In other words you are attempting to solve a human problem with technology. It will not work.
Au contraire! My wife had an excellent technological solution to this human problem:
A) Establish a set of standardized questions before the Primary. Topics would be current, and agreed upon by all the candidates. You can even do early elections on the questions themselves if you want...
B) Furnish the list of questions to the candidates and get them to provide succinct answers. The election board approves the answers, or resubmits them the failed answers to the candidate for polish and final approval.
C) The electronic voting machine offers a sub-set of the entire question set at random and asks the voter to select the statement that is the most true to their values. The candidates and even the elections aren't known to the voter. The only information at hand is the actual topic.
D) The computer submits a minimum of twenty questions to the voter, and possibly more if it cannot classify the voter's values under the answers of the candidates that best match their choices.
E) Print a slip for the voter with their matches highlighted under each election, along with a score of how they were weighted. Have them mark their actual vote, whether or not it varies from the output, and turn it in.
F) Repeat the process after the primary using the same exact questions, with the opportunity for the candidates to submit new answers to the election board.
The idea that this just happened to occur in this already highly fishy election, and therefore should be entirely discounted -- you'd need some pretty pliable sheep to believe that one.
Perhaps, if anyone was arguing that, but they're not. There are at least two better explanations than 'conspiracy':
1) Alphabet
2) Race
Either of those alone is enough to trump the tampering claim, but both together leaves you grasping at straws.
Yes, this. Probability is like that. The numbers will work out, but only on an enormous scale. It is entirely possible to check ten elections and find all ten of them to be 'suspicious', assuming that there are at least 90 'non-suspicious' ones left unchecked.
His name was the first one on the ballot. Many people just pick the top one. No scandal, human nature, get over it.
Assuming this is true, and it wasn't sorted by Last-name-first or something that would change things, this is likely the best answer. Certainly better than elaborate conspiracy theories.
The biggest reason, in my mind, that the Dems can't accept this answer is the connotation that their voter-base simply doesn't care about the primary. They would have voted for the guy on the top of the Blue list, and went home. This would be a sinking situation for any sitting representative...
extensions (have) a higher barrier of entry because (users) have to be aware of them and know how to install them
Ding ding ding!
Once installed however, they are basically the same from an end user perspective especially if it is not "always on" and has to be toggled on and off by the user like this reader feature.
Once installed. And when not broken by updates or the like.
It isn't nearly as simple for the non-skilled user, e.g. Mac's target audience, as you seem to be implying it is. But your comment does show that you're aware of the issue, so I guess that's a start.
Just like Greasemonkey modifies web content, Safari offers and alternate view you can use when navigating to a page.
-sarcasm- Yes, yes, totally. And since it is possible to compile a binary, you can write your own browser to do anything you want. Just the other day I wrote a browser that didn't do this, in fact. I don't see the difference at all. -end sarcasm-
You have to be a moron not to see the developments that come out of the manned space program. I'm not talking about intangibles here, I am talking about real products being manufactured, sold, and used every days. Products that are taxed along the way.
Sure, sure, but these could likewise have come out of the manned Earth program. Sextant, for example.
Likewise, I think I pretty clearly suggested 'not now' rather than 'not ever'. Get the travel technology done first. Until then it is basically just a science project and/or a theoretical exercise, is it not?
Sorry but any country whose citizens routinely describe it as "the best country in the world" while having - as per your own post - exactly ZERO grounds for comparison IS arrogant (to say the least).
If I called my wife the 'most beautiful woman in the world', would I also induce such ire?
I guess you guys haven't discovered hyperbole yet, but you really ought to look into it.
Your post goes on to claim that France no longer thinks it is superior to the rest of us. Ditto England. Dude, seriously. France won't even allow the word 'e-mail', and England still has a QUEEN, and we're the backwards barbarians. Bias, bias, bias.
Because it's the exact same rhetoric. We are the chosen nation of god. The flame of liberty. The free and the fair and everybody else is godless communists and muslims and faggots.
Now this is close to true. There are a lot of people in my country that feel this way. Though, in the fairest assessment, I'll wager that are a lot in your own as well. Or in China, or Korea, or probably just about every place on the planet. "We are better" is an entirely human emotion that was not invented in the US. Sorry if that cuts back on your hate-fuel, but there it is.
Wouldn't it be great if, just for once, the most powerful nation around actually learned something from history, and used an approach and attitude toward the rest of the world that was devoid of such arrogance and self-superiority and perhaps didn't have to end up like the previous ones... perhaps didn't end up hated by every other nation they had any dealings with ?
Sure it would, but it would also be impossible. You can't be the 'most powerful' without being hated. It simply doesn't work that way, for a whole bevy of reasons that I'm sure you already grasp.
In that light, no, maybe it wouldn't be so great. After all, we'd be less human that way, and maybe it isn't such a good idea to turn us all into blabbering wussies. Vive la différence!
If NASA continues only to accept projects that do not interest the general public they are going to completely lose funding within a few decades.
Which is sad really, because most of the interesting work is deadly effing dull. NOAA (for just one example) gets that kind of work funded, why can't NASA?
NOAA gets its funding from fear. The best and oldest source of funding. NASA used to do the same, thanks to Sputnik. Not so much any more.
That's nice. But instead of burning through $200 billion in order to float where lots of other monkeys in tin cans have floated before, why not spend that money developing cheaper methods of getting into space, so that mankind actually stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting offworld in appreciable numbers?
Probably because going offworld is colossally stupid, for a number of reasons:
1) This Earth has vast resources, in every way, that we have not figured out how to develop. We can only get at the thinnest of the edge of the crust, for example. There entire continents without a human in sight for hundreds of miles in any direction. There's the floor of the sea, which is almost completely unknown to us. Big place, not yet conquered.
2) There isn't anywhere else like Earth. Period. And we've looked for such a place using every technology we have. The only destinations we can feasibly reach are less hospitable than all the nasty places on this planet combined. Not to mention the gaps in cost, both fiscal and opportunity, between, say Antartica and the Moon.
3) Combining 1 and 2 above means that the only places you could go will have less than what you had when you left Earth, be a lower quality of life, and be ridiculously expensive to reach in comparison.
So, unless you're learning by the endeavor, there's NO POINT in looking towards getting people off the planet. Not until we gain FTL transit, which is a long, long, long way away from where we sit today.
Why not actually build a space station that is useful and then get a "shuttle" in orbit that can go and get the satellite, take it to the service bay on the space station and work on it there.
Waiting for parts? The FedEx rocket will launch next thursday so be sure to get your order in on monday.
Very this.
How many of the covered wagons sent West were ever returned to Missouri?
That's not much use if you want to be able to restore the individual files from the backup, which is nearly always desirable.
Disaster-recovery-only backups are okay, but if you're spending the money to archive your data you normally want a bit more flexibility.
Additionally there's the obvious problem of taking the server offline while you do the backup...
If you're pulling individual files off of tape, you're probably doing it wrong.
Backup across the network, to disk, first. You can build or buy a wide variety of arrays to do this for less than your tape drive costs, on average. Go large and rotate the storage mount points. We keep five days 'on line', and overwrite by schedule.
Write THAT data to tape, to be sent offsite.
On the upside, you can get any file from the last five days in less than an hour, without leaving your desk. More like fifteen minutes, really. Disks are for retrieval, tapes are for archive and disasters. Very clean, very simple, auditors love it.
On the downside you've doubled your costs, have additional overhead, and are probably adding lag to your tapes by extending the time-to-tape by a full day.
Twenty-five years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep things from the people that you were elected to represent. Please someone, anyone, name me an item from 1984 that would have ended the world as we know it were it discovered prior to this year.
All the 'really juicy' things that would jeopardize anyone are either:
A) Not going to be released anyway. Not ever. or B) Long since irrelevant.
Looking deeper into B, this would include anything that the enemy's own intelligence efforts would have obtained long, long ago. Troop movements are secure information, for example, up until the enemy can see them himself on the battlefield. Then, not so much. The 'collateral murder' videos? Not classifiable after the kids got out of the hospital. Etc, etc, etc.
While huge corporations definitely exist, you might consider that there are also small and medium sized datacenters, which also produce a crap-ton of noise. There are something close to 800 fans in my datacenter, for example, and the only 'control room' I have access to is my cubicle.
Slashdot Mirror
4) He most likely was not supported by any local "Tea Party" coalition. (Despite dillusional assertions to the contrary.)
Eh? How is this likely/unlikely or delusional/rational?
Your two points contradict. You'll need to pick one. Either:
A) The machines are so fallible that there would be no way to detect an attack of this type
OR
B) This is a dry run for another such attack
Because if A is true, then B was colossally stupid. The machines would get fixed in short order.
In other words you are attempting to solve a human problem with technology. It will not work.
Au contraire! My wife had an excellent technological solution to this human problem:
A) Establish a set of standardized questions before the Primary. Topics would be current, and agreed upon by all the candidates. You can even do early elections on the questions themselves if you want...
B) Furnish the list of questions to the candidates and get them to provide succinct answers. The election board approves the answers, or resubmits them the failed answers to the candidate for polish and final approval.
C) The electronic voting machine offers a sub-set of the entire question set at random and asks the voter to select the statement that is the most true to their values. The candidates and even the elections aren't known to the voter. The only information at hand is the actual topic.
D) The computer submits a minimum of twenty questions to the voter, and possibly more if it cannot classify the voter's values under the answers of the candidates that best match their choices.
E) Print a slip for the voter with their matches highlighted under each election, along with a score of how they were weighted. Have them mark their actual vote, whether or not it varies from the output, and turn it in.
F) Repeat the process after the primary using the same exact questions, with the opportunity for the candidates to submit new answers to the election board.
Rawl at least had some name recognition.
According to a poll in late May. he apparently had a 4% name recognition. I don't think that is enough to matter.
The simplest test is, did Rawl receive greater than 4% of the vote? If so, then his recognition can be accounted for rather neatly.
So you're not going to answer the challenge, then? Because I'd like to hear it, too.
So besides the way the voters voted, what are the "other irregularities"?
This is salient.
The idea that this just happened to occur in this already highly fishy election, and therefore should be entirely discounted -- you'd need some pretty pliable sheep to believe that one.
Perhaps, if anyone was arguing that, but they're not. There are at least two better explanations than 'conspiracy':
1) Alphabet
2) Race
Either of those alone is enough to trump the tampering claim, but both together leaves you grasping at straws.
Yes, this. Probability is like that. The numbers will work out, but only on an enormous scale. It is entirely possible to check ten elections and find all ten of them to be 'suspicious', assuming that there are at least 90 'non-suspicious' ones left unchecked.
Pens are susceptible to whiteout. Carve your vote in the forehead of your chosen candidate!
His name was the first one on the ballot. Many people just pick the top one. No scandal, human nature, get over it.
Assuming this is true, and it wasn't sorted by Last-name-first or something that would change things, this is likely the best answer. Certainly better than elaborate conspiracy theories.
The biggest reason, in my mind, that the Dems can't accept this answer is the connotation that their voter-base simply doesn't care about the primary. They would have voted for the guy on the top of the Blue list, and went home. This would be a sinking situation for any sitting representative...
extensions (have) a higher barrier of entry because (users) have to be aware of them and know how to install them
Ding ding ding!
Once installed however, they are basically the same from an end user perspective especially if it is not "always on" and has to be toggled on and off by the user like this reader feature.
Once installed. And when not broken by updates or the like.
It isn't nearly as simple for the non-skilled user, e.g. Mac's target audience, as you seem to be implying it is. But your comment does show that you're aware of the issue, so I guess that's a start.
Just like Greasemonkey modifies web content, Safari offers and alternate view you can use when navigating to a page.
-sarcasm-
Yes, yes, totally. And since it is possible to compile a binary, you can write your own browser to do anything you want. Just the other day I wrote a browser that didn't do this, in fact. I don't see the difference at all.
-end sarcasm-
So in your mind you see no difference in a pre-rolled feature and an after-the-fact extension?
Interesting.
The web site owners have reason to be peeved - if the user uses reader extensively, for web sites that are ad-based, they have no revenue stream.
No revenue stream? I'm sure Apple will sell them iAds, so what could possibly be the problem?
lol
You have to be a moron not to see the developments that come out of the manned space program. I'm not talking about intangibles here, I am talking about real products being manufactured, sold, and used every days. Products that are taxed along the way.
Sure, sure, but these could likewise have come out of the manned Earth program. Sextant, for example.
Likewise, I think I pretty clearly suggested 'not now' rather than 'not ever'. Get the travel technology done first. Until then it is basically just a science project and/or a theoretical exercise, is it not?
Sorry but any country whose citizens routinely describe it as "the best country in the world" while having - as per your own post - exactly ZERO grounds for comparison IS arrogant (to say the least).
If I called my wife the 'most beautiful woman in the world', would I also induce such ire?
I guess you guys haven't discovered hyperbole yet, but you really ought to look into it.
Your post goes on to claim that France no longer thinks it is superior to the rest of us. Ditto England. Dude, seriously. France won't even allow the word 'e-mail', and England still has a QUEEN, and we're the backwards barbarians. Bias, bias, bias.
Because it's the exact same rhetoric. We are the chosen nation of god. The flame of liberty. The free and the fair and everybody else is godless communists and muslims and faggots.
Now this is close to true. There are a lot of people in my country that feel this way. Though, in the fairest assessment, I'll wager that are a lot in your own as well. Or in China, or Korea, or probably just about every place on the planet. "We are better" is an entirely human emotion that was not invented in the US. Sorry if that cuts back on your hate-fuel, but there it is.
Wouldn't it be great if, just for once, the most powerful nation around actually learned something from history, and used an approach and attitude toward the rest of the world that was devoid of such arrogance and self-superiority and perhaps didn't have to end up like the previous ones ... perhaps didn't end up hated by every other nation they had any dealings with ?
Sure it would, but it would also be impossible. You can't be the 'most powerful' without being hated. It simply doesn't work that way, for a whole bevy of reasons that I'm sure you already grasp.
In that light, no, maybe it wouldn't be so great. After all, we'd be less human that way, and maybe it isn't such a good idea to turn us all into blabbering wussies. Vive la différence!
Which is sad really, because most of the interesting work is deadly effing dull. NOAA (for just one example) gets that kind of work funded, why can't NASA?
NOAA gets its funding from fear. The best and oldest source of funding. NASA used to do the same, thanks to Sputnik. Not so much any more.
That's nice. But instead of burning through $200 billion in order to float where lots of other monkeys in tin cans have floated before, why not spend that money developing cheaper methods of getting into space, so that mankind actually stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting offworld in appreciable numbers?
Probably because going offworld is colossally stupid, for a number of reasons:
1) This Earth has vast resources, in every way, that we have not figured out how to develop. We can only get at the thinnest of the edge of the crust, for example. There entire continents without a human in sight for hundreds of miles in any direction. There's the floor of the sea, which is almost completely unknown to us. Big place, not yet conquered.
2) There isn't anywhere else like Earth. Period. And we've looked for such a place using every technology we have. The only destinations we can feasibly reach are less hospitable than all the nasty places on this planet combined. Not to mention the gaps in cost, both fiscal and opportunity, between, say Antartica and the Moon.
3) Combining 1 and 2 above means that the only places you could go will have less than what you had when you left Earth, be a lower quality of life, and be ridiculously expensive to reach in comparison.
So, unless you're learning by the endeavor, there's NO POINT in looking towards getting people off the planet. Not until we gain FTL transit, which is a long, long, long way away from where we sit today.
Why deorbit?
Why not actually build a space station that is useful and then get a "shuttle" in orbit that can go and get the satellite, take it to the service bay on the space station and work on it there.
Waiting for parts? The FedEx rocket will launch next thursday so be sure to get your order in on monday.
Very this.
How many of the covered wagons sent West were ever returned to Missouri?
That's not much use if you want to be able to restore the individual files from the backup, which is nearly always desirable.
Disaster-recovery-only backups are okay, but if you're spending the money to archive your data you normally want a bit more flexibility.
Additionally there's the obvious problem of taking the server offline while you do the backup...
If you're pulling individual files off of tape, you're probably doing it wrong.
Backup across the network, to disk, first. You can build or buy a wide variety of arrays to do this for less than your tape drive costs, on average. Go large and rotate the storage mount points. We keep five days 'on line', and overwrite by schedule.
Write THAT data to tape, to be sent offsite.
On the upside, you can get any file from the last five days in less than an hour, without leaving your desk. More like fifteen minutes, really. Disks are for retrieval, tapes are for archive and disasters. Very clean, very simple, auditors love it.
On the downside you've doubled your costs, have additional overhead, and are probably adding lag to your tapes by extending the time-to-tape by a full day.
Still, though, if you can swing it, do.
It was rhetorical, but thanks for playing.
See the caveat labeled 'A'.
Twenty-five years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep things from the people that you were elected to represent. Please someone, anyone, name me an item from 1984 that would have ended the world as we know it were it discovered prior to this year.
All the 'really juicy' things that would jeopardize anyone are either:
A) Not going to be released anyway. Not ever.
or
B) Long since irrelevant.
Looking deeper into B, this would include anything that the enemy's own intelligence efforts would have obtained long, long ago. Troop movements are secure information, for example, up until the enemy can see them himself on the battlefield. Then, not so much. The 'collateral murder' videos? Not classifiable after the kids got out of the hospital. Etc, etc, etc.
Damn fine post. Hopefully Google reads it.
Not going to happen, but their spiders have already crawled it.
While huge corporations definitely exist, you might consider that there are also small and medium sized datacenters, which also produce a crap-ton of noise. There are something close to 800 fans in my datacenter, for example, and the only 'control room' I have access to is my cubicle.
Yes, basically.
I'm implying that a philosopher has thought things through and has made a convincing argument that other people refer to as a philosophy.
Otherwise other labels would more aptly apply.