Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Is it such a bad thing? (Score 1) 219

Yes, given the attitudes thrown around about it.
There is a serious coercive element to the structure holding up the two party system.
It's something called intimidation: the action of intimidating someone, or the state of being intimidated.
intimidate
verb
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.

Yup. We're being coerced.

Comment Re:Is it such a bad thing? (Score 1) 219

But everybody has to take faith that the observers are fair and not tampered with. I can use my county government website to verify whether my ballot has been received and counted, but that is the extent of information that it will return to me. I cannot verify that my counted vote was counted properly, that my vote went toward my chosen candidate or my votes on measures were appropriately recorded.
I would support removing the blinders entirely, creating an open record of the vote, allowing anyone to verify the counts.
Granted, this is easier said than done. There are privacy implications, as scrubbing the data of personal information would inhibit independent verification. There are people who would refuse to vote if their vote was on public record. John Q Public might not want his family to know that he votes differently than the household slant, but perhaps openly recording who we vote for would allow us to move beyond some of the reasons why that might be.

Comment Is it such a bad thing? (Score 1) 219

It says that blind ballots guard against voter coercion, but that's not true in the least. What's the one going around these days, vote for Clinton so we don't get Trump, if you vote for Stein or Johnson you're voting for Trump? That's blatant, widespread, constant voter coercion.

At this point I feel like we would be better off making the vote completely transparent. The blind vote isn't helping anyone but the people who would want to rig elections, since there is no way to publicly vet the voting process with it in place.

Comment Re: Not even upset (Score 2) 197

It's pretty ridiculous to me that Linux developers ever accepted the Bitkeeper terms. I honestly can't see a reasonable justification for it. Why the hell would anyone building an open source operating system rely on a closed source revision control system whose license could be - AND WAS - revoked because someone tried to write a tool to interoperate with it?

The resounding boom and development of git was a godsend.

Comment Re:for $9k the specs are horrible (Score 1) 109

I base that in part on one of the intended uses as method of displaying and interacting with scientific visualizations. Some of the software that would really shine on this device benefits greatly from having an actual GPU rather than an integrated Intel graphics chip, but you're spending over 20 grand to get that with the Surface Hub.

Comment Re:That's it... (Score 1) 254

Yes, Arch Linux is unstable. I used Arch Linux for a while and I absolutely loved what they were doing with it, right up until a series of updates that occurred which broke the system to such a degree that I ran for the hills. These updates were known to cause serious issues, and if you were following their newsreel and reading everything they posted you could have avoid having your system hosed, but otherwise you fired off the bog-standard update command your system was FUCKED.

And they deprecated their installer around the same time, claiming it wasn't maintainable and not worth the time.

What a bunch of buffoons.

Comment Re:The house that Gates built was nothing like thi (Score 2) 387

Those guys are behind the curve and will soon be scrambling to make sure everything is up to date.
It's the same situation we had with every major revision of Windows in the past. Hordes of people insisting on keeping their outdated, but working and mission critical, systems up and running. Hordes of people slowly finding that they're having to pass on using the most up to date tools for their jobs because they decided to stick with end of life platforms. Hordes of people getting increasingly frustrated as their old infrastructure begins to fail and they're stubbornly insisting they keep on the old and 'working' while it falls apart.
I understand. I didn't want to let go of Windows 2000, what benefit did Windows XP give me beyond a pretty face? But you know, I was wrong then, and they're wrong now. Let's hope they wise up and start taking the steps to migrate successfully instead of waiting until the infrastructure is 15 years old and crumbling at the slightest touch. Those XP guys who come into my repair shop are a sorry bunch, y'know. But the Vista guys are too, and recently the 7 guys are looking pretty down themselves. It will be far too soon that 8 is on the chopping block, but we'll have the same problems with the same people who don't want to ride the curve and prefer to prop up failing systems with bubblegum and toothpicks.
It's just the same old story. It's not Nadella's Microsoft, it's start working on your migration plans and get ready because this happens every five years and it's not going to stop. It comes with the territory. Keep your tools maintained and replaced them as needed, don't hold onto that rusty hatchet that's going to crumble when it hits the wood, that you've already duct taped together. Be better than that at what you're doing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.

Working...