Even assuming the remaining 15% were all agents of the secret police, how could they keep up with everyone else? Each agent would have to tap, monitor and follow six people.
Re:New voting method being tested in Europe
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
> isn't it true that there is no guarantee that > that party also received the most votes
In most countries, the number of representatives elected by each constituency is based on the population of that constituency. So in theory that situation would be possible if voter turnout is radically different between different constituencies.
However, in most countries the government is elected independently from the president, and the president is who actually appoints the prime-minister, based on the results of the election. So if one party had more votes but (due to some highly unlikely combination of factors) had less representatives in parliament, that party would still probably be given a chance to form a goverment. It would be up to them to accept, to refuse, or to form a coalition with other parties.
Minority goverments are relatively common in Europe, where parties rarely have more than 50% of the votes (or the representatives) on their own. Personally, I think this is a very good thing, as it forces parties to discuss issues in parliament, instead of giving one of the parties carte blanche to do whatever it wants.
Next you're going to tell me Wallace & Gromit aren't real either?
RMN ~~~
Re:New voting method being used in Nevada
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
> a touch screen interface [...] the X magically appears [...] > a card with a magnetic strip is activated [...] you go and > stick that in the machine [...]
This was probably invented by Wallace & Gromit, right? It sort of reminds me of the NASA program to create a pen that could write in space. NASA (and american taxpayers) "invested" close to one million dollars on that. The russians used pencils.
> it eliminates multiple votes for the same office,
Huh?
> it allows you to *change* your vote if you've pressed the wrong box,
If you make a mistake, ask for a new piece of "paper". They're free.
> and it allows you to *verify* that you have voted for the right canidate!
I assume you mean "right" in a practical sense, not in a philosophical sense. In which case, using the "paper" method, you can use your "eyes" to look at the "paper", and you'll know if you've voted for the right candidate.
Also, computers are known to sometimes misplace some bytes. It's extremely rare for a cross made with a pen to jump from one part of the paper to another.
Sometimes low tech is good tech.
RMN ~~~
New voting method being tested in Europe
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Most countries in Europe (and, I assume, the World), have been successfully experimenting with a revolutionary voting method:
1. Voters are given a piece of "paper". On this "paper" are the names of the candidates or parties, followed the respective picture or symbol, followed by an empty square.
2. Using a device known as "pen", the voters proceed to make a "cross" (a highly optimised mark, consisting of two straight lines) inside the "square" that corresponds to the person or party they wish to vote for.
3. The voters then fold this paper two or three times and insert it in a large "box" (a device for storing pieces of paper).
4. Once voting is over, advanced counting machines known as "people" (usually groups of volunteers, with one or two official representatives) take the pieces of paper out of the box and look at the marks made with the pens. They write down how many "votes" there were for each candidate. This process typically takes less than six hours, including one recount.
5. (This part will sound obvious to most people familiar with democracy, but americans may find it surprising) The candidate with the most votes wins.
It's a relatively inexpensive and ecological process, since the paper can be recycled. But, most of all, it works.
Obviously this proves that time travel is possible! I've been making a few tests and I think I know how he did it. Expect a formal announcement in a press conference that I'll be giving last week.
I find it rather amusing (in a sad way) that some people are "proud of not using any Microsoft products" (which are made by well-fed and well-paid programmers) but don't have any problems with using, wearing or even advertising "Nike products", for example (which are made by exploited workers - often children - in 3rd world countries).
It seems to me that some people confuse morality with fashion.
Being "Microsoft-free" should not be an end in itself, or something to brag about. There are plenty of good (positive) reasons to use other operating systems and open-source software; you shouldn't use them simply to be "Microsoft-free", that's an insult to the developers.
Yes, but... why should they 'switch over' to OSX when Linux is cheaper and faster, even running on Apple's own hardware...? If anything, this may convince some people who are running MacOS to switch to Linux (not that I think it will, because people who run MacOS are unlikely to be performance freaks).
Also, you may be slightly mistaken about the performance of NT / 2000 /.NET. MS operating systems have pretty steep hardware requirements, but once you meet those, they are quite competitive. Of course, you need a competent sysadmin, but the same goes for any OS.
This is a good test to see how efficient MacOS is. And personally, I'm a bit surprised that Linux "won"; after all, MacOS was supposedly written by people who know that hardware inside-out, and should be very well optimised for it.
But this is not much of "MacOS vs. Linux" server benchmark, because Linux can run much faster on other plaforms. Why should you buy an Xserve to run Linux when you can get Intel / AMD / Transmeta systems that are faster and / or cheaper? The main (only?) reason to buy Apple hardware is the operating system. Which, judging from these reults, definitely has room for improvement.
The most complex circuit they built is so small that 190 billion could fit atop a standard pencil-top eraser 7mm in diameter.
In my days, when you wanted to show something was really small, you counted how many you could fit on the end of a pin, or in the width of a human hair. Comparing it with something that's almost 1 cm across is cheating.
Having had to deal with this from an almost identically named company in America, the quoted phrases don't seem nearly as sneaky and dirty as some I've seen
So you're saying the USA has the sneakiest registries? Why can't you americans accept that some people can be just as sneaky and dirty as you??
I think it's time someone made a "worldwide registry sneakiness index"!
The main difference from, say, (p)ATA-133 to SATA is in the transport (ie, the cables and the electrical signals). The (logical) protocol itself remains pretty much the same, and therefore so do the controllers and the drives.
The proof that this is an evolution, and not a revolution is that most SATA solutions in the market right now (including some high-end RAID cards, etc.) use exactly the same chips as the (p)ATA models, and simply add a converter and a couple of SATA connectors.
Even in terms of transfer speed, the change is minimal (from 133 to 150), and pretty mcuh irrelevant (no current IDE drive comes even close to 100 MB/s, let alone 133).
Not quite. SATA controllers have one device per channel, with no master or slave.
You are probably thinking of the situation where the motherboard has a (p)ATA controller and a converter is used to connect it to SATA cables. In this situation, one SATA channel is assigned to the (p)ATA master and another to the (p)ATA slave. But from a SATA point of view, the two channels are completely independent, and only support one device each.
First, this is IDE (just as ATA-66 or ATA-133 are IDE).
Second, the reason why Betamax died (well, didn't actually die, but didn't take off, either) was Sony kept it a proprietary format, while JVC let pretty much everyone make VHS products.
Serial ATA is one of the most unrevolutionary evolutions ever made. Basically it just changes the cables. The drives stay pretty much the same, the controllers stay pretty much the same, the drivers can stay exactly the same. Instead of wide, flat cables and two disks per channel you now get thin round cables and just one disk per channel (but since the connectors are so much smaller, you can have many on the same board). It's a good thing.
There are basically three reasons for having multiple standards. The first is a purely commercial one. Brand A invents the A-link and patents it, and brand B decides to create B-link so they don't have to pay a fee to Brand A. The second is evolution. Sometimes, a standard needs to be replaced or updated to cope with new demands (ex., ATA-33 becomes ATA-66). The third is that some standards are specifically suited to some situations (ex., SCSI lets you connect a lot of drives, and has support for other kinds of peripherals, but IDE is cheaper to make, and enough for most people).
Lag comepnsation is done at the server; it's a simple operation that does not influence your connection.
It is possible, however, that the latest versions of CS try to transfer more data, and get choked more easily on slower connections, which would cause your ping to be higher and, especially, less stable. I know that in TFC they actually simplified several things (ex., in old versions, nail grenades in TFC transmitted the position of each nail; now the nails are shot in a standard pattern so they don't need to be transferred).
The latency itself depends on the network connection. Do a traceroute to the server and you'll see where the delay is being introduced. You will also see your "true" latency (ie, without any game data being transferred). If this is much lower than the latency in the game, chances are the game is trying to transfer more data than your modem can handle. Try lowering the rate (ex., "rate 3000" in the console).
Slashdot Mirror
You mean their ass was on the line and they cocked it up? :-p
RMN
~~~
Start the sentence with "Bugger!"
RMN
~~~
You post that every day. Does the man resurrect or something?
RMN
~~~
Even assuming the remaining 15% were all agents of the secret police, how could they keep up with everyone else? Each agent would have to tap, monitor and follow six people.
RMN
~~~
Zey have vays ov making you pay forr it!
RMN
~~~
> isn't it true that there is no guarantee that
> that party also received the most votes
In most countries, the number of representatives elected by each constituency is based on the population of that constituency. So in theory that situation would be possible if voter turnout is radically different between different constituencies.
However, in most countries the government is elected independently from the president, and the president is who actually appoints the prime-minister, based on the results of the election. So if one party had more votes but (due to some highly unlikely combination of factors) had less representatives in parliament, that party would still probably be given a chance to form a goverment. It would be up to them to accept, to refuse, or to form a coalition with other parties.
Minority goverments are relatively common in Europe, where parties rarely have more than 50% of the votes (or the representatives) on their own. Personally, I think this is a very good thing, as it forces parties to discuss issues in parliament, instead of giving one of the parties carte blanche to do whatever it wants.
RMN
~~~
Next you're going to tell me Wallace & Gromit aren't real either?
RMN
~~~
> a touch screen interface [...] the X magically appears [...]
> a card with a magnetic strip is activated [...] you go and
> stick that in the machine [...]
This was probably invented by Wallace & Gromit, right? It sort of reminds me of the NASA program to create a pen that could write in space. NASA (and american taxpayers) "invested" close to one million dollars on that. The russians used pencils.
> it eliminates multiple votes for the same office,
Huh?
> it allows you to *change* your vote if you've pressed the wrong box,
If you make a mistake, ask for a new piece of "paper". They're free.
> and it allows you to *verify* that you have voted for the right canidate!
I assume you mean "right" in a practical sense, not in a philosophical sense. In which case, using the "paper" method, you can use your "eyes" to look at the "paper", and you'll know if you've voted for the right candidate.
Also, computers are known to sometimes misplace some bytes. It's extremely rare for a cross made with a pen to jump from one part of the paper to another.
Sometimes low tech is good tech.
RMN
~~~
Most countries in Europe (and, I assume, the World), have been successfully experimenting with a revolutionary voting method:
1. Voters are given a piece of "paper". On this "paper" are the names of the candidates or parties, followed the respective picture or symbol, followed by an empty square.
2. Using a device known as "pen", the voters proceed to make a "cross" (a highly optimised mark, consisting of two straight lines) inside the "square" that corresponds to the person or party they wish to vote for.
3. The voters then fold this paper two or three times and insert it in a large "box" (a device for storing pieces of paper).
4. Once voting is over, advanced counting machines known as "people" (usually groups of volunteers, with one or two official representatives) take the pieces of paper out of the box and look at the marks made with the pens. They write down how many "votes" there were for each candidate. This process typically takes less than six hours, including one recount.
5. (This part will sound obvious to most people familiar with democracy, but americans may find it surprising) The candidate with the most votes wins.
It's a relatively inexpensive and ecological process, since the paper can be recycled. But, most of all, it works.
RMN
~~~
Obviously this proves that time travel is possible! I've been making a few tests and I think I know how he did it. Expect a formal announcement in a press conference that I'll be giving last week.
RMN
~~~
I find it rather amusing (in a sad way) that some people are "proud of not using any Microsoft products" (which are made by well-fed and well-paid programmers) but don't have any problems with using, wearing or even advertising "Nike products", for example (which are made by exploited workers - often children - in 3rd world countries).
It seems to me that some people confuse morality with fashion.
Being "Microsoft-free" should not be an end in itself, or something to brag about. There are plenty of good (positive) reasons to use other operating systems and open-source software; you shouldn't use them simply to be "Microsoft-free", that's an insult to the developers.
RMN
~~~
That will hold true until you want to upgrade the OS... :)
RMN
~~~
Yes, but... why should they 'switch over' to OSX when Linux is cheaper and faster, even running on Apple's own hardware...? If anything, this may convince some people who are running MacOS to switch to Linux (not that I think it will, because people who run MacOS are unlikely to be performance freaks).
.NET. MS operating systems have pretty steep hardware requirements, but once you meet those, they are quite competitive. Of course, you need a competent sysadmin, but the same goes for any OS.
Also, you may be slightly mistaken about the performance of NT / 2000 /
RMN
~~~
This is a good test to see how efficient MacOS is. And personally, I'm a bit surprised that Linux "won"; after all, MacOS was supposedly written by people who know that hardware inside-out, and should be very well optimised for it.
But this is not much of "MacOS vs. Linux" server benchmark, because Linux can run much faster on other plaforms. Why should you buy an Xserve to run Linux when you can get Intel / AMD / Transmeta systems that are faster and / or cheaper? The main (only?) reason to buy Apple hardware is the operating system. Which, judging from these reults, definitely has room for improvement.
RMN
~~~
I'm actually fairly new to the whole slashdot scene, but I implore you to keep posting.
The two facts are obviously related.
RMN
~~~
From the article:
The most complex circuit they built is so small that 190 billion could fit atop a standard pencil-top eraser 7mm in diameter.
In my days, when you wanted to show something was really small, you counted how many you could fit on the end of a pin, or in the width of a human hair. Comparing it with something that's almost 1 cm across is cheating.
RMN
~~~
Wasn't that what caused all the aliens to pop up in 'Half-Life'?
RMN
~~~
I think in this case you don't need the ???; just 1, 2, or 3.
RMN
~~~
Having had to deal with this from an almost identically named company in America, the quoted phrases don't seem nearly as sneaky and dirty as some I've seen
So you're saying the USA has the sneakiest registries? Why can't you americans accept that some people can be just as sneaky and dirty as you??
I think it's time someone made a "worldwide registry sneakiness index"!
RMN
~~~
The main difference from, say, (p)ATA-133 to SATA is in the transport (ie, the cables and the electrical signals). The (logical) protocol itself remains pretty much the same, and therefore so do the controllers and the drives.
The proof that this is an evolution, and not a revolution is that most SATA solutions in the market right now (including some high-end RAID cards, etc.) use exactly the same chips as the (p)ATA models, and simply add a converter and a couple of SATA connectors.
Even in terms of transfer speed, the change is minimal (from 133 to 150), and pretty mcuh irrelevant (no current IDE drive comes even close to 100 MB/s, let alone 133).
RMN
~~~
Not quite. SATA controllers have one device per channel, with no master or slave.
You are probably thinking of the situation where the motherboard has a (p)ATA controller and a converter is used to connect it to SATA cables. In this situation, one SATA channel is assigned to the (p)ATA master and another to the (p)ATA slave. But from a SATA point of view, the two channels are completely independent, and only support one device each.
RMN
~~~
First, this is IDE (just as ATA-66 or ATA-133 are IDE).
Second, the reason why Betamax died (well, didn't actually die, but didn't take off, either) was Sony kept it a proprietary format, while JVC let pretty much everyone make VHS products.
Serial ATA is one of the most unrevolutionary evolutions ever made. Basically it just changes the cables. The drives stay pretty much the same, the controllers stay pretty much the same, the drivers can stay exactly the same. Instead of wide, flat cables and two disks per channel you now get thin round cables and just one disk per channel (but since the connectors are so much smaller, you can have many on the same board). It's a good thing.
There are basically three reasons for having multiple standards. The first is a purely commercial one. Brand A invents the A-link and patents it, and brand B decides to create B-link so they don't have to pay a fee to Brand A. The second is evolution. Sometimes, a standard needs to be replaced or updated to cope with new demands (ex., ATA-33 becomes ATA-66). The third is that some standards are specifically suited to some situations (ex., SCSI lets you connect a lot of drives, and has support for other kinds of peripherals, but IDE is cheaper to make, and enough for most people).
RMN
~~~
Religion in North America is not treated special, simply like a charity. There are NO SPECIAL POWERS.
That's why religion is in such a deep crisis in the USA. Who is going to worship a God that doesn't even have special powers?
RMN
~~~
Well, that would explain why it couldn't see the keyboard: too far away. :)
RMN
~~~
Lag comepnsation is done at the server; it's a simple operation that does not influence your connection.
It is possible, however, that the latest versions of CS try to transfer more data, and get choked more easily on slower connections, which would cause your ping to be higher and, especially, less stable. I know that in TFC they actually simplified several things (ex., in old versions, nail grenades in TFC transmitted the position of each nail; now the nails are shot in a standard pattern so they don't need to be transferred).
The latency itself depends on the network connection. Do a traceroute to the server and you'll see where the delay is being introduced. You will also see your "true" latency (ie, without any game data being transferred). If this is much lower than the latency in the game, chances are the game is trying to transfer more data than your modem can handle. Try lowering the rate (ex., "rate 3000" in the console).
RMN
~~~