But, automating voting is like automating the diary for a hairdresser. It's a solution to a problem that isn't there, and far more risky than the original.
Compared to the cost of providing coffee and a little overtime to vote counters, putting our democracy at risk through a non-auditable process isn't worth it.
At one time, they had certain benefits to do with coupling of apps with other apps, or marketing integration. Want to run Evolution? You need Linux. Want to go to Google? Point your browser there.
I appreciate that there is a market of people who simply use MSN because it was installed, but moving from it is not that difficult.
The parable is to do with the idea that someone breaking a window does some good to the economy - they create employment for a glazer and police to investigate.
It's a little like the UK olympic bid. One of the arguments is that it will create jobs. In order to create jobs, money has to be taken from somewhere (right now, the national lottery, and later, London ratepayers). Whilst this pays for jobs, it also deprives jobs elsewhere. The bricklayers building the stadium will gain, while a bartender or shopkeeper on the other side of the city will lose.
Creating jobs should always be factored out and replaced with purpose.
So what are you saying? That we should worry about the secondary outcomes because if Microsoft die, so do 10s of thousands of jobs, Bill's donations to good causes and all that?
That's exactly "broken window fallacy" or the sort of Keynsian thinking that believes that the market should be twisted for things like job creation.
What people should do is buy the best product for their company. The death of Microsoft would be natural economics and the money would go elsewhere. Maybe I would give it direct to a charity, or buy myself some DVDs with the money saved. The point is that opportunity would be transferred from one place to another.
South Africa was lost to the British nearly 100 years ago, when it was taken over by the Boers (independence in 1907).
Since giving up most territories, the UK has worked hard with nations through bodies like the Commonwealth, and has given a huge amount of money to the development of nations.
I'm not saying that some terrible things weren't done under the empire (along with some good things), but there's a time when everyone has to look after themselves, and stop blaming the past.
I've always considered these as mostly useless pieces of paper from people who generally fall into the class of manager that I'd call "sharp but useless".
That said, they seem to be a good way of getting through the standard HR filtering processes.
The dichotomy of the music industry is that on the one hand they like to talk about the poor, starving artist suffering as a result of illegal filesharing, whilst on the other hand using their affluence as a large part of the marketing of that artist to sell the "brand".
I think it's more like a snowball effect. There's 3 parts - software developers, hardware and users. The more users use Linux, the more people will develop software for it, and the more hardware will be supported. The effect of this is that more users will see it as an acceptable solution and the more users, etc etc.
We are seeing some strong shoots now. The first commercial laptops appearing from major manufacturers bundled with Linux, Nero for Linux and cities looking at switching (and a switch to OpenOffice.org is an "unbinding" of your users).
I think that we'll see slow growth for the next 5 or so years, followed by it really moving very fast.
Re:IP = Taxation Without Representation
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
I use 3 document formats: opendocument, pdf, doc. Doc is for people who really can't take the other 2.
The more people start using opendocument, the better, and the more will switch. I've been scratching my head trying to work out a systematic approach to the problem of not knowing whether an email respondant can read opendocument.
How many people actually have a HD TV? I can tell you how many people I know - none. I'm sure that something like less than 1% of the population have one. I just don't see it as being a big selling point.
Right now, we are in a vicious circle - no-one switches to OOo because everyone uses Word, and they want compatibility. This could be the thing that gets people off buying MS Word and switching to OOo. And for a while, people will send.docs, but after a time, maybe we'll see a switch to odts.
To do that, you'd have to start by taking away the state money that goes to London. Move out the opera house, the ballet, the football stadia, some more branches of government and most of the BBC. And cancel the Olympics.
All that state money comes from the rest of the country and subsidises the London economy (both directly and indirectly), which drives more people towards it and raises the house prices that cause so many problems. It causes a mass of jobs to be created there and impairs opportunities across the country.
My thoughts on sci-fi are that it relates to a situation where a certain science occurs/exists and the impact of that (in terms of either grand social or personal). But the science/technology is essential to the story telling. Star Wars is myth.
I'd count The Terminator as being sci-fi for this reason, but not Alien.
When the first playstation came out, PCs were still considerably more expensive. They were a serious outlay, and beyond many people's budgets.
Now, PCs can be bought for £400 and capable of a huge amount of gaming as well as other things.
I also remember that the people I knew who bought consoles did so because there was a new game, often very exciting, and breaking the tech limits of their existing machine.
Most of these games look like improvements on the existing, nothing radical.
If there's one things that will result in me telling someone at a company that my business with them is over, it's a company passing the buck to their suppliers or another division.
I count any company that does it as utter chicken shit, unworthy of my custom. I have far more respect for a company that apologises, takes responsibility for the situation, and deals with it.
There's no "townie conspiracy" over rural transport. It's just classic supply-and-demand. No-one used the buses, so they stopped being put on.
I used to travel on a rural bus (further south than you), and I'm convinced it was subsidised. It did about a 20 mile route, and other than the last few miles, the bus had 4 or 5 people on it.
Slashdot Mirror
What's so original in Office 2003 that it deserves the credit of "surging ahead"?
I don't understand what the problem is. If you have all the source code, why do you need to know the programmers? The code is there.
A few of the more remote areas of Scotland take longer, but they rarely influence the outcome, and even then, are known by Saturday.
Even in a country the size of the US, how long would it take? Like the UK, most of the population is in concentrated areas.
But, automating voting is like automating the diary for a hairdresser. It's a solution to a problem that isn't there, and far more risky than the original.
Compared to the cost of providing coffee and a little overtime to vote counters, putting our democracy at risk through a non-auditable process isn't worth it.
At one time, they had certain benefits to do with coupling of apps with other apps, or marketing integration. Want to run Evolution? You need Linux. Want to go to Google? Point your browser there.
I appreciate that there is a market of people who simply use MSN because it was installed, but moving from it is not that difficult.
It's a little like the UK olympic bid. One of the arguments is that it will create jobs. In order to create jobs, money has to be taken from somewhere (right now, the national lottery, and later, London ratepayers). Whilst this pays for jobs, it also deprives jobs elsewhere. The bricklayers building the stadium will gain, while a bartender or shopkeeper on the other side of the city will lose.
Creating jobs should always be factored out and replaced with purpose.
That's exactly "broken window fallacy" or the sort of Keynsian thinking that believes that the market should be twisted for things like job creation.
What people should do is buy the best product for their company. The death of Microsoft would be natural economics and the money would go elsewhere. Maybe I would give it direct to a charity, or buy myself some DVDs with the money saved. The point is that opportunity would be transferred from one place to another.
South Africa was lost to the British nearly 100 years ago, when it was taken over by the Boers (independence in 1907).
Since giving up most territories, the UK has worked hard with nations through bodies like the Commonwealth, and has given a huge amount of money to the development of nations.
I'm not saying that some terrible things weren't done under the empire (along with some good things), but there's a time when everyone has to look after themselves, and stop blaming the past.
I've always considered these as mostly useless pieces of paper from people who generally fall into the class of manager that I'd call "sharp but useless".
That said, they seem to be a good way of getting through the standard HR filtering processes.
The dichotomy of the music industry is that on the one hand they like to talk about the poor, starving artist suffering as a result of illegal filesharing, whilst on the other hand using their affluence as a large part of the marketing of that artist to sell the "brand".
It's now shown that it can be done.
It's also one of the few number 1s that I'd rate as a fine single in about a decade.
We are seeing some strong shoots now. The first commercial laptops appearing from major manufacturers bundled with Linux, Nero for Linux and cities looking at switching (and a switch to OpenOffice.org is an "unbinding" of your users).
I think that we'll see slow growth for the next 5 or so years, followed by it really moving very fast.
The more people start using opendocument, the better, and the more will switch. I've been scratching my head trying to work out a systematic approach to the problem of not knowing whether an email respondant can read opendocument.
How many people actually have a HD TV? I can tell you how many people I know - none. I'm sure that something like less than 1% of the population have one. I just don't see it as being a big selling point.
Check out this post: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169069&c id=14092713 saying that a Wal Mart had 32 consoles.
I can't help but think that anyone thinking they are going to make a killing selling their 360s after the 1st few weeks is going to be disappointed.
Right now, we are in a vicious circle - no-one switches to OOo because everyone uses Word, and they want compatibility. This could be the thing that gets people off buying MS Word and switching to OOo. And for a while, people will send .docs, but after a time, maybe we'll see a switch to odts.
All that state money comes from the rest of the country and subsidises the London economy (both directly and indirectly), which drives more people towards it and raises the house prices that cause so many problems. It causes a mass of jobs to be created there and impairs opportunities across the country.
I'd count The Terminator as being sci-fi for this reason, but not Alien.
When the first playstation came out, PCs were still considerably more expensive. They were a serious outlay, and beyond many people's budgets.
Now, PCs can be bought for £400 and capable of a huge amount of gaming as well as other things.
I also remember that the people I knew who bought consoles did so because there was a new game, often very exciting, and breaking the tech limits of their existing machine.
Most of these games look like improvements on the existing, nothing radical.
Under 1.1, I had problems with people reading my documents, but since moving to 2.0, I've not had a single complaint.
I count any company that does it as utter chicken shit, unworthy of my custom. I have far more respect for a company that apologises, takes responsibility for the situation, and deals with it.
Where once they made products that ruled, and I'd have had a moral dilemna over it, I'll gladly go with the competition now.
My DVD recorder that I'm planning on getting in the next few months won't be a Sony.
I don't agree about your view with regards to bad testing. My view instead is that Sony crossed a moral line, not a quality one.
I really think that of all the things that the UN should be worried about, the internet is close to the bottom of the pile.
I used to travel on a rural bus (further south than you), and I'm convinced it was subsidised. It did about a 20 mile route, and other than the last few miles, the bus had 4 or 5 people on it.