No, the money should definitely go to Richard Stallman, to buy him a new PPC-based Mac, with unremovable copy of MacOS X. We know what flying chairs do, but I don't believe anyone has investigated the aerodynamic properties of a Powermac yet.
Mac users started out pretty zealous and soon the defensive instincts of people that didn't own Macs started to create a thriving community of PC zealots who probably wouldn't have given a damn if they hadn't constantly been told that they were foolish, servile to Microsoft, and complete tools because of their product choice.
I think you have it backwards. The PC zealots were the first to be aggressive. What's more, aggression was driven by powerful companies in the industry. Microsoft and others would spread FUD about Apple, funded by vast cash reserves.
Meanwhile, most Mac users were just doing their Desktop Publishing thing and exploring Photoshop. It was the years of attacks on voiceless Mac users that caused the zealotry of the 90s. And you'll find that in the post-2000 era, Mac users are much less zealous, and more secure.
You can see a similar thing with Linux. Linux users have become much more zealous over the years - perhaps as a result of the FUD from Microsoft - just as Microsoft was less vicious towards Apple, they made Linux the new enemy.
I don't just mean fundamentalist Christians, either; atheists, agnostics, muslims (mac users?) are just as likely to get defensive if you start criticizing something they hold to be true.
What about slashdotters who reflexively name groups of people who are considered "irrational"? Aren't you just doing the same thing here?
The phone on my desk at work says "made in china" on it.
My TV and DVD player are both chinese.
And thats just what I can find/think of off the top of my head.
yeah, but why do we need any of that shit? Doesn't seem to make people happy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a provably secure, open cryptography-supported way to make sure elections are fair and allow anyone to investigate fraud?
Nope.
If such a scheme can be mathematically proven to be secure, why aren't we using it?
Because mathematics can't prove security. Human factors are involved in any election, and in the programming of the machines. How do you mathematically prove that election volunteers didn't tamper with the software on the machines?
This is why I as a libertarian despise the arguments in favor of strong IP law.
So, what do you do when the other Libertarians support strong IP law? Do you vote against them? Do you argue with them? Libertarianism is founded upon property rights, so, I think you are firmly in the minority as a Libertarian who doesn't support IP law.
Most large USA elections have many, many issues on the ballot. That makes the ballot itself much more complicated.
So simplify the ballots (or the political system). I don't see how it being on a computer or on paper makes any fewer issues to consider. A long, complex ballot on paper is going to be a long, complex ballot on a screen. What's the difference?
You spot-count a small percentage of them, and if there's a discrepency you hand-count them all. You can also hand count them if there's a contested vote somewhere, or just for grins.
How do you know that the paper ballot accurately represents the recorded vote?
Also, you complained earlier about complex paper ballots. If the user has to check their vote against a printout on paper - aren't we back to the "complex paper ballot" problem again?
Greater accessibility for the handicapped, more legible interfaces for long complicated ballots
Why would a computer necessarily be more accessible or legible? Some people have big problems reading off a screen, but not off paper. there are accessibility technologies that aren't electronic. Braille, for example.
the early detection and correction of "misvotes" and unintentional "undervotes",
Why would a computer be better at detecting "misvotes"? Does it read the voter's mind? By "undervote" - do you mean "not enough votes for the party Diebold supports"?
Touchscreen voting machines need to finish up your vote by printing it out on a paper ballot, prompting you to confirm or (with the help of a poll worker) destroy that paper, and finally directing you to the ballot box where the paper should be inserted to become part of the official count.
How does this help? The paper might not represent the recorded vote accuracy. So it may give a false sense of security.
Why are consumer goods so cheap now? Because they're made in China, and in other places where the cost of labor and production is lower than it is in the states. The American consumer benefits greatly from trade with China,
I don't agree. China is getting the jobs, and growing prosperity. American jobs are declining - and Americans are sending themselves broke of the illusion of Wal-Mart dreams. not only that, but you get crappy products. of course, China can make good products, but the popular stuff in the big-box stores is pretty shit.
I don't really see the benefit from having worse jobs and more crappy products that have to be replaced every year.
However, there are so many people who don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and vote for a candidate that *DOES* represent their beliefs come polling day that it makes me bow my head in shame.
What shits me, is that the people most involved in music, are totallly ignorant of all this. I know many professional and amateur musicians and film-makers. I know tons of people who are DJs or announcers on the radio.
Most of them just want to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to technology or politics. I'm just a casual-to-serious music listener. I don't have a big stake in this argument. I don't have a voice in the music industry. Why the hell aren't the people with an actual stake in this doing anything? I'm not going to go into politics for someone else's battle. I'll support them if they do, of course.
Did China convince Google executives that they had huge penises, and that the Chinese weren't a threat because they have small penis?
I am sick and tired of the West sucking up to China. It seems China gets the best end of the bargain - they get the benefits of capitalism and trade with the west - but they get a free pass on democracy, and the West even helps them with their dictatorship and censorship needs.
So, I guess totalitarianism is bad, as long as a small, weak country is doing it. But "China very big" so, we have to do what China says.
Motherfuckers. Screw Google and all the other apologists.
No, you don't get a sad Mac. You get pain. The Hand of Jobs reaches out of your Mac and slaps you upside the head - for even daring to remember the Sad Mac, "Classic MacOS" or Clarus the Dogcow.
Indeed. Just because the spam is deleted before the end-user sees it, does not mean that the spam doesn't exist, or that it doesn't have a bogus effect on bandwidth and ISPs.
Gmail considers some.user@gmail.com and somuser@gmail.com as the same when delivering email,
I understand the period thing, but why would Google want to eliminate the letter 'e'? That truly is evil. 'e' is a nice, friendly letter, that has never hurt anyone. What did 'e' do to Google to deserve this.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the money should definitely go to Richard Stallman, to buy him a new PPC-based Mac, with unremovable copy of MacOS X. We know what flying chairs do, but I don't believe anyone has investigated the aerodynamic properties of a Powermac yet.
Well, can't we pass a law requiring them to be humanitarian, then?
I think you have it backwards. The PC zealots were the first to be aggressive. What's more, aggression was driven by powerful companies in the industry. Microsoft and others would spread FUD about Apple, funded by vast cash reserves.
Meanwhile, most Mac users were just doing their Desktop Publishing thing and exploring Photoshop. It was the years of attacks on voiceless Mac users that caused the zealotry of the 90s. And you'll find that in the post-2000 era, Mac users are much less zealous, and more secure.
You can see a similar thing with Linux. Linux users have become much more zealous over the years - perhaps as a result of the FUD from Microsoft - just as Microsoft was less vicious towards Apple, they made Linux the new enemy.
What about slashdotters who reflexively name groups of people who are considered "irrational"? Aren't you just doing the same thing here?
Republicans have brain activity? I don't think so.
yeah, but why do we need any of that shit? Doesn't seem to make people happy.
So, how do you know your vote was correctly posted, and the machine isn't just bullshitting you?
Nope.
If such a scheme can be mathematically proven to be secure, why aren't we using it?
Because mathematics can't prove security. Human factors are involved in any election, and in the programming of the machines. How do you mathematically prove that election volunteers didn't tamper with the software on the machines?
So, what do you do when the other Libertarians support strong IP law? Do you vote against them? Do you argue with them? Libertarianism is founded upon property rights, so, I think you are firmly in the minority as a Libertarian who doesn't support IP law.
So simplify the ballots (or the political system). I don't see how it being on a computer or on paper makes any fewer issues to consider. A long, complex ballot on paper is going to be a long, complex ballot on a screen. What's the difference?
You spot-count a small percentage of them, and if there's a discrepency you hand-count them all. You can also hand count them if there's a contested vote somewhere, or just for grins.
How do you know that the paper ballot accurately represents the recorded vote?
Also, you complained earlier about complex paper ballots. If the user has to check their vote against a printout on paper - aren't we back to the "complex paper ballot" problem again?
Why would a computer necessarily be more accessible or legible? Some people have big problems reading off a screen, but not off paper. there are accessibility technologies that aren't electronic. Braille, for example.
the early detection and correction of "misvotes" and unintentional "undervotes",
Why would a computer be better at detecting "misvotes"? Does it read the voter's mind? By "undervote" - do you mean "not enough votes for the party Diebold supports"?
Touchscreen voting machines need to finish up your vote by printing it out on a paper ballot, prompting you to confirm or (with the help of a poll worker) destroy that paper, and finally directing you to the ballot box where the paper should be inserted to become part of the official count.
How does this help? The paper might not represent the recorded vote accuracy. So it may give a false sense of security.
You obviously did not go to learn if you went in with your mind made up. How can you be educated, if everything is already decided?
I don't agree. China is getting the jobs, and growing prosperity. American jobs are declining - and Americans are sending themselves broke of the illusion of Wal-Mart dreams. not only that, but you get crappy products. of course, China can make good products, but the popular stuff in the big-box stores is pretty shit.
I don't really see the benefit from having worse jobs and more crappy products that have to be replaced every year.
What shits me, is that the people most involved in music, are totallly ignorant of all this. I know many professional and amateur musicians and film-makers. I know tons of people who are DJs or announcers on the radio.
Most of them just want to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to technology or politics. I'm just a casual-to-serious music listener. I don't have a big stake in this argument. I don't have a voice in the music industry. Why the hell aren't the people with an actual stake in this doing anything? I'm not going to go into politics for someone else's battle. I'll support them if they do, of course.
What is your major malfunction? Dropped on the head as a baby?
Not specifically. It's much more about distribution, attribution and selling or passing off.
I am sick and tired of the West sucking up to China. It seems China gets the best end of the bargain - they get the benefits of capitalism and trade with the west - but they get a free pass on democracy, and the West even helps them with their dictatorship and censorship needs.
So, I guess totalitarianism is bad, as long as a small, weak country is doing it. But "China very big" so, we have to do what China says.
Motherfuckers. Screw Google and all the other apologists.
No, you don't get a sad Mac. You get pain. The Hand of Jobs reaches out of your Mac and slaps you upside the head - for even daring to remember the Sad Mac, "Classic MacOS" or Clarus the Dogcow.
Breaking the iMac's what? Don't leave me hanging with incomplete sentences.
Heh. Set up a captcha that says "enter your password." I bet people would fall for it.
Indeed. Just because the spam is deleted before the end-user sees it, does not mean that the spam doesn't exist, or that it doesn't have a bogus effect on bandwidth and ISPs.
Doozy - noun - Of, or pertaining to dooz.
I understand the period thing, but why would Google want to eliminate the letter 'e'? That truly is evil. 'e' is a nice, friendly letter, that has never hurt anyone. What did 'e' do to Google to deserve this.
WAKE UP! DO NOT ALLOW GOOGLE TO COMMIT E-NOCIDE
What is this "Slashdot" you speak of? We only see a site called "Slash"
But when they do, it's a doozy!