Given the importance of online gaming and internet addiction in South Korea, this is actually bigger there than it would be here.
However, in the age of 3G internet access, roaming WiFi hotspots, anonymizer services, and the prevalance of internet cafes in South Korea, I think you'll find it difficult to nail individuals to specific IPs.
All you need is someone to show up and attest for you and then you can vote without registering, and with no indentification, and the ballot isn't provisional.
If you have no id, don't register, and don't have someone to attest, then you get a provisional ballot.
If I "attest" for you, then you can vote without proving you live in the area, or that you have a legal right to vote. And that ballot isn't provisional. There is no indication that these votes are validated.
There are penalties for lying on this oath, but without making this votes provisional and actually verifying them, the penalties are empty threats because there is no means to verify who lied on the oath.
When I vote in Nebraska, I show up at the polling place, state my address and sign a book. If my house were destroyed in a tornado, I'd still be able to vote. I only need proof of my identity when I register, and I have all year to register.
That is fair and reasonable.
Specifically going out of your way to allow people to vote without registering, without proving place of residence, nor identification doesn't make sense. Please explain to me why that is necessary.
It was merely a mistake that 12 other people were registered to vote at my address specifically? That is statistically unlikely.
Poor people can't register to vote?
In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV. I pay something like $15 for a license that lasts me for several years, and register to vote for free.
Suggesting that poor people aren't being offered the ability to vote because you need to register in advance and provide id is the type of crazy conspiracy theory you're talking about.
Declaring your intent to vote in advance encourages people to make informed votes. Encouraging people to show up and register the day of an election encourges people to make uninformed decisions.
Really? I've personally witnessed it myself. In 2004 my vote was provisional because of voter fraud. There were something like 13 people registered to vote at my address, fake voters apparently because I was the only legal voter at my address. (My wife is Canadian and couldn't vote legally at the time, though she did eventually become a citizen).
You insist it hasn't happened in 30 years, except examples of it pop up constantly.
And allowing people to vote without supplying indentification is just enabling more fradulent votes.
I'm neither right nor left. I won't register with either party. And odd that you assume only one party screams voter fraud when Democrats screamed about voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
As for voter suppression, didn't Gore ask for absentee soldier ballots to be tossed out? Let's make sure our soliders risking their lives overseas don't get to vote, just because their votes were delayed by the government in being processed.
Both sides have cheated in voter fraud over the years. Your insistance that no fake votes have been cast in 30 years, and that only one party is ever guilty is naive to a fault. And you call me stupid?
Iowa in particular asks for no indentification when showing up to the polls on election day itself and registering there. No SSN. No driver's license number, specifically to allow people to vote who can't provide legal identification.
They are going out of their way to cater to illegal immigrants. My father-in-law conversely has been paying taxes in the United States for something like 15 years now as a legal immigrant and can't vote yet.
If you use the current Limera1n jailbreak, it doesn't ALLOW you to pirate apps by itself. You would need to take additional steps before the copyright protections were really compromised.
The DCMA says it is illegal to circumvent copyright measures for any reason. I hate the personally as I like to remove DRM from legally purchased games as I find it a hassle to insert and scratch discs, not to mention that DRM usually just causes unnecessary crashes in games.
But you're under the same legal scrutiny with your home PC as the XBox 360. You can customize the hardware so much as to paint it, add lights, change fans, etc. However any modification that might allow pirated software is the same as cracking a PC title.
The iPhone jailbreak is legal only so much as to add additional functionality, and is not legal to pirate apps on the iPhone.
If 360 hackers released a hack that only added homebrew support, and didn't allow for piracy of apps, they'd have a legal argument.
For someone who supposedly put so much thought into these issues, it is more like they didn't put any thought into them at all.
1. Picture a face that you haven't seen in person or in a photograph in 30 years. How clearly and distinctly do you recall the face? Let's assume that you do recall it fairly well (which is a stretch). You think your son looks like that person as they grow up. Wouldn't you chalk that up to coincidence?
2. Yes, there are two DeLoreans. It doesn't matter through.
3. The Doc might have made gasoline given enough time. And there is a possiblity a substitute might work in an absolute pinch, but you can't simply take any fuel and put it in any engine. You need something that wouldn't destroy the engine, and would get it to 88 mph safely.
4. Doc invented the time machine, so let's assume he understands the laws of time travel. He said alternate time lines are created, branching out and sometimes folding back into each other.
5. Doc was happy where he was. He was fufilling a life-long dream. He was also terrified of the consequences of future time travel. The purpose of the letter was clear. He didn't want to enable Marty in coming back. He asked Marty not to come back. And it has been ages since I've seen BttF3, but the fuel line worked when it was in the cave. Wasn't it the attack by the Native Americans that ruptured the fuel line? How could Doc forsee what would happen and what Marty would need after he came back?
6. Yes, they'd exist following previously established rules. Alternate timelines.
7. Again, alternate timelines. Let me reiterate a little more clearly. The future Marty and Jennifer do not exist in the timeline in which they went into the future and resolved things. They exist in an now alternate timeline where that has not occured yet.
8. Again, Doc is committed in an alternate timeline, but there is another Doc that has not been committed.
9. I haven't watched the film in ages, but the outside apeture of a cave does not necessarily indicate the total size of a cave or depth. Is the author an expert on where bears might be located?
10. The author already presents the counter-argument. If you can travel to one time specifically, why shouldn't you travel the the one time and place you know exactly where it is?
Mozilla has different groups working on different projects. Firefox had some bloat and memory leak issues and even since then, they've worked hard to address those.
Firefox uses less memory than Chrome. It's UI will never be quite as fast because of XUL but it isn't like the only thing they are working on is JS.
And JS is important because so many web apps depend on it. I have to use IE at work, and Gmail is painfully slow in it.
The RIAA said no one would pay for digital music because people can just as easily steal it. I think a WB exec equated it to Coca-Cola coming out of your faucet for free, and suggesting that means no one would ever by a Coke again.
iTunes is now the single largest music retailer in the country. The market has spoken, and enough people choose to purchase their music at that price point to keep the industry salient.
I don't pay a monthly copyright on any of my music. I buy the album/song once, and I'm done. There are business models and other price points to rent music. I don't partake of the personally.
Beer is also gone once I'm done drinking it. It would be near impossible to rent. Where I reuse my music collection. I still regularly listen to albums I bought nearly 20 years ago.
If I bought a Pearl Jam album in 1991 and still enjoying listening to it today, then I got an awful lot of value out of $11. Even better, I'm not done listening to it. I can listen to it as many timeas as I want over the course of my life.
You think that pricetag is unreasonable.
I think you're a punk who doesn't like paying for things and wants to try and rationalize it with bullshit rhetoric.
So blogs with even more slant, sensationalism, and less fact-checking completely overtake the news?
I'm not crazy about that idea.
And as far as I'm concerned, the same writes should exist for anyone who creates content, be it a blogger, newspaper, or recording artist when it comes to protecting their creations.
Let's say a major news story happens, such as 9/11. CNN will publish an initial article on their page. I recall hearing initial reports that the Pentagon was bombed. That was obviously incorrect.
CNN doesn't just republish 50 independent stories over the course of the day to change one small detail as the stories develops.
You can make the argument that they could consider wiki-like revisions of articles so people can see what changed.
I'm certainly upset with the lack of quality, ethical journalism.
Yet in the free market, it sure seems like slant and sensationalism sell considerably better. Tabloids are the best selling newspapers in the world for a reason.
When you buy a beer, you are given a glass bottle or alumninum can. The container is cheap. You're suggesting the cost of the container is the only cost that matters. It isn't.
The RIAA and MPAA have been fairly evil in their tactics, but that doesn't mean they have no legitimacy to some of their complaints.
Record companies front an artist the money to pay for a tour for instance. That money comes from album sales. You're suggesting that an artist is going to be paid once for recording an album. Who is going to pay them and why?
And yet in your world, they don't have the rights to sell individual CDs because copies of content shouldn't count.
What business model exists here? How is the artist getting paid at all?
Prices are set by a free market. In the iTunes age, it seems very few people pay $14 for a CD. They pay 99 cents for individual songs they like.
And 99 cents isn't a ridiculous price for something that I can listen to over and over again, and get repeated entertainment and value from.
As a kid I pirated tons of PC software. And I watched all my favorite computer game shops fold citing piracy. We can debate how much piracy affecting them financially or didn't, but if you don't pay for content then you don't get to bitch when that content disappears. If you like something, you need to financially support it to make sure that kind of content is financially feasible in the market.
I know this seems evil, but in the end, journalism is important. And if newspapers are going to survive moving into the future, they need to start selling content and protecting content.
I think people should be able to quote 2-3 sentences, summarize your story and link to it. But fully copying content isn't cool. And while I assume I'll get some responses who suggest IP is imaginary and that all information should be free, this is reality. It costs money to produce content. You can give away your content for free if you wish, but content creators deserve the right to make money on their content if they so choose.
The average user doesn't know how much of a dick Zuckerberg is. But this trial will expose that to more of the public, as will the upcoming Fincher movie.
And frankly Zuckerberg's history of screwing over other early partners, and intentionally screwing his users by constantly changing privacy settings to expose users will come out as evidence that he sought to exploit Ceglia and never honor the contract.
In the meantime, Google is putting together a Facebook killer. And the killer feature will be that your Mafia Wars and Farmville accounts will transfer over to this new social network, Google Me.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the importance of online gaming and internet addiction in South Korea, this is actually bigger there than it would be here.
However, in the age of 3G internet access, roaming WiFi hotspots, anonymizer services, and the prevalance of internet cafes in South Korea, I think you'll find it difficult to nail individuals to specific IPs.
No. The attesting clause was recently added for people who can't verify. That is why it exists.
We're providing non-provisional ballots to people who didn't register to vote and can't identify themselves.
That doesn't verify that you have a legal right to vote.
The law was specifically changed to enable illegal immigrants to vote, along with felons.
When passing the bill, it was even discussed how it would enable illegal immigrants to vote.
Again, please explain to me why it is necessary to allow people to vote without registration or identification?
But the ballot isn't provisional.
All you need is someone to show up and attest for you and then you can vote without registering, and with no indentification, and the ballot isn't provisional.
If you have no id, don't register, and don't have someone to attest, then you get a provisional ballot.
No, read the link you provided.
If I "attest" for you, then you can vote without proving you live in the area, or that you have a legal right to vote. And that ballot isn't provisional. There is no indication that these votes are validated.
There are penalties for lying on this oath, but without making this votes provisional and actually verifying them, the penalties are empty threats because there is no means to verify who lied on the oath.
When I vote in Nebraska, I show up at the polling place, state my address and sign a book. If my house were destroyed in a tornado, I'd still be able to vote. I only need proof of my identity when I register, and I have all year to register.
That is fair and reasonable.
Specifically going out of your way to allow people to vote without registering, without proving place of residence, nor identification doesn't make sense. Please explain to me why that is necessary.
It was merely a mistake that 12 other people were registered to vote at my address specifically? That is statistically unlikely.
Poor people can't register to vote?
In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV. I pay something like $15 for a license that lasts me for several years, and register to vote for free.
Suggesting that poor people aren't being offered the ability to vote because you need to register in advance and provide id is the type of crazy conspiracy theory you're talking about.
Declaring your intent to vote in advance encourages people to make informed votes. Encouraging people to show up and register the day of an election encourges people to make uninformed decisions.
What exactly are you advocating here?
Really? I've personally witnessed it myself. In 2004 my vote was provisional because of voter fraud. There were something like 13 people registered to vote at my address, fake voters apparently because I was the only legal voter at my address. (My wife is Canadian and couldn't vote legally at the time, though she did eventually become a citizen).
You insist it hasn't happened in 30 years, except examples of it pop up constantly.
And allowing people to vote without supplying indentification is just enabling more fradulent votes.
I'm neither right nor left. I won't register with either party. And odd that you assume only one party screams voter fraud when Democrats screamed about voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
As for voter suppression, didn't Gore ask for absentee soldier ballots to be tossed out? Let's make sure our soliders risking their lives overseas don't get to vote, just because their votes were delayed by the government in being processed.
Both sides have cheated in voter fraud over the years. Your insistance that no fake votes have been cast in 30 years, and that only one party is ever guilty is naive to a fault. And you call me stupid?
Iowa in particular asks for no indentification when showing up to the polls on election day itself and registering there. No SSN. No driver's license number, specifically to allow people to vote who can't provide legal identification.
They are going out of their way to cater to illegal immigrants. My father-in-law conversely has been paying taxes in the United States for something like 15 years now as a legal immigrant and can't vote yet.
Given that you don't even need to provide ID, how will they really check out your registration?
And what is the reason to allow people to register on that day without ID in the first place? How is this an improvement?
Many States have gone out of their way to allow illegal immigrants to vote.
Iowa allows you to register to vote the day of the elections, and the polling place without identification, and then provides ballots in Spanish.
What is stopping a felon or an illegal immigrant from voting? What is stopping you from going to every polling location and voting multiple times?
Minorities and illegal immigrants tend to slant to one side, so obviously that party wants votes in any way they can.
It is illegal to circumvent copyright protection.
If you use the current Limera1n jailbreak, it doesn't ALLOW you to pirate apps by itself. You would need to take additional steps before the copyright protections were really compromised.
The 360 hacks allow remove copyright protection.
That is the difference between the two.
The DCMA says it is illegal to circumvent copyright measures for any reason. I hate the personally as I like to remove DRM from legally purchased games as I find it a hassle to insert and scratch discs, not to mention that DRM usually just causes unnecessary crashes in games.
But you're under the same legal scrutiny with your home PC as the XBox 360. You can customize the hardware so much as to paint it, add lights, change fans, etc. However any modification that might allow pirated software is the same as cracking a PC title.
The iPhone jailbreak is legal only so much as to add additional functionality, and is not legal to pirate apps on the iPhone.
If 360 hackers released a hack that only added homebrew support, and didn't allow for piracy of apps, they'd have a legal argument.
For someone who supposedly put so much thought into these issues, it is more like they didn't put any thought into them at all.
1. Picture a face that you haven't seen in person or in a photograph in 30 years. How clearly and distinctly do you recall the face? Let's assume that you do recall it fairly well (which is a stretch). You think your son looks like that person as they grow up. Wouldn't you chalk that up to coincidence?
2. Yes, there are two DeLoreans. It doesn't matter through.
3. The Doc might have made gasoline given enough time. And there is a possiblity a substitute might work in an absolute pinch, but you can't simply take any fuel and put it in any engine. You need something that wouldn't destroy the engine, and would get it to 88 mph safely.
4. Doc invented the time machine, so let's assume he understands the laws of time travel. He said alternate time lines are created, branching out and sometimes folding back into each other.
5. Doc was happy where he was. He was fufilling a life-long dream. He was also terrified of the consequences of future time travel. The purpose of the letter was clear. He didn't want to enable Marty in coming back. He asked Marty not to come back. And it has been ages since I've seen BttF3, but the fuel line worked when it was in the cave. Wasn't it the attack by the Native Americans that ruptured the fuel line? How could Doc forsee what would happen and what Marty would need after he came back?
6. Yes, they'd exist following previously established rules. Alternate timelines.
7. Again, alternate timelines. Let me reiterate a little more clearly. The future Marty and Jennifer do not exist in the timeline in which they went into the future and resolved things. They exist in an now alternate timeline where that has not occured yet.
8. Again, Doc is committed in an alternate timeline, but there is another Doc that has not been committed.
9. I haven't watched the film in ages, but the outside apeture of a cave does not necessarily indicate the total size of a cave or depth. Is the author an expert on where bears might be located?
10. The author already presents the counter-argument. If you can travel to one time specifically, why shouldn't you travel the the one time and place you know exactly where it is?
11. How is this even a plot hole?
In theory they can. However, Mozilla has spent a lot of developer time and money on making their own engine, which they believe in.
These benchmarks showed Chrome's JS engine is TWICE as fast as Firefox 4's engine.
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/benchmarks/SunSpider/Default.html
That being said, Firefox's JS engine is getting faster and faster all the time. I assume they don't want to walk away from what they know.
Mozilla has different groups working on different projects. Firefox had some bloat and memory leak issues and even since then, they've worked hard to address those.
Firefox uses less memory than Chrome. It's UI will never be quite as fast because of XUL but it isn't like the only thing they are working on is JS.
And JS is important because so many web apps depend on it. I have to use IE at work, and Gmail is painfully slow in it.
Yes, but in KDE 4 Okular is now the default document reader and Dolphin is now the default file manager.
It wouldn't be unprecedented for them to replace the default web browser with a better browser.
Even Konquerer developers have admitted the interface is less than optimal because it tries to be all things to all people.
Honestly, I don't know why they put so much effort into maintaining Konqueror instead of helping to get rekonq up to speed.
http://rekonq.sourceforge.net/
Personally, Pearl Jam's Ten and Nirvana's Nevermind were the first two CDs I purchased. So that was basically the moment I made the switch.
They are being set by the market.
The RIAA said no one would pay for digital music because people can just as easily steal it. I think a WB exec equated it to Coca-Cola coming out of your faucet for free, and suggesting that means no one would ever by a Coke again.
iTunes is now the single largest music retailer in the country. The market has spoken, and enough people choose to purchase their music at that price point to keep the industry salient.
I don't pay a monthly copyright on any of my music. I buy the album/song once, and I'm done. There are business models and other price points to rent music. I don't partake of the personally.
Beer is also gone once I'm done drinking it. It would be near impossible to rent. Where I reuse my music collection. I still regularly listen to albums I bought nearly 20 years ago.
If I bought a Pearl Jam album in 1991 and still enjoying listening to it today, then I got an awful lot of value out of $11. Even better, I'm not done listening to it. I can listen to it as many timeas as I want over the course of my life.
You think that pricetag is unreasonable.
I think you're a punk who doesn't like paying for things and wants to try and rationalize it with bullshit rhetoric.
Mod me down or whatever. It's the truth.
So blogs with even more slant, sensationalism, and less fact-checking completely overtake the news?
I'm not crazy about that idea.
And as far as I'm concerned, the same writes should exist for anyone who creates content, be it a blogger, newspaper, or recording artist when it comes to protecting their creations.
Let's say a major news story happens, such as 9/11. CNN will publish an initial article on their page. I recall hearing initial reports that the Pentagon was bombed. That was obviously incorrect.
CNN doesn't just republish 50 independent stories over the course of the day to change one small detail as the stories develops.
You can make the argument that they could consider wiki-like revisions of articles so people can see what changed.
I'm certainly upset with the lack of quality, ethical journalism.
Yet in the free market, it sure seems like slant and sensationalism sell considerably better. Tabloids are the best selling newspapers in the world for a reason.
When you buy a beer, you are given a glass bottle or alumninum can. The container is cheap. You're suggesting the cost of the container is the only cost that matters. It isn't.
The RIAA and MPAA have been fairly evil in their tactics, but that doesn't mean they have no legitimacy to some of their complaints.
Record companies front an artist the money to pay for a tour for instance. That money comes from album sales. You're suggesting that an artist is going to be paid once for recording an album. Who is going to pay them and why?
And yet in your world, they don't have the rights to sell individual CDs because copies of content shouldn't count.
What business model exists here? How is the artist getting paid at all?
Prices are set by a free market. In the iTunes age, it seems very few people pay $14 for a CD. They pay 99 cents for individual songs they like.
And 99 cents isn't a ridiculous price for something that I can listen to over and over again, and get repeated entertainment and value from.
As a kid I pirated tons of PC software. And I watched all my favorite computer game shops fold citing piracy. We can debate how much piracy affecting them financially or didn't, but if you don't pay for content then you don't get to bitch when that content disappears. If you like something, you need to financially support it to make sure that kind of content is financially feasible in the market.
I know this seems evil, but in the end, journalism is important. And if newspapers are going to survive moving into the future, they need to start selling content and protecting content.
I think people should be able to quote 2-3 sentences, summarize your story and link to it. But fully copying content isn't cool. And while I assume I'll get some responses who suggest IP is imaginary and that all information should be free, this is reality. It costs money to produce content. You can give away your content for free if you wish, but content creators deserve the right to make money on their content if they so choose.
The average user doesn't know how much of a dick Zuckerberg is. But this trial will expose that to more of the public, as will the upcoming Fincher movie.
And frankly Zuckerberg's history of screwing over other early partners, and intentionally screwing his users by constantly changing privacy settings to expose users will come out as evidence that he sought to exploit Ceglia and never honor the contract.
In the meantime, Google is putting together a Facebook killer. And the killer feature will be that your Mafia Wars and Farmville accounts will transfer over to this new social network, Google Me.