OK, fine, sorry I didn't say "American Football". The game of American Football is derived from Rugby. But Rugby is actually NOT the name of the sport. It's called "Rugby Football" as Rugby is a PLACE where it was invented. And that is a derivative of soccer (or "football").
The official name of the sport was called "American Football" for a while, but since pretty much no one in America played the other form of football (the "original", whatever you want to call it), "American Football" was shortened to just "football". Then when European ("world", whatever) football started to become popular, we had to figure out what to do. So it was called "soccer", which is a variation of the term "association". "Association" was used because there was a "football association" or something like that.
Unfortunately, I do not have links to this wonderful information, but I've read up about it before. Maybe someone else can substantiate my claim with a link. I don't feel like searching for one right now.
Anyway, you now know why American Football is called "football" in America. Like it or not, American Football is indeed a derivative of regular football.
Not quite sure I understand the "flamebait" mod. The article was about a FOOTBALL team and this guy says something about baseball... I was just correcting him.
Maybe instead of using stupid non-related sports "predictions", people should look towards things that actually DO predict outcomes (or at least do a decent job of it). Futures. Try intrade.com for more information.
During the 2000 election, there was a story about a small town in New Hampshire (I think) who had ALWAYS voted for the winner of the presidential election. (Or at least for a very long time.) They open the polls at midnight and all the votes are cast and counted very quickly. Well, they voted for Gore in 2000. So that means this year there will be no story about them, since obviously they were wrong. At least THAT'S a story that is related. Sports and politics are unrelated and any correlation is just coincidence.
A most interesting thing happened to me the other day. I dropped a buttered piece of bread and it landed on the non-buttered side! Come to think of it, it was the same day the Red Sox won the World Series...
That's what pointers are for. Instead of:
FILE *fp = fopen("foo.txt");
why not use something like a return code for errors and out parameters of the functions. No globals, no worries about catching exceptions, you just return an HRESULT.
This is NOT that hard. Plus HRESULTs can be easily propagated down, and ANYONE can act on a failure if he desires with or without knowing what the failure is.
If you use exception handling the way it's supposed to be, you catch OBJECTS and not the wonderful catch-all of "...". The problem with using the catch-all of "..." is that truly BAD events like stack overflows are caught. And if you do not know how to recover from a stack overflow, you better abort the program immediately.
But if you DON'T use the "..." form, and you don't know of ALL types of exceptions that can be thrown... well, one will slip by you and a regular "exception" will just kill your process since it's not handled. I MUCH prefer HRESULTs to handle known and unknown errors. Let a truly bad exception kill my program, and let me handle return codes.
Just a quick question, but did your email reach "wim.c oekaerts@oracle.com", "alan@sys-con.com", or "gduval@man drakesoft.com"?
Re:Is it an open protocol?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
No, that IS the topic. All of this GPL stuff actually hinges on that. If the FSF is correct in their interpretation (that dynamic linking is a derived work) then the GPL is likely solid.
If, however, they're wrong, then the way AROUND the GPL is to write a wrapper DLL around the GPL'd code, make THAT DLL open source, and then dynamically link your closed-source code to that open-sourced DLL.
This is one reason why the GPL has never been tested in court -- companies don't want to take this risk in violating copyright law by trying something like this.
Re:Is it an open protocol?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
There's really no leeway here in your argument. By definition, a piece of software (named A) which contains a piece of software (named B) or a portion of it, is a derivative work.
What about a piece of software (named A) that does not contain, but rather USES a piece of software (named B)? Is A a derivative of B? Better hope not, otherwise any application that uses a single interface of the operating system is a derivative work of the operating system. If A using B is not a derivative, then what about A using B, which is a derivative of C? Should be the same thing...
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
The question is what is a "work"? If a "work" can be a DLL, then all that is required is to make your own "derivative work" a DLL that you give full source code to, and then plug into it. It's highly doubtful that accessing it through interfaces is a "derivative" work.
There are other concerns as well -- such as what are the legal issues with distributing your fully-open-sourced DLL with a closed-source distribution? Does simple inclusion of an open-source piece of software in your distribution make your entire distribution a "derivative work"? Does the distribution medium necessarily become a "work", which is then a "derivative work"?
The problem is that copyright law was written a very long time ago without even an inkling that computers would be around. When people talk about the GPL being iron-clad or that it's never been tested in a court -- it's because there are many possible ways to interpret what exactly is meant and how it applies to computers. A computer "work" needs to be defined, by LAW. Already there is a definition for "work of visual art". Maybe a "computer work" should be defined.
Re:Is it an open protocol?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
How could you possibly argue that their stack was a derivative of the MS kernel? I assume you meant to say that the MS kernel was a derivative of the stack... But then you are 100% wrong here. If MS used this code, then their kernel would be a derivative work, there's basically no way to get around it.
I agree with the rest of your post here -- obviously Microsoft will NOT use any GPL code in something like Windows. But I dispute that the kernel is a derivative of the stack. You're saying that if MS were to use a GPL'd _NETWORK_ stack, their task scheduling algorithms are derivatives? The video display subsystems are derivatives? The USB drivers, file system, Win32 subsystems are derivatives? Not even close. If ANYTHING, the stack could be a derivative of the kernel, but even that is not true. Possibly the HOOKS used to tie the two together could be considered derivatives, but not the rest of the implementation.
I hate analogies, as there's always SOMETHING wrong with them, but I'll take a shot anyway. What you're saying is that if I design a tire for a car (especially a car that already exists) suddenly the entire car is a derivative... Obviously not true. Now, what if the way the tire attaches to the car changes. Well, then whatever plumbing is needed to actually attach the tire is a derivative. But surely the exhaust system and most of the engine itself will not be changed. Therefore the only thing that you can claim is derivative are what things changed about system in order to get the tire to work.
My computer can work just fine without a network stack. Well, at least without any network connectivity -- which implies that any part of the network stack that is running is actually useless. But I don't see how anyone could claim that an OS is a derivative of a network stack. Whether you LoadLibrary a DLL or use a "named pipe" for the communication is irrelevant -- the two are very independant items, or at least the order of dependency is wrong.
Along will come some *nix based application that will read a MIME-type header, realize that the file is an executable, and automatically make it executable after saving and give you the option to run it.
MSN could have just told you the directory to the saved file and not allowed you to launch the file directly. Then you would have to explicitely launch it. But who cares? The same user that runs "funny.exe" is the same one that would click on "Open the folder" and go find "funny.exe" and run it.
If you require all users to chmod +x the file, once they know it, they'll do it for EVERY file, whether it's an executable or not. Why? Because once an uninformed user thinks they're informed, they'll perform the same steps every time. Someone sends them a VALID executable and tells them how to run it, and they'll do it next time.
What's the issue with MSN? That it allowed you to download an executable? Don't accept the file. Oh, that it doesn't warn you it may contain a virus. Wait, it does. (Most people probably click on "Do not show me this again" after the first or second time it pops up.
Sorry, I don't see an issue with MSN. _Maybe_.EXE/.VBS/.COM/.whatever extension should be auto-denied (with an explicit option to turn it back on). Maybe that's a good feature to put into the next one. But sorry, you download _and run_ an application where you don't know what it is, that's your problem.
The first thing I do when I receive a file is ask the person "What's this?". If they don't respond, I figure it wasn't sent from them, and I'm not gonna run it.
So because one person says there is no other side, and this is the way it is, we must believe him? Especially if he's on NPR? He *must* know what he's talking about.
I was watching an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine the other night and a Vorta and a Cardassian were discussing how the Bajorans thought the "wormhole aliens" were gods. Both laughed. The Cardassian turned to the Vorta and asked why he was laughing, when he believed the same thing about the Founders. The Vorta looked perplexed. "That's different. The Founders ARE gods!"
This may not seem to be an incredibly great analogy, but anytime someone says "My view is right and your view is not", ESPECIALLY when they also say something is "obvious" or "clear as day", the argument just goes away. It's called fanatacism. If you want to discuss the facts, the knowledge, the theories, then by all means have an intelligent conversation/debate about it. But to say "It's true, and those who say it isn't don't know what they're talking about or were bought" is an argument that lacks of any logical attributes.
There are two sides (or more) to EVERY issue. If there wasn't, there would be no issue, it would be fact accepted by everyone.
I didn't know the exact numbers. I didn't remember for sure about the aspirin, but I thought I remember it had two pain killers plus caffeine. 65mg of caffeine is actually quite a bit. Check out this page for information about caffeine content in drinks.
A 12oz can of Coca-Cola classic contains 34mg of caffeine. A 12oz can of Diet Coca-Cola (I thought it was called "Diet Coke", but that's not what the page says) contains 45mg. Even Mountain Dew is less than the 65mg in Excedrin (the Dew is 55mg).
That and the fact that lots of people will take two pills instead of just one, especially if a headache is more than just a slight one, and you're really getting 130mg, which is right around the amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee.
There's an interesting thing about obesity and caffeine. Caffeine is a diruetic. Which means you piss out a lot of water. Unless you drink plenty of water to counter this, you become dehydrated.
I forget the exact numbers of the study (nor do I have a link, so take this for what it's worth), but the article I read said three things:
1. A huge number of people in America (around 75%, I think) are chronically dehydrated. I figure it's because most people don't drink water _and_ they drink lots of caffeinated beverages.
2. Quite often, the body confuses dehydration with hunger.
3. A huge number (around 90%, if memory serves me correctly) of hunger pangs in the middle of the night (aka midnight snacks) go away if the person drinks a glass of water instead of eating.
So what I get from this is that the less water (and more caffeine) people drink, the more likely they are to gain weight because of eating food they don't need. I'm definitely guilty of drinking a lot of caffeine, but I try to drink a lot of water. I've found that most of my headaches are not because I missed a morning coffee (or Cherry Coke, in my case), but because I drink TOO MUCH caffeine, and become dehydrated.
If you're taking pain killers with caffeine to relieve headaches, the pain could actually start to be caused by your addiction to the caffeine.
That's exactly what Excedrin is. It's Aceteminophin (sp?) AND caffeine. There's a reason Excedrin is called "The Headache Medicine"(tm). Missing the morning cup of coffee is a huge reason for headaches, and giving them some pain killer WITH some caffeine seems to do the trick.
What I hate is that the URL for that link starts with "http://64.4.26.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=76 0eb5c704482c89615384e10c7d14bd&lat=1096145471&hm__ _action=" and the URL after the "action=" is a mangled (escaped) version of the URL. This means that I cannot verify that the URL is what I expect. This is even more annoying than the frames (but obviously if they got rid of the frames, this would go away too because it could open the URL in a new window).
So how does that person know which votes to counter and which not to counter? Serial numbers are not generated until the voter is ready to vote -- so there is no pre-known numbers. How does he know what serial number voted for candidate A and which voted for B? The serial number could easily be a GUID, not "1, 2, 3, 4".
In other words, until the counting stage of the election, you wouldn't be able to match serial numbers with votes, and at that point, you're COUNTING, not accepting new votes. So it would be quite hard for someone to stuff in new votes to counter existing ones (it would be easier to stuff in official looking ballots with today's manual process). Even if you're somehow able to guess serial numbers, since you don't know what candidate they voted for, you are percentage-wise affecting nothing -- if the ration is 60% to 40% in favor of candidate A, and you somehow affect 100 votes, voting for candidate B, you would expect roughly 60% were exact opposiite double-voting and roughly 40% were exact duplicate doube-voting. While one candidate lost 60 and the other only 40, because of the percentage, it affects nothing.
Besides, if someone had this kind of access, they could more easily throw a current election by creating additional marks on already cast ballots, KNOWING WHO WAS VOTED FOR, and thus invalidating the entire vote for the candidates they want to take votes away from.
Last Christmas I took a weekend to Vegas, came back on a late Sunday evening, and had use of the computer for that next day, then went to Costa Rica for 10 days. That "day of computer use" was spent very little on the computer -- I was rushing around to get my passport at the last minute plus having to repack everything. Anyway, those 10 days in Costa Rica were a BLAST. I even bought some books at the airport to read in the evenings. By the end of the 10 days, even though I was having a lot of fun, I was really missing computers and technology. I still haven't finished the book that I was almost at the end of. I am definitely addicted.:)
Las Vegas has LAWS (not just casino policy) against playing games with computer aides. Playing blackjack and card counting by yourself may get you tossed out of a casino, but is not illegal. Having a machine that is telling you the odds and calculating stuff for you IS illegal. This is not true in all areas. In the UK, their gambling laws are outdated and computer-aided technologies are not illegal (but will get you booted). (I saw a documentary on Discovery or something about Casinos -- it's possible I've misremembered something.)
My point is that the grandparent post that you can't outlaw bots is 100% wrong. Any country can make such a law if they choose. Maybe you can argue it's hard to outlaw simply because of country borders (it may be illegal in the UK where the servers are based, but I live in Sweden where it's not, for example), but countries (and other governments) certainly can make such laws.
Since I'm not new to/., I did not RTFA. But wouldn't a cease and desist type letter basically say "Remove xxx. If you do not remove xxx, we will sue you for monetary damages." In that case, you are being threatened with a lawsuit (and likely for money in that lawsuit) if you do not do what they say.
You do not speak for me. I cannot stand beer. Hard liquor, however, hell yeah! If they need any volunteers for a study of the antioxidant effectiveness of vodka, tequila, rum, whiskey, scotch, or any other hard alcohol, I'll volunteer.
Not even close to legal. "Traps" are illegal because they are "non-discriminatory". In other words, they will trigger (and injure/kill) anyone without regard for who they are or why they're there. While unlikely, it's possible that a rescue worker of sorts needs to break into your house. For example, a fire breaks out and a firefighter must break in to see if anyone needs help. It's possible that a 5 year old kid could get in, and I really doubt he'll be able to read the sign or realize what can happen. There are likely many more scenarios (though unlikely) where someone legally enters your house and can set off the trap.
The Freedom of Information act has to do with government documents being publicly available. What the media does is use "exit polls". They stand around outside the voting area and ask people who they voted for. They then use statistical probability models to determine who they think has won. Until the polls are closed and counted, there are no official government releases. Furthermore, I believe that the Freedom of Information act applies to the federal government, and even though it is a federal election, the STATES are the ones who count votes and direct their electorates to make the appropriate votes in the Electoral college. So the only information required to be released is the electoral votes. All they have to do is make sure they happen at the same time instead of being staggered (I'm sure officially they happen at the same time, after polls everywhere are closed).
Slashdot Mirror
OK, fine, sorry I didn't say "American Football". The game of American Football is derived from Rugby. But Rugby is actually NOT the name of the sport. It's called "Rugby Football" as Rugby is a PLACE where it was invented. And that is a derivative of soccer (or "football").
The official name of the sport was called "American Football" for a while, but since pretty much no one in America played the other form of football (the "original", whatever you want to call it), "American Football" was shortened to just "football". Then when European ("world", whatever) football started to become popular, we had to figure out what to do. So it was called "soccer", which is a variation of the term "association". "Association" was used because there was a "football association" or something like that.
Unfortunately, I do not have links to this wonderful information, but I've read up about it before. Maybe someone else can substantiate my claim with a link. I don't feel like searching for one right now.
Anyway, you now know why American Football is called "football" in America. Like it or not, American Football is indeed a derivative of regular football.
Not quite sure I understand the "flamebait" mod. The article was about a FOOTBALL team and this guy says something about baseball... I was just correcting him.
Maybe instead of using stupid non-related sports "predictions", people should look towards things that actually DO predict outcomes (or at least do a decent job of it). Futures. Try intrade.com for more information.
During the 2000 election, there was a story about a small town in New Hampshire (I think) who had ALWAYS voted for the winner of the presidential election. (Or at least for a very long time.) They open the polls at midnight and all the votes are cast and counted very quickly. Well, they voted for Gore in 2000. So that means this year there will be no story about them, since obviously they were wrong. At least THAT'S a story that is related. Sports and politics are unrelated and any correlation is just coincidence.
Yeah, but Tues/Wednesday of what week? Surely you don't think the election will actually end on the day it's supposed to...
... The Redskins are a FOOTBALL team.
A most interesting thing happened to me the other day. I dropped a buttered piece of bread and it landed on the non-buttered side! Come to think of it, it was the same day the Red Sox won the World Series...
That's what pointers are for. Instead of:
...
FILE *fp = fopen("foo.txt");
why not use something like a return code for errors and out parameters of the functions. No globals, no worries about catching exceptions, you just return an HRESULT.
HRESULT hr = S_OK;
FILE *fp = NULL;
hr = FileOpen("foo.txt", &fp);
if (FAILED(hr))
This is NOT that hard. Plus HRESULTs can be easily propagated down, and ANYONE can act on a failure if he desires with or without knowing what the failure is.
If you use exception handling the way it's supposed to be, you catch OBJECTS and not the wonderful catch-all of "...". The problem with using the catch-all of "..." is that truly BAD events like stack overflows are caught. And if you do not know how to recover from a stack overflow, you better abort the program immediately.
But if you DON'T use the "..." form, and you don't know of ALL types of exceptions that can be thrown... well, one will slip by you and a regular "exception" will just kill your process since it's not handled. I MUCH prefer HRESULTs to handle known and unknown errors. Let a truly bad exception kill my program, and let me handle return codes.
Just a quick question, but did your email reach "wim.c oekaerts@oracle.com", "alan@sys-con .com", or "gduval@man drakesoft.com"?
No, that IS the topic. All of this GPL stuff actually hinges on that. If the FSF is correct in their interpretation (that dynamic linking is a derived work) then the GPL is likely solid.
If, however, they're wrong, then the way AROUND the GPL is to write a wrapper DLL around the GPL'd code, make THAT DLL open source, and then dynamically link your closed-source code to that open-sourced DLL.
This is one reason why the GPL has never been tested in court -- companies don't want to take this risk in violating copyright law by trying something like this.
The US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101 defines "derivative work" to be:
The question is what is a "work"? If a "work" can be a DLL, then all that is required is to make your own "derivative work" a DLL that you give full source code to, and then plug into it. It's highly doubtful that accessing it through interfaces is a "derivative" work.
There are other concerns as well -- such as what are the legal issues with distributing your fully-open-sourced DLL with a closed-source distribution? Does simple inclusion of an open-source piece of software in your distribution make your entire distribution a "derivative work"? Does the distribution medium necessarily become a "work", which is then a "derivative work"?
The problem is that copyright law was written a very long time ago without even an inkling that computers would be around. When people talk about the GPL being iron-clad or that it's never been tested in a court -- it's because there are many possible ways to interpret what exactly is meant and how it applies to computers. A computer "work" needs to be defined, by LAW. Already there is a definition for "work of visual art". Maybe a "computer work" should be defined.
How could you possibly argue that their stack was a derivative of the MS kernel? I assume you meant to say that the MS kernel was a derivative of the stack... But then you are 100% wrong here. If MS used this code, then their kernel would be a derivative work, there's basically no way to get around it.
I agree with the rest of your post here -- obviously Microsoft will NOT use any GPL code in something like Windows. But I dispute that the kernel is a derivative of the stack. You're saying that if MS were to use a GPL'd _NETWORK_ stack, their task scheduling algorithms are derivatives? The video display subsystems are derivatives? The USB drivers, file system, Win32 subsystems are derivatives? Not even close. If ANYTHING, the stack could be a derivative of the kernel, but even that is not true. Possibly the HOOKS used to tie the two together could be considered derivatives, but not the rest of the implementation.
I hate analogies, as there's always SOMETHING wrong with them, but I'll take a shot anyway. What you're saying is that if I design a tire for a car (especially a car that already exists) suddenly the entire car is a derivative... Obviously not true. Now, what if the way the tire attaches to the car changes. Well, then whatever plumbing is needed to actually attach the tire is a derivative. But surely the exhaust system and most of the engine itself will not be changed. Therefore the only thing that you can claim is derivative are what things changed about system in order to get the tire to work.
My computer can work just fine without a network stack. Well, at least without any network connectivity -- which implies that any part of the network stack that is running is actually useless. But I don't see how anyone could claim that an OS is a derivative of a network stack. Whether you LoadLibrary a DLL or use a "named pipe" for the communication is irrelevant -- the two are very independant items, or at least the order of dependency is wrong.
Along will come some *nix based application that will read a MIME-type header, realize that the file is an executable, and automatically make it executable after saving and give you the option to run it.
MSN could have just told you the directory to the saved file and not allowed you to launch the file directly. Then you would have to explicitely launch it. But who cares? The same user that runs "funny.exe" is the same one that would click on "Open the folder" and go find "funny.exe" and run it.
If you require all users to chmod +x the file, once they know it, they'll do it for EVERY file, whether it's an executable or not. Why? Because once an uninformed user thinks they're informed, they'll perform the same steps every time. Someone sends them a VALID executable and tells them how to run it, and they'll do it next time.
Users need education not extra steps.
What's the issue with MSN? That it allowed you to download an executable? Don't accept the file. Oh, that it doesn't warn you it may contain a virus. Wait, it does. (Most people probably click on "Do not show me this again" after the first or second time it pops up.
.EXE/.VBS/.COM/.whatever extension should be auto-denied (with an explicit option to turn it back on). Maybe that's a good feature to put into the next one. But sorry, you download _and run_ an application where you don't know what it is, that's your problem.
Sorry, I don't see an issue with MSN. _Maybe_
The first thing I do when I receive a file is ask the person "What's this?". If they don't respond, I figure it wasn't sent from them, and I'm not gonna run it.
So because one person says there is no other side, and this is the way it is, we must believe him? Especially if he's on NPR? He *must* know what he's talking about.
I was watching an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine the other night and a Vorta and a Cardassian were discussing how the Bajorans thought the "wormhole aliens" were gods. Both laughed. The Cardassian turned to the Vorta and asked why he was laughing, when he believed the same thing about the Founders. The Vorta looked perplexed. "That's different. The Founders ARE gods!"
This may not seem to be an incredibly great analogy, but anytime someone says "My view is right and your view is not", ESPECIALLY when they also say something is "obvious" or "clear as day", the argument just goes away. It's called fanatacism. If you want to discuss the facts, the knowledge, the theories, then by all means have an intelligent conversation/debate about it. But to say "It's true, and those who say it isn't don't know what they're talking about or were bought" is an argument that lacks of any logical attributes.
There are two sides (or more) to EVERY issue. If there wasn't, there would be no issue, it would be fact accepted by everyone.
I didn't know the exact numbers. I didn't remember for sure about the aspirin, but I thought I remember it had two pain killers plus caffeine. 65mg of caffeine is actually quite a bit. Check out this page for information about caffeine content in drinks.
A 12oz can of Coca-Cola classic contains 34mg of caffeine. A 12oz can of Diet Coca-Cola (I thought it was called "Diet Coke", but that's not what the page says) contains 45mg. Even Mountain Dew is less than the 65mg in Excedrin (the Dew is 55mg).
That and the fact that lots of people will take two pills instead of just one, especially if a headache is more than just a slight one, and you're really getting 130mg, which is right around the amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee.
There's an interesting thing about obesity and caffeine. Caffeine is a diruetic. Which means you piss out a lot of water. Unless you drink plenty of water to counter this, you become dehydrated.
I forget the exact numbers of the study (nor do I have a link, so take this for what it's worth), but the article I read said three things:
1. A huge number of people in America (around 75%, I think) are chronically dehydrated. I figure it's because most people don't drink water _and_ they drink lots of caffeinated beverages.
2. Quite often, the body confuses dehydration with hunger.
3. A huge number (around 90%, if memory serves me correctly) of hunger pangs in the middle of the night (aka midnight snacks) go away if the person drinks a glass of water instead of eating.
So what I get from this is that the less water (and more caffeine) people drink, the more likely they are to gain weight because of eating food they don't need. I'm definitely guilty of drinking a lot of caffeine, but I try to drink a lot of water. I've found that most of my headaches are not because I missed a morning coffee (or Cherry Coke, in my case), but because I drink TOO MUCH caffeine, and become dehydrated.
What I hate is that the URL for that link starts with "http://64.4.26.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=76 0eb5c704482c89615384e10c7d14bd&lat=1096145471&hm__ _action=" and the URL after the "action=" is a mangled (escaped) version of the URL. This means that I cannot verify that the URL is what I expect. This is even more annoying than the frames (but obviously if they got rid of the frames, this would go away too because it could open the URL in a new window).
So how does that person know which votes to counter and which not to counter? Serial numbers are not generated until the voter is ready to vote -- so there is no pre-known numbers. How does he know what serial number voted for candidate A and which voted for B? The serial number could easily be a GUID, not "1, 2, 3, 4".
In other words, until the counting stage of the election, you wouldn't be able to match serial numbers with votes, and at that point, you're COUNTING, not accepting new votes. So it would be quite hard for someone to stuff in new votes to counter existing ones (it would be easier to stuff in official looking ballots with today's manual process). Even if you're somehow able to guess serial numbers, since you don't know what candidate they voted for, you are percentage-wise affecting nothing -- if the ration is 60% to 40% in favor of candidate A, and you somehow affect 100 votes, voting for candidate B, you would expect roughly 60% were exact opposiite double-voting and roughly 40% were exact duplicate doube-voting. While one candidate lost 60 and the other only 40, because of the percentage, it affects nothing.
Besides, if someone had this kind of access, they could more easily throw a current election by creating additional marks on already cast ballots, KNOWING WHO WAS VOTED FOR, and thus invalidating the entire vote for the candidates they want to take votes away from.
Last Christmas I took a weekend to Vegas, came back on a late Sunday evening, and had use of the computer for that next day, then went to Costa Rica for 10 days. That "day of computer use" was spent very little on the computer -- I was rushing around to get my passport at the last minute plus having to repack everything. Anyway, those 10 days in Costa Rica were a BLAST. I even bought some books at the airport to read in the evenings. By the end of the 10 days, even though I was having a lot of fun, I was really missing computers and technology. I still haven't finished the book that I was almost at the end of. I am definitely addicted. :)
Las Vegas has LAWS (not just casino policy) against playing games with computer aides. Playing blackjack and card counting by yourself may get you tossed out of a casino, but is not illegal. Having a machine that is telling you the odds and calculating stuff for you IS illegal. This is not true in all areas. In the UK, their gambling laws are outdated and computer-aided technologies are not illegal (but will get you booted). (I saw a documentary on Discovery or something about Casinos -- it's possible I've misremembered something.)
My point is that the grandparent post that you can't outlaw bots is 100% wrong. Any country can make such a law if they choose. Maybe you can argue it's hard to outlaw simply because of country borders (it may be illegal in the UK where the servers are based, but I live in Sweden where it's not, for example), but countries (and other governments) certainly can make such laws.
Since I'm not new to /., I did not RTFA. But wouldn't a cease and desist type letter basically say "Remove xxx. If you do not remove xxx, we will sue you for monetary damages." In that case, you are being threatened with a lawsuit (and likely for money in that lawsuit) if you do not do what they say.
You do not speak for me. I cannot stand beer. Hard liquor, however, hell yeah! If they need any volunteers for a study of the antioxidant effectiveness of vodka, tequila, rum, whiskey, scotch, or any other hard alcohol, I'll volunteer.
Not even close to legal. "Traps" are illegal because they are "non-discriminatory". In other words, they will trigger (and injure/kill) anyone without regard for who they are or why they're there. While unlikely, it's possible that a rescue worker of sorts needs to break into your house. For example, a fire breaks out and a firefighter must break in to see if anyone needs help. It's possible that a 5 year old kid could get in, and I really doubt he'll be able to read the sign or realize what can happen. There are likely many more scenarios (though unlikely) where someone legally enters your house and can set off the trap.
The Freedom of Information act has to do with government documents being publicly available. What the media does is use "exit polls". They stand around outside the voting area and ask people who they voted for. They then use statistical probability models to determine who they think has won. Until the polls are closed and counted, there are no official government releases. Furthermore, I believe that the Freedom of Information act applies to the federal government, and even though it is a federal election, the STATES are the ones who count votes and direct their electorates to make the appropriate votes in the Electoral college. So the only information required to be released is the electoral votes. All they have to do is make sure they happen at the same time instead of being staggered (I'm sure officially they happen at the same time, after polls everywhere are closed).