That said, I'm not sure how Condercet works for a multi-seat election like a county council. I guess it's just a question of ranking the final results.
Pick the winner as per normal. Delete him from all ballots. Repeat until there are no more slots to fill.
(The same repetitive approach can work with concordet, plurality, or IRV)
come over to Korea. Tons of girls playing games here
I've never been there, but newspapers tell me that when couples go to the PC bangs in the evening, the boys will play SC/CS/MMO, and the girls will sit nearby and just IM.
Resident Evil Zero: Once again, one of the main characters is female.
Notice that the female character is more powerful (bigger inventory) and luckier (fewer random disasters block her path), meaning she's EASIER to play... which is a sexist way of saying that boys are tougher than girls.
This was prevalent in Japanese games... I remember seeing a lot of cartridges for the original Nintendo where you choose "Otoko/Onna" (male/female) at startup, even though it didn't have alternate player graphics for the different genders! It only asked as a way to set the difficulty level.
Or recompiling between reboots (I run multiple kernels).
Suggestion: recompile only when you install a new kernel. Simply ensure that all your kernels have different versions (adding a unique text string after the number if need be), and then store the modules in/lib/modules/`uname`. That way there are no filename conflicts.
Of course, most distros do that entirely automatically, so it's an excellent question as to why yours doesn't.
The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns
For the last time, stop the plagiarism! If you think somebody else made your case better than you could, then link to it. Don't pollute slashdot with copies of NRA propaganda.
And one more time: Bush said he supported that bill! Either Bush was lying about that, or he is just as anti-gun as Kerry.
And one more time: Kerry never voted for that bill.
There is something funny about that bill, though. Of course it's obviously too vague to be effectively implemented. But it also reflects a special fear politicians have: the assasin's rifle. 5 years ago there was an uproar about the availiblity of the Barret 50, which reminded all the Washington people that they're never really safe.
One specific quote:Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."
That's false. Yes, the AR-15 is banned, as is the M1 Carbine, which is a different, shorter weapon than the actual M1 Garand rifle. I also can't find anything in the text about Springfields. It would be pretty crazy if it actually banned those, because a Springfield is no different than any deer-hunting rifle.
This bill sounds noble, but it's too zealous, banning almost all semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, because they have a "pistol grip."
It's just errorneously written. "Pistol grip", as defined in that resolution, includes anything that can be used to "grip", which includes barrels, triggers, tomatoes, and anything else with solid substance. Many bills have numerous small errors that would be ironed out before it ever comes to a vote.
But that doesn't matter, because S.1431 is the bill that would've re-newed the "Brady Bill" assault weapons ban- and President Bush said he was in favor of it. On matters of this bill, both candidates claim the same position!
I was with you right up to the last sentence, where your non-sequitur lost me completely.
That's the technique: paste in a lot of true facts, so numerous that no one will have the energy to read them all. Then finish with a completely false conclusion unrelated to the previous facts, hoping to trick lazy readers into thinking it's somehow based on the body of the message.
I mean, he decommissioned some hunting land? He wants to tax guns? Stuff like that does NOTHING to support the idea he's a gun-banner.
1) If we wanted to read NRA.org websites, we could visit NRA.org. Link to them if you think it supports your position, but don't copy & paste. Sheer volune is no way to make a credible argument. Some of your copying is actually illegal infringement.
2) Some of those "FACTS" are lies, and none of them contradict my statement: The only guns Kerry voted to ban are guns that President Bush says should be banned as well.
That list is a standard dishonest tactic: Make a strong claim, followed by a huge volume of true facts with at least a peripheral relationship to the claim. Then state that you've proved your position, even though you've done nothing of the sort, and hope that people too lazy to read the whole thing assume you said something sensible.
3) One could make a fairly plausible slippery slope argument: "Kerry's positions are closer to a total gun ban than his opponent, so he will move us closer to an environment where a gun ban might pass". But instead of saying something reasonable like that, you just spit out a tremendous volume of unsubstantiable lies.
It's behavior like that which caused President Bush to publically resign from the NRA. Although he supports gun ownership rights, the NRA goes off on viciously false tangents and pretends they were actually part of the same thing.
Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things
What record? Kerry has never voted to ban any gun, except for the Brady Bill, which is something that President Bush claims to support also.
Kerry's got the NRA against him because he supported gun show background checks, and wanted to force manufacturers to include complimentary trigger locks.
Reagan and Bush I were beholden to the religious extremists.
Although Reagan was sympathetic to the ultra-religious, his popularity was so overwhelming that he was beholden to no one. No minority could've threatened him by withdrawing support (like they can with Dubya Bush)
Mr. Joy does not have those talents- his engineers and programmers beneath him do. He's living on their labor, and paying them a small pittance in comparison to his reward.
You're making a generic anti-CEO argument where it doesn't apply.
Bill Joy is absolutely a superior engineer and programmer. Just read his biography; he got where he is by writing software better than the alternatives. If you want to attack some highly paid executive for abusing his subordinates' creativity, you need a better target. Mr Joy wasn't even an executive!
Furthermore, you are additionally wrong by writing in the present tense. Bill Joy is retired, and no longer part of any corp payment.
Only a very poorly-designed app wouldn't prompt the user to save any unsaved information before quitting.
Not true. The fact that you are looking at page 12 of document ABC.HTM is itself a kind of data; data that will be lost when quit. Sure, ABC.HTM is easy enough to remember, but real-world URLs can be hundreds of characters long.
It's the same with tabs. The relative scarcity of actually wanting to close a tab you're not currently viewing, multiplied by the proportional ease of doing that in 1 click rather than 2, is less than the effort it would take to recover a lost web page from memory/history (multiplied by the probablity). Then there's the fact that needing to avoid those dangerous close-buttons in between each tab forces a user to click far slower than otherwise possible.
Actually, you can right- (or control-) click on a program's icon and select "Quit" to quit it.
I was, of course, only referring to the fastest way to accomplish something.
1) In safari the tabs are fixed size. Once you have more tabs then can fit on your bar you have to use the stupid drop down. In firefox the tabs automatically resize temselves.
Conversely, firefox has a minimum size to which it will shrink a tab. Once you hit that point, additional tabs just pour off into nowhereland. They keep opening, but you can never see the tabs to click on them.
Firefox needs a way to produce a menu of ALL webpages you have open- in any tab, in any window...
You need to either upgrade your debian, or learn keyword searching: %apt-cache search firefox gtkcookie - Editor for cookie files latex-xft-fonts - Xft-compatible versions of some LaTeX fonts libflash-mozplugin - GPL Flash (SWF) Library - Mozilla-compatible plugin mozilla-firefox - lightweight web browser based on Mozilla mozilla-firefox-dom-inspector - tool for inspecting the DOM of pages in Mozilla Firefox mozilla-firefox-locale-ca - Mozilla Firefox Catalan language/region package mozilla-firefox-locale-de - Mozilla Firefox German Language/Region Package mozilla-firefox-locale-es - Mozilla Firefox Language/Region Package...
OTOH, though, really how much less memory footprint does firefox have vs. mozilla?
For most users, the memory isn't as important as the less-complex renderpath for GUI decorations.
1) Tab close button on the tab itself... it's a real hassle when I go to switch a tab and actually close it by being a little off the mark.
Exactly. Why would a user want to close something she's not looking at?
Does the Dock have a little X next to each icon where you can end a program? Of course not, that would lead to data-loss accidents. You first have to restore the program so you can see its window, and then click on the X to quit it.
I want a computer that works, and that's why I use Linux
I have to ask what distro you have. Firefox is one of the most popular Linux (desktop) applications, and I thought most Linux providers made it very easy to install correctly.
Is Microsoft going into applications a better bussiness a good thing? Maybe not in the long run even for Microsoft.
If they hadn't had an application business, then today Microsoft would have a 50% marketshare on PC desktops. Both OS/2 and BeOS would've survived to be real operating-systems competition.
If OpenOffice suceeds (and it might not), then it could remove this big advantage from Microsoft, but the mutually-supporting OS and application markets have given MS 12 years of solid, uncontested profit.
Your rudeness is uncalled for. You made a flat-out factual error:
How many years later, and the man still refuses to release a free development enviroment to hobbyists?
The word "refuses" is present-tense, meaning you claim Microsoft still doesn't do this today. That has been demonstrated to be false.
In the 2nd part of your post, you mention the possibility that a free Microsoft compiler could've stopped you from using Linux... but because people normally read from the beginning of a message, respondants will naturally focus on the mistakes you made in the beginning.
We don't have a Libertarian government, nor has there been one recently;
Yes there has... because ALL governments are Libertarian. You see, the Libertarian definition of "government" is so vague that almost anything can fit it, with just a little twisting.
For example, Iraq in 1999? Libertarian. The government protects the people from force & fraud, which includes trespassing on other people's property. Since 98% of the land is the property of Saddam Hussein, he's justified in doing whatever he wants to those people who refuse to leave.
The USA in 1931? Libertarian too. In that case, 100% of the land was owned by a consortium of organizations called "states", although they lease land to individuals (and call that "ownership"). To remain on land you don't own, you must secure contractual agreement with the landowner, which in that case meant obeying all USA laws.
Since Libertarianism allows people to enter into arbitrary contracts (no non-fraudlent contract is illegal!), then for any given political situtation, you can construct a way for a nearly identical arrangement to occur in a technically "Libertarian" country, merely by requiring all residents to sign contracts agreeing to conditions mimicing their existing laws.
Shifting from petroleum-based energy to other sources (inevitable) causing (yet) more instability in arab socio-political structures
No, our children (meaning future USA citizens) won't have to deal with that, because although oil exhaustion will make Arab governments less stable, it'll also make them less relevant.
95% of the reason the USA has a Middle East policy at all is oil (Israel is the other 5%). Once that's gone, Arab instability won't bother the USA any more than African instability does today.
So a police officer can swear "to uphold the law", and then go around shooting unauthorized immigrants on sight, and that's just "selective enforcement".
You don't know that, and I find it rather idiotic that you'd assume this.
Since I work for the Pentagon as a military planner, I actually do know this pretty well. But you can prove it yourself without any special insider knowledge.
The fact that the Pentagon and State Department were not asked to plan for post-war Iraq has been well documented in the USA's media.
Firstly, everyone with any knowledge of what the full power of the US military really means
That's a freakishly wrong interpretation. You think using "full power" means "all powers", when it really just means "all powers that would be useful towards achieving a goal". Since in that same speech Bush said his goal was not merely the defeat of Iraq or the destruction of Saddam's power, but the "liberation" of a hidden Iraqi democracy, turning it into a nuclear wasteland would've been directly counterproductive.
Your complaint is equivalent to arguing that I didn't use my AK-47 when I was trying to fix your computer.
I'll try to address what I think you meant because I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you don't think Congress voted to allow the President to end the world.
No, you're giving the President the benefit of the doubt.
So, by "power", do you mean firepower, or do you mean effectiveness?
I mean DIs. Grount troops. Sentries. Patrollers. "Boots"
You know, those people that were entirely too scarce after Saddam's collapse... which, if they had been there, could've helped get things off to a positive start.
Again, this was a case of changing his mind under new conditions rather than a lie.
There are no new conditions, except in his mind. The USA was vulnerable to attacks before, and it still is. Anyone too stupid to notice the possibility of terrorism without a gigantic example doesn't deserve to be President, regardless of such an example actually having been provided.
Furthermore, since he didn't learn the lesson of September 11th (that threats come not only from nations, but non-state organizations), he's got an even stronger disqualifaction. ("New Afgani government replacing the Taliban? Check. Al Quaida destroyed? Nevermind, moving right along to Iraq...")
Not necessarily. You can only breach a contract after agreeing to it. Do you have any evidence that this developer agreed to the GPL? He could be a simple copyright infringer, after all...
Which option is less liable is a choice for him and his lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I'm not sure how Condercet works for a multi-seat election like a county council. I guess it's just a question of ranking the final results.
Pick the winner as per normal.
Delete him from all ballots.
Repeat until there are no more slots to fill.
(The same repetitive approach can work with concordet, plurality, or IRV)
come over to Korea. Tons of girls playing games here
I've never been there, but newspapers tell me that when couples go to the PC bangs in the evening, the boys will play SC/CS/MMO, and the girls will sit nearby and just IM.
Resident Evil Zero: Once again, one of the main characters is female.
Notice that the female character is more powerful (bigger inventory) and luckier (fewer random disasters block her path), meaning she's EASIER to play... which is a sexist way of saying that boys are tougher than girls.
This was prevalent in Japanese games... I remember seeing a lot of cartridges for the original Nintendo where you choose "Otoko/Onna" (male/female) at startup, even though it didn't have alternate player graphics for the different genders! It only asked as a way to set the difficulty level.
Or recompiling between reboots (I run multiple kernels).
/lib/modules/`uname`. That way there are no filename conflicts.
Suggestion: recompile only when you install a new kernel. Simply ensure that all your kernels have different versions (adding a unique text string after the number if need be), and then store the modules in
Of course, most distros do that entirely automatically, so it's an excellent question as to why yours doesn't.
The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns
For the last time, stop the plagiarism! If you think somebody else made your case better than you could, then link to it. Don't pollute slashdot with copies of NRA propaganda.
And one more time: Bush said he supported that bill! Either Bush was lying about that, or he is just as anti-gun as Kerry.
And one more time: Kerry never voted for that bill.
There is something funny about that bill, though. Of course it's obviously too vague to be effectively implemented. But it also reflects a special fear politicians have: the assasin's rifle. 5 years ago there was an uproar about the availiblity of the Barret 50, which reminded all the Washington people that they're never really safe.
One specific quote:Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."
That's false. Yes, the AR-15 is banned, as is the M1 Carbine, which is a different, shorter weapon than the actual M1 Garand rifle. I also can't find anything in the text about Springfields. It would be pretty crazy if it actually banned those, because a Springfield is no different than any deer-hunting rifle.
This bill sounds noble, but it's too zealous, banning almost all semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, because they have a "pistol grip."
It's just errorneously written. "Pistol grip", as defined in that resolution, includes anything that can be used to "grip", which includes barrels, triggers, tomatoes, and anything else with solid substance. Many bills have numerous small errors that would be ironed out before it ever comes to a vote.
But that doesn't matter, because S.1431 is the bill that would've re-newed the "Brady Bill" assault weapons ban- and President Bush said he was in favor of it. On matters of this bill, both candidates claim the same position!
I was with you right up to the last sentence, where your non-sequitur lost me completely.
That's the technique: paste in a lot of true facts, so numerous that no one will have the energy to read them all. Then finish with a completely false conclusion unrelated to the previous facts, hoping to trick lazy readers into thinking it's somehow based on the body of the message.
I mean, he decommissioned some hunting land? He wants to tax guns? Stuff like that does NOTHING to support the idea he's a gun-banner.
1) If we wanted to read NRA.org websites, we could visit NRA.org. Link to them if you think it supports your position, but don't copy & paste. Sheer volune is no way to make a credible argument. Some of your copying is actually illegal infringement.
2) Some of those "FACTS" are lies, and none of them contradict my statement: The only guns Kerry voted to ban are guns that President Bush says should be banned as well.
That list is a standard dishonest tactic: Make a strong claim, followed by a huge volume of true facts with at least a peripheral relationship to the claim. Then state that you've proved your position, even though you've done nothing of the sort, and hope that people too lazy to read the whole thing assume you said something sensible.
3) One could make a fairly plausible slippery slope argument: "Kerry's positions are closer to a total gun ban than his opponent, so he will move us closer to an environment where a gun ban might pass". But instead of saying something reasonable like that, you just spit out a tremendous volume of unsubstantiable lies.
It's behavior like that which caused President Bush to publically resign from the NRA. Although he supports gun ownership rights, the NRA goes off on viciously false tangents and pretends they were actually part of the same thing.
Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things
What record? Kerry has never voted to ban any gun, except for the Brady Bill, which is something that President Bush claims to support also.
Kerry's got the NRA against him because he supported gun show background checks, and wanted to force manufacturers to include complimentary trigger locks.
Reagan and Bush I were beholden to the religious extremists.
Although Reagan was sympathetic to the ultra-religious, his popularity was so overwhelming that he was beholden to no one. No minority could've threatened him by withdrawing support (like they can with Dubya Bush)
Mr. Joy does not have those talents- his engineers and programmers beneath him do. He's living on their labor, and paying them a small pittance in comparison to his reward.
You're making a generic anti-CEO argument where it doesn't apply.
Bill Joy is absolutely a superior engineer and programmer. Just read his biography; he got where he is by writing software better than the alternatives. If you want to attack some highly paid executive for abusing his subordinates' creativity, you need a better target. Mr Joy wasn't even an executive!
Furthermore, you are additionally wrong by writing in the present tense. Bill Joy is retired, and no longer part of any corp payment.
why is he disliked ?
This is why.
Only a very poorly-designed app wouldn't prompt the user to save any unsaved information before quitting.
Not true. The fact that you are looking at page 12 of document ABC.HTM is itself a kind of data; data that will be lost when quit. Sure, ABC.HTM is easy enough to remember, but real-world URLs can be hundreds of characters long.
It's the same with tabs. The relative scarcity of actually wanting to close a tab you're not currently viewing, multiplied by the proportional ease of doing that in 1 click rather than 2, is less than the effort it would take to recover a lost web page from memory/history (multiplied by the probablity). Then there's the fact that needing to avoid those dangerous close-buttons in between each tab forces a user to click far slower than otherwise possible.
Actually, you can right- (or control-) click on a program's icon and select "Quit" to quit it.
I was, of course, only referring to the fastest way to accomplish something.
1) In safari the tabs are fixed size. Once you have more tabs then can fit on your bar you have to use the stupid drop down. In firefox the tabs automatically resize temselves.
Conversely, firefox has a minimum size to which it will shrink a tab. Once you hit that point, additional tabs just pour off into nowhereland. They keep opening, but you can never see the tabs to click on them.
Firefox needs a way to produce a menu of ALL webpages you have open- in any tab, in any window...
(apt-get install firefox yielded nothing,
...
You need to either upgrade your debian, or learn keyword searching:
%apt-cache search firefox
gtkcookie - Editor for cookie files
latex-xft-fonts - Xft-compatible versions of some LaTeX fonts
libflash-mozplugin - GPL Flash (SWF) Library - Mozilla-compatible plugin
mozilla-firefox - lightweight web browser based on Mozilla
mozilla-firefox-dom-inspector - tool for inspecting the DOM of pages in Mozilla Firefox
mozilla-firefox-locale-ca - Mozilla Firefox Catalan language/region package
mozilla-firefox-locale-de - Mozilla Firefox German Language/Region Package
mozilla-firefox-locale-es - Mozilla Firefox Language/Region Package
OTOH, though, really how much less memory footprint does firefox have vs. mozilla?
For most users, the memory isn't as important as the less-complex renderpath for GUI decorations.
1) Tab close button on the tab itself... it's a real hassle when I go to switch a tab and actually close it by being a little off the mark.
Exactly. Why would a user want to close something she's not looking at?
Does the Dock have a little X next to each icon where you can end a program? Of course not, that would lead to data-loss accidents. You first have to restore the program so you can see its window, and then click on the X to quit it.
I want a computer that works, and that's why I use Linux
I have to ask what distro you have. Firefox is one of the most popular Linux (desktop) applications, and I thought most Linux providers made it very easy to install correctly.
Is Microsoft going into applications a better bussiness a good thing? Maybe not in the long run even for Microsoft.
If they hadn't had an application business, then today Microsoft would have a 50% marketshare on PC desktops. Both OS/2 and BeOS would've survived to be real operating-systems competition.
If OpenOffice suceeds (and it might not), then it could remove this big advantage from Microsoft, but the mutually-supporting OS and application markets have given MS 12 years of solid, uncontested profit.
The word "refuses" is present-tense, meaning you claim Microsoft still doesn't do this today. That has been demonstrated to be false.
In the 2nd part of your post, you mention the possibility that a free Microsoft compiler could've stopped you from using Linux... but because people normally read from the beginning of a message, respondants will naturally focus on the mistakes you made in the beginning.
We don't have a Libertarian government, nor has there been one recently;
Yes there has... because ALL governments are Libertarian. You see, the Libertarian definition of "government" is so vague that almost anything can fit it, with just a little twisting.
For example, Iraq in 1999? Libertarian. The government protects the people from force & fraud, which includes trespassing on other people's property. Since 98% of the land is the property of Saddam Hussein, he's justified in doing whatever he wants to those people who refuse to leave.
The USA in 1931? Libertarian too. In that case, 100% of the land was owned by a consortium of organizations called "states", although they lease land to individuals (and call that "ownership"). To remain on land you don't own, you must secure contractual agreement with the landowner, which in that case meant obeying all USA laws.
Since Libertarianism allows people to enter into arbitrary contracts (no non-fraudlent contract is illegal!), then for any given political situtation, you can construct a way for a nearly identical arrangement to occur in a technically "Libertarian" country, merely by requiring all residents to sign contracts agreeing to conditions mimicing their existing laws.
Feudal France in 1100 AD? Libertarian again!
Shifting from petroleum-based energy to other sources (inevitable) causing (yet) more instability in arab socio-political structures
No, our children (meaning future USA citizens) won't have to deal with that, because although oil exhaustion will make Arab governments less stable, it'll also make them less relevant.
95% of the reason the USA has a Middle East policy at all is oil (Israel is the other 5%). Once that's gone, Arab instability won't bother the USA any more than African instability does today.
He was merely selective in his enforcement,
So a police officer can swear "to uphold the law", and then go around shooting unauthorized immigrants on sight, and that's just "selective enforcement".
You don't know that, and I find it rather idiotic that you'd assume this.
Since I work for the Pentagon as a military planner, I actually do know this pretty well. But you can prove it yourself without any special insider knowledge.
The fact that the Pentagon and State Department were not asked to plan for post-war Iraq has been well documented in the USA's media.
Firstly, everyone with any knowledge of what the full power of the US military really means
That's a freakishly wrong interpretation. You think using "full power" means "all powers", when it really just means "all powers that would be useful towards achieving a goal". Since in that same speech Bush said his goal was not merely the defeat of Iraq or the destruction of Saddam's power, but the "liberation" of a hidden Iraqi democracy, turning it into a nuclear wasteland would've been directly counterproductive.
Your complaint is equivalent to arguing that I didn't use my AK-47 when I was trying to fix your computer.
I'll try to address what I think you meant because I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you don't think Congress voted to allow the President to end the world.
No, you're giving the President the benefit of the doubt.
So, by "power", do you mean firepower, or do you mean effectiveness?
I mean DIs. Grount troops. Sentries. Patrollers. "Boots"
You know, those people that were entirely too scarce after Saddam's collapse... which, if they had been there, could've helped get things off to a positive start.
Again, this was a case of changing his mind under new conditions rather than a lie.
There are no new conditions, except in his mind. The USA was vulnerable to attacks before, and it still is. Anyone too stupid to notice the possibility of terrorism without a gigantic example doesn't deserve to be President, regardless of such an example actually having been provided.
Furthermore, since he didn't learn the lesson of September 11th (that threats come not only from nations, but non-state organizations), he's got an even stronger disqualifaction. ("New Afgani government replacing the Taliban? Check. Al Quaida destroyed? Nevermind, moving right along to Iraq...")
Updating Mozilla to latest daily snapshot helped somewhat
Psst: people who think Mozilla is too slow normally upgrade to Firefox.
Which is a breach of contract.
Not necessarily. You can only breach a contract after agreeing to it. Do you have any evidence that this developer agreed to the GPL? He could be a simple copyright infringer, after all...
Which option is less liable is a choice for him and his lawyer.