"sounds great.. and that will work equally well in every country.. because we all know that elections are _ALWAYS_ fair (just like in Belarus and Ukraine:)"
So what's your point?
I claim my proposal will be either better or not worse than the current situation.
"How do you propose to do this? Once the.xxx TLD is created, it's only a matter of time before Congress passes an act to "protect children online" by making adult content outside of.xxx domains illegal."
That would just mainly affect your (already) screwed up country (I'm assuming USA for obvious reasons).
Other countries won't necessarily do the same thing.
I don't see that as a big problem at all. And you guys have bigger problems than that - starting with your dubious voting machines AND the people who put them in. And the popular voting system doesn't help either - if you could also vote "No", then people wouldn't have to risk spreading their single votes amongst 3rd parties just to say "No" to a candidate they particularly dislike - with that candidate winning in the end.
The ICANN wouldn't be the cause, but to do things properly (proper standard instead of defacto standard) you'd need to reserve a TLD, and the ICANN are apparently the ones in charge of that (unfortunately).
As a fallback, the root name servers could have.here resolve to a reserved IP which can be routed specially (much like 127.0.0.1).
So if sites don't have things configured http://here/ would probably get your immediate ISP, or their ISP, or some other page.
It'll be trivial to have one of those wireless routers to route that IP locally. Many of these devices already do have their own DNS servers too.
Right now when a place provides free/cheap WiFi internet access, people just "walk straight through" to the outside world/internet. They don't usually hang around or want to. And its not easy for them to find reasons to want to. It's just commodity internet access to them.
Whereas having a standard way to find out more about a place and who's providing the access can allow more interesting services and ways to add value.
You then have a foundation to build stuff on. No standard = more difficult. You have to forcefully redirect users (annoying them) and hope they can manage to find their way back after redirection is turned off.
Whereas I'm hoping that people will intentionally type "here" on their address bar (or click on a button later on, or even just use the relevant thought-macro[1]).
This way if wireless access to internet becomes free, people CAN still access their email (or whatever stuff they urgently need) immediately without having to click on some stupid stuff (or have some program do it), and then once they're done they can actually check out "here".
[1] There are already devices that can read mind patterns and perform various actions. So virtual telepathy and telekinesis is a possibility.
What you say is silly - more money and lives = less likely for war.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
If people really want a fair war, they should implement my proposal:
Before any country can launch an _offensive_ war (not defensive) there must be a referendum.
If the result is less than x% (75%?) of the total possible voters, then the leaders/politicians involved in the war proposal get put on death row (and there's no offensive war launched).
Then a subsequent referendum is then held to redeem each of those politicians. If the politicians/leaders aren't redeemed, they will eventually be executed.
If it turned out that an offensive war was justified after all, the executed politicians get a posthumous award and their families get an extra pension benefit.
If it turns out that the leaders misrepresented stuff and there was a war, the leaders get put on death row.
This way, even sociopathic leaders who might lie about being reluctant to send young men to sacrifice their lives, might actually be reluctant to wage war without good reason.
Now, if indeed 75% of Country A decide that they want to attack Country B, then you have the following effects: 1) Country A soldiers know that their leaders are willing to lay down their own lives for the war. 2) Country A soldiers know that their countrymen are mostly in favour of war. 3) Country B soldiers should feel better about trying to wipe out Country A in defense (instead of the usual killing people you really have nothing against and you suspect they have nothing against you actually and they just got misled by their leaders). Even if it means nukes or WMDs or whatever it takes. 4) Country A should be well aware of 3) when it comes down to voting.
Now isn't that fair?
In the old days kings would lead their men out to battle and risk their own lives, and their men would have it no other way.
Nowadays that won't be practical nor even applicable. But my proposal will help leaders do the same thing at least in principle.
"Which means that porn will simply become more easily accessible than it was before."
Yes.xxx will be more useful than.info or.biz. Which only benefited ICANN and domain squatters, and benefited hardly anyone else.
"That in itself is a good argument against.XXX... nobody can even agree on a common definition of porno, and there's no reason why they should have to."
Huh? Read my post again. The people it doesn't apply to don't have to. Make no new laws (please!).
Only certain people and certain organizations would want to be associated with.xxx. And their target audience would be willing to type.xxx in their address bars.
I wouldn't want to put myname.xxx but some pornstar would. Whether _you_ register screwmaster.com or screwmaster.xxx would provide info to others.
So I argue it will get defined _well_enough_ to be useful.
Sure, there'll be naughty people who might reserve georgebush.xxx, but so what?.xxx will be a lot more distinct than the other stuff like.biz and.info which are "just another stupid dot com TLD".
Approving.xxx would probably be the most useful thing that the ICANN has done so far. I wouldn't say that would actually be that useful, but so far I don't recall the ICANN doing anything beneficial at all. So.xxx would be an improvement.
The idea is to not use.here to refer to RFC1918 addresses. The idea is to reserve.here for free special and _standard_ use. And so it may become an _easy_ way for doing certain stuff.
I mean, while you can use stuff 1.1.1.1, 5.4.3.2 etc locally and do whatever you want on your own network, it'll be more useful if things were standard and reserved.
That way it may be that people could go to any WiFi area and do http://here/ and see a "Site Page" which gives you more about the site like whether a WiFi site is open because someone was ignorant, or its intentional so polite people can feel better about using it (and the provider doesn't have to run something like nocatauth to redirect people on startup).
If wearable computers/servers become popular, being able to address bob.here and finding out whos.here and whats.here[1] could typically be more useful than bob.from.the.us, and who.someplace.foo.arizona.com even though bob may indeed be from the US.
[1] http://whats.here/ might give you a searchable store directory if you're in a mall, a menu if you're in a restaurant or cafe, a list of intentionally publicly accessible stuff if you're a visitor to a company, a bit about stuff in bob's house if it's in/around bob's house.
Whereas, to do that sort of thing currently you need to _force_ first time visitors to some form of starting page and have people either remember the url for a site or doing naughty stuff with DNS, and all that isn't very nice.
To all of you who say you can't define porn etc etc.
I believe the people providing porn and their target audience have a reasonable idea of what it is. If you create a.xxx TLD many of the relevant sites will have a presence there.
Just skip any stupid legislation trying to pin it down or require sites to use it or to not use it.
I mean when you do a Google search with site:.au you know you are looking for sites linked to or in Australia BUT of course it's not a 100% thing.
Same goes for.xxx
So I say it'll be useful to at least more people than it was to.biz or.info which the ICANN didn't seem to have any trouble approving.
If I were in charge of approving TLDs, I'd approve.here and reserve it for public special use like the 192.168.x.x, 172.1x.x.x and 10.x.x.x addresses. So at least you can address devices or stuff that's kind of within the area". Like jukebox.here or whats.here, whos.here.
The usefulness and novelty of being able to control a jukebox in UK from Turkmenistan wears off after a while. But as long as physical stuff remains important, it will remain useful to be able to address stuff by rough physical context/locality.
With this, people don't have to change their domain search paths or even have one (for security or other reasons). They might even be able to bookmark standard URLs for setting their favourite airconditioner temperature or something like that.
That's because host names are NOT the same as paths.
Basically that proposal means you're not sure whether
http://com/a/b/c/d
means you're looking for/d on machine c.b.a.com
Or/c/d on b.a.com
So what do you query the DNS server for? Or do you make multiple queries to the DNS servers?
You can disambiguate things by adding some stuff, but really its a waste of time.
As for Tim's proposal, while that could work, I like being able to copy part of a hostname, modifying it a bit and then using ping, ssh etc on the rest of the name.
While the web is a significant part of the internet it's not the only part.
Even if everyone else (telnet, ssh etc) has got it "wrong" it's not too bad so there are probably more important things to fix.
The US (and other countries) voting systems allowed negative votes.
So if you dislike a particular candidate, and don't really care about the others, then you can vote _against_ the candidate. Which counts as a minus one to the candidate's vote total.
The candidate with the most positive or least negative score wins.
With the current system if you dislike a particular candidate you can't vote +1 to all the rest.
And even if you could, I argue that allowing negative votes is more satisfying because it provides for a scenario where a candidate you dislike can end up having negative votes (even if she/he wins!).
People can argue all they like about who determines what is porn and what is not, but I bet the people selling or providing it know, and thus the.xxx domain would be more useful for them and their audience.
Their audience could then go to google and type: keyword1 keyword2 site:xxx
Sure its not exact or 100% but many things in the world don't have to be, just to be useful.
Whereas.biz.info and friends are just plain useless to anyone else other than ICANN and domain squatters.
I've been trying to get a.here TLD approved for _special_ use by _EVERYONE_. Much like the RFC1918 (10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.1x.x.x) IP addresses are reserved for special use. I think there will be many uses for it, just people don't see it yet.
But I don't have thousands of USD to throw at ICANN to approve the TLD, so that I give it to the public.
Look up Douglas Englebart. The poor guy was so ahead of his time that any awarded patents would be useless.
I don't see the benefit of awarding patents to everything. Perhaps there should be just a limited number of patents awarded a year. Pick the top 1000 or something.
Or the top 1000 get 20 year protection, the next 10,000 get only 10 years. and the rest get 3 years;).
There will always be diseases you can't cure/treat in time. Quarantine works for these diseases.
Everyone stays in their designated areas, lives and dies where they are, for a set period. That way any pandemic will either die out or evolve and become sublethal or those that have inherent immunity would survive it.
The Gov has to make sure there's a sufficient stash of fuel, food and drinking water in the various locations so that people can survive for the set period.
Forget about hospitals. You get a critical injury, just assume you are dead, say your goodbyes etc.
If your telco, water and energy infrastructure can survive without normal maintenance levels for a few months then your country could survive. It would be in a very bad shape, but it could survive.
There would be a few people who will need to move about, they have to move about in special suits using special procedures so they don't catch or spread the disease. Example: those who have to move important physical material about - like blood samples from the various locations. Or important parts for water/energy infrastructure.
Seems rather strange that the richest and most powerful country in the world can't afford decent voting systems (whether free or not). There are plenty of really smart people in the USA, good in crypto, systems, architecture etc. So the talent is there.
As for the money: this is the same country that has spent BILLIONS in Iraq for dubious reasons (the official reasons kept changing, so they can't have been the real reasons).
I heard one of the US Gov's "reasons" was to have democracy/free elections in Iraq, but that can't be the real reason since the US Gov was very obviously not pleased when there was democracy/free elections in Palestine and Hamas got elected;).
I don't know what is really going on with the USA, but I doubt that the main issue is whether a voting system is OSS or non-OSS.
With all this "globalisation" being hyped as such a great thing, maybe the US should outsource their elections to India, and have UN observers for free to observe stuff.;).
After all India is arguably the world's largest democracy (1 billion citizens). I bet if they had results as ridiculous as "more votes than voters", "negative votes" heads would _literally_ roll. They somehow have managed to get a decent chap as Prime Minister ( Dr. Manmohan Singh seems to be well-respected by most).
If I were a US citizen I'd _demand_ that all the people involved in supplying or approving crappy election systems be charged for _TREASON_.
After all, the USA keeps saying democracy is so important etc.
"Would you rather have revenues of 30 million on a 10 million dollar film, or revenues of 100 million on a 90 million dollar film? "
If you're are one of the owners of the companies that take huge chunks from the 90 million dollars, it's obviously which is better. Doh.
You get USD90 million from someone else/investors. Pump that into your companies or companies owned by your cronies (marketing, distribution, merchandising, effects, consultants, legal, etc). Who cares if the movie loses money, or makes very little?
Naturally you try to adjust stuff so that the investors grumble but still make enough money on _average_ to keep coming back.
From time to time if stuff don't go quite as planned, you can just blame piracy, P2P etc.
That shouldn't be too hard in forth, lisp, perl, python etc.
The code could search for other code using google, fetch the code and run it in an "eval".
The resulting code could then post itself or a modified version of itself onto the web (search for guestbooks, forums etc and submit itself).
The initial vector could actually be harmless. For example: it could automatically download and run random game code from a site that's top on a google search for particular keywords (e.g. perl game).
It'll be interesting to see how the AV people make signatures for such stuff...
Isn't Canada the northernmost state of the USA? Just like Australia is the southernmost?;)
Anyway my point was it would have been much easier for Germany to take all/most(switzerland?) of western europe if they didn't expend so much trying to take the Russians.
Fighting a war on more than one front is difficult. The Russians weren't going to attack them in the first place. So they should have just gone and taken west europe (including britain and ireland) and that would make it a lot harder for the USA to try to get into Europe.
Only after regrouping and rebuilding their forces, should they have tried for Poland, Russia etc, if at all...
It depends on whether you need lossy or nonlossy transmission.
If it's lossy, you just send multicast UDP and hope for the best;). Actually you may not even need multicast if you have enough bandwidth- sending tons of UDP packets each with the same payload isn't as difficult.
For nonlossy transmission, it's a lot more problematic. There are a few ways:
"Acks" and retransmissions. Even though ack packets from 150K users won't take as much bandwidth it still will be substantial, and you would use CPU and other resources.
To do away with "ACK"s you'd require lots of forward error correction, which increases the amount of bandwidth required. Even if the ISP's can cope, the clients themselves may not have enough bandwidth.
The other alternative is to keep sending the same stuff in a loop or staggered.
I suppose for FEC, you could do it the UDP style, and users with more bandwidth can subscribe to a higher rate UDP stream.
Of course one should be careful to design a protocol that also makes it hard for people to abuse it to DoS others (imagine if the protocol was spoofable and someone kept subscribing you to high bandwidth streams).
Slashdot Mirror
"sounds great.. and that will work equally well in every country.. because we all know that elections are _ALWAYS_ fair (just like in Belarus and Ukraine :)"
So what's your point?
I claim my proposal will be either better or not worse than the current situation.
"How do you propose to do this? Once the .xxx TLD is created, it's only a matter of time before Congress passes an act to "protect children online" by making adult content outside of .xxx domains illegal."
That would just mainly affect your (already) screwed up country (I'm assuming USA for obvious reasons).
Other countries won't necessarily do the same thing.
I don't see that as a big problem at all. And you guys have bigger problems than that - starting with your dubious voting machines AND the people who put them in. And the popular voting system doesn't help either - if you could also vote "No", then people wouldn't have to risk spreading their single votes amongst 3rd parties just to say "No" to a candidate they particularly dislike - with that candidate winning in the end.
The ICANN wouldn't be the cause, but to do things properly (proper standard instead of defacto standard) you'd need to reserve a TLD, and the ICANN are apparently the ones in charge of that (unfortunately).
.here resolve to a reserved IP which can be routed specially (much like 127.0.0.1).
As a fallback, the root name servers could have
So if sites don't have things configured http://here/ would probably get your immediate ISP, or their ISP, or some other page.
It'll be trivial to have one of those wireless routers to route that IP locally. Many of these devices already do have their own DNS servers too.
Right now when a place provides free/cheap WiFi internet access, people just "walk straight through" to the outside world/internet. They don't usually hang around or want to. And its not easy for them to find reasons to want to. It's just commodity internet access to them.
Whereas having a standard way to find out more about a place and who's providing the access can allow more interesting services and ways to add value.
You then have a foundation to build stuff on. No standard = more difficult. You have to forcefully redirect users (annoying them) and hope they can manage to find their way back after redirection is turned off.
Whereas I'm hoping that people will intentionally type "here" on their address bar (or click on a button later on, or even just use the relevant thought-macro[1]).
This way if wireless access to internet becomes free, people CAN still access their email (or whatever stuff they urgently need) immediately without having to click on some stupid stuff (or have some program do it), and then once they're done they can actually check out "here".
[1] There are already devices that can read mind patterns and perform various actions. So virtual telepathy and telekinesis is a possibility.
What you say is silly - more money and lives = less likely for war.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
If people really want a fair war, they should implement my proposal:
Before any country can launch an _offensive_ war (not defensive) there must be a referendum.
If the result is less than x% (75%?) of the total possible voters, then the leaders/politicians involved in the war proposal get put on death row (and there's no offensive war launched).
Then a subsequent referendum is then held to redeem each of those politicians. If the politicians/leaders aren't redeemed, they will eventually be executed.
If it turned out that an offensive war was justified after all, the executed politicians get a posthumous award and their families get an extra pension benefit.
If it turns out that the leaders misrepresented stuff and there was a war, the leaders get put on death row.
This way, even sociopathic leaders who might lie about being reluctant to send young men to sacrifice their lives, might actually be reluctant to wage war without good reason.
Now, if indeed 75% of Country A decide that they want to attack Country B, then you have the following effects:
1) Country A soldiers know that their leaders are willing to lay down their own lives for the war.
2) Country A soldiers know that their countrymen are mostly in favour of war.
3) Country B soldiers should feel better about trying to wipe out Country A in defense (instead of the usual killing people you really have nothing against and you suspect they have nothing against you actually and they just got misled by their leaders). Even if it means nukes or WMDs or whatever it takes.
4) Country A should be well aware of 3) when it comes down to voting.
Now isn't that fair?
In the old days kings would lead their men out to battle and risk their own lives, and their men would have it no other way.
Nowadays that won't be practical nor even applicable. But my proposal will help leaders do the same thing at least in principle.
"with no benefit to users, either those who are looking for porn,"
.com than a .xxx. Only a certain bunch would want to do so.
.xxx tld you should be able to add site:.xxx in a google search and narrow down to stuff in .xxx
I disagree. Far more people and organizations might want to register a
So with the
And I believe that will be rather useful to those looking for porn.
"Which means that porn will simply become more easily accessible than it was before."
.xxx will be more useful than .info or .biz. Which only benefited ICANN and domain squatters, and benefited hardly anyone else.
.XXX ... nobody can even agree on a common definition of porno, and there's no reason why they should have to."
.xxx. And their target audience would be willing to type .xxx in their address bars.
.xxx will be a lot more distinct than the other stuff like .biz and .info which are "just another stupid dot com TLD".
.xxx would probably be the most useful thing that the ICANN has done so far. I wouldn't say that would actually be that useful, but so far I don't recall the ICANN doing anything beneficial at all. So .xxx would be an improvement.
Yes
"That in itself is a good argument against
Huh? Read my post again. The people it doesn't apply to don't have to. Make no new laws (please!).
Only certain people and certain organizations would want to be associated with
I wouldn't want to put myname.xxx but some pornstar would. Whether _you_ register screwmaster.com or screwmaster.xxx would provide info to others.
So I argue it will get defined _well_enough_ to be useful.
Sure, there'll be naughty people who might reserve georgebush.xxx, but so what?
Approving
The idea is to not use .here to refer to RFC1918 addresses. The idea is to reserve .here for free special and _standard_ use. And so it may become an _easy_ way for doing certain stuff.
I mean, while you can use stuff 1.1.1.1, 5.4.3.2 etc locally and do whatever you want on your own network, it'll be more useful if things were standard and reserved.
That way it may be that people could go to any WiFi area and do http://here/ and see a "Site Page" which gives you more about the site like whether a WiFi site is open because someone was ignorant, or its intentional so polite people can feel better about using it (and the provider doesn't have to run something like nocatauth to redirect people on startup).
If wearable computers/servers become popular, being able to address bob.here and finding out whos.here and whats.here[1] could typically be more useful than bob.from.the.us, and who.someplace.foo.arizona.com even though bob may indeed be from the US.
[1] http://whats.here/ might give you a searchable store directory if you're in a mall, a menu if you're in a restaurant or cafe, a list of intentionally publicly accessible stuff if you're a visitor to a company, a bit about stuff in bob's house if it's in/around bob's house.
Whereas, to do that sort of thing currently you need to _force_ first time visitors to some form of starting page and have people either remember the url for a site or doing naughty stuff with DNS, and all that isn't very nice.
To all of you who say you can't define porn etc etc.
.xxx TLD many of the relevant sites will have a presence there.
.xxx
.biz or .info which the ICANN didn't seem to have any trouble approving.
.here and reserve it for public special use like the 192.168.x.x, 172.1x.x.x and 10.x.x.x addresses. So at least you can address devices or stuff that's kind of within the area". Like jukebox.here or whats.here, whos.here.
I believe the people providing porn and their target audience have a reasonable idea of what it is. If you create a
Just skip any stupid legislation trying to pin it down or require sites to use it or to not use it.
I mean when you do a Google search with site:.au you know you are looking for sites linked to or in Australia BUT of course it's not a 100% thing.
Same goes for
So I say it'll be useful to at least more people than it was to
If I were in charge of approving TLDs, I'd approve
The usefulness and novelty of being able to control a jukebox in UK from Turkmenistan wears off after a while. But as long as physical stuff remains important, it will remain useful to be able to address stuff by rough physical context/locality.
With this, people don't have to change their domain search paths or even have one (for security or other reasons). They might even be able to bookmark standard URLs for setting their favourite airconditioner temperature or something like that.
That's because host names are NOT the same as paths.
/d on machine c.b.a.com
/c/d on b.a.com
Basically that proposal means you're not sure whether
http://com/a/b/c/d
means you're looking for
Or
So what do you query the DNS server for? Or do you make multiple queries to the DNS servers?
You can disambiguate things by adding some stuff, but really its a waste of time.
As for Tim's proposal, while that could work, I like being able to copy part of a hostname, modifying it a bit and then using ping, ssh etc on the rest of the name.
While the web is a significant part of the internet it's not the only part.
Even if everyone else (telnet, ssh etc) has got it "wrong" it's not too bad so there are probably more important things to fix.
The US (and other countries) voting systems allowed negative votes.
So if you dislike a particular candidate, and don't really care about the others, then you can vote _against_ the candidate. Which counts as a minus one to the candidate's vote total.
The candidate with the most positive or least negative score wins.
With the current system if you dislike a particular candidate you can't vote +1 to all the rest.
And even if you could, I argue that allowing negative votes is more satisfying because it provides for a scenario where a candidate you dislike can end up having negative votes (even if she/he wins!).
People can argue all they like about who determines what is porn and what is not, but I bet the people selling or providing it know, and thus the .xxx domain would be more useful for them and their audience.
.biz .info and friends are just plain useless to anyone else other than ICANN and domain squatters.
.here TLD approved for _special_ use by _EVERYONE_. Much like the RFC1918 (10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.1x.x.x) IP addresses are reserved for special use. I think there will be many uses for it, just people don't see it yet.
Their audience could then go to google and type:
keyword1 keyword2 site:xxx
Sure its not exact or 100% but many things in the world don't have to be, just to be useful.
Whereas
I've been trying to get a
But I don't have thousands of USD to throw at ICANN to approve the TLD, so that I give it to the public.
So, some guy gets banned because he looks like he is botting, by Blizzard admins who look like they are botting ;).
Perhaps the admins are using a special keyboard to ban users without too risking RSI.
That's stupid.
A proper bot would just tell the GM to go away "I'm busy", in various ways, "I'm not in a mood to talk".
Or even "Threaten to sue because of harassment" etc etc.
Look up Douglas Englebart. The poor guy was so ahead of his time that any awarded patents would be useless.
;).
I don't see the benefit of awarding patents to everything. Perhaps there should be just a limited number of patents awarded a year. Pick the top 1000 or something.
Or the top 1000 get 20 year protection, the next 10,000 get only 10 years. and the rest get 3 years
There will always be diseases you can't cure/treat in time. Quarantine works for these diseases.
Everyone stays in their designated areas, lives and dies where they are, for a set period. That way any pandemic will either die out or evolve and become sublethal or those that have inherent immunity would survive it.
The Gov has to make sure there's a sufficient stash of fuel, food and drinking water in the various locations so that people can survive for the set period.
Forget about hospitals. You get a critical injury, just assume you are dead, say your goodbyes etc.
If your telco, water and energy infrastructure can survive without normal maintenance levels for a few months then your country could survive. It would be in a very bad shape, but it could survive.
There would be a few people who will need to move about, they have to move about in special suits using special procedures so they don't catch or spread the disease. Example: those who have to move important physical material about - like blood samples from the various locations. Or important parts for water/energy infrastructure.
"Aside from that... the calculator in windows is obviously a joke, as the 1.6 GHz machine took 118 secs to do it in WinXP "
It depends. What was the result you got from kcalc?
I get 2.8242294079603478742934215780245e+456573 from the win2k calculator
Anyway the windows calculator was built for other purposes.
but what's the result?
;)
It's no point producing the wrong result in faster time
Seems rather strange that the richest and most powerful country in the world can't afford decent voting systems (whether free or not). There are plenty of really smart people in the USA, good in crypto, systems, architecture etc. So the talent is there.
;).
;).
As for the money: this is the same country that has spent BILLIONS in Iraq for dubious reasons (the official reasons kept changing, so they can't have been the real reasons).
I heard one of the US Gov's "reasons" was to have democracy/free elections in Iraq, but that can't be the real reason since the US Gov was very obviously not pleased when there was democracy/free elections in Palestine and Hamas got elected
I don't know what is really going on with the USA, but I doubt that the main issue is whether a voting system is OSS or non-OSS.
With all this "globalisation" being hyped as such a great thing, maybe the US should outsource their elections to India, and have UN observers for free to observe stuff.
After all India is arguably the world's largest democracy (1 billion citizens). I bet if they had results as ridiculous as "more votes than voters", "negative votes" heads would _literally_ roll. They somehow have managed to get a decent chap as Prime Minister ( Dr. Manmohan Singh seems to be well-respected by most).
If I were a US citizen I'd _demand_ that all the people involved in supplying or approving crappy election systems be charged for _TREASON_.
After all, the USA keeps saying democracy is so important etc.
Prove it with actions and not bullshit.
Yeah, the live actors will be more wooden ;).
But the computer generated ones might be "too consistent".
"Would you rather have revenues of 30 million on a 10 million dollar film, or revenues of 100 million on a 90 million dollar film? "
If you're are one of the owners of the companies that take huge chunks from the 90 million dollars, it's obviously which is better. Doh.
You get USD90 million from someone else/investors. Pump that into your companies or companies owned by your cronies (marketing, distribution, merchandising, effects, consultants, legal, etc). Who cares if the movie loses money, or makes very little?
Naturally you try to adjust stuff so that the investors grumble but still make enough money on _average_ to keep coming back.
From time to time if stuff don't go quite as planned, you can just blame piracy, P2P etc.
And get arrested if your flight to Canada that's supposed to transit in the US, has some problems requiring you to disembark?
Someone I know got hassle from US immigration because he didn't have the proper visa, but he wasn't intending to be in the US in the first place!
But it was an act of God. So that makes it different ;).
That shouldn't be too hard in forth, lisp, perl, python etc.
The code could search for other code using google, fetch the code and run it in an "eval".
The resulting code could then post itself or a modified version of itself onto the web (search for guestbooks, forums etc and submit itself).
The initial vector could actually be harmless. For example: it could automatically download and run random game code from a site that's top on a google search for particular keywords (e.g. perl game).
It'll be interesting to see how the AV people make signatures for such stuff...
Isn't Canada the northernmost state of the USA? Just like Australia is the southernmost? ;)
Anyway my point was it would have been much easier for Germany to take all/most(switzerland?) of western europe if they didn't expend so much trying to take the Russians.
Fighting a war on more than one front is difficult. The Russians weren't going to attack them in the first place. So they should have just gone and taken west europe (including britain and ireland) and that would make it a lot harder for the USA to try to get into Europe.
Only after regrouping and rebuilding their forces, should they have tried for Poland, Russia etc, if at all...
It depends on whether you need lossy or nonlossy transmission.
;). Actually you may not even need multicast if you have enough bandwidth- sending tons of UDP packets each with the same payload isn't as difficult.
If it's lossy, you just send multicast UDP and hope for the best
For nonlossy transmission, it's a lot more problematic. There are a few ways:
"Acks" and retransmissions. Even though ack packets from 150K users won't take as much bandwidth it still will be substantial, and you would use CPU and other resources.
To do away with "ACK"s you'd require lots of forward error correction, which increases the amount of bandwidth required. Even if the ISP's can cope, the clients themselves may not have enough bandwidth.
The other alternative is to keep sending the same stuff in a loop or staggered.
I suppose for FEC, you could do it the UDP style, and users with more bandwidth can subscribe to a higher rate UDP stream.
Of course one should be careful to design a protocol that also makes it hard for people to abuse it to DoS others (imagine if the protocol was spoofable and someone kept subscribing you to high bandwidth streams).