Re:What Is He Talking About?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Well, it's not so fancy as a touch screen (though both major candidates are about as interesting as a stop sign) but in Monroe county (and perhaps in Vigo, though I can't really recall) I've voted with the electronic balloting `box'. From what I can tell, it looks a bit like a briefcase and unfolds into a pseudo-booth (no curtain, though!) and plugs into the main `briefcase' to record the votes. There're buttons that will advance the pages for you (kind of like a jukebox, except that these pages are on rollers and just get rolled one way or the other) and then a big red button that finalizes your vote. It's very easy.
What Is He Talking About?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
I'm only 22, but I've voted in at least 3 elections (2 local and one national) and I've never used a paper ballot. And I've been voting in this backwards state of Indiana. You just press the button for candidate you would like to vote for; a little LED lights up reminding you who you voted for; then you press a big red button and a few electrons later your ballot is counted. Granted, those ballots then have to be transfered to the local headquarters, but the fact remains that I've never used paper to vote. -- Clayton
Many artists have been known to paint over other paintings just because they couldn't afford a new canvas. I never knew that the same happened to writings, but I guess that it's not too surprising.
This sounds remarkably similar to what all those dooms day folks were saying in the mid to early Ninties about how the "Internet boom" was really dangerous because it simply couldn't handle the increased the traffic and would face certain collapse unless large scale and extremely expensive upgrades were performed globally. Well, I don't remember hearing about anyone doing any upgrades that were out of the ordinary, and the Internet sure seems to be doing fine.
The way I see it, most of the stories that use the terms improperly are pointed out by one of the many/.ers and they seem to end up being posted in some form.
I suggest that we simply look for an email address that is meant for content feedback and employ the/. effect to show them how wrong that they are. For instance, the next time that CNN runs a story about hackers bringing down the FBI network, a link to http://www.cnn.com/feedback or cnn.feedback@cnn.com could be listed as well. Then, we could all email them and inform them, politely of course, of their misuse.
Perhaps a couple thousand emails would teach them a lesson.
The way I see it, most of the stories that use the terms improperly are pointed out by one of the many/.ers and they seem to end up being posted in some form.
As long as there there are different colors of Linux floating around, there should be as many different certifications floating around. How can RedHat be expected to certify that someone is proficient with a product that they did not produce? Just becuase I might know a lot about Irix doesn't mean that I know squat about Solaris.
I hope that RedHat only claims to certify people in their usage of RedHat. If Slackware, Debian, SuSe, etc want to certify people in their ditributions, go ahead.
Also, I think that certification is a good thing. I might not validate someone's skill, but it at least gives company big wigs to look at and knod their head about.
Better yet, don't even make seperate newsgroups. Just "mirror" all of the the/. articles to a moderated newsgroup. Then all of the stories would show up as top level articles, and all of the comments could expand as USENET threads.
Some info on the User Prefs page could be used to check articles that show up on the newsgroup and allow them to be posted to the web site as well. For instance, some "Maldian" program would continually mine alt.slashdot (or whatever) and whenever it finds a new article there it checks some of the info from the header or article and pipes it to the web server. Checking something like email address/name/something else would work for some sort of weak authentication. Likewise, ariticles posted to the web service could be piped out to the newsgroup using the User Information.
I guess this raises all sorts of user authentication issues though. Oh well. It'd be a cool thing to try and see if it works anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not so fancy as a touch screen (though both major candidates are about as interesting as a stop sign) but in Monroe county (and perhaps in Vigo, though I can't really recall) I've voted with the electronic balloting `box'. From what I can tell, it looks a bit like a briefcase and unfolds into a pseudo-booth (no curtain, though!) and plugs into the main `briefcase' to record the votes. There're buttons that will advance the pages for you (kind of like a jukebox, except that these pages are on rollers and just get rolled one way or the other) and then a big red button that finalizes your vote. It's very easy.
I'm only 22, but I've voted in at least 3 elections (2 local and one national) and I've never used a paper ballot. And I've been voting in this backwards state of Indiana. You just press the button for candidate you would like to vote for; a little LED lights up reminding you who you voted for; then you press a big red button and a few electrons later your ballot is counted. Granted, those ballots then have to be transfered to the local headquarters, but the fact remains that I've never used paper to vote. -- Clayton
Many artists have been known to paint over other paintings just because they couldn't afford a new canvas. I never knew that the same happened to writings, but I guess that it's not too surprising.
This sounds remarkably similar to what all those dooms day folks were saying in the mid to early Ninties about how the "Internet boom" was really dangerous because it simply couldn't handle the increased the traffic and would face certain collapse unless large scale and extremely expensive upgrades were performed globally. Well, I don't remember hearing about anyone doing any upgrades that were out of the ordinary, and the Internet sure seems to be doing fine.
--pc
The way I see it, most of the stories that use the terms improperly are pointed out by one of the many /.ers and they seem to end up being posted in some form.
I suggest that we simply look for an email address that is meant for content feedback and employ the /. effect to show them how wrong that they are. For instance, the next time that CNN runs a story about hackers bringing down the FBI network, a link to http://www.cnn.com/feedback or cnn.feedback@cnn.com could be listed as well. Then, we could all email them and inform them, politely of course, of their misuse.
Perhaps a couple thousand emails would teach them a lesson.
--pcThe way I see it, most of the stories that use the terms improperly are pointed out by one of the many /.ers and they seem to end up being posted in some form.
As long as there there are different colors of Linux floating around, there should be as many different certifications floating around. How can RedHat be expected to certify that someone is proficient with a product that they did not produce? Just becuase I might know a lot about Irix doesn't mean that I know squat about Solaris.
I hope that RedHat only claims to certify people in their usage of RedHat. If Slackware, Debian, SuSe, etc want to certify people in their ditributions, go ahead.
Also, I think that certification is a good thing. I might not validate someone's skill, but it at least gives company big wigs to look at and knod their head about.
--pc
Better yet, don't even make seperate newsgroups. Just "mirror" all of the the /. articles to a moderated newsgroup. Then all of the stories would show up as top level articles, and all of the comments could expand as USENET threads.
Some info on the User Prefs page could be used to check articles that show up on the newsgroup and allow them to be posted to the web site as well. For instance, some "Maldian" program would continually mine alt.slashdot (or whatever) and whenever it finds a new article there it checks some of the info from the header or article and pipes it to the web server. Checking something like email address/name/something else would work for some sort of weak authentication. Likewise, ariticles posted to the web service could be piped out to the newsgroup using the User Information.
I guess this raises all sorts of user authentication issues though. Oh well. It'd be a cool thing to try and see if it works anyway.
--pc