The OP's frustration is probably because they think the market is not working right. If people knew what the OP does, which is that the seller is taking ~$50 to make the computer perform worse (they could have a much better computer for $50 more), people would make different choices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
It's too late for this post.... But are we really sure Net Neutrality is a good thing? What if NN prevents or delays a cool ap. A movie download service might be vastly improved if it can ride in the fast lane. I may be willing to pay for that speed but NN may prevent this. Thoughts?
I don't think there is a margin of error. When the sample size equals the population, there is no assumed difference between the count of the sample and the count of the population.
It would be interesting to see the examine ballots see how many human marks were not recorded by the scanner.
Not quite. Almost. By immediately downing the collective, the rotors are put into a position where the falling motion turns them into a turbine. This increases the speed (and momentum) of the rotors.
At the right altitude the collective is raised and the rotors begin to generate lift again. The rotors slow down as the turn speed is traded for lift slowing the decent as much as possible before impact.
Is that a scientific principle?
It's wiki page made it sound more philosophical.
Most Christians believe in an interventionist God (one who interacts with our universe, created it).
Science should try to decern the methods in the causal chain (the How). It should search for the first cause because we will learn alot along the way and we are curious.
But since we can not observe a universe being born and not being born. Science will not be able to make a good guess about the first cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
I've often thought of how and why in the same way you describe. How focuses on the mechanism or manner of cause/effect. Why focuses on the motive or intent of cause/effect.
I checked three dictionaries and none drew a clear line, citing the word "reason" in both. I wish the distinction was more accepted.
I wonder if the difference is clearer in other languages. There is a concept of Dependent Origination. In a book, the Dali Lama used this concept to suggest that eastern thought does not focus on one cause, but rather multiple conditions required for effect.
What Sun lacks is good marketing (maybe b/c of a lack of good strategy and new technologies). Marketing is about creating awareness and a favorable first impression. It is only when the marketing message is consistent with the technology that it is powerful. Case in point: Apple's "Switch" campaing did a great job creating the impresion that with OS X, your average user could switch painlessly. I did and it was painless. That's good marketing. My experience has been that some of the brightest designers have a difficult time articulating WHAT something does without inserting too much of HOW it does it. (Marketing Manager and hobby programmer)
Owning just one share of one company is very expensive because of trading account fees. You could do two thinks: get a relative with an account to buy one share for you (I think you can even get the actual stock certificate sent to you - super geeky) or possibly the company may set up a direct purchase plan like a DRIP.
Requiring id would not have stopped the 9/11 actors.
Requiring id does not reduce the risk of airline attack.
Imagine any number of scenarios eliminated by the requirement, such as: (a) ten known terrorists enter the U.S.; (b) they buy tickets under pseudonyms; and (c) they execute the attack based on overpowering the onboard air marshals.
As an aside, Mr. Gilmore's argument is partly absurd. "I have a freedom to travel within the U.S. without id" != "Any company providing air travel is required to provide services to me regardless of my identity". He does provide some interesting arguments about to what extent the executive branch may decide who is denied access to travel via air or how they share threat assessments with private travel providers.
Well said. "The Economist" made a similiar argument in response to the book (The case for brands Sep 6th 2001 From The Economist print edition - subscription required). Exerpt:
Far from being instruments of oppression, they make firms accountable to consumers.
IMAGINE a world without brands. It existed once, and still exists, more or less, in the world's poorest places. No raucous advertising, no ugly billboards, no McDonald's. Yet, given a chance and a bit of money, people flee this Eden. They seek out Budweiser instead of their local tipple, ditch nameless shirts for Gap, prefer Marlboros to home-grown smokes.
Most definitions out there were horrible. Here's my take.
Right Ascension - the angle to the east, measured in hours and minutes, between an object in the sky and the Vernal Equinox (the point in the earth's equatorial plane where the sun passes from south to north) in the celestial equator (the circle in the same plane as the earth's equator and with the earth as it's center).
I am not sure if the 0 hr line includes the earth at all times or at the time of the Vernal Equinox. Or if anyone bothers to make the distinction when most things are so far away.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/right+ as cension
There only seemed to be a few posts that looked at this from a false positive / false negative expectation perspective. Clearly the NSA should be willing to endure a high false positive (he's a security risk) rate because the false negative (he's a trustworthy, but actually a spy) consequences are so high.
There was a good Lexington column (registration/subsription required) in The Economist that made this point. I think the Brits mean less partisan like the Supreme Court or some other non-electable, permenant appointment.
What is the negative effect of someone taking free software, modifying it, and selling it under copyright (with or without publishing the source code)?
I recognize the gut instinct that it would be "unfair" for one to gain on the effort of another. But economics dictate that the modifier would only be able to sell the product for the value they add over the free product. A component of that value may simply be packaging, promotion and documentation - which does reduce the search costs of the buyer.
Aside: Companies used to (and still sometimes) require a copy of the source code from suppliers. What a different world we would be in if corporate customers of software had demanded that of desktop applications.
If the software package became important enough or costly enough, the buyer could pay someone else to make the neccessary modifications to the origninal free work.
This seems to be the approach of PGP software that has a basic free component and proprietary versions.
This seems to rely on voters later checking their vote to ensure it is on record as correct, some percentage anyway. My choice would be to have election judges auditing the results. This solution provides that.
This also seems expensive with all the printers required. And with all that peeling and tearing, that sounds like a "help desk nightmare".
I think we agree that all the systems under discussion are overkill, but that's federal law for ya. If VOTE_ID is not tied to a person, anonymity is not surrendered.
As for the sample required, only a small sample is required to find the first fraudulent vote. Take this calculation
Number Of Votes Cast (B1) 500,000
Margin between leader and second (B2) 5%
Vote gap (B3) 25,000
Sample Taken (B4) 50
Confidence 99.62% =1-NEGBINOMDIST(B4,1,B3/B1)
...from MS Excel. In other words the sample size is a function of the winning margin and seems reasonably small.
So I write my trojan to report the correct vote whenever you query it with a particular VOTE_ID, but always report my adjusted total. Unless you check every single vote, I always win.
The report I'm picturing is a final group of reports where there is a list of each VOTE_ID for a candidate and a total at the bottom. It would be easy to check that the number of listed VOTE_IDs equals the subtotal and that the subtotals equal the total. The audit of the paper receipts would indicate the VOTE_IDs are authentic. It would be a powerful audit because one misplaced VOTE_ID (counted for the wrong candidate) would reveal tampering. Accountants do this all the time with invoices.
This use case would provide anonimity and an audit trail.
Well said to the earlier posts who point out this is another pork barrel opportunity for vote machine manufacturers. I'd like to see the states work this out independently. We use an optical scan in MN and it is very simple to vote. Since it is scanned in right after you mark it, you can even say it's electronic!
Slashdot Mirror
The OP's frustration is probably because they think the market is not working right. If people knew what the OP does, which is that the seller is taking ~$50 to make the computer perform worse (they could have a much better computer for $50 more), people would make different choices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
It's too late for this post.... But are we really sure Net Neutrality is a good thing? What if NN prevents or delays a cool ap. A movie download service might be vastly improved if it can ride in the fast lane. I may be willing to pay for that speed but NN may prevent this. Thoughts?
Yahoo's already done it. Use it all the time.
I don't think there is a margin of error. When the sample size equals the population, there is no assumed difference between the count of the sample and the count of the population.
It would be interesting to see the examine ballots see how many human marks were not recorded by the scanner.
Not quite. Almost. By immediately downing the collective, the rotors are put into a position where the falling motion turns them into a turbine. This increases the speed (and momentum) of the rotors.
At the right altitude the collective is raised and the rotors begin to generate lift again. The rotors slow down as the turn speed is traded for lift slowing the decent as much as possible before impact.
Is that a scientific principle? It's wiki page made it sound more philosophical. Most Christians believe in an interventionist God (one who interacts with our universe, created it). Science should try to decern the methods in the causal chain (the How). It should search for the first cause because we will learn alot along the way and we are curious. But since we can not observe a universe being born and not being born. Science will not be able to make a good guess about the first cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
I've often thought of how and why in the same way you describe. How focuses on the mechanism or manner of cause/effect. Why focuses on the motive or intent of cause/effect.
w ww.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=mechanism&x=0&y=0b in/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=how&x=0&y=0
# Ge neral_formulationsB uddhist_philosophy#D ependent_Origination
I checked three dictionaries and none drew a clear line, citing the word "reason" in both. I wish the distinction was more accepted.
I wonder if the difference is clearer in other languages. There is a concept of Dependent Origination. In a book, the Dali Lama used this concept to suggest that eastern thought does not focus on one cause, but rather multiple conditions required for effect.
Some links I looked at in forming a response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
http://
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratitya-samutpada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
What Sun lacks is good marketing (maybe b/c of a lack of good strategy and new technologies).
Marketing is about creating awareness and a favorable first impression. It is only when the marketing message is consistent with the technology that it is powerful. Case in point: Apple's "Switch" campaing did a great job creating the impresion that with OS X, your average user could switch painlessly. I did and it was painless. That's good marketing. My experience has been that some of the brightest designers have a difficult time articulating WHAT something does without inserting too much of HOW it does it.
(Marketing Manager and hobby programmer)
Owning just one share of one company is very expensive because of trading account fees. You could do two thinks: get a relative with an account to buy one share for you (I think you can even get the actual stock certificate sent to you - super geeky) or possibly the company may set up a direct purchase plan like a DRIP.
But if:
Given: H(), H(A)
Find: B, where H(B) = H(A)
is a problem with a practical solution, then a significant weakness has been discovered, no?
I've got to call you and others on this poor logic: Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Your logic:
Imagine any number of scenarios eliminated by the requirement, such as: (a) ten known terrorists enter the U.S.; (b) they buy tickets under pseudonyms; and (c) they execute the attack based on overpowering the onboard air marshals.
As an aside, Mr. Gilmore's argument is partly absurd. "I have a freedom to travel within the U.S. without id" != "Any company providing air travel is required to provide services to me regardless of my identity". He does provide some interesting arguments about to what extent the executive branch may decide who is denied access to travel via air or how they share threat assessments with private travel providers.
Well said. "The Economist" made a similiar argument in response to the book (The case for brands Sep 6th 2001 From The Economist print edition - subscription required). Exerpt:
Anyone seen this for mac? Can you dial into any ram stream?
Remember all that talk about "exit strategy" back in the day. An IPO is so the VCs can take their money and run.
Maybe right now, the VCs don't see any better place to put the money.
Maybe Google thinks they will be worth more after (not "if") they beat back the coming MS attack.
Most definitions out there were horrible. Here's my take.
+ as cension
Right Ascension - the angle to the east, measured in hours and minutes, between an object in the sky and the Vernal Equinox (the point in the earth's equatorial plane where the sun passes from south to north) in the celestial equator (the circle in the same plane as the earth's equator and with the earth as it's center).
I am not sure if the 0 hr line includes the earth at all times or at the time of the Vernal Equinox. Or if anyone bothers to make the distinction when most things are so far away.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/right
What are the 6h, 12h, ... units?
They look like 60 of 360 degrees, but if the earth spins, how do you draw the zero radial?
Hence the popularity of Ayn Rand!
Huh? What do you mean? (I'm actually pretty interested.)
There only seemed to be a few posts that looked at this from a false positive / false negative expectation perspective. Clearly the NSA should be willing to endure a high false positive (he's a security risk) rate because the false negative (he's a trustworthy, but actually a spy) consequences are so high.
There was a good Lexington column (registration/subsription required) in The Economist that made this point. I think the Brits mean less partisan like the Supreme Court or some other non-electable, permenant appointment.
Help me out here.
What is the negative effect of someone taking free software, modifying it, and selling it under copyright (with or without publishing the source code)?
I recognize the gut instinct that it would be "unfair" for one to gain on the effort of another. But economics dictate that the modifier would only be able to sell the product for the value they add over the free product. A component of that value may simply be packaging, promotion and documentation - which does reduce the search costs of the buyer.
Aside: Companies used to (and still sometimes) require a copy of the source code from suppliers. What a different world we would be in if corporate customers of software had demanded that of desktop applications.
If the software package became important enough or costly enough, the buyer could pay someone else to make the neccessary modifications to the origninal free work.
This seems to be the approach of PGP software that has a basic free component and proprietary versions.
This seems to rely on voters later checking their vote to ensure it is on record as correct, some percentage anyway. My choice would be to have election judges auditing the results. This solution provides that.
This also seems expensive with all the printers required. And with all that peeling and tearing, that sounds like a "help desk nightmare".
Report Sample
Machine 1
Candidate 1 VOTE_IDs
1001
1003
1005
1009
Machine 1, Candidate 1 Total: 4
Candidate 2
1002
1004
1006
Machine 1, Candidate 2 Total: 3
Machine 2, etc....
Location 1, Candidate 1 Total: x
I think we agree that all the systems under discussion are overkill, but that's federal law for ya. If VOTE_ID is not tied to a person, anonymity is not surrendered.
As for the sample required, only a small sample is required to find the first fraudulent vote. Take this calculation
...from MS Excel. In other words the sample size is a function of the winning margin and seems reasonably small.
So I write my trojan to report the correct vote whenever you query it with a particular VOTE_ID, but always report my adjusted total. Unless you check every single vote, I always win.
The report I'm picturing is a final group of reports where there is a list of each VOTE_ID for a candidate and a total at the bottom. It would be easy to check that the number of listed VOTE_IDs equals the subtotal and that the subtotals equal the total. The audit of the paper receipts would indicate the VOTE_IDs are authentic. It would be a powerful audit because one misplaced VOTE_ID (counted for the wrong candidate) would reveal tampering. Accountants do this all the time with invoices.
This use case would provide anonimity and an audit trail.
Well said to the earlier posts who point out this is another pork barrel opportunity for vote machine manufacturers. I'd like to see the states work this out independently. We use an optical scan in MN and it is very simple to vote. Since it is scanned in right after you mark it, you can even say it's electronic!