I wanted to start a project (here is the idea) that would give you a speech interface to a limited, user-defined set of commands. The user should be able to train the program and add new functions/commands. Advantages: No huge/near-complete databases required, language independent, gets better the more it is used.
However I'm not that familiar with Speech Recognition limitations, and no one has explained me yet, why such a project hasn't been started yet.
One could improve the situation by providing users with a simple method of making the current security situation transparent and improving security.
For example a program named "Secure your Mail" that looks at your Thunderbird config and says: "Ah, I see you connect to mail.foo.com. But mail.foo.com also provides secure transmissions. I have checked it right now that it works. Do you want me to correct your settings? " It has to be guaranteed to users that more security still works (that's what they care about). Also, if it stays available, the user always knows about the security status (if it is up to what it could be).
Microsoft and other OS update distributers (Redhat, Ubuntu,...) could deliver such a program (like they do with antivirus checkings) to inform users and even (if the user agrees) collect a list of mail hosts that do not yet provide encryption. Microsoft or others could provide the list to warn users not to use the service and could inform these companies that they should provide encryption. After they do that, the companies is taken down from the list. That way, through some soft pressure, encryption could be reached.
A similar approach could be applied to mail server admins, getting them to improve their settings (e.g. SPF), and step by step excluding violators (first nothing, then latencies, then warnings, then blockings).
Google has a good approach here. They just don't provide unencrypted mail access anymore.
Parent is right, a grassroot approach doesn't work well here since we are blocking each other.
The PGP/GPG surroundings of mails could be more beautiful and come with a information for users that this part is change protected by signature. Maybe even with instructions how the other user can benefit from the same (they care about their benefit only).
That is the fun part. My mail server has an SSL certificate; it supports TLS and SSMTP. So basically for a lot of emails they're just going to see encrypted traffic. What use is this again? (oh no, that's right, it's to stop terrorists, just like ID cards).
And what do you know about the connections your mail server makes? As long as not all the other mail servers support encryption, your mail server will forward your mails unencrypted. And as long as all the other mail servers don't care or know your mail server supports encryption, your mails will come in unencrypted.
Btw, what protocol is used between mail servers? SMTP too?
I do the same, luckily a lot of music players support something like # audacious --play # rhythmbox-client --play for controlling the running app from the shell. The second actually goes over DBUS. more often I use the opposite, --pause, or # sleep 15m && sudo poweroff for listening to some music in bed before falling asleep.
Users of a non-Unix OS will be surprised that you can work with files after deletion, when they are still open. That your programs in the old version are still running after a system update to a newer version, and after quitting and starting them, they are in the new version. Awesome.
Bash* and the way you can connect programs lego-like is known here, but still, remarkable. For solving issues in 2-3 lines people who did the (atomar) programs never thought of before+.
ssh-tunnels are cool stuff, as well as fuse-mounting sshfs. Things like dialog, kdialog, zenity are also not known so much.
Yup. I hope the <video>-tag includes some interface for javascript to give the user a good control panel. Otherwise the mightier and user-friendly flv-players will stay.
About codec/source quality: Sure it is a criteria, but how easy it is to build a system and to use it as a user is more important for broad success. IMO.
Actually, transmitting data about a person outside the country without the explicit permission of the person is forbidden by privacy laws at least in Austria, and I assume in Germany too.
Google Analytics definitely falls in this category.
Of course, webmasters don't care or know about it and since everyone is using it, it is hard to find regulations at this point (as jurisdiction has to analyze the new situations that the web brings up).
If Google Analytics would be seen as a web bug having information from most web sites, you would be worried too, but since a lot of people are webmasters and like to look at the nice graphs and ignore the risks (for the users).
Enabling Air Force servers to evade or dodge electronic attacks, somehow.
Its funny how they think so much in materials entering materials when talking about a electronic/information tech issue. Like the server could jump to the side when it sees a malicious packet coming...
The only useful and meaningful thing they could do, is implement a secure internet protocol (i.e. with the missing session and presentation layers) and provide a good interface to the internet. Then the inherited insecurity of network protocols could be avoided from the beginning.
If it is done right, has advantages and is promoted and laid open to others, it might catch on and replace parts of the internet step by step. Will probably not be faster than the IPv6 transition, but hey, they made the internet, why not make another one;-)
Laws can not reach internet phenomena, they are too slow, and when they do, it doesn't matter anymore.
An election process has to provide the following characteristics (in some countries these are taken serious):
1. Access: Only people allowed for voting may place their vote
2. Equality: Each person may only be counted once and with the same weight of vote.
3. Privacy: Noone can find out for whom a person voted.
4. Secure against forgery:
1. Valid votes can not be changed/forged.
2. Valid votes may not be destroyed.
3. Invalid votes may not be added
5. Checkable: Each voter has the possibility, independent from any other person, to check the correctness of an election including all previous points. ( I didn't find this in the English Wikipedia, this is a quick translation from the German Wikipedia )**.
You cannot ensure these with voting machines without the use of paper*. It is not a matter of code, just a fact of information and physics.
Use paper. Optionally with punchscan and the such. Even the cost factor is irrelevant. Democracy is worth it.
____ *Maybe with quantum computers. But can the average person check the setup? With paper, you can. ** I'd be grateful for a link
If you are wise, you will use encryption on higher OSI layers for your important services anyway. Also, a WPA/WPA2-password doesn't protect you from other legimate users in the network sniffing on you...
I wonder if it is technically possible to create a system that is able to ensure that data are deleted after a certain time. (e.g. application forms for companies, ISP data, surveillance recordings,...) in a form that outsiders can confirm it. So that you can be sure there aren't any copies around either.
I'd much rather this remain a separately downloadable add-on.
It is designed so that every application has to get the agreement from the user first. He/She may choose to permit access to the accurate or approximate coordinates (or to deny access).
Then if the users can't tell which of them is the human, the machine has "won". If the users correctly voted on which of them is the machine, the machine has "lost." There is no scenario there in which the human didn't pass the test.
I disagree. In Soviet Russia, machines turing-test you!
Even more: The project maintainer or distributer can choose not to have a homepage and not to accept patches at all. He/she doesn't have to host anything at all *IF* the source&license is passed on with the binary distribution. It doesn't even need to be project open to the general public to be a open source project. The key is, the person receiving the binary+source+license has the freedom make it one.
Here it boils down to the question whether you have the freedom to extend the source to other platforms, not whether that modifications will be hosted for you, gratis.
Can't you derive an infinite or at least an enormous number of true theorems from the existing ones? Do they and if, how do they remove "duplicates"/"extras" that are not theorems, much more corollaries? As pure mathematicians they might be interesting in doing so:-/ no?
I played with the idea about making such a project a year ago, with dependencies between the lemma/theorems etc. in machine-readable format, but had no clue how to represent the understanding and terms of math in a consistent way. I'm interested in how they do that here...
Zybl0re: get up Zybl0re: get on up Zybl0re: get up Zybl0re: get on up phxl|paper: and DANCE * nmp3bot dances : D-< * nmp3bot dances : D|-< * nmp3bot dances : D/-< [SA]HatfulOfHollow: i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet
Awesome. However, mathematicians and physicist usually don't try to "see" or "get a feeling" of higher (or infinite) dimensional objects. They familiarize themselves with mathematic properties of two and three-dimensional objects and space and what they mean, and then just use these properties in higher dimensional spaces.
Trying to see these spaces or getting a feeling on how these objects would look like most likely confuses for calculations (our brain wasn't really made for this).
All of the bugs I've submitted to Mozilla are invariable closed as duplicates. Generally this isn't because I haven't already looked for the bug, but because I have and failed to locate it through Bugzilla's crappy search.
I see this as a part of the search functionality. The words you would use to describe a bug don't match the previous reported ones. So by reporting a bug and getting it marked as dupe, the following happens: - The person who marks it as a duplicate doesn't have much work, since he/she already knows "Oh yeah, that is that bug". - You then have the right bug that you can post on and possibly help out on. - The search engine is getting better, because you added new words for describing the bug. Others may find the bug using your words now.
Well, if you want to provide functionality on the client-side (for response time, only partial reloading, etc), you have 2 choices (if don't want to exclude users having Javascript disabled):
a) reimplement functionality in Javascript
- produces dupe code -> maintainance mess
or, as some "frameworks" do, generate that functionality.
b) only provide additional functionality with Javascript/AJAX
Well, one of the reasons I stopped developing web apps is that the development process is stupid. You spend hours to get a border right, pixel by pixel. Also, you can not reuse most of the code or CSS you write for one application in the next one.
It got a little better recently, but web development ala 2.0 is broken by design. (Or, people don't have the right framework yet;-) )
Slashdot Mirror
I wanted to start a project (here is the idea) that would give you a speech interface to a limited, user-defined set of commands. The user should be able to train the program and add new functions/commands.
Advantages: No huge/near-complete databases required, language independent, gets better the more it is used.
However I'm not that familiar with Speech Recognition limitations, and no one has explained me yet, why such a project hasn't been started yet.
Maybe it's just stupid and naive.
One could improve the situation by providing users with a simple method of making the current security situation transparent and improving security.
For example a program named "Secure your Mail" that looks at your Thunderbird config and says: "Ah, I see you connect to mail.foo.com. But mail.foo.com also provides secure transmissions. I have checked it right now that it works. Do you want me to correct your settings? "
It has to be guaranteed to users that more security still works (that's what they care about). Also, if it stays available, the user always knows about the security status (if it is up to what it could be).
Microsoft and other OS update distributers (Redhat, Ubuntu, ...) could deliver such a program (like they do with antivirus checkings) to inform users and even (if the user agrees) collect a list of mail hosts that do not yet provide encryption. Microsoft or others could provide the list to warn users not to use the service and could inform these companies that they should provide encryption. After they do that, the companies is taken down from the list. That way, through some soft pressure, encryption could be reached.
A similar approach could be applied to mail server admins, getting them to improve their settings (e.g. SPF), and step by step excluding violators (first nothing, then latencies, then warnings, then blockings).
Google has a good approach here. They just don't provide unencrypted mail access anymore.
Parent is right, a grassroot approach doesn't work well here since we are blocking each other.
The PGP/GPG surroundings of mails could be more beautiful and come with a information for users that this part is change protected by signature. Maybe even with instructions how the other user can benefit from the same (they care about their benefit only).
Just some thoughts.
That is the fun part. My mail server has an SSL certificate; it supports TLS and SSMTP. So basically for a lot of emails they're just going to see encrypted traffic. What use is this again? (oh no, that's right, it's to stop terrorists, just like ID cards).
And what do you know about the connections your mail server makes? As long as not all the other mail servers support encryption, your mail server will forward your mails unencrypted. And as long as all the other mail servers don't care or know your mail server supports encryption, your mails will come in unencrypted.
Btw, what protocol is used between mail servers? SMTP too?
I do the same, luckily a lot of music players support something like
# audacious --play
# rhythmbox-client --play
for controlling the running app from the shell. The second actually goes over DBUS.
more often I use the opposite, --pause, or
# sleep 15m && sudo poweroff
for listening to some music in bed before falling asleep.
Well, I like to turn it off since although the process is in low (cpu) priority, the disk access is causing latency in my normal work.
Users of a non-Unix OS will be surprised that you can work with files after deletion, when they are still open. That your programs in the old version are still running after a system update to a newer version, and after quitting and starting them, they are in the new version. Awesome.
Bash* and the way you can connect programs lego-like is known here, but still, remarkable. For solving issues in 2-3 lines people who did the (atomar) programs never thought of before+.
ssh-tunnels are cool stuff, as well as fuse-mounting sshfs. Things like dialog, kdialog, zenity are also not known so much.
Just press tab twice and read all man/info pages for commands you don't know ;-)
____
* Dear zsh-users, I don't care that zsh is better.
+ (blatant ad: http://twoday.tuwien.ac.at/jo/topics/fun+with+Linux/?start=5 )
cool stuff
Yup. I hope the <video>-tag includes some interface for javascript to give the user a good control panel. Otherwise the mightier and user-friendly flv-players will stay.
About codec/source quality: Sure it is a criteria, but how easy it is to build a system and to use it as a user is more important for broad success. IMO.
The work is a ongoing one. You take measures all the time, it's not just one shot.
That's why I will believe the summary when a significant amount of particles fit for scientifically publication (say, 20) are detected.
Working against measurement mistakes and systematic errors should not be underestimated.
Actually, transmitting data about a person outside the country without the explicit permission of the person is forbidden by privacy laws at least in Austria, and I assume in Germany too.
Google Analytics definitely falls in this category.
Of course, webmasters don't care or know about it and since everyone is using it, it is hard to find regulations at this point (as jurisdiction has to analyze the new situations that the web brings up).
If Google Analytics would be seen as a web bug having information from most web sites, you would be worried too, but since a lot of people are webmasters and like to look at the nice graphs and ignore the risks (for the users).
After reading the article, e.g. quoting
Enabling Air Force servers to evade or dodge electronic attacks, somehow.
Its funny how they think so much in materials entering materials when talking about a electronic/information tech issue. Like the server could jump to the side when it sees a malicious packet coming ...
The only useful and meaningful thing they could do, is implement a secure internet protocol (i.e. with the missing session and presentation layers) and provide a good interface to the internet. Then the inherited insecurity of network protocols could be avoided from the beginning.
If it is done right, has advantages and is promoted and laid open to others, it might catch on and replace parts of the internet step by step. ;-)
Will probably not be faster than the IPv6 transition, but hey, they made the internet, why not make another one
Laws can not reach internet phenomena, they are too slow, and when they do, it doesn't matter anymore.
wtf? How do I emerge that?
An election process has to provide the following characteristics (in some countries these are taken serious):
1. Access: Only people allowed for voting may place their vote
2. Equality: Each person may only be counted once and with the same weight of vote.
3. Privacy: Noone can find out for whom a person voted.
4. Secure against forgery:
1. Valid votes can not be changed/forged.
2. Valid votes may not be destroyed.
3. Invalid votes may not be added
5. Checkable: Each voter has the possibility, independent from any other person, to check the correctness of an election including all previous points.
( I didn't find this in the English Wikipedia, this is a quick translation from the German Wikipedia )**.
You cannot ensure these with voting machines without the use of paper*. It is not a matter of code, just a fact of information and physics.
Use paper. Optionally with punchscan and the such. Even the cost factor is irrelevant. Democracy is worth it.
____
*Maybe with quantum computers. But can the average person check the setup? With paper, you can.
** I'd be grateful for a link
If you are wise, you will use encryption on higher OSI layers for your important services anyway. Also, a WPA/WPA2-password doesn't protect you from other legimate users in the network sniffing on you ...
I wonder if it is technically possible to create a system that is able to ensure that data are deleted after a certain time. (e.g. application forms for companies, ISP data, surveillance recordings, ...) in a form that outsiders can confirm it. So that you can be sure there aren't any copies around either.
I'd much rather this remain a separately downloadable add-on.
It is designed so that every application has to get the agreement from the user first. He/She may choose to permit access to the accurate or approximate coordinates (or to deny access).
Source: heise.de (german)
Then if the users can't tell which of them is the human, the machine has "won". If the users correctly voted on which of them is the machine, the machine has "lost." There is no scenario there in which the human didn't pass the test.
I disagree. In Soviet Russia, machines turing-test you!
Even more:
The project maintainer or distributer can choose not to have a homepage and not to accept patches at all. He/she doesn't have to host anything at all *IF* the source&license is passed on with the binary distribution. It doesn't even need to be project open to the general public to be a open source project.
The key is, the person receiving the binary+source+license has the freedom make it one.
Here it boils down to the question whether you have the freedom to extend the source to other platforms, not whether that modifications will be hosted for you, gratis.
Can't you derive an infinite or at least an enormous number of true theorems from the existing ones? Do they and if, how do they remove "duplicates"/"extras" that are not theorems, much more corollaries? :-/ no?
As pure mathematicians they might be interesting in doing so
I played with the idea about making such a project a year ago, with dependencies between the lemma/theorems etc. in machine-readable format, but had no clue how to represent the understanding and terms of math in a consistent way. I'm interested in how they do that here...
Has the internet stabbing device been invented?
(from http://www.bash.org/?4281 )
Awesome. However, mathematicians and physicist usually don't try to "see" or "get a feeling" of higher (or infinite) dimensional objects.
They familiarize themselves with mathematic properties of two and three-dimensional objects and space and what they mean, and then just use these properties in higher dimensional spaces.
Trying to see these spaces or getting a feeling on how these objects would look like most likely confuses for calculations (our brain wasn't really made for this).
Nice and interesting videos though!
All of the bugs I've submitted to Mozilla are invariable closed as duplicates. Generally this isn't because I haven't already looked for the bug, but because I have and failed to locate it through Bugzilla's crappy search.
I see this as a part of the search functionality. The words you would use to describe a bug don't match the previous reported ones. So by reporting a bug and getting it marked as dupe, the following happens:
- The person who marks it as a duplicate doesn't have much work, since he/she already knows "Oh yeah, that is that bug".
- You then have the right bug that you can post on and possibly help out on.
- The search engine is getting better, because you added new words for describing the bug. Others may find the bug using your words now.
Well, if you want to provide functionality on the client-side (for response time, only partial reloading, etc), you have 2 choices (if don't want to exclude users having Javascript disabled):
a) reimplement functionality in Javascript
- produces dupe code -> maintainance mess
or, as some "frameworks" do, generate that functionality.
b) only provide additional functionality with Javascript/AJAX
Well, one of the reasons I stopped developing web apps is that the development process is stupid. You spend hours to get a border right, pixel by pixel. Also, you can not reuse most of the code or CSS you write for one application in the next one.
It got a little better recently, but web development ala 2.0 is broken by design. (Or, people don't have the right framework yet ;-) )