We're all waiting for Internet-based voting to become popular so we don't have to get off our fat asses. Then we won't vote using that because we'll bitch about how it's not secure and everything.
2 Peter 3:8 says, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." I'm sure He opts for "a thousand years are like a day", so he's had the patent just over 6 days. He still has a LONG time left on His patent!
A releases some code, under GPLv2. This has the "or later" clause.
B modifies that code, and gets to choose which GPL to release under. He chooses the GPLv3. This has an "or later" clause, but there is never a "or earlier" clause.
C needs the changes that B made. He MUST use the GPLv3 (or later) to use B's changes. Except this new GPLv3 restricts C's usage so that he cannot use B's changes for his product.
Not only that, but A cannot re-incorporate B's changes into the original product, since that was released as GPLv2. So now the original author has to either abandon his GPLv2 distribution and use a GPLv3 version to get B's changes, or he has to maintain two separate releases. Of course, this assumes that A would like B's changes to be included.
Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of the "or later" clause -- that anyone making modifications gets to choose to release under the current license or under another later one, and is not required to continue release under the current one.
Meh, let me know when someone surpasses Rockefeller. In today's dollars, he would have been worth around $200 billion. And you wanna talk about monopolies, predatory pricing, and anti-trust? The Sherman Antitrust Act was DIRECTED at Rockefeller's Standard Oil.
Oh, I guess since it was over 100 years ago, no one cares anymore.
Even in the states that have a winner-take-all system, the offically selected electoral representatives each make their final vote in the electoral college. They can (and have, in some cases) voted contrary to the way they were supposed to vote. They are called faithless electors.
However, my understanding is that once the representative makes their vote, it's final. The state cannot say "but wait, he didn't vote the way he was supposed to!" and get a new vote.
Yes, you must have headphones in the team room, because sometimes you just need to concentrate and headphones are essential to drown out the noise.
And what about people who don't listen to music while they work? If I have my own office, I can close my work to concentrate in relative peace. If I'm in a cubicle or "team room", I either have to listen to something that may actually make my work less effective, or I have to wear something that's going to stop all noises from coming through. And working in complete silence (not hearing the click of the keyboard, sounds from the computer, etc...) can be very distracting as well.
If someone "forgets" to scan it, it's not a vote. It MUST be scanned to be a vote. You can make something that will require they physically release the paper into a box before it's scanned, and once it's there, it cannot be removed.
The problem with the "glass screen" is that you need to be assured that you can't somehow get a "double vote". What I mean is the vote is viewed, and the voter deems it to not be what he intended to vote. So now he needs another vote. You have to be assured that what is behind the glass screen can be physically removed so the person can shred the invalid vote. Otherwise, what's to prevent a system from double-voting? It can just keep the paper vote somewhere else, count the vote electronically, and later add that piece of paper into the vote box.
A system where the voter physically controls that piece of paper makes him sure that the piece of paper with his votes gets into the ballot box. Just like today, if someone walks into a voting booth and then walks out and "forgets" to place his vote in the box, it doesn't count. Same rule should apply here.
It is very trivial. Add a barcode scanner so that a barcode is printed on the receipt, and that barcode is scanned before dropping it in the box. No barcode scan = no vote. So you can't drop in a regular piece of paper to show the guys how you voted.
I've heard of people not RTFA, but not RTFP (post)?
From the post you responded to:
- you check and fold the receipt and drop it into a sealed box.
What this does is let you verify that the computer printed the correct votes. No more "hanging chads" or "double-votes" where someone tries to cross off a mis-vote. Then, once you are satisfied that the computer printed the right things, you drop off what is effectively a paper vote. So the men outside cannot know who you voted for.
The benefit here is that the electronic votes are tabulated instantly, so once the polling offices close, the results are known. Then, over a period of time, randomly selected polling centers are counted by hand and verified that the results they sent out (computer tabulated) are the same as the receipts (human tabulated). Any errors, and an investigation is launched to figure out what happened.
'from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero,' Huh? Does that mean that since we're external viewers, no black hole that we "view" will have an event horizon, because it takes an infinite amount of time to form?
$102.99 for the DIGITAL GOLD Package which includes: standard cable (limited basic and expanded basic), digital special interest channels, music choice, Starz, Starz Plex, Encore, Encore Plex, HBO, HBO Plex, Showtime, Showtime Plex, and Digital Converter and Remote where applicable;
$11.95 for DVR with HDTV;
$45.95 for high speed Internet
So $46/mo ($552/yr) was for Internet. But to answer your question, I'd say it's fairly common for people to pay something close to what she's paying. Lots of people get the premium channels packages. A few years ago, I had it. Then I moved in with a friend who was a cheap bastard, and all we had was the non-digital expanded basic. Got used to not having all the premium channels, and I got along just fine. Now that I've moved into my own place, I didn't bother with the premium channels. No need, there's plenty of stuff to watch as is.
Who needs respect, when you can "merge" into the space between any two cars on the road, even ahead of a tailgater? Not if you tailgate the way I do...
iii. You didn't RTFA. (This is/., so this is not a criticism, but merely a commentary.)
From TFA (emphasis mine):
Sgt. Paul Wandell, Beaverton police spokesman, said officers seized more than 50,000 items worth about $758,000. Most of the items were fake music CDs and movie DVDs, along with knockoff designer purses, sunglasses and clothing, and counterfeit brand-name toys, Wandell said.
This tells you that a bug in the software put 100:1 odds on a random selection, regardless of what the real odds were if you selected the exact same card. Nothing more, nothing less.
Watch how many moderation points get blown on this here comment:P I'm guessing two. On the other hand, I'm guessing that exactly 0 mod points will be wasted modding this reply.
Not only that, but when debugging, since there is an entry in the symbols for that variable name, you can see what the value is inside the debugger without having to look to find where the macro was defined.
The problem is that once their sentence is served, they cannot be held any longer. It's not like they got life, and have been paroled. An argument can be made that they never should have served jail time anyway, being mentally ill, and should have been in a mental hospital for treatment, and can only be released after an extensive psychological evaluation.
Except the public would be in an uproar about child molestors not getting jail time, and playing the "insanity" card. So instead the public gets in an uproar about something they could have prevented by having the appropriate laws passed. Maybe the law should give "X years in jail plus mandatory psychological evaluation, requiring Y years in a mental institution, prior to release."
Actually, I think that's one of the grounds to see if the lawsuit has any merit. If I write or say "George Bush sucks monkey dicks", it's not going to be believed by a reasonable person, and thus won't fall under the grounds of defamation of character. If, however, the courts conclude that a reasonable person could believe the printed or spoken word, then the slander or libel is defamatory, and there is a good chance that the lawsuit will proceed.
I don't know about that. Every single planet we've ever found life on so far has also evolved intelligent life. Coincidence, perhaps, but that's a pretty good hit ratio.
Sorry, a sample size of 1 has no statistical relevance.
Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at leased used the cut and paste features of his computer?
It's copy and paste -- when you cut and paste something, you remove it from one document and put it in another (or from one paragraph to another). When you copy and paste, it stays in the original place and a copy is placed in the second.
If you know you're going to be away from your registered phone number for a while, you can always pre-emptively call your bank/CC company and tell them. If such a verification program were in place, it should be easy to add things like this. Call from your registered phone to their number and give them a new number where you will be reachable, and for how long, where, etc...
My CC company (Wells Fargo Mastercard) likes to call me when they see charges that are different from my usual purchasing pattern. They get confirmation on the last 5 or so charges to make sure they aren't fraudulent. I wonder what would happen if their fraud detection kicked in and I wasn't available at that phone number. I assume that after a few days of not validating the charges, they would deny future charges to that card. They do have an international collect number that I can call if my card gets denied and I'm overseas, and an 800 number for inside the US.
Slashdot Mirror
We're all waiting for Internet-based voting to become popular so we don't have to get off our fat asses. Then we won't vote using that because we'll bitch about how it's not secure and everything.
2 Peter 3:8 says, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." I'm sure He opts for "a thousand years are like a day", so he's had the patent just over 6 days. He still has a LONG time left on His patent!
A releases some code, under GPLv2. This has the "or later" clause.
B modifies that code, and gets to choose which GPL to release under. He chooses the GPLv3. This has an "or later" clause, but there is never a "or earlier" clause.
C needs the changes that B made. He MUST use the GPLv3 (or later) to use B's changes. Except this new GPLv3 restricts C's usage so that he cannot use B's changes for his product.
Not only that, but A cannot re-incorporate B's changes into the original product, since that was released as GPLv2. So now the original author has to either abandon his GPLv2 distribution and use a GPLv3 version to get B's changes, or he has to maintain two separate releases. Of course, this assumes that A would like B's changes to be included.
Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of the "or later" clause -- that anyone making modifications gets to choose to release under the current license or under another later one, and is not required to continue release under the current one.
*nit* He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Meh, let me know when someone surpasses Rockefeller. In today's dollars, he would have been worth around $200 billion. And you wanna talk about monopolies, predatory pricing, and anti-trust? The Sherman Antitrust Act was DIRECTED at Rockefeller's Standard Oil.
Oh, I guess since it was over 100 years ago, no one cares anymore.
Even in the states that have a winner-take-all system, the offically selected electoral representatives each make their final vote in the electoral college. They can (and have, in some cases) voted contrary to the way they were supposed to vote. They are called faithless electors.
However, my understanding is that once the representative makes their vote, it's final. The state cannot say "but wait, he didn't vote the way he was supposed to!" and get a new vote.
I'll take my single office anyday.
If someone "forgets" to scan it, it's not a vote. It MUST be scanned to be a vote. You can make something that will require they physically release the paper into a box before it's scanned, and once it's there, it cannot be removed.
The problem with the "glass screen" is that you need to be assured that you can't somehow get a "double vote". What I mean is the vote is viewed, and the voter deems it to not be what he intended to vote. So now he needs another vote. You have to be assured that what is behind the glass screen can be physically removed so the person can shred the invalid vote. Otherwise, what's to prevent a system from double-voting? It can just keep the paper vote somewhere else, count the vote electronically, and later add that piece of paper into the vote box.
A system where the voter physically controls that piece of paper makes him sure that the piece of paper with his votes gets into the ballot box. Just like today, if someone walks into a voting booth and then walks out and "forgets" to place his vote in the box, it doesn't count. Same rule should apply here.
It is very trivial. Add a barcode scanner so that a barcode is printed on the receipt, and that barcode is scanned before dropping it in the box. No barcode scan = no vote. So you can't drop in a regular piece of paper to show the guys how you voted.
From the post you responded to: - you check and fold the receipt and drop it into a sealed box.
What this does is let you verify that the computer printed the correct votes. No more "hanging chads" or "double-votes" where someone tries to cross off a mis-vote. Then, once you are satisfied that the computer printed the right things, you drop off what is effectively a paper vote. So the men outside cannot know who you voted for.
The benefit here is that the electronic votes are tabulated instantly, so once the polling offices close, the results are known. Then, over a period of time, randomly selected polling centers are counted by hand and verified that the results they sent out (computer tabulated) are the same as the receipts (human tabulated). Any errors, and an investigation is launched to figure out what happened.
It means that hot cousin of yours is now in your dating pool!
Her breakdown was:
$102.99 for the DIGITAL GOLD Package which includes: standard cable (limited basic and expanded basic), digital special interest channels, music choice, Starz, Starz Plex, Encore, Encore Plex, HBO, HBO Plex, Showtime, Showtime Plex, and Digital Converter and Remote where applicable;
$11.95 for DVR with HDTV;
$45.95 for high speed Internet
So $46/mo ($552/yr) was for Internet. But to answer your question, I'd say it's fairly common for people to pay something close to what she's paying. Lots of people get the premium channels packages. A few years ago, I had it. Then I moved in with a friend who was a cheap bastard, and all we had was the non-digital expanded basic. Got used to not having all the premium channels, and I got along just fine. Now that I've moved into my own place, I didn't bother with the premium channels. No need, there's plenty of stuff to watch as is.
I'll be the arbiter. Please send the money for both sides of the bet to me. I assure you, it'll be safe until 2107.
From TFA (emphasis mine):
Sgt. Paul Wandell, Beaverton police spokesman, said officers seized more than 50,000 items worth about $758,000. Most of the items were fake music CDs and movie DVDs, along with knockoff designer purses, sunglasses and clothing, and counterfeit brand-name toys, Wandell said.
This tells you that a bug in the software put 100:1 odds on a random selection, regardless of what the real odds were if you selected the exact same card. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not only that, but when debugging, since there is an entry in the symbols for that variable name, you can see what the value is inside the debugger without having to look to find where the macro was defined.
The problem is that once their sentence is served, they cannot be held any longer. It's not like they got life, and have been paroled. An argument can be made that they never should have served jail time anyway, being mentally ill, and should have been in a mental hospital for treatment, and can only be released after an extensive psychological evaluation.
Except the public would be in an uproar about child molestors not getting jail time, and playing the "insanity" card. So instead the public gets in an uproar about something they could have prevented by having the appropriate laws passed. Maybe the law should give "X years in jail plus mandatory psychological evaluation, requiring Y years in a mental institution, prior to release."
Actually, I think that's one of the grounds to see if the lawsuit has any merit. If I write or say "George Bush sucks monkey dicks", it's not going to be believed by a reasonable person, and thus won't fall under the grounds of defamation of character. If, however, the courts conclude that a reasonable person could believe the printed or spoken word, then the slander or libel is defamatory, and there is a good chance that the lawsuit will proceed.
As in the subject, IANAL.
Sorry. It annoys me.
If you know you're going to be away from your registered phone number for a while, you can always pre-emptively call your bank/CC company and tell them. If such a verification program were in place, it should be easy to add things like this. Call from your registered phone to their number and give them a new number where you will be reachable, and for how long, where, etc...
My CC company (Wells Fargo Mastercard) likes to call me when they see charges that are different from my usual purchasing pattern. They get confirmation on the last 5 or so charges to make sure they aren't fraudulent. I wonder what would happen if their fraud detection kicked in and I wasn't available at that phone number. I assume that after a few days of not validating the charges, they would deny future charges to that card. They do have an international collect number that I can call if my card gets denied and I'm overseas, and an 800 number for inside the US.