If it comes down to discriminating against the homeless or figuring something else out, well, we'll just have to figure something else out.
Where does a homeless person vote? People with stable domiciles get a card in the mail defining ward, precinct, district and polling station.
How do you prevent him/her from voting multiple times?
It would be trivial to pass out Jacksons to get a bunch of bums on a bus and drive them around from polling station to polling station, voting 5 or 6 times for the people you tell them to.
He wants to live in a country where only people like him get a vote.
Yes, I do. People who know how to, at a minimum, read and do math at the 8th grade level. That would remove a whole lot of white people from the voting rolls.
Now we've got computers, which get to sound Mysterious and Scientific at the same time. With computers, it's easier for the judge to say "See, the computer said it, it must be Authoritative", without showing the derivation of the result,
TFA does not indicate whether or not the Shandong system simply spits out a few curt words, or a full derivation.
In the United States, the Democrats, for the most part, are firmly against checking ID when voting, with the reasoning that it discriminates against those without ID. Unfortunately, that destroys the integrity of the voting process.
"Discriminates against the homeless" is a perfect excuse for allowing people to double- and triple-vote. Of course, getting a false driver's license is also a way to multiple-vote.
Maybe the Iraqi ink-stain is the best way to ensure single-voting. But I still want each voter to have a signed gov't picture ID.
A literacy test would also be useful. But not a poll tax.
It's better to have something that works well when it's ready, than to have a rushed half assed job that's ready much earlier, but doesn't do the job... Especially in the military, would you want hurriedly built planes falling apart over enemy territory?
I'd want a program (milspeak for "project") that knows how to limit it's objectives, yet also creates a platform for growth and enhancement.
Thus, if we're on a tight timeline, we'd need a quickly-built airframe that at first is limited (cheap already-existing engines, older model avionics and missiles, etc), but allows easy upgrade to newer faster engines, canards, more capable avionics, misiles and strike capabilities, etc.
That is the problem, you never used a Mac at high level, like installing a driver or software update. The Mac "Admin" still asked for password while trying to do critical things, Windows admin doesn't.
What's the difference between root and Admin? Or, better yet, what is the *purpose* of Admin? On Linux (and I'm positive it works the same on {Free|Open|Net}BSD, you log in as as unprivileged user and then open up an xterm where you either "su -" or sudo.
There are thousands of Mac users who run regular user and still enjoy all capacity of system, games etc.
That's what I used to believe, but The Article led me to reconsider that. Thanks for clarification.
you simply toss another flame (Are most OS/X users as security-stupid as Windows users?) on the fire.
Go back to Junior High and take a refresher course in Grammar. (Is it a flame when the other person deserves it?)
Question:
Are most OS/X users as security-stupid as Windows users?
Flame:
Most OS/X users as security-stupid as Windows users!!
Big difference, since (since I don't know any Mac users) I do not know any Mac users, so I really don't know whether they are as dumb as Windows users.
So, when you're logged in as admin, and you install a package, that package can add whatever is in that package. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?
I'm not seeing the problem here. Am I missing something?
I'm with you on this. Having Administrator power is supposed to let you do dangerous things.
From the article:
do not run as an admin user for daily activities.
Well, duh!!! Only Windows users are that stupid, right?
it's still going to be some time before the American public associates diesel with anything other than the filthy black clouds belched by freight trucks.
That's nothing but ancient perception. It's been 15 years since I've seen all/most trucks belching smoke as a matter of course.
Personally, I don't care what it used to be, I care what it is now. And, even if I did, I don't see how either course you describe is worse than the other. They are different development models, and depending on your needs the products will have very different advantages and disadvantages before they converge to both being relatively feature-complete and efficient, but generally neither is worse or better.
Choice A) Speed demon that has had bits and pieces of ACID ad-hockery bolted on here and there, and still lets you insert bad data without a warning.
Choice B) ACID-compliant system that has been, piece by piece, rearchitected for speed while retaining ACID as the prime, unshakeable goal.
I'll take Choice B, PostgresQL, thank you very much, because I don't trust the developer to take care of my data...
They where placed in a fume cupboard, and some concentrated HCl pored on them and left for 24 hours. Some older ones (MFM era drives) where well gone, but the newer ones (think 80MB IDE) where still intact!
Very interesting. Probably glass/ceramic platters.
i would say at this point asking a forensic grade recovery place to crack the drives is the only way to shred the data or find a high end hacker to do this
Since the idea is to destroy the data, why does it have to happen in a clean room? Why not in the utlity room?
For example, see the March 2004 Network World article "Inside the DoD's crime lab," which recounts how the Department of Defense computer forensics lab has been able to successfully recover hard drives that have been "thrown off of balconies and even shot with AK-47s, as in one recent battlefield case."
So, hitting with a sledghammer doesn't seem very effctive.
Has computing progressed to the point that we can have "security through obsolescence"? I guess we need to start making footnotes for these ancient manuscripts.;)
There's a whole bunch of NASA data which is going to be lost forever when the last labratory that has the requisite ancient h/w gets closed down later this year.
To twist your analogy, you DO have to pass a test to get a drivers license. That test is supposed to make sure that you have at least the minimal knowledge required to drive safely on the road and not be a threat to yourself and other people.
Exactly.
You need to know how to navigate traffic, use turn signals, etc, etc. Not how to fix a thrown push rod.
You haven't quite thought this through. As median cognitive ability goes up as a result of all this shooting, more and more people will drop under the 120 IQ line until we finally end up killing everybody
That presumes that this would be an iterative process.
Slashdot Mirror
Where does a homeless person vote? People with stable domiciles get a card in the mail defining ward, precinct, district and polling station.
How do you prevent him/her from voting multiple times?
It would be trivial to pass out Jacksons to get a bunch of bums on a bus and drive them around from polling station to polling station, voting 5 or 6 times for the people you tell them to.
Yes, I do. People who know how to, at a minimum, read and do math at the 8th grade level. That would remove a whole lot of white people from the voting rolls.
TFA does not indicate whether or not the Shandong system simply spits out a few curt words, or a full derivation.
"Discriminates against the homeless" is a perfect excuse for allowing people to double- and triple-vote. Of course, getting a false driver's license is also a way to multiple-vote.
Maybe the Iraqi ink-stain is the best way to ensure single-voting. But I still want each voter to have a signed gov't picture ID.
A literacy test would also be useful. But not a poll tax.
Especially in the military, would you want hurriedly built planes falling apart over enemy territory?
I'd want a program (milspeak for "project") that knows how to limit it's objectives, yet also creates a platform for growth and enhancement.
Thus, if we're on a tight timeline, we'd need a quickly-built airframe that at first is limited (cheap already-existing engines, older model avionics and missiles, etc), but allows easy upgrade to newer faster engines, canards, more capable avionics, misiles and strike capabilities, etc.
What's the difference between root and Admin? Or, better yet, what is the *purpose* of Admin? On Linux (and I'm positive it works the same on {Free|Open|Net}BSD, you log in as as unprivileged user and then open up an xterm where you either "su -" or sudo.
There are thousands of Mac users who run regular user and still enjoy all capacity of system, games etc.
That's what I used to believe, but The Article led me to reconsider that. Thanks for clarification.
People use electricity to heat the water tank? How inefficient.
Go back to Junior High and take a refresher course in Grammar. (Is it a flame when the other person deserves it?)
Question:
Flame:
Big difference, since (since I don't know any Mac users) I do not know any Mac users, so I really don't know whether they are as dumb as Windows users.
Driving them to financial/personal ruin and possibly bankruptcy.
I'm not seeing the problem here. Am I missing something?
I'm with you on this. Having Administrator power is supposed to let you do dangerous things.
From the article:Well, duh!!! Only Windows users are that stupid, right?
That's nothing but ancient perception. It's been 15 years since I've seen all/most trucks belching smoke as a matter of course.
I'll take Choice B, PostgresQL, thank you very much, because I don't trust the developer to take care of my data...
We use gasoline because it's habit. Most new cars in Europe are diesel-powered.
And Big Oil makes a lot of diesel oil.
Very interesting. Probably glass/ceramic platters.
I pay money for them to pick up my trash right?
They take my trash, zap it into electricity.
I have to pay for electricity.
So, I'm basically paying to have my trash back? WTF?
Since the plasma furnace is not built yet, they aren't zapping it into electricity yet. Thus, your rant is stupid and moot.
Since the idea is to destroy the data, why does it have to happen in a clean room? Why not in the utlity room?
The military doesn't think so.
There's
- Software wiping (MilStd 5220.22-M)
- Degaussing (MilStd 5200 28-M)
- Destroying the platters. "destroyed by melting, incineration, crushing, or shredding."
This is more difficult than you think.http://cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/summer2005/purge.htm So, hitting with a sledghammer doesn't seem very effctive.
A power drill and wire cup brush (http://shop.com.edgesuite.net/ccimg.shop.com/230
There's a whole bunch of NASA data which is going to be lost forever when the last labratory that has the requisite ancient h/w gets closed down later this year.
You are a misanthrope.
I'm positive they had a licence for Win 3.x.
Yup.
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/otherosfs/k3b
How do you release a license as a product?
Exactly.
You need to know how to navigate traffic, use turn signals, etc, etc. Not how to fix a thrown push rod.
That presumes that this would be an iterative process.
A one-time date-based test would do nicely.