I'd say at least the machines leave a paper trai, but it seems like the election officials can't even manage to keep those in order. How the hell is it that IRaq can conduct an election that the world certifies as free and fair using lockboxes, ink, and paper, and these idiots can't manage to deal with a primary with all the high tech gizmos in the world at their disposal?
I wonder how much of the failure to take it up had to do with the ridiculous fear tactics that were used on this bill. A couple of the art sites I'm on exploded with rumor about the thing last spring, with all kinds of idiotic nonsense going out about it requiring registration for copyright and allowing infringement.
I'm not so sure it's a clear cut win for the kid in the supreme court. I remeber that case with the kid holding the bong hits for jesus banner. He was across the street from the school, and the supreme court agreed the school had the right to punish him over it.
The funny thing to me about this is for so long IMAX screens were such a damn waste. One of the local theaters here in columbus got rid of their projector and just offer it as a really huge normal screen now, and now they're kicking themselves because all these movies are suddenly switching over to draw more people in to see it in theater.
I wonder if the theater asscociation will pitch a fit about hollywood cutting into their profits by forcing them to switch over?
All your arguements fail to persuade me, in light of one inescabable fact. This idea will provide the perfect oppurtunity to see real life reenactments of the corporate take over scene from the beginning of "Meaning of Life." And that, sir, is worth every penny that might be required to see this idea become realized.
...Of burying our heads in the sand over computer security. A buddy of mine got a visit from the FBI in high school when he hacked their system. He'd gotten fed up with the school system ignoring him pointing out all the massive security holes they had.
I think what's needed is a total change in the nature of how people think of security. The nation as a whole is still in the mindset of old fifties spy shows, where security meant secret codewords and clandestine measures that were death to share. Somehow that has to be shifted to start looking at security as an open and collaborative effort.
One of my profs who worked in the tech industry for a while always brought this mindset up as a lesson to us about what we'd face when we got jobs. He alwasy felt the "throw away long term stable profit for short term gains" was a result of allowing too much crazy investing on wall street, and allowing quarterly earnings statements and investors to drive the company.
My family recently got U-verse, and I was there when the guy was selling it to my dad. (Don't even start on it, I live with my parent's cause I'm paying off my car)
My dad asked him if it was a fiber or wire based network, and the guys says "Oh, it's a fiber all the way in. It's just like Verizon Fios, only we don't have to install anything or put in new wires" He was so proud and excited.
I almost felt bad mentioning that it'd be tough for it to be just like Fios if they weren't installing anything, considering Fios has managed to burn down a couple of houses when their installers hit power lines while putting in the fiber.
To be honest, I've kinda given up on the AP. Anymore it seems like all they do is pick up press releases they're handed and reprint them. I have yet to see a story about a marijuana grow bust where they talk to somebody who supports legalizing marjuana, or one about file sharing where they talk to anyone besides the mpaa/riaa. Similar tactics abound in every other category.
Another fine by product of allowing a bunch of idiots who honestly beleive god wanted them to be in charge of things into government. I'd say they don't realize the implications of what they're doing, but they do. These officials, I think, just actually believe that they are incapable of doing wrong.
Not sure I follow you on this. I would assume if the software is capable of catching a pump and dump in process (obviously a bit of an unknown) one could use the data to figure out who was runnign things up. I don't think preventing a pump and dump scheme from playing out fully necessarily precludes catching the people trying to do it as well.
I agree effort should be focused on catching the perpetrators as well as stopping the schemes. As I metnioned though; punishing these people may not always be possible, and after the fact punishments don't always do much to clean up the mess.
I guess my point was that in scams like this where the perpetrators may not always be as easy to catch, I don't think there's anything wrong with working on shutting down the scheme alongside increasing efforts to go after the guys that pull it off.
Seems like this is more of an attempt to catch a pump and dump as it happens and prevent it from going further, rather than just catch the perpetrators afterwards and try to clean up the mess. It may be easy to find the jerks that did it after the fact, but sometimes (depending on jurisdiction) it's tough to catch and punish them. Not to mention the problems it can create in the market, and for the investors that got duped and screwed. Better to try and catch it and stop it before it becomes a problem.
Standing aside from the usual idiocy of an agency trying to hide its crappy security, what is wrong with our law schools? Did these lawyers not realize any evidence entered into the court becomes public record?
I could see hitting the registrar if the judge felt there was sufficient evidence that they knew what he was doing was in bad faith and continued to let him do it. At that point I think you might consider them facilitating him a bit.
Why is it people seem to think if you hide something and don't teach people about it somehow the problem will go away? It's like these morons think saying "Don't do that, it's bad" and refusing to educate people about an issue is gonna make everythign all right. Cripes, haven't they learned enough from the lame attempts as such an approach with sex education?