I'd be fine with it begin unreadable if you could take the paper ballot and scan it on a different system. I want verification. Multiple verification.
Imagine if voting machines were only connected to a printer. Do your voting, print out the ballot (human readable or not). Next you have the option of getting it read on a different machine to verify. Ideally, the official polling people plus the Democratic and Republican monitors would each have a handy little machine that could read 1 or 1000 ballots. You could get it checked on any of the 3. If you are not happy, it gets destroyed and you try again. Eventually your ballot goes in the box when you are satisfied (with the vote, no guarantee the candidate is satisfactory).
Later, after polls close, the official machine does a count and calls it in (by phone or digitally). Then the two parties may do their own count if they so choose (supervised, of course). Heck, even a contracted accountant, NGO, whatever. An instant chance to challenge a vote and call shenanigans.
No need for an open voting machine or an open counting machine. It's the results you actually care about. And those can be counted so many ways that fraud at the polling level is minimized. A lot of places are pretty close to this model already. It's just a matter of making the readers more available.
Yes, it doesn't scale. Think of it as a RAID 0 system with each voting precinct as a different drive. More chances for one screw up to bring down the entire system. In theory, going to electronic voting was to minimize the chance of screw ups. In theory.
The original post was a mess. But subsidies in richer nations do lead to poverty and starvation elsewhere. By subsidizing grain production, prices have been artificially low for many years. This means poor farmers can't compete and stop producing as much. The added imports is a drain to those countries' economies. If there is any disruption to the supply of grain, either through famine, currency problems, or prices jumping on the imported grain, the local population suffers.
Had grain prices gone up slowly, it would have been a good thing. It was the sudden shift to ethanol plus crop problems in several world breadbaskets that pushed up prices. If sufficient grain had been grown locally, it wouldn't be as much a problem (maybe even a plus if they could export and get hard currency for it).
Give us some credit. We most certainly do recognize locations outside our backyard. "Overthere" is a well recognized location. But my memory fails me trying to remember some of the other well known places.
I asked a metallurgist once about adamantium. He said it was impossible. I tried to convince him otherwise, but he was adamant there was no such thing.
Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding things, but:
There is also some copyright law concerning compilations. The individual articles may be copyable, but the collection may fall under copyright. Sort of what LexisNexis does, or song publishers.
IANAL, and this is not advice. But it may help you understand some options.
The costs you quote are for paying someone else to write, file, and handle all correspondence with the patent office. Do it yourself and it's around $500 to file (basic utility filing). Get fancy, deal with a lot of responses to the patent office and it can get a bit more expensive. Have the patent allowed and pay for it to be issued is $720. Maintenance fees the add up.
But if your objective is to make the work public, then you're effectively abandoning the patent. Once it publishes, you might be inclined to not even bother with any of the steps beyond just filing. I understand you can also write to the patent office telling them you are abandoning it so something like that.
Two problems with this route:
1) clogs up the patent system with more stuff. More work for examiners might mean less attention paid to patents that might not deserve a patent grant. 2) The application will show as published, but it's not obvious if it's been abandon (requires more research). The existence of a published app may dissuade people from using your idea since they may think you are keeping it alive as a submarine patent.
It's been replaced by mouse and keyboard. Not as viscerally satisfying as chasing someone through the dark to inflict vicious wounds, but you can eat chips while you inflict vicious comments.
Exclusively, no. But this clearly notes that charities are a subset of MS's customers. Since they write for their customers, they are writing for charities as well. That clearly contradicts the "nobody writes for charity" claim.
I think the idea is to not address the last one directly. Except for the specific conflicts people keep referring to, these old texts don't conflict with most of science. But if you make one of your goals science vs religion, you've immediately made yourself unappealing and unwelcome to the very people you are trying to persuade. Any chance you had is gone. Instead, focus on everything else on your list (maybe summarized as critical thinking) because it doesn't conflict. Then people can make their own judgments on a 2000 year old text instead of having a different perspective shoved down their throats only to violently reject it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, that gives me an idea:
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=unix+beard&btnG=Search+Images
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=roadies+beard&btnG=Search+Images
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=homeless+beard&btnG=Search+Images
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=hippy+beard&btnG=Search+Images
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=old+beard&btnG=Search+Images
Some of the images show up in more than one search.
I'd be fine with it begin unreadable if you could take the paper ballot and scan it on a different system. I want verification. Multiple verification.
Imagine if voting machines were only connected to a printer. Do your voting, print out the ballot (human readable or not). Next you have the option of getting it read on a different machine to verify. Ideally, the official polling people plus the Democratic and Republican monitors would each have a handy little machine that could read 1 or 1000 ballots. You could get it checked on any of the 3. If you are not happy, it gets destroyed and you try again. Eventually your ballot goes in the box when you are satisfied (with the vote, no guarantee the candidate is satisfactory).
Later, after polls close, the official machine does a count and calls it in (by phone or digitally). Then the two parties may do their own count if they so choose (supervised, of course). Heck, even a contracted accountant, NGO, whatever. An instant chance to challenge a vote and call shenanigans.
No need for an open voting machine or an open counting machine. It's the results you actually care about. And those can be counted so many ways that fraud at the polling level is minimized. A lot of places are pretty close to this model already. It's just a matter of making the readers more available.
Yes, it doesn't scale. Think of it as a RAID 0 system with each voting precinct as a different drive. More chances for one screw up to bring down the entire system. In theory, going to electronic voting was to minimize the chance of screw ups. In theory.
North pole / Where Santa lives Heaven Hell Outer space Bibleland "back where they came from"
The original post was a mess. But subsidies in richer nations do lead to poverty and starvation elsewhere. By subsidizing grain production, prices have been artificially low for many years. This means poor farmers can't compete and stop producing as much. The added imports is a drain to those countries' economies. If there is any disruption to the supply of grain, either through famine, currency problems, or prices jumping on the imported grain, the local population suffers.
Had grain prices gone up slowly, it would have been a good thing. It was the sudden shift to ethanol plus crop problems in several world breadbaskets that pushed up prices. If sufficient grain had been grown locally, it wouldn't be as much a problem (maybe even a plus if they could export and get hard currency for it).
Give us some credit. We most certainly do recognize locations outside our backyard. "Overthere" is a well recognized location. But my memory fails me trying to remember some of the other well known places.
I asked a metallurgist once about adamantium. He said it was impossible. I tried to convince him otherwise, but he was adamant there was no such thing.
Any other non-sports we should consider?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=is+not+a+sport&btnG=Google+Search
Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding things, but: There is also some copyright law concerning compilations. The individual articles may be copyable, but the collection may fall under copyright. Sort of what LexisNexis does, or song publishers.
No no no. You misread it. They are scanning the pilots.
Facebooble? If that's not the right name for you, it is for someone. And given all the spam, er, push media, I think it exists.
Ha anyone tinkered with video form of captcha? Is there any benefit?
I say "Let's save a plastic tree."
Hey, you must have my home button! Mine just disappeared with the upgrade! Thief!
USPTO Fees: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2007september30_2007dec17.htm
IANAL, and this is not advice. But it may help you understand some options.
The costs you quote are for paying someone else to write, file, and handle all correspondence with the patent office. Do it yourself and it's around $500 to file (basic utility filing). Get fancy, deal with a lot of responses to the patent office and it can get a bit more expensive. Have the patent allowed and pay for it to be issued is $720. Maintenance fees the add up.
But if your objective is to make the work public, then you're effectively abandoning the patent. Once it publishes, you might be inclined to not even bother with any of the steps beyond just filing. I understand you can also write to the patent office telling them you are abandoning it so something like that.
Two problems with this route:
1) clogs up the patent system with more stuff. More work for examiners might mean less attention paid to patents that might not deserve a patent grant.
2) The application will show as published, but it's not obvious if it's been abandon (requires more research). The existence of a published app may dissuade people from using your idea since they may think you are keeping it alive as a submarine patent.
A quick summary of the list (omitting details to avoid unwanted carnage).
10) Acid
9) Pringles
8) Explosives
7) Old Newspapers
6) Toiletries
5) Electricity
4) Adhesives
3) Feral cats
2) Dry Ice
1) Neutrons
Special mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Funniest_Joke_in_the_World
All deadly funny, but do not try these at home. You have been warned.
Funny but if "scarry" means causes scars or covered in scars, it's more scary than "scary".
It's been replaced by mouse and keyboard. Not as viscerally satisfying as chasing someone through the dark to inflict vicious wounds, but you can eat chips while you inflict vicious comments.
Exclusively, no. But this clearly notes that charities are a subset of MS's customers. Since they write for their customers, they are writing for charities as well. That clearly contradicts the "nobody writes for charity" claim.
It's more of a humorous point anyways.
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/opencharity.mspx
Oh, the irony! Or is it hypocrisy?
Maybe abbreviate it to "DC Cluster F" to get it accepted by a naming committee.
Find/replace: win2000->vista; winxp->windows 7, 2004->2010. The anti-MS crowd is nothing if not efficient.
I think the idea is to not address the last one directly. Except for the specific conflicts people keep referring to, these old texts don't conflict with most of science. But if you make one of your goals science vs religion, you've immediately made yourself unappealing and unwelcome to the very people you are trying to persuade. Any chance you had is gone. Instead, focus on everything else on your list (maybe summarized as critical thinking) because it doesn't conflict. Then people can make their own judgments on a 2000 year old text instead of having a different perspective shoved down their throats only to violently reject it.
I was surprised enough that what I've always called ASCII ... ain't. Luckily my job doesn't require that much level of knowledge.
Heck, isn't just about everything stored in ISO 8859? I actually thought it was the same as ASCII until reading this: http://kb.iu.edu/data/ahfr.html.
... right ...
There's your ISO right there! Oh, format