1) Show up, 'prove' (in the definition of whatever state you're in) you're an eligible voter, receive ballot. 2) Go to electronic voting machine. Place ballot in machine. 3) Enter your votes in the touch screen. 4) Once you are satisfied with your votes, press the 'Print Ballot!' button. 5) Machine prints your votes on the ballot in human-readable and machine-readable form. 6) Take ballot. Review your votes on the ballot. If your votes are correct, place ballot in ballot box. If not, take your ballot to an election worker, where it is marked void and you get a new ballot and try again.
If you want to be REALLY cool, make it so that each ballot can be filled out by hand as well, so if you have a technical failure in the voting machines, or an insufficient number of voting machines, you can continue the voting the old-fashioned way.
At the end of the election day, feed the ballots through your vote counting machines. In case of doubt, count the ballots by hand.
You act like classifying information is something new for this administration.
You act like classifying information is something new for the US government.
Not every case of information being classified is the result of the Bush administration trying to hide something. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that putting up a list on the internet of how much nuclear fuel is being delivered to the Navy is not a good idea, and that information should be classified. That this information ended up being classified is not in the slightest way suspicious. What would be suspicious, and deplorable, is if it was left out there.
There is no reason to bring the Bush administration into this. This is all the work of career bureaucrats, who would have done the same thing if Gore or Kerry were in charge.
I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns.
There is a very good business reason for this.
The business reason is that historically, Wal-Mart's customers have been predominantly rural. Rural people tend to like their alcohol, tobacco and guns, but fear bad words and sex. You might also recognize these people as typical inhabitants of red states.
Blue-state people like bad words, alcohol and sex, but don't like tobacco or guns.
Wal-Mart is just providing their customers with what they want.
But what we've REALLY learned here is, everybody likes alcohol.
It does not appear that anyone's intent was to hide accidents - the original problem was that sensitive Navy information that shouldn't have been released was getting released, so instead of doing the narrow fix and just not releasing the sensitive documents, the (extremely through/lazy, you pick) step was taken and all the documents from the Navy fuel supply companies were restricted.
As an apparent unintended consequence (or a willfully accepted consequence) of the policy change to make sure that sensitive documents stopped ending u on websites, non-sensitive documents regarding safety incidents ended up being restricted as well.
But, even when the accident occurred, the regulatory commission apparently even made a point of having a special vote to make sure the party responsible for the incident was properly, and publicly, identified.
There is a definite difference between changing a policy to hide safety accidents and safety accidents not getting disclosed as well as a result of a policy change. The latter is the case here. The policy will be adjusted.
On the flip side, imagine the uproar if the policy had originally only specified that sensitive documents got restricted, and sensitive information was released anyway because someone mistakenly labeled a sensitive document as non-sensitive? It's a trade-off - and while the current policy made it harder for the public to find out about an accident, it's also true that a different policy would increase the risk of accidental release of sensitive material.
Either way, there's no reason to assign nefarious intent where apparently none is due.
Really? So when they said [skype.com], "[t]he disruption was triggered by a massive restart of our users computers across the globe within a very short timeframe as they re-booted after receiving a routine set of patches through Windows Update", they didn't really mean it?
Didn't mean it? They didn't even say it!
They said that the number of reboots *EXPOSED AN ERROR IN THEIR CODE*.
Exponential growth for a business isn't even possible, unless maybe you start out really, really small, and for a short amount of time.
Exponential business growth is not possible simply because the number of customers is finite. Even if you make something that all 6 billion people will buy, you're still not going to be able to maintain exponential growth very long before everybody is a customer.
So, the fact that somebody may or may not be completely insane, and stupid on top of that, means nothing to you?
Someone who believes in creationism is not the same as someone who says they believe in creationism.
A perfectly intelligent candidate may claim to believe in creationism because there is no shortage of insane/stupid minds out there in heads on people who still get to vote like the rest of us.
The candidate may not be ETHICAL, but catering to the scientifically insane beliefs of a large part of the population that is particularly inclined to vote should hardly itself be characterized as insane. Devious maybe, but quite reasonable.
Although I wonder how many police departments really have monthly quotas. It seems that by the time you account for vacation, different duty assignments, etc, it wouldn't be worth the bother.
You simply can't quantify, in advance, every circumstance where fair use rights need to be balanced against the rights of the copyright holder.
In most cases, you can apply a little judicial precedent and common sense to figure out if something is fair use or not. And in the cases where you can't, you have a decision:
- Get a license - Infringe and be prepared to defend your fair use rights should the copyright holder object - Don't use the material.
It would be nice if there were nice, easy to follow rules - but we are probably better off where there is some room to argue fair use in court on a case-by-case basis than we would be were there specific, detailed, hard rules about what is and isn't fair use that would inevitably lead to the wrong treatment in many circumstances.
If you want to find out where criminals live, send out a bunch of questionnaires asking what priority the police should put on arresting criminals. The people who respond that the priority should be low are your criminals, and now you know where they live!
Quite right - what I'm hoping that the ACLU will establish with this suit is strict procedures of when this information can be used.
You can't just have a policy that says when the information can be used - if the data is there, it will be searched in violation of policy. The only way to be SURE the information is not searched inappropriately is to now allow its retention at all.
So, I'm all for automated license plate scanning. And if a scan turns up a felon or stolen car, that information should be retained for prosecution. But if a license plate is scanned and the computer doesn't find a felony warrant or stolen car, the information should be immediately bit-bucketed by the scanning device.
The injunction wasn't denied JUST because it wasn't a big company. It was denied because:
- MercExchange was not using the technology, AND - MercExchange had never used the technology, AND - MercExchange had no plans to use the technology, AND - MercExchange had never licensed the technology, AND - MercExchange had no plans to license the technology.
This ruling doesn't say you have to be a big company with a brand reputation to get an injunction. If, for example, you had sold an exclusive license to another company, you would still get your injunction. But, if you were going to patent something, then do nothing with it until someone else did, then when they do you sue them and demand that they stop, the judge is going to say no, force the infringer to pay you, and that's the end of it. 'Inventor' gets paid, infringer stays in business providing the service the inventor never had any intention of providing themselves anyway, and consumer gets to purchase the service. Everybody wins, but the patent troll doesn't get an inordinately large payment by holding an entire business hostage.
If I encrypt something and memorize the key, can the government compel me to tell them what the key is, or can I refuse to answer the question based on the 5th amendment?
Also, in chess, given enough computing power, you can process all the moves up until the end of the game.
That's not entirely true - you can theoretically process all the possible moves, but, you still won't know the result until you know what the hole cards are.
In chess, the player's moves determine what happens on the board. In poker, you can't change what happens on the board; you can only change how much money you win or lose as the game progresses.
Slashdot Mirror
We want paper ballots, and very advanced pens.
Here's the way modern voting should work:
1) Show up, 'prove' (in the definition of whatever state you're in) you're an eligible voter, receive ballot.
2) Go to electronic voting machine. Place ballot in machine.
3) Enter your votes in the touch screen.
4) Once you are satisfied with your votes, press the 'Print Ballot!' button.
5) Machine prints your votes on the ballot in human-readable and machine-readable form.
6) Take ballot. Review your votes on the ballot. If your votes are correct, place ballot in ballot box. If not, take your ballot to an election worker, where it is marked void and you get a new ballot and try again.
If you want to be REALLY cool, make it so that each ballot can be filled out by hand as well, so if you have a technical failure in the voting machines, or an insufficient number of voting machines, you can continue the voting the old-fashioned way.
At the end of the election day, feed the ballots through your vote counting machines. In case of doubt, count the ballots by hand.
See, that wasn't that hard, was it?
You act like classifying information is something new for this administration.
You act like classifying information is something new for the US government.
Not every case of information being classified is the result of the Bush administration trying to hide something. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that putting up a list on the internet of how much nuclear fuel is being delivered to the Navy is not a good idea, and that information should be classified. That this information ended up being classified is not in the slightest way suspicious. What would be suspicious, and deplorable, is if it was left out there.
There is no reason to bring the Bush administration into this. This is all the work of career bureaucrats, who would have done the same thing if Gore or Kerry were in charge.
I do find it a little silly that they worry about "bad" words but sell alcohol, tobacco, and guns.
There is a very good business reason for this.
The business reason is that historically, Wal-Mart's customers have been predominantly rural. Rural people tend to like their alcohol, tobacco and guns, but fear bad words and sex. You might also recognize these people as typical inhabitants of red states.
Blue-state people like bad words, alcohol and sex, but don't like tobacco or guns.
Wal-Mart is just providing their customers with what they want.
But what we've REALLY learned here is, everybody likes alcohol.
It does not appear that anyone's intent was to hide accidents - the original problem was that sensitive Navy information that shouldn't have been released was getting released, so instead of doing the narrow fix and just not releasing the sensitive documents, the (extremely through/lazy, you pick) step was taken and all the documents from the Navy fuel supply companies were restricted.
As an apparent unintended consequence (or a willfully accepted consequence) of the policy change to make sure that sensitive documents stopped ending u on websites, non-sensitive documents regarding safety incidents ended up being restricted as well.
But, even when the accident occurred, the regulatory commission apparently even made a point of having a special vote to make sure the party responsible for the incident was properly, and publicly, identified.
There is a definite difference between changing a policy to hide safety accidents and safety accidents not getting disclosed as well as a result of a policy change. The latter is the case here. The policy will be adjusted.
On the flip side, imagine the uproar if the policy had originally only specified that sensitive documents got restricted, and sensitive information was released anyway because someone mistakenly labeled a sensitive document as non-sensitive? It's a trade-off - and while the current policy made it harder for the public to find out about an accident, it's also true that a different policy would increase the risk of accidental release of sensitive material.
Either way, there's no reason to assign nefarious intent where apparently none is due.
...don't put open containers in the passenger compartment of your car.
Really? So when they said [skype.com], "[t]he disruption was triggered by a massive restart of our users computers across the globe within a very short timeframe as they re-booted after receiving a routine set of patches through Windows Update", they didn't really mean it?
Didn't mean it? They didn't even say it!
They said that the number of reboots *EXPOSED AN ERROR IN THEIR CODE*.
Somehow, I don't think thats the real story.
Everyone knows that the Slashdot editors only post informed, unbiased article summaries with accurate titles!
And they are ESPECIALLY thorough when the article even tangentially mentions Microsoft.
Exponential growth for a business isn't even possible, unless maybe you start out really, really small, and for a short amount of time.
Exponential business growth is not possible simply because the number of customers is finite. Even if you make something that all 6 billion people will buy, you're still not going to be able to maintain exponential growth very long before everybody is a customer.
So, the fact that somebody may or may not be completely insane, and stupid on top of that, means nothing to you?
Someone who believes in creationism is not the same as someone who says they believe in creationism.
A perfectly intelligent candidate may claim to believe in creationism because there is no shortage of insane/stupid minds out there in heads on people who still get to vote like the rest of us.
The candidate may not be ETHICAL, but catering to the scientifically insane beliefs of a large part of the population that is particularly inclined to vote should hardly itself be characterized as insane. Devious maybe, but quite reasonable.
Show me one case where science has been wrong where it was corrected by something not science.
Well you'll clearly never be elected to the Kansas State School Board.
But they do have public streets.
it takes a college degree to get any sort of decent job.
Assuming that's true, if someone does not have a degree, whose fault is that?
Because police procrastinate too?
Although I wonder how many police departments really have monthly quotas. It seems that by the time you account for vacation, different duty assignments, etc, it wouldn't be worth the bother.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I get the feeling you're not a big fan of the current copyright system....
You simply can't quantify, in advance, every circumstance where fair use rights need to be balanced against the rights of the copyright holder.
In most cases, you can apply a little judicial precedent and common sense to figure out if something is fair use or not. And in the cases where you can't, you have a decision:
- Get a license
- Infringe and be prepared to defend your fair use rights should the copyright holder object
- Don't use the material.
It would be nice if there were nice, easy to follow rules - but we are probably better off where there is some room to argue fair use in court on a case-by-case basis than we would be were there specific, detailed, hard rules about what is and isn't fair use that would inevitably lead to the wrong treatment in many circumstances.
He might have gotten the evidence dismissed if the state failed to provide the source code....
That's EXACTLY what a shill would say. Shill!
If you want to find out where criminals live, send out a bunch of questionnaires asking what priority the police should put on arresting criminals. The people who respond that the priority should be low are your criminals, and now you know where they live!
Quite right - what I'm hoping that the ACLU will establish with this suit is strict procedures of when this information can be used.
You can't just have a policy that says when the information can be used - if the data is there, it will be searched in violation of policy. The only way to be SURE the information is not searched inappropriately is to now allow its retention at all.
So, I'm all for automated license plate scanning. And if a scan turns up a felon or stolen car, that information should be retained for prosecution. But if a license plate is scanned and the computer doesn't find a felony warrant or stolen car, the information should be immediately bit-bucketed by the scanning device.
The injunction wasn't denied JUST because it wasn't a big company. It was denied because:
- MercExchange was not using the technology, AND
- MercExchange had never used the technology, AND
- MercExchange had no plans to use the technology, AND
- MercExchange had never licensed the technology, AND
- MercExchange had no plans to license the technology.
This ruling doesn't say you have to be a big company with a brand reputation to get an injunction. If, for example, you had sold an exclusive license to another company, you would still get your injunction. But, if you were going to patent something, then do nothing with it until someone else did, then when they do you sue them and demand that they stop, the judge is going to say no, force the infringer to pay you, and that's the end of it. 'Inventor' gets paid, infringer stays in business providing the service the inventor never had any intention of providing themselves anyway, and consumer gets to purchase the service. Everybody wins, but the patent troll doesn't get an inordinately large payment by holding an entire business hostage.
NASA only awards infrequent flier miles.
If I encrypt something and memorize the key, can the government compel me to tell them what the key is, or can I refuse to answer the question based on the 5th amendment?
"Of course there are precautions that can be used against this weapon, propper googles should do it, but not everyone will have them."
How about, oh, EYELIDS?
That's been Shatner's motto for decades.
... need ... for ... money ... outweighs .. the ... need ... for ... dignity!
Not quite.
The
There you go. It's not true Shatner unless it's overacted.
Also, in chess, given enough computing power, you can process all the moves up until the end of the game.
That's not entirely true - you can theoretically process all the possible moves, but, you still won't know the result until you know what the hole cards are.
In chess, the player's moves determine what happens on the board. In poker, you can't change what happens on the board; you can only change how much money you win or lose as the game progresses.