The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
Also if it is done right then it should pretty much do away with all these "let's recount the votes" questions. If someone wanted to recount it'd take about.5 sec...
Um, *that's* not exactly the recount problem involved here. Or, in a sense, that is *exactly* the problem - a recount will show the same result every time.
The problem is that there's way to tell if each and every vote is a) tallied; and b) accurate; and c) protected. Without those assurances any recount is a waste of time (even.5 sec). And simply attaching a printer to spit out a receipt is no good. Maybe it's not tallying the same votes it's echoing to the printer.
Others here have posted several ideas, such as having a hash generated and printed out on your receipt. In any case, it's not a trivial problem:
SELECT * FROM votes WHERE candidate = 'bush';
*sigh* and i just remembered that the machines were using MSAccess...
Er, you need to have another look at the table of elements. Hydrogen comes first, then helium. Although, somebody above posted a link to a PDF which did, indeed, show that mylar leaks helium easier than hydrogen. Don't know why, though.
I'm in complete agreement with everything you've said. But my point was that the post i was replying to was making a specious argument - that, were someone to be caught doing something illegal online (leave aside, for a minute, the perceived validity of said judgment) that they could claim that they thought their actions were anonymous. If they were trying to make the case that they thought those actions were perfectly legal, they'd say so. Their anonymity (or lack thereof) would have nothing to do with it.
"I thought it was ok to do X", as opposed to, "I didn't know that the FBI could figure out that it was i who was doing X". You can see how the latter case does nothing for a vigorous defence of one's actions.
I see how my original post was not very clear. I certainly do not hold the opinion that "if you have nothing to hide...etc". Quite the contrary. I was only trying to point out the problem with the logic of the original post (and doing it badly;-)
How is that relevant? If someone *really* believes that their actions are perfectly legal, why would they even consider their anonymity? I realize that, when that bulshit excuse is trotted out, the person probably doesn't really believe it and probably did really believe they were surfing anonymously. But your argument is not logical in any case. I've forgotten most of my first-year logic - can't remember the term here, and it's too early in any case - but the one does not prove the other.
I understand. I've been in that position as well. But there is a solution: use standards anyway. Don't use ie-only bullshit. Show your producers how much better the page looks in mozilla/safari/opera compared to the "standard" ie. Explain to them how the "standard" ie cannot keep up with standards and that it is a complete rip-off for them to hold on to it.
here's some code which will fix a ie's rendering of a transparent PNG which is set as the background image of div with id=contentBox. You could adjust this to fix ie for all of your PNGs by giving them a class and using getElementByClassname() in a loop.
blank.png is a 100% transparent (that is, one which ie can deal with on it's own), 1-pixel placeholder. It *must* be available for this to work.
onload = function() {
if (/MSIE (5\.5)|[6789]/.test(navigator.userAgent) && navigator.platform == 'Win32') {
pngBGImage();
}
}
function pngBGImage() {
var blankSrc = '/images/blank.png';
var contentBox = document.getElementById('contentBox');
var bgImageSrc = contentBox.currentStyle.backgroundImage;
Thanks tons. But you might want to check the *src* page - the behavior source isn't showing up entirely. In the meantime, anyone who wants to see it can just *view source*, of course;-) Thanks again for the mirror.
This was discussed the last time there was an article about the (NASA) rovers. There were a lot of suggestions and even more reasons why they weren't very good solutions
The curator said that "five hundred people" before me had asked the same question
I'm hoping the next rover (or the next one to built) will sport some elegant new hack suggested by some Jane Average.
This article at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist discusses the effects of firestorms and how one could be expected to behave within a city. Granted, the author is writing about a 300-kiloton weapon being detonated over the city, but you get the drift.
Ordinarily, i'd tend to agree with the canary trap argument. Except that, unless the whistleblower was BCCed, this memo seems to have been sent only to a couple of people. I'm thinking it's more likely this was lifted from a server within SCO. And we know how easy that is to do. When will people realise that (completely unencrypted) email is *not* private? Hallowe'en X and counting...
--
As others above have posted, he did not contradict himself at all. In fact he also did not assert that what he had seen was, indeed, vegetation. He said that they seem to me to be unmistakably vegetation. That is, he finds the image quite intriguing.
see for yourself (*WARNING* LARGE FILE! ~8Mb i think). It is interesting. Of course, it could be debris from the lander. It'd be nice to get a comment from someone at JPL. I know that one of the rover handlers (among others at JPL) was posting here last week. Any comments?
More than once, i've been offerred one of those 'loyalty' cards. The name itself makes me cringe. After a polite "no, thanks', i'm invariably told that that the card retains no personal info.
But this story shows that it's becoming very cheap to allow businesses to keep a record of your purchases. It's pretty sad where this is heading.
Yihye Ayyash (The engineer) was given the phone by his cousin, whom the mossad was blackmailing. Legend has it that the operations chief (Meir Amit?) called him up and said goodbye. The explosion was triggered by tones sent down the open line to the cell.
Slashdot Mirror
The study's authors were shocked to see their findings spun so positively.
I saw that as well. IANAL - does anyone know if they could (if they wanted to) sue for slander against their reputations?
omfg, this is funnier and funnier! Does XP come with Paint? Gotta love the text-to speech part:
More info from someone else who was there (in case you missed the post by somebody above).
The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
article here
lobbyist
Also if it is done right then it should pretty much do away with all these "let's recount the votes" questions. If someone wanted to recount it'd take about .5 sec...
Um, *that's* not exactly the recount problem involved here. Or, in a sense, that is *exactly* the problem - a recount will show the same result every time.
The problem is that there's way to tell if each and every vote is a) tallied; and b) accurate; and c) protected. Without those assurances any recount is a waste of time (even .5 sec). And simply attaching a printer to spit out a receipt is no good. Maybe it's not tallying the same votes it's echoing to the printer.
Others here have posted several ideas, such as having a hash generated and printed out on your receipt. In any case, it's not a trivial problem:
SELECT * FROM votes WHERE candidate = 'bush';
*sigh* and i just remembered that the machines were using MSAccess...
More details at the posted link. Very amusing. A story submission in itself. Was anyone here, er, there?
Er, you need to have another look at the table of elements. Hydrogen comes first, then helium. Although, somebody above posted a link to a PDF which did, indeed, show that mylar leaks helium easier than hydrogen. Don't know why, though.
I'm in complete agreement with everything you've said. But my point was that the post i was replying to was making a specious argument - that, were someone to be caught doing something illegal online (leave aside, for a minute, the perceived validity of said judgment) that they could claim that they thought their actions were anonymous. If they were trying to make the case that they thought those actions were perfectly legal, they'd say so. Their anonymity (or lack thereof) would have nothing to do with it.
"I thought it was ok to do X", as opposed to, "I didn't know that the FBI could figure out that it was i who was doing X". You can see how the latter case does nothing for a vigorous defence of one's actions.
I see how my original post was not very clear. I certainly do not hold the opinion that "if you have nothing to hide...etc". Quite the contrary. I was only trying to point out the problem with the logic of the original post (and doing it badly ;-)
How is that relevant? If someone *really* believes that their actions are perfectly legal, why would they even consider their anonymity? I realize that, when that bulshit excuse is trotted out, the person probably doesn't really believe it and probably did really believe they were surfing anonymously. But your argument is not logical in any case. I've forgotten most of my first-year logic - can't remember the term here, and it's too early in any case - but the one does not prove the other.
i presume the slave is the second one to thaw out.
Not that i disagree with your post, but i couldn't help picture you as a lobster exhorting a bunch of others :-)
I understand. I've been in that position as well. But there is a solution: use standards anyway. Don't use ie-only bullshit. Show your producers how much better the page looks in mozilla/safari/opera compared to the "standard" ie. Explain to them how the "standard" ie cannot keep up with standards and that it is a complete rip-off for them to hold on to it.
Sorry this sounds like a rant. I feel your pain.
here's some code which will fix a ie's rendering of a transparent PNG which is set as the background image of div with id=contentBox. You could adjust this to fix ie for all of your PNGs by giving them a class and using getElementByClassname() in a loop.
blank.png is a 100% transparent (that is, one which ie can deal with on it's own), 1-pixel placeholder. It *must* be available for this to work.
Sorry 'bout the lack of indenting - ecode tag jettisoned it.
Thanks tons. But you might want to check the *src* page - the behavior source isn't showing up entirely. In the meantime, anyone who wants to see it can just *view source*, of course ;-) Thanks again for the mirror.
Who modded this major dick funny?
The curator said that "five hundred people" before me had asked the same question
I'm hoping the next rover (or the next one to built) will sport some elegant new hack suggested by some Jane Average.
This article at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist discusses the effects of firestorms and how one could be expected to behave within a city. Granted, the author is writing about a 300-kiloton weapon being detonated over the city, but you get the drift.
Ordinarily, i'd tend to agree with the canary trap argument. Except that, unless the whistleblower was BCCed, this memo seems to have been sent only to a couple of people. I'm thinking it's more likely this was lifted from a server within SCO. And we know how easy that is to do. When will people realise that (completely unencrypted) email is *not* private? Hallowe'en X and counting...
--
i was going to post James "Kibo" Parry's excellent Twin Peaks chart (it's a sig), but the lameness filter aborted it.
dunno what it is, though it's odd
see for yourself (*WARNING* LARGE FILE! ~8Mb i think). It is interesting. Of course, it could be debris from the lander. It'd be nice to get a comment from someone at JPL. I know that one of the rover handlers (among others at JPL) was posting here last week. Any comments?
best. sig. ever.
But this story shows that it's becoming very cheap to allow businesses to keep a record of your purchases. It's pretty sad where this is heading.
brilliantly said.
Yihye Ayyash (The engineer) was given the phone by his cousin, whom the mossad was blackmailing. Legend has it that the operations chief (Meir Amit?) called him up and said goodbye. The explosion was triggered by tones sent down the open line to the cell.