Comment Re:Git is much better for large repos (Score 2) 378
git clone --depth 1
To add to this, last time I used SVN, it seemed to transfer each file individually which was really slow. Git compresses the files and then transfers everything
git clone --depth 1
To add to this, last time I used SVN, it seemed to transfer each file individually which was really slow. Git compresses the files and then transfers everything
Although I'd argue that if this is a common problem then you probably have several sub-projects.
I didn't say it'd scramble the fighter jets, but if someone enters a "I"M BEING COERCED INTO VOTING FOR SOMEONE" signal, that's pretty serious. If I entered it, I'd expect someone to follow up on it (not send around a S.W.A.T team, but have someone follow up over the next week).
This is a side issue though, as there's already the problem of how someone actually enters this duress signal. How is this done without anyone but the person entering it knowing it's the duress signal?
but otherwise sounds to me you're trying to come up with some absurd argument against online voting because you've run out of proper arguments.
I'm describing just one problem in a theoretically perfectly secure online voting system. In fact, the problem with the duress signal is the delivery of it to a person without anyone else knowing. I was describing a problem even if *that* system was also perfect. Overall, I don't see the point in online voting. Going to a nearby school/church/town hall and ticking a box on a bit of paper behind a curtain is simple, cheap and pretty hard to fuck up. It solves many of the problems with coercion (the wonderful technology of an opaque curtain), fraud is harder because there are physical items to fake/destroy with people around.
Frankly, I see no difference between Internet voting and voting by mail when it comes to security.
Scale. Voting by mail is done in fairly small numbers and importantly is not the standard. You have to go through extra hoops to do it. As it's implemented, it certainly has the problems of coercion, but is probably better than stopping those people voting at all.
Internet voting, however, would be something I'd see as standard. Not a special case for those who can't make it to the polls, but for everyone. And that's where it starts to worry me.
This might be solving the user's immediate issue (if he has time/inclination to rip the disk ahead of time, and assuming that the battery isn't dying even when the DVD is not in use), but it also neatly avoids the need to address the actual problem (crap battery life).
Well, unless the replier is going to quickly solve the underlying problem, the only useful response is the one given. The replier didn't give what was asked, but gave what was needed.
But who learned from that? Only that individual advertiser. Even if each advertiser never makes money, as long as there is another sucker in line, there will be no end to spam.
You're assuming here that if *some* people will still send spam that the problem will be the same. Sure, some people will advertise through email. However, you're now limited to people willing to pay quite large sums for modest exposure.
I'm most concerned about people who have a legitimate reason to send out lots of emails. Anyone running a newsletter for example. You'd need a way of allowing people to send emails without it costing them.
energy output, it's ten times the energy density (e.g. watt hours per pound), and that means you can have a device powered by a battery that's of similar capacity to current designs but ten times smaller.
10 times *lighter*.
Ultimately it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is not a primary source
How about Scholarpedia?
What of the thousands of online copies of peer-reviewed papers?
So let's try a different exercise: look up a bunch of Wikipedia articles on various subjects and follow the references. How many of those references are available online? How many of those references would require a visit to the library (or, for those who can afford it, a book purchase)?
Why only wikipedia?
A second challenge, try to find academic papers in a library. How many could you not find there?
I have a better test: try to make it through college without attending classes and without consulting a single offline reference. Unless you already know the material, chances are you'll not progress anywhere near as quickly as those students who rely on non-internet resources.
If you are doing the test properly and mean "*only* non-internet resources" at the end, then I'm certain I'd win. My course was AI, most lecture notes were available online and failing that I could very quickly have the most important papers on the topic on my screen. I haven't taken a single (on topic) book out of the library during my course, have never felt the need to as I could get up-to-date information almost instantly. Those not using the internet would have had an extremely difficult time.
Your test is also somewhat biased, since the idea is to compare the internet an libraries. You've compared the internet to libraries and lectures.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth