I don't necessarily need to eliminate that from the ballot, with the advent of electronic voting I could ask the first. But why should that be on the ballot anyway? Why shouldn't we expect more from people than sheep-voting, and maybe even go as far as to expect that people know to which party their preferred candidate belongs before they enter the voting booth?
How would this lead to a reduction of ignorant votes? They'll have exactly the same information when entering the voting booths as they have today; forcing them through additional hoops will make them all the less likely to want to vote.
That's the point. Why shouldn't voting be restricted to people that know what the candidate stands for, or at least has one reason for voting for that person over an opponent? Not that I'm necessarily in favour of it, just think it's an interesting point.
What difference does it make who caused it to install automatically - it does. And can't be removed. When calculating user responsibility it doesn't matter why these things are true.
This is the basis for the rule, but has since been amended by the Clayton act and interpreted by many years of court ruling from the supreme court. Bundling is a way to make one monopoly into two monopolies.
I don't disagree with the interpretation that they can't bundle things, only that they have to pay Firefox developers.
Suppose I have a monopoly on something. If I bundle something else with that first product, how do you know if I've raised the total cost of the bundle and am actually forcing you to buy two products, or if I'm just making a charitable donation that reduces the company's revenue? Noting that part of the money for each Windows license goes to the IE dev team makes it perfectly clear for those people who believe in a free lunch that it isn't so. They're buying IE and they don't have a choice as to whether or not they do so if they want Windows.
Surely if it's a charitable donation it would be made by paid developers anyway - I don't see the difference. Think of it this way: if it's a free component of Windows, it's a Windows feature and there's no problem with paying for it from Windows license money. In any account, I don't see how where the money for the developers comes from affects the monopoly status - surely all they need to do is unbundle IE - or provide equivalent bundled status to competitors - and after that, they can develop IE how they want, they just have to do it on a level playing field. If they pay IE developers in stolen pirate gold it makes no difference to whether they are abusing their monopoly.
Except that is exactly what the antitrust law addresses. Just because a company makes a Windows application, they should not be reliant on Microsoft because Windows has been ruled a monopoly and everyone is reliant upon Microsoft for it.
If I make a Linux application I am reliant on people using Linux for my product to be any use. If I make a Windows application people have to use Windows for my application to be marketable. I don't see how it's even possible to change this.
The advert was an account of the murder of James Byrd Jr., killed by being dragged behind a pickup truck for 3 miles by white supremacists. It was being used to imply that Bush was soft on hate crimes because he didn't pass specific hate crime legislation - although since 2 of the three perpetrators were executed and the third given life in prison, it hardly seems a case of the failure of the law as a punisher.
Hahahaha! I'm sure you can find a hundred years of court precedent showing bundling to be illegal unless extreme measures are taken. And I'm sure you can find in the DOJ case where they labeled MS's bundling of IE illegal. Paying Firefox developers would be part of a bizarre attempt to legally bundle, if they were trying to find a way to do that and not violate the terms of the law.
I refer you to your statement: I was not referring to the court proceedings, simply what is mandated in the Sherman anti-trust act as applied to the situation. I want to know exactly where this is mandated in the act. I agree that bundling a web browser isn't a good solution, but allowing OEMs to bundle will just lead to them bundling Internet Explorer - after all, they can give you Firefox now, but they don't. Most customers use IE so it's the easiest to support.
I don't understand what the problem is with IE developers being paid from money that comes from Windows. Why does it matter? If they were a separate company they would be no less reliant on people buying Windows for their money - they make a Windows application.
It was about 35 minutes, and they skipped the opening sequences and ran the entire credits in about 5 seconds, with no gap between the episodes - I assume they aren't allowed to skip the credits. The double-bills were also neither current nor consecutive episodes, so I would guess they chose the shortest they could.
Umm, there is precious little at all in the judgments. I wonder why? But I was not referring to the court proceedings, simply what is mandated in the Sherman anti-trust act as applied to the situation.
Can you show me where the act says anything about Microsoft having to pay Firefox developers? All Microsoft need to do to make competition fair is to make it as difficult for users to install IE as Firefox/Opera etc. It seems to me that customers would be adversely affected by not having any web browser provided with Windows - how then to get a browser at all? So what I would suggest is that the Windows disc should contain all browsers with over, say, 5% market share when each version goes to the presses. Equal access is ridiculous - there are hundreds of browsers out there - but fair choice is a necessity for the market system to work.
America was also colonised by the British, arguably the most developed nation in the world at that time. The ensuing willingness of Britain and her allies to trade ideas and materials with Europe and the Americas while Africa was considered only a source of free labour prevented African development.
There isn't, is there? If we rephrase it to what they mean minus the emotive language - free or State regulated - there is clearly no middle ground. If it's a bit State regulated, it's State regulated. If not, it's free.
I tested it on the default FF 2 installation on Ubuntu 6.10, before installing any plugins, even Flash. I opened it up and closed it - fine, all the memory was freed up. Opened it again: using 31MB Then I opened all the tabs in the BBC News live bookmark. which took memory usage to 135MB. I closed all the tabs - memory usage down to 130. Went to Slashdot, added the RSS feed and opened it all - 172MB. Closed it all. 155MB. Opened the BBC one again: 192MB. At this point it was obvious that memory wasn't being freed properly, so I closed it and opened it again. 32MB of memory being used - all freed up again apparently.
Cost shouldn't matter here, since secret, equal, free elections are a crucial process within democratic systems.
The proponents of an electronic voting system don't disagree about the importance of secret, equal, free elections. The part that causes the disagreement is whether this can be achieved with electronic machines, which would also allow cost savings, faster counting and other possibilities, like allowing people to change their vote, translation into many, many languages at every polling station, etc. Now, I agree there are bugs in the current implementation. I agree that the hardware and software should be auditable and open sourced. I think - and I suspect you agree - that there should be a substantial review period, say 5 years, during which time anyone can challenge parts of the code/machine and receive a reward for demonstrating a problem.
I think his point was that since it took a court to decide whether the two songs were legally different, will such a recourse be available in the even of something similiar happening - the MySpace audio fingerprint detecting a new composition as copyrighted, for example. I suspect there won't be.
You're right, it's not fair use. But since your comment implies that it isn't a right at all, I'd like to make it clear that US Code 17 Title 117 provides an exemption allowing the copying of computer programs for backup purposes.
2. There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize."
The -ize suffix is actually perfectly acceptable in British English - it derives from the Greek suffix -izo. The growth of the -ise suffix is mostly a backlash against American simplification of the language. It is, however, incorrect to convert other suffixes to contain -ize instead of -ise; for example, 'televize' instead of televise, where the suffix is -vise and cannot be changed.
You don't have to convert the HTML into XHTML, you're right, that is difficult to do correctly. All you have to do is validate the comments as XHTML and if they don't pass, output them as plain text not HTML.
"Hi Bob. Here's my password and my voter number. As you can see, I voted for your brother, Joe."
Because the system is designed so that you can change your voter number slightly to make it show you voted for a different candidate. If you've been told to vote for someone or else you just press the "I've been told to vote for someone or else" button and it gives you a candidate number that says you've voted for them. If they try to change your vote, it will seem to work perfectly but won't be counted. And why can't the hardware and software be open? Why can't the machines be audited randomly? All I'm proposing is that electronic voting can allow voters to verify their vote without leaving a receipt for goons to check.
Something like what? "Please type in a memorable word or phrase you can use to ensure the validity of your vote. It can be from 10 to 25 characters and contain any character."
How could you possibly think a password on your vote is a threat to democracy? Why would a password-protected vote, verifiable and accountable after the fact, be less secure than a normal one? I don't understand your logic at all. I understand that the Government could subvert your vote, I just don't understand how this step makes it easier.
Unless the voter ID was given to you when you voted - say by being displayed on screen. If you don't provide any way to prove who they voted for, then vote-buying is still too risky. You could store the vote in a database as a counterpart number, which is the voter number encrypted with the voter's public key. To check the vote, they decrypt the entire list of counterparts (for their area I suppose, since downloading a country's worth of votes is going to use an enormous amount of bandwidth) with their private key, producing a list of seemingly random numbers (and they should be pseudo random, since using a consecutive base number is asking for trouble). They can now just check for their number and verify their vote. If they want to sell their vote then they have to be able to prove that their passphrase and vote number are valid, since almost any combination will turn up one match if the list is, say, 10 million votes per area. And if they want to change their vote they just go back to the polling station and type their voter number and passphrase in before voting to change their vote.
The problem I can see with this is people just typing in a random combination and hoping to change someone else's vote, or worse downloading the list and cracking it for all passphrases that change a democrat vote to a Republican, for example. This could be countered by the internal system storing information not made available on the online list, such as a (seeded) hash of the user's passphrase.
There are probably holes in this system, but I can't think of any except for the omni-present "the Government could rig it" problem. I don't think this would be any more serious than in a paper system; while the ability to change votes might make a tempting target for a trick - crack the hashes and change the vote - I don't think this would be easier than now, since standard SHA-1 still requires 2**69 operations to find a collision, more secure algorithms such as SHA-512 are available, and normally millions of votes would need to be changed to rig a national election.
It supports invisible logins for MSN at least since Beta 2 (if not earlier, I can't remember that far back!). And since Y! and MSN are now sharing their systems, it should do it for Y! as well.
That only works unaided as long as all negative consequences cost more money, or dissuade people from paying money. Pollution, though, is a negative consequence that often makes things cheaper, the savings coming in the form of lower reprocessing costs. Taxing electricity more doesn't prevent the proper working of the capitalist system, it simply adds another factor into the calculation.
Always buying AMD no matter how much better value for money Intel represents isn't encouraging competition, it's destroying it. There's no motivation for Intel to improve their price/performance if the reason you don't buy from them is that they're too good. Do you really want the companies to compete for last place?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't necessarily need to eliminate that from the ballot, with the advent of electronic voting I could ask the first. But why should that be on the ballot anyway? Why shouldn't we expect more from people than sheep-voting, and maybe even go as far as to expect that people know to which party their preferred candidate belongs before they enter the voting booth?
What impartial source of information does it reduce? I don't understand how I'm restricting what information people have access to.
Out of curiosity, how do you propose to defeat it?
What difference does it make who caused it to install automatically - it does. And can't be removed. When calculating user responsibility it doesn't matter why these things are true.
I don't disagree with the interpretation that they can't bundle things, only that they have to pay Firefox developers.
Surely if it's a charitable donation it would be made by paid developers anyway - I don't see the difference. Think of it this way: if it's a free component of Windows, it's a Windows feature and there's no problem with paying for it from Windows license money. In any account, I don't see how where the money for the developers comes from affects the monopoly status - surely all they need to do is unbundle IE - or provide equivalent bundled status to competitors - and after that, they can develop IE how they want, they just have to do it on a level playing field. If they pay IE developers in stolen pirate gold it makes no difference to whether they are abusing their monopoly.
If I make a Linux application I am reliant on people using Linux for my product to be any use. If I make a Windows application people have to use Windows for my application to be marketable. I don't see how it's even possible to change this.
The advert was an account of the murder of James Byrd Jr., killed by being dragged behind a pickup truck for 3 miles by white supremacists. It was being used to imply that Bush was soft on hate crimes because he didn't pass specific hate crime legislation - although since 2 of the three perpetrators were executed and the third given life in prison, it hardly seems a case of the failure of the law as a punisher.
I refer you to your statement: I was not referring to the court proceedings, simply what is mandated in the Sherman anti-trust act as applied to the situation. I want to know exactly where this is mandated in the act. I agree that bundling a web browser isn't a good solution, but allowing OEMs to bundle will just lead to them bundling Internet Explorer - after all, they can give you Firefox now, but they don't. Most customers use IE so it's the easiest to support.
I don't understand what the problem is with IE developers being paid from money that comes from Windows. Why does it matter? If they were a separate company they would be no less reliant on people buying Windows for their money - they make a Windows application.
It was about 35 minutes, and they skipped the opening sequences and ran the entire credits in about 5 seconds, with no gap between the episodes - I assume they aren't allowed to skip the credits. The double-bills were also neither current nor consecutive episodes, so I would guess they chose the shortest they could.
Can you show me where the act says anything about Microsoft having to pay Firefox developers? All Microsoft need to do to make competition fair is to make it as difficult for users to install IE as Firefox/Opera etc. It seems to me that customers would be adversely affected by not having any web browser provided with Windows - how then to get a browser at all? So what I would suggest is that the Windows disc should contain all browsers with over, say, 5% market share when each version goes to the presses. Equal access is ridiculous - there are hundreds of browsers out there - but fair choice is a necessity for the market system to work.
America was also colonised by the British, arguably the most developed nation in the world at that time. The ensuing willingness of Britain and her allies to trade ideas and materials with Europe and the Americas while Africa was considered only a source of free labour prevented African development.
There isn't, is there? If we rephrase it to what they mean minus the emotive language - free or State regulated - there is clearly no middle ground. If it's a bit State regulated, it's State regulated. If not, it's free.
I tested it on the default FF 2 installation on Ubuntu 6.10, before installing any plugins, even Flash. I opened it up and closed it - fine, all the memory was freed up. Opened it again: using 31MB Then I opened all the tabs in the BBC News live bookmark. which took memory usage to 135MB. I closed all the tabs - memory usage down to 130. Went to Slashdot, added the RSS feed and opened it all - 172MB. Closed it all. 155MB. Opened the BBC one again: 192MB. At this point it was obvious that memory wasn't being freed properly, so I closed it and opened it again. 32MB of memory being used - all freed up again apparently.
Can someone repeat that to verify?
The proponents of an electronic voting system don't disagree about the importance of secret, equal, free elections. The part that causes the disagreement is whether this can be achieved with electronic machines, which would also allow cost savings, faster counting and other possibilities, like allowing people to change their vote, translation into many, many languages at every polling station, etc. Now, I agree there are bugs in the current implementation. I agree that the hardware and software should be auditable and open sourced. I think - and I suspect you agree - that there should be a substantial review period, say 5 years, during which time anyone can challenge parts of the code/machine and receive a reward for demonstrating a problem.
I think his point was that since it took a court to decide whether the two songs were legally different, will such a recourse be available in the even of something similiar happening - the MySpace audio fingerprint detecting a new composition as copyrighted, for example. I suspect there won't be.
You're right, it's not fair use. But since your comment implies that it isn't a right at all, I'd like to make it clear that US Code 17 Title 117 provides an exemption allowing the copying of computer programs for backup purposes.
The -ize suffix is actually perfectly acceptable in British English - it derives from the Greek suffix -izo. The growth of the -ise suffix is mostly a backlash against American simplification of the language. It is, however, incorrect to convert other suffixes to contain -ize instead of -ise; for example, 'televize' instead of televise, where the suffix is -vise and cannot be changed.
Amusing post though!
You don't have to convert the HTML into XHTML, you're right, that is difficult to do correctly. All you have to do is validate the comments as XHTML and if they don't pass, output them as plain text not HTML.
"Hi Bob. Here's my password and my voter number. As you can see, I voted for your brother, Joe."
Because the system is designed so that you can change your voter number slightly to make it show you voted for a different candidate. If you've been told to vote for someone or else you just press the "I've been told to vote for someone or else" button and it gives you a candidate number that says you've voted for them. If they try to change your vote, it will seem to work perfectly but won't be counted. And why can't the hardware and software be open? Why can't the machines be audited randomly? All I'm proposing is that electronic voting can allow voters to verify their vote without leaving a receipt for goons to check.
Something like what? "Please type in a memorable word or phrase you can use to ensure the validity of your vote. It can be from 10 to 25 characters and contain any character."
How could you possibly think a password on your vote is a threat to democracy? Why would a password-protected vote, verifiable and accountable after the fact, be less secure than a normal one? I don't understand your logic at all. I understand that the Government could subvert your vote, I just don't understand how this step makes it easier.
Perhaps if some sort of public body were running the election they could issue people with one as part of that?
Unless the voter ID was given to you when you voted - say by being displayed on screen. If you don't provide any way to prove who they voted for, then vote-buying is still too risky. You could store the vote in a database as a counterpart number, which is the voter number encrypted with the voter's public key. To check the vote, they decrypt the entire list of counterparts (for their area I suppose, since downloading a country's worth of votes is going to use an enormous amount of bandwidth) with their private key, producing a list of seemingly random numbers (and they should be pseudo random, since using a consecutive base number is asking for trouble). They can now just check for their number and verify their vote. If they want to sell their vote then they have to be able to prove that their passphrase and vote number are valid, since almost any combination will turn up one match if the list is, say, 10 million votes per area. And if they want to change their vote they just go back to the polling station and type their voter number and passphrase in before voting to change their vote.
The problem I can see with this is people just typing in a random combination and hoping to change someone else's vote, or worse downloading the list and cracking it for all passphrases that change a democrat vote to a Republican, for example. This could be countered by the internal system storing information not made available on the online list, such as a (seeded) hash of the user's passphrase.
There are probably holes in this system, but I can't think of any except for the omni-present "the Government could rig it" problem. I don't think this would be any more serious than in a paper system; while the ability to change votes might make a tempting target for a trick - crack the hashes and change the vote - I don't think this would be easier than now, since standard SHA-1 still requires 2**69 operations to find a collision, more secure algorithms such as SHA-512 are available, and normally millions of votes would need to be changed to rig a national election.
It supports invisible logins for MSN at least since Beta 2 (if not earlier, I can't remember that far back!). And since Y! and MSN are now sharing their systems, it should do it for Y! as well.
That only works unaided as long as all negative consequences cost more money, or dissuade people from paying money. Pollution, though, is a negative consequence that often makes things cheaper, the savings coming in the form of lower reprocessing costs. Taxing electricity more doesn't prevent the proper working of the capitalist system, it simply adds another factor into the calculation.
Always buying AMD no matter how much better value for money Intel represents isn't encouraging competition, it's destroying it. There's no motivation for Intel to improve their price/performance if the reason you don't buy from them is that they're too good. Do you really want the companies to compete for last place?