Firefox will not install new search plugins for normal users and will not even tell why.
The same is true under Linux. On Linux, it is because search plugins are installed under the system-wide shared directory for firefox. I assume the same is true for windows. This is an inconvenient design! It often means that upgrades or reinstalls won't keep search plugins (you can remember to copy your search plugins directory first, of course). It also prevents user-secific search plugins. Does anyone know the reason for this? Is it possile to install them to your home directory (as with extensions) or is there a security/design reason not to?
If you trust the software, just grant the Users group extra permissions & file a bug report for what you had to do. In environments where I trust the users, I am lazy & grant users the same permission for the apparently relevant files and directories as the accounts that can run the software. On some occasions, this includes changing permissions of dlls outside of the installation directory. I use listdlls to do this. In less trusted environments, I will gradually add read+execute access for the users to the programs & dlls users need. If I get sick of trying to fix it, I usually reevaluate the need to install the program or the level of trust to grant the users.
I don't think I misunderstand things in the way you think I do. That isn't to say my initial position was phrased well or that the understanding I have is "right" either. Many would certainly disagree with my opinions. Here they are (substitute your country of choice wherever I am US-centric):
The wealthy do lots of things with their money, just as the non-wealthy do. Investments within American companies who could generate American jobs would be something the American government should encourage.
The wealthy also spend money. Such spending should also be encouraged--it generates more revenue for the goods sold & from sales tax. Sitting on a lot of expensive goods you've bought shouldn't be encouraged. It is hard to say it should be taxed either--people would decry "double taxation" in many cases & in some cases they'd be right. But we're already willing to tax real estate & I don't think it is too extraordinary to tax other high-value items if you use the same logic.
It isn't so clear that you shouldn't tax other behavior, such as investing overseas. The international market is complex & such wealth-sharing could actually indirectly improve the wealth of the US, but it may be better to encourage more direct & immediate growth sometimes. Some of the lower risk investments (including some real estate) is not nearly as efficient at wealth-creation as investing in US stocks & perhaps should be taxed.
Finally, taxes should also not ONLY be a cattle-prod to try to change the behavior of the rich. They should be substantial enough to help the US meet our financial needs, including many of the progressive social programs which are supposed to help the non-wealthy. They should also be paid for by the people who can afford to pay for them & quickly shifting the tax burden away (or less towards) the wealthy is playing with fire. It can help, assuming the wealthy are able to and do increase the wealth of the nation. I am unconvinced that that behavior is as universal as you seem to assume.
Regarding #1, I'd really like to see some primitive regular expressions in a serach (but then I'm a geek). If people wanted to search for latex paint, it would help to exclude LaTeX.
Your points in #2 are interesting. One interesting addition to the backend would be to automate this process. The rank for "trust" would be the number of links you share with someone & this unit of trust would automatically be used to suggest new links to you & to improve your search results.
BTW, I think the idea of taxing assets is a bad one. Like we do not already discourage saving for retirement the way things are.
I agree that some savings, such as retirement, should be sheltered from tax (within reason). However, higher taxes on assets could also encourage the wealty to create more jobs. If it costs more money to sit on money thant to get out there and make money, they wouldn't sit on money.
I would imagine that these asset taxes make for a larger revenue stream than patent maintenance does.
Also, patent fees makes sense: The patent process is inefficient & your fees do help ensure the patent office runs. Property taxes may also benefit programs which make sense, but they are usually less correlated: my property taxes don't really help the government determine who owns property--they go to schools or transportation or police/fire, etc.
I think property taxes were an excellent counter-example to the OP's rant (I made the same example myself).
Programmers write free software to subvert a system that denies them the protection of their property rights by pricing legal defense of those rights out of their reach.
There are, among us, idealists who do want to contribute to society without making a buck or pragmatists who realize that it is impossible to make enough bucks off of some projects to be worth it & a FOSS will increase the use of your work output & give you a sense of satisfaction. There are some who embrace FOSS--who find patent law to be absurd & software overpriced. There are some who merely wish to use GPLed programs as a leaping point to create better software faster.
If they were able to capture enough of the value of what they write to pay for the legal defense of their rights they'd probably write a lot less free software.
I do agree that this is nearly impossible--software is a commodity. Developers are cheaper and get things done faster which last longer than lawyers. Software is also easy to "steal" & is hard to get new users because companies with more money already dominate the market for most kinds of applications or could if they decided to compete with you. But I don't think this is the only or even primary reason that people contribute to FOSS projects.
Think about it: Once you possess something, you basically have no tax burden.
Well, my state certainly levies property taxes. Also, though not taxed, there is considerable depreciation in most things you possess. The value will go down as the clock ticks.
Well, there is one exception to this rule of no taxation of possession -- and that is the patent maintanence fee. Patents are the only assets that the government taxes.
See above, but realize that copyrights could be a cheaer alternative. Developers are free to protect their work through free or non-free copyright licenses.
Indeed, I hear few small developers asking for cheaper software patents--most don't want software patents at all & it is only those companies with or who are able to create a large IP portfolio that ask for them.
I jumped on the del.icio.us bandwagon & my biggest pet peave is that it doesn't search for other capitalization. I run a page of LaTeX tips. I must monitor 'latex,' 'LATEX,' 'Latex,' and 'LaTeX' in order to cover most of the relevant topics. Multiply this by the number of topics you're interested in & it can grow quite annoying quite fast.
It also doesn't differentiate between LaTeX the typesetting language & latex the emulsion of rubber or plastic globules in water. There is a high geek population on del.icio.us, so I manage to get very few 'hot liquid latex sexxx' sites. Such inability to disambiguate a word with homonyms is also an annoying feature. In this case, it would normally work well for me, but would work quite poorly for any latex fetishists out there.
Python is a wonderful choice: it is easy to learn & quick to code in, but can be scaled up to larger projects. For the younger children who need to understand even more basic computer concepts, it can also be scaled down:
Bell Labs made CARDIAC a cardboard computer similar to the one you describe. I actually bought one just a couple of years ago. Here's the contact info I used: Comspace Corporation 117 Engineers Drive Hicksville, NY 11801 Phone:516-942-8191 Fax:516-942-8193 Email :comspace@aol.com Webpage (hadn't been updated for a while): http://hometown.aol.com/comspace/
As of 2003, CARDIAC was 19.95 or a plastic version (for overhead use) was 22.95 + shipping
There is no current state law that provides for a (very costly) new election. You're wrong. And it's odd that you could be so wrong, so obviously. This is one of the possible outcomes of the election contest procedure.
Poorly phrased on my part. There is no current state law that provides for the special election which Rossi wants. Of course he can ask for new legislation to allow this and, if passed, such legislation would likely be "legal." (I fear that the issue would still wind through the courts, as the Democrats would contest the new legislation & it would still turn into the costly, slow process that Rossi wishes to avoid.)
I am not opposed to such laws, though I think they should not be taken lightly, and -- contrary to what you imply -- I am far from convinced that such a law should be passed. But it is a valid legal avenue, without question.
I am glad that you seem to grant the proper "weight" to calling a do-over. It isn't clear that this election was so flawed as to require one, but neither should we be hesitant to do it if it is required to "get it right." We generally agree on this.
I doubt it will be passed this time through (the party in control of the legislature is the party who has won the election for one). In addition to the partisan pragmatism, though, I do think their is a much higher burden for establishing new law, rather than following laws already established. Both could be "valid legal avenues" (by definition), but there will be less argument about doing the former (such as performing recounts) than the later (such as drafting legislation for a special reelection). The former is also almost always less expensive and faster (though not always "good enough"). One of Rossi's arguments for calling for the special reelection is to same both money and time. This is naive. The Republicans accused the Democrats of wasting both in having a second recount in the first place. Those demanding a reelection now are being hypocrits.
I basically agree with your original story: both parties only care that they are elected and are willing to change arguments as they get their way or not. It is just so much more difficult for the Republicans to switch sides this time around.
I didn't lose context. OP's complaint (though also a bit of a partisan attack) is valid: There is no current state law that provides for a (very costly) new election.
My biggest gripe is actually in the connotation of Gregoire "forcing" the state to spend money on a recount. She didn't really force them to do anything. The party said they were willing to pay for a recount & the state had to pay because the Democrats won. If anything "forced" the state to expend money, it was current election law (which, as you can probably recall, I would like to see improved).
This being said, your attempt to defend many time more to be spent on a new election is a difficult one to support: it would require brand new law for an election which has already happened.
Gregoire has already forced the state to pay upwards of $1 million already.
Which was her legal right & the only reason the state had to pay was because the recount changed the results. The Republicans would do the same thing if positions were reversed. Not only that, but they want to cost the state MORE money by enacting more legislation.
I don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Republicans asked Gregoire to shutup and conceed when she was 42 votes down & still had recourse in the law as it exists now. Now they aren't exactly practicing what they preach & are even asking for new law to be made to handle an election that has already happened.
Wow--my spelling is horrible on this keyboard I'm not used to and without the magic spellcheck extension. I hope that my message is not lost in the careless mistakes...otherwise I'd have to invest the time and expense in a retyping......
There could have been two, if we knew how bad we got the first one.
If a margin is suitably small, because of the nature of the count, a slower (but still lively) and more careful machine count is done automatically.
Or a hand recount, as was done for the fird count. Because the winners swung by several hundred votes, we should at least be more willing to conduct a hand recount. The law sees this as the most accurate and, in this case, it was the ultimate outcome.
This time, it worked exactly as intended, and perscribed.
Not to be confused with being the most pefect system for us.
The fact that it worked so well, pretty much dooms further efforts to change what now finally appears to be *the* outcome of the election.
Tell that to the conservatives whining about King county now or even to the liberals who rememer how they felt just a month ago.
What you seem to be sticking on is it wasn't just more expensive this time, it was cheaper all the other times.
It is cheap to conduct the first count. It hasn't really been cheaper to conduct a machine recount instead of a hand recount: When it has been that close, hand recounts are asked for anyway. Just because "most of the time" the first count is "good enough" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to save money from many subsequent counts in those races that end up needing it.
What really hurt in a process like this isn't the money, while 700,000 is a lot to you and me, it's not a lot for the state, and not a lot for running a major election.
I can think of better things to spend this on.
And spending more money on the first machine recount wouldn't have fixed that so long as it was close enough to encourage the democrats to gamble on challenging it.
Wrong. If the first recount was a hand recount, the Democrats would win & have no reason for challenging. The republicas may demand an ADDITIONAL hand recount, but there would be less impetus to do so: one hand count would have already been conducted.
No. Statistics only applies if you're not doing a "complete count."
Utterly false. Statistics can be applied when you have uncertainty in any measurement. It is used in the physical sciences to account for known and unknown sources of error. When you count votes, you make a measurement. When you end up with three different numbers for three different counts, you obviously have some measure of uncertainty, AT LEAST in the earlier counts. Furthermore, we don't always do a complete count anyway. Especially the first time through.
And in *some* scenerios can be more accurate than a "complete count" because of relative error.
This is completely perverse. The more counting you do, the better statistics you have. You might not improve the accuracy of the count by counting more votes, but you will almost certainly have better precision.
it's still be stupid for us to do it with elections for a number of reasons, not the least of which is how notoriously difficult it is to sample (either through a vote or a poll) peoples deeply held,
As I premised my original post, statistics doesn't imply a partial sampling.
The court fight is the price we must pay for insisting, again quite rightly, on a complete count.
That is a very high price if, as we have now, different people knowledgable in the law don't come to the same legal conclusion.
Every legal vote should be counted. Not for the end it might achive, but for what the vote is.
Absolutely. I agree completely. I would argue we should make the fewest number of counts needed to assure this. Guess what? It doesn't happen. No count is perfect & we waste resources trying to get to a "perfect count." Count as well as you can, but try to figure out the magnitude of mistakes you may make in counting!
That's the promise of our Republic. More than "In God We Trust", I trust in "E Pluribus Unum."
Trusting in God and Union is very different than blind faith in a notoriously fallible and difficult process. When it comes to trusting a small number of both machines and people to accomplishing a monumental task, I'd rather trust, but verify.
Uhhh... statistically speaking. Statistics apply when you are *sampling.* We are not sampling, we are counting.
Ah..a familiar discussion, no? Anyway, statistics applies to other arenas than sampling.
However, you are correct to find fault with jgardn's logic: he isn't applying statistics at ALL: just enough algebra to compute a mean. And he is doing a poor job of this too. This algebra doesn't hold because each subsequent recount is considered more significant and less error prone than any previous count (legally, it is only the last count that actually matters, which is an even stronger form of saying this).
Even if each count had the same amount of uncertainty (which they don't) or even a measurable amount of uncertainty (again, we aren't so lucky), "statistics" wouldn't say that Gregoire needs a 300 vote (or ANY amount) of a lead to be called the winner. Statistics would be able to describe the uncertainty of the "mean count" (which, of course, isn't something legally recognized anyway) & be able to say how much confidence we have in that mean. Guess what: We already know that it is piss poor & if even more votes were swung, the uncertainty would only increase.
Presumably like jgardn, I do think that multiple counts (the first several of which are more-or-less ignored for the "One True Final Count") are somewhat wasteful of time and money. I do believe in getting the democratic process as right as possible & recognize the occasional need for expediency, but we throw out too much information. I think, like he does, that statistics could be a valuable tool that could (with other tools) be used to diagnose problems with elections & possibly even be used to improve the process. But this cause is not helped by people ignorant of both statistics and the law!
Of course. But not in the middle of the process. Change it for next time, if you like.
If it is so damaged that the apparent winner flip-flops back-and forth for several months and is determined by either less than 50 votes or by the courts (depending on how pessimistic you are), we best fix things somehow soon. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be involved in partisan bickering & no one is really coming up with interpretations of the current laws or suggestions for new laws that both parties will agree would better the process.
If you didn't understand it, I didn't either. But I think you're correct.
Source-Navigator's "analysis" seems to be to "display relationships between classes and functions and members, and display call trees." Most IDEs will have this functionality, including KDevelop and Anjuta. I'm partial to Anjuta myself, but they are already using KDE. KDevelop would be the natural choice.
How the fcsk can some something that has.1% of the most common desktop be considered a standard?
Because the email folder formats are heavily fractionalized. There is no "de facto standard" by virtue of client popularity. Instead, standards should be "real standards:" publicly documented & adopted by multiple popular applications by multiple developers. c-client mbx and the other formats PC-Pine offers do fit this definition.
In addition to the heavier embedded systems, the PII is somewhat popular for people who want to build inexpensive dual-processor machines and/or clusters. Yes, you can get much better performance out of the higher end chips, but you will be paying much more as well. Indeed, even the single-processor PIIs are fast enough for a minimalist desktop or linux box. Until this year, I used my own 300 MHz box for just about everything one does on a business desktop (I don't game & did send my processor-intensive stuff to a more capable beast). Finally, I do know others who have equipment or software that only runs on their legacy machines who would like spare parts or would like to replace the processor to the fastest of the same architecture available.
Slashdot Mirror
If you trust the software, just grant the Users group extra permissions & file a bug report for what you had to do. In environments where I trust the users, I am lazy & grant users the same permission for the apparently relevant files and directories as the accounts that can run the software. On some occasions, this includes changing permissions of dlls outside of the installation directory. I use listdlls to do this. In less trusted environments, I will gradually add read+execute access for the users to the programs & dlls users need. If I get sick of trying to fix it, I usually reevaluate the need to install the program or the level of trust to grant the users.
When I used Opera, I had the UserAgent set to IE. I think this might have been the default.
I don't think I misunderstand things in the way you think I do. That isn't to say my initial position was phrased well or that the understanding I have is "right" either. Many would certainly disagree with my opinions. Here they are (substitute your country of choice wherever I am US-centric):
The wealthy do lots of things with their money, just as the non-wealthy do. Investments within American companies who could generate American jobs would be something the American government should encourage.
The wealthy also spend money. Such spending should also be encouraged--it generates more revenue for the goods sold & from sales tax. Sitting on a lot of expensive goods you've bought shouldn't be encouraged. It is hard to say it should be taxed either--people would decry "double taxation" in many cases & in some cases they'd be right. But we're already willing to tax real estate & I don't think it is too extraordinary to tax other high-value items if you use the same logic.
It isn't so clear that you shouldn't tax other behavior, such as investing overseas. The international market is complex & such wealth-sharing could actually indirectly improve the wealth of the US, but it may be better to encourage more direct & immediate growth sometimes. Some of the lower risk investments (including some real estate) is not nearly as efficient at wealth-creation as investing in US stocks & perhaps should be taxed.
Finally, taxes should also not ONLY be a cattle-prod to try to change the behavior of the rich. They should be substantial enough to help the US meet our financial needs, including many of the progressive social programs which are supposed to help the non-wealthy. They should also be paid for by the people who can afford to pay for them & quickly shifting the tax burden away (or less towards) the wealthy is playing with fire. It can help, assuming the wealthy are able to and do increase the wealth of the nation. I am unconvinced that that behavior is as universal as you seem to assume.
Regarding #1, I'd really like to see some primitive regular expressions in a serach (but then I'm a geek). If people wanted to search for latex paint, it would help to exclude LaTeX.
Your points in #2 are interesting. One interesting addition to the backend would be to automate this process. The rank for "trust" would be the number of links you share with someone & this unit of trust would automatically be used to suggest new links to you & to improve your search results.
I would imagine that these asset taxes make for a larger revenue stream than patent maintenance does.
Also, patent fees makes sense: The patent process is inefficient & your fees do help ensure the patent office runs. Property taxes may also benefit programs which make sense, but they are usually less correlated: my property taxes don't really help the government determine who owns property--they go to schools or transportation or police/fire, etc.
I think property taxes were an excellent counter-example to the OP's rant (I made the same example myself).
Indeed, I hear few small developers asking for cheaper software patents--most don't want software patents at all & it is only those companies with or who are able to create a large IP portfolio that ask for them.
I jumped on the del.icio.us bandwagon & my biggest pet peave is that it doesn't search for other capitalization. I run a page of LaTeX tips. I must monitor 'latex,' 'LATEX,' 'Latex,' and 'LaTeX' in order to cover most of the relevant topics. Multiply this by the number of topics you're interested in & it can grow quite annoying quite fast.
It also doesn't differentiate between LaTeX the typesetting language & latex the emulsion of rubber or plastic globules in water. There is a high geek population on del.icio.us, so I manage to get very few 'hot liquid latex sexxx' sites. Such inability to disambiguate a word with homonyms is also an annoying feature. In this case, it would normally work well for me, but would work quite poorly for any latex fetishists out there.
GVR is like karel, but with more python coolness. They also maintain a list of a fes karel-related links on their site.
Python is a wonderful choice: it is easy to learn & quick to code in, but can be scaled up to larger projects. For the younger children who need to understand even more basic computer concepts, it can also be scaled down:
PyLogo is Logo implemented in Python
Guido van Robot is similar, but so much cooler.
Finally, livewires has an excellent Python tutorial.
Bell Labs made CARDIAC a cardboard computer similar to the one you describe. I actually bought one just a couple of years ago. Here's the contact info I used:l :comspace@aol.com
Comspace Corporation
117 Engineers Drive
Hicksville, NY 11801
Phone:516-942-8191
Fax:516-942-8193
Emai
Webpage (hadn't been updated for a while):
http://hometown.aol.com/comspace/
As of 2003, CARDIAC was 19.95 or a plastic version (for overhead use) was 22.95 + shipping
I doubt it will be passed this time through (the party in control of the legislature is the party who has won the election for one). In addition to the partisan pragmatism, though, I do think their is a much higher burden for establishing new law, rather than following laws already established. Both could be "valid legal avenues" (by definition), but there will be less argument about doing the former (such as performing recounts) than the later (such as drafting legislation for a special reelection). The former is also almost always less expensive and faster (though not always "good enough"). One of Rossi's arguments for calling for the special reelection is to same both money and time. This is naive. The Republicans accused the Democrats of wasting both in having a second recount in the first place. Those demanding a reelection now are being hypocrits.
I basically agree with your original story: both parties only care that they are elected and are willing to change arguments as they get their way or not. It is just so much more difficult for the Republicans to switch sides this time around.
I didn't lose context. OP's complaint (though also a bit of a partisan attack) is valid: There is no current state law that provides for a (very costly) new election.
My biggest gripe is actually in the connotation of Gregoire "forcing" the state to spend money on a recount. She didn't really force them to do anything. The party said they were willing to pay for a recount & the state had to pay because the Democrats won. If anything "forced" the state to expend money, it was current election law (which, as you can probably recall, I would like to see improved).
This being said, your attempt to defend many time more to be spent on a new election is a difficult one to support: it would require brand new law for an election which has already happened.
I don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Republicans asked Gregoire to shutup and conceed when she was 42 votes down & still had recourse in the law as it exists now. Now they aren't exactly practicing what they preach & are even asking for new law to be made to handle an election that has already happened.
Wow--my spelling is horrible on this keyboard I'm not used to and without the magic spellcheck extension. I hope that my message is not lost in the careless mistakes...otherwise I'd have to invest the time and expense in a retyping......
However, you are correct to find fault with jgardn's logic: he isn't applying statistics at ALL: just enough algebra to compute a mean. And he is doing a poor job of this too. This algebra doesn't hold because each subsequent recount is considered more significant and less error prone than any previous count (legally, it is only the last count that actually matters, which is an even stronger form of saying this).
Even if each count had the same amount of uncertainty (which they don't) or even a measurable amount of uncertainty (again, we aren't so lucky), "statistics" wouldn't say that Gregoire needs a 300 vote (or ANY amount) of a lead to be called the winner. Statistics would be able to describe the uncertainty of the "mean count" (which, of course, isn't something legally recognized anyway) & be able to say how much confidence we have in that mean. Guess what: We already know that it is piss poor & if even more votes were swung, the uncertainty would only increase.
Presumably like jgardn, I do think that multiple counts (the first several of which are more-or-less ignored for the "One True Final Count") are somewhat wasteful of time and money. I do believe in getting the democratic process as right as possible & recognize the occasional need for expediency, but we throw out too much information. I think, like he does, that statistics could be a valuable tool that could (with other tools) be used to diagnose problems with elections & possibly even be used to improve the process. But this cause is not helped by people ignorant of both statistics and the law!If it is so damaged that the apparent winner flip-flops back-and forth for several months and is determined by either less than 50 votes or by the courts (depending on how pessimistic you are), we best fix things somehow soon. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be involved in partisan bickering & no one is really coming up with interpretations of the current laws or suggestions for new laws that both parties will agree would better the process.
If you didn't understand it, I didn't either. But I think you're correct.
Source-Navigator's "analysis" seems to be to "display relationships between classes and functions and members, and display call trees." Most IDEs will have this functionality, including KDevelop and Anjuta. I'm partial to Anjuta myself, but they are already using KDE. KDevelop would be the natural choice.
#include expects "FILENAME" or . In this case, perhaps stdio.h. Which means you have a very high bugs/LoC rate.
In addition to the heavier embedded systems, the PII is somewhat popular for people who want to build inexpensive dual-processor machines and/or clusters. Yes, you can get much better performance out of the higher end chips, but you will be paying much more as well. Indeed, even the single-processor PIIs are fast enough for a minimalist desktop or linux box. Until this year, I used my own 300 MHz box for just about everything one does on a business desktop (I don't game & did send my processor-intensive stuff to a more capable beast). Finally, I do know others who have equipment or software that only runs on their legacy machines who would like spare parts or would like to replace the processor to the fastest of the same architecture available.