Verifiable binaries - Election inspectors must be able to verify the binaries installed on the machine by generating an MD5 (or equivelent) hashcode and comparing it to the published source.
How can you be sure that function hasn't been tampered with? If the machine has it's own "self-check" program, if you were going to tamper with the box, wouldn't that be the first thing you'd fix? The only way to be sure is to have a computer engineer with hardware-level access manually check the thing out.
Electronic voting, while more "new fangled" is just not worth it. All of the "comprimises" -- we'll have a $4,000 box that just prints your ballot for you! That you could have done yourself with a $0.89 bic pen! -- just reveal how infeasible the whole idea always was. But, so long as the public is willing to make decisions based on the right cue word "Newer! Better! Gets tough! Thinks of the children! Now with 54% more Riboflavin!" they'll be no stopping this kind of nonsense.
You've stated that in your first couple months of holding office you'll eliminate the federal reserve, kick the U.N. out of the country, and bring as many of our troops home as possible, among other radical (but good) changes. My question is this: how do you plan to handle the societal impact of these changes?
A better question might be how he could he expect to do any of those things without control of Congress.
This is called the "sleeper effect" -- people remember messages better than the source, so if a source of a message is discredited, over time the message increases in credibility as people forgot who said it.
Also, negative ads REALLY DO work. That is, after all, why they use them. For whatever reason, people have a "negativity" bias according to which they pay more attention to negative information, and remember it better later. It has shown that the primary effect is not winning votes for one side, but to dissuade the other side's would-be voters from showing up at the polls at all.
That's because Gmail is currently in BETA. They want to test it with a lot of accounts, but they still want to control the number of accounts so their system doesn't get overloaded before it's ready.
It's part of a MARKETING STRATEGY (and a particularly brilliant one, I might add) not because of any technical requirements. They probably have tens of millions of accounts by now.
Marketing 101: If you make something artificially scarce, people will want it more.
Moreover, the invite system gives them a ton of free advertising -- people offering their friends signup codes. I've constantly seen bloggers and slashdot posters offering them up and in part they're just doing google's advertising for free.
I myself found myself wanting one, which I realized was just for these reasons. Then I asked myself, am I at all unsatisfied with my current email?... the answer was "no". If they hadn't used this strategy, if I used it at all I probably would have signed up just to see how it looked, then forgotten I ever made the account. Now, I would have to commit myself to getting "invited", then once signed up I would have invite codes myself to give away.
This is, needless to say, brilliant marketing from google and it amazes me that this company's effectiveness can permeate so many levels of its operation, even as it continues to expand in all directions.
I've contributed to a few wikis (including my own, of course), and I can tell you from experience that people who author pages tend to watch them like hawks for edits. That's why Mediawiki provides the "Watch Pages" feature, afterall.
Which is how the submitter of this post was able to leave his errors there successfully: by intentionally using obscure pages that no one was likely to be watching.
In one sense this is bad, because you can get errors into these obscure pages. On the other hand, if these pages are obscure no one is likely to notice the error just as no one is likely to notice anything else about the page. As the page becomes more popular, this becomes less and less likely.
Just do what I do: always cite the original academic research. If someone is so interested, they can then look it up. A lot of newer academic papers can be found on the researcher's own web pages anyway, so in those cases you can just link to it.
You see, delegates can't actually change the party platform. At least, in theory, they can. But, the reality is very different.
There are two ways to bring a matter to the floor: One is to convince six state delegations to support the motion for a floor debate--a virtual impossibility, Tancredo realized; the other is to get 19 members of the platform committee to support bringing a matter to the floor. This latter route seemed doable to Tancredo, save for one problem: The congressman couldn't find out who, exactly, was on the platform committee. Running the platform process with all the discipline and secrecy that's come to be expected from the Bush White House, the RNC, citing security concerns, refused to divulge the identities of the handpicked delegates who served on the platform committee--even, in some cases, to other members of the platform committee.
link
Yes, that's right, we can't tell members of Congress who approves the party platform because of, try to keep a straight face, national security. (The member of Congress in question is a Republican).
Moller said in the article I read that the amount of airspace around our planet is so large, it was unlikely that you would come across another SkyCar on your journey, even if every family in the world had one.
Is that per journey? Even though there are far fewer planes than there would be flying cars, yet they collide every now and then. As opposed to per journey, wouldn't there be many, many, many journeys over one's flying career?
By analogy, you're unlikely to get in an accident when you go out for a drive. Does this mean that accidents aren't worth worrying about? Over your lifetime, you will probably take many thousands of car trips. With that perspective, it is likely to expect a least a few accidents.
Because "steal things" in this case (ie, digital music files) isn't as important as terrorism (ie, mass murder) and we have a limited amount of resources with which to fight both?
The problem is, it's counterproductive because people who are not in one of the specially protected minority resent that, people are attracted to forbidden things. Which explains all the antisemitic acts going on in France right now.
Is that really the best available explanation?
Why did people become nazis or nazi sympathizers originally, before it was banned, then? Whatever the answer to that question might be, can you really compare it to "because it was banned, and people are attracted to forbidden things"? While I agree that people are sometimes attracted to forbidden things, how can you show that that's more compelling than whatever other reasons that someone might become anti-semitic?
Just look at the US: we're let hate groups say whatever they wanted, and now the hate speech they spew out is banalized, and people look at them as the redneck morons they are. In France, the criminalization of hate speech and hate-related objects makes them dangerously attractive.
Hooray for a priori reasoning! Do you have any evidence at all that hate speech is on the decline in the US while on the rise in France? No? Did you just whip this out of thin air because it sounded right, though a critical observer might have no objective reason to believe it?
People wo think that statistics are the straight truth are idiots. This is just a further example of how one can easily manipulate numbers to prove a point.
Nonsense. You can come up with statistics that appear to support a point, but note that this doesn't actually prove the point. Statistics can still be used to make valid and useful inferences, though it's true that if the source is sufficiently motivated, it can be used in ways that might mislead you if you don't apply any critical reasoning (note that the application of critical reasoning can also be suppressed by sufficient motivation).
We've also been evolving to deal with solar radiation for millions of years. The same isn't true for that of the electronic devices we now clutch affectionately against our bodies for most of the day.
You're going to get modded down for going against the prevailing self-enhancing wisdom around here, but don't forget the tremendous power of name-recognition when there are a large number of options to choose from and consumer's can't properly assess quality.
It's hard to see how a business using BSD'd code in proprietary software actually hurts the original programmer (hint: it doesn't). This seems to be an assumption of many pro-GPL arguments like the one above.
I've never known anyone who could make a coherent defense of this premise.
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation operated and owned by private banks and given special monopoly existence by congress back on Christmas Eve in 1913. This is a very scary monopoly that has (perhaps unconstitutionally) usurped Congress's power to coin, issue, and regulate the American money supply.
The lunar rocket in Hergé's Tintin comic books Destination Moon and Explorers on the Moon looks like a V-2, as do most science fiction rockets of the 1950's. What is unique about Hergé's book is that they also feature the chessboard test-pattern.
This is really showing how the web can really be a great place for community building an etc.
This shows how prevalent network effects are on the internet. Craigslist becomes more and more attractive as more people use it. The same is true for auction sites like ebay.
This would predict that 1) early movers have a big advantage, and 2) newcomers will have a hard time breaking in.
Slashdot Mirror
Verifiable binaries - Election inspectors must be able to verify the binaries installed on the machine by generating an MD5 (or equivelent) hashcode and comparing it to the published source.
How can you be sure that function hasn't been tampered with? If the machine has it's own "self-check" program, if you were going to tamper with the box, wouldn't that be the first thing you'd fix? The only way to be sure is to have a computer engineer with hardware-level access manually check the thing out.
Electronic voting, while more "new fangled" is just not worth it. All of the "comprimises" -- we'll have a $4,000 box that just prints your ballot for you! That you could have done yourself with a $0.89 bic pen! -- just reveal how infeasible the whole idea always was. But, so long as the public is willing to make decisions based on the right cue word "Newer! Better! Gets tough! Thinks of the children! Now with 54% more Riboflavin!" they'll be no stopping this kind of nonsense.
You've stated that in your first couple months of holding office you'll eliminate the federal reserve, kick the U.N. out of the country, and bring as many of our troops home as possible, among other radical (but good) changes. My question is this: how do you plan to handle the societal impact of these changes?
A better question might be how he could he expect to do any of those things without control of Congress.
This is called the "sleeper effect" -- people remember messages better than the source, so if a source of a message is discredited, over time the message increases in credibility as people forgot who said it.
Also, negative ads REALLY DO work. That is, after all, why they use them. For whatever reason, people have a "negativity" bias according to which they pay more attention to negative information, and remember it better later. It has shown that the primary effect is not winning votes for one side, but to dissuade the other side's would-be voters from showing up at the polls at all.
Also, check out PBS's The 30 Second Candidate.
That's because Gmail is currently in BETA. They want to test it with a lot of accounts, but they still want to control the number of accounts so their system doesn't get overloaded before it's ready.
... the answer was "no". If they hadn't used this strategy, if I used it at all I probably would have signed up just to see how it looked, then forgotten I ever made the account. Now, I would have to commit myself to getting "invited", then once signed up I would have invite codes myself to give away.
It's part of a MARKETING STRATEGY (and a particularly brilliant one, I might add) not because of any technical requirements. They probably have tens of millions of accounts by now.
Marketing 101: If you make something artificially scarce, people will want it more.
Moreover, the invite system gives them a ton of free advertising -- people offering their friends signup codes. I've constantly seen bloggers and slashdot posters offering them up and in part they're just doing google's advertising for free.
I myself found myself wanting one, which I realized was just for these reasons. Then I asked myself, am I at all unsatisfied with my current email?
This is, needless to say, brilliant marketing from google and it amazes me that this company's effectiveness can permeate so many levels of its operation, even as it continues to expand in all directions.
I've contributed to a few wikis (including my own, of course), and I can tell you from experience that people who author pages tend to watch them like hawks for edits. That's why Mediawiki provides the "Watch Pages" feature, afterall.
Which is how the submitter of this post was able to leave his errors there successfully: by intentionally using obscure pages that no one was likely to be watching.
In one sense this is bad, because you can get errors into these obscure pages. On the other hand, if these pages are obscure no one is likely to notice the error just as no one is likely to notice anything else about the page. As the page becomes more popular, this becomes less and less likely.
Just do what I do: always cite the original academic research. If someone is so interested, they can then look it up. A lot of newer academic papers can be found on the researcher's own web pages anyway, so in those cases you can just link to it.
Yes, that's right, we can't tell members of Congress who approves the party platform because of, try to keep a straight face, national security. (The member of Congress in question is a Republican).
Don't forget the time Tom DeLay used the Department of Homeland Security to track Democrats blocking a quorom for a measure vote redistricting.
So what happens when they won't issue you a permit? (As has happened with today's and the last big war protest)
Because it isn't against it, it is therefore for it? Interesting logic.
Moller said in the article I read that the amount of airspace around our planet is so large, it was unlikely that you would come across another SkyCar on your journey, even if every family in the world had one.
Is that per journey? Even though there are far fewer planes than there would be flying cars, yet they collide every now and then. As opposed to per journey, wouldn't there be many, many, many journeys over one's flying career?
By analogy, you're unlikely to get in an accident when you go out for a drive. Does this mean that accidents aren't worth worrying about? Over your lifetime, you will probably take many thousands of car trips. With that perspective, it is likely to expect a least a few accidents.
Because "steal things" in this case (ie, digital music files) isn't as important as terrorism (ie, mass murder) and we have a limited amount of resources with which to fight both?
The problem is, it's counterproductive because people who are not in one of the specially protected minority resent that, people are attracted to forbidden things. Which explains all the antisemitic acts going on in France right now.
Is that really the best available explanation?
Why did people become nazis or nazi sympathizers originally, before it was banned, then? Whatever the answer to that question might be, can you really compare it to "because it was banned, and people are attracted to forbidden things"? While I agree that people are sometimes attracted to forbidden things, how can you show that that's more compelling than whatever other reasons that someone might become anti-semitic?
So, because part of the problem still exists, the solution must as a whole must not be worth it?
Not that I necessarily agree with the laws, but this is a poor way to go about looking at the problem.
Here's an analogy: murder is illegal. Yet there are still some murders! What a pointless law.
Once again, I do not necessarily agree with the French laws.
Just look at the US: we're let hate groups say whatever they wanted, and now the hate speech they spew out is banalized, and people look at them as the redneck morons they are. In France, the criminalization of hate speech and hate-related objects makes them dangerously attractive.
Hooray for a priori reasoning! Do you have any evidence at all that hate speech is on the decline in the US while on the rise in France? No? Did you just whip this out of thin air because it sounded right, though a critical observer might have no objective reason to believe it?
The grandparent poster was responding to "the games also improve young people's perceptions of the military" as he had quoted.
He was not saying that existing members of the military should not have better training, which this post seems premised on.
People wo think that statistics are the straight truth are idiots. This is just a further example of how one can easily manipulate numbers to prove a point.
Nonsense. You can come up with statistics that appear to support a point, but note that this doesn't actually prove the point. Statistics can still be used to make valid and useful inferences, though it's true that if the source is sufficiently motivated, it can be used in ways that might mislead you if you don't apply any critical reasoning (note that the application of critical reasoning can also be suppressed by sufficient motivation).
We've also been evolving to deal with solar radiation for millions of years. The same isn't true for that of the electronic devices we now clutch affectionately against our bodies for most of the day.
You're going to get modded down for going against the prevailing self-enhancing wisdom around here, but don't forget the tremendous power of name-recognition when there are a large number of options to choose from and consumer's can't properly assess quality.
It's hard to see how a business using BSD'd code in proprietary software actually hurts the original programmer (hint: it doesn't). This seems to be an assumption of many pro-GPL arguments like the one above.
I've never known anyone who could make a coherent defense of this premise.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Syste m for non-hysterical/factually inaccurate information about the Federal reserve.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2:
This is really showing how the web can really be a great place for community building an etc.
This shows how prevalent network effects are on the internet. Craigslist becomes more and more attractive as more people use it. The same is true for auction sites like ebay.
This would predict that 1) early movers have a big advantage, and 2) newcomers will have a hard time breaking in.
So, let's invade some other country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda just to show how tough we are.
Fortunately, it is so easy to tell who is a terrorist and who isn't.