A university down the road from Harvard? Admit it, you wear a brass rat. MIT grad or not, you're not too bright if you think the big dig is a marvel of engineering. It's what more enlightened people call a clusterfuck.
There are millions of gallons of water leaking in daily, and huge blocks of concrete falling down on people. The cost overruns are nearly $10,000,000,000, and rather than providing an efficient route around the city, it forces normal people to drive thru the rat-infested sewer they call Beantown. Cambridge people riding around on their recumbent bicycles have no clue about these things.
The interesting thing here is that Romney's the Republican and Patrick's the Democrat. This state is seriously fucked up. OTOH, at least it ain't Texas.
Voting machines are being deployed to solve two problems, fast tallying and security. They are not even close to perfect for either of them.
They fail at the speed problem because of technical issues on election day and because we often have to go back and try to determine if there were any technical issues.
They fail miserably at the security problem because many of them have been proven to be vulnerable and more importantly because the audit trail sucks. That's what gets me... the audit trail. How tough can it be? So what if the machine is a black box? Just let me see what comes out of it. I'm not just talking about a roll of paper being printed; I think the public needs to be able to see that his vote has been counted.
I'd like the option of getting a receipt when I vote. I think it could work like this:
Every ballot (paper or electronic) gets a unique identifier. When I submit my ballot, I provide an identifier of my own. The results look something like this:
ballot# voter's key vote
145 1234 stewer 637 9876 egger 942 1212 stewer
Everyone gets to look at the table, but only the person who cast the vote knows which one is his and he can confirm that it's his because it contains the key that he chose.
Yeah, but Chief Scientist Hannibal Flecter claims that they can overcome this obstacle by supplementing the subjects' diets with something called Soylent Green.
The article is not blaming a single food for being *the* cause for obesity, or even *a* cause of obesity and it doesn't ask the reader to blame a single food. HFCS, salt, and trans-fats are not foods, they are ingredients.
What the article is saying is that the inclusion of a single ingredient in so many food items adversely affects many people even if they do exercise and do not eat "too much". How many people try to do the right thing by preparing a fresh salad and then lose the benefit of that by using a prepared salad dressing made with HFCS instead of cane sugar?
Soft drinks are a good example. Look at the number of brands of bottled iced tea in a typical market. 99% of them are pre-sweetened and I doubt that any of them use pure cane. It's all HFCS. Maybe we would see widespread weight loss if they went back to cane and/or sold more unsweetened products and let the consumer add a sweetener of choice.
I wasn't aware that fructose is metabolized so differently than sucrose. It's something that I'll start paying attention to. I will not start preparing all of the food I eat. I don't have the time, and even if I did, I'd still have to know which ingredients to use and which ones to avoid.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with prepared foods any more than I believe that all fat people can be called lazy or gluttonous.
They're all just trying to screw the public. Microsoft and Sony are as bad as they get in the electronics department. Toyota and Ford have cars well covered.
We need a few more people like Ralph Nader and David Horowitz and a lot more average consumers willing to take these bastards to the mat.
Copy that floppy and give it to your friends. Forge Jack Vallenti's signature on it. I'm not advocating that anyone do anything immoral or unethical, just that they stand up for their rights by getting even with the thieves, in any way possible.
"How is what Microsoft claiming to do different from existing voice recognition systems?"
Existing voice recognition systems might be more acurately called speech recognition. They don't recognize the voice (who is speaking); they recognize the speech (what is being said). They can be categorized as speaker dependent or speaker independent.
Speaker dependent speech recognition (type 1) requires complex training by each user. It needs to know all the ways a person pronounces every possible phoneme. During use, it must be given the name of the speaker and a sound sample. It gives back the name of the phoneme. 2 inputs, 1 output.
Speaker independent speech recognition (type 2) is able to identify individual phonemes as spoken by a wide variety of speakers. 1 input, 1 output. That's what I would imagine is the important first step of what MS is claiming to do. Once a phoneme or two has been identified, the name of the phoneme and the captured sound sample can be fed to the type 1 algorithm and it would be able to output the name of the speaker.
Functionally it's different than existing "voice recognition" systems, but I seriously doubt it worthy of a patent.
Most of the time I try to say something useful, but sometimes I just speak my mind and don't care if people find it annoying. I wonder how much would it cost to eradicate all the useful shit?
What I'd like to find is !NeckFace. Google me a place that hasn't been at least partially fucked up by NY influence. NYC is the asshole of the USA, and if terrorists had to bomb something, I'm glad it was there.
In terms of joule/fuel in normal use, smallblock V8s are very efficient. Overhead cam sewing machine engines make more power/displacement, but they do it by turning more revs/joule, then they self-destruct. For nearly any passenger vehicle on the road, there's no better engine made than a good old-fashioned American pushrod I-4, V-6, or V-8.
You may look at them as crude, but the fact is that they are simple and correct. We keep buying them not because we don't have a choice, but because we know that they are better.
As someone who's been saying that MS sucks for 20+ years, I feel qualified to answer this. They suck in many ways.
There's the standalone suckage such as every version of WinDOS they sold before NT. Most of us don't really care about this, in fact we find it amusing.
It's the other crap that gets us worked up. Network suckage, such as NetBeui and SMB, file format suckage such as MSOffice, and corporate suckage such as their misdeeds against Sun, Digital Research, Linux and countless others.
If we wanted their shit, we would buy it. What we really want is for MS to stop being like the Borg. They should communicate with open languages and protocols and stop trying to assimilate the world. The reason they won't is that they would become irrelevant almost overnight.
Indeed. By granting copyright and patent protection to MS, they have interfered with natural selection. Your argument is invalid because without government, there would be no such thing as patents.
MS has abused its privileges. The people have a right to revoke them.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it louder than the sound of one hand clapping?
A university down the road from Harvard? Admit it, you wear a brass rat. MIT grad or not, you're not too bright if you think the big dig is a marvel of engineering. It's what more enlightened people call a clusterfuck.
There are millions of gallons of water leaking in daily, and huge blocks of concrete falling down on people. The cost overruns are nearly $10,000,000,000, and rather than providing an efficient route around the city, it forces normal people to drive thru the rat-infested sewer they call Beantown. Cambridge people riding around on their recumbent bicycles have no clue about these things.
The interesting thing here is that Romney's the Republican and Patrick's the Democrat. This state is seriously fucked up. OTOH, at least it ain't Texas.
Get the fuck off my Internet or I'll throw a fucking chair at you.
Buick turbo might be a better fit.
Voting machines are being deployed to solve two problems, fast tallying and security. They are not even close to perfect for either of them.
They fail at the speed problem because of technical issues on election day and because we often have to go back and try to determine if there were any technical issues.
They fail miserably at the security problem because many of them have been proven to be vulnerable and more importantly because the audit trail sucks. That's what gets me... the audit trail. How tough can it be? So what if the machine is a black box? Just let me see what comes out of it. I'm not just talking about a roll of paper being printed; I think the public needs to be able to see that his vote has been counted.
I'd like the option of getting a receipt when I vote. I think it could work like this:
Every ballot (paper or electronic) gets a unique identifier. When I submit my ballot, I provide an identifier of my own. The results look something like this:
ballot# voter's key vote
145 1234 stewer
637 9876 egger
942 1212 stewer
Everyone gets to look at the table, but only the person who cast the vote knows which one is his and he can confirm that it's his because it contains the key that he chose.
"...but those who make decisions about what procedures and machines are used to ensure the votes are tallied fairly have to consider it"
But how will we choose the people to make those decisions? How will we know that we really had freedom of choice?
Token_Internet_Girl wrote...
Yeah, but Chief Scientist Hannibal Flecter claims that they can overcome this obstacle by supplementing the subjects' diets with something called Soylent Green.
d-r-i-n-k y-o-u-r o-v-a-l-t-i-n-e
LMAO
Every business has enough IT talent to support an infinite number of MSWindows machines. All you need is this: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:na76q-BJMYIJ: www.microsoft.com/Windows/zak/+microsoft+zero+admi n&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Ha ha fscking ha! MS lies about every piece of shit they sell. They've been doing it for 30 years and some morons still believe them.
The article is not blaming a single food for being *the* cause for obesity, or even *a* cause of obesity and it doesn't ask the reader to blame a single food. HFCS, salt, and trans-fats are not foods, they are ingredients.
What the article is saying is that the inclusion of a single ingredient in so many food items adversely affects many people even if they do exercise and do not eat "too much". How many people try to do the right thing by preparing a fresh salad and then lose the benefit of that by using a prepared salad dressing made with HFCS instead of cane sugar?
Soft drinks are a good example. Look at the number of brands of bottled iced tea in a typical market. 99% of them are pre-sweetened and I doubt that any of them use pure cane. It's all HFCS. Maybe we would see widespread weight loss if they went back to cane and/or sold more unsweetened products and let the consumer add a sweetener of choice.
I wasn't aware that fructose is metabolized so differently than sucrose. It's something that I'll start paying attention to. I will not start preparing all of the food I eat. I don't have the time, and even if I did, I'd still have to know which ingredients to use and which ones to avoid.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with prepared foods any more than I believe that all fat people can be called lazy or gluttonous.
They're all just trying to screw the public. Microsoft and Sony are as bad as they get in the electronics department. Toyota and Ford have cars well covered.
We need a few more people like Ralph Nader and David Horowitz and a lot more average consumers willing to take these bastards to the mat.
Copy that floppy and give it to your friends. Forge Jack Vallenti's signature on it. I'm not advocating that anyone do anything immoral or unethical, just that they stand up for their rights by getting even with the thieves, in any way possible.
Yeah, Dick Cheney can probably hook them up with some old Anderson/Enron crooks.
You must be reading out of your ass because that's exactly the distinction I made.
"How is what Microsoft claiming to do different from existing voice recognition systems?"
Existing voice recognition systems might be more acurately called speech recognition. They don't recognize the voice (who is speaking); they recognize the speech (what is being said). They can be categorized as speaker dependent or speaker independent.
Speaker dependent speech recognition (type 1) requires complex training by each user. It needs to know all the ways a person pronounces every possible phoneme. During use, it must be given the name of the speaker and a sound sample. It gives back the name of the phoneme. 2 inputs, 1 output.
Speaker independent speech recognition (type 2) is able to identify individual phonemes as spoken by a wide variety of speakers. 1 input, 1 output. That's what I would imagine is the important first step of what MS is claiming to do. Once a phoneme or two has been identified, the name of the phoneme and the captured sound sample can be fed to the type 1 algorithm and it would be able to output the name of the speaker.
Functionally it's different than existing "voice recognition" systems, but I seriously doubt it worthy of a patent.
Most of the time I try to say something useful, but sometimes I just speak my mind and don't care if people find it annoying. I wonder how much would it cost to eradicate all the useful shit?
What I'd like to find is !NeckFace. Google me a place that hasn't been at least partially fucked up by NY influence. NYC is the asshole of the USA, and if terrorists had to bomb something, I'm glad it was there.
Floyd R. Turbo,
American
In terms of joule/fuel in normal use, smallblock V8s are very efficient. Overhead cam sewing machine engines make more power/displacement, but they do it by turning more revs/joule, then they self-destruct. For nearly any passenger vehicle on the road, there's no better engine made than a good old-fashioned American pushrod I-4, V-6, or V-8.
You may look at them as crude, but the fact is that they are simple and correct. We keep buying them not because we don't have a choice, but because we know that they are better.
"outside the need for national security"
What makes nations sacred? Who gets to decide what constitutes a threat to national security?
As someone who's been saying that MS sucks for 20+ years, I feel qualified to answer this. They suck in many ways.
There's the standalone suckage such as every version of WinDOS they sold before NT. Most of us don't really care about this, in fact we find it amusing.
It's the other crap that gets us worked up. Network suckage, such as NetBeui and SMB, file format suckage such as MSOffice, and
corporate suckage such as their misdeeds against Sun, Digital Research, Linux and countless others.
If we wanted their shit, we would buy it. What we really want is for MS to stop being like the Borg. They should communicate with open languages and protocols and stop trying to assimilate the world. The reason they won't is that they would become irrelevant almost overnight.
"This thing sounds like it would be great for an engine management system."
I don't think it would do much good without a proper exhaust system.
Count me in. I'll take three rolls if it's the quilted variety (sensitive sphincter).
"The EU has already overstepped their bounds."
Indeed. By granting copyright and patent protection to MS, they have interfered with natural selection. Your argument is invalid because without government, there would be no such thing as patents.
MS has abused its privileges. The people have a right to revoke them.