You live that long, and they don't decide to keep you after the 4 years.
Then you have to deal with being viewed with suspicion in some circles. I would certainly doubt the moral fiber of someone who enlisted at this point in history.
Open electronic voting would allow anyone to observe the plan, not the process. There is no way to guarantee that the published software was actually running on the voting computers at the time. You know that you have a recorded vote in a database. You do not know that that vote was actually cast, or that it is what the voter intended. For that, you need paper ballots.
That said, paper ballots and electronic voting are not mutually exclusive. There are automatically scanable paper ballots available that give the advantages of both sides.
Not necessarily, mono actually works quite well for what it does. I actually think.NET shows promise, if Microsoft can keep from smothering it. That said, it's a framework for whipping up something quick and dirty. It's not a good fit for anything with performance constraints.
Java, well... It's best we just forget that ever happened.
Actually, Compaq was responsible for PC clones. They reverse engineered IBM's BIOS, and sold compatible machines. IBM wasn't happy about it at the time, but clean room reverse engineering is perfectly legal.
Thats certainly true - but it has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. (And 'working against' is not the same as 'breaking'.)
Not always, but usually it is. Change rarely happens in western civilization without people openly defying what they see as wrong.
If the law isn't moral by definition - then you have niether laws nor morals, only anarchy.
Wrong. If morality is defined as law, or vice versa (even in subset), neither holds any meaning. Law is an attempt at encapsulating morality, and as such it can never be wholey moral. Your logic would have almost all the advances of any merit stillborn out of an irrational fear of breaking the law.
Ah yes - teaching people that breaking the law is wrong is immoral and 'indoctrination'.
Yes, it is. It is your civic duty to evaluate all laws, and if you find them lacking, work against them. Teaching children that the law is moral by definition is the most disgusting thing I can imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
That could also backfire. "HD-DVD? Oh, that's just old last generation DVD spruced up a bit."
Or just keep them from getting worse.
You live that long, and they don't decide to keep you after the 4 years.
Then you have to deal with being viewed with suspicion in some circles. I would certainly doubt the moral fiber of someone who enlisted at this point in history.
It would allow all people to view a representation of the vote, and no one to view the votes themselves.
Open electronic voting would allow anyone to observe the plan, not the process. There is no way to guarantee that the published software was actually running on the voting computers at the time. You know that you have a recorded vote in a database. You do not know that that vote was actually cast, or that it is what the voter intended. For that, you need paper ballots.
That said, paper ballots and electronic voting are not mutually exclusive. There are automatically scanable paper ballots available that give the advantages of both sides.
With people manually counting each vote, you can have representatives from all interest groups observe the process.
Your main problem is staffing. I doubt the problem is actually in finding people, but rather that you're not offering enough to attract them.
You can add words to its dictionary...
Ok, I'd like 50,000 free points, then.
In my universe, it's pretty easy to bittorrent anything worth watching.
I'm sure Logitech (or someone) would produce high end left handed mice if there was a demand for them at a sustainable price.
By reading this comment, you agree to send me $5 every week.
Those clauses have been pretty clearly shown to be unenforceable.
Not necessarily, mono actually works quite well for what it does. I actually think .NET shows promise, if Microsoft can keep from smothering it. That said, it's a framework for whipping up something quick and dirty. It's not a good fit for anything with performance constraints.
Java, well... It's best we just forget that ever happened.
C# client with a java server?
No.
I don't entirely disagree, but TFA was wholey based on emotion, rather than reason.
Answer: I use my favourite cooking utensil; the telephone.
They can spell words like tough, hours, inefficient and probably more I don't care to look for.
And I highly doubt they'd keep around someone who tried to get a secretary to document code.
Sounds like they'd be rather threatened by any anti-corporate movement, then.
Actually, Compaq was responsible for PC clones. They reverse engineered IBM's BIOS, and sold compatible machines. IBM wasn't happy about it at the time, but clean room reverse engineering is perfectly legal.
It would be nice to have everything under compatible licenses, but it would also be nice to have all DRM proponents sent to PMITA prison.
Both main parties supported this monstrosity.
Neither thought they could get votes by opposing it, ie, everyone supports it.
This is a tax on businesses rather than people. Businesses (especially small businesses) do not have the vote.
Neither do carrots. Nor should they.
This monstrosity did not make the radar in the elections.
Because only fringe whackos oppose it.
Your peers seem to disagree, since they've elected governments that have continued it.
Thats certainly true - but it has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. (And 'working against' is not the same as 'breaking'.)
Not always, but usually it is. Change rarely happens in western civilization without people openly defying what they see as wrong.
If the law isn't moral by definition - then you have niether laws nor morals, only anarchy.
Wrong. If morality is defined as law, or vice versa (even in subset), neither holds any meaning. Law is an attempt at encapsulating morality, and as such it can never be wholey moral. Your logic would have almost all the advances of any merit stillborn out of an irrational fear of breaking the law.
Ah yes - teaching people that breaking the law is wrong is immoral and 'indoctrination'.
Yes, it is. It is your civic duty to evaluate all laws, and if you find them lacking, work against them. Teaching children that the law is moral by definition is the most disgusting thing I can imagine.