Just like chicago's under ground mail and package delivery system. Also used to cool buildings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

this is what inspired the Royal Mail company to build theirs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Linus (impatient with the pace of HURD) developed a quick and dirty kernel that a Unix user land could be built on top of. He took a lot of shortcuts, he didn't think too much about portability and basically just made a beeline for the end line - to get a shell and hence other stuff running over a kernel. The kernel filled out and became portable as the project gained momentum and volunteers.

Whereas HURD got stuck up its own ass for correctness and politics. And that's even before Linux existed as a thing. It's hardly a surprise that when Linux did appear that people jumped ship.

It's true there was a debate about micro kernel designs but that alone doesn't explain HURD's failure.

Some Linux users are a bit like the Amish.

Yes.
Can I have some?
No.

After you pay, the google maps locates the panhandlers location, and routes around it. They could charge for this service as a micro payment, and then give the money to the pan handler.

From the wiki article you cite:
Broken Encryption

The encryption system used in the three ballot was broken by a correlation attack devised by Charlie Strauss[5] who also showed how it could be used to prove how you voted [6]. Strauss's attack relied on the fact that not all receipt strips can pair with all cast strip pairs since proposed triplets with 3 or 1 vote cast in any race on the ballot (not just one race of interest) can be rejected since the strips could not be from the same ballot. Since there are far more vote patterns on a typical United States precinct ballot than there are ballots cast in a precinct, statistically nearly all of the ballot pairs cast can only be paired uniquely with one receipt strip kept by the voter. This allows a the voters votes to be known by anyone with the receipt. Furthermore a voter conspiring to prove their vote (for money, coercion, or posterity) could mark all the strips in a unique previously agreed pattern that would assure recovery. Rivest et all, acknowledged this logic error in their concept[1], and revised the schema to require tearing off each race individually (destroying the correlation of the races) and having theoretically traceable tracking numbers on each race-level receipt. While this did restore the unbreakable aspect of the scheme, arguably the proliferation of receipts and chopped ballots rendered the mechanics of processing the votes or for a voter reviewing a receipt significantly complex, thus defeating its intended simplicity.

Good lord, that did not make the problem better, you just have all the problems of both and none of the advantages.

And a photo of any such paper would allow you to prove how you voted which is antithetical to the secret ballot. Conversely a photo of a marked paper ballot is not proof of how you voted since it's not counted until it is invisible in the ballot box or optical scan. The voting machine makers tried to do something like that with a rolled continuous paper ballot printer the voter could see. However these tape ballots which were longer than a football field proved impossible to manipulate for recounting. With cut sheets it's easy to divide them into piles for any race and then have the observers help you recount the piles. takes very little time to sort and recount fixed page paper ballots for any given race being recounted. Not so with the toilet paper rolls. Furthermore, paper jams and printer malfunctions made these unreliable. paper ballots don't have that problem and if the opscan jams they can be counted later after putting them in a locked ballot box.

finally when a machine does go down or a church bus shows up to vote all at once, long lines ensue. When pen breaks on a paper ballot you get more pens, and you can have as many voting stations as you like.

Finally, which record is the actual record in case of a discrepancy? the electronic one or the paper one? ideally you want one tracable to the voters makrking action not her click-through glance at a printed paper ballot. With DRE's the errors happen during the clumsy touch screen process. (e.g. if you can't make a fist with one finger extended (people with R. Arthtrhitis can't) then you can't use a touch screen accurately. the touchscreens get out of calibration and programming errors result in incorrect recording of votes. pens on paper are generally more accessible (even though DREs can offer some handicap accessible features) and record the voters intent directly.

faster? no slower. precint counting is not the slow part. the optical scans of paper count instantly. the rate limits are how may voters can vote at the same time (paper ballots win) and the protocols for collation to central tabulation of the precints (for which there's not any difference between opscan and a DRE voting machines).

It's too bad that Intel hardware has such crappy performance. I am more interested in the base case. That's FAR more relevant to FAR more people. People bragging about how complicated they can make their parlour tricks are ridiculous and irrelevant.

That's total hogwash. There is nothing about how Linux works in practice that makes BLOB drivers any less reliable or any harder to deal with. What problems may have existed have been fixed already and fixed for a long time already.

You sound like some stupid Lemming working out of an outdated playbook.

Just take advantage of the fact that Unix is well suited for automation.

> Churches don't harass people who leave

Are you kidding? If you really believe this then you need to seriously educate yourself. Take off the blinders and take a look around.

No. He's just more anal about rules than a German is.

The problem with liberty is when people start deciding to play favorites. Then what you have just devolves into the religious wars that early American settlers fled from.

If you are trying to play favorites in any way shape or form then liberty and equality have just been thrown out the window.

Some people have a hard time with this (especially Europeans).

Then you run through every use case. Confer with the actual users to see what those are.

Medicine is not the only field where you could have a highly complex system deployed that doesn't achieve anyone's requirements. I've seen that myself in banking (Fortune 500) and also in "startups".

You can whine mindlessly or you can point to an actual counterexample. Such an example might actually prove your point. Although you seem distinterested in that.