Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Of course they do (Score 1) 92

And here is the big one, they looked at active subscribers, and found they watch stuff. Well of course, if they can't find anything to watch, they cancel their subscription!

A more interesting comparison would be how many people have cancelled in various places in the months following the loss of major studio deals.

Comment Re:My first thought... (Score 1) 349

Maybe, it's hard to tell.
While laws usually require the ability to open the doors mechanically from inside, they do not require that it's easy to figure out how (and they really should!)
Which often leads to the manual release mechanism be hidden under a carpet flap somewhere out of the way that you'd only know about if you spent hours reading the manual.
Personally I think that's a horrible design, and that any manual method should be obvious, and easy to figure out when the occupant is in full panic mode. Cars I've seen that do it right usually make it part of the door handle itself, pull to open electronically, pull harder to open manually. But I've also seen many that hide it under a carpet flap.
Example of poorly done: I sat in a Corvette at an auto-show, the car had no power, the person manning the booth had to tell each person how to manually open the door with the pull under the carpet.
Example of well done: Tesla Model S front doors, pull the door handle harder than normal and it goes from electronic to manual. (example of poorly done, Tesla Model S rear doors, manual release is behind a carpet flap under the seats)

Example of well done: cars with manual door handles, I mean really, what possible reason could there be for that manual lever to be an electronic switch instead of a manual release in the first place? it's just more things to go wrong, more expense, and less safety.

Comment Re:What, is Google new or something? (Score 2) 179

Android, or even your desktop OS aren't the point. You are correct that consumer level devices have no problem "fixing" their clock by a second when they discover it. The problem is when you have tons and tons of real time transactions that have to be kept in a very precise order. How do you easily and reliably determine which event happened first if the numerical timestamp isn't sequential? Smearing the second ensures that timestamps, of any precision, remain sequential. This can be crucial for some of these large real-time organizations.
The only other somewhat practical solution is to implement it like we do leap years, however as leap seconds are not as predictable, you run the risk of whether every system has the correct version of the database with the leap-seconds enumerated, and add extra computing resources on every translation to human readable formats. Google correctly points out that no current consumer OS currently has this capability, and you'll find that data-centre OSes are generally the same. While Google can control one or two of those, they can't guarantee that every device they send something to will also support it.

The leap second smear is a very elegant solution to a real, and somewhat complex, problem.

Comment Re:You can't (Score 1) 1321

Well, labour here is more expensive than in the USA, and our unemployment rate, although it fluctuates, is generally about the same as in the USA.
And judging by the lack of lines at our polls, I suspect we hire more polling staff per capita. Our election results are 100% human counted, and results are usually out within 1-2 hours of the polls closing.

Comment Re:You can't (Score 1) 1321

Chain of custody is not that hard. Each observer can apply their seal to the ballot box after counting. If any of the seals are tampered with, or not present, you know that someone needs to go to jail, probably the person who was handed the ballot box to transport it to the warehouse it's being stored at pending potential re-counts. If that's not enough for you, you can physically send all the observers together in the same vehicle with the boxes to the location where they'll be stored, and that location can either be sealed by all the parties, or kept watch over by all the parties.

This isn't that hard.

Comment Re:Popular Vote Means Nothing (Score 1) 1321

so what purpose does it serve to send everyone to a convention where they cast ballots for president?

A system could easily be designed to do the exact same thing without specific people voting for something already voted on a month earlier by the entire population. the "wiggle room" you talk about makes it undemocratic, the rest is simply unrepresentative.

Comment Re:Popular Vote Means Nothing (Score 1) 1321

So, is the electoral college useless because it will never vote any other way than as directed? in which case it should be abolished as it does nothing.
Or is the electoral college undemocratic because they could some day decide to vote in a way other than as directed? in which case it should be abolished as it goes against the will of the people.

Which one of those reasons do you subscribe to?

Comment Re:Genuine question (Score 1) 1321

Our wait times are less than 5 minutes. I once had to stand in a line of THREE people to vote, it was horrible!
Staff is paid for by the federal government. If you aren't willing to pay for elections, why not just skip voting all together? Not to mention, that the staff is probably cheaper than the machines given that they're only working one day every 4 years.
The staff is already there anyway, you need them to run the polling station during the day, and they stay an extra hour or two after the end to count the ballots. Unless of course you're deliberately trying to suppress voter turnout by understaffing your polling stations with the specific goal of causing long delays to vote. In which case your way is far more effective than ours.

Comment Re:Genuine question (Score 1) 1321

You're missing a bunch of ways to cheat:

Maybe, but you haven't listed any that work.

Places that don't use see through ballot boxes. So voters don't know there are already 1000 ballots in the box at start of voting.

no need for fancy glass/plastic ballot boxes. Cardboard works fine. But as they are assembled in front of the observers from each party, they know that they don't have any ballots in them.

Places that don't mark voters thumbs. So voters can register and vote multiple times.

oft quoted by some people, and yet with no proof that it has ever changed an electoral outcome where proper voter lists and registration cards have been used.

Places that don't check voter IDs. So ineligible voters can register and vote, often many times.

see above. voter lists, coupled with voter registration cards are sufficient. mandatory ID laws are usually used to suppress democracy, not enhance it.

Places that accept ballot boxes 'found' in the trunks of partisan 'election observers' cars, after the partisan knew exactly how many votes were needed.

Which would never fly. Observers from each party get used along the way, and ballot boxes don't appear in the trunks of random vehicles without a LOT of questions being asked. Especially ones that weren't sealed by all the parties in attendance.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There are some good people in it, but the orchestra as a whole is equivalent to a gang bent on destruction." -- John Cage, composer

Working...