Are you trying make me be compliant by being nice? Hell, I might even grow to like you.
I just finished this book and have been influencing others to check it out. Definitely has the potential to give the diligent reader an advantage in life.
- It is based on facts - It isn't colored by an ideological bent - It is reasonable
We're all talking about American politics and here you come and spoil it for everybody... Shame on you, you resonable sounding, non-dogmatic, fact spewer...
The hackers and a handful of tech savy users that want OS X on generic hardware are irrelevant.
I disagree. Completely.
They may be irrelevant to Apple's current sales objectives. And they may be irrelevant in terms of percentage of OS X units sold in the very near future.
But I think they will be highly relevant. Both in terms of increased possibilities for future market and product moves available to Apple and to the impact felt by Microsoft. Right now Microsoft is fighting mostly a one-front war with Linux.
If that handful of hackers and tech savvy users along with a few engineers can show that running OS X on commodity hardware works well and a community builds up around it, Apple may have the best opportunity it has ever had to sharply swing it's market share.
What would happen if they would stage another switch blitz, reduce the cost to $49.99, and bring back Ellen?
Is it unthinkable that they could double their market share? Especially if Apple was to throw a few dollars at NeoOffice?
"Taking the position that individuals have pushed open source forward leads to the conclusion that a core group of ideological 'believers' is necessary for the continued success of open source software."
Take the formation and continuation of the United States.
Certainly it was started by a small group of ideologically and personally "strong" individuals, a core group that got the ball rolling. But today, the country has reached a critical mass that although could be unravelled, seems to be for the most part on autopilot.
but that should not mean that we treat cases of individual unsolicited mail less seriously.
Yes it does.
1 spam email should be considered a serious crime.
I want to live in your world, where the biggest threat I have to worry about is getting a single spam email.
How about try getting some perspective. I hate spam as much as the next person. And I have sent f**koff emails to people who have sent me a single spam. But a serious crime? A murder is a serious crime.
It's statements like this that devalue the words we use to describe things.
Serious is defined as: of great consequence; dangerous: causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm.
If a single spam email is a serious crime what, is the sending of 280 million? An email holocaust? See how silly that sounds?
After much research this is the best one I could find. The only issue of course is the cost. Frankly, it's more than I want to pay... Having said that, in trying to price a DIY system that does all this seemed to result in similar if not more cost.
Personally, I'm waiting for the price to drop to less than $700...
1) When a customer's data (credit card info, PHI, etc) is illegally duplicated it's stealing and all possible security measures should be taken to prevent this crime.
2) When a content producer's data (song, movie, software, etc) is illegally duplicated it's only been copied, no real harm was done, and the content producer should just ease up.
Yes I realize that the intent of content producer's is to propagate their data (through legal means) and customer's have no intent to propagate their data, but it still it strikes me as a very hypocritical position to take (not that parent necessarily takes this position, but a hell of a lot of others on slashdot seem to).
I happen to agree that in this instance Diebold is more than likely hiding behind the shield of the OS to avoid going down the road of opening their own code up to scrutiny. They have seen where that leads.
However...
As another poster pointed out, from a line count perspective, the Windows OS probably makes up 99% of the OS + Dieblold code stack. Further, I believe they use additional MS libraries like Access DB File DLLs. So the percentage of MS code is even higher.
So we come to an interesting point: Could the state of North Carolina require Diebold to exhaustively black-box test the voting application including the underlying Microsoft components and document that the software functions as expected and specified by both a requirements and design specification document?
Theoretically yes. IF the requirements and design specification documents were executed perfectly, AND IF all possible variables and test cases were known AND IF the testing was conducted in a perfect manner. This would "verify" that the software functions as advertised.
Does looking at those two pages give you the warm fuzzies? Me neither... Also notice this gem:
Some voting systems use one or more readily available commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) devices (such as card readers, printers, or personal computers) or software products (such as operating systems, programming language compilers, or database management systems). COTS devices and software are exempted from certain portions of the qualification testing process as defined herein, as long as such products are not modified for use in a voting system.
So I think that you are technically correct in that the submission of the OS source code is not absolutely necessary to reach a relative comfort level (comparable to say: testing of FDA certified devices).
But... That doesn't mean that I think that there are any practical alternatives. And from what I can tell the state of North Carolina rather fairly or unfairly to closed source solutions, is looking out for the its citizens as best it can.
I don't fault Diebold for being reluctant to move forward given the language of the statute.
It seems to be clear that the intent was to have the actual source code and not just a copy of the software. Also, it isn't at all clear if that means the underlying platform or just the voting application on top of it, but why take a chance. And really, what would be the point of having access to half of the software stack?
Either the state of North Carolina really doesn't want a windows based voting solution or they are accidentally sending the message that "no closed source solutions need apply".
In either case poor, misunderstood Diebold may have to take their ball and go home. I think we can all agree that given theirtrackrecord, this is a good thing.
I tried and tried to dance to it but none of my usual "mowing the lawn", "churning the butter", "pulling the weeds", or "climbing the ladder" sweet dance moves seemed to fit...
You make a good point. Once you leave a network that is out of your physical control there is no _gaurantee_ of privacy.
It's interesting to consider the levels of privacy really possible on the public Internet. The combination of IPSec and anonymous proxies gets you pretty far if combined in clever ways.
Am I the only one that finds it shockingly ironic that the survey to determine if consumers are still receiving unwanted calls is done by initiating unwanted telephone calls?
I mean isn't that bound to skew the results?
Consumer: Hello? Survey Operator: We're conducting a survey on unwanted phone calls Consumer: OK... Survey Operator: Have you received any unwanted calls lately? Consumer: Yes... Quite recently actually!
These electric power companies need to stop messing around and wave their magic wands to rebuild the PHYSICAL infrastructure they have spent a 100 years building up with the lessons learned from a company that's been around for 7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem very evil...
Are you trying make me be compliant by being nice? Hell, I might even grow to like you.
I just finished this book and have been influencing others to check it out. Definitely has the potential to give the diligent reader an advantage in life.
doesn't an intelligent species have some sort of responsibility for its actions?
You are making some big assumptions there...
I have a problem with your post...
- It is based on facts
- It isn't colored by an ideological bent
- It is reasonable
We're all talking about American politics and here you come and spoil it for everybody... Shame on you, you resonable sounding, non-dogmatic, fact spewer...
The hackers and a handful of tech savy users that want OS X on generic hardware are irrelevant.
I disagree. Completely.
They may be irrelevant to Apple's current sales objectives. And they may be irrelevant in terms of percentage of OS X units sold in the very near future.
But I think they will be highly relevant. Both in terms of increased possibilities for future market and product moves available to Apple and to the impact felt by Microsoft. Right now Microsoft is fighting mostly a one-front war with Linux.
If that handful of hackers and tech savvy users along with a few engineers can show that running OS X on commodity hardware works well and a community builds up around it, Apple may have the best opportunity it has ever had to sharply swing it's market share.
What would happen if they would stage another switch blitz, reduce the cost to $49.99, and bring back Ellen?
Is it unthinkable that they could double their market share? Especially if Apple was to throw a few dollars at NeoOffice?
with the article.
"Taking the position that individuals have pushed open source forward leads to the conclusion that a core group of ideological 'believers' is necessary for the continued success of open source software."
Take the formation and continuation of the United States.
Certainly it was started by a small group of ideologically and personally "strong" individuals, a core group that got the ball rolling. But today, the country has reached a critical mass that although could be unravelled, seems to be for the most part on autopilot.
Apparently Polaris pissed off Chuck Norris...
One good roundhouse kick was enough to dislodge Polaris Ab and set it in orbit.
And don't even ask what happened to Polaris A.
but that should not mean that we treat cases of individual unsolicited mail less seriously.
Yes it does.
1 spam email should be considered a serious crime.
I want to live in your world, where the biggest threat I have to worry about is getting a single spam email.
How about try getting some perspective. I hate spam as much as the next person. And I have sent f**koff emails to people who have sent me a single spam. But a serious crime? A murder is a serious crime.
It's statements like this that devalue the words we use to describe things.
Serious is defined as: of great consequence; dangerous: causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm.
If a single spam email is a serious crime what, is the sending of 280 million? An email holocaust? See how silly that sounds?
Like this: http://www.photovu.com/pv1945.html
After much research this is the best one I could find. The only issue of course is the cost. Frankly, it's more than I want to pay... Having said that, in trying to price a DIY system that does all this seemed to result in similar if not more cost.
Personally, I'm waiting for the price to drop to less than $700...
I would think the Sun would be particularly strong on an island...
You must not live in the US...
And what are these "long-term" bucks you speak of?
I'm not trying to offer flamebait, BUT...
I just want to get this straight:
1) When a customer's data (credit card info, PHI, etc) is illegally duplicated it's stealing and all possible security measures should be taken to prevent this crime.
2) When a content producer's data (song, movie, software, etc) is illegally duplicated it's only been copied, no real harm was done, and the content producer should just ease up.
Yes I realize that the intent of content producer's is to propagate their data (through legal means) and customer's have no intent to propagate their data, but it still it strikes me as a very hypocritical position to take (not that parent necessarily takes this position, but a hell of a lot of others on slashdot seem to).
I happen to agree that in this instance Diebold is more than likely hiding behind the shield of the OS to avoid going down the road of opening their own code up to scrutiny. They have seen where that leads.
However...
As another poster pointed out, from a line count perspective, the Windows OS probably makes up 99% of the OS + Dieblold code stack. Further, I believe they use additional MS libraries like Access DB File DLLs. So the percentage of MS code is even higher.
So we come to an interesting point: Could the state of North Carolina require Diebold to exhaustively black-box test the voting application including the underlying Microsoft components and document that the software functions as expected and specified by both a requirements and design specification document?
Theoretically yes. IF the requirements and design specification documents were executed perfectly, AND IF all possible variables and test cases were known AND IF the testing was conducted in a perfect manner. This would "verify" that the software functions as advertised.
But... We already do that. Sort of. Take a look at section 1.6, 1.6.1-.3
Does looking at those two pages give you the warm fuzzies? Me neither... Also notice this gem:
Some voting systems use one or more readily available commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) devices (such as card readers, printers, or personal computers) or software products (such as operating systems, programming language compilers, or database management systems). COTS devices and software are exempted from certain portions of the qualification testing process as defined herein, as long as such products are not modified for use in a voting system.
So I think that you are technically correct in that the submission of the OS source code is not absolutely necessary to reach a relative comfort level (comparable to say: testing of FDA certified devices).
But... That doesn't mean that I think that there are any practical alternatives. And from what I can tell the state of North Carolina rather fairly or unfairly to closed source solutions, is looking out for the its citizens as best it can.
I don't fault Diebold for being reluctant to move forward given the language of the statute.
It seems to be clear that the intent was to have the actual source code and not just a copy of the software. Also, it isn't at all clear if that means the underlying platform or just the voting application on top of it, but why take a chance. And really, what would be the point of having access to half of the software stack?
Either the state of North Carolina really doesn't want a windows based voting solution or they are accidentally sending the message that "no closed source solutions need apply".
In either case poor, misunderstood Diebold may have to take their ball and go home. I think we can all agree that given their track record, this is a good thing.
and was not impressed.
I tried and tried to dance to it but none of my usual "mowing the lawn", "churning the butter", "pulling the weeds", or "climbing the ladder" sweet dance moves seemed to fit...
AS400 is pretty damn close.
Excellent points!
I assume that some grey, suited MBA type didn't put this code in.
If he's grey then I assume he has been dead for some time and was therefore incapable of putting the code in...
Hey don't knock gamers that spend tons of money on computer gear.
It's thanks to them that the rest of us can get normal gear at such reasonable prices...
At first I was thinking this sounds awfully xenophobic...
And then I thought "He who underestimates the chinese is a fool"...
But then I realized, I agree. Their track record at honest reporting of events isn't so good.
Your mom reads slashdot? Whoa...
Natural Selection vs. Intelligent Design
The debate rages on...
You make a good point. Once you leave a network that is out of your physical control there is no _gaurantee_ of privacy.
It's interesting to consider the levels of privacy really possible on the public Internet. The combination of IPSec and anonymous proxies gets you pretty far if combined in clever ways.
But, as you said, no guarantees...
That doesn't mean their calls aren't unwanted... Just not illegal.
Am I the only one that finds it shockingly ironic that the survey to determine if consumers are still receiving unwanted calls is done by initiating unwanted telephone calls?
I mean isn't that bound to skew the results?
Consumer: Hello?
Survey Operator: We're conducting a survey on unwanted phone calls
Consumer: OK...
Survey Operator: Have you received any unwanted calls lately?
Consumer: Yes... Quite recently actually!
Your absolutely right!
These electric power companies need to stop messing around and wave their magic wands to rebuild the PHYSICAL infrastructure they have spent a 100 years building up with the lessons learned from a company that's been around for 7 years.
Perhaps IBM can supply them some fairy dust too.