And you're in the minority. Most of those 80% of win/IE users don't know of or want to send stuff like this to non-win/IE users, so again, it's rather a moot point for the vast, vast majority of users. I was just pointing out that the OP's message sounded like he was in the majority, when he isn't. Most of the mums and dads out there flying around the place looking at stuff don't give a rats ass it doesn't run on ObscureLinuxDistro 1.0 or even OSX - it works for them, and so is just as accessible as some fantastically cross-platform solution.
One area of England returned its results from 30,000 people in under 45 minutes. And that was using paper ballots. It's scaleable, quick, harder to interfere with, easier (possible) to verify, and the counting can be done in public. I just don't know why electronic voting is in such demand in the first world. Fair enough for places cut off by raging seas or swarms of hell-beasts (Swindon), but jeez - if all you have to do is drive a mile or so (or walk a block or two, if you're in the city), there really is no reason at all. All it does is throw doubt on the result, which throws doubt on democracy. And when a democracy is in doubt, it ceases to be a democracy, whether the result is accurate or not.
You should watch the video:) They showed that a pre-doctored memory card is all it takes to defraud the election, and still have an accurate vote total at the end. They skewed a 8/2 vote to 1/7, just using the special card. All other hardware was untouched and off-the-shelf. If there is the sligtest doubt about an election, there is no election. It's that simple.
So your problem is with the law, not deaf people. If she was allowed to charge more, there would be no problem. Nice empathy there, dick. I guess if you ever go deaf you'll be more than happy to sit in your room all the time not doing anything.
In 2005 in the UK, the constituency of Sunderland South returned its vote count in 44 minutes. There were over 30,000 votes cast, too. Paper ballots are pretty damned quick. Also, a full recount was possible, and every aspect of the counting could be performed in the public's view.
Some encyclopaedias contain errors on purpose, to see if they turn up in rival encyclopaedias. If they do, then obviously said encyclopaedia has been copied from by said rival. Same goes for maps with made-up streets, "Who's Who"-type listings with made-up people, etc. That's why it's of the utmost importance to use a second (and a third) source to verify any information you find online, if you think it's that important.
That's the whole point of evolution. One animal has a mutation, and if that mutation is beneficial (or, rather, not detrimental), it'll be likely to pro-create. It's not as if every single dolphin born after a certain date has the new feature - it's not downloaded in the latest DolphinUpdate(tm) release:)
I fear you have misunderstood my point. Putting someone in prison is not the same as kidnapping, and taking money from someone who stole is not the same as stealing. They are measured responses to correcting a problem - punishment. Killing someone is neither measured nor corrective, and certainly not a punishment. It's killing. Also, it's pretty damned hard to appeal against killing, and as every single legal system around the world is capable of making a mistake, it's an affront to everything we deem civil to even entertain the idea of making it part of a legal system. Remember - Saddam was in power when he killed, so he was killing those folks with as much right as the Judge sentenced him to be put to death now. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
'"PHP has always worked on Windows. The problem is that it never performed very well," Andi Gutmans, Zend's co-founder and chief technology officer, said in an interview'
It seems MS is looking to improve performance, not to get it working in the first place. Any performance gains on any platform is great news for the language.
The BBC hates Blair:) It's not run by the government, and clearly does not support the PM "just because he's the PM". Blair can not tell the BBC what to do, thank fuck:)
If the US's constitution was worded less ambiguously and was indeed reviewed every generation as was intended, your point might be valid. Both countries, the US and the UK have a rather peculiar take on constitutions. That fact alone does not determine which is "better" than the other.
My wife (who's from the US) is waiting to get her British citizenship next year, then we'll move either to Canada or The Netherlands. We live in London at the moment, which is a bit hectic, and we'd both like a change.
Those Mexicans send back a LOT of money to help their families back home. It's not as if most Mexicans are sitting on piles of money, wondering which political cause to champion - many Mexicans are struggling for survival. Rule #1 of existence is to feed you and your family. That's what they're doing. Frivolous stuff like who's in power is next on the list. It has to be in that order - Iraq's rules have all been turned around, and the people are fucked. (We think Iraqi freedom is ahead of Iraqi food/water and security...)
Just look at how many Americans there are in America, and there's a shitty president there - clearly numbers do not make political change on their own.
Jesus, Kranfer - it's not "the Chinese", but "some Chinese people". Lumping all Chinese folks into one group, then to say they did something somewhat-underhanded is fucked up.
The BBC's politeness is due to them refraining from using biassed language ("bombers" versus "terrorists", etc.). They do do some very deep investigations - I don't know if they make it to the US (BBC News 24 is just one tiny facet of the reporting).
Trying to find one news source to get your news is a bad idea - more than one source is essential, just to make sure you're getting as much information as possible.
It frames a question seperate from the actual interview. Jon apologises because it's putting the guest in a difficult position. Like when he asked Pervez Musharraf who would win in an election between GWB and OBL in Pakistan. Asking that in the main interview would be a ridiculous notion. It's a device, and it definitely serves a purpose. And it's just one question:)
Slashdot Mirror
You can rub a balloon on your sweater and use 40,000v to create a small spark - voltage on its own means nothing.
Keep telling yourself that. Seriously. Bask in your ignorance. Bathe in it. It's delicious.
It's Nintendo Trrrd, by the way, not ballz. ;)
And you're in the minority. Most of those 80% of win/IE users don't know of or want to send stuff like this to non-win/IE users, so again, it's rather a moot point for the vast, vast majority of users. I was just pointing out that the OP's message sounded like he was in the majority, when he isn't. Most of the mums and dads out there flying around the place looking at stuff don't give a rats ass it doesn't run on ObscureLinuxDistro 1.0 or even OSX - it works for them, and so is just as accessible as some fantastically cross-platform solution.
One area of England returned its results from 30,000 people in under 45 minutes. And that was using paper ballots. It's scaleable, quick, harder to interfere with, easier (possible) to verify, and the counting can be done in public. I just don't know why electronic voting is in such demand in the first world. Fair enough for places cut off by raging seas or swarms of hell-beasts (Swindon), but jeez - if all you have to do is drive a mile or so (or walk a block or two, if you're in the city), there really is no reason at all. All it does is throw doubt on the result, which throws doubt on democracy. And when a democracy is in doubt, it ceases to be a democracy, whether the result is accurate or not.
... for the 20% non-Windows, non-IE users out there, sure.
You should watch the video :) They showed that a pre-doctored memory card is all it takes to defraud the election, and still have an accurate vote total at the end. They skewed a 8/2 vote to 1/7, just using the special card. All other hardware was untouched and off-the-shelf. If there is the sligtest doubt about an election, there is no election. It's that simple.
So your problem is with the law, not deaf people. If she was allowed to charge more, there would be no problem. Nice empathy there, dick. I guess if you ever go deaf you'll be more than happy to sit in your room all the time not doing anything.
In 2005 in the UK, the constituency of Sunderland South returned its vote count in 44 minutes. There were over 30,000 votes cast, too. Paper ballots are pretty damned quick. Also, a full recount was possible, and every aspect of the counting could be performed in the public's view.
So start wikijustpulledthisoutofmyasswhatdoyouthinkaboutit. org and see how well it does.
Some encyclopaedias contain errors on purpose, to see if they turn up in rival encyclopaedias. If they do, then obviously said encyclopaedia has been copied from by said rival. Same goes for maps with made-up streets, "Who's Who"-type listings with made-up people, etc. That's why it's of the utmost importance to use a second (and a third) source to verify any information you find online, if you think it's that important.
That's the whole point of evolution. One animal has a mutation, and if that mutation is beneficial (or, rather, not detrimental), it'll be likely to pro-create. It's not as if every single dolphin born after a certain date has the new feature - it's not downloaded in the latest DolphinUpdate(tm) release :)
I fear you have misunderstood my point. Putting someone in prison is not the same as kidnapping, and taking money from someone who stole is not the same as stealing. They are measured responses to correcting a problem - punishment. Killing someone is neither measured nor corrective, and certainly not a punishment. It's killing. Also, it's pretty damned hard to appeal against killing, and as every single legal system around the world is capable of making a mistake, it's an affront to everything we deem civil to even entertain the idea of making it part of a legal system. Remember - Saddam was in power when he killed, so he was killing those folks with as much right as the Judge sentenced him to be put to death now. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
Punish killing by killing! Go hypocrisy!
What language doesn't have criticism? :)
It says in the article:
'"PHP has always worked on Windows. The problem is that it never performed very well," Andi Gutmans, Zend's co-founder and chief technology officer, said in an interview'
It seems MS is looking to improve performance, not to get it working in the first place. Any performance gains on any platform is great news for the language.
The BBC hates Blair :) It's not run by the government, and clearly does not support the PM "just because he's the PM". Blair can not tell the BBC what to do, thank fuck :)
If the US's constitution was worded less ambiguously and was indeed reviewed every generation as was intended, your point might be valid. Both countries, the US and the UK have a rather peculiar take on constitutions. That fact alone does not determine which is "better" than the other.
My wife (who's from the US) is waiting to get her British citizenship next year, then we'll move either to Canada or The Netherlands. We live in London at the moment, which is a bit hectic, and we'd both like a change.
Those Mexicans send back a LOT of money to help their families back home. It's not as if most Mexicans are sitting on piles of money, wondering which political cause to champion - many Mexicans are struggling for survival. Rule #1 of existence is to feed you and your family. That's what they're doing. Frivolous stuff like who's in power is next on the list. It has to be in that order - Iraq's rules have all been turned around, and the people are fucked. (We think Iraqi freedom is ahead of Iraqi food/water and security...)
Just look at how many Americans there are in America, and there's a shitty president there - clearly numbers do not make political change on their own.
"FUD" doesn't mean "FUD" on slashdot anymore - now it means stuff some folks probably won't like.
Jesus, Kranfer - it's not "the Chinese", but "some Chinese people". Lumping all Chinese folks into one group, then to say they did something somewhat-underhanded is fucked up.
Another effective tool he had was his army, so I guess we shouldn't fight bad guys with armies??
The BBC's politeness is due to them refraining from using biassed language ("bombers" versus "terrorists", etc.). They do do some very deep investigations - I don't know if they make it to the US (BBC News 24 is just one tiny facet of the reporting).
Trying to find one news source to get your news is a bad idea - more than one source is essential, just to make sure you're getting as much information as possible.
It frames a question seperate from the actual interview. Jon apologises because it's putting the guest in a difficult position. Like when he asked Pervez Musharraf who would win in an election between GWB and OBL in Pakistan. Asking that in the main interview would be a ridiculous notion. It's a device, and it definitely serves a purpose. And it's just one question :)