to pay more for licensed drivers and adequate insurance. And yet they are still operating with razor thin (and even negative) margins. Most likely because their are just too many legal operations in competition for too little business.
Singling out "mexicans" (ignoring the varied origins of the local Latino population) strikes me as being quite explicitly racist in this context. You are using people of a different cultural background and physical appearance as a scapegoat for problems caused by the inherent weaknesses in your industry.
You really think Congress-critters are going to want to explain to their constituents why they voted to flood the internets with sexual predators? Because clearly that's how a no vote on this bill would be portrayed.
I find it odd that you were modded down. I think your analogy to Europe was quite apt and a good use of modern history to rebut the parent post's rather sophistic argument.
I don't know about this particular construction site you're referring to, but the point is to slow down people and get break lights popping on so idiot drivers will sit up and notice what's happening around them.
Dropping 20 MPH off the speed will get people to put their foot on the break and maybe, hopefully absorb the fact that heavy machinery and people are working 10 feet from where they are.
though, as an aside, I would disagree that copyright is dying. Copyright is useful in many circumstances and creators should have some control over how their material is used. However, the current regime of perpetually extended copyright is indefensible and morally bankrupt.
For example, a musician could use copyright to prevent others from performing their songs. They can also try to use it to prevent people from listening to their music, but that seems counter-productive to the goal of getting more people interested in the music.
The way the major labels have it set up, unless they go platinum, musicians don't see very much revenue from record sales. They make their money at concerts and through merchandise.
I think you're overstating here. This might be perhaps the end of multi-millionaire rockers, maybe. But file-sharing wont be the end of live shows and merchandise. So there's still plenty of revenue sources for the artists.
If by "professional musicianship" you're referring to the top-40 detritus on MTV and Clear Channel, let's hope you're right. I certainly wouldn't want to preserve that system with a federal tax.
I have a revolutionary idea! Maybe we can go back to people making music they love because it's what they love to do.
We are a nation of laws. Those that break the law should be held to account. The Bush administration has flouted one of the bedrock laws of this country and Congress' reaction to these crimes is to retroactively make them legal.
Can you tell me exactly what freedoms are being restored by this new FISA law? Does the new law guarantee that this president or the next wont use this as a precedent to allow him to ignore any provisions (of any law) that he doesn't like?
This is not the perfect being the enemy of the good. This law is just a smokescreen.
Whatever the founding fathers intended, two hundred-plus years of American law has placed a completely different spin on the 4th amendment.
Which is the only way for the Constitution to remain viable, since the human beings who authored the Constitution had no idea what the world would be like in the 21st century. We can conjecture what the founding fathers might have though about FISA, but that's as meaningful as chicken-bone voodoo. Unfortunately for Originalists, Thomas Jefferson did not write a missive on whether email traveling through servers in the US requires a judicially issued warrant.
What is wrong with FISA that the current bill fixes?
This bill changes nothing except now what the Bush administration did illegally, it can now do legally. And the fact that they were doing it illegally before is also, actually, legal.
The only thing this does is confirm that the CIA/NSA can do whatever they want regardless of the law and if they get caught, Congress will bail them out.
Long before the votes were cast, those weak amendments were destined for failure. Which makes Obama's voting for them an empty gesture.
The reason the details are not yet fully known is that the telecoms who did the wiretapping are not going to cooperate in an investigation. Giving them immunity removes the only leverage that Congress had in getting them to testify.
So it's very likely that it will be at least 50 years (and possibly never) before we actually come to terms with the scope of the wiretapping. And no one in the Bush administration will ever be held accountable for violating the law and the constitutional rights of private citizens.
I recognize that we're looking at a two man race, and all Obama needs to do is not lose. But on this issue (which is about the expanding power of the executive and has nothing to do with National Security) Obama could have made a clear, decisive stand and taken a position as a leader of the democratic party. Instead he chose to follow the herd, disappointing.
Your example isn't copy-protection, it's offering an extra service to paying customers. In that sense, the pirated version of the game is an advertisement for the retail product (much like mix-tapes worked for the music industry).
In this case, we're talking about a game that will not run if it can't get in touch with the verification server (whether you paid for it or not).
Now, from prior experience, there will be a hacked version that doesn't require verification shortly after release. So the copy-protection fails and EA ends up with the situation you describe in your post. People playing the pirated game want to take advantage of the online features and then go out and buy the game.
And, also from prior experience, there are going to be people who did buy the game, but for whatever reason can't get verified. Those people are going to return the defective game and get their money back. And they'll likely never buy another game that relies on verification (remember the copy-protected CDs that didn't play in computers or car-stereos?).
So the question is, why bother with the copy-protection when the scenario you describe adds value to the product and is less intrusive, easier to implement, and more effective at driving sales?
Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it? The DRM is meant to prevent people from pirating the game, but he's going to pirate the game to avoid the DRM, which justifies EA's use of DRM, even though without the DRM he would buy the game.
Actually, you know, that's probably exactly how the execs over at EA think.
The only thing that you could really complain about is the necessity of an internet connection to validate on install. As with any complicated software system (especially one acting over the internet), there's a lot that can go wrong. If it doesn't work for any reason, they'll have spent a lot of money turning happy customers into angry returners.
A wise decision would be to forgo the DRM altogether, and apply the savings to reducing the retail price of the games. I guarantee that will have a far greater effect on sales than any DRM scheme ever would.
I believe "Joe Sixpack" commonly refers to the common practice of selling beer in packs of six.
To answer your question, this guy is talking about charging content providers for faster throughput. Which implicitly is saying that they're going to slow down service for the majority of sites that don't pay the toll.
So while I am sure your $10 is appreciated, it's not going to help with this kind of tiered pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
Voters don't care how they vote, as long as it's easy and they can have confidence that their vote will be counted.
Considering that these states implemented relatively untested systems in a slap-dash manner that showed no regard for the integrity of the vote, I don't think it's fair to blame this on "academics and computer scientists".
Done properly (as in, with a physical record), electronic voting is a good alternative to our increasingly antiquated voting systems. However, the combination of unscrupulous businessmen and ethically/intellectually-challenged election officials led these states to spend oodles of money on sub-standard products.
The predictable (and predicted) end result was a process built more around satisfying the vendors desire to push units than satisfying the public's need for a reliable vote. Then the manure hit the wind-blowing machine and vote tallies came out screwy. People started to notice this particular gov't boondoggle and what we're seeing is elected officials starting to sweat.
Unfortunately it appears the lesson they took from this was that e-voting is bad bad bad (look away and never mention it again) and they're going Luddite.
Maybe in 10 years they'll get the nerve to try again, this time with an open, verifiable system that we can trust. Or, more likely. some other snake-oil salesman will take the opportunity to bilk the public trust for more millions of dollars.
Stupid pants wearers! Those communists are keeping me from being free!
...Chasing too little demand.
Not that I don't sympathize with the plight of the trucking industry, but it sounds like the business model you're describing is no longer profitable.
The problem with the trucking industry is not illegal immigrants or unscrupulous competitors. The business you describe should, in theory, be able to attract clients willing to pay more for licensed drivers and adequate insurance. And yet they are still operating with razor thin (and even negative) margins. Most likely because their are just too many legal operations in competition for too little business.
Singling out "mexicans" (ignoring the varied origins of the local Latino population) strikes me as being quite explicitly racist in this context. You are using people of a different cultural background and physical appearance as a scapegoat for problems caused by the inherent weaknesses in your industry.
You really think Congress-critters are going to want to explain to their constituents why they voted to flood the internets with sexual predators? Because clearly that's how a no vote on this bill would be portrayed.
I find it odd that you were modded down. I think your analogy to Europe was quite apt and a good use of modern history to rebut the parent post's rather sophistic argument.
I don't know about this particular construction site you're referring to, but the point is to slow down people and get break lights popping on so idiot drivers will sit up and notice what's happening around them.
Dropping 20 MPH off the speed will get people to put their foot on the break and maybe, hopefully absorb the fact that heavy machinery and people are working 10 feet from where they are.
put her up next to feinstein or mkulski...
No!
Oh that's just great! It's lunch time and I've just totally lost my appetite.
NFL Cheerleaders are hot. Swimsuit models are hot. Girls in rap videos are hot.
Sarah Palin is not hot.
In your face, California!
mod parent up.
though, as an aside, I would disagree that copyright is dying. Copyright is useful in many circumstances and creators should have some control over how their material is used. However, the current regime of perpetually extended copyright is indefensible and morally bankrupt.
For example, a musician could use copyright to prevent others from performing their songs. They can also try to use it to prevent people from listening to their music, but that seems counter-productive to the goal of getting more people interested in the music.
Methinks, tho doth protest too much.
The way the major labels have it set up, unless they go platinum, musicians don't see very much revenue from record sales. They make their money at concerts and through merchandise.
I think you're overstating here. This might be perhaps the end of multi-millionaire rockers, maybe. But file-sharing wont be the end of live shows and merchandise. So there's still plenty of revenue sources for the artists.
If by "professional musicianship" you're referring to the top-40 detritus on MTV and Clear Channel, let's hope you're right. I certainly wouldn't want to preserve that system with a federal tax.
I have a revolutionary idea! Maybe we can go back to people making music they love because it's what they love to do.
We are a nation of laws. Those that break the law should be held to account. The Bush administration has flouted one of the bedrock laws of this country and Congress' reaction to these crimes is to retroactively make them legal.
Can you tell me exactly what freedoms are being restored by this new FISA law? Does the new law guarantee that this president or the next wont use this as a precedent to allow him to ignore any provisions (of any law) that he doesn't like?
This is not the perfect being the enemy of the good. This law is just a smokescreen.
...not gods.
Whatever the founding fathers intended, two hundred-plus years of American law has placed a completely different spin on the 4th amendment.
Which is the only way for the Constitution to remain viable, since the human beings who authored the Constitution had no idea what the world would be like in the 21st century. We can conjecture what the founding fathers might have though about FISA, but that's as meaningful as chicken-bone voodoo. Unfortunately for Originalists, Thomas Jefferson did not write a missive on whether email traveling through servers in the US requires a judicially issued warrant.
What is wrong with FISA that the current bill fixes?
This bill changes nothing except now what the Bush administration did illegally, it can now do legally. And the fact that they were doing it illegally before is also, actually, legal.
The only thing this does is confirm that the CIA/NSA can do whatever they want regardless of the law and if they get caught, Congress will bail them out.
Can you explain to me what Hillary Clinton has to do with this?
Especially since she, apparently, voted against the bill.
And I think you underestimate my appetite for destruction!
Long before the votes were cast, those weak amendments were destined for failure. Which makes Obama's voting for them an empty gesture.
The reason the details are not yet fully known is that the telecoms who did the wiretapping are not going to cooperate in an investigation. Giving them immunity removes the only leverage that Congress had in getting them to testify.
So it's very likely that it will be at least 50 years (and possibly never) before we actually come to terms with the scope of the wiretapping. And no one in the Bush administration will ever be held accountable for violating the law and the constitutional rights of private citizens.
I recognize that we're looking at a two man race, and all Obama needs to do is not lose. But on this issue (which is about the expanding power of the executive and has nothing to do with National Security) Obama could have made a clear, decisive stand and taken a position as a leader of the democratic party. Instead he chose to follow the herd, disappointing.
seconded!
Seriously, it's just you.
Your example isn't copy-protection, it's offering an extra service to paying customers. In that sense, the pirated version of the game is an advertisement for the retail product (much like mix-tapes worked for the music industry).
In this case, we're talking about a game that will not run if it can't get in touch with the verification server (whether you paid for it or not).
Now, from prior experience, there will be a hacked version that doesn't require verification shortly after release. So the copy-protection fails and EA ends up with the situation you describe in your post. People playing the pirated game want to take advantage of the online features and then go out and buy the game.
And, also from prior experience, there are going to be people who did buy the game, but for whatever reason can't get verified. Those people are going to return the defective game and get their money back. And they'll likely never buy another game that relies on verification (remember the copy-protected CDs that didn't play in computers or car-stereos?).
So the question is, why bother with the copy-protection when the scenario you describe adds value to the product and is less intrusive, easier to implement, and more effective at driving sales?
Actually, you know, that's probably exactly how the execs over at EA think.
Sigh.
Sorry I failed to meet your rigorous standards for slashdot commenting. Can I at least get credit for spelling everything correctly?
Then you and I can move on without discussing the lack of evidence that copy-protection has ever resulted in increased sales for any product.
A wise decision would be to forgo the DRM altogether, and apply the savings to reducing the retail price of the games. I guarantee that will have a far greater effect on sales than any DRM scheme ever would.
I believe "Joe Sixpack" commonly refers to the common practice of selling beer in packs of six.
To answer your question, this guy is talking about charging content providers for faster throughput. Which implicitly is saying that they're going to slow down service for the majority of sites that don't pay the toll.
So while I am sure your $10 is appreciated, it's not going to help with this kind of tiered pricing.