well, one change is we have to add BS to get past the filters
And don't forget the karma cap (and "fuzzy" karma display). I used to sit at work for hours practicing my karma-whoring technique. Got up to 75, then they capped it at 50 (I kept my 75, but new positive moderations wouldn't increase it, while occasional negative mods slowly decreased it down to 50).
Of course, karma-whoring is even easier now that subscribers can preview stories.... but with the karma cap, the thrill is gone.
As another poster pointed out, that's one of the differences here - unlike VZW in DC, Nextel will be letting other cell carriers use it too, so you won't have to switch carriers.
Removing QuickTime worked fine on classic Mac OS (it broke anything that required QuickTime, obviously, but the rest of the OS was OK). In Mac OS X, however, the Finder requires QuickTime and won't launch without it. Once again, though, the rest of the OS works - after a few seconds of staring at a blank desktop, Software Update popped up and asked if I wanted to install the latest version of QuickTime. I was able to launch the Terminal from the Dock and restore the missing/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework bundle, then click the Finder icon in the Dock to launch the Finder successfully.
Of course, you can't uninstall QuickTime by accident - if you drag it to the Trash, you'll be prompted for an Administrator password, and to delete it from the Terminal you'll need to use sudo. You can boot into single-user mode and get a root shell (unless you've set an OpenFirmware password), but you'll have to remount the root filesystem as read-only before proceeding. Once you've done that, though, it's not difficult to remove:/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/System/Library/Frameworks/QTKit.framework/System/Library/PreferencePanes/QuickTime.prefPane/System/Library/QuickTime/Library/QuickTime/Applications/QuickTime Player.app
Here's a good example of content that should be in the public domain. It's really too bad that just about anything newer than the 1920s is still under copyright - Happy Birthday is owned by a division of AOL Time Warner and won't fall into the public domain for another 25 years (unless Congress extends it again).
mp3? Would lossless compression have been a better choice for archiving all these ancient songs? Something like FLAC?
The quality of the analog media isn't nearly good enough that mp3 compression artifacts are going to make any difference whatsoever. Also, mp3 is very standard; I'm not sure what software I'd need to hunt down in order to play FLAC files, but "Peggy" started playing in my browser as soon as I clicked the link.
If you already have QuickTime installed, it should certainly be possible to download and install iTunes without QuickTime attached (but I don't think Apple makes this available for Windows; they do for Mac). However, iTunes definitely won't work without QuickTime. As another poster mentioned, iTunes uses QuickTime for media playback (which is why if you want to play Ogg Vorbis files in iTunes, the plugin you need is a QuickTime plugin which will work with all apps that use QuickTime including iTunes). However, QuickTime for Windows also includes a significant chunk of the Carbon API, which iTunes was written for. On Mac OS X (and Mac OS 8.5 and up with CarbonLib installed), the Carbon API is provided by the operating system (alongside the Cocoa API on OSX), but on Windows, without QuickTime there's no Carbon and without Carbon there's no iTunes.
Why does QuickTime include (parts of) Carbon? Because it was easier to port a chunk of Carbon (or rather, the Macintosh Toolbox, which is what Carbon grew from) to Windows than to rewrite QuickTime to use the Win32 API.
And you can't do the same with Windows Messenger? Well not the drag-to-trash part. But you can ignore it just the same. If you need to use it, it's easy to find. If you don't need to.. don't.
It actively pops up in the corner and demands your attention, then stays in the system tray until you figure out how to disable it (double-click, click cancel, click OK to confirm you really want to cancel, find the options in one of the menus, go to the third tab, uncheck the box - that's from memory, so I might be slightly off, but it's something like that).
Windows Messenger has never just automatically launched for me.
That's strange. It pops up automatically on every WinXP system I've ever installed, and on the first login whenever a new profile is created on an existing system.
Windows Messenger also doesn't deal with advertisements. It's completely different (currently) from MSN Messenger which you have to go and download independently of the operating system.
I've heard there's a difference and I've seen both; to be honest I'm not sure which one pops up automatically on a fresh installation, but whichever one it is does prompt you to log in with (or sign up for) an MSN account.
And I've used it with Jabber as well, and from recent developments, MS might be looking to make that AIM thing work too.
That was Yahoo, not AIM, and I don't think they have that working yet. I'd never heard of using Windows Messenger with Jabber, but from what I can tell it requires a third-party plug-in to make that work (blog entry).
Apple bundles an IM client with Mac OS X. Guess what though? It's just bundled - that's all. If you don't want to use it, you can simply ignore it, or drag it to the Trash without ever opening it.
Microsoft's IM client isn't just bundled: it launches automatically every time you load Windows, pops up with an alert telling you to sign up for an account, and stays in your taskbar unless you know how to get rid of it (the average user doesn't know how).
Also, Apple doesn't run their own IM network; their client works with AIM and Jabber, and doesn't display advertisements. You can use Apple's client to connect to a third-party network without registering with Apple for anything.
This was a settlement reached between Microsoft and the company that was suing them, without going to court. Microsoft is simply paying them to drop the lawsuit.
Ah, but the question is, do electronic voting machines add gears, or replace gears? And are the gears they're replacing more error/fraud-prone than what they're being replaced with? If votes are counted by a machine that works perfectly, the results will be more accurate than if a group of humans were counting the ballots manually...
Re:Perl comes with an obfuscator by default..
on
'Protecting' Perl Code?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
OK, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T take explicit action to make it even MORE unreadable.
my $music='Art'; my($swing,$rock)=q s/hacker/performer/; # another creator of art... my $blues=~/^.(\w+).*#\s(\w+)/; my $jazz=substr((grep m($music)=>qx($^X$,-v))[$[],$?,scalar @_); my $pop=eval qq("\\@_");
A device doing pure NAT would forward all traffic -- including unsolicited incoming traffic -- on the public IP of the router to your computer's internal IP.
This could be dangerous if someone on your same ISP - on the same physical network as the WAN side of your NAT router - were trying to get into your LAN. From anywhere else on the Internet, though, there'd be no way in! Any attempt to send a packet to one of your internal IPs would never reach you.
So yes, you're right, someone on the outside wouldn't know your computer's internal IP address, but it wouldn't matter because the NAT box would happily forward all the packets. Because that's what NAT means.
If the incoming packets aren't replies to requests that originated on the inside, how would the NAT router know which internal IP to route the packets to?
but you didn't address what i was saying: more complexity=more chance for fraud
At what point are you suggesting an increased risk of fraud is introduced? The first machine, which prints the ballot? The ballot is human-readable, and voters will be encouraged to review it. If the first machine doesn't print the right thing, the voter should notice. Of course errors could be missed, but if the machine runs open source code, well, that's a step in the right direction.
As for the second machine, it's still a secure locked and guarded box, just like paper voting has always used... but with the addition of a scanner that can count the votes. This will help to give us more accurate and much faster counts than counting all the ballots by hand... but the ballots still COULD be counted by hand.
I certainly see what you're saying, but if done right, I think electronic voting could be less error/fraud-prone. As for being more expensive, that all depends on whether it works efficiently enough to require fewer people to operate it.
It's a dream.;-)
And no, I don't expect it to be really done right on a large scale within the next decade.
Pat Robertson said the United States should assassinate the president of Venezuela. You know what pisses me off the most about that? If I tell people I'm a Christian, they'll think I agree with people like him.:-\
Done properly, electronic voting could be a good thing. An electronic voting machine can easily be made accessible to people who are physically handicapped, blind, or speak a language other than English. Ideally, the machine used by the voter should present their options in a clear intuitive way, then print a paper ballot and give it to the voter. The voter should then be able to review their vote, and if they see a problem, get a new ballot. After the voter has verified their ballot, they feed it into a second machine, which scans the vote, counts it electronically, and stores it securely so it can be recounted.
This is really not that difficult a concept, but it'll be years before it's implemented properly, because the people with money and power aren't particularly interested in doing this properly, they're only interested in acquiring more money and power.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? They'd never TELL you about forwarding your name to the government!
well, one change is we have to add BS to get past the filters
And don't forget the karma cap (and "fuzzy" karma display). I used to sit at work for hours practicing my karma-whoring technique. Got up to 75, then they capped it at 50 (I kept my 75, but new positive moderations wouldn't increase it, while occasional negative mods slowly decreased it down to 50).
Of course, karma-whoring is even easier now that subscribers can preview stories.... but with the karma cap, the thrill is gone.
Well, those who believe #1 and #2 must believe in #3, how else would they explain how Bush won in the last election despite #1 and #2?
Very powerful friends, who are much more evil but clearly not stupid.
We switched cell carriers because of it!
As another poster pointed out, that's one of the differences here - unlike VZW in DC, Nextel will be letting other cell carriers use it too, so you won't have to switch carriers.
Removing QuickTime worked fine on classic Mac OS (it broke anything that required QuickTime, obviously, but the rest of the OS was OK). In Mac OS X, however, the Finder requires QuickTime and won't launch without it. Once again, though, the rest of the OS works - after a few seconds of staring at a blank desktop, Software Update popped up and asked if I wanted to install the latest version of QuickTime. I was able to launch the Terminal from the Dock and restore the missing /System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework bundle, then click the Finder icon in the Dock to launch the Finder successfully.
/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework /System/Library/Frameworks/QTKit.framework /System/Library/PreferencePanes/QuickTime.prefPane /System/Library/QuickTime /Library/QuickTime /Applications/QuickTime Player.app
Of course, you can't uninstall QuickTime by accident - if you drag it to the Trash, you'll be prompted for an Administrator password, and to delete it from the Terminal you'll need to use sudo. You can boot into single-user mode and get a root shell (unless you've set an OpenFirmware password), but you'll have to remount the root filesystem as read-only before proceeding. Once you've done that, though, it's not difficult to remove:
Did I miss any?
Here's a good example of content that should be in the public domain. It's really too bad that just about anything newer than the 1920s is still under copyright - Happy Birthday is owned by a division of AOL Time Warner and won't fall into the public domain for another 25 years (unless Congress extends it again).
mp3? Would lossless compression have been a better choice for archiving all these ancient songs? Something like FLAC?
The quality of the analog media isn't nearly good enough that mp3 compression artifacts are going to make any difference whatsoever. Also, mp3 is very standard; I'm not sure what software I'd need to hunt down in order to play FLAC files, but "Peggy" started playing in my browser as soon as I clicked the link.
At least with a computer, you can flip the power supply and have it *off* off...right?
Some ATX power supplies do have a switch on them, yes, but many don't. You'd have to unplug it, or flip the switch on the power strip.
Given Sony's ethics lately, I think I can safely say that I won't be buying anything with the Sony brand name stamped on it for a long time to come,
Why do you think they do business under so many different brand names?
If you already have QuickTime installed, it should certainly be possible to download and install iTunes without QuickTime attached (but I don't think Apple makes this available for Windows; they do for Mac). However, iTunes definitely won't work without QuickTime. As another poster mentioned, iTunes uses QuickTime for media playback (which is why if you want to play Ogg Vorbis files in iTunes, the plugin you need is a QuickTime plugin which will work with all apps that use QuickTime including iTunes). However, QuickTime for Windows also includes a significant chunk of the Carbon API, which iTunes was written for. On Mac OS X (and Mac OS 8.5 and up with CarbonLib installed), the Carbon API is provided by the operating system (alongside the Cocoa API on OSX), but on Windows, without QuickTime there's no Carbon and without Carbon there's no iTunes.
Why does QuickTime include (parts of) Carbon? Because it was easier to port a chunk of Carbon (or rather, the Macintosh Toolbox, which is what Carbon grew from) to Windows than to rewrite QuickTime to use the Win32 API.
And Server 2003. And presumably the betas of Vista, but that doesn't really count.
It's like arresting a mafia boss for jaywalking.
Or for failing to pay his taxes?
Remember when AOL users couldn't e-mail CompuServe users which couldn't e-mail Prodigy users?
I don't remember if meta-moderation shows the moderator's identity,
It doesn't. Otherwise metamoderators would be influenced by who was moderating, instead of how they moderated, and that would break the system.
And you can't do the same with Windows Messenger? Well not the drag-to-trash part. But you can ignore it just the same. If you need to use it, it's easy to find. If you don't need to.. don't.
It actively pops up in the corner and demands your attention, then stays in the system tray until you figure out how to disable it (double-click, click cancel, click OK to confirm you really want to cancel, find the options in one of the menus, go to the third tab, uncheck the box - that's from memory, so I might be slightly off, but it's something like that).
Windows Messenger has never just automatically launched for me.
That's strange. It pops up automatically on every WinXP system I've ever installed, and on the first login whenever a new profile is created on an existing system.
Windows Messenger also doesn't deal with advertisements. It's completely different (currently) from MSN Messenger which you have to go and download independently of the operating system.
I've heard there's a difference and I've seen both; to be honest I'm not sure which one pops up automatically on a fresh installation, but whichever one it is does prompt you to log in with (or sign up for) an MSN account.
And I've used it with Jabber as well, and from recent developments, MS might be looking to make that AIM thing work too.
That was Yahoo, not AIM, and I don't think they have that working yet. I'd never heard of using Windows Messenger with Jabber, but from what I can tell it requires a third-party plug-in to make that work (blog entry).
Apple bundles an IM client with Mac OS X. Guess what though? It's just bundled - that's all. If you don't want to use it, you can simply ignore it, or drag it to the Trash without ever opening it.
Microsoft's IM client isn't just bundled: it launches automatically every time you load Windows, pops up with an alert telling you to sign up for an account, and stays in your taskbar unless you know how to get rid of it (the average user doesn't know how).
Also, Apple doesn't run their own IM network; their client works with AIM and Jabber, and doesn't display advertisements. You can use Apple's client to connect to a third-party network without registering with Apple for anything.
This was a settlement reached between Microsoft and the company that was suing them, without going to court. Microsoft is simply paying them to drop the lawsuit.
s/on/for/
Ah, but the question is, do electronic voting machines add gears, or replace gears? And are the gears they're replacing more error/fraud-prone than what they're being replaced with? If votes are counted by a machine that works perfectly, the results will be more accurate than if a group of humans were counting the ballots manually...
OK, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T take explicit action to make it even MORE unreadable.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
($,,$",$_,@_)=reverse qw(164 163 165 112),",\n",split '','\ ';
my $music='Art';
my($swing,$rock)=q
s/hacker/performer/; # another creator of art...
my $blues=~/^.(\w+).*#\s(\w+)/;
my $jazz=substr((grep m($music)=>qx($^X$,-v))[$[],$?,scalar @_);
my $pop=eval qq("\\@_");
print $pop, $rock, $jazz, $swing;
print;
A device doing pure NAT would forward all traffic -- including unsolicited incoming traffic -- on the public IP of the router to your computer's internal IP.
This could be dangerous if someone on your same ISP - on the same physical network as the WAN side of your NAT router - were trying to get into your LAN. From anywhere else on the Internet, though, there'd be no way in! Any attempt to send a packet to one of your internal IPs would never reach you.
So yes, you're right, someone on the outside wouldn't know your computer's internal IP address, but it wouldn't matter because the NAT box would happily forward all the packets. Because that's what NAT means.
If the incoming packets aren't replies to requests that originated on the inside, how would the NAT router know which internal IP to route the packets to?
So uhh, when the melody is played on a saxophone instead of sung, it's no longer a song?
What about when a melody is sung without words ("doo ba dwee ba doo" etc.)? Does it become a song at that point, or are lyrics required?
You don't listen to much jazz, do you?
but you didn't address what i was saying: more complexity=more chance for fraud
;-)
At what point are you suggesting an increased risk of fraud is introduced? The first machine, which prints the ballot? The ballot is human-readable, and voters will be encouraged to review it. If the first machine doesn't print the right thing, the voter should notice. Of course errors could be missed, but if the machine runs open source code, well, that's a step in the right direction.
As for the second machine, it's still a secure locked and guarded box, just like paper voting has always used... but with the addition of a scanner that can count the votes. This will help to give us more accurate and much faster counts than counting all the ballots by hand... but the ballots still COULD be counted by hand.
I certainly see what you're saying, but if done right, I think electronic voting could be less error/fraud-prone. As for being more expensive, that all depends on whether it works efficiently enough to require fewer people to operate it.
It's a dream.
And no, I don't expect it to be really done right on a large scale within the next decade.
Pat Robertson said the United States should assassinate the president of Venezuela. You know what pisses me off the most about that? If I tell people I'm a Christian, they'll think I agree with people like him. :-\
Done properly, electronic voting could be a good thing. An electronic voting machine can easily be made accessible to people who are physically handicapped, blind, or speak a language other than English. Ideally, the machine used by the voter should present their options in a clear intuitive way, then print a paper ballot and give it to the voter. The voter should then be able to review their vote, and if they see a problem, get a new ballot. After the voter has verified their ballot, they feed it into a second machine, which scans the vote, counts it electronically, and stores it securely so it can be recounted.
This is really not that difficult a concept, but it'll be years before it's implemented properly, because the people with money and power aren't particularly interested in doing this properly, they're only interested in acquiring more money and power.