That system does exist, and is called Single Transferable Vote (or Instant Runoff.) In the student union elections here at Bristol University, we use a variation on STV, where there is also the option to vote to reopen nominations (i.e. a "none of the above" vote.)
In STV, you rank the candidates in order of preference on the ballot paper. If any candidate has a majority of first preferences, gthen they win, otherwise the lowest ranked candidate is elimated, and the votes for that candidate are re-asigned to the second preferences given by the voter. If there is still no majority, the lowest ranked candiate is eliminated, and the votes for them re-asigned by next preference. This process is repeated until one candidate has a majority.
No, the Internet is vulnerable, if any system that is used widely enough is vulnerable. There were enough vulnerable MSSQL servers for a worm which only directly affected those servers to affect everyone else as well though its attempts to spread. Thus demonstrating that the Internet as a whole is vulnerable if any fairly common system is vulnerable. Every sysadmin should be responsible for ensuring their systems are secure, and every developer should be held accountable for thir software. However, remember that almost no non-trivial software is bug-free, it's just as much the fault of admins who don't patch their systems as it is the fault of developers who produce bad software.
Also, if you ask for a latte over there, you'll get a glass of milk.... Crazy Italians.
Yeah, crazy Italians, giving you a glass of milk when you ask for milk. (an English to Italian dictionary may help you understand this comment)
I'd rather not have a single ID system, because with lots of different logins details, if one of them gets comprimised, then it's just that one account that's lost, whereas if a single ID is used and that gets stolen, well, that's your id for everything gone. Not relying on one single id system is, imho, an important part of protecting your id, because that makes you less vulnerable to id theft.
"Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data" is the relavent bit of EU law.
Basically, all personal data is controlled, personal data being "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject')."
It restricts processing of personal data (which covers doing pretty much anything with that data) to when the individual has given their consent, or one of the following: processing is required to carry out a contract with the individual, to carry out any legal obligation, to "protect the vital interests of the data subject," "for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed," or finally (a slightly odd one, imho) "for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." I reckon the last is slightly odd because it's basically "do what you like, as long as it doesn't breach their right to privacy."
Also, the data subject has the right to a copy of any personal data about them that a copmany holds, and, perhaps most importantly in this case, restricts transfer of data to any counrty outside the EU, unless that country "ensures an adequate level of protection."
To sumarise, in answer to the "what info" question, anything about a person who can be identified, and to "what restrictions", the above is the simplist sumary I can come up with at hald pat midnight.
Re:Here's some REALLY immortal code
on
Immortal Code
·
· Score: 1
you forgot the 20 GOTO 10
or, if you're of the "who needs whitespace" mentality, 1?"Hello world!"2GOTO1 will do nicely.
The requires LaTex source to post, which means a modern edition, which means it's copyrighted, which means you can't copy it (unless you have the publisher's permission.*)
Project Guttenburg only does texts which are in the public domain, which currently mean pre-1923 editions (PG of Australia has newer books) and, obviously, pre-1923 means that the only sources are print copies.
* pedantic point: it's the copyright holder's permission, which isn't necessairly the publisher, but usually is.
Nah, the reason the circles are (almost) always aligned to the tracks is that the people making the circle use them to get into the middle of the field. Perfectally simple. And remember, kids, crop circles are made by groups of people with planks and bits of rope, not aliens.
If you have to pay shipping and taxes, you're better off buying something locally
Not necessarily. In the UK, we have to pay vat (sales tax) on online purchases from uk companies (technicially, customs can charge you the vat on imports too.) If I were to buy a set of Lord of the Rings books (for example) from amazon.co.uk, I save £6 on the list price of £19.99, which is what a local bookshop would charge. Amazon woulod charge me £3.93 for delivery, making a saving of £2.07, or just over 10%
Even if I look at something that's nowhere near the best-selllers list (I used the nearest textbook to my computer) I can get a saving of £2.61 on the list price, which is just under 10%
Maybe it's just rip-off Britain, but here, it's very common to be able to get a saving by buying online, even though that means paying both vat and delivery.
Because premium rate phone services in the UK are regulated, and the rules for "sexual entertainment services" state that the service provider has to try to prevent under 18s from accessing those services. And if you run a service, breaking the rules can get you in big trouble.
In october (I can't find any more recent buletins,) three "online adult entertainment services" (they used premium rate dial-ups with special dialer software) were found to have breached the rules by not terminating the calls after £20 had been spent, not showing proper pricing information, and a few other assorted breaches. One of them was fined £75,000, the other two £50,000, and access to all three was barred, one of them for 12 months and the other for 2 years.
And if you're really bad, you can be banned from running any premium rate service for a set period of time. There's one guy who isn't allowed to run some services until 2005.
So, it's very much in their interests to make sure kids can't access the porno on their phones.
As has been said, that would be nearly impossible. However, with a big enough projector, you can project your message onto their wall, as the Stop the War Coalition did.
Advertising should not be an issue. I know of no legitimate web site that requires third party domains. For instance/. uses "images.slashdot.org" and the New York Times uses "graphics7.nytimes.com".
Nice idea, but what about the ad-supported sites that use agencies to get advertising, rather than selling ad space direct to the advertiser. Then it makes perfect sense for www.smallsite.com to have an image on it from images.adagency.com.
I agree entirely that html email should be banished from the face of the net, and third party cookies serve litle or no purpose.
It didn't explode in 2000, the explosion was first recorded in 2000. The star is over 10,000 light-years away.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1
Make your mind up. You stated that "What has not been demonstrated is that chance mutations can lead to the introduction of benefical genes that will later lead to a new species and a superior lifeform."
And yet, in response to a demonstration of chance mutations leading to the introduction of benefical genes, you state that "We acknowledge mutations occur like this." So, which is it? Do mutations occur like that or not?
Well of course it's a composite, that's what multiple exposures are. I imagine the cloud came from the foreground image they say they took. Personally, I think the apod one looks better, but that's just my opinion.
Baird invented a television. The fact that we don't use his sort of television anymore doesn't mean it wasn't a television. If you call Baird's device a mechanical television, then you must accept that it is a form of television. And, as Baird invented his television before Farnsworth did, I think it's fair to say that Baird invented television.
Re:The PROOF that google is evil
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 5, Funny
There's a better proof of google's evilness.
Counting from the start of the alphabet, we can assign the letters of the name 'Google' the numbers:
G o o g l e
7 15 15 7 12 5
which, when added together, total 61.
Now, we can also assign numbers to the letters from their ascii codes, thus:
G o o g l e
71 111 111 103 108 101
which sum to 605.
Combining these two numerical representations of 'Google', we get 605 + 61 = 666!!!
Google is the devil!!!!
Well, for starters there are the incositancies in the creation story (hey, we may as well start at the begining.)
In Genesis 1, we are told that God created the fish, and then the birds, then the animals of the land, and then created man, both male and female, in His own image (Gen. 1.27)
But Genesis 2 says that god created man to tend the garden of Eden, and then created all the animals as helpers for Adam (man is never refered to as an individual in Gen. 1, btw) but none of them were good helpers for him, so God took his rib and made a woman from it. (Gen.2 18-23)
Tada. An inconsitency in the first two chapters.
Or just paint the bottom of your spyplane sky-blue or black, depending on if you're flying during the day or at night. Of course, neither this nor your idea make the plane invisable to radar...
Slashdot Mirror
That system does exist, and is called Single Transferable Vote (or Instant Runoff.) In the student union elections here at Bristol University, we use a variation on STV, where there is also the option to vote to reopen nominations (i.e. a "none of the above" vote.)
In STV, you rank the candidates in order of preference on the ballot paper. If any candidate has a majority of first preferences, gthen they win, otherwise the lowest ranked candidate is elimated, and the votes for that candidate are re-asigned to the second preferences given by the voter. If there is still no majority, the lowest ranked candiate is eliminated, and the votes for them re-asigned by next preference. This process is repeated until one candidate has a majority.
Are you going to open the sauce for those waffles?
No, the Internet is vulnerable, if any system that is used widely enough is vulnerable. There were enough vulnerable MSSQL servers for a worm which only directly affected those servers to affect everyone else as well though its attempts to spread. Thus demonstrating that the Internet as a whole is vulnerable if any fairly common system is vulnerable.
Every sysadmin should be responsible for ensuring their systems are secure, and every developer should be held accountable for thir software. However, remember that almost no non-trivial software is bug-free, it's just as much the fault of admins who don't patch their systems as it is the fault of developers who produce bad software.
Also, if you ask for a latte over there, you'll get a glass of milk. ... Crazy Italians.
Yeah, crazy Italians, giving you a glass of milk when you ask for milk. (an English to Italian dictionary may help you understand this comment)
And, of course, Cacofonix, the (appaling) bard. (sorry if I've misspelt that)
I'd rather not have a single ID system, because with lots of different logins details, if one of them gets comprimised, then it's just that one account that's lost, whereas if a single ID is used and that gets stolen, well, that's your id for everything gone. Not relying on one single id system is, imho, an important part of protecting your id, because that makes you less vulnerable to id theft.
"Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data" is the relavent bit of EU law.
Basically, all personal data is controlled, personal data being "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject')."
It restricts processing of personal data (which covers doing pretty much anything with that data) to when the individual has given their consent, or one of the following: processing is required to carry out a contract with the individual, to carry out any legal obligation, to "protect the vital interests of the data subject," "for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed," or finally (a slightly odd one, imho) "for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." I reckon the last is slightly odd because it's basically "do what you like, as long as it doesn't breach their right to privacy."
Also, the data subject has the right to a copy of any personal data about them that a copmany holds, and, perhaps most importantly in this case, restricts transfer of data to any counrty outside the EU, unless that country "ensures an adequate level of protection."
To sumarise, in answer to the "what info" question, anything about a person who can be identified, and to "what restrictions", the above is the simplist sumary I can come up with at hald pat midnight.
you forgot the
20 GOTO 10
or, if you're of the "who needs whitespace" mentality,
1?"Hello world!"2GOTO1
will do nicely.
The requires LaTex source to post, which means a modern edition, which means it's copyrighted, which means you can't copy it (unless you have the publisher's permission.*)
Project Guttenburg only does texts which are in the public domain, which currently mean pre-1923 editions (PG of Australia has newer books) and, obviously, pre-1923 means that the only sources are print copies.
* pedantic point: it's the copyright holder's permission, which isn't necessairly the publisher, but usually is.
Ummm...
Why use stilts when there are tracks already available? Makes no sense, does it?
Nah, the reason the circles are (almost) always aligned to the tracks is that the people making the circle use them to get into the middle of the field. Perfectally simple.
And remember, kids, crop circles are made by groups of people with planks and bits of rope, not aliens.
Maybe the report came from France because Hillary rosen was speaking at an international music industry conference in France. Just a thought...
If you have to pay shipping and taxes, you're better off buying something locally
Not necessarily. In the UK, we have to pay vat (sales tax) on online purchases from uk companies (technicially, customs can charge you the vat on imports too.) If I were to buy a set of Lord of the Rings books (for example) from amazon.co.uk, I save £6 on the list price of £19.99, which is what a local bookshop would charge. Amazon woulod charge me £3.93 for delivery, making a saving of £2.07, or just over 10%
Even if I look at something that's nowhere near the best-selllers list (I used the nearest textbook to my computer) I can get a saving of £2.61 on the list price, which is just under 10%
Maybe it's just rip-off Britain, but here, it's very common to be able to get a saving by buying online, even though that means paying both vat and delivery.
Because premium rate phone services in the UK are regulated, and the rules for "sexual entertainment services" state that the service provider has to try to prevent under 18s from accessing those services. And if you run a service, breaking the rules can get you in big trouble.
In october (I can't find any more recent buletins,) three "online adult entertainment services" (they used premium rate dial-ups with special dialer software) were found to have breached the rules by not terminating the calls after £20 had been spent, not showing proper pricing information, and a few other assorted breaches. One of them was fined £75,000, the other two £50,000, and access to all three was barred, one of them for 12 months and the other for 2 years.
And if you're really bad, you can be banned from running any premium rate service for a set period of time. There's one guy who isn't allowed to run some services until 2005.
So, it's very much in their interests to make sure kids can't access the porno on their phones.
How about "SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors" as a straight denial. Also from the SCO statement.
And then pray that they don't find out your claim was fraudulent ;-)
As has been said, that would be nearly impossible. However, with a big enough projector, you can project your message onto their wall, as the Stop the War Coalition did.
Advertising should not be an issue. I know of no legitimate web site that requires third party domains. For instance /. uses "images.slashdot.org" and the New York Times uses "graphics7.nytimes.com".
Nice idea, but what about the ad-supported sites that use agencies to get advertising, rather than selling ad space direct to the advertiser. Then it makes perfect sense for www.smallsite.com to have an image on it from images.adagency.com.
I agree entirely that html email should be banished from the face of the net, and third party cookies serve litle or no purpose.
It didn't explode in 2000, the explosion was first recorded in 2000. The star is over 10,000 light-years away.
Make your mind up. You stated that "What has not been demonstrated is that chance mutations can lead to the introduction of benefical genes that will later lead to a new species and a superior lifeform."
And yet, in response to a demonstration of chance mutations leading to the introduction of benefical genes, you state that "We acknowledge mutations occur like this." So, which is it? Do mutations occur like that or not?
Well of course it's a composite, that's what multiple exposures are. I imagine the cloud came from the foreground image they say they took. Personally, I think the apod one looks better, but that's just my opinion.
Baird invented a television. The fact that we don't use his sort of television anymore doesn't mean it wasn't a television. If you call Baird's device a mechanical television, then you must accept that it is a form of television. And, as Baird invented his television before Farnsworth did, I think it's fair to say that Baird invented television.
There's a better proof of google's evilness.
Counting from the start of the alphabet, we can assign the letters of the name 'Google' the numbers:
G o o g l e
7 15 15 7 12 5
which, when added together, total 61.
Now, we can also assign numbers to the letters from their ascii codes, thus:
G o o g l e
71 111 111 103 108 101
which sum to 605.
Combining these two numerical representations of 'Google', we get 605 + 61 = 666!!!
Google is the devil!!!!
Well, for starters there are the incositancies in the creation story (hey, we may as well start at the begining.)
In Genesis 1, we are told that God created the fish, and then the birds, then the animals of the land, and then created man, both male and female, in His own image (Gen. 1.27)
But Genesis 2 says that god created man to tend the garden of Eden, and then created all the animals as helpers for Adam (man is never refered to as an individual in Gen. 1, btw) but none of them were good helpers for him, so God took his rib and made a woman from it. (Gen.2 18-23)
Tada. An inconsitency in the first two chapters.
Or just paint the bottom of your spyplane sky-blue or black, depending on if you're flying during the day or at night. Of course, neither this nor your idea make the plane invisable to radar...