As I understand it, the issue is not in the failure rate of optical scanning, but in the proposed process to scan them in a centralized location, rather than scanning them at the polling location as the voter submits their ballot.
If the machine rejects the ballot as the voter submits it, they have a chance to correct any errors or issues related to their submission. If the machine rejects the ballot later in the day, they have no such opportunity.
The ACLU, in this case, seems to just be trying to make sure every ballot is actually counted.
Without even taking people's different needs into account... success in the market place has a lot more to do with "marketing" than being the "best" at anything.
And Ubuntu has marketed itself well as a hassle-free OS (in addition to being $ free). Whether it's true or not is completely beside the point.
Fixed the link. The slash at the end was killing it.
Please note that that's a press release from PURE, and not an independant article.
It is interesting though...
They claim Philip Elberg defeated Sue Scheff and PURE on behalf of his client, Ginger Warbis/Fornits.
The case was dismissed without prejudice - meaning it can be brought back to court on the same claim. It was the decision of Sue Scheff and her Attorney, David Pollack, to focus on one defendant. Philip Elberg won nothing from this case.
Dismissed vs Defeated... semantics (yes semantics are important, but doesn't sound like an unreasonable statement to me) A minor battle is not the measure of the war, but I find no fault in celebrating the small victories.
They claim Sue Scheff refers children to abusive programs due to her referrals of children to the Whitmore Academy.
For over 30 years The Whitmore had a successful program with no allegations of abuse.
Just how abusive is abusive? Do you send your children to bed without supper? If I call that abusive, am I slandering you? It sounds like a weak argument.
They claim Cheryl Sudweeks, owner of the Whitmore Academy, pled guilty to specified charges in a Utah criminal court.
Cheryl did not admit any guilt. There was NO substantiated evidence against the Whitmore. The state admittedly had no case and agreed to a plea in abeyance. An article misstated facts and later corrected their mistakes, claiming Cheryl could never run a youth program in the county for the rest of her life. This is not true and they corrected their error.
"An article" mis-stated facts that were further propagated... ok, so if "the article" people could retract their statement, Ms. Block should have also retracted hers, if notified of the error and given the opportunity to do so, but I'm still not seeing $11M worth of stuff here.
They assert Ms. Scheff makes money from the plight of frightened parents.
Ms. Scheff does not charge the parents for her services. To the contrary, Ms. Scheff is a parent and child advocate.
Back to semantics, but this time the shoe is on the other foot... Is it safe to presume that Ms. Scheff makes money and works with frightened parents? Is is safe to assume that if there were no frightened parents in plight, there would be no job for Ms. Scheff? The above statement doesn't say she makes money directly from the parents, though I'll admit there's an implication...
They claim a Federal Judge told Ms. Scheff to remove misrepresentations from her website showing she had a college degree.
Ms. Scheff's bio was written by a third-party. Within 24-hours she found the error and had it immediately corrected and removed; the Judge had nothing to do with it.
"the Judge had nothing to do with it".... which "the Judge" are we talking about this time?
They claim Sue Scheff won by default.
A jury of her peers reviewed evidence, deliberated for hours, and concluded her damages equaled $11.3 million dollars, $5 million of which were punitive.
I don't know what the precise definition of a "default judgement" is, it seems to be an adequate laymens term to describe the situation in which one party doesn't show up to defend itself. Doesn't mean the judgement wasn't justified. But does that matter? This is a statement about the case, not a statement about the the facts that led up to the case. (meta-complaint?)
They claim the case had no merit.
This case had merit - it was defended for over 2 years - the facts spoke for themselves. The trial with a jury verdict of damages over $11.3 million sends a loud message. You can't post lies and false statements about people simply because you don't
"A. Buckyegg Breaks Pentagon Rules"... I'm positive from the article title that it's a story about a rogue Pentagon insider. Of course I haven't read the article or summary yet.
But the definition of "Spam" and "Spammer" are nowhere near set in stone.
Most of us can agree that the pron and male-enhancement e-mails that use botnets and fake mail headers are spam. But some people consider _all_ bulk marketing email as spam.
So if Spamhaus's usage of the word doesn't match e360insight's, does that make it libel/slander? Do cross-cultural differences in interpretation of the language come into play? Does the intended audience of Spamhaus's "speach" matter (IT Administrators, not marketers)?
Spamhaus seems to provide a reasonable service (though I don't use it).
I don't know...
Why can't he be a machine? He doesn't have gears or transistors involved in the process, but someday the line between biological machines and more traditional machines will be blurred. Why shouldn't he be considered a machine for the purposes of prior art?
If you send ANYTHING that has to do with WHATEVER the state has put on it's prude-list, you need to scrub. Doesn't matter if you think you have permission or not.
If my business name is "CheapGuns.com", someone signs up for the monthly specials listserv I need to run that list against the State list every month to try and stay legal?
Oh, don't be silly.
You have to run your list against EVERY state that has such a list, every month.
Except it doesn't work that way. There's no money in it for the state if they do it that way; you see, they've set it up so you have to PAY to scrub your list. Every 30 days. YOU do the hashing, and send your list to them, and they give you back a list of matches. Costs "up-to" 3 cents per address checked (not matched).
See Administrative Rules, R 484.511:
https://www.protectmichild.com/senders/
I my world, I would substitue your "Defer It" with "Flag It for Followup" and Delete It, with... uh, "Un-Flag it for Followup" if it was flagged, otherwise... do nothing. You didn't mention "file it"... maybe you really don't need to file records, but I replace "file it" with "label it", and I have a very clean inbox, even if ther are 30 thousand messages in it.
Except that by not actually 'deleting' things, I can have the computer find it for me at a later date. By leaving most messages in the same folder (inbox), I can easily change sort orders or filter settings and see everything I want, they way I want to, at the time I want.
You can still be organized without loosing information by using 'delete'.
Use your inbox in whichever way makes you most productive. But, for me, that sure ain't your way.
I was curious at those numbers of inbox messages in the low thousands, thinking is that really big? With my inbox well into the 10s of thousands, I'm glad to see I'm not alone.
The only mail I delete is spam and the transient "Hey, call me when you get a chance" type of messages. Everything else stays. I sort personal emails into a separate folder (occationally) and have rules to auto-filter newlsetter/group subscriptions into their own folders, but other than that, everything just goes in the inbox and stays there as a chronological history of my work communications.
The mail server and my email clients handle it quite well. I use both Outlook AND Thunderbird on different computers running against the same M$ Exchange server.
Why delete? Storage is cheap, business communications are important.
Maybe my attitude would be different if I couldn't store it all on the server, but I use multiple computers, so that would be problematic anyway.
Oh, one other type of message I delete... those "Your mailbox is over it's size limit" automated messages I get from the IT department every week;)
Well... if google is saying: "In the opinion of google, KinderStart is not relevant to [some specific search criteria], i.e. KinderStart Sucks", that still shouldn't be defamation.
If they were saying: "Google saw KinderStart suck on a phallus", (when in fact they did not see such an event), that's defamation.
I count on Google's page ranking system for _relevancy_, and there's no reason why manual intervention can't be part of that ranking system. If I don't like their methodology, I'll use some other search engine.
Mine was the Commodore 16.
I **upgraded** to the C64 after an earthquake caused the TV to fall forward onto the C16, cracking and breaking some of the traces in the pcboard below the keyboard... of course I was able to fix that up pretty easily, but as far as the parents knew it was dead and I juse Needed that newer model.:)
I hope they still have that machine in storage somewhere...
Just because it will play on a iPod doesn't mean ~everything about it~ will play nicely with a Mac.
The old TiVo Desktop software that was available for the Mac never supported video.
Pulling video off the TiVo is trivial. The box runs an HTTP server. But it serves already-DRM'd ".tivo" files.
I don't know of any decoder available on the Mac to decode that video format. So, you might still need a PC to recode the video from a ".tivo" file to some other DRM'd format before you can play it on a Mac.
In any case, I'm much more interested in getting shows from iTunes (purchased or vodcasts) ON to the TiVo. People have already been transcoding their.tivo files and playing them other places for a while now.
But there are a lot of good "TV Shows" being produced out and distributed via RSS, and I don't want to watch them on my computer. I want to watch them on my TV (via my TiVo). It's already possible to push video back to the TiVo, but it's not as easy as it should be. I'd **much** prefer to see that sort of feature built into TiVo-to-Go or even iTunes.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, the issue is not in the failure rate of optical scanning, but in the proposed process to scan them in a centralized location, rather than scanning them at the polling location as the voter submits their ballot.
If the machine rejects the ballot as the voter submits it, they have a chance to correct any errors or issues related to their submission. If the machine rejects the ballot later in the day, they have no such opportunity.
The ACLU, in this case, seems to just be trying to make sure every ballot is actually counted.
Without even taking people's different needs into account... success in the market place has a lot more to do with "marketing" than being the "best" at anything.
And Ubuntu has marketed itself well as a hassle-free OS (in addition to being $ free). Whether it's true or not is completely beside the point.
For more tabbing options, check out Witch.
(donationware... damn, I should really donate):
http://www.manytricks.com/witch/
Please note that that's a press release from PURE, and not an independant article.
It is interesting though...
Dismissed vs Defeated... semantics (yes semantics are important, but doesn't sound like an unreasonable statement to me) A minor battle is not the measure of the war, but I find no fault in celebrating the small victories.
Just how abusive is abusive? Do you send your children to bed without supper? If I call that abusive, am I slandering you? It sounds like a weak argument.
"An article" mis-stated facts that were further propagated... ok, so if "the article" people could retract their statement, Ms. Block should have also retracted hers, if notified of the error and given the opportunity to do so, but I'm still not seeing $11M worth of stuff here.
Back to semantics, but this time the shoe is on the other foot... Is it safe to presume that Ms. Scheff makes money and works with frightened parents? Is is safe to assume that if there were no frightened parents in plight, there would be no job for Ms. Scheff? The above statement doesn't say she makes money directly from the parents, though I'll admit there's an implication...
"the Judge had nothing to do with it".... which "the Judge" are we talking about this time?
I don't know what the precise definition of a "default judgement" is, it seems to be an adequate laymens term to describe the situation in which one party doesn't show up to defend itself. Doesn't mean the judgement wasn't justified. But does that matter? This is a statement about the case, not a statement about the the facts that led up to the case. (meta-complaint?)
No, no... you must study Political Science.
... I'm positive from the article title that it's a story about a rogue Pentagon insider. Of course I haven't read the article or summary yet.
"A. Buckyegg Breaks Pentagon Rules"
But the definition of "Spam" and "Spammer" are nowhere near set in stone.
Most of us can agree that the pron and male-enhancement e-mails that use botnets and fake mail headers are spam. But some people consider _all_ bulk marketing email as spam.
So if Spamhaus's usage of the word doesn't match e360insight's, does that make it libel/slander? Do cross-cultural differences in interpretation of the language come into play? Does the intended audience of Spamhaus's "speach" matter (IT Administrators, not marketers)?
Spamhaus seems to provide a reasonable service (though I don't use it).
I don't know... Why can't he be a machine? He doesn't have gears or transistors involved in the process, but someday the line between biological machines and more traditional machines will be blurred. Why shouldn't he be considered a machine for the purposes of prior art?
Which part of the law says that?
"Senders of adult e-mails must scrub their lists at least every 30 days in order to comply with the law." https://www.protectmichild.com/senders/
If you send ANYTHING that has to do with WHATEVER the state has put on it's prude-list, you need to scrub. Doesn't matter if you think you have permission or not.
Oh, don't be silly.
You have to run your list against EVERY state that has such a list, every month.
Good luck!
Except it doesn't work that way. There's no money in it for the state if they do it that way; you see, they've set it up so you have to PAY to scrub your list. Every 30 days. YOU do the hashing, and send your list to them, and they give you back a list of matches. Costs "up-to" 3 cents per address checked (not matched). See Administrative Rules, R 484.511: https://www.protectmichild.com/senders/
I my world, I would substitue your "Defer It" with "Flag It for Followup" and Delete It, with ... uh, "Un-Flag it for Followup" if it was flagged, otherwise... do nothing. You didn't mention "file it"... maybe you really don't need to file records, but I replace "file it" with "label it", and I have a very clean inbox, even if ther are 30 thousand messages in it.
Except that by not actually 'deleting' things, I can have the computer find it for me at a later date. By leaving most messages in the same folder (inbox), I can easily change sort orders or filter settings and see everything I want, they way I want to, at the time I want.
You can still be organized without loosing information by using 'delete'.
Use your inbox in whichever way makes you most productive. But, for me, that sure ain't your way.
I was curious at those numbers of inbox messages in the low thousands, thinking is that really big? With my inbox well into the 10s of thousands, I'm glad to see I'm not alone.
... those "Your mailbox is over it's size limit" automated messages I get from the IT department every week ;)
The only mail I delete is spam and the transient "Hey, call me when you get a chance" type of messages. Everything else stays. I sort personal emails into a separate folder (occationally) and have rules to auto-filter newlsetter/group subscriptions into their own folders, but other than that, everything just goes in the inbox and stays there as a chronological history of my work communications.
The mail server and my email clients handle it quite well. I use both Outlook AND Thunderbird on different computers running against the same M$ Exchange server.
Why delete? Storage is cheap, business communications are important.
Maybe my attitude would be different if I couldn't store it all on the server, but I use multiple computers, so that would be problematic anyway.
Oh, one other type of message I delete
Well... if google is saying:
"In the opinion of google, KinderStart is not relevant to [some specific search criteria], i.e. KinderStart Sucks", that still shouldn't be defamation.
If they were saying:
"Google saw KinderStart suck on a phallus", (when in fact they did not see such an event), that's defamation.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
"...publication of a false statement of fact, made with the requisite state of mind, that causes injury"
I count on Google's page ranking system for _relevancy_, and there's no reason why manual intervention can't be part of that ranking system. If I don't like their methodology, I'll use some other search engine.
NeXTStep was a general purpose computer, and really, underneath, so is the iPod.
Taking something from a 'big' computer, and then pattenting that for all 'small' computers should not make a valid patent.
Mine was the Commodore 16. I **upgraded** to the C64 after an earthquake caused the TV to fall forward onto the C16, cracking and breaking some of the traces in the pcboard below the keyboard... of course I was able to fix that up pretty easily, but as far as the parents knew it was dead and I juse Needed that newer model. :)
I hope they still have that machine in storage somewhere...
Just because it will play on a iPod doesn't mean ~everything about it~ will play nicely with a Mac.
.tivo files and playing them other places for a while now.
The old TiVo Desktop software that was available for the Mac never supported video.
Pulling video off the TiVo is trivial. The box runs an HTTP server. But it serves already-DRM'd ".tivo" files.
I don't know of any decoder available on the Mac to decode that video format. So, you might still need a PC to recode the video from a ".tivo" file to some other DRM'd format before you can play it on a Mac.
In any case, I'm much more interested in getting shows from iTunes (purchased or vodcasts) ON to the TiVo. People have already been transcoding their
But there are a lot of good "TV Shows" being produced out and distributed via RSS, and I don't want to watch them on my computer. I want to watch them on my TV (via my TiVo). It's already possible to push video back to the TiVo, but it's not as easy as it should be. I'd **much** prefer to see that sort of feature built into TiVo-to-Go or even iTunes.
For example VodCast TV shows, check out:
http://www.digitallifetv.com/
http://www.channelfrederator.com/
http://www.cerealized.com/
http://www.rocketboom.com/