SUN should have pushed harder on MS regarding JAVA. First and foremost, they should have made MS get rid of their broken JVM completly (if you install the latest service pack on a machine without the JVM, you get the JVM. No service pack currently downloadable should contain any contents of the MS JVM.
In fact, SUN should have (if it was possible) told MS that they had to distribute the SUN Java VM.
Its like when AOL and MS made up for the Netscape debacle. Not only did MS only have to pay a piddling little fine but AOLTW actually sggreed to use crappy MS technology (like Windows Media Player and Intercrap Exploder). The settlement with MS over the Netscape issue actually BENIFITED MS.
Same with the sub settlment. All they have to do is pay a little fine and remove their VM from new pressings of windows. They dont have to remove it from service packs or anything else. MS benifits because the cluless idiots (banks for example) who coded JAVA to its broken VM have no reason to change plus the true JAVA (i.e. the sun official standard) doesnt get any further forward. This can only benifit Microsofts new JAVA killer in the form of.NET
At least one of the treaties covering Outer Space covers this. Specificly, it says that space vessels (government or otherwise) are under the juristiction of the country they are launched from (or in some cases the country that they were built in/that the owners are from/whatever)
Hopefully someone will come in, buy up the rights to any unix code SCO may actually own and GPL the whole thing. (Unixware, System V etc) That would be the fitting end to all this lawsuit crap.
Is that all the many companies that make up the power grid dont want to share critical information on their bit of the grid (for example, how much power is being fed along which lines)
What I wanna see is for someone to look at the leaked windows code and find out just how hard it would be to implement proper -blending in IE (or IE as buildable from that code)
I suspect that MS would need to: 1.enhance whatever image rendering logic they have so that it accepts images with an channel. 2.enhance pngflt.dll (the PNG image library for IE) to spit out channel images as needed and then 3.get IE to correctly render images with an channel. Does anyone know if IE can display channel *.bmp files?
Fact is, MS doesnt want to support channels in PNG files because to do so would require them to spend coding time on it. Coding time that could be better spent on adding more DRM to windows media or more bloat to office. Basicly, microsoft is saying "It isnt going to make us any money and there is no court telling us to do it so we wont do it". The only things Microsoft listens to anymore are money and the law. Although increasingly they seem to be using more of the former (money) to avoid nasty implementations of the latter (i.e. laws that could hurt them)
.better scanning of mail on mail servers combined with better tools for doing that scanning (systems that send "you have a virus" crap are almost as bad as the viruses themselves)
hooks built into windows to detect "potentially nasty" behaviour (for example, modifying a system file, modifying winsock settings, changing the hosts file, making something start at startup, changing the IE homepage etc). When detected, one of 3 things will happen: 1.the action will be completly blocked (if its on a network with central policies and has this blocked) 2.it will ask you for the administrator password (if you are not an administrator or if the system has been set up to ask you even if you are admin) or 3.it will pop up a nice warning to warn you that what this program wants to do could be bad.
Then, you can either allow it or deny it, depending on the settings. If you deny it, windows would return an error to whatever program wanted to do it (e.g. if the program called RegCreateKey to create a key, it would return "cant create key" or if you called CreateFileEx to open the file, it would return "cant open file")
Plus, ideally, you would be able to add (but not remove the built in ones) new folders, files and registry keys to the "warnings" list. So for example you could have a writable file share on your system but if someone wanted to write to it, it would ask you first. Or on a network, the admin could block changing the desktop background.
Also, you would (ideally) be able to specify which events to block completly and which events to just warn for.
This alone would be a great help at stopping viruses and spyware.
Also, ISPs should firewall ports used by viruses at the ISP level (this includes ports like SMTP ports used by spam trojan zombies). If you do need one of those ports for legitimate use, they can unblock it. That would help stop trojans and zombies taking up valuable bandwidth (both the users Bandwidth and the ISPs Bandwidth)
Plus, email clients should be modified to not run scripts (better yet, get rid of HTML email completly, its mostly used for SPAM, viruses, scams and crap anyway plus it guzzles more bandwidth than regular text)
These things would: 1.make it harder for spyware/viruses to run automaticly 2.make it harder for spyware/viruses to do nasty things without your concent 3.make it harder for viruses to carry out their payloads (e.g. sending SPAM, DDOS attack etc) 4.make it harder for viruses to get into the inboxes of the cluless n00bs in the first place. And since they dont get notified about the removed virus, they never even know they recieved one.
Also, another (more drastic) step that would work for networks like corporate networks, university networks and such would be to lock anyone who has a virus or whatever out of the network untill they have cleaned their machine. Having a central copy of a toolkit of programs (such as Norton System Works and mabie others) and making them available to people locked out of the network would be a good thing to go with this point (so that when someone goes to central IT and says "my computer says I have been locked out of the network because I have a virus", central IT can hand them a CD with the latest most up-to-date recovery tools on it (anti-virus etc) and a simple set of instructions on how to clean their machine with it.
Hopefully we see some code from redmond which is actually worth using (hopw about the source code to Internet Explorer for example, then mabie we can enhance it so that all windows users can download the new IE7 (containing both new MS code and new hacker-made code) with, for the first time, Mozilla-like levels of Standards Complience.
On the other hand, there is abouch as much chance of Microsoft allowing a truely standards complient version version of Intercrap Exploder to exist as there is of Metallica releasing every song they have ever written under a musical equivilant of the GPL.
wasnt there an aggreement on this?
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
something called the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space" or something
Or is this another treaty that Bush has decided to ignore (like the one with the russians banning Defensive Missiles and such)
1.less cars. 2.a LOT more cars that dont use fossil fuels. 3.more (and faster) trains 4.more experimentation with things like automatic pilots for cars (or e.g. cars that have automatic pilots for some things and manual control for others) and 5."Personal Flying Craft" (I am sure that even if you needed a pilots licence etc to fly one, there would be a fair few people interested in owning something like a skycar, perhaps people might hire pilots to fly them around...)
Yes, basicly, any patent holder who brings a lawsuit before the patent court I suggested must demonstrate that they and/or someone licenced by them are currently using the patent in something thats currently available.
Probobly a better way to put it is that you must demonstrate whatever it is you are trying to patent. If you are patenting a drug, you have to show the drug (perhaps show results of testing the drug). If you are patenting a widget, you have to show the widget. (it need not be 100% functional, if you are still refining it).
Basicly it must be possible to see clearly that what you are demonstrating actually implements all the claims in your patent.
Remember, patents arent about a broad idea.
Just because you invent (and patent) a method of getting, say, steel from iron ore, doesnt mean that you automaticly own any method for getting steel from iron ore. Only those methods that are similar enough to yours to infringe on your patent.
Other changes to make to the patent system: 1.If a certain thing is being put up to a recognized standard body (e.g. ISO, IEEE, ITU, IETF, W3C, ANSI and other such standards bodies), you would be required by law to reveal any patent claims you have in whatever it is that is being proposed as a standard. Failure to do so would (by law) mean you are no longer able to make any claims under the patent as they apply to a complient implementation of the standard in question.
At least then, it gives the standards body a chance to look for alternatives, seek a sutable licence with the patent holder or whatever.
2.If a new government regulation requires the use of a patented thing in some way, an exemption to the patent is granted (by law) as much as is necessary to make use of the patented item to be complient with the law.
Basicly you cant get in trouble for violating the a patent if such a violation is necessary to comply with a government law.
3.Once a patent is submitted, you cannot modify it in any way (if you have new claims, you have to submit a seperate patent)
4.The life time of a patent is from the date of filing. (NOT the date the patent is approved). Remember, even though its not approved yet, the patent applier can still start using whatever the patent covers.
and 5.Patents would have a "enforce it or loose it" system just like trademarks do.
Basicly, if you dont enforce patent violations to the laetter of the law (or conversly licence the patent in some way), you would be at risk of losing the ability to pursue the patent in the future.
Items 3 and 4 prevent the system where some companies use dirty tricks to prolong a patent or sneak clauses into a patent to get around prior art etc.
It might sound like item 5 is bad but its not. What it means is that those with genuinly valid patents ensure complete enforcement of those patents. But more to the point, it meaks that e.g. companies like PanIP and others cant pick and choose who to sue based on who they think they can beat up. For example, by not suing , you are risking not beeing able to sue in the future.
1.chage it away from the current system where there is an incentive to pass patents (even crappy ones) quickly since that makes more $ for the PTO
2.hire experts in all the fields and make sure that every patent has been looked at by at least 2 experts in the field that it applies to (with all the out-of-work-techies, finding experts to examine computer & tech related patents should be easy enough)
3.implement a special "patent court" which is where patent lawsuits get heard. Implement a looser-pays system for this court (with the lawyers not allowed to charge anyone until the lawsuit has been resolved and with the looser paying the winners court costs). This would make it easier for the "little guy being trampled on by a frivioluous patent" to fight it instead of just giving in and settling.
4.If a patent is rejected (either initally or later in the patent court), the patent holder has to pay $$$ to the PTO.
and 5.Anyone should be able to go to the PTO and request that a patent be re-examined. If the prior art they are submitting is genuine and valid, the patent is declared invalid. If it isnt valid, the person requesting a re-evaluation must pay $$$ (this would discourage people making stupid requests). Again, if the patent is thrown out, the holder has to pay $$$ to the PTO.
Also, make it easier to submit patents in the first place (cheaper etc) so that those with genuinely patentable things can get the patent easier (because of the big costs if its thrown out, this wont lead to more stupid patents being submitted)
Also, change the rules about what can be patentable. In particular, remove any protection given to the patenting of a gene or a whole organisim.
Here in australia, we have examples of both good and bad when it comes to those 3 items.
The cost of drugs is subsidized through the Pharmacutical Benifits Scheme which keeps prices low (much to the annoyance of the large drug companies)
The telco industry may suck a little (with Tel$tra fleecing everyone when it comes to how much they charge for stuff, especially when it comes to the amount they charge competing DSL providers) but unlike america, we have not only a regulator with teeth (the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) but a government with an interest in keeping Telstra in particular honest (mainly because they need telstra to act as a good citicen if they ever hope to sell off the remaining 51% of the telco)
Rail on the other hand, cant speak about long-distance cross country travel but local rail in the major cities is a bit of a mixed bag. some cities are good, some are ok and some are bad. Some are government owned (I think) and some were government owned and are now privatized.
One option is to make it so that what comes out on the printed page is basicly a printed version of a paper balot paper. i.e., it prints out all the names with the boxes filled as appropriate. That way, you can verify your vote. Plus its possible to use some form of OCR/scan identification to identify which "box" was marked by the printer. Therefore, the human readable bit and the machine readable bit are one and the same.
If there are questions (over the integrity of the vote-counting machine for example), just re-count the affected boxes by hand.
Do it like in australia. We have a balot paper where you have to mark 1st preference, 2nd preference etc etc and if us aussies can do it, surely the yanks can do it.
Or failing that, this way First, you select the votes on a touch screen or similar. Then, it prints out a small reciept showing in human-readable (and also machine-readable perhaps by a barcode or OCR) your vote. Then it can be read by the machines to provide a count. But, if there is a dispute, hand-counting it is dead easy.
Because its a physical bit of paper in a physical tamper-proof box, its not possible to tamper with the vote. Plus, its easy to see that you the voter made the selection you thought you were making. And to see that your vote is definatly being counted.
And, it has the advantage of being fast to count (of course, the counting machine could be fixed but thats why its printed in human-readable form also, to allow recounts to manually recount with no doubt as to who each voter voted for)
the machines for doing this woulnt need to be particularly good. In fact, the hardware found in some supermarket Cash Registers (the kind with the screen not the kind with the little LED display) is probobly sufficient. Basicly, all you need is a touch screen (or a regular screen and some buttons/a keypad), a reciept printer to print the actual votes and some chips to control it.
You could easily do control logic on a simple embedded system. And, its possible to make an embedded system very resistant to code modification. (just ask any arcade emulation guru about e.g. the Sega System 16)
Plus, because its printing a physical ballot paper, if the code doesnt print the correct stuff, someone will notice that what is printed on the paper doesnt match with who they wanted to vote for.
Of course, my idea will never happen since it might mean that the voters actually have some (GASP!) control over who gets elected (and of course those men in their suits with their black briefcases full of green bits of paper with past presidents on them wont like that since those bits of paper wont have as much affect on what laws get passed)
When will someone come up with a free package that is usable for those who need to do graphics for print?
Although I suspect the real issue here would be getting the manufacturers of big $$$ printing presses, imagesetters and other output devices to allow said software to use the conversion tables that allow you to match a given RBG screen color to the right CMYK color for their device.
something that has the elements of a MMORPG but instead of being set in a fantasy world is set in a futuristic sci-fi world. Instead of having wizzards, healers, warriors etc, you could have medics, gunners, pilots, hackers and so on. And you could have different species to pick from. For example, some species would make better pilots etc. All characters would have basic skills in all the key areas but only, say, a medic would be able to use advanced healing skills. Also, for example, you could pick up/buy 1-use items that give you a temporary boost (e.g. buy a medkit to get more healing than a base character but not enough as a medic)
Basicly, it would be a cross between: a MMORPG like EverQuest (with the quests, the leveling up etc) something like Star Control (with lots of different planets to visit and explore) something like Star Trek Away Team (with all the caracters, high-tech stuff etc) and an old game called Future Magic
No, that SW MMO isnt what I am refering to. But, mabie my idea could fit into the Star Trek universe:)
Making it for all media would mean that time-shifting TV programs would be ok, copying a DVD to as "media center" and watching it would be ok, copying a game to the hard disk and playing it would be ok etc. i.e., as long as only one copy is in use at once, you can have multiple physical copies.
Unless you are doing real fancy stuff, its possible to make Standards Compliant code (GASP!) that works great on IE AND on Mozilla.
Sure, it may lock out those using Netscrap 4.x but anyone using that abomination has no right to complain when they cant view perfectlty normal standards complient web pages.
I think Renegade has the best Multiplayer mode of any FPS to date. Plus, the SP missions are fun. Now if only EA had given more support to the game so that the true potential of the Renegade game engine could be unlocked.
Slashdot Mirror
SUN should have pushed harder on MS regarding JAVA.
.NET
First and foremost, they should have made MS get rid of their broken JVM completly (if you install the latest service pack on a machine without the JVM, you get the JVM. No service pack currently downloadable should contain any contents of the MS JVM.
In fact, SUN should have (if it was possible) told MS that they had to distribute the SUN Java VM.
Its like when AOL and MS made up for the Netscape debacle.
Not only did MS only have to pay a piddling little fine but AOLTW actually sggreed to use crappy MS technology (like Windows Media Player and Intercrap Exploder). The settlement with MS over the Netscape issue actually BENIFITED MS.
Same with the sub settlment.
All they have to do is pay a little fine and remove their VM from new pressings of windows. They dont have to remove it from service packs or anything else. MS benifits because the cluless idiots (banks for example) who coded JAVA to its broken VM have no reason to change plus the true JAVA (i.e. the sun official standard) doesnt get any further forward.
This can only benifit Microsofts new JAVA killer in the form of
At least one of the treaties covering Outer Space covers this.
Specificly, it says that space vessels (government or otherwise) are under the juristiction of the country they are launched from (or in some cases the country that they were built in/that the owners are from/whatever)
Hopefully someone will come in, buy up the rights to any unix code SCO may actually own and GPL the whole thing. (Unixware, System V etc)
That would be the fitting end to all this lawsuit crap.
Is that all the many companies that make up the power grid dont want to share critical information on their bit of the grid (for example, how much power is being fed along which lines)
What I wanna see is for someone to look at the leaked windows code and find out just how hard it would be to implement proper -blending in IE (or IE as buildable from that code)
I suspect that MS would need to:
1.enhance whatever image rendering logic they have so that it accepts images with an channel.
2.enhance pngflt.dll (the PNG image library for IE) to spit out channel images as needed
and then 3.get IE to correctly render images with an channel.
Does anyone know if IE can display channel *.bmp files?
Fact is, MS doesnt want to support channels in PNG files because to do so would require them to spend coding time on it. Coding time that could be better spent on adding more DRM to windows media or more bloat to office.
Basicly, microsoft is saying "It isnt going to make us any money and there is no court telling us to do it so we wont do it". The only things Microsoft listens to anymore are money and the law. Although increasingly they seem to be using more of the former (money) to avoid nasty implementations of the latter (i.e. laws that could hurt them)
.better scanning of mail on mail servers combined with better tools for doing that scanning (systems that send "you have a virus" crap are almost as bad as the viruses themselves)
hooks built into windows to detect "potentially nasty" behaviour (for example, modifying a system file, modifying winsock settings, changing the hosts file, making something start at startup, changing the IE homepage etc). When detected, one of 3 things will happen:
1.the action will be completly blocked (if its on a network with central policies and has this blocked)
2.it will ask you for the administrator password (if you are not an administrator or if the system has been set up to ask you even if you are admin)
or 3.it will pop up a nice warning to warn you that what this program wants to do could be bad.
Then, you can either allow it or deny it, depending on the settings.
If you deny it, windows would return an error to whatever program wanted to do it (e.g. if the program called RegCreateKey to create a key, it would return "cant create key" or if you called CreateFileEx to open the file, it would return "cant open file")
Plus, ideally, you would be able to add (but not remove the built in ones) new folders, files and registry keys to the "warnings" list. So for example you could have a writable file share on your system but if someone wanted to write to it, it would ask you first. Or on a network, the admin could block changing the desktop background.
Also, you would (ideally) be able to specify which events to block completly and which events to just warn for.
This alone would be a great help at stopping viruses and spyware.
Also, ISPs should firewall ports used by viruses at the ISP level (this includes ports like SMTP ports used by spam trojan zombies). If you do need one of those ports for legitimate use, they can unblock it. That would help stop trojans and zombies taking up valuable bandwidth (both the users Bandwidth and the ISPs Bandwidth)
Plus, email clients should be modified to not run scripts (better yet, get rid of HTML email completly, its mostly used for SPAM, viruses, scams and crap anyway plus it guzzles more bandwidth than regular text)
These things would:
1.make it harder for spyware/viruses to run automaticly
2.make it harder for spyware/viruses to do nasty things without your concent
3.make it harder for viruses to carry out their payloads (e.g. sending SPAM, DDOS attack etc)
4.make it harder for viruses to get into the inboxes of the cluless n00bs in the first place. And since they dont get notified about the removed virus, they never even know they recieved one.
Also, another (more drastic) step that would work for networks like corporate networks, university networks and such would be to lock anyone who has a virus or whatever out of the network untill they have cleaned their machine. Having a central copy of a toolkit of programs (such as Norton System Works and mabie others) and making them available to people locked out of the network would be a good thing to go with this point (so that when someone goes to central IT and says "my computer says I have been locked out of the network because I have a virus", central IT can hand them a CD with the latest most up-to-date recovery tools on it (anti-virus etc) and a simple set of instructions on how to clean their machine with it.
Hopefully we see some code from redmond which is actually worth using (hopw about the source code to Internet Explorer for example, then mabie we can enhance it so that all windows users can download the new IE7 (containing both new MS code and new hacker-made code) with, for the first time, Mozilla-like levels of Standards Complience.
On the other hand, there is abouch as much chance of Microsoft allowing a truely standards complient version version of Intercrap Exploder to exist as there is of Metallica releasing every song they have ever written under a musical equivilant of the GPL.
something called the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space" or something
Or is this another treaty that Bush has decided to ignore (like the one with the russians banning Defensive Missiles and such)
Oh and you better forget ever visiting the US.
:)
And mabie you should stay away from any country that is trying to suck up to the US right now.
Look at what happened to that the guy doing the homebrew cruise missile in New Zealand a while back
1.less cars.
2.a LOT more cars that dont use fossil fuels.
3.more (and faster) trains
4.more experimentation with things like automatic pilots for cars (or e.g. cars that have automatic pilots for some things and manual control for others)
and 5."Personal Flying Craft" (I am sure that even if you needed a pilots licence etc to fly one, there would be a fair few people interested in owning something like a skycar, perhaps people might hire pilots to fly them around...)
Yes, basicly, any patent holder who brings a lawsuit before the patent court I suggested must demonstrate that they and/or someone licenced by them are currently using the patent in something thats currently available.
Probobly a better way to put it is that you must demonstrate whatever it is you are trying to patent.
If you are patenting a drug, you have to show the drug (perhaps show results of testing the drug). If you are patenting a widget, you have to show the widget. (it need not be 100% functional, if you are still refining it).
Basicly it must be possible to see clearly that what you are demonstrating actually implements all the claims in your patent.
Remember, patents arent about a broad idea.
Just because you invent (and patent) a method of getting, say, steel from iron ore, doesnt mean that you automaticly own any method for getting steel from iron ore. Only those methods that are similar enough to yours to infringe on your patent.
Other changes to make to the patent system:
1.If a certain thing is being put up to a recognized standard body (e.g. ISO, IEEE, ITU, IETF, W3C, ANSI and other such standards bodies), you would be required by law to reveal any patent claims you have in whatever it is that is being proposed as a standard. Failure to do so would (by law) mean you are no longer able to make any claims under the patent as they apply to a complient implementation of the standard in question.
At least then, it gives the standards body a chance to look for alternatives, seek a sutable licence with the patent holder or whatever.
2.If a new government regulation requires the use of a patented thing in some way, an exemption to the patent is granted (by law) as much as is necessary to make use of the patented item to be complient with the law.
Basicly you cant get in trouble for violating the a patent if such a violation is necessary to comply with a government law.
3.Once a patent is submitted, you cannot modify it in any way (if you have new claims, you have to submit a seperate patent)
4.The life time of a patent is from the date of filing. (NOT the date the patent is approved). Remember, even though its not approved yet, the patent applier can still start using whatever the patent covers.
and 5.Patents would have a "enforce it or loose it" system just like trademarks do.
Basicly, if you dont enforce patent violations to the laetter of the law (or conversly licence the patent in some way), you would be at risk of losing the ability to pursue the patent in the future.
Items 3 and 4 prevent the system where some companies use dirty tricks to prolong a patent or sneak clauses into a patent to get around prior art etc.
It might sound like item 5 is bad but its not.
What it means is that those with genuinly valid patents ensure complete enforcement of those patents.
But more to the point, it meaks that e.g. companies like PanIP and others cant pick and choose who to sue based on who they think they can beat up. For example, by not suing , you are risking not beeing able to sue in the future.
1.chage it away from the current system where there is an incentive to pass patents (even crappy ones) quickly since that makes more $ for the PTO
2.hire experts in all the fields and make sure that every patent has been looked at by at least 2 experts in the field that it applies to (with all the out-of-work-techies, finding experts to examine computer & tech related patents should be easy enough)
3.implement a special "patent court" which is where patent lawsuits get heard. Implement a looser-pays system for this court (with the lawyers not allowed to charge anyone until the lawsuit has been resolved and with the looser paying the winners court costs). This would make it easier for the "little guy being trampled on by a frivioluous patent" to fight it instead of just giving in and settling.
4.If a patent is rejected (either initally or later in the patent court), the patent holder has to pay $$$ to the PTO.
and 5.Anyone should be able to go to the PTO and request that a patent be re-examined. If the prior art they are submitting is genuine and valid, the patent is declared invalid. If it isnt valid, the person requesting a re-evaluation must pay $$$ (this would discourage people making stupid requests). Again, if the patent is thrown out, the holder has to pay $$$ to the PTO.
Also, make it easier to submit patents in the first place (cheaper etc) so that those with genuinely patentable things can get the patent easier (because of the big costs if its thrown out, this wont lead to more stupid patents being submitted)
Also, change the rules about what can be patentable. In particular, remove any protection given to the patenting of a gene or a whole organisim.
Look at Project Apollo.
:)
Those astronauts found things on the moon that no robot ever built would have been able to find.
Just watch "From The Earth To The Moon" to see how much good science was done by the Apollo astronauts.
Heck, one of them can even lay claim to the most expensive game of golf in history
Here in australia, we have examples of both good and bad when it comes to those 3 items.
The cost of drugs is subsidized through the Pharmacutical Benifits Scheme which keeps prices low (much to the annoyance of the large drug companies)
The telco industry may suck a little (with Tel$tra fleecing everyone when it comes to how much they charge for stuff, especially when it comes to the amount they charge competing DSL providers) but unlike america, we have not only a regulator with teeth (the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) but a government with an interest in keeping Telstra in particular honest (mainly because they need telstra to act as a good citicen if they ever hope to sell off the remaining 51% of the telco)
Rail on the other hand, cant speak about long-distance cross country travel but local rail in the major cities is a bit of a mixed bag.
some cities are good, some are ok and some are bad.
Some are government owned (I think) and some were government owned and are now privatized.
as long as I can get the keys.
SPF is close to the best anti-spam idea out there.
Which manufacturers are directly supporting this (with docs etc) and which arent.
Are there any manufacturers that have specificly told the LinuxBIOS people not to support their boards? If so, is there a reason?
One option is to make it so that what comes out on the printed page is basicly a printed version of a paper balot paper.
i.e., it prints out all the names with the boxes filled as appropriate.
That way, you can verify your vote.
Plus its possible to use some form of OCR/scan identification to identify which "box" was marked by the printer. Therefore, the human readable bit and the machine readable bit are one and the same.
If there are questions (over the integrity of the vote-counting machine for example), just re-count the affected boxes by hand.
Do it like in australia. We have a balot paper where you have to mark 1st preference, 2nd preference etc etc and if us aussies can do it, surely the yanks can do it.
Or failing that, this way
First, you select the votes on a touch screen or similar.
Then, it prints out a small reciept showing in human-readable (and also machine-readable perhaps by a barcode or OCR) your vote.
Then it can be read by the machines to provide a count. But, if there is a dispute, hand-counting it is dead easy.
Because its a physical bit of paper in a physical tamper-proof box, its not possible to tamper with the vote. Plus, its easy to see that you the voter made the selection you thought you were making. And to see that your vote is definatly being counted.
And, it has the advantage of being fast to count (of course, the counting machine could be fixed but thats why its printed in human-readable form also, to allow recounts to manually recount with no doubt as to who each voter voted for)
the machines for doing this woulnt need to be particularly good. In fact, the hardware found in some supermarket Cash Registers (the kind with the screen not the kind with the little LED display) is probobly sufficient.
Basicly, all you need is a touch screen (or a regular screen and some buttons/a keypad), a reciept printer to print the actual votes and some chips to control it.
You could easily do control logic on a simple embedded system. And, its possible to make an embedded system very resistant to code modification. (just ask any arcade emulation guru about e.g. the Sega System 16)
Plus, because its printing a physical ballot paper, if the code doesnt print the correct stuff, someone will notice that what is printed on the paper doesnt match with who they wanted to vote for.
Of course, my idea will never happen since it might mean that the voters actually have some (GASP!) control over who gets elected (and of course those men in their suits with their black briefcases full of green bits of paper with past presidents on them wont like that since those bits of paper wont have as much affect on what laws get passed)
When will someone come up with a free package that is usable for those who need to do graphics for print?
Although I suspect the real issue here would be getting the manufacturers of big $$$ printing presses, imagesetters and other output devices to allow said software to use the conversion tables that allow you to match a given RBG screen color to the right CMYK color for their device.
something that has the elements of a MMORPG but instead of being set in a fantasy world is set in a futuristic sci-fi world.
:)
Instead of having wizzards, healers, warriors etc, you could have medics, gunners, pilots, hackers and so on.
And you could have different species to pick from.
For example, some species would make better pilots etc.
All characters would have basic skills in all the key areas but only, say, a medic would be able to use advanced healing skills. Also, for example, you could pick up/buy 1-use items that give you a temporary boost (e.g. buy a medkit to get more healing than a base character but not enough as a medic)
Basicly, it would be a cross between:
a MMORPG like EverQuest (with the quests, the leveling up etc)
something like Star Control (with lots of different planets to visit and explore)
something like Star Trek Away Team (with all the caracters, high-tech stuff etc)
and an old game called Future Magic
No, that SW MMO isnt what I am refering to.
But, mabie my idea could fit into the Star Trek universe
Making it for all media would mean that time-shifting TV programs would be ok, copying a DVD to as "media center" and watching it would be ok, copying a game to the hard disk and playing it would be ok etc. i.e., as long as only one copy is in use at once, you can have multiple physical copies.
Dont build for Mozilla.
Dont built for IE either.
Unless you are doing real fancy stuff, its possible to make Standards Compliant code (GASP!) that works great on IE AND on Mozilla.
Sure, it may lock out those using Netscrap 4.x but anyone using that abomination has no right to complain when they cant view perfectlty normal standards complient web pages.
Is a disclaimer stating that google is not responsible for the content of sites in its index.
IANAL so I dont know but would this help?
I think Renegade has the best Multiplayer mode of any FPS to date. Plus, the SP missions are fun.
Now if only EA had given more support to the game so that the true potential of the Renegade game engine could be unlocked.