What is the actual benefit of voting electronically? Many countries use the tried and true method of voting using paper and pen -- just mark your X in the square next to the name. Volunteers tally up the votes at the end of the voting day and, within hours of closing, you get your results.
It's something everybody understands. The paper waste is minimal compared to the paper output of election-related things -- government paperwork, campaign signs, and flyers in your mailbox and everywhere else. You absolutely don't get hanging chads, broken levers, or some other malfunctioning convoluted contraption. Recounts and verifications are simple -- get those same volunteers to count 'em again.
Geek factor aside, where's the benefit of going electronic?
Actually, my local library here in Canada has a lovely little cafe in it, has computers, and has a vast collection of original CDs that you can borrow for the small annual fee required for a library card.
How long before people start demanding that their e-mail addresses be portable when they change ISPs?
It already is. It's called your own domain name. This is like complaining that you can't keep the phone number for the pay phone down the street which you use for all your calls.
Quit borrowing an address on someone else's domain and get your own, or go Hotmail-style.
"Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information as to whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code in question or otherwise made it available to the public, SCO has never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code that contains or may contain its confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution."
Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.
SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?
Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:
"Here is an email in which he tells an inquirer how to contribute to JFS, including this tidbit: 'I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it. . . . The JFS/Linux core team has setup a CVS commitinfo, but currently I'm the only one who receives it.'
"And here he encourages someone to donate to the main JFS repository at IBM and talks about his role:
"'I'm one of the main commiters to JFS outside IBM and I'm really happy to see more people involved:)
"'First I'd like to encourage you to contribute your userspace changes to the main JFS repository at IBM. For the 1.0.11 release I have added autoconf/automake support to easify portability and a bunch of portablity patches (mostly getting rid of linuxisms) is under way to the Core team.'
"He also posts to the freebsd list as freebsd-fs at freebsd.org.
"Here is the press release when SCO in 2002 released 'SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium (R) Processor Family' and which mentions that the product is based on United Linux. This SCO page lists JFS as one of its features. . . .
"They are complaining that IBM contributed JFS to Linux, but their own employee, from this evidence, was involved in helping out. On the day IBM announced JFS was being given to Linux, Hellwig is listed as making five contributions to the kernel."
And he is listed on this page of JFS contributors. Here is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h
Earth is a proper noun, no amount of dust is going to result in other earth's. Maybe earth-like or m-class or whatever you want to call them, but other earth's doesn't make sense in the same way other solar systems doesn't make sense.
I agree regarding Earth, unless you're referring to the generic "earth", meaning dirt. But saying other solar systems does make sense. Sol is the proper name of our solar system, just as Alpha Centauri is the proper name for that particular solar system.
Re:OT: There ought to be a law...
on
Human Pac Man
·
· Score: 1
Speaking of advertising: don't forget today is buy nothing day:D
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd/
Oh great... and I went out and bought a whole crapload of stuff because I never heard about this. Maybe they need to advertise buy nothing day a whole lot more. Billboards, TV commercials, radio...
so then if i am an intellegent thief i just subtract one from the last digit and i have their real pin number/alarm code!
maybe i should become a thief
And if you're robbing an intelligent person, they would give you code + 2. Or buy an alarm where code - 1 gives an instant alarm. Then you'd really wonder which cup has the iocaine powder.
While I quite like the idea of a "duress PIN", I have more than enough trouble remembering all my various PINs already, and particularly those that I don't use very often. Let's please not complicate matters by adding yet another one that I'll (hopefully) use so seldom that there is almost no chance I'll recall it in the kinds of circumstances you describe.
Many alarm systems currently have a duress PIN of sorts. If your alarm's entry code is 1234, entering 1235 (ie: last digit + 1) will disarm the system but will also trigger a silent alarm to the monitoring company, which then calls police, etc. It's been around for years and requires nothing additional to memorize, save the rule that you add 1 to the last digit.
You're quoting the King James version. The New International Version has it as:
16: And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, Windows and Linux, to receive an RFID tag in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17: And that no user might buy, sell, or receive credit in the user's local currency, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18: Here is wisdom [goatse.cx]. Let him that understands it count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and that man's name is Bill Gates.
Well, my memory is a little hazy -- I'm sure I paraphrased just a little bit.
After getting Peter Jackson's comments on around ten different blunders in the movies, Jackson says "[ Pause ] You've got pages and pages there. And those are all mistakes they've spotted?"
Stuff doesn't have to be "scattered" over your virtual desktops - just do what I do and keep your browser on screen #2, your email client on screen #3, your terminals on screens #4 and #5, your IRC client on screen #6... you get the idea. It's actually very efficient. I can check my mail and IRC conversations and flip back to my browser in the time it'd take you to do the Expose dance once.
I do understand the efficiency. I was playing devil's advocate and pointing out an alternate viewpoint, that some people might find the single desktop "all in one place" approach to be more efficient for their mode of thinking. Again, there are advantages to each approach.
Maybe usefull on the Apple desktop but as a long time X user I and other have learned to utilize more than one workspace (virtual desktops). I wouldn't stand having everytning on one desktop and in the end not knowing where I had anything.
Interesting if you flip this around:
Maybe useful on an X desktop, but as a long-time Mac user I and others have learned to make full use of a single desktop. I wouldn't stand having everything scattered over multiple virtual desktops and, in the end, not knowing where I had anything.
Really, it's all about what you're comfortable with. Why not have both? There are many advantages to each approach.
Why ? I have heard of, but not seen the expose feature. If you try asking a Mac user about it, the standard reply is: "wowmanitssooooooocooolitjustblowsmymindawayyougot taseeitman" without any explanation of what it actually does.
Now this article explains it nicely, it actually looks quite useful.
I thought the Apple site explains it quite nicely, even with a Flash "try it out" demonstration. Not sure how much easier one could make it.;-)
In math/science/engineering jargon, the word "law" can also mean a mathematical formula that describes the behavior of some system. Think Boyle's / Charles' / Universal Gas "Law", or Kepler's Laws for the movement of planets.
Note that "laws" in this sense can be inaccurate, incomplete, or incorrect.
Please provide examples where these laws are incorrect. Granted, they might be incomplete in the sense that they are simplistic and only take into consideration a subset of the system. But, for that subset, the laws always hold.
Since there is a formula in this case, the term "law" is appropriate.
No, because the formula hasn't been shown to be generally true. I can say that an article on slashdot will generally have a 1:2 troll ratio (or whatever it is). And if you scan through the myriad articles, you could see that this ratio has generally held. However, it's not a law because there might be some innovation in the future, such as a policy change, authentication, whatever... which totally eliminates trolling, or changes the troll ratio significantly. Just because I stick a formula there, that doesn't make it any more a law.
There's a difference between the liberal arts version of what a law is and the scientific/mathematical version of what a law is.
I've always wondered why it's called Moore's Law. After all, it's not something which is mathematically provable. You'd figure computer scientists and systems engineers would be a bit more rigorous and call it Moore's Theorem, Moore's Axiom, or Moore's Postulate (I'm not sure what the best terminology is for this kind of conjecture). Granted, it has been approximately held, but there's no underlying reason why processor speed couldn't increase by an order of magnitude in a few months given the right implementation.
A Wal-Mart notebook to go right next to my Arby's MP3 player. Although perhaps the logo can be sandblasted off so that users won't die of embarassment.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a poll here.
It's missing the CowboyNeal option!
In the UK ... Simple system. Pencil. Anonymous paper. big dirty cross in the box for the candidate you want.
:)
I guess that's what wrong with UK politics. Next election, try using a pen.
What is the actual benefit of voting electronically? Many countries use the tried and true method of voting using paper and pen -- just mark your X in the square next to the name. Volunteers tally up the votes at the end of the voting day and, within hours of closing, you get your results.
It's something everybody understands. The paper waste is minimal compared to the paper output of election-related things -- government paperwork, campaign signs, and flyers in your mailbox and everywhere else. You absolutely don't get hanging chads, broken levers, or some other malfunctioning convoluted contraption. Recounts and verifications are simple -- get those same volunteers to count 'em again.
Geek factor aside, where's the benefit of going electronic?
For those who want a direct comparison... here it is:
Senator Palpatine
Canadian $5 bank note
You be the judge!
Yeah, but how much would those stars weigh in elephants?
The study also mentioned that they processed the radiotelescope signal to extract the audio component. Listen to SHGb11+15a.
Second, I doubt that a free-falling bullet would have enough velocity to hurt anyone, even if the tiny thing managed to hit them.
Guess again: Participant at KKK initiation wounded after shots are fired into sky Quoting the article: "A bullet struck Murr on the top of the head and exited at the bottom of his skull, authorities said."
Actually, my local library here in Canada has a lovely little cafe in it, has computers, and has a vast collection of original CDs that you can borrow for the small annual fee required for a library card.
u are/circ/home.html
Where are you from? You shouldn't have to pay for a library card -- you're already paying an annual fee via your tax dollars. For example: http://www.vpl.vancouver.bc.ca/branches/LibrarySq
How long before people start demanding that their e-mail addresses be portable when they change ISPs?
It already is. It's called your own domain name. This is like complaining that you can't keep the phone number for the pay phone down the street which you use for all your calls.
Quit borrowing an address on someone else's domain and get your own, or go Hotmail-style.
Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.
SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?
Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:
And he is listed on this page of JFS contributors. Here is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h
Earth is a proper noun, no amount of dust is going to result in other earth's. Maybe earth-like or m-class or whatever you want to call them, but other earth's doesn't make sense in the same way other solar systems doesn't make sense.
I agree regarding Earth, unless you're referring to the generic "earth", meaning dirt. But saying other solar systems does make sense. Sol is the proper name of our solar system, just as Alpha Centauri is the proper name for that particular solar system.
The study also mentioned that they processed the radiotelescope signal to extract the audio component. Click here to listen to the extracted audible spectrum.
Speaking of advertising: don't forget today is buy nothing day :D
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd/
Oh great... and I went out and bought a whole crapload of stuff because I never heard about this. Maybe they need to advertise buy nothing day a whole lot more. Billboards, TV commercials, radio...
I thought the company name was "MobileBum". Damn sans-serif fonts.
Incidentally, this is also why spam emails implore you to buy something so you can curn like a pr0n star.
so then if i am an intellegent thief i just subtract one from the last digit and i have their real pin number/alarm code!
maybe i should become a thief
And if you're robbing an intelligent person, they would give you code + 2. Or buy an alarm where code - 1 gives an instant alarm. Then you'd really wonder which cup has the iocaine powder.
While I quite like the idea of a "duress PIN", I have more than enough trouble remembering all my various PINs already, and particularly those that I don't use very often. Let's please not complicate matters by adding yet another one that I'll (hopefully) use so seldom that there is almost no chance I'll recall it in the kinds of circumstances you describe.
Many alarm systems currently have a duress PIN of sorts. If your alarm's entry code is 1234, entering 1235 (ie: last digit + 1) will disarm the system but will also trigger a silent alarm to the monitoring company, which then calls police, etc. It's been around for years and requires nothing additional to memorize, save the rule that you add 1 to the last digit.
You're quoting the King James version. The New International Version has it as:
16: And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, Windows and Linux, to receive an RFID tag in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no user might buy, sell, or receive credit in the user's local currency, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18: Here is wisdom [goatse.cx]. Let him that understands it count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and that man's name is Bill Gates.
Well, my memory is a little hazy -- I'm sure I paraphrased just a little bit.
After getting Peter Jackson's comments on around ten different blunders in the movies, Jackson says "[ Pause ] You've got pages and pages there. And those are all mistakes they've spotted?"
Mr. Jackson, you must be new around here.
Stuff doesn't have to be "scattered" over your virtual desktops - just do what I do and keep your browser on screen #2, your email client on screen #3, your terminals on screens #4 and #5, your IRC client on screen #6... you get the idea.
It's actually very efficient. I can check my mail and IRC conversations and flip back to my browser in the time it'd take you to do the Expose dance once.
I do understand the efficiency. I was playing devil's advocate and pointing out an alternate viewpoint, that some people might find the single desktop "all in one place" approach to be more efficient for their mode of thinking. Again, there are advantages to each approach.
Maybe usefull on the Apple desktop but as a long time X user I and other have learned to utilize more than one workspace (virtual desktops). I wouldn't stand having everytning on one desktop and in the end not knowing where I had anything.
Interesting if you flip this around:
Maybe useful on an X desktop, but as a long-time Mac user I and others have learned to make full use of a single desktop. I wouldn't stand having everything scattered over multiple virtual desktops and, in the end, not knowing where I had anything.
Really, it's all about what you're comfortable with. Why not have both? There are many advantages to each approach.
Ouch... sounds like you need automation just a *tad*. Try out radmind which will save you the 262 duplicate updates you otherwise would be doing.
Why ? I have heard of, but not seen the expose feature. If you try asking a Mac user about it, the standard reply is: "wowmanitssooooooocooolitjustblowsmymindawayyougot taseeitman"
;-)
without any explanation of what it actually does.
Now this article explains it nicely, it actually looks quite useful.
I thought the Apple site explains it quite nicely, even with a Flash "try it out" demonstration. Not sure how much easier one could make it.
In math/science/engineering jargon, the word "law" can also mean a mathematical formula that describes the behavior of some system. Think Boyle's / Charles' / Universal Gas "Law", or Kepler's Laws for the movement of planets.
Note that "laws" in this sense can be inaccurate, incomplete, or incorrect.
Please provide examples where these laws are incorrect. Granted, they might be incomplete in the sense that they are simplistic and only take into consideration a subset of the system. But, for that subset, the laws always hold.
Since there is a formula in this case, the term "law" is appropriate.
No, because the formula hasn't been shown to be generally true. I can say that an article on slashdot will generally have a 1:2 troll ratio (or whatever it is). And if you scan through the myriad articles, you could see that this ratio has generally held. However, it's not a law because there might be some innovation in the future, such as a policy change, authentication, whatever... which totally eliminates trolling, or changes the troll ratio significantly. Just because I stick a formula there, that doesn't make it any more a law.
There's a difference between the liberal arts version of what a law is and the scientific/mathematical version of what a law is.
I've always wondered why it's called Moore's Law. After all, it's not something which is mathematically provable. You'd figure computer scientists and systems engineers would be a bit more rigorous and call it Moore's Theorem, Moore's Axiom, or Moore's Postulate (I'm not sure what the best terminology is for this kind of conjecture). Granted, it has been approximately held, but there's no underlying reason why processor speed couldn't increase by an order of magnitude in a few months given the right implementation.
A Wal-Mart notebook to go right next to my Arby's MP3 player. Although perhaps the logo can be sandblasted off so that users won't die of embarassment.