RTFOA (The Original Article) The spam list comes from spamcop. I'm reasonably sure that they know what they're doing. Would you consider letting spamcop choose the list of spammers?
Yes. It still sucks to install and configure. Especially if you want a single partition with everything under / (why do I *have* to have/export/home be it's own partition, exactly? Maybe I'll never connect it to a network or allow anybody else to touch it...).
It also appears damn slow, particularly during the install. Linux has completely leapfrogged Sun in this area (well, for the distros with installers, anyway). If you have a working Linux and a newer version of Gnome, don't bother. Too many idiosyncracies and not enough reason to exist.
In music/movies/etc...you are granted fair use rights to create archival copies of those movies or music. True, some go over the top and want communist music and movies, but that's not necessary to allow you to make an mp3 of a song on a CD you own.
In this story, there is an existing license available for others to be able to reuse some copyrighted material, but copying, in and of itself is not the problem. If the jackasses who stole the GPL'ed software had put the source code up for download (and given attribution to the original author and licensed their work under the GPL) there would be no problem with them selling as many copies as they wanted. What's at issue is that they are not creating copies in accordance with what fair use allows *or* with what the applicable license (the GPL) allows.
Fair enough...I'd never heard of IRV before 6 months ago, and I'd never heard of Condorcet until your post. I appreciate the colorful, if not tactful, response. I have to look around their site and see if they have examples of hypothetical elections...
The problem *was* "Hey, I'm a democrat, we want everybody to have it good, and republicans and libertarians suck". I thought my amendment pointed out mutual suckiness in all three party lines.
Understandably, if you are a Democrat, you will likely see nothing wrong with either the original statement or my amendment, but the original rosy description and my less flattering one both point out what I (personally) consider to be a weak point in fundamental Democrat ideology that is similar to those noted on Republicans and Libertarians.
And, no, I'm not A Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian...just somebody who generally gets stuck having to choose among them.
It's logical that the results are different than those in the US. However, one wonders how much of a hint some (some) US citizens (especially those posting very harsh comments in response to these shadow-elections) need to realize that it's not just the US that matters in this world.
The problem with that comment (in relation to reactions to this particular poll) is that since this is a US election (not a world election), they have no intrinsic reason to think about things in terms of what matters to the world.
Hmm...I was about to say that once we have a world government, US citizens should realize that it's not just the US that matters, but even that's not true. In any election, the voter's job is to vote for the person who most closely aligns with the ideas, goals, and ideals that they believe in. That's the very *reason* for voting...to [try to] make sure that the people running things are doing what most people want them to do. That *always* means that your desired candidate benefits you to the exclusion of some other group, be it a country, religion, or organization of like-minded people.
Realizing that the rest of the world, country, state, county, city, or household matters (in reference to an election choice) does not mean that you should make a different choice. It means that, as humans tend to do, you will end up disagreeing with a significant number of other people. No amount of polling, pointing out of differences, expounding on your point of view, or hitting people who disagree with you over the head with sticks will change that.
Not insignificant, but taking a beating, yes. The news articles aren't about "Microsoft replaces 10,000 Linux seats with Windows", they're the other way 'round. Presumable, MS would be shouting it from the hilltops, if they had a situation like that pop up. Are you telling me Linux isn't gaining market share? (never mind, I know the answer) So, *why* are they gaining market share? Hmm...
They have no competition at their current price point. Once you charge for a service, all of us non-subscribing, cheap-ass, "I'll just do it myself...better"-type geeks will do an end-run around you and give a better offering away for free.
Linux was first (and pretty much ignored for 10 years), then Microsoft said "hey, if we give away a browser for free, we can kick Netscape's ass!", then Netscape went and open-sourced and gave us Mozilla, which we can run on Linux...etc, etc, etc. Free (as in beer) usually wins. Free (as in freedom) is a no-brainer.
Google's rise to it's current status has a lot to do with the geeks that work at Google, and the geeks that are in charge of Google, so the odds of nefarious plot hatching there are (IMHO) somewhat lower than at MS. They built their business on advertising revenue, rather than liscensing madness, so aside from doing a good job and getting people to look at their ads, they don't have much to push...certainly not in the form of subscriptions (well, maybe a charge for ad-free searching).
Right now, the good thing is that Google is scaring the crap out of Microsoft, and may (eventually) force a change in their revenue model. Short term: Google is still good. Long term: Even if Google forgets how to be good, they won't get away with it...geeks are fickle.
Okay...here's the thing. The page from the manual says:
2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there[sic] techniques have been tried in the past).
- Issue a press release i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting - Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points - Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics - Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
If there's nobody being intimidated, do the following (why, exactly? because you wish there was intimidation to point out?)
Send out a press release about past times when it *has* happened...nothing like creating problems where they don't exist.
In the press release, quote stuff from respected people that talks about the (currently nonexistent) intimidation of voters being a horrible thing (which it is, when it happens)
Get minority leaders ready to talk about it (even though it's not happening), and give them talking points to emphasise that the problem of voter intimidation (which isn't occurring) is a bad one
Put stories from the leaders (about the intimidation tactics that you're just waiting to see evidence of) that you've primed wherever possible, so that people will see them
Warn local newspapersnot to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls (hey, that one actually seems sensible, assuming papers are stupid enough not to know this already).
Perhaps "Make stuff up" vs. "emphasise what happened in the past (since there's nothing happening now)" is different, but please don't try to say that this manual isn't going to lead to some pretty big misperceptions about whether voter intimidation is happening. This is politics meeting group psychology, and not in a good way.
Why would they have to ask anyone to take things on board? Launch from Iran or North Korea, get high enough to have a high velocity at re-entry, and aim for a target of interest...boom. Our ability to intercept ballistic projectiles is pretty pitiful.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFOA (The Original Article) The spam list comes from spamcop. I'm reasonably sure that they know what they're doing. Would you consider letting spamcop choose the list of spammers?
Host headers, look 'em up.
Umm...by an error occuring as a result of removing it? Just a guess...
somewhat interesting...realloc is laughing at sco, as are we all.
Umm...if you have a printed reciept, that's a real, tangible, physical ballot that can be hand-counted. Hardly a red herring.
It also appears damn slow, particularly during the install. Linux has completely leapfrogged Sun in this area (well, for the distros with installers, anyway). If you have a working Linux and a newer version of Gnome, don't bother. Too many idiosyncracies and not enough reason to exist.
SolarSystems.com carries a pretty nice sized inventory of refurbished Sun gear. 24-hour stress testing, etc...
In music/movies/etc...you are granted fair use rights to create archival copies of those movies or music. True, some go over the top and want communist music and movies, but that's not necessary to allow you to make an mp3 of a song on a CD you own.
In this story, there is an existing license available for others to be able to reuse some copyrighted material, but copying, in and of itself is not the problem. If the jackasses who stole the GPL'ed software had put the source code up for download (and given attribution to the original author and licensed their work under the GPL) there would be no problem with them selling as many copies as they wanted. What's at issue is that they are not creating copies in accordance with what fair use allows *or* with what the applicable license (the GPL) allows.
Interesting, my ass.
You, sir are a true gentleman. Thank you.
You *have* heard of bittorrent, right?
Fair enough...I'd never heard of IRV before 6 months ago, and I'd never heard of Condorcet until your post. I appreciate the colorful, if not tactful, response. I have to look around their site and see if they have examples of hypothetical elections...
That system is called Instant Runnoff Voting. Many people agree that it's a good idea.
Understandably, if you are a Democrat, you will likely see nothing wrong with either the original statement or my amendment, but the original rosy description and my less flattering one both point out what I (personally) consider to be a weak point in fundamental Democrat ideology that is similar to those noted on Republicans and Libertarians.
And, no, I'm not A Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian...just somebody who generally gets stuck having to choose among them.
It's logical that the results are different than those in the US. However, one wonders how much of a hint some (some) US citizens (especially those posting very harsh comments in response to these shadow-elections) need to realize that it's not just the US that matters in this world.
The problem with that comment (in relation to reactions to this particular poll) is that since this is a US election (not a world election), they have no intrinsic reason to think about things in terms of what matters to the world.
Hmm...I was about to say that once we have a world government, US citizens should realize that it's not just the US that matters, but even that's not true. In any election, the voter's job is to vote for the person who most closely aligns with the ideas, goals, and ideals that they believe in. That's the very *reason* for voting...to [try to] make sure that the people running things are doing what most people want them to do. That *always* means that your desired candidate benefits you to the exclusion of some other group, be it a country, religion, or organization of like-minded people.
Realizing that the rest of the world, country, state, county, city, or household matters (in reference to an election choice) does not mean that you should make a different choice. It means that, as humans tend to do, you will end up disagreeing with a significant number of other people. No amount of polling, pointing out of differences, expounding on your point of view, or hitting people who disagree with you over the head with sticks will change that.
Democrat: What actions can the government take to force you to help everyone?
Not insignificant, but taking a beating, yes. The news articles aren't about "Microsoft replaces 10,000 Linux seats with Windows", they're the other way 'round. Presumable, MS would be shouting it from the hilltops, if they had a situation like that pop up. Are you telling me Linux isn't gaining market share? (never mind, I know the answer) So, *why* are they gaining market share? Hmm...
And here's why that won't wash.
They have no competition at their current price point. Once you charge for a service, all of us non-subscribing, cheap-ass, "I'll just do it myself...better"-type geeks will do an end-run around you and give a better offering away for free.
Linux was first (and pretty much ignored for 10 years), then Microsoft said "hey, if we give away a browser for free, we can kick Netscape's ass!", then Netscape went and open-sourced and gave us Mozilla, which we can run on Linux...etc, etc, etc. Free (as in beer) usually wins. Free (as in freedom) is a no-brainer.
Google's rise to it's current status has a lot to do with the geeks that work at Google, and the geeks that are in charge of Google, so the odds of nefarious plot hatching there are (IMHO) somewhat lower than at MS. They built their business on advertising revenue, rather than liscensing madness, so aside from doing a good job and getting people to look at their ads, they don't have much to push...certainly not in the form of subscriptions (well, maybe a charge for ad-free searching).
Right now, the good thing is that Google is scaring the crap out of Microsoft, and may (eventually) force a change in their revenue model. Short term: Google is still good. Long term: Even if Google forgets how to be good, they won't get away with it...geeks are fickle.
Then let us all hope that "Don't be evil." is a mantra that sticks at that little company.
Isn't deuterium radioactive, though? Granted, it doesn't tend to fall in earth's atmosphere, but still...
Any idea what year he was appointed?
No, the problem is that they're talking about bringing up things from the past *if nothing is happening*. That's kind of the point to the thread.
If there's nobody being intimidated, do the following (why, exactly? because you wish there was intimidation to point out?)
Perhaps "Make stuff up" vs. "emphasise what happened in the past (since there's nothing happening now)" is different, but please don't try to say that this manual isn't going to lead to some pretty big misperceptions about whether voter intimidation is happening. This is politics meeting group psychology, and not in a good way.
Why would they have to ask anyone to take things on board? Launch from Iran or North Korea, get high enough to have a high velocity at re-entry, and aim for a target of interest...boom. Our ability to intercept ballistic projectiles is pretty pitiful.
Yeah...and I'm *sure* that safety regulations will be the only type of regulations they put in place...
You, sir, are not sufficiently paranoid.