Non-enterprise customers aren't all that profitable so it makes lots of sense to stop wasting energy on a dead-end product line that is slowing everything down, and instead spin off a "partner" project which can act as an incubator for lots of frequent updates so that they can be fed slowly as they are thoroughly vetted, into the product line that actually makes them money - the enterprise.
Use your brain. Just because they say it is so doesn't mean it is. Linux has very low requirements (not as low as it could be but this is mainly due to gratuitous/bloated libraries, not the kernel). I am running a text only server on 32 MB on a Pentium 100 with a full blown JSDK 1.4.2 + Tomcat hosting sites. It's not the fastest thing out there but it certainly doesn't require what they say.
You know, about 20 people have already translated the units, but, um, I'm not quite convinced yet, so I'm going to wait for several more to verify that number.
Maybe slashing the budget would make the money "magically" appear in my wallet so that I could "magically" donate to charities through a "magical" envelope... you get the idea...
Both. It is both a complicated technical (security/cryptography/reliability) problem, and political problem (everybody wants to point to the shiny new machine and be the "candidate for progress" whatever the hell that means).
It doesn't even really have to be counted mechanically. Just have a device which is a glorified printer that PRINTS out the selection in both human and readable form, on a card or piece of paper, then FEED that card or piece of paper into a second (again, very simpl) machine like a scantron that does the counting, then put it in a locked box so a manual recount is possible.
Of course there are tons of options (described in Applied Crypto) to allow the voter to independently verify his vote was counted correctly (e.g. a blinded value and a random blinding factor that is randomly generated and printed out ONCE ONLY for the voter who can take it home and/or burn it, whatever, but can later use it to verify their vote was counted correctly electronically).
It seems like it is to fend off SCO-like legal exploits whereby an intermediary distributing ([re]licensing?) a certain piece of code must take responsibility for any liabilities, and cannot "pass the buck" up to the original project. E.g., let's say A Big Company, licenses some IP, combines it with Said Project, and relicenses Said Project, charging for "support". Hopefully the above license indemnifies Said Project from any liability if A Big Company puts legally questionable IP into the stuff it is relicensing.
I don't know what definition of client and server you are using, but I meant server in traditional X terminology, i.e. the local workstation that serves the GUI.
As far as I know you *can't* composite client-side images (client being the remote program that is acting as a client to the X server's display capabilities): first of all, clients don't typically know about each other, and second of all, it would serve no purpose to perform the composition remotely...you only want to composite where you are actually viewing.
"Every X replacement for UNIX has pretty much failed. FAILED. failed."
Thanks in part, no doubt, to people who FUD that those projects will FAIL FAIL YOU'RE ALL DOOMED!
"Why? There is a huge investment in XFree86 in things like drivers. It would take *ages* to implement all of that again."
That something is widely used, alone, is a poor argument for not creating something better. There may be a huge legacy investment in XFree86, but if what Keith Packard says is true, the X project is not accomodating driver updates very well (especially due to the monolithic release nature), which is certainly no way to proceed in the future.
"X was made to be very small, clean, and extensible. It still is today."
X was also designed in an academic environment with wildly different (and smaller) set of requirements than a modern desktop. It doesn't mean shit if X runs great on circa 1995 hardware and window managers.
I am consistently amazed at how myopic and conservative some old school open source projects are these days. The X old guard are seriously skirting making X completely irrelevant if they do not become more open and start adopting things that real users want. It takes money to make money, and it takes cycles to save cycles (i.e. it takes more resources to more efficiently save more resources). I can't believe there is resistence to an optional extension that would bring X more up to par with modern desktop environments like Aqua/Quartz.
This proposal sounds very much like the render/tree-traversal stage of Y (page 25), except that in X your widgets still would be client-side, not server side.
"Oh, and you'll need to analyze the source code for the compiler that the voting machine's binaries is compiled on, to make sure that hasn't been compromised. And then you'll need to check the source of the program used to view the source code of the other programs..."
What a convenient coincidence that these guarantees are EXACTLY WHAT OPEN SOURCE PROVIDES. It doesn't mean all open source voting software will implement secure elections, but it does mean that at least it is IDENTIFIABLE when it doesn't. Duh. I'd have thought slashdot posters would know this.
Voting machines usually require a nominal "inspection" anyway. There is no freakin reason that said "inspection" cannot also include supervised compilation of certified source code, and if anything goes wrong, the police know whose door to bust in.
If it causes less traffic, then it's not equally bad, it's slightly less bad. Servers should be programmed to introduce artificial delays so that farming accept/deny is then not possible. (frankly all servers should be doing stuff like this to determine DoS, etc.)
It's universal, cat's love the tops of CRTs. I shudder to think how much hair and bits of litter (even cat vomit if you really want to know) is in my monitor.
If the rebuttal/contention is that people who watch "conservative" news channels appear to be more uninformed because the survey only tested misconceptions that conservatives would have (which would not show up on the liberal side), then I would like to see a similar survey with proposed liberal misconceptions. For conservatives (or conservative news channel watchers) to be just as informed (or uninformed) as liberals (or liberal news channel watchers), the results should be symmetric, i.e., you'd expect watchers of liberal news channels to have the same general amount and severity of liberal misconceptions. It would be very interesting to me to 1) see such a list, because I at least partially doubt the alleged political biased-ness of the questions to begin with and 2) I would be VERY interested to know that there was a mainstream channel that had such a high correlation with misconceptions in the liberal realm, because I doubt there is, at least as much as is apparent with Fox News.
If I am correct I think it would be because 1) conservatives have a simpler ideology, more conducive to television and sound-bytes (witness the conservative radio phenomenon) 2) since society in general tends towards being more "liberal" (for broad definitions of that word), it is less interesting or unique to have a liberally-slanted news channel.
"4. If yo uask a random sample of people if Anti-choice protesters blew up the WTC you'll find that most who say yes watch CNN exlusively instad of FOX."
Is that really your proposed opposite liberal misconception to the "conservative" misconception of Iraq being behind the attack?
Really, I'd like to see a list of the analogous liberal misconceptions on the other side.
I'll throw out the only one I know of:
"Bush was somehow behind the attack."
But that is only held by such a fringe set that I don't think it would show up on a survey of anybody who uses mainstream media as their main information source (and that is what we are testing). It would not be surprising to find that there are people who subscribe to Joe Bob's Conspiracy Newsletter that have off the wall misconceptions, on either side - what I want to know is what are the analogous liberal misconceptions you claim, which are derived (well, ok, correlated) from watching one or the other mainstream news channel.
I agree. Conservatives use the mantra that corporations are "just groups of individuals", just like, say, a labor union. Well, if they are just "groups of individuals", then everybody in the group should share the responsibility or the blame, right? This is clearly not the case. i.e. the factory worker neither shares the responsibility for CEO decisions, nor the blame, but he does share the punishment on the company. In this case the individuals involved are probably the executives in a privately held company, and the executives and shareholders in a publicly held company.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-enterprise customers aren't all that profitable so it makes lots of sense to stop wasting energy on a dead-end product line that is slowing everything down, and instead spin off a "partner" project which can act as an incubator for lots of frequent updates so that they can be fed slowly as they are thoroughly vetted, into the product line that actually makes them money - the enterprise.
Use your brain. Just because they say it is so doesn't mean it is. Linux has very low requirements (not as low as it could be but this is mainly due to gratuitous/bloated libraries, not the kernel). I am running a text only server on 32 MB on a Pentium 100 with a full blown JSDK 1.4.2 + Tomcat hosting sites. It's not the fastest thing out there but it certainly doesn't require what they say.
You know, about 20 people have already translated the units, but, um, I'm not quite convinced yet, so I'm going to wait for several more to verify that number.
Maybe slashing the budget would make the money "magically" appear in my wallet so that I could "magically" donate to charities through a "magical" envelope... you get the idea...
Both. It is both a complicated technical (security/cryptography/reliability) problem, and political problem (everybody wants to point to the shiny new machine and be the "candidate for progress" whatever the hell that means).
It doesn't even really have to be counted mechanically. Just have a device which is a glorified printer that PRINTS out the selection in both human and readable form, on a card or piece of paper, then FEED that card or piece of paper into a second (again, very simpl) machine like a scantron that does the counting, then put it in a locked box so a manual recount is possible.
Of course there are tons of options (described in Applied Crypto) to allow the voter to independently verify his vote was counted correctly (e.g. a blinded value and a random blinding factor that is randomly generated and printed out ONCE ONLY for the voter who can take it home and/or burn it, whatever, but can later use it to verify their vote was counted correctly electronically).
I.P.-over-hand is so passe, jump on the I.P.-over-avian bandwagon of the future!
That would work great with instant runoff voting.
Really, you guys are getting all worked up over nothing. Polls clearly show:
Americans in favor of unregulated electronic voting: 25%
Americans in favor of strict auditing and accounting of electronic voting systems: -75%.
So clearly this is nothing to get bothered about.
SWF
(argh! fix that damn broken slashdot post timeout!)
It seems like it is to fend off SCO-like legal exploits whereby an intermediary distributing ([re]licensing?) a certain piece of code must take responsibility for any liabilities, and cannot "pass the buck" up to the original project. E.g., let's say A Big Company, licenses some IP, combines it with Said Project, and relicenses Said Project, charging for "support". Hopefully the above license indemnifies Said Project from any liability if A Big Company puts legally questionable IP into the stuff it is relicensing.
I don't know what definition of client and server you are using, but I meant server in traditional X terminology, i.e. the local workstation that serves the GUI.
As far as I know you *can't* composite client-side images (client being the remote program that is acting as a client to the X server's display capabilities): first of all, clients don't typically know about each other, and second of all, it would serve no purpose to perform the composition remotely...you only want to composite where you are actually viewing.
Frankly, all of the Apache projects I've interacted with seem really insular :/
"Every X replacement for UNIX has pretty much failed. FAILED. failed."
Thanks in part, no doubt, to people who FUD that those projects will FAIL FAIL YOU'RE ALL DOOMED!
"Why? There is a huge investment in XFree86 in things like drivers. It would take *ages* to implement all of that again."
That something is widely used, alone, is a poor argument for not creating something better. There may be a huge legacy investment in XFree86, but if what Keith Packard says is true, the X project is not accomodating driver updates very well (especially due to the monolithic release nature), which is certainly no way to proceed in the future.
"X was made to be very small, clean, and extensible. It still is today."
X was also designed in an academic environment with wildly different (and smaller) set of requirements than a modern desktop. It doesn't mean shit if X runs great on circa 1995 hardware and window managers.
I am consistently amazed at how myopic and conservative some old school open source projects are these days. The X old guard are seriously skirting making X completely irrelevant if they do not become more open and start adopting things that real users want. It takes money to make money, and it takes cycles to save cycles (i.e. it takes more resources to more efficiently save more resources). I can't believe there is resistence to an optional extension that would bring X more up to par with modern desktop environments like Aqua/Quartz.
This proposal sounds very much like the render/tree-traversal stage of Y (page 25), except that in X your widgets still would be client-side, not server side.
Yeah, it's not like the United States has ever affected or directed the election or rulers of other countries. </dripping-sarcasm>
"Oh, and you'll need to analyze the source code for the compiler that the voting machine's binaries is compiled on, to make sure that hasn't been compromised. And then you'll need to check the source of the program used to view the source code of the other programs..."
What a convenient coincidence that these guarantees are EXACTLY WHAT OPEN SOURCE PROVIDES. It doesn't mean all open source voting software will implement secure elections, but it does mean that at least it is IDENTIFIABLE when it doesn't. Duh. I'd have thought slashdot posters would know this.
Voting machines usually require a nominal "inspection" anyway. There is no freakin reason that said "inspection" cannot also include supervised compilation of certified source code, and if anything goes wrong, the police know whose door to bust in.
If it causes less traffic, then it's not equally bad, it's slightly less bad. Servers should be programmed to introduce artificial delays so that farming accept/deny is then not possible. (frankly all servers should be doing stuff like this to determine DoS, etc.)
My fault, Scarborough Country is on MSNBC. It's still crazy though.
It's universal, cat's love the tops of CRTs. I shudder to think how much hair and bits of litter (even cat vomit if you really want to know) is in my monitor.
If the rebuttal/contention is that people who watch "conservative" news channels appear to be more uninformed because the survey only tested misconceptions that conservatives would have (which would not show up on the liberal side), then I would like to see a similar survey with proposed liberal misconceptions. For conservatives (or conservative news channel watchers) to be just as informed (or uninformed) as liberals (or liberal news channel watchers), the results should be symmetric, i.e., you'd expect watchers of liberal news channels to have the same general amount and severity of liberal misconceptions. It would be very interesting to me to 1) see such a list, because I at least partially doubt the alleged political biased-ness of the questions to begin with and 2) I would be VERY interested to know that there was a mainstream channel that had such a high correlation with misconceptions in the liberal realm, because I doubt there is, at least as much as is apparent with Fox News.
If I am correct I think it would be because 1) conservatives have a simpler ideology, more conducive to television and sound-bytes (witness the conservative radio phenomenon) 2) since society in general tends towards being more "liberal" (for broad definitions of that word), it is less interesting or unique to have a liberally-slanted news channel.
"4. If yo uask a random sample of people if Anti-choice protesters blew up the WTC you'll find that most who say yes watch CNN exlusively instad of FOX."
Is that really your proposed opposite liberal misconception to the "conservative" misconception of Iraq being behind the attack?
Really, I'd like to see a list of the analogous liberal misconceptions on the other side.
I'll throw out the only one I know of:
"Bush was somehow behind the attack."
But that is only held by such a fringe set that I don't think it would show up on a survey of anybody who uses mainstream media as their main information source (and that is what we are testing). It would not be surprising to find that there are people who subscribe to Joe Bob's Conspiracy Newsletter that have off the wall misconceptions, on either side - what I want to know is what are the analogous liberal misconceptions you claim, which are derived (well, ok, correlated) from watching one or the other mainstream news channel.
kiss my ash
I agree. Conservatives use the mantra that corporations are "just groups of individuals", just like, say, a labor union. Well, if they are just "groups of individuals", then everybody in the group should share the responsibility or the blame, right? This is clearly not the case. i.e. the factory worker neither shares the responsibility for CEO decisions, nor the blame, but he does share the punishment on the company. In this case the individuals involved are probably the executives in a privately held company, and the executives and shareholders in a publicly held company.