Or maybe they just want to hear him say "it works well", or "it does not work well, because...",
If it works well, they obviously don't need him.
If it works poorly, they need to get someone better than him.
It would seem a far better approach is to pay less attention to how the system works or doesn't work, and more to how HE works.
How many user complaints does he answer. How many hardware issues has he had to solve. Mean time to solution. Planned future acquisitions of hardware. How close is the acquisition in time. How adequate is the budget for needed upgrades Percent of time spent on various job duties and how it differs from optimum and why.
Hitching your employment evaluations to how well your employer's machine/system performs sort of overlooks the fact that the machine was handed to you by said employer to manage, and you can't polish or manage a turd.
The writer assumes this single example totally undermines the argument that "Open Source and Innovation are incompatible".
First, its a strawman argument. Nobody has said that innovation is incompatible with open source, at least no one has made a compelling case.
Second its a presumption of importance way beyond the merits of the case. It is neither the first nor the most important open-sourcing of a potentially lucrative idea.
This is Slashdot. You have to expect a certain amount of grandiosity in the story excerpts.
>Commission’s primary mission is to regulate gaming activities on Indian lands for the purpose of shielding Indian tribes
Says it all.
It has nothing to do with enforcement of common or expected gaming standards such as would be found in Nevada or New Jersey.
Look at their enforcement actions. All of them were for failure to submit paperwork or failure to pay fees to the commission.
None to protect customers.
This is not a consumer protection organization or a gaming fairness organization, its a fee collecting government moneygrab with an audit arm to make sure the Tribes pay, with no way for a citizen to file any complaint.
But this practice assumes no intelligence on the part of the buyer, which is increasingly not true.
China is not mud huts and peasant farmers anymore, and the sophistication of the local consumers should not be underestimated. They can tell a counterfeit iPhone from a real one, and even a real one with wifi disabled from a real gray market one from Hong Kong with working Wifi. (Which is why the Official China iPhone roll out is flopping big time).
As for China brand names on products, it would appear they prefer to sell brand names that already are known like Lenovo and Hummer.
Leaving local marketing to local entities makes sense, especially of you are still somewhat delusional and believe you can maintain a closed society forever.
I'm not sure China is such a good example here. And I think your example is confusing "counterfeit" with "inferior". Counterfeits need not always be inferior.
One of the most interesting suggestions was that rights holders should expect to bear enforcement costs for violations.
At first it would seem to make the rights holder a double victim, once by the infringer, and again by the state. However, rights holders are usually the only group that clearly benefits from suppression of counterfeit goods, and government costs of tracking down every back-ally sneaker salesman could be better spent in other areas.
The suggestion was also raised to make it the mission of government to actively enforce only those infringements that have a public welfare aspect, (bogus medicines, dangerous shoddy rip offs of patented products).
However, there is this old saw thrown in:
If firms cannot prevent third parties from copying the fruits of their inventive and creative activities, they have little incentive to invest financial resources into such activities. Arguably, inventive and creative would not grind to a halt without government intervention. Artists may be motivated by prestige or inherent self-interest in pursuing their profession. Firms may have other means of profiting from new technologies, such as benefiting from a first-mover advantage. Nonetheless, governments have historically opted to supplement these “natural” incentives with exclusive rights to intellectual property.
Which of course is at best a stretch and at worst simply untrue. There is no evidence that invention did not exist prior to patents and copyrights, or would cease without it. Its clear our current system goes way beyond protecting first movers, to the clear detriment of society as a whole and an unwarranted power shift to rights holders.
All in all, a far more balanced report than you would expect from this organization.
Its an Indian (Seminole) Casino. They don't take any chances. Not subject to any gaming commission, or other regulations they are pretty much free to do as they please.
Go to Vagas or Atlantic city or any other State regulated casinos. Avoid indian casinos all together.
You don't have to listen to someone elses choice in music, and they don't have to listen to yours.
You will no sooner get this installed than you will realize what a huge mistake this was. If/when teenagers arrive in the house you have a disaster in the making.
Music, like your reading material should be a personal issue.
Why are we talking polling with regard to the iPhone?
Iphone and android have push notifications. (Basically sleeping tCP/IP connections similar to Microsoft Active Sync.
You have a TCP connection is opened to the server, and if there is nothing to send the server just doesn't send anything, and the phone shuts down its transmitters.
In 12 to 18 minutes, if no traffic occures the connection times out and drops, the socket becomes readable to the phone, the phone wakes up and creates a new connection and goes back to sleep.
If the server has something to send it puts it on the TCP connection, the socket becomes readable to the phone, it wakes up and does what is necessary.
No polling, unless you count a brief arousal from its slumber once every 15 minutes or so to reestablish a socket as polling.
This technique is used for lots of things on the net such as imap idled an of course MS Active Sync with an exchange server. Its non-patentable, and Apple supplies the notification service for any application that cares to use it.
The WashPost, in another article touts Fragile Technology. I reach for my 70's era calculator and estimate the operational life of 34 years for this system. Some Fragility. Who or what at the Post has been there that long.
Wonder if its some ancient PDP version or an small IBM mainframe. The article is scarce on details. Parts for either are getting hard to find except in the scrap market.
Still you have to wonder why it wasn't ported to some other platform if nothing else as an exercise in disaster preparedness. Any commodity computer could do the job.
There is a lot of stuff like this still in service. I saw a PDP 8 monitoring turbines in a hydro Power station, and asked about where they get that fixed. The reply was it never broke down, but they had stockpiled 6 replacements, tested each yearly, just because they realized how old it was. Nobody knows exactly what it does anymore.
So now that you understand the issue, and the fact that ALL elements needed to identify you AND your vote are in the hands of the voting authority will you go back and re-read the paper http://www.scantegrity.org/papers/ScantegrityII-EVT.pdf with a more critical eye?
The info displayed on line does not indicate a candidate by name.
But the whole system wouldn't work at all if there was not a linkage between your three letters and the Candidate's name SOMEWHERE.
That SOMEWHERE happens to be in the hands of the SAME people who would have the web logs showing IP address of the person looking up ballot number 2879193274.
I'm far more concerned about phantom votes being counted than real votes not being counted.
There is a long history of not counting write in candidates and absentee votes when the total number of such ballots does not exceed margin the winner holds.
Many people just start whining when you tell them this and insist every vote be counted, but it is irrational emotionalism unswayed by 3rd grade math skills.
"When polls close, voters can go to the election office website, type in their ballot serial number and see a rendition of a ballot, showing the three-digit codes for their votes. This way voters can be assured that their ballot was included in the final tally."
One would hope there are no web logs kept, because simply checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe they just want to hear him say "it works well", or "it does not work well, because ...",
If it works well, they obviously don't need him.
If it works poorly, they need to get someone better than him.
It would seem a far better approach is to pay less attention to how the system works or doesn't work, and more to how HE works.
How many user complaints does he answer.
How many hardware issues has he had to solve.
Mean time to solution.
Planned future acquisitions of hardware.
How close is the acquisition in time.
How adequate is the budget for needed upgrades
Percent of time spent on various job duties and how it differs from optimum and why.
Hitching your employment evaluations to how well your employer's machine/system performs sort of overlooks the fact that the machine was handed to you by said employer to manage, and you can't polish or manage a turd.
The writer assumes this single example totally undermines the argument that "Open Source and Innovation are incompatible".
First, its a strawman argument. Nobody has said that innovation is incompatible with open source, at least no one has made a compelling case.
Second its a presumption of importance way beyond the merits of the case. It is neither the first nor the most important open-sourcing of a potentially lucrative idea.
This is Slashdot. You have to expect a certain amount of grandiosity in the story excerpts.
>Commission’s primary mission is to regulate gaming activities on Indian lands for the purpose of shielding Indian tribes
Says it all.
It has nothing to do with enforcement of common or expected gaming standards such as would be found in Nevada or New Jersey.
Look at their enforcement actions. All of them were for failure to submit paperwork or failure to pay fees to the commission.
None to protect customers.
This is not a consumer protection organization or a gaming fairness organization, its a fee collecting government moneygrab with an audit arm to make sure the Tribes pay,
with no way for a citizen to file any complaint.
Its in paragraph 78 if you care to read the rest.
It does, but dismissively.
I did not want to quote the entire section.
But this practice assumes no intelligence on the part of the buyer, which is increasingly not true.
China is not mud huts and peasant farmers anymore, and the sophistication of the local consumers should not be underestimated. They can tell a counterfeit iPhone from a real one, and even a real one with wifi disabled from a real gray market one from Hong Kong with working Wifi. (Which is why the Official China iPhone roll out is flopping big time).
As for China brand names on products, it would appear they prefer to sell brand names that already are known like Lenovo and Hummer.
Leaving local marketing to local entities makes sense, especially of you are still somewhat delusional and believe you can maintain a closed society forever.
I'm not sure China is such a good example here. And I think your example is confusing "counterfeit" with "inferior". Counterfeits need not always be inferior.
One of the most interesting suggestions was that rights holders should expect to bear enforcement costs for violations.
At first it would seem to make the rights holder a double victim, once by the infringer, and again by the state. However, rights holders are usually the only group that clearly benefits from suppression of counterfeit goods, and government costs of tracking down every back-ally sneaker salesman could be better spent in other areas.
The suggestion was also raised to make it the mission of government to actively enforce only those infringements that have a public welfare aspect, (bogus medicines, dangerous shoddy rip offs of patented products).
However, there is this old saw thrown in:
If firms cannot prevent third parties from copying the fruits of their inventive and creative activities, they have little incentive to invest financial resources into such activities. Arguably, inventive and creative would not grind to a halt without government intervention. Artists may be motivated by prestige or inherent self-interest in pursuing their profession. Firms may have other means of profiting from new technologies, such as benefiting from a first-mover advantage. Nonetheless, governments have historically opted to supplement these “natural” incentives with exclusive rights to intellectual property.
Which of course is at best a stretch and at worst simply untrue. There is no evidence that invention did not exist prior to patents and copyrights, or would cease without it. Its clear our current system goes way beyond protecting first movers, to the clear detriment of society as a whole and an unwarranted power shift to rights holders.
All in all, a far more balanced report than you would expect from this organization.
Really?
You would go back there NOW, knowing it took nation wide tv exposure to get them to offer a undisclosed settlement?
The entire tribe is on my black list.
Its an Indian (Seminole) Casino. They don't take any chances. Not subject to any gaming commission, or other regulations they are pretty much free to do as they please.
Go to Vagas or Atlantic city or any other State regulated casinos. Avoid indian casinos all together.
Its called an iPod.
You don't have to listen to someone elses choice in music, and they don't have to listen to yours.
You will no sooner get this installed than you will realize what a huge mistake this was. If/when teenagers arrive in the house you have a disaster in the making.
Music, like your reading material should be a personal issue.
I'm glad we have scientific evidence to back it up, but did anyone believe this wasn't the case? Is anybody surprised by these findings?
Actually I dismissed these "findings" as utter nonsense as soon as the word CRYING was followed by the word MELODY.
Wouldn't that also make it the least prestigious general decoration?
Better than a coat of paint.
Wait wait wait...
Why are we talking polling with regard to the iPhone?
Iphone and android have push notifications. (Basically sleeping tCP/IP connections similar to Microsoft Active Sync.
You have a TCP connection is opened to the server, and if there is nothing to send the server just doesn't send anything, and the phone shuts down its transmitters.
In 12 to 18 minutes, if no traffic occures the connection times out and drops, the socket becomes readable to the phone, the phone wakes up and creates a new connection and goes back to sleep.
If the server has something to send it puts it on the TCP connection, the socket becomes readable to the phone, it wakes up and does what is necessary.
No polling, unless you count a brief arousal from its slumber once every 15 minutes or so to reestablish a socket as polling.
This technique is used for lots of things on the net such as imap idled an of course MS Active Sync with an exchange server. Its non-patentable, and Apple supplies the notification service for any application that cares to use it.
Hell no, the brain is way older than that, which is why I use the calculator.
True enough for consumer grade gear.
Server class machines are still much better.
The last server I replaced was 12 years old. Died of a lightning strike.
Damn! 70s? Talk about Return on Investment.
The WashPost, in another article touts Fragile Technology.
I reach for my 70's era calculator and estimate the operational life of 34 years for this system. Some Fragility. Who or what at the Post has been there that long.
Wonder if its some ancient PDP version or an small IBM mainframe. The article is scarce on details. Parts for either are getting hard to find except in the scrap market.
Still you have to wonder why it wasn't ported to some other platform if nothing else as an exercise in disaster preparedness. Any commodity computer could do the job.
There is a lot of stuff like this still in service. I saw a PDP 8 monitoring turbines in a hydro Power station, and asked about where they get that fixed. The reply was it never broke down, but they had stockpiled 6 replacements, tested each yearly, just because they realized how old it was. Nobody knows exactly what it does anymore.
Well if it works.... why not use it?
Seriously, if the bombers believe it works they might not try. Placebo Effect!
However, given the history of spectacular bombings of late, it would suggest that bells might be ringing. Because somebody is getting schooled.
Finally!!!
So now that you understand the issue, and the fact that ALL elements needed to identify you AND your vote are in the hands of the voting authority will you go back and re-read the paper http://www.scantegrity.org/papers/ScantegrityII-EVT.pdf with a more critical eye?
That is not at all what it says.
The info displayed on line does not indicate a candidate by name.
But the whole system wouldn't work at all if there was not a linkage between your three letters and the Candidate's name SOMEWHERE.
That SOMEWHERE happens to be in the hands of the SAME people who would have the web logs showing IP address of the person looking up ballot number 2879193274.
Clearly you understand the SOMEONE knows exactly which candidate those letters on your specific ballot refer to?
I'm far more concerned about phantom votes being counted than real votes not being counted.
There is a long history of not counting write in candidates and absentee votes when the total number of such ballots does not exceed margin the winner holds.
Many people just start whining when you tell them this and insist every vote be counted, but it is irrational emotionalism unswayed by 3rd grade math skills.
The objection to receipts is that receipts that show voting choices can be used for Vote buying.
If we stick to codes, vote buying is not so easy.
You'd need a crib sheet as well.
But all you know is that your vote entered this machine, not that it was tallied by Deep Thought at election central.
Specimens need not be perfect renditions is my guess.
Quoting TFA
"When polls close, voters can go to the election office website, type in their ballot serial number and see a rendition of a ballot, showing the three-digit codes for their votes. This way voters can be assured that their ballot was included in the final tally."
One would hope there are no web logs kept, because simply checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.
Exactly.
Which is why AFCI is coming into favor instead of simple GFCI.