I'll bet you that 90% of IE users don't know what the term "plugable JVM" means. Could you provide a link to your rather wild claims?
Not a flame, just curious.
The best discussion of secure online voting algorithms I've ever read is in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography. He's got a great discussion on all of the potential problems, and how to solve them with a cryptographical system. It's a great book to read anyway... I highly reccomend it.
That's blantantly untrue. My hometown newspaper (the Durham Herald-Sun publishes a sample ballot a few days before the election, in every election, which looks exactly like the real ballot.
Now, if people were confused because the sample ballots the democrats gave them to tell them how to vote were different, and couldn't make their own decisions properly without a sample ballot, now that's just funny.
15 Libertarians were elected to local offices yesterday, as well as making a strong showing in several national elections. True, we may not have won the high-profile races, but it's more than just a "moral victory."
Harry Browne finished only slightly behind Buchanan, in fifth place, despite Buchanan having $12 million in federal funds to draw on.
The Libertarian Party, unlike other "third parties," is not just a cult of personality for one man, like the Reform party for Perot or the Green party for Nader. We are a real political party, running 1420+ candidates at all levels of government - local, state, and national. That includes 256 candidates for the U.S. House of Representative and 26 for the Senate.
So we are running more than just a "gasbag who want[s] make speeches that nobody listens to." Maybe you should do some research before you make blanket statements.
The issue was not, however, voting online. It was registering to vote online. Online voting requires a system that's a hell of a lot more complicated than just a username and password. The best discussion I've ever seen can be found in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography. For example, in a simple username/password system, how do you prevent someone from the government knowing who you voted for? The solutions he discusses make a secure and fair online voting system.
How could it not be stealing? They produce a product, mucic. You want to enjoy the benefits of that product... and yet you don't want to give them any compensation. Sugar-coat it to yourself all you like, but that's theft.
But the point is, no matter how outrageous the prices are, people are willing to pay them. I'm sure, if no one went to the movies in two months, we'd have major changes in the movie industry. But... how are you going to convince people not to go to the movies? They want to see them, and they're willing to pay the price. Simple economics.
I have no argument with you here. If there are alternative ways to get what you want which don't involve theft, by all means use them. But don't steal if there are viable alternatives.
(Am I being hypocritical? Yes. I do download MP3s without compensating artists. But as I stated before, I would happily pay for them if there were a viable method to do so.)
All right, I realize that it's unpopular to hold any opinions other than that record companies are scheming, evil bastards... But it seems to me that this is a step in the right direction.
I, for one, use napster. I admit it. However, I do feel bad about it. For better or worse, most of the stuff on here is not legal, and the artists aren't being paid for it. I use it because I want to have a copy of the music, but I have no intention of paying $15 for a CD. If they can come up with a method so that I can get the music I want at a reasonable price, I would be the first to pay, rather than simply taking it. And if that solution involves Napster, so what?
It's fine to talk about how "information wants to be free," but we really shouldn't whine becuase our free music is being taken away. Do the honest thing and support the artists, even if it does mean giving record companies a piece of the cut. It's the right thing to do.
Actually, that's not a problem. There are several programs which (at least for windows) make a properly formatted CD-RW look and act just like a floppy or other comperable drive. The best known is Adaptec's DirectCD, but I've seen a couple of similar programs.
As I understand it, the main point of introducing new TLDs is to relieve the relative paucity of existing short, meaningful domain names. But... do you really think that (to pick a hypothetical example) Coca-Cola will allow a coal mining company to have www.coke.web?
Not, as far as I can tell, in the current climate, where big companies can force others to turn over domains that they want. It seems that this will just result in more domain names for big companies and nothing for the little guys. Honestly, can you see anyone other than Gates controlling www.microsoft.web? I don't think so either.
I don't have a good solution to this problem, but does anyone else?
All right. First, let me point out that I am absolutely fascinated by science and the many advances that have been made in the past few years. We're learning so much about the universe we live in through this research.
That having been said, I need to respond to your point about politics. Why should the governemnt be sponsoring this research? In the first part of your post you list all of the benefits that we get from the work that's being done in this area. Shouldn't these, and the clear potential for more down the road, be enough to convice some commercial enterprise to put up the money?
My point is... government isn't the answer to everything. If you want to support this research, why not reduce your tazes, so you can do what you like with your money? There are better ways to do things than government.
But remember, folks, just as Bush and Gore aren't the only choices, neither is Nader the only "other" choice. There are many, many other people running for president, including Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party (my personal choice), Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party, and many others.
Look at Project Vote Smart and find out about the candidates. I urge you to vote for someone who agrees with your idea, not just Nader because not "either of the other two idiots."
What state do you live in? There is a Libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Harry Browne is in 49 states and D.C., while it's Neil Smith in Arizona.
Well, technically you're not voting for Nader, Browne, Buchanan, Bush or Gore, either. According the the constitution, you're electing members of the electoral college who will represent your state, and vote for whoever won the majority of the popular vote in your state.
But... a presidential candidate doesn't need the majority of the popular vote to win (in fact, they are often elected on pluaralities).
It's nit-picking, I admit... but hey, it is how our government works.
But... when did I ever agree to this license agreement? When I got mine from radio shack, I immediately threw out the CD. There was no standard sticker on the bag saying something like "by opening this package you agree to the license agreement enclosed." In fact, there was no printed license agreement in the bag!
Now explain to me how I can be bound by it? It was rung up as a sale at Radio Shack for the wonderful price of $0.00. I was buying a barcode scanner, and the associated software. If I don't want to use the software, it's well within my rights, since I own the hardware.
That's why the center of mass is in Geo-Synchronous Orbit... it stays in one spot relative to the Earth's surface. Thus, no problem with the Earth's rotation.
So, it has to be on the equator, because geo-synchrnous orbits are directly above the equator.
No... Douglas Adams was involved with another adventure game, Starship Titanic, published by The Digital Village. It was a decent game... but not as good as it could have been.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet you that 90% of IE users don't know what the term "plugable JVM" means. Could you provide a link to your rather wild claims? Not a flame, just curious.
The best discussion of secure online voting algorithms I've ever read is in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography. He's got a great discussion on all of the potential problems, and how to solve them with a cryptographical system. It's a great book to read anyway... I highly reccomend it.
That's blantantly untrue. My hometown newspaper (the Durham Herald-Sun publishes a sample ballot a few days before the election, in every election, which looks exactly like the real ballot.
Now, if people were confused because the sample ballots the democrats gave them to tell them how to vote were different, and couldn't make their own decisions properly without a sample ballot, now that's just funny.
As requested:
15 Libertarians were elected to local offices yesterday, as well as making a strong showing in several national elections. True, we may not have won the high-profile races, but it's more than just a "moral victory."
Harry Browne finished only slightly behind Buchanan, in fifth place, despite Buchanan having $12 million in federal funds to draw on.
The Libertarian Party, unlike other "third parties," is not just a cult of personality for one man, like the Reform party for Perot or the Green party for Nader. We are a real political party, running 1420+ candidates at all levels of government - local, state, and national. That includes 256 candidates for the U.S. House of Representative and 26 for the Senate.
So we are running more than just a "gasbag who want[s] make speeches that nobody listens to." Maybe you should do some research before you make blanket statements.
The issue was not, however, voting online. It was registering to vote online. Online voting requires a system that's a hell of a lot more complicated than just a username and password. The best discussion I've ever seen can be found in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography. For example, in a simple username/password system, how do you prevent someone from the government knowing who you voted for? The solutions he discusses make a secure and fair online voting system.
A non-borken link to Tuxracer: http://tuxracer.sourceforge.net ;
How could it not be stealing? They produce a product, mucic. You want to enjoy the benefits of that product... and yet you don't want to give them any compensation. Sugar-coat it to yourself all you like, but that's theft.
But the point is, no matter how outrageous the prices are, people are willing to pay them. I'm sure, if no one went to the movies in two months, we'd have major changes in the movie industry. But... how are you going to convince people not to go to the movies? They want to see them, and they're willing to pay the price. Simple economics.
I have no argument with you here. If there are alternative ways to get what you want which don't involve theft, by all means use them. But don't steal if there are viable alternatives.
(Am I being hypocritical? Yes. I do download MP3s without compensating artists. But as I stated before, I would happily pay for them if there were a viable method to do so.)
All right, I realize that it's unpopular to hold any opinions other than that record companies are scheming, evil bastards... But it seems to me that this is a step in the right direction.
I, for one, use napster. I admit it. However, I do feel bad about it. For better or worse, most of the stuff on here is not legal, and the artists aren't being paid for it. I use it because I want to have a copy of the music, but I have no intention of paying $15 for a CD. If they can come up with a method so that I can get the music I want at a reasonable price, I would be the first to pay, rather than simply taking it. And if that solution involves Napster, so what?
It's fine to talk about how "information wants to be free," but we really shouldn't whine becuase our free music is being taken away. Do the honest thing and support the artists, even if it does mean giving record companies a piece of the cut. It's the right thing to do.
Actually, that's not a problem. There are several programs which (at least for windows) make a properly formatted CD-RW look and act just like a floppy or other comperable drive. The best known is Adaptec's DirectCD, but I've seen a couple of similar programs.
As I understand it, the main point of introducing new TLDs is to relieve the relative paucity of existing short, meaningful domain names. But... do you really think that (to pick a hypothetical example) Coca-Cola will allow a coal mining company to have www.coke.web?
Not, as far as I can tell, in the current climate, where big companies can force others to turn over domains that they want. It seems that this will just result in more domain names for big companies and nothing for the little guys. Honestly, can you see anyone other than Gates controlling www.microsoft.web? I don't think so either.
I don't have a good solution to this problem, but does anyone else?
All right. First, let me point out that I am absolutely fascinated by science and the many advances that have been made in the past few years. We're learning so much about the universe we live in through this research.
That having been said, I need to respond to your point about politics. Why should the governemnt be sponsoring this research? In the first part of your post you list all of the benefits that we get from the work that's being done in this area. Shouldn't these, and the clear potential for more down the road, be enough to convice some commercial enterprise to put up the money?
My point is... government isn't the answer to everything. If you want to support this research, why not reduce your tazes, so you can do what you like with your money? There are better ways to do things than government.
But remember, folks, just as Bush and Gore aren't the only choices, neither is Nader the only "other" choice. There are many, many other people running for president, including Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party (my personal choice), Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party, and many others.
Look at Project Vote Smart and find out about the candidates. I urge you to vote for someone who agrees with your idea, not just Nader because not "either of the other two idiots."
What state do you live in? There is a Libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Harry Browne is in 49 states and D.C., while it's Neil Smith in Arizona.
My source? Ballot Access News.
Well, technically you're not voting for Nader, Browne, Buchanan, Bush or Gore, either. According the the constitution, you're electing members of the electoral college who will represent your state, and vote for whoever won the majority of the popular vote in your state.
But... a presidential candidate doesn't need the majority of the popular vote to win (in fact, they are often elected on pluaralities).
It's nit-picking, I admit... but hey, it is how our government works.
But... when did I ever agree to this license agreement? When I got mine from radio shack, I immediately threw out the CD. There was no standard sticker on the bag saying something like "by opening this package you agree to the license agreement enclosed." In fact, there was no printed license agreement in the bag! Now explain to me how I can be bound by it? It was rung up as a sale at Radio Shack for the wonderful price of $0.00. I was buying a barcode scanner, and the associated software. If I don't want to use the software, it's well within my rights, since I own the hardware.
That's why the center of mass is in Geo-Synchronous Orbit... it stays in one spot relative to the Earth's surface. Thus, no problem with the Earth's rotation. So, it has to be on the equator, because geo-synchrnous orbits are directly above the equator.
No... Douglas Adams was involved with another adventure game, Starship Titanic, published by The Digital Village. It was a decent game... but not as good as it could have been.