Because we currently have secret ballots. You can't retaliate against someone for voting the wrong way if you cannot confirm how they voted.
Why would you assume that just because they can't produce a receipt that the villains in these scenarios would simply surrender? More likely, they'll exert enough force, or threat of force, to assuage any doubt that you did as they demanded. They could even pin a bad result on you, and without proof that you did as asked, what defense would you have?
You would prefer an amoral and possibly downright evil entity you have absolutely no control over to decide matters of morality?
No, that's what you're advocating, and that's my entire point. A business has the need to keep enough customers happy that it continues to make money. Once enough people disagree with it's policies, it ceases to exist. The government exists under penalty of violence. Period. The government, as opposed to every single business entity imaginable, are far and away more likely to be 'amoral' and certainly 'downright evil'.
You don't like ComCast's policies? Switch! You don't like the government's policies, lead a bloody rebellion.
Yeah, those are totally, completely equal. No doubt.
Fair and accurate voting doesn't help the political parties or the candidates, it only help the voters!
Yes, and tautological statements are redundant.
Please, tell me, how would the most perfect and accurate system provide better candidates, eliminate parties, and/or wipe out the corporate influence over our election system? Because from where I sit it is what gets on the ballot, rather than how those ballots get counted, that makes the difference. As others above your post have already pointed out, 'accuracy-vs-error' plays a role in only the tiniest number of elections. Not nearly enough to have any measurable impact whatsoever.
There are viable choices, but they won't get off the ground without some interest, so it becomes a chicken-and-egg problem.
Eggs are not viable chickens. They're eggs. They could be chickens some day, or they may not have ever been fertilized. Parent's point is that the government is going to need actual chickens to replace those turkeys they're currently using. Not just the promise of chickens eventually, maybe, at some point, etc.
Even if the government commissioned some kind of task force to create it and purchase it, the whole thing would be a government project by the end - bloated, over budget, wouldn't work, end up being trashed.
So if the primary - or in fact only - customer for the project ever adopted it, it would die?
That's a pretty solid reason not to waste time on it then, isn't it?
I know, right? I had to argue with the company I work for FOREVER to let me use Audacity at work.
IT guy in charge: "It's open source, anyone could look at it and exploit it!" Me: "Or, since you seem to know everything, you could look at it and see if it's exploitable."
What core business need is fulfilled by your use of Audacity?
Actually, they can be audited if you want your vote as part of a public record. In that case, the parents/employer/mafia/dictator will demand you vote in a certain pattern.
And this isn't already an issue exactly, how?
Also, lol at 'parents'. That particular kind of 'intimidation' is entirely your own fault. You're supposed to be adult enough to vote, remember?
Now i've discovered a new market. People want cheats for SC2. Blizzard should make cheats available and charge some nominal fee to download their cheat program. $2.99. Sure it's more than the free cheats, but it's unlikely to carry trojans, it's easily downloaded through the blizzard downloader you already have, and really who knows more about the inner workings of the game? Some punks with a hex editor or Blizzard?
It isn't new, though. Blizzard is already experimenting with this concept in WoW via mounts, companion pets, and TCG codes. For a little extra change, you get a minor leg up on everyone else. A StarCraft2 implementation might not be too far off.
There's your problem right there. Being able to shape traffic (which is effectively a temporary denial, but on millisecond-scales) is the same as blocking it for a short period of time.
I worry that this begins to fall apart along the lines of BitTorrent. Some kinds of traffic, running contrary to the design of the network itself, is actually more harmful than the interference by the ISP. So who gets to decide? Nobody? Because that worries me.
I get the argument that BitTorrent might someday force the ISP to give what they advertised, but in the meantime those same small voices that we're worried about protecting are going to be suppressed by natural causes introduced via upside-down traffic usage. And the ACLU is setting up the government as the arbiter of what's right and wrong, because they're removing the ability for the provider to police it, leaving only lawlessness. Until the Fed steps in, that is.
That's an interesting challenge, but we both know that we're BOTH speculating. Does it then become a contest of whomever can utilize the strongest phrasing?
I don't understand where all the hate is coming from. I love Blizzard for doing this and hated them when they didn't do anything against hackers in Warcraft3 in the end.
But, in order to prevent your e-sport from being ruined, you're advocating the end of any and all property rights in terms of software.
On the other hand, if you haven't bought anything from them in over 12 years, I'm not sure how much weight they'd give to your opinion, from a business perspective.
Because there's genuinely no better way to play the kinds of games they're offering right now? At least, that's how I see WoW. Name something, anything, that is 'better', overall. Not just better in one niche way, but better as a whole. I don't think you can do it. I've certainly tried to find such a thing, and have thrown away a lot of dollars in that effort. So I could simply give up MMO's for good, and take up cross-stitch or something, but I haven't yet done so.
StarCraft II, on the other hand, I did pass up. The online-only play, the serialized expansion-pack races, etc, all lined up to outweigh any advantage this game might have held over the others in the strategy genre. I'm certain there are others who weighed it the other direction.
So yes, they're evil, and they have been for a long time. But I still want what they sell. For the record, I also still watch Sony films. I don't like it, and will gladly tell you so, but there's also reality to deal with...
I wish people believing things despite all evidence pointing in the opposite direction, simply because it appeals to them in some way, was "basically nothing".
Don't waste a wish. This is truly already within your power. You can decide whether or not, and to what degree, you give a damn about what other people think or say. Today, without wishing for a thing.
Once upon a time Satan challenged Jesus to a programming contest. Christ sits down to a Commodore 64 and begins slowly pecking out the beginnings of a "hello world", while Satan conjures up a super computer, grows extra appendages, and begins coding like an army of hellish fiends. After a short while, Satan begins cackling madly, certain he's won the contest, while Christ just muddles slowly through. Suddenly, the power goes out. When God comes to judge the contest he declares Jesus the clear winner. When asked why, he answers, unlike Jesus, Satan had no program at all, because Jesus saves.
"If you think there are enough inspired individuals on 4chan to merely hit 'Refresh' on their browsers over and over and cause any sort of impact at all - well, which of us is clueless here after all? "
You would be the clueless one, as I taught a great majority of 4chan that the easier way to DDoS is to visit the site with firefox, and set the reloadevery plugin to refresh every second. It also happens to be legal (refreshing constantly for new information is a typical behavior on 4chan, turning that into an indirect attack method was trivial.) It also consumes far greater bandwidth.
And while you were doing that, someone else kicked off a bot net, to reinforce that 4chan is somehow relevant. Maybe it wasn't you, but there's almost zero chance that it didn't happen.
1) Everything, everything, EVERYTHING we know about their culture is derived from a mere handful of parchments that sympathetic Spaniards managed to save from being burned. You cannot possibly substantiate "none whatsoever" because we have only a minute sliver of their knowledge to go on. That would be like looking at the summary of an article alone and declaring oneself a PhD in the matter. It happens, but isn't exactly sound reasoning.
2) There's little to no reason to believe that the calendar wouldn't end on the solstice. Nothing in the article seems to illustrate WHY they would suddenly dispose of any regard for astronomy with the end of this one single calendar.
3) Assuming there ARE idiots waiting for Rapture on that day. Why the hell do you care? You seem rather worked up over what would be, if you're correct, basically nothing. So what's the deal? Whatever it is, why not save us all some time and simply argue THAT instead?
Slashdot Mirror
And this isn't already an issue exactly, how?
Because we currently have secret ballots. You can't retaliate against someone for voting the wrong way if you cannot confirm how they voted.
Why would you assume that just because they can't produce a receipt that the villains in these scenarios would simply surrender? More likely, they'll exert enough force, or threat of force, to assuage any doubt that you did as they demanded. They could even pin a bad result on you, and without proof that you did as asked, what defense would you have?
All in all, moot point.
You would prefer an amoral and possibly downright evil entity you have absolutely no control over to decide matters of morality?
No, that's what you're advocating, and that's my entire point. A business has the need to keep enough customers happy that it continues to make money. Once enough people disagree with it's policies, it ceases to exist. The government exists under penalty of violence. Period. The government, as opposed to every single business entity imaginable, are far and away more likely to be 'amoral' and certainly 'downright evil'.
You don't like ComCast's policies? Switch! You don't like the government's policies, lead a bloody rebellion.
Yeah, those are totally, completely equal. No doubt.
Fair and accurate voting doesn't help the political parties or the candidates, it only help the voters!
Yes, and tautological statements are redundant.
Please, tell me, how would the most perfect and accurate system provide better candidates, eliminate parties, and/or wipe out the corporate influence over our election system? Because from where I sit it is what gets on the ballot, rather than how those ballots get counted, that makes the difference. As others above your post have already pointed out, 'accuracy-vs-error' plays a role in only the tiniest number of elections. Not nearly enough to have any measurable impact whatsoever.
If you're doing that as a core need, you are probably going to want to invest in something a little less cumbersome.
I did use this tool myself for that exact purpose, but it was a one-off deal, so it just didn't merit budget dollars, research, etc.
If you don't know who to vote for in your area based on your values and beliefs, check out VoteSmart
Okay, but what do you do if you're less than 70% similar to any of them?
There are viable choices, but they won't get off the ground without some interest, so it becomes a chicken-and-egg problem.
Eggs are not viable chickens. They're eggs. They could be chickens some day, or they may not have ever been fertilized. Parent's point is that the government is going to need actual chickens to replace those turkeys they're currently using. Not just the promise of chickens eventually, maybe, at some point, etc.
Even if the government commissioned some kind of task force to create it and purchase it, the whole thing would be a government project by the end - bloated, over budget, wouldn't work, end up being trashed.
So if the primary - or in fact only - customer for the project ever adopted it, it would die?
That's a pretty solid reason not to waste time on it then, isn't it?
It's never open source's fault. There's always an excuse blaming something else.
Open source, open blame. Makes plenty of sense to me...
I know, right? I had to argue with the company I work for FOREVER to let me use Audacity at work.
IT guy in charge: "It's open source, anyone could look at it and exploit it!"
Me: "Or, since you seem to know everything, you could look at it and see if it's exploitable."
What core business need is fulfilled by your use of Audacity?
Actually, they can be audited if you want your vote as part of a public record. In that case, the parents/employer/mafia/dictator will demand you vote in a certain pattern.
And this isn't already an issue exactly, how?
Also, lol at 'parents'. That particular kind of 'intimidation' is entirely your own fault. You're supposed to be adult enough to vote, remember?
Now i've discovered a new market. People want cheats for SC2. Blizzard should make cheats available and charge some nominal fee to download their cheat program. $2.99. Sure it's more than the free cheats, but it's unlikely to carry trojans, it's easily downloaded through the blizzard downloader you already have, and really who knows more about the inner workings of the game? Some punks with a hex editor or Blizzard?
It isn't new, though. Blizzard is already experimenting with this concept in WoW via mounts, companion pets, and TCG codes. For a little extra change, you get a minor leg up on everyone else. A StarCraft2 implementation might not be too far off.
So then we agree that a reasonable remedy would be simply revoking the achievements, right?
And you know, for a fact, that nothing outside of Khyber's efforts were involved?
How?
There's your problem right there. Being able to shape traffic (which is effectively a temporary denial, but on millisecond-scales) is the same as blocking it for a short period of time.
I worry that this begins to fall apart along the lines of BitTorrent. Some kinds of traffic, running contrary to the design of the network itself, is actually more harmful than the interference by the ISP. So who gets to decide? Nobody? Because that worries me.
I get the argument that BitTorrent might someday force the ISP to give what they advertised, but in the meantime those same small voices that we're worried about protecting are going to be suppressed by natural causes introduced via upside-down traffic usage. And the ACLU is setting up the government as the arbiter of what's right and wrong, because they're removing the ability for the provider to police it, leaving only lawlessness. Until the Fed steps in, that is.
That's an interesting challenge, but we both know that we're BOTH speculating. Does it then become a contest of whomever can utilize the strongest phrasing?
I don't understand where all the hate is coming from. I love Blizzard for doing this and hated them when they didn't do anything against hackers in Warcraft3 in the end.
But, in order to prevent your e-sport from being ruined, you're advocating the end of any and all property rights in terms of software.
Is that a fair trade, in your view?
I'm genuinely asking.
On the other hand, if you haven't bought anything from them in over 12 years, I'm not sure how much weight they'd give to your opinion, from a business perspective.
why buy their games?
Because there's genuinely no better way to play the kinds of games they're offering right now? At least, that's how I see WoW. Name something, anything, that is 'better', overall. Not just better in one niche way, but better as a whole. I don't think you can do it. I've certainly tried to find such a thing, and have thrown away a lot of dollars in that effort. So I could simply give up MMO's for good, and take up cross-stitch or something, but I haven't yet done so.
StarCraft II, on the other hand, I did pass up. The online-only play, the serialized expansion-pack races, etc, all lined up to outweigh any advantage this game might have held over the others in the strategy genre. I'm certain there are others who weighed it the other direction.
So yes, they're evil, and they have been for a long time. But I still want what they sell. For the record, I also still watch Sony films. I don't like it, and will gladly tell you so, but there's also reality to deal with...
I wish people believing things despite all evidence pointing in the opposite direction, simply because it appeals to them in some way, was "basically nothing".
Don't waste a wish. This is truly already within your power. You can decide whether or not, and to what degree, you give a damn about what other people think or say. Today, without wishing for a thing.
I'm reminded of a little joke myself:
Once upon a time Satan challenged Jesus to a programming contest. Christ sits down to a Commodore 64 and begins slowly pecking out the beginnings of a "hello world", while Satan conjures up a super computer, grows extra appendages, and begins coding like an army of hellish fiends. After a short while, Satan begins cackling madly, certain he's won the contest, while Christ just muddles slowly through. Suddenly, the power goes out. When God comes to judge the contest he declares Jesus the clear winner. When asked why, he answers, unlike Jesus, Satan had no program at all, because Jesus saves.
Or something like that.
I've never seen a CD with a serial number, nor an electronic device (of reasonable size/value) without one.
Clearly, but if you can name everything inside the changer without having previously seen it, then it could well be yours.
"If you think there are enough inspired individuals on 4chan to merely hit 'Refresh' on their browsers over and over and cause any sort of impact at all - well, which of us is clueless here after all? "
You would be the clueless one, as I taught a great majority of 4chan that the easier way to DDoS is to visit the site with firefox, and set the reloadevery plugin to refresh every second. It also happens to be legal (refreshing constantly for new information is a typical behavior on 4chan, turning that into an indirect attack method was trivial.) It also consumes far greater bandwidth.
And while you were doing that, someone else kicked off a bot net, to reinforce that 4chan is somehow relevant. Maybe it wasn't you, but there's almost zero chance that it didn't happen.
Some quick points:
1) Everything, everything, EVERYTHING we know about their culture is derived from a mere handful of parchments that sympathetic Spaniards managed to save from being burned. You cannot possibly substantiate "none whatsoever" because we have only a minute sliver of their knowledge to go on. That would be like looking at the summary of an article alone and declaring oneself a PhD in the matter. It happens, but isn't exactly sound reasoning.
2) There's little to no reason to believe that the calendar wouldn't end on the solstice. Nothing in the article seems to illustrate WHY they would suddenly dispose of any regard for astronomy with the end of this one single calendar.
3) Assuming there ARE idiots waiting for Rapture on that day. Why the hell do you care? You seem rather worked up over what would be, if you're correct, basically nothing. So what's the deal? Whatever it is, why not save us all some time and simply argue THAT instead?
Zuck, is that you?
Um, no. Not in the least. You're grasping at straws here, so I'll just let you have the last word on the matter and move on. Have a great day!