I don't want them to let Flash on iDevices. I've refused to install Flash on my development machine at work since before there was an iPhone (well, before the world at large knew about it, anyway), and IMO the web has improved with the reduction of Flash use where it was entirely unnecessary.
The only downside to all this is the ads that used to use Flash (and thus were automatically blocked for me, no effort necessary) are now using other techniques that don't rely on browser plugins.
If I was recommending a book for a peer in a non-computer related field, I'd definitely recommend How to Think Like a Computer Scientist, which assumes no programming knowledge and builds up the thought process behind decomposing problems, etc. It's been a while since I read it, but I think it would work reasonably well for an advanced preteen. The version I read used Python, which I think is a great introductory language.
Hi, I used to be a complete skeptic when it came to tablets (not just iPads). Then, recently, I saw someone with an iPad + stylus + Notes plus in a meeting, just happily jotting down his hand-written notes on the iPad. And just watching the ease with which he could do that might just have sold me a tablet.
If you want another encouragement, about a year ago I switched to a tablet, because I was carrying a stack of documents about 3 inches thick to a weekly meeting -- often with a pair of them changing between the meetings each week, as the requirements for our system changed, requiring me to print out new ones. After I switched, I only took my tablet. Plus, as a bonus, I could take a bunch of other documents I occasionally wanted reference to in the meetings at no additional cost, even though previously it would have doubled the size of the document stack.
Every once in a while, it did feel a little limiting due to not being able to look at multiple documents at the same time, but overall it was a big help. Plus, the PDFs I loaded in had a linked table of contents one touch away, so I was often able to jump around in the document better than those who had paper copies.
I wasn't the first in those meetings to have a tablet; I was the second. By the time the meetings wrapped up a few months ago, there are 5 tablets being used when we met, and only a couple of holdouts on paper.
I very often use j & k to move up/down lines. I use h & l much less frequently, as w, e, & b are usually better for that anyway. As for hitting escape, I'm almost always in command mode anyway; I don't type and occasionally escape to command mode, but rather am in command mode and occasionally insert text.
In the time we all spend reviewing my code, we could have each fixed separate bugs in the software or completed a new feature.
Look at your last 50 or 100 bug fixes. How many of them could have been caught with a simple review? Take that data and apply it to your statement here: perhaps in the time you spend having your code reviewed, you and your coworkers will fix more bugs than you would have separately. It's just that bugs not submitted aren't as visible to anyone outside those people.
Try it. Keep some metrics on "bugs" found. You might be surprised.
I've had three mobile phones in my life, each of them for about 4 years. I have never replaced a battery in any of them. I just ordered a replacement battery for my phone, which is about 3 years old. Why? Basically, because a tiny little plastic piece on the user-replaceable battery broke, and even though the battery itself is still fine, it no longer stays connected to the phone. If it were build right in, I wouldn't be having that problem right now.
Re:I don't care for these commercials
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My Mac Mini at home only has 2 USB ports, and because I didn't want to drop $120 on a keyboard & mouse for a $450 computer, I have no free USB ports by default. [...] I know that it's supposed to look like a simple design, but when I have to drag the expensive and fragile screen of the iMac I have at work around to get at the back of it so I can plug in the cable/thumb drive, so I can turn the screen around again so I can see it, so I can copy a file off of it, then turn it around and unplug it again, before turning it straight again so I can go back to work, it suddenly stops seeming like such a simple design.
It's been a few years since I bought a Mac with USB keyboard/mouse, but don't the keyboards have a USB port on either side of them?
From Apple's iMac specs page: Total of five USB ports: three USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps) on computer, two USB 1.1 ports on keyboard
So perhaps your problem is you need to use the 2.0 ports at work? Still, it seems like they recognized the mini problem, as it now comes with 4 USB ports.
Have you considered python? It has an interactive shell, which will let the basic concepts of programming come through. Also, you could take the first parts of How to Think Like a Computer Scientist (freely available and modifiable) and adapt them to the age level. The first few lessons should be fine, although they might need expanded somewhat.
Alternately, perhaps something more graphic-oriented would be desirable. If it were still around and supported, I would suggest Apple's Hypercard program. It appears there are some clones out there also, although I have no idea how good they are. (The first alternative listed says it is popular with educators.)
Second, he often uses the words in relation to Iraq - like Pavlovian dogs he (or his speechwriters) wants to link the two concepts indelibly in people's minds. To oppose this administration's policies in Iraq is to oppose freedom itself.
Everyone who opposes the war in Iraq opposes freedom!
Image -> DCT -> Truncate spectrum -> some more efficient encode
While the JPEG group may have discussed alternate compression encodings, the patent could still be novel - just in a different way than you are looking at it. The process you mentioned wouldn't be novel in and of itself, of course, but the more efficient encoding scheme could easily be novel, which would still make the whole file format basically patent protected.
Yes, the file can actually get bigger. This happens when the compression algorithm isn't able to reduce the file any more, but needs to add it's own information about the compression to the file. The end result could be like this:
I got some of the (cheaper) Koss noise-reducing headphones. Note the reducing part, instead of cancelling - it made the headphones about 1/4 the price of the noise cancelling kind. For my environment, they work pretty well. It definitely cuts out a lot of the noise that is not usually noticable until you haven't heard it for a while. Monitor hums, computer fans, small clicks and whirs, and even small squeaks from people shifting around and whatnot. I generally never noticed these until after I'd tried my headphones out for a couple of hours and then took them off again. They don't drown out everything, however. I could usually faintly hear the bus going by outside (I was at the street wall), and while they greatly reduced the noise from my riding lawn mower at home, it still sounding like you were sitting on top of a riding lawn mower.
For the ability to ignore/drown out more of the rest of the noise, I kept the headphones hooked up to a music source. Walkman, iPod, or whatever. If I really didn't want to be disturbed, I turned up the music until I couldn't hear normal-conversation voices from outside the headphone. Generally worked great, but if someone came up to me said "Hey!", I'd still hear them.
One interesting note to this type of headphones - your own chewing/swallowing noises aren't reduced much (if at all) while wearing them, as it is mostly transmitted through your jaw. When I had the headphones on and was chewing gum for the first time, it sounded like a disgusting mess. Something to bear in mind.
Well, the next time I scream out "Fire!" in a movie theatre, I'll remember to mention this to the arresting police officer.
Actually, there are many times in which you can do this, safely and legally. In fact, I personally don't think that either the act of yelling in a movie theatre, or the word yelled are critical to the classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre (presumably when there isn't a fire, of course). The critical part of that is willfully acting in a manner that endangers the safety, health, and/or lives of the other patrons in the theatre.
So basically, I don't think there should be any laws restricting the exercise of free speech, but there may be many laws that hold you responsible for the consequences of the manner in which you exercised it.
I read an article on this in an Iowa newspaper yesterday. I seem to remember reading that the judgement was 1) for millions in damages, and then tripled for punative reasons, which then took the total over 1 billion, and 2) narrowed down from (approx) 56 "john doe" defendants to only three specific dependants. I don't remember reading this exactly, but I got the impression that the other john does were too hard to track down to actual people.
Also, there was a reason the punative damages were added, over and beyond what was allowed by Iowa law. I'm a little vague on the timeline, but it seems that his spam traffic tripled or more from the defendants soon after he had their actual company names in the suit. So the punative damages were at least partially added because it appeared they were continuing the same behavior in a harrassing manner against him for suing them.
It's just an idea, but what if I wanted to get a job at, say, IBM. So I go to IBM.jobs, and they have their resume-submittal criteria, or whatever, for people who are interested in gaining employment.
Not that I think this justifies the extra TLD, but just recognizing that there could be some benefit to this, at least for large, well-known companies (who else are we supposed to have benefit, after all?)
Of course, the big (public) companies ought to be making plans for.sec (for investor relations).classaction (for facilitating lawsuits), and.money (for the commercial aspects - oh, wait...
I've thought about this a little bit myself - if I did do the solar panel thing, one area of additional savings I could get would be changing from a gas furnace to an electrical one (perhaps even with solar aid for the heating portion), which would add some more savings to the mix.
However, the biggest thing you may have overlooked (and I can't tell for sure, not knowing where you live) is that many places have pretty good tax incentives/tax breaks for purchasing something like this. You could also factor in some possible tax reductions if you use a home-equity loan to finance it, as well. It might not get to the break-even point soon enough even with those things, but it ought to get there faster.
A variation that will help some of the critiques that others have pointed out would be to utilize touch-typing skills, only intentionally misalign your fingers. For instance, use the word "variation" only move your left hand up one, and your right hand left one. That would give a password of "fq4uq5uib" (if I did it properly). The benefit of this is that the base is still easy to remember, and then you just need to remember the "offset", but the base doesn't have to conform to any well known pattern.
This still leaves you somewhat open to dictionary attacks, of course - if you base your original word on a dictionary word, especially - but it increases the number of variations that need to be checked, as each hand could move in 8 or more different directions independently to produce the password.
Another (somewhat similar) technique would be to learn a different key layout, like dvorak if you usually use querty, and type a word/phrase as you would on the other keyboard layout into the layout being used.
Finally, if someone has 5 or so different tricks similar to this, and varies the tricks as they change their passwords, and most importantly don't tell anyone what trick they are using, it can greatly improve the password security.
Following those lines, none of the techniques I just mentioned are what I use for my passwords right now...
Why isn't there a standard ballot and/or machine for the entire nation?
Wow, that's a great idea. I mean, look at how much better off individual companies and government departments are when the standardize on just Intel boxes running Windows. In fact, the foresighted companies that standardize on having everyone use Outlook for interoffice communication are so much better off, aren't they?
Now, I realize the rest of your comment added some additional criteria, but why is it that variety and allowing small groups to choose for themselves what works best is good for computing environments, but bad for voting?
Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed
I would really like to see any form of study or statistics to back this statement up. The rest of your post was interesting, but his is a big red flag for me - I live in a rural area, and I see a lot of people reading. (I especially see a lot of empty-nest moms reading, because they now have a lot more time on their hands, so library trips and book clubs become good ways to spend some of it. But that is just my anecdotal take on things.)
My main problem being, if we are going to use stereotypes, I don't see why apartment-dwelling urbanites and suburbanites who can't wait to see the latest reality TV show over cable would be any more likely to read than would rural-dwelling people who only get 3 channels to come in on the TV. Facts and studies I might believe, but assertions that seem to rely on stereotypes I don't.
My state (Wisconsin) instead allows election day registration.
This does make some sense, but it doesn't resolve anything for the other potential problems with voting that provisional ballots are supposed to help with - like when someone is accused of fraud when registering, or when there is some doubt as to whether your ID really shows you (for example, the address on your drivers license doesn't match where you just said you live, due to moving or whatnot). In these cases, allowing someone to cast a provisional ballot is still better than saying "it will take too long to make sure you can vote, so you can't. Sorry."
Rather than putting votes on hold and only counting them if the margin of victory is less than the provisional ballots...
Personally, I don't think they should only be counted if the election is close enough that it will make a difference. For an official result, they should always be counted - assuming, of course, that the challenge wasn't upheld. I was actually under the impression that this was what happened before election results were actually certified (although news stations won't wait around for that to happen unless they absolutely have to).
As for the delay involved in counting them, I think that comes as part of the package of having enough time to review the challenge and decide on the challenge to the vote.
If America is the greatest country in the world, with it's freedoms and the right to vote, why can't they decide on a consistent form of voting?
The most basic reason is historical. When the U.S. was founded, it was created to be a decentralized government. Any decisions that wouldn't affect other states were left to the states. Within the states, any decisions not affecting the rest of the state were left to the counties, or districts, or whatever. Yes, this is a simplification, but that is the gist of things.
When it comes to voting, the federal government basically decided that the method of voting that one state chose didn't really affect any other state, so it was left up to each state to decide the voting method that they want. Likewise, many states decided that the voting method any particular county used didn't affect anyone in any other county, so they left it up to the county to decide.
The result of this history is that in most places in the US, a county determines what the method of voting is. In some places it may even vary across the county (a county says either X, Y, or Z is a valid method). The precincts of the county then count their own votes, and trasmit those to the county officials. The county officials add those votes all up, and transmit the necessary totals to the state. The state adds theirs up, and declares who won in that state. So as many possible voting methods as you can imagine might be involved in one state's voting, but the result all end up determining the winners, and that's what is important.
Now, there are some exceptions to this. It is generally recognized that allowing voter intimidation, vote-buying, and voting fraud does in fact affect areas outside the immediate locality where they occur. So there are some guidelines that apply across all areas, such as the requirement that the ballot be cast in privacy, if it is possible for the voter to do so. But the machines used aren't dictated at all.
Now, what happens if there is a machine that is shown to be open to fraud or mistakes? It kind of depends on the fraud or mistake, really. An example is the hanging chad problem in Florida. The problems with those machines could really only lead to the citizen's votes either being not counted, or counted in the wrong column. Since no more votes could have been cast than were available to be cast, the only ones who should have a problem with the machines are those who are forced to use them. Since the elected officials are the ones that determine the machines to be used, and the people elect those officials, then the people have basically given their approval of the machines, problems and all. When the people of that area decide that the machines no longer are worth using, they should let their officials know, and if a significant number of people have problems with the machines, they will be changed. (This last couple of parts assume no actual collusion or fraud on the parts of the officials, of course, which is a potentially serious problem).
If, however, it can be shown that electronic voting machines have the capability of turning in more votes than can be eligible from where they are being used, then it is a problem that affects others in that state, as the other people's portion of the vote has been decreased fraudulently. In this situation, I beleive the states have the power to say that certain things are not allowed. I don't know if the Federal government has that power, however - it would really depend on the situation, I believe, and what courts/justices had to interpret the action.
In addition, the whole confusion and legal challenges to "provisional" and "absentee" ballots just muddied the waters even further.
Absentee ballots are really straightforward - if you are going to be unable to vote where you are supposed to for some reason (travelling, etc.), you can request an absentee ballot. You fill it out and submit it according to guidelines (has to be received withing X
Re:I agree with *some* of the Libertarian ideas...
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We also get someone who was a software engineer, but who got tired of certain laws and decided to enter politics, and who spent approximately the last 2 years trying to teach people about his views on issues - views that most people don't know about, because most people aren't even aware that "3rd Party" doesn't necessarily equal "Nader"?
Oh, wait, that's right - you didn't want "nutcases".
But, the Libertarians [...] import some utilitarianism. (I hope this edit doesn't too badly mischaracterize what you said.)
Importing utilitarianism is one interesting way to look at it. But yes, anarchists and libertarians tend to agree that maximizing personal liberty is an ideal. One way to look at it might be that anarchists want to maximize personal liberty as it applies to any one person. Libertarians want to maximize it as it averages out over everyone. Since someone who is dead or coerced doesn't really have any personal liberty, libertarians act somewhat preemptively to assure that those situations don't happen, even if it does somewhat lower the absolute personal liberty any one person might acheive.
The debate/consideration does, to some extent, boil down to individual beliefs - I'm willing to admit that. Libertarians (generally) believe that personal liberty will lead to the most happiness for everyone, and that personal liberty and happiness are worthy goals to pursue. Why they believe that varies, but I think that is a basic summation. If someone didn't share that belief - like, say, Victorian era England appeared to not believe (to me, anyway) that happiness was a worthy goal, because it leads to selfishness and indulgence. Or maybe it was only certain kinds of happyness? Anyway, in these situations you would obviously end up with two conflicting viewpoints on how governments should work, because of two differing beliefs that will likely not be reconciled.
However, attempting to put aside the personal appeal that libertarianism has for me, I do see one potential advantage of a libertarian view of government for others: If libertarians had their way, government would be basicaly reduced to 1) prevent harm from one to another, 2) national defense, and 3) enforce contracts. In this sitiation, there would be nothing stopping a small community inside the government from forming their own group with, say, Marxist-Lenin style self-government enforced amongst them by contract. The only difference between this at that level and the national level is that they couldn't force me to participate, any more than the church could force me to be a Roman-Catholic, or anything else like that.
Now, for a bit of daydreaming, imagine what things could be like if this were true at the federal level only. The only thing the federal government did was to provide common defense, make coercion or killing illegal, enforce contracts, and have states give "full faith and credit" to happenings in other states. Generally, the last would probably mean one national currency and a few other things that the federal government now provides as well. Inside this federal government, we have something that would make many political scientists (and a lot of sociologists as well, likely) drool - fifty different states, all of which can set up their own style of government as long as it doesn't contradict those basic, minimum things the federal government says. Want to live where everyone has single-payer health care? State X has that! Minimal taxes, minimal handouts? Try living in State Y! States would basically be competing for patronage by the citizens of the state. And there would probably be somewhere in this country where almost everyone (likely excepting anarchists, of course) would have a government that suits them. Ah, tis a dream I have...
Sometimes I think I should be studying philosophy instead of physics
Well, I wasn't in physics, but I added a philosophy minor, and don't regret it at all. Only one class that I considered less than thrilling to be in throughout the minor, and even that was better than most of the "round-them-out" courses that I was required to take besides.
What possible information could you have that ties federal financial aid to drop-out rate or overall success?
If you look over what I said again, you'll see I just said that I know some people who didn't deserve to be there that were on student aid. I made no claim as to how prevalent this is, other than saying I was sure many others could relate.
Frankly, the student aid system is generally fair and usually avoids these circumstances. But they do happen.
You know, I think the pretty-boy frat assholes & bimbette, know-nothing sorority girls who went to college on mommy & daddy's dime and who spent far more time in bars than in class didn't deserve to go to college.
You know what? They may not deserve it. But the important difference here is that, according to you, they didn't take government money for it, but only their parents. So while I might think it's a waste of the parents money, it's their money to waste. Government money, on the other hand, comes straight from working, tax-paying people, which includes me, so I feel like I might have some ability to complain about its misuse.
Fuck you for saying that just because their parents couldn't afford to send them to college that they don't deserve to go.
I never said that anyone whose parents couldn't afford to send them to college didn't deserve to go. All I said was that I knew some that probably shouldn't have been there. But you know what? My parent's couldn't afford to send me to college. What did I do? I worked and took out loans, that I'm still repaying. Some were even federal loans, before I came to my current political mindset (they're privately held now). The opportunities are there, even without grants.
judging someone who went to college and got a good job to be equal to a bank robber.
It was an example - an illustration, if you will. I could have chosen something a lot more innocuous, perhaps, but there's this little thing called hyperbole - you may have heard of it sometime. Plus, I've just watched Big Fish, and one of the biggest things that bothered me about that movie was that the guy's dad went along with a bank robbery, and then talked about how well it worked out and how he used his connections later to do something good. But now I'm off on a tangent...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want them to let Flash on iDevices. I've refused to install Flash on my development machine at work since before there was an iPhone (well, before the world at large knew about it, anyway), and IMO the web has improved with the reduction of Flash use where it was entirely unnecessary.
The only downside to all this is the ads that used to use Flash (and thus were automatically blocked for me, no effort necessary) are now using other techniques that don't rely on browser plugins.
If I was recommending a book for a peer in a non-computer related field, I'd definitely recommend How to Think Like a Computer Scientist, which assumes no programming knowledge and builds up the thought process behind decomposing problems, etc. It's been a while since I read it, but I think it would work reasonably well for an advanced preteen. The version I read used Python, which I think is a great introductory language.
http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/ for a dead-tree version, or in various electronic formats (for free[-as-in-beer-and-in-speech]).
Hi, I used to be a complete skeptic when it came to tablets (not just iPads). Then, recently, I saw someone with an iPad + stylus + Notes plus in a meeting, just happily jotting down his hand-written notes on the iPad. And just watching the ease with which he could do that might just have sold me a tablet.
If you want another encouragement, about a year ago I switched to a tablet, because I was carrying a stack of documents about 3 inches thick to a weekly meeting -- often with a pair of them changing between the meetings each week, as the requirements for our system changed, requiring me to print out new ones. After I switched, I only took my tablet. Plus, as a bonus, I could take a bunch of other documents I occasionally wanted reference to in the meetings at no additional cost, even though previously it would have doubled the size of the document stack.
Every once in a while, it did feel a little limiting due to not being able to look at multiple documents at the same time, but overall it was a big help. Plus, the PDFs I loaded in had a linked table of contents one touch away, so I was often able to jump around in the document better than those who had paper copies.
I wasn't the first in those meetings to have a tablet; I was the second. By the time the meetings wrapped up a few months ago, there are 5 tablets being used when we met, and only a couple of holdouts on paper.
I very often use j & k to move up/down lines. I use h & l much less frequently, as w, e, & b are usually better for that anyway. As for hitting escape, I'm almost always in command mode anyway; I don't type and occasionally escape to command mode, but rather am in command mode and occasionally insert text.
In the time we all spend reviewing my code, we could have each fixed separate bugs in the software or completed a new feature.
Look at your last 50 or 100 bug fixes. How many of them could have been caught with a simple review? Take that data and apply it to your statement here: perhaps in the time you spend having your code reviewed, you and your coworkers will fix more bugs than you would have separately. It's just that bugs not submitted aren't as visible to anyone outside those people.
Try it. Keep some metrics on "bugs" found. You might be surprised.
Just type "import antigravity"
My Mac Mini at home only has 2 USB ports, and because I didn't want to drop $120 on a keyboard & mouse for a $450 computer, I have no free USB ports by default. [...]
I know that it's supposed to look like a simple design, but when I have to drag the expensive and fragile screen of the iMac I have at work around to get at the back of it so I can plug in the cable/thumb drive, so I can turn the screen around again so I can see it, so I can copy a file off of it, then turn it around and unplug it again, before turning it straight again so I can go back to work, it suddenly stops seeming like such a simple design.
It's been a few years since I bought a Mac with USB keyboard/mouse, but don't the keyboards have a USB port on either side of them?
From Apple's iMac specs page:
Total of five USB ports: three USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps) on computer, two USB 1.1 ports on keyboard
So perhaps your problem is you need to use the 2.0 ports at work? Still, it seems like they recognized the mini problem, as it now comes with 4 USB ports.
Caleb
Have you considered python? It has an interactive shell, which will let the basic concepts of programming come through. Also, you could take the first parts of How to Think Like a Computer Scientist (freely available and modifiable) and adapt them to the age level. The first few lessons should be fine, although they might need expanded somewhat.
Alternately, perhaps something more graphic-oriented would be desirable. If it were still around and supported, I would suggest Apple's Hypercard program. It appears there are some clones out there also, although I have no idea how good they are. (The first alternative listed says it is popular with educators.)
Good luck.
Second, he often uses the words in relation to Iraq - like Pavlovian dogs he (or his speechwriters) wants to link the two concepts indelibly in people's minds. To oppose this administration's policies in Iraq is to oppose freedom itself.
Everyone who opposes the war in Iraq opposes freedom!
And I'm not a dog, Pavlovik or any other breed!
</rote overreaction>
Image -> DCT -> Truncate spectrum -> some more efficient encode
While the JPEG group may have discussed alternate compression encodings, the patent could still be novel - just in a different way than you are looking at it. The process you mentioned wouldn't be novel in and of itself, of course, but the more efficient encoding scheme could easily be novel, which would still make the whole file format basically patent protected.
Yes, the file can actually get bigger. This happens when the compression algorithm isn't able to reduce the file any more, but needs to add it's own information about the compression to the file. The end result could be like this:
1024k file --compressed-> 1020k data --add compression info-> 1030k "compressed" file.
I got some of the (cheaper) Koss noise-reducing headphones. Note the reducing part, instead of cancelling - it made the headphones about 1/4 the price of the noise cancelling kind. For my environment, they work pretty well. It definitely cuts out a lot of the noise that is not usually noticable until you haven't heard it for a while. Monitor hums, computer fans, small clicks and whirs, and even small squeaks from people shifting around and whatnot. I generally never noticed these until after I'd tried my headphones out for a couple of hours and then took them off again. They don't drown out everything, however. I could usually faintly hear the bus going by outside (I was at the street wall), and while they greatly reduced the noise from my riding lawn mower at home, it still sounding like you were sitting on top of a riding lawn mower.
For the ability to ignore/drown out more of the rest of the noise, I kept the headphones hooked up to a music source. Walkman, iPod, or whatever. If I really didn't want to be disturbed, I turned up the music until I couldn't hear normal-conversation voices from outside the headphone. Generally worked great, but if someone came up to me said "Hey!", I'd still hear them.
One interesting note to this type of headphones - your own chewing/swallowing noises aren't reduced much (if at all) while wearing them, as it is mostly transmitted through your jaw. When I had the headphones on and was chewing gum for the first time, it sounded like a disgusting mess. Something to bear in mind.
Well, the next time I scream out "Fire!" in a movie theatre, I'll remember to mention this to the arresting police officer.
Actually, there are many times in which you can do this, safely and legally. In fact, I personally don't think that either the act of yelling in a movie theatre, or the word yelled are critical to the classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre (presumably when there isn't a fire, of course). The critical part of that is willfully acting in a manner that endangers the safety, health, and/or lives of the other patrons in the theatre.
So basically, I don't think there should be any laws restricting the exercise of free speech, but there may be many laws that hold you responsible for the consequences of the manner in which you exercised it.
I read an article on this in an Iowa newspaper yesterday. I seem to remember reading that the judgement was 1) for millions in damages, and then tripled for punative reasons, which then took the total over 1 billion, and 2) narrowed down from (approx) 56 "john doe" defendants to only three specific dependants. I don't remember reading this exactly, but I got the impression that the other john does were too hard to track down to actual people.
Also, there was a reason the punative damages were added, over and beyond what was allowed by Iowa law. I'm a little vague on the timeline, but it seems that his spam traffic tripled or more from the defendants soon after he had their actual company names in the suit. So the punative damages were at least partially added because it appeared they were continuing the same behavior in a harrassing manner against him for suing them.
It's just an idea, but what if I wanted to get a job at, say, IBM. So I go to IBM.jobs, and they have their resume-submittal criteria, or whatever, for people who are interested in gaining employment.
.sec (for investor relations) .classaction (for facilitating lawsuits), and .money (for the commercial aspects - oh, wait...
Not that I think this justifies the extra TLD, but just recognizing that there could be some benefit to this, at least for large, well-known companies (who else are we supposed to have benefit, after all?)
Of course, the big (public) companies ought to be making plans for
I've thought about this a little bit myself - if I did do the solar panel thing, one area of additional savings I could get would be changing from a gas furnace to an electrical one (perhaps even with solar aid for the heating portion), which would add some more savings to the mix.
However, the biggest thing you may have overlooked (and I can't tell for sure, not knowing where you live) is that many places have pretty good tax incentives/tax breaks for purchasing something like this. You could also factor in some possible tax reductions if you use a home-equity loan to finance it, as well. It might not get to the break-even point soon enough even with those things, but it ought to get there faster.
A variation that will help some of the critiques that others have pointed out would be to utilize touch-typing skills, only intentionally misalign your fingers. For instance, use the word "variation" only move your left hand up one, and your right hand left one. That would give a password of "fq4uq5uib" (if I did it properly). The benefit of this is that the base is still easy to remember, and then you just need to remember the "offset", but the base doesn't have to conform to any well known pattern.
This still leaves you somewhat open to dictionary attacks, of course - if you base your original word on a dictionary word, especially - but it increases the number of variations that need to be checked, as each hand could move in 8 or more different directions independently to produce the password.
Another (somewhat similar) technique would be to learn a different key layout, like dvorak if you usually use querty, and type a word/phrase as you would on the other keyboard layout into the layout being used.
Finally, if someone has 5 or so different tricks similar to this, and varies the tricks as they change their passwords, and most importantly don't tell anyone what trick they are using, it can greatly improve the password security.
Following those lines, none of the techniques I just mentioned are what I use for my passwords right now...
Why isn't there a standard ballot and/or machine for the entire nation?
Wow, that's a great idea. I mean, look at how much better off individual companies and government departments are when the standardize on just Intel boxes running Windows. In fact, the foresighted companies that standardize on having everyone use Outlook for interoffice communication are so much better off, aren't they?
Now, I realize the rest of your comment added some additional criteria, but why is it that variety and allowing small groups to choose for themselves what works best is good for computing environments, but bad for voting?
Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed
I would really like to see any form of study or statistics to back this statement up. The rest of your post was interesting, but his is a big red flag for me - I live in a rural area, and I see a lot of people reading. (I especially see a lot of empty-nest moms reading, because they now have a lot more time on their hands, so library trips and book clubs become good ways to spend some of it. But that is just my anecdotal take on things.)
My main problem being, if we are going to use stereotypes, I don't see why apartment-dwelling urbanites and suburbanites who can't wait to see the latest reality TV show over cable would be any more likely to read than would rural-dwelling people who only get 3 channels to come in on the TV. Facts and studies I might believe, but assertions that seem to rely on stereotypes I don't.
My state (Wisconsin) instead allows election day registration.
This does make some sense, but it doesn't resolve anything for the other potential problems with voting that provisional ballots are supposed to help with - like when someone is accused of fraud when registering, or when there is some doubt as to whether your ID really shows you (for example, the address on your drivers license doesn't match where you just said you live, due to moving or whatnot). In these cases, allowing someone to cast a provisional ballot is still better than saying "it will take too long to make sure you can vote, so you can't. Sorry."
Rather than putting votes on hold and only counting them if the margin of victory is less than the provisional ballots...
Personally, I don't think they should only be counted if the election is close enough that it will make a difference. For an official result, they should always be counted - assuming, of course, that the challenge wasn't upheld. I was actually under the impression that this was what happened before election results were actually certified (although news stations won't wait around for that to happen unless they absolutely have to).
As for the delay involved in counting them, I think that comes as part of the package of having enough time to review the challenge and decide on the challenge to the vote.
If America is the greatest country in the world, with it's freedoms and the right to vote, why can't they decide on a consistent form of voting?
The most basic reason is historical. When the U.S. was founded, it was created to be a decentralized government. Any decisions that wouldn't affect other states were left to the states. Within the states, any decisions not affecting the rest of the state were left to the counties, or districts, or whatever. Yes, this is a simplification, but that is the gist of things.
When it comes to voting, the federal government basically decided that the method of voting that one state chose didn't really affect any other state, so it was left up to each state to decide the voting method that they want. Likewise, many states decided that the voting method any particular county used didn't affect anyone in any other county, so they left it up to the county to decide.
The result of this history is that in most places in the US, a county determines what the method of voting is. In some places it may even vary across the county (a county says either X, Y, or Z is a valid method). The precincts of the county then count their own votes, and trasmit those to the county officials. The county officials add those votes all up, and transmit the necessary totals to the state. The state adds theirs up, and declares who won in that state. So as many possible voting methods as you can imagine might be involved in one state's voting, but the result all end up determining the winners, and that's what is important.
Now, there are some exceptions to this. It is generally recognized that allowing voter intimidation, vote-buying, and voting fraud does in fact affect areas outside the immediate locality where they occur. So there are some guidelines that apply across all areas, such as the requirement that the ballot be cast in privacy, if it is possible for the voter to do so. But the machines used aren't dictated at all.
Now, what happens if there is a machine that is shown to be open to fraud or mistakes? It kind of depends on the fraud or mistake, really. An example is the hanging chad problem in Florida. The problems with those machines could really only lead to the citizen's votes either being not counted, or counted in the wrong column. Since no more votes could have been cast than were available to be cast, the only ones who should have a problem with the machines are those who are forced to use them. Since the elected officials are the ones that determine the machines to be used, and the people elect those officials, then the people have basically given their approval of the machines, problems and all. When the people of that area decide that the machines no longer are worth using, they should let their officials know, and if a significant number of people have problems with the machines, they will be changed. (This last couple of parts assume no actual collusion or fraud on the parts of the officials, of course, which is a potentially serious problem).
If, however, it can be shown that electronic voting machines have the capability of turning in more votes than can be eligible from where they are being used, then it is a problem that affects others in that state, as the other people's portion of the vote has been decreased fraudulently. In this situation, I beleive the states have the power to say that certain things are not allowed. I don't know if the Federal government has that power, however - it would really depend on the situation, I believe, and what courts/justices had to interpret the action.
In addition, the whole confusion and legal challenges to "provisional" and "absentee" ballots just muddied the waters even further.
Absentee ballots are really straightforward - if you are going to be unable to vote where you are supposed to for some reason (travelling, etc.), you can request an absentee ballot. You fill it out and submit it according to guidelines (has to be received withing X
We also get someone who was a software engineer, but who got tired of certain laws and decided to enter politics, and who spent approximately the last 2 years trying to teach people about his views on issues - views that most people don't know about, because most people aren't even aware that "3rd Party" doesn't necessarily equal "Nader"?
Oh, wait, that's right - you didn't want "nutcases".
But, the Libertarians [...] import some utilitarianism. (I hope this edit doesn't too badly mischaracterize what you said.)
Importing utilitarianism is one interesting way to look at it. But yes, anarchists and libertarians tend to agree that maximizing personal liberty is an ideal. One way to look at it might be that anarchists want to maximize personal liberty as it applies to any one person. Libertarians want to maximize it as it averages out over everyone. Since someone who is dead or coerced doesn't really have any personal liberty, libertarians act somewhat preemptively to assure that those situations don't happen, even if it does somewhat lower the absolute personal liberty any one person might acheive.
The debate/consideration does, to some extent, boil down to individual beliefs - I'm willing to admit that. Libertarians (generally) believe that personal liberty will lead to the most happiness for everyone, and that personal liberty and happiness are worthy goals to pursue. Why they believe that varies, but I think that is a basic summation. If someone didn't share that belief - like, say, Victorian era England appeared to not believe (to me, anyway) that happiness was a worthy goal, because it leads to selfishness and indulgence. Or maybe it was only certain kinds of happyness? Anyway, in these situations you would obviously end up with two conflicting viewpoints on how governments should work, because of two differing beliefs that will likely not be reconciled.
However, attempting to put aside the personal appeal that libertarianism has for me, I do see one potential advantage of a libertarian view of government for others: If libertarians had their way, government would be basicaly reduced to 1) prevent harm from one to another, 2) national defense, and 3) enforce contracts. In this sitiation, there would be nothing stopping a small community inside the government from forming their own group with, say, Marxist-Lenin style self-government enforced amongst them by contract. The only difference between this at that level and the national level is that they couldn't force me to participate, any more than the church could force me to be a Roman-Catholic, or anything else like that.
Now, for a bit of daydreaming, imagine what things could be like if this were true at the federal level only. The only thing the federal government did was to provide common defense, make coercion or killing illegal, enforce contracts, and have states give "full faith and credit" to happenings in other states. Generally, the last would probably mean one national currency and a few other things that the federal government now provides as well. Inside this federal government, we have something that would make many political scientists (and a lot of sociologists as well, likely) drool - fifty different states, all of which can set up their own style of government as long as it doesn't contradict those basic, minimum things the federal government says. Want to live where everyone has single-payer health care? State X has that! Minimal taxes, minimal handouts? Try living in State Y! States would basically be competing for patronage by the citizens of the state. And there would probably be somewhere in this country where almost everyone (likely excepting anarchists, of course) would have a government that suits them. Ah, tis a dream I have...
Sometimes I think I should be studying philosophy instead of physics
Well, I wasn't in physics, but I added a philosophy minor, and don't regret it at all. Only one class that I considered less than thrilling to be in throughout the minor, and even that was better than most of the "round-them-out" courses that I was required to take besides.
What possible information could you have that ties federal financial aid to drop-out rate or overall success?
If you look over what I said again, you'll see I just said that I know some people who didn't deserve to be there that were on student aid. I made no claim as to how prevalent this is, other than saying I was sure many others could relate.
Frankly, the student aid system is generally fair and usually avoids these circumstances. But they do happen.
You know, I think the pretty-boy frat assholes & bimbette, know-nothing sorority girls who went to college on mommy & daddy's dime and who spent far more time in bars than in class didn't deserve to go to college.
You know what? They may not deserve it. But the important difference here is that, according to you, they didn't take government money for it, but only their parents. So while I might think it's a waste of the parents money, it's their money to waste. Government money, on the other hand, comes straight from working, tax-paying people, which includes me, so I feel like I might have some ability to complain about its misuse.
Fuck you for saying that just because their parents couldn't afford to send them to college that they don't deserve to go.
I never said that anyone whose parents couldn't afford to send them to college didn't deserve to go. All I said was that I knew some that probably shouldn't have been there. But you know what? My parent's couldn't afford to send me to college. What did I do? I worked and took out loans, that I'm still repaying. Some were even federal loans, before I came to my current political mindset (they're privately held now). The opportunities are there, even without grants.
judging someone who went to college and got a good job to be equal to a bank robber.
It was an example - an illustration, if you will. I could have chosen something a lot more innocuous, perhaps, but there's this little thing called hyperbole - you may have heard of it sometime. Plus, I've just watched Big Fish, and one of the biggest things that bothered me about that movie was that the guy's dad went along with a bank robbery, and then talked about how well it worked out and how he used his connections later to do something good. But now I'm off on a tangent...