This doesn't seem so much different from the mindset needed for good programming or good testsets. You need to think of how different inputs or states can cause things to go wrong and then program accordingly.
Each candidate can choose government financing or private financing.
Private financing can come from any source, but must be disclosed.
If a privately financed candidate goes over the limit, matching money will be allocated to government financed candidates.
Advantages: No candidate can outspend another. No one has their free speech or their spending on free speech restricted (except by voluntarily accepting government financing).
Disadvantages: It will cost more money to finance elections, but this is likely offset by less money spent on "kickbacks". Also, there are obviously many details to work out.
I would think the SCOTUS would have to revisit Miranda to make this, giving up passwords, a requirement. Otherwise, I am within my rights to remain silent.
The interesting thing is that if the US had a health care system based more around prevention rather than treatment (and that includes insurance companies as well), costs would probably be lower since it's often cheaper to 'treat' illness factors before they become a full disease. I wouldn't count on it. If the health industry can make you take expensive drugs (statins) to prevent disease (heart disease) with little to no long-term benefits (mortality does not significantly decrease for patients with no previous heart disease), then "prevention" is big bucks and gets a lot of attention.
The parent is a great post, but I would substitute the 90's for the 80's because that is when machine learning and probabilistic reasoning got themselves mostly straightened out.
But this decade, can anyone provide any significant breakthrough in AI? It seems that any real results are because of faster and more processors and faster and more memory.
Here is my challenge. Can anyone name an important algorithm or representation from this decade?
The next steps are already around which are various forms of combining encryption (can't read the content) with indirection (make it hard to tell who is talking to who). Indirection is the weaker of the pair, but a good implementation should at least require serious offline analysis to break it.
We need a http-like protocol based on temporary public/private keys. A P2P session can exchange temporary public keys, then a key for symmetric encryption, and when the session is over the keys are erased. UK asks for the keys, but you can point to the protocol (maybe the protocol would be illegal). Man-in-the-middle attacks are quite possible, but it would be hard to do this for all P2P traffic.
-----Original Message-----
From: phobos13013@corporate-email.com
Sent: January 22, 2008, 10:39AM
To: Slashdot-all@slashdot.org; phobos13013@corporate-email.com; digg-all@digg.com; bob2074@dobbs.com; bob@aol.com;
Subject: Re: Corporate Email Etiquette - Dead or Alive?
no
{Unclassified}
-----Original Message-----
From: mbravo@spb.ru
Sent: January 22, 2008, 10:39AM
To: Slashdot-all@slashdot.org; phobos13013@corporate-email.com; digg-all@digg.com; bob2074@dobbs.com; bob@aol.com;
Subject: Corporate Email Etiquette - Dead or Alive?
"I work in a largish company, heavily into IT, and in a complex and quickly changing market. Employees are predominantly in the 30 or younger age-bracket, and as you might expect we rely on a lot of internal e-mail. Despite that, lately I'm finding myself increasingly frustrated by a complete lack of e-mail etiquette in the company. A typical thread might look like a hundred-message-long chain of one-line replies, with full quoting and hundreds of recipients in the 'To:' field. It feels like it is happening more and more often. I don't seem to be seeing much success in explaining to my co-workers what the problem is here. How do you deal with this at your place of business, and does your company care? Does the company take any policing or educating measures?"
The US already has a semi-voluntary national ID called a passport. Most US slashdotters, I would assume, are or will be international travelers, in which case, they will have a national ID sooner or later.
I think the issues are the activities for which this ID will be required, the databases that will record these activities, who has access to this information, and what can be done on the basis of that information. If we had any semblance of a right to privacy, there would be less reason to worry, but our government is steadily eroding our rights at the same time it increases the amount of information and surveillance on us. The lack of any balance is where I'm worried. If it's limited to financial fraud, border control, employment verification, and the like, that would be ok, but this info will become another all-purpose tool for any kind of prosecution/persecution.
I don't know the right length of time, but once a work is out of publication for a certain amount of time, I think it should lose its copyright. We are in an age where some media of publication (e.g, film, tape, discs) have a shorter lifespan than the copyright. Add to that DRM, you have a situation where many works will disappear or disintegrate before it makes it to the public domain.
And even with the stupid fence being built on the southern border, it'll be a sieve. Are we prepared to shoot on sight? That is what it takes to truly tighten up the border (refer to Berlin wall).
And any idiot terrorist could cross the northern border.
I'm capable of doing many tasks, but not good at all of them. From the recent benchmarks discussed on Slashdot, it would appear that Vista-capable should be expanded to Vista-just-barely-capable
When Vista needs to determine whether you have permission to copy any particular bit, the computer implemented by the movement of these rocks is queried.
According to the Office performance benchmarks, Windows XP SP3 is also considerably faster than Vista SP1. "None of this bodes well for Vista, which is now more than two times slower than the most current builds of its older sibling," said Barth.
You can see the results in a hard-to-read graph at exo-blog.blogspot.com. XP SP3 completed the benchmark in under 40 seconds while Vista is over 80 seconds.
An OOXML standard, suitably fixed, would be a big help for interoperability from.doc and.docx to other formats. Given that there are a zillion.doc and.docx documents, that would to me be enough of an argument for a standard.
Why add the additional point of failure? Or was I supposed to buy 2 identical RAID cards for when one failed and it turned out the array it built isn't compatible with anything except the exact same device with the exact same firmware revision?
Agree completely. I bought a card to do a simple RAID mirror, so when the machine went bad (it was the motherboard I think), I thought all I had to do was pull one disk out to move files to another machine, but no, the RAID card had to set it up some other stupid way. No other machine would recognize anything resembling a partition on the disk. I was very unhappy because I wasn't sure yet whether it was the RAID card that failed. Fortunately, moving the RAID card and the disks to another machine worked, but that is a horrible design.
I thought the internet routed around damage. Of course, if it's a situation where you need a year's supply of food to survive as suggested by the parent, maybe telecommuting would be a secondary issue.
"It is inappropriate to require that a time
represented as seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number
of seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch." - IEEE Standard 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2
Slashdot Mirror
... will be ensured by using ray tracing to render characters in your word processing application! Finally, Vista will get some love.
This doesn't seem so much different from the mindset needed for good programming or good testsets. You need to think of how different inputs or states can cause things to go wrong and then program accordingly.
Allocate so many money to each viable candidate.
Each candidate can choose government financing or private financing.
Private financing can come from any source, but must be disclosed.
If a privately financed candidate goes over the limit, matching money will be allocated to government financed candidates.
Advantages: No candidate can outspend another. No one has their free speech or their spending on free speech restricted (except by voluntarily accepting government financing).
Disadvantages: It will cost more money to finance elections, but this is likely offset by less money spent on "kickbacks". Also, there are obviously many details to work out.
Isn't it part of the Miranda Rights?
"You have the right to remain silent."
I would think the SCOTUS would have to revisit Miranda to make this, giving up passwords, a requirement. Otherwise, I am within my rights to remain silent.
The parent is a great post, but I would substitute the 90's for the 80's because that is when machine learning and probabilistic reasoning got themselves mostly straightened out.
But this decade, can anyone provide any significant breakthrough in AI? It seems that any real results are because of faster and more processors and faster and more memory.
Here is my challenge. Can anyone name an important algorithm or representation from this decade?
The next steps are already around which are various forms of combining encryption (can't read the content) with indirection (make it hard to tell who is talking to who). Indirection is the weaker of the pair, but a good implementation should at least require serious offline analysis to break it.
We need a http-like protocol based on temporary public/private keys. A P2P session can exchange temporary public keys, then a key for symmetric encryption, and when the session is over the keys are erased. UK asks for the keys, but you can point to the protocol (maybe the protocol would be illegal). Man-in-the-middle attacks are quite possible, but it would be hard to do this for all P2P traffic.
{Private}
-----Original Message-----
From: phobos13013@corporate-email.com
Sent: January 22, 2008, 10:39AM
To: Slashdot-all@slashdot.org; phobos13013@corporate-email.com; digg-all@digg.com; bob2074@dobbs.com; bob@aol.com;
Subject: Re: Corporate Email Etiquette - Dead or Alive?
no
{Unclassified}
-----Original Message-----
From: mbravo@spb.ru
Sent: January 22, 2008, 10:39AM
To: Slashdot-all@slashdot.org; phobos13013@corporate-email.com; digg-all@digg.com; bob2074@dobbs.com; bob@aol.com;
Subject: Corporate Email Etiquette - Dead or Alive?
"I work in a largish company, heavily into IT, and in a complex and quickly changing market. Employees are predominantly in the 30 or younger age-bracket, and as you might expect we rely on a lot of internal e-mail. Despite that, lately I'm finding myself increasingly frustrated by a complete lack of e-mail etiquette in the company. A typical thread might look like a hundred-message-long chain of one-line replies, with full quoting and hundreds of recipients in the 'To:' field. It feels like it is happening more and more often. I don't seem to be seeing much success in explaining to my co-workers what the problem is here. How do you deal with this at your place of business, and does your company care? Does the company take any policing or educating measures?"
The US already has a semi-voluntary national ID called a passport. Most US slashdotters, I would assume, are or will be international travelers, in which case, they will have a national ID sooner or later.
I think the issues are the activities for which this ID will be required, the databases that will record these activities, who has access to this information, and what can be done on the basis of that information. If we had any semblance of a right to privacy, there would be less reason to worry, but our government is steadily eroding our rights at the same time it increases the amount of information and surveillance on us. The lack of any balance is where I'm worried. If it's limited to financial fraud, border control, employment verification, and the like, that would be ok, but this info will become another all-purpose tool for any kind of prosecution/persecution.
Makefiles had to be explained several times.
I despise makefiles. Java has dependency issues, but they are an order of magnitude less than C/C++.
Maybe the next things on your list are getting lost following include dependencies and OS-dependent #define and #if spaghetti.
I don't know the right length of time, but once a work is out of publication for a certain amount of time, I think it should lose its copyright. We are in an age where some media of publication (e.g, film, tape, discs) have a shorter lifespan than the copyright. Add to that DRM, you have a situation where many works will disappear or disintegrate before it makes it to the public domain.
If they wish to have people respect their rights, perhaps they should respect the rights of the public at large first.
Somebody has hit the nail on the head.
What are you saying?
Except for copyright, pornography, surveillance, phone-home software, the US is a a beacon of online freedom.
BartPE fits on a 256MB USB Flash drive. Surely something similar would be workable in 1GB.
And any idiot terrorist could cross the northern border.
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/windows-xp-sp3-yields-performance-gains.html
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-re-testing-vista-w2gb-ram-office.html
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-make-vista-run-like-xp-sort-of.html
When Vista needs to determine whether you have permission to copy any particular bit, the computer implemented by the movement of these rocks is queried.
An OOXML standard, suitably fixed, would be a big help for interoperability from .doc and .docx to other formats. Given that there are a zillion .doc and .docx documents, that would to me be enough of an argument for a standard.
I thought the internet routed around damage. Of course, if it's a situation where you need a year's supply of food to survive as suggested by the parent, maybe telecommuting would be a secondary issue.
"It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch." - IEEE Standard 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2
If the NASA satellites can see diseases, just imagine how good the spy satellites are.