I disagree wholeheartedly. It's much easier to discover digital deletion via forensics than it is to discover discarded bits of paper. You're partially right, though. The deletion is easier, but covering it up is harder.
The hardware is publically bought (in recent years, Diebold has been the main provider), but the software is developed in house by the Electoral Justice. All political parties have access to the source code, and digitally sign the executable code, and thus can confirm, at any individual machine, that the running software is the official one.
IANAL, and you may be right about it being completely unenforcable. I wasn't arguing whether or not it was enforcable, but rather clarifying what exactly the major concern was.
How is this a story? The language is fairly common among services that allow user materials to be uploaded. It has been in Google's standard TOS for years now. The only reason why it came to light with Chrome is that the language didn't make a lick of sense in that context. Since you weren't uploading user-generated content, Google's TOS read as if they auto-claimed the entire internet.
"View this page and it's ours! MWHAHAHA!"
I think this is a disingenuous characterization of the concerns around the original Chrome ToS. People do upload user-created content using their web browser all the time. The original fervor around that clause in the ToS was the worry that anything submitted to any website using Google Chrome would effectively be property of Google.
For some reason that name for a business just cracks me up. Or have they re-tooled the acronym to something like Pervasive Grid Privacy to sound more 'industrial strength'?
Umm, no. Asking to leave, asking to stop photographing, or asking to do 20 pushups is all ok. Of course the only one of those you must comply with is a request to leave.
If you've ever stood by the ocean, there's always a stiff sea breeze coming from the ocean onto the land.
And that stiff breeze is wasted on undeserving beach goers and coastal residences. It should be harvested and used for a truly noble cause: powering televisions and microwaves.
Slashdot Mirror
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/12/159230
deja vu
I disagree wholeheartedly. It's much easier to discover digital deletion via forensics than it is to discover discarded bits of paper.
You're partially right, though. The deletion is easier, but covering it up is harder.
The hardware is publically bought (in recent years, Diebold has been the main provider), but the software is developed in house by the Electoral Justice. All political parties have access to the source code, and digitally sign the executable code, and thus can confirm, at any individual machine, that the running software is the official one.
Diebold!
Does Diebold make these voting machines? In the video at the bottom right of the voting machine screen is the Diebold logo.
If you can hold it in your hand, you can destroy it. Vote tampering isn't exclusive to electronic voting, but it seems the widespread paranoia is.
Now that's a good frist prose!
Gmail allows you to download your email via pop3 and imap. You can also set it to automatically all email to another account.
automatically your WHOLE gmail?!?
Maybe they were referring to youtube videos that were offensive to Kuwaiti oil profits? Did ya ever think of that?
IANAL, and you may be right about it being completely unenforcable. I wasn't arguing whether or not it was enforcable, but rather clarifying what exactly the major concern was.
How is this a story? The language is fairly common among services that allow user materials to be uploaded. It has been in Google's standard TOS for years now. The only reason why it came to light with Chrome is that the language didn't make a lick of sense in that context. Since you weren't uploading user-generated content, Google's TOS read as if they auto-claimed the entire internet.
"View this page and it's ours! MWHAHAHA!"
I think this is a disingenuous characterization of the concerns around the original Chrome ToS. People do upload user-created content using their web browser all the time. The original fervor around that clause in the ToS was the worry that anything submitted to any website using Google Chrome would effectively be property of Google.
For some reason that name for a business just cracks me up. Or have they re-tooled the acronym to something like Pervasive Grid Privacy to sound more 'industrial strength'?
It seems all cellular function is a result of interactions between protons, neutrons, and electrons in assorted arrangements.
From where I'm sitting, today is September 5th.
Heaven forbid anyone seek financial benefit for their innovations...
But does it run linux?
And it's not illegal to prohibit photography on their property. Thanks for the qualifier though.
Umm, no. Asking to leave, asking to stop photographing, or asking to do 20 pushups is all ok. Of course the only one of those you must comply with is a request to leave.
Their property, their rules. Don't like it, leave.
I believe the irresistible cannonball has reached the immovable post.
I guess they'll have to settle for a 20,000% markup on the songs instead of the desired 75,000%
Where is America's perfect 12?
...welcome our old software-as-a-service overlords.
Well if you're going to cite math as the reason it's always "utterly negligible", then perhaps you should put forth some of this mystical math?
If you've ever stood by the ocean, there's always a stiff sea breeze coming from the ocean onto the land.
And that stiff breeze is wasted on undeserving beach goers and coastal residences. It should be harvested and used for a truly noble cause: powering televisions and microwaves.