These are real buttons (and will usually appear in the OS's native style, maybe even using real native widgets (omg!)), but I believe they can only be used for form input controls
Input buttons can be used just about anywhere. Not required to be on a form. You can wire them up with javascript if you didn't want the default child of a form behavior.
Oh, come on. Am I the only one that picked up on the Soylent Green reference?
no. you're not. we all got it, and thought it funny (thus the rating).
We didn't feel a need to comment on it. We were just rolling with the deadpan nature of the comment. Which made it even more funny. Funny like your tights Captain Obvious.
I can't be the only one that clicked on this expecting some sort of hardware based compression acceleration. I expected some sort of optical take on compression.
The real shame is that the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative wasn't started until about two year ago. In ten years time we might be there. Having to shutdown a reactor because the load drops wouldn't be an issue if you were thermochemically producing hydrogen instead of spinning turbine blades.
I wonder what the efficiency difference is between nuclear->steam->generator->current and nuclear->thermochemical->hydrogen->genertor->current
Obviously, the portability of hydrogen would be worth a certain loss in initial generation efficiency.
This is my thoughts as well. What scares/embarsses me is that we seem to have not thought of this ahead of time and so there is no built-in self destruct capability.
Or, we have a self-destuct system and one of it's requirements is communication with ground.
In that case I guess I'd have liked to of seen some built in structural weakness. Some sort of failsafe so that if the satellite were to re-enter the atmosphere and begin to burn up, some ignitable material would ensure a thorough burn/destruction of the entire satellite. Kinda like explosive bolts only not limited to the bolt mold.
And those of you with Interscience acccess here's the pdf
A neat aspect of this is it simply reflects light. It's not a light source. I could see a pool in Vegas using a derivative of this (albeit with a NO PACEMAKER SIGN on it) to make a multi-color pool. Or imagine what the Cirque du Soleil engineers could do with this.
I agree those, in terms of LCD replacement we'd really have to see what the chip guys can do.
I sense we'll see more and more of this senseless wannabe white-hat digital distrurbance engineering.
My hope is, someone will use this and lock up the cart of some mother with a 2-yo in the cart-seat crying while she tries to do one hour of shopping in 15 mins so she can reach three other places across town and pick up the other two kids and the dry cleaning.
The jokster will laugh and look obvious, and some level headed salt of the earth construction worker pouring concrete for a new curb will put one + one together and find the giggling dork 20 feet away and punch the fuck_the_world_bring_chaos_i_want_attention kid in the face. Then break his toy.
Congrats on being bale to read a schematic and put together 10 dollars of Radio Shack components. You are.0001 smarter than a script kiddie who figured out how to exec a sh script from his schools computer.
I'll paypal $100 dollars to someone that builds me a locator for this device. I wanna know when someone is using it, what direction they are, and how far they are from me.
Military? You actually think this is intended for military use? Wow. You don't think that perhaps it'll primarily be used by domestic "law" enforcement for mass pain compliance?
No, I don't. And if you do, you don't live in the United States. The law enforcement officers you seem to think as master villians are our brothers and sisters.
Stop believing your own delusions, this isn't a police state and you are not relegated to hiding in your attic when the evil-poilce in all black uniforms with large insignias and face masks come knocking on your door.
I know I'm getting on in years a bit, but when I look at this quote, I wonder if he is talking about robots, or the computer/PC industry circa 1980?
Gee, you think? Let's see what the second paragraph of the article says...
Of course, the paragraph above could be a description of the computer industry during the mid-1970s, around the time that Paul Allen and I launched Microsoft. Back then, big, expensive mainframe computers ran the back-office operations for major companies, governmental departments and other institutions. Researchers at leading universities and industrial laboratories were creating the basic building blocks that would make the information age possible. Intel had just introduced the 8080 microprocessor, and Atari was selling the popular electronic game Pong. At homegrown computer clubs, enthusiasts struggled to figure out exactly what this new technology was good for.
Your comments are useless to the the story if you don't RTFA.
Have a kitchen computer with wireless mouse and keyboard, mainly used for recipes/google. Have a basement computer which is tucked out of the way in a closet because the fan bearing makes a unsettling noise. I then have the media computer which is the xbox (Could call it Familyroom PC). And then the two desktops and one laptop elsewhere.
Now, for me, naming them Phoenix, Vega, Ripley, Hermes... whatever is ok. But for people like my parents, naming it "Kitchen" and "Basement" is more in tuned with how they visualize things. Remeber, this whole article is about UI design, which is about getting in the heads of non-techies. Think through things the way they think through them.
Non-techies would name their bathroom pc "Bathroom PC".
You only see two buttons if you are currently a member of a domain. In workgroup mode (which 99% of home users would use) you just see a single button. And in the case of Server 2003,that single button simply says:
To rename this computer or join a domain, click Change.
There should be lower hanging fruit for them to pick from this tree.
Why is this a nightmare? In order to avoid unnecessary workarounds MS eliminated ALL (yes, ALL) the workarounds used by client side devs to solve the core issues with regard to how MS renders CSS and HTML.
Wow, you spun that in a unique manner. The fact is MS didn't "eliminate the workarounds" they "FIXED" the CSS parsing bugs. And they added support for additional selectors IE didn't use to have. People previously used those BUGS to trick IE to parse or not parse specific CSS code. This was simply a poor hack. Worse, there was never any reason to use CSS selector bugs to hack IE into submission. MS since IE5 days has given developers coditional comments capability.
The P.I.E guys know this, and have already updated to use the legitimate method (CC) for dealing with CSS quirks in IE 5, 5.5 and 6.
Democracy is not just about writing a letter to an elected official. It is also about standing in the (electronic) public square and talking with your fellow citizens
And no one is arguing that point. What we're debating here is whether some threshold has been crossed by the government which requires the citizens to expose secret and confidential documents created and implemented by a security agency for our protection. A security agency which has oversight by elected members of our government.
There are limits to free speech, and we all acknowledge and accept these limits by participating in our government.
If you don't beleive in limits, you are an anarchist. Which is fine, but stop debating and simply state that this is the outcome you desire. No secrets (ever), freedom of all information, open government built with glass walls and glass file cabinets.
I simple don't beleive such a open government can exist in the current climate. One day, perhaps, when all states of the world have some form of elected government.
Except the public has a right to the information. If tax dollars are being spent to spy on the people that pay them, then shouldn't the public know the whole scope of the activities?
I disagree. Just because tax dollars are used on a project doesn't mean the public has a right to the information. We elect officals to be our proxies to a government THAT MAINTAINS SECRETS. It's the officals job to represent you and me. It is not our job to find and disclose secrets of our Government. We have far too many checks and balances to require such a revolutionary movement. We're too old of a system to require that measure for such low impact 'perceived' threats.
There's a process here everyone is ignoring. They are ignoring it because they are trying to score political points. You had senators who were ON the Select Committee on Intelligence publicly voice dissent over something they privately voted for, approved during quaterly reviewes, and more importantly got their blocs to vote the funding for the programs. Both sides agreed on the process put in place, the checks, the amount of information gathered, the hands it went to, and the oversight of such information.
This is pure politics at the expense of National Security.
If the process fails, if the system invokes an unhandled exception, then take to the streets. Then march on Washington and call for all the incumbents to be replaced. Ultimately I agree that we the people are the final exception handler, but we're far to early in the process to have already reached that point.
If later we determine the process was too slow, if it was ripe for strong-arm tactics or some other weakness, then we change the process. But never should some editor at a national magazine decide he has the rights to publish secret (if it was indeed 'secret') information.
How easy is it for someone in power to have a call made to an employeer and say, "did you know that your employee John is calling his priest every day on his lunch hour? Maybe you should make sure he is not doing someting wrong."
Answer: Not very easy at all.
We're talking about government agencies running these programs. Not some guy sitting in a room reporting to no one. These agencies and the programs involved were vetted by the checks and balances put in place BECAUSE of many of the items that are mentioned in your COINTELPRO article. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are the safety valves to unchecked abuse of power.
If you think the bipartisan Senate Select Committee isn't do it's job, bitch to your congressman.
This is the way our system works. We have to at some point trust in the system, until the system shows a failure mode that it itself cannot overcome. Then you can march on Washington bearing arms, and change the system.
Attempting to change the system now, without letting it run it's course is Mob Rule Mentality. And it's wrong.
They do that already and it's legal. If you work for the CIA and you are leaking classified details to a reporter, and they suspect you then they'll hand over the detail to the FBI. The FBI will get warrants to search all your residences and pull records on all phone calls to/from those residences. And possibly even pull the records on the people you talked to.
It's called classified for a reason. It's impossible to run a national security program without secrets. Or, it would be very ineffective. In this environment security IS maintained through obscurity.
I think what people fail to realize is how in-admissiable much of this alleged 'warrantless' wiretapping whould be in court. This information, and the way it may be being obtained, is by it's nature unfit for our courts. This makes it usefull only to alert and focus agencies on direct outside threats.
I disagree. We have bipartisan review of this and programs like it. It's called "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence". If there's a problem with that committee, fix the committee.
Exposing clearly marked national secrets, because you think it's 'orweillian' is akin to mob rule. It's taking the law into your own hands, regardless of the consequences. We don't know for certain what the rules are in place for this system. For all we know, the documents this guy found are old remnants of the TIA project and that part of the system was shutdown.
I'm with Gonzales on this one. The whisleblower is probably safe, but the Wired editor should be prosecuted. When a court of law determines it's best not to disclose these documents for now, what gives an editor at Wired the right to chose to ignore the courts? You can't pick and choose which laws you are going to obey. The EFF has plenty of options to legally try to persuade the court or a higher court to release the documents for public consumption. And for that process, our country, this system, puts it's faith in elected and appointed officals both on and off the bench. Not the editor of a magazine.
what if joe-six-pack calls his local police dept to report, lets say, a man picking a lock, but totally ignores the locksmith van on the other side of the frame?
Police show up, locksmith presents credentials, police leave. God, it's the end of the world! Funny though, think how many thief drama plots that would spoil. Checking the credentials of someone in a locksmith van and uniform, to make sure they really were a locksmith, and not just some thief.
or reports a person with a gun when it is just, say a tire tool to change his flat?
Police show up, ask if they can be of assistance, guy with tire iron in hand and lug nuts in other hands says no, police say cheerio and leave the man. OH THE HUMANITY!
And this doesn't take into account the "nosy neighbor" or "grudge match" aspects that could arise.
Because people like that would never resort to recording someone they dislike on their own or hiring a private investigator to do it. All legally by the way.
You need to remember, aside from the entertainment value, the point of the system is to alert law enforcements to a potential problem. They'll review the tape or make the judgment call. The audience are simple cheap visual processors. It's a neural net of sorts built out of lazy bored house wives and Granny's.
The true power of a system like this will be when we can cover the skies of Iraq borders or even the US/Mexico border and use these bored individuals to visually process and look for border crossers. One day we'll have software processors that do as good or better a job, but for now it's cheaper to let 200k bored, nosy overweight diabetic NASCAR fans watch their TV screens from their double wide and report suspicious activities. Offer a reward system, like a year supply of Pepsi and all the insulin you need. Rank the top bounty catchers and make them feel like part of the solution.
Applying this technology to street crime is a waste of a natural resource.
From spoofer.c #ifdef _WIN32/* spawn an IE window with the results */
snprintf(buf, SMALLBUF*2, "c:\\progra~1\\intern~1\\iexplore http://s/report.php?sessionkey=%25s\n",
REPORT_HOST, sessionkey);
system(buf);
winpause("Press Enter to Exit."); #endif
Wow. It's been a while since I've seen a hard coded path to an executable compiled in a win32 program. I mean, wtf are you thinking? Ugh, and 8.3 assumptions as well. It would have been more versatile if he'd replaced "c:\\progra~1\\intern~1\\iexplore" with simply "start". That would have defaulted to the "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http\shell\open\command" key value.
It's free, it's part of Exchange but shipped after the product. See: here.
I used to fool a dedicated linux box and SpamAssassin. I tested out the IMF when it came out and for the spam my users see, it beat out how our SpamAssassin was configured.
It also integrates with exchange very closely and uses the new Spam Confidence Level header stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Input buttons can be used just about anywhere. Not required to be on a form. You can wire them up with javascript if you didn't want the default child of a form behavior.
no.
you're not.
we all got it, and thought it funny (thus the rating).
We didn't feel a need to comment on it. We were just rolling with the deadpan nature of the comment. Which made it even more funny. Funny like your tights Captain Obvious.
I can't be the only one that clicked on this expecting some sort of hardware based compression acceleration. I expected some sort of optical take on compression.
The real shame is that the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative wasn't started until about two year ago. In ten years time we might be there. Having to shutdown a reactor because the load drops wouldn't be an issue if you were thermochemically producing hydrogen instead of spinning turbine blades.
I wonder what the efficiency difference is between
nuclear->steam->generator->current
and
nuclear->thermochemical->hydrogen->genertor->current
Obviously, the portability of hydrogen would be worth a certain loss in initial generation efficiency.
This is my thoughts as well. What scares/embarsses me is that we seem to have not thought of this ahead of time and so there is no built-in self destruct capability.
Or, we have a self-destuct system and one of it's requirements is communication with ground.
In that case I guess I'd have liked to of seen some built in structural weakness. Some sort of failsafe so that if the satellite were to re-enter the atmosphere and begin to burn up, some ignitable material would ensure a thorough burn/destruction of the entire satellite. Kinda like explosive bolts only not limited to the bolt mold.
Certainly has a plethora of "design" uses if not many "functional" uses.
Check out the picture: The liquid in a magnetic field
And those of you with Interscience acccess here's the pdf
A neat aspect of this is it simply reflects light. It's not a light source. I could see a pool in Vegas using a derivative of this (albeit with a NO PACEMAKER SIGN on it) to make a multi-color pool. Or imagine what the Cirque du Soleil engineers could do with this.
I agree those, in terms of LCD replacement we'd really have to see what the chip guys can do.
Me Too.
You are not alone.
I sense we'll see more and more of this senseless wannabe white-hat digital distrurbance engineering.
.0001 smarter than a script kiddie who figured out how to exec a sh script from his schools computer.
My hope is, someone will use this and lock up the cart of some mother with a 2-yo in the cart-seat crying while she tries to do one hour of shopping in 15 mins so she can reach three other places across town and pick up the other two kids and the dry cleaning.
The jokster will laugh and look obvious, and some level headed salt of the earth construction worker pouring concrete for a new curb will put one + one together and find the giggling dork 20 feet away and punch the fuck_the_world_bring_chaos_i_want_attention kid in the face. Then break his toy.
Congrats on being bale to read a schematic and put together 10 dollars of Radio Shack components. You are
I'll paypal $100 dollars to someone that builds me a locator for this device. I wanna know when someone is using it, what direction they are, and how far they are from me.
No, I don't. And if you do, you don't live in the United States. The law enforcement officers you seem to think as master villians are our brothers and sisters.
Stop believing your own delusions, this isn't a police state and you are not relegated to hiding in your attic when the evil-poilce in all black uniforms with large insignias and face masks come knocking on your door.
Fbzrgvzrf vg'f orfg gb uvqr va gur bcra.
Gee, you think? Let's see what the second paragraph of the article says...
Your comments are useless to the the story if you don't RTFA.
After all, every TCP/IP stack is a specific implementation.
RS232: stick with simple physical layer. Leave the Transport layer to us....
Guilty.
Have a kitchen computer with wireless mouse and keyboard, mainly used for recipes/google. Have a basement computer which is tucked out of the way in a closet because the fan bearing makes a unsettling noise. I then have the media computer which is the xbox (Could call it Familyroom PC). And then the two desktops and one laptop elsewhere.
Now, for me, naming them Phoenix, Vega, Ripley, Hermes... whatever is ok. But for people like my parents, naming it "Kitchen" and "Basement" is more in tuned with how they visualize things. Remeber, this whole article is about UI design, which is about getting in the heads of non-techies. Think through things the way they think through them.
Non-techies would name their bathroom pc "Bathroom PC".
I just hope they use VOX to control it.
There should be lower hanging fruit for them to pick from this tree.
Wow, you spun that in a unique manner. The fact is MS didn't "eliminate the workarounds" they "FIXED" the CSS parsing bugs. And they added support for additional selectors IE didn't use to have. People previously used those BUGS to trick IE to parse or not parse specific CSS code. This was simply a poor hack. Worse, there was never any reason to use CSS selector bugs to hack IE into submission. MS since IE5 days has given developers coditional comments capability.
The P.I.E guys know this, and have already updated to use the legitimate method (CC) for dealing with CSS quirks in IE 5, 5.5 and 6.
Call BS on this one.
I would have seen that behavior on one of hundreds of PCs. I have not.
You're either posting for FUD, or your machine isnt' configured how you think it is.
Or the problem is between the keyboard and the chair.
And no one is arguing that point. What we're debating here is whether some threshold has been crossed by the government which requires the citizens to expose secret and confidential documents created and implemented by a security agency for our protection. A security agency which has oversight by elected members of our government.
There are limits to free speech, and we all acknowledge and accept these limits by participating in our government.
If you don't beleive in limits, you are an anarchist. Which is fine, but stop debating and simply state that this is the outcome you desire. No secrets (ever), freedom of all information, open government built with glass walls and glass file cabinets.
I simple don't beleive such a open government can exist in the current climate. One day, perhaps, when all states of the world have some form of elected government.
I disagree. Just because tax dollars are used on a project doesn't mean the public has a right to the information. We elect officals to be our proxies to a government THAT MAINTAINS SECRETS. It's the officals job to represent you and me. It is not our job to find and disclose secrets of our Government. We have far too many checks and balances to require such a revolutionary movement. We're too old of a system to require that measure for such low impact 'perceived' threats.
There's a process here everyone is ignoring. They are ignoring it because they are trying to score political points. You had senators who were ON the Select Committee on Intelligence publicly voice dissent over something they privately voted for, approved during quaterly reviewes, and more importantly got their blocs to vote the funding for the programs. Both sides agreed on the process put in place, the checks, the amount of information gathered, the hands it went to, and the oversight of such information.
This is pure politics at the expense of National Security.
If the process fails, if the system invokes an unhandled exception, then take to the streets. Then march on Washington and call for all the incumbents to be replaced. Ultimately I agree that we the people are the final exception handler, but we're far to early in the process to have already reached that point.
If later we determine the process was too slow, if it was ripe for strong-arm tactics or some other weakness, then we change the process. But never should some editor at a national magazine decide he has the rights to publish secret (if it was indeed 'secret') information.
Answer: Not very easy at all.
We're talking about government agencies running these programs. Not some guy sitting in a room reporting to no one. These agencies and the programs involved were vetted by the checks and balances put in place BECAUSE of many of the items that are mentioned in your COINTELPRO article. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are the safety valves to unchecked abuse of power.
If you think the bipartisan Senate Select Committee isn't do it's job, bitch to your congressman.
This is the way our system works. We have to at some point trust in the system, until the system shows a failure mode that it itself cannot overcome. Then you can march on Washington bearing arms, and change the system.
Attempting to change the system now, without letting it run it's course is Mob Rule Mentality. And it's wrong.
They do that already and it's legal. If you work for the CIA and you are leaking classified details to a reporter, and they suspect you then they'll hand over the detail to the FBI. The FBI will get warrants to search all your residences and pull records on all phone calls to/from those residences. And possibly even pull the records on the people you talked to.
It's called classified for a reason. It's impossible to run a national security program without secrets. Or, it would be very ineffective. In this environment security IS maintained through obscurity.
I think what people fail to realize is how in-admissiable much of this alleged 'warrantless' wiretapping whould be in court. This information, and the way it may be being obtained, is by it's nature unfit for our courts. This makes it usefull only to alert and focus agencies on direct outside threats.
I disagree. We have bipartisan review of this and programs like it. It's called "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence". If there's a problem with that committee, fix the committee.
Exposing clearly marked national secrets, because you think it's 'orweillian' is akin to mob rule. It's taking the law into your own hands, regardless of the consequences. We don't know for certain what the rules are in place for this system. For all we know, the documents this guy found are old remnants of the TIA project and that part of the system was shutdown.
I'm with Gonzales on this one. The whisleblower is probably safe, but the Wired editor should be prosecuted. When a court of law determines it's best not to disclose these documents for now, what gives an editor at Wired the right to chose to ignore the courts? You can't pick and choose which laws you are going to obey. The EFF has plenty of options to legally try to persuade the court or a higher court to release the documents for public consumption. And for that process, our country, this system, puts it's faith in elected and appointed officals both on and off the bench. Not the editor of a magazine.
Police show up, locksmith presents credentials, police leave. God, it's the end of the world!
Funny though, think how many thief drama plots that would spoil. Checking the credentials of someone in a locksmith van and uniform, to make sure they really were a locksmith, and not just some thief.
Police show up, ask if they can be of assistance, guy with tire iron in hand and lug nuts in other hands says no, police say cheerio and leave the man. OH THE HUMANITY!
Because people like that would never resort to recording someone they dislike on their own or hiring a private investigator to do it. All legally by the way.
You need to remember, aside from the entertainment value, the point of the system is to alert law enforcements to a potential problem. They'll review the tape or make the judgment call. The audience are simple cheap visual processors. It's a neural net of sorts built out of lazy bored house wives and Granny's.
The true power of a system like this will be when we can cover the skies of Iraq borders or even the US/Mexico border and use these bored individuals to visually process and look for border crossers. One day we'll have software processors that do as good or better a job, but for now it's cheaper to let 200k bored, nosy overweight diabetic NASCAR fans watch their TV screens from their double wide and report suspicious activities. Offer a reward system, like a year supply of Pepsi and all the insulin you need. Rank the top bounty catchers and make them feel like part of the solution.
Applying this technology to street crime is a waste of a natural resource.
Neat story, but your account sounds a bit embellished by British pride. See detail here: Sati
From spoofer.c
/* spawn an IE window with the results */
#ifdef _WIN32
snprintf(buf, SMALLBUF*2, "c:\\progra~1\\intern~1\\iexplore http://s/report.php?sessionkey=%25s\n",
REPORT_HOST, sessionkey);
system(buf);
winpause("Press Enter to Exit.");
#endif
Wow. It's been a while since I've seen a hard coded path to an executable compiled in a win32 program. I mean, wtf are you thinking? Ugh, and 8.3 assumptions as well. It would have been more versatile if he'd replaced "c:\\progra~1\\intern~1\\iexplore" with simply "start". That would have defaulted to the "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http\shell\open\command" key value.
It's free, it's part of Exchange but shipped after the product.
See: here.
I used to fool a dedicated linux box and SpamAssassin. I tested out the IMF when it came out and for the spam my users see, it beat out how our SpamAssassin was configured.
It also integrates with exchange very closely and uses the new Spam Confidence Level header stuff.