Besides all of this, trusted computing, as it currently stands, can't do anything close to this. What you're able to certify is that a computer has a certain set of software loaded, not whether IE is accepting your http request or not.
Sure they can. Just ask for attestation that the Super-DRM-windows OS is running. Then connect to the port used by super-DMA-windows and ask for an attestation that IE owns the outbound connection that is hitting your webserver. Super-DRM-windows won't let any other software listen on the port it uses, and uses SSL to encrypt and authenticate all its communications.
Now the remote webserver knows for sure that you're running IE. If the computer owner doesn't have the keys embedded in their TCPM chip they can't do anything about this - if they install another OS then the TCPM attestation will indicate this. The best you can do is find a flaw in super-DRM-windows, but then everybody will just require attestation that you're running super-DRM-windows v2.
Most likely this won't be used for browser monopolies at first - just playback of digital media (sorry - no more media on linux). But I'm sure browsers will be regulated at some point. MS only allows you to run windows update from IE - mostly through the use of IE-only features. However, at some point a clueless bank will want to keep their customers secure and only allow logins from people running well-patched machines - but of course this will be a well-patched WINDOWS machine or maybe a Mac and nobody will think about customers wouldn't rather not dual-boot windows. Oh, forget using VMware - that won't work. And dual-booting might not work either if the bootloader isn't trusted. You might have to install grub or lilo on a CD to boot the OS on your hard drive...
Remote attestation should be able to be defeated by any system owner. Maybe it is for intercompatibility. Maybe it is for testing. Maybe the owner wants to do something else.
I'd advocate that anybody who buys a computer should be given:
1. A dump of all the keys embedded in their system. 2. A dump of any private keys associated with any public keys embedded in their system.
What they do with them is up to the owner. If they want to download additional keys (such as root CA certificates) they should be welcome to do so. However, trust should be up to the computer owner - not the manufacturer.
Since when is the senate supposed to be an embodiment of majority rule?
There's really nothing in the constitution that suggests that the Senate was ever intended to run any differently than the house (other than the state appointment of senators - which had a federal purpose which no longer is followed).
The two different debate systems are purely the result of the evolution of two different sets of parliamentray procedure within the two bodies. There is nothing inherently right about unlimited debate. Could you imagine an unlimited presidential debate - where the greens, libertarians, and constitution nominees could together drag out the debate for 47 straight weeks? Limited debate is essentially a way to prevent a DoS attack on congressional procedure.
Hey, like I said I'm not a fan of direct democracy. However, there is really no reason that ALL bills should require a 60-vote majority to pass the senate. If the goal is to encourage more cooperation then perhaps instituting a proportional voting system would be a better solution (that that we'd ever see the Republicrats go for that!).
For once I'd like to see a Filibuster threat actually called.
Right now nobody actually opens a bill for debate if a filibuster is threatened and there isn't a sufficient majority to invoke cloture. I'd like to see the filibuster bluff actually called. Make the minority actually stand up and talk 24x7 straight for a few weeks until they're all carted off to the hospital, and then call for a vote. My understanding is that a sentor only gets one opportunity to speak in a debate, so while they can speak for as long as they'd like they can't take a break (other than adjournments, which the majority can in theory not grant - and the majority doesn't have to all be in the room at the same time). You'd see a lot fewer filibuster threats if people actually had to lose their voices to accomplish them.
Personally I find the whole concept repugnant. Essentially we're watching a bunch of well-paid elected officials act like little children manipulating the rules to avoid the democratic process (ie the majority actually getting what it wants). I don't understand why limited debate wasn't put in place one hundred years ago in the Senate. Ditto for all the parliamentary games that get played with rules and committees. I'm not a big fan of direct democracy but at least it looks like democracy...
Honestly, from reading the article it isn't clear that a software problem was even the cause of this disaster. It could have been some kind of mechanical gun jam.
Any time you are dealing with big guns, fast motors, high-speed fire, large rounds, and explosive projectiles there is a risk of disaster if things go wrong. These things aren't toys. Even if the fire button was completely manual things could still go wrong.
I recall reading an article about a magazine detonation in a battleship which went into all kinds of detail about all the things that could go wrong - and this was a fairly manual operation. It did involve lots of machinery (how else do you move around shells that weigh hundreds of pounds?), but it was all human operated.
Assuming the system is well-designed the automation actually has great potential to LOWER risk. Humans make mistakes all the time. They're even more prone to making mistakes when a jet is incoming loaded with cluster bombs.
Another thing to keep in mind is that peacetime training disasters always make the news with the military. However, the military has a fine line to walk - on one hand they want to be safe in their exercises, but on the other hand they want to be able to handle combat operations. A 30 minute single-shot firing procedure that allows for all kinds of safety checks sounds great in theory, but in wartime you'd lose more people to incoming fire than you'd ever save from gun explosions. Sure, you don't want to kill yourself, but if you're so ineffective that the enemy overruns you it is all for nothing. As a result we tolerate some friendly fire, accidents, etc.
Like it or not robotic weapons WILL be the future of warfare. Sure, one country might elect not to develop them, but sooner or later somebody else will, and once they work out the bugs they'll be overrunning everybody else...
Unfortunately, it probably takes a lot longer then 72 hours for any intelligence gathered to reach a person who can actually use the intelligence. 72
That is just how long they have to declare the search to a court. They don't EVER have to tell the subject of the investigation about the wiretap. This is about oversight - not about publicity. The FISA court records remain completely sealed, and the court itself is about as protected as the CIA from evesdropping.
There is no reason that somebody can't bother to tell a secret court about a secret wiretap 3 days after it is placed. The government can act instantly and worry about the paperwork later. And they have PLENTY of people to handle the paperwork...
Throw them out. If the voter doesn't have enough brains to fill a circle in front of a name then chances are he is too stupid to vote.
Except that the courts generally regard the right to vote as being fairly universal - there is a great reluctance to invalidate votes, hence all the argument over hanging chads. The whole Florida fiasco wouldn't have been a big deal if you just told the machine to count the ballots and defined a vote as whatever the machine could pick up - if you voted "wrong" then that's on you. Most people don't accept this, so the voting system has to handle it.
I don't need an overlord who forces me to vote for a local dog catcher. I don't care, and I want to abstain, it's my right.
Abstaining is perfectly fine - an abstained vote is NOT an ambiguous vote. A computer-generated ballot would allow voters to abstain, and when they do so it would unambiguously generate a ballot that indicated that they did so.
To that effect he is entitled to spoiling this section of the ballot (if not the entire ballot, which is also his right.)
If the voter wants to mail the electoral board a rant they are welcome to do so. However, the electoral system does not need to be engineered around allowing ballot vandalism. They can always write-in Mickey Mouse if they want to cause mischief. We don't let people shout and scream in court, and we don't need to allow people to write on ballots to the extent that it lowers the reliability of the voting system.
I'd like to see an example of "millions of machines that work without defects".
This would be a 6.25 sigma process. Airlines exceed this level quite reliably. This site suggests that most industries run at four sigma. Six-sigma processes are fairly common in the industrial world - just look at how many units most companies ship. I think your X-box figure is highly inflated, and even a 3% defect rate would probably not be tolerated by many retail outlets (that's a LOT of returns). In any case, we're talking about critical failures here - a spec of splattered paint on the printer case would not impact voting.
Don't get me wrong - I think that government is tremendously capable of messing just about anything up. However, for whatever reason they manage to run elections just fine most of the time (to the extent that they don't it is usually political in nature - and NOTHING will stop that).
After the station closes the scanner can read the forms at amazing speed, which allows you to run the same batch on two different scanners, and if the results differ then you recheck. Modern OCR is very, very good, and you can always tell the scanner to set aside all ballots that the machine is "unsure" about. Those can be counted manually, and there won't be too many of those.
The problem is that ambiguous ballots will still exist. And some percentage will be ambiguous to a court as well. A LOT of ballots are cast in an election - so even a small percentage adds up and if the election is close then it matters a great deal.
Humans shouldn't be writing on paper in an election. A computer should be used to prepare all ballots so that they are ALWAYS both valid and unambiguous. Then we won't have arguments over voter intent. The ballots should still be human-readable (preferably on paper) - just not hand-made.
People argue about failure-prone machines and printers breaking and all that. I'm sorry - there is no reason it can't be done. I can't count how many batteries I've bought in my life and I've never gotten one dead-on-arrival. How many of those are sold every day? It is possible to make millions machines that work without defects - you just need to care enough to do it, and of course maintain them properly. If you can keep planes in the air you can make printers that don't break on election day and it doesn't even have to cost a fortune...
If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of the machine you can simply do an old style human based count.
How - what happens to ballots that had subtle marks missed by the validator? Now you have big debates over "voter intent". Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL for determining voter intent. However, it should be done by a voting system that unambiguously captures it - not with debates over 5 ballots out of 5 million cast that settles a near-tie.
People SHOULD vote on touch-screens. The system should then spit out a paper audit trail that the voter verifies before it is counted. The audit trail should be tamperproof (ideally kept behind glass). People shouldn't be marking the paper themselves (which pretty-much guarantees ambiguous ballots in a big election).
The whole debate over voter intent is the biggest reason NOT to have humans write on paper in an election.
I'm all for voter-verified audit trails subject to manual recount.
I don't like optical scan ballots or any kind of paper ballot.
What happens if somebody abstains from voting for a particular office but makes a stray mark that doesn't get picked up by the validator. Now people are arguing about voter intent.
What happens when somebody fills in Gore with 10% intensity and Bush with 20% intensity. The validator picks up one vote for Bush and accepts the ballot. In a recount we get to argue about voter intent.
The voting system should make the voters express their intents unambiguously at the time of voting and record this in a tamperproof manner. We shouldn't have to "figure out" what the intent of the voter was...
Cause nobody makes a replacement for exchange? Sure, IMAP handles all of the mail features just fine (well, maybe the server-side rules processing is missing). But, I'm not aware of any solid products that handle the calendaring side of exchange.
I actually disagree with the grandparent. I wouldn't try to interface with Exchange - I'd try to replace it.
If they can actually implement an exchange-like server system (maybe using something more open) they would have a shot at taking on Outlook.
Here's what the customers want. Any user can hit just a few keys and:
1. Find out what time a list of 5 people aren't busy, when one of a list of conference rooms is also available. 2. Send a request out to those people at the appropriate time and book the room. 3. When each request recipient hits one button the meeting goes on their calendar. 4. The meeting organizer can at any time check on who is or isn't coming.
It actually can be done better than Outlook does it. For one they could get rid of the tons of meeting request emails and put the requests and tracking in some other interface. The UI could indicate that requests are pending, and then you could quickly run through them. Acknowledged requests would not generate emails that the organizer has to look at - it would just all silently tally in the background unless the organizer indicated that they want to be bothered.
That single feature is the ONE big thing missing from an outlook killer. Deliver it and people will seriously consider your application. But, it is useless in the college dorm so nobody bothers to code it...
The worst case was when the district deposited her check (direct deposit into the checking account), then withdrew every penny of it the next day with no warning.
Minor rant here - why on earth do banks allow random people to WITHDRAWL money from an account with no knowledge other than the account number?
It is even worse than letting random people charge a credit card knowing only the account number - at least in that case you have a week or two to pay the bill and the charge can be contested and not paid in the meantime.
I'm amazed at the lack of authentication controls applied to the financial industries. It should be a criminal act subject to both criminal prosecution and civil statutory awards to take money out of a bank account without documented authorization. That will put a stop to stunts like this - at least by anybody with deep pockets. Proper access controls are the only thing that will actually stop identity thieves, but we can at least stop major corporations from just dipping into accounts any time they feel the need to do so...
I think it depends to a great degree on how far you're pushing the envelope.
The early rocket experiments didn't have general guildlines to go from - and so they discovered problem after problem by experiment.
They also didn't have parts with known specifications - they were building their own engines which were often sources of problems.
An amateurer rocket designer today can buy off the shelf parts - and know exactly what their tolerances are. If their engines are certified to produce x N of force +/- y% then you can simply design for that. If they have a 99.99% reliability rate you don't need to worry about them just blowing up.
To me this whole thing sounded more like an exercise in amusement than trying to actually get a rocket off the ground. Nothing wrong with that - but it is hardly big news when the thing disintegrates in mid-air...
This is not the plastic you're thinking of. It's layers of montmorillonite clay, which is naturally occuring
I can just see it - famous news anchor on TV talking about major manufacturers trying to cut costs and corners by making new-fangled commercial airliners out of mud! It will be the talk of the nation!
Agreed. If the question was about high-level design ("What kinds of algorithms would be best for this kind of problem?") rather than low-level implementation ("Write a merge-sort in ruby - now!") then I'd see more value to testing rote recall ability. That is the kind of stuff that an engineer should generally be knowledgeable about - how to solve particular problems in the best way.
When it comes to writing code it is always best to recycle and look-up details - you're less likely to make a mistake.
When it comes time to doing high-level design it is good to be aware of a number of different ways to solve a problem so that you don't pick the wrong one out of ignorance.
Google is doing itself a disservice by focusing on qualities that don't really matter that much in the real world. They should focus more on thinking skills, higher-level knowledge (that tends to come more from experience), the ability to adapt work done by others (either by borrowing code, integrating 3rd-party products, etc), and the ability to work well in their environment (teamwork/leadership/etc). Sure, the ability to design/code at a low level is important in many jobs as well - but if you want to test that give somebody an obscure problem to design an algorithm around - not a textbook one.
I'm not sure I completely buy the charts. Granted, I'll admit that I'm overweight, but the charts are often SO far below what my weight was when I looked pretty normal that they practically represent emaciation - at least for my build.
Not everybody is built in the same way - there is more to weight than BMI.
Also - while there is certainly a correllation between diabetes and weight, I'm not convinced we're sure which way the causation works. Losing weight certainly helps to control blood sugar, but who's to say that the disorder that makes somebody prone to diabetes doesn't also make somebody prone to gaining weight.
Sure, in theory losing weight is just about willpower - in theory. The problem is that there is a lot more to it in practice. Some folks don't even have to try to maintain a trim figure. They have high metabolisms, or they just don't feel as hungry. Others feel like they're suffering torture just to try to lose a few pounds a week.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could influence your body temperature with careful and deliberate action - however you'll end up driving yourself crazy if you try to influence it to any degree. Your body has a setpoint and a whole slew of regulatory mechanisms that will attempt to maintain it despite your willful action. In the same way I think that people have setpoints with regard to weight that for whatever reason get messed up. Sure, there is a large behavioral component, but the behavior is also driven by natural wiring. It is like asking a guy not to think about sex for a week - sure it is just behavioral but good luck getting it to happen.
I think that eventually we'll understand the mechanisms the body uses to maintain weight and as a result we'll find better ways to help people maintain a particular weight. That might involve drugs, or maybe some kind of conditioning - or who knows what.
On one hand, this is true. On the other hand, Access sucks anyway -- why not just use a real database like MySQL, PostgreSQL, or any number of others?
Because it is a pain in the neck if I just need a database for 2 minutes to answer a few simple questions? Suppose I have two lists that I need to do a join on - with Access I can copy/paste, write a query, and export my output in about 2 minutes. With just about anything else it is a lot more involved.
Access is also a good database front-end for simple projects.
Now, as an actual database it is pretty lousy - its main value is as a front-end. I wouldn't use it to store a large volume of data with multi-user-access.
I'd be happy if OO just had a good DB front-end that didn't fail to work any time I use it (I can't get JDBC working for the life of me - probably because I'm using the wrong JDK/JRE/etc - I only need about 5 of them on my system to run apps that apparently aren't compatible with all of them).
I want the ability to easily import/export/copy/paste into and out of tables. I want queries that give datasheets that I can edit live. I want a query designer that doesn't require composing SQL for just about anything. I'd never deploy it to end-users, but for those who use access day-to-day these features are almost indispensable.
Bottom line is that there is really no such thing as "permission to speak candidly" - anywhere.
It can help if you want to be frank - but you're ALWAYS going to be remembered for what you say, so be careful about what leaves your mouth...
Re:What is good for GM is good for America
on
The 700MHz Question
·
· Score: 1
Sure you can. As long as you have equity in your house.
If your house is 95% leveraged already then sure, they won't give you cash unless it is expected to increase the value of your home, or at least be financially neutral to you.
If New Orleans is in fact 95% leveraged already then let the banks worry about it - they're the only ones with a financial stake in the place. If they have lots of equity then getting loans won't be a problem.
My basic point is that I'm skeptical that New Orleans is worth all this fuss - just relocate everybody. You're the one claiming that the city is worth billions of dollars where it is. If that is true, then the folks living there shouldn't have such a hard time paying for it. And if the cost of repairing the city is more than the city is worth, then what's the point?
As the other poster indicated beta radiation can certainly penetrate your skin - depending on energy. You are correct that beta radiation consists of electrons.
For 3H or 14C - it won't make it through your dead skin.
For 32P it will probably go an inch or two into your body. Same particles - MUCH higher energy. Plexiglas shielding is recommended for this.
Actually, a big issue with tritium if you get enough of it is the primary isotope effect. The mass of tritium and hydrogen is significantly different - which makes the energy of bonds involving tritium different from that of hydrogen. That makes enzymes/etc work differently and can make tritium toxic.
Not sure what the relative toxicity is compared to the radiological effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides all of this, trusted computing, as it currently stands, can't do anything close to this. What you're able to certify is that a computer has a certain set of software loaded, not whether IE is accepting your http request or not.
Sure they can. Just ask for attestation that the Super-DRM-windows OS is running. Then connect to the port used by super-DMA-windows and ask for an attestation that IE owns the outbound connection that is hitting your webserver. Super-DRM-windows won't let any other software listen on the port it uses, and uses SSL to encrypt and authenticate all its communications.
Now the remote webserver knows for sure that you're running IE. If the computer owner doesn't have the keys embedded in their TCPM chip they can't do anything about this - if they install another OS then the TCPM attestation will indicate this. The best you can do is find a flaw in super-DRM-windows, but then everybody will just require attestation that you're running super-DRM-windows v2.
Most likely this won't be used for browser monopolies at first - just playback of digital media (sorry - no more media on linux). But I'm sure browsers will be regulated at some point. MS only allows you to run windows update from IE - mostly through the use of IE-only features. However, at some point a clueless bank will want to keep their customers secure and only allow logins from people running well-patched machines - but of course this will be a well-patched WINDOWS machine or maybe a Mac and nobody will think about customers wouldn't rather not dual-boot windows. Oh, forget using VMware - that won't work. And dual-booting might not work either if the bootloader isn't trusted. You might have to install grub or lilo on a CD to boot the OS on your hard drive...
Remote attestation should be able to be defeated by any system owner. Maybe it is for intercompatibility. Maybe it is for testing. Maybe the owner wants to do something else.
I'd advocate that anybody who buys a computer should be given:
1. A dump of all the keys embedded in their system.
2. A dump of any private keys associated with any public keys embedded in their system.
What they do with them is up to the owner. If they want to download additional keys (such as root CA certificates) they should be welcome to do so. However, trust should be up to the computer owner - not the manufacturer.
Since when is the senate supposed to be an embodiment of majority rule?
There's really nothing in the constitution that suggests that the Senate was ever intended to run any differently than the house (other than the state appointment of senators - which had a federal purpose which no longer is followed).
The two different debate systems are purely the result of the evolution of two different sets of parliamentray procedure within the two bodies. There is nothing inherently right about unlimited debate. Could you imagine an unlimited presidential debate - where the greens, libertarians, and constitution nominees could together drag out the debate for 47 straight weeks? Limited debate is essentially a way to prevent a DoS attack on congressional procedure.
Hey, like I said I'm not a fan of direct democracy. However, there is really no reason that ALL bills should require a 60-vote majority to pass the senate. If the goal is to encourage more cooperation then perhaps instituting a proportional voting system would be a better solution (that that we'd ever see the Republicrats go for that!).
For once I'd like to see a Filibuster threat actually called.
Right now nobody actually opens a bill for debate if a filibuster is threatened and there isn't a sufficient majority to invoke cloture. I'd like to see the filibuster bluff actually called. Make the minority actually stand up and talk 24x7 straight for a few weeks until they're all carted off to the hospital, and then call for a vote. My understanding is that a sentor only gets one opportunity to speak in a debate, so while they can speak for as long as they'd like they can't take a break (other than adjournments, which the majority can in theory not grant - and the majority doesn't have to all be in the room at the same time). You'd see a lot fewer filibuster threats if people actually had to lose their voices to accomplish them.
Personally I find the whole concept repugnant. Essentially we're watching a bunch of well-paid elected officials act like little children manipulating the rules to avoid the democratic process (ie the majority actually getting what it wants). I don't understand why limited debate wasn't put in place one hundred years ago in the Senate. Ditto for all the parliamentary games that get played with rules and committees. I'm not a big fan of direct democracy but at least it looks like democracy...
Honestly, from reading the article it isn't clear that a software problem was even the cause of this disaster. It could have been some kind of mechanical gun jam.
Any time you are dealing with big guns, fast motors, high-speed fire, large rounds, and explosive projectiles there is a risk of disaster if things go wrong. These things aren't toys. Even if the fire button was completely manual things could still go wrong.
I recall reading an article about a magazine detonation in a battleship which went into all kinds of detail about all the things that could go wrong - and this was a fairly manual operation. It did involve lots of machinery (how else do you move around shells that weigh hundreds of pounds?), but it was all human operated.
Assuming the system is well-designed the automation actually has great potential to LOWER risk. Humans make mistakes all the time. They're even more prone to making mistakes when a jet is incoming loaded with cluster bombs.
Another thing to keep in mind is that peacetime training disasters always make the news with the military. However, the military has a fine line to walk - on one hand they want to be safe in their exercises, but on the other hand they want to be able to handle combat operations. A 30 minute single-shot firing procedure that allows for all kinds of safety checks sounds great in theory, but in wartime you'd lose more people to incoming fire than you'd ever save from gun explosions. Sure, you don't want to kill yourself, but if you're so ineffective that the enemy overruns you it is all for nothing. As a result we tolerate some friendly fire, accidents, etc.
Like it or not robotic weapons WILL be the future of warfare. Sure, one country might elect not to develop them, but sooner or later somebody else will, and once they work out the bugs they'll be overrunning everybody else...
Unfortunately, it probably takes a lot longer then 72 hours for any intelligence gathered to reach a person who can actually use the intelligence. 72
That is just how long they have to declare the search to a court. They don't EVER have to tell the subject of the investigation about the wiretap. This is about oversight - not about publicity. The FISA court records remain completely sealed, and the court itself is about as protected as the CIA from evesdropping.
There is no reason that somebody can't bother to tell a secret court about a secret wiretap 3 days after it is placed. The government can act instantly and worry about the paperwork later. And they have PLENTY of people to handle the paperwork...
Throw them out. If the voter doesn't have enough brains to fill a circle in front of a name then chances are he is too stupid to vote.
Except that the courts generally regard the right to vote as being fairly universal - there is a great reluctance to invalidate votes, hence all the argument over hanging chads. The whole Florida fiasco wouldn't have been a big deal if you just told the machine to count the ballots and defined a vote as whatever the machine could pick up - if you voted "wrong" then that's on you. Most people don't accept this, so the voting system has to handle it.
I don't need an overlord who forces me to vote for a local dog catcher. I don't care, and I want to abstain, it's my right.
Abstaining is perfectly fine - an abstained vote is NOT an ambiguous vote. A computer-generated ballot would allow voters to abstain, and when they do so it would unambiguously generate a ballot that indicated that they did so.
To that effect he is entitled to spoiling this section of the ballot (if not the entire ballot, which is also his right.)
If the voter wants to mail the electoral board a rant they are welcome to do so. However, the electoral system does not need to be engineered around allowing ballot vandalism. They can always write-in Mickey Mouse if they want to cause mischief. We don't let people shout and scream in court, and we don't need to allow people to write on ballots to the extent that it lowers the reliability of the voting system.
I'd like to see an example of "millions of machines that work without defects".
This would be a 6.25 sigma process. Airlines exceed this level quite reliably. This site suggests that most industries run at four sigma. Six-sigma processes are fairly common in the industrial world - just look at how many units most companies ship. I think your X-box figure is highly inflated, and even a 3% defect rate would probably not be tolerated by many retail outlets (that's a LOT of returns). In any case, we're talking about critical failures here - a spec of splattered paint on the printer case would not impact voting.
Don't get me wrong - I think that government is tremendously capable of messing just about anything up. However, for whatever reason they manage to run elections just fine most of the time (to the extent that they don't it is usually political in nature - and NOTHING will stop that).
After the station closes the scanner can read the forms at amazing speed, which allows you to run the same batch on two different scanners, and if the results differ then you recheck. Modern OCR is very, very good, and you can always tell the scanner to set aside all ballots that the machine is "unsure" about. Those can be counted manually, and there won't be too many of those.
The problem is that ambiguous ballots will still exist. And some percentage will be ambiguous to a court as well. A LOT of ballots are cast in an election - so even a small percentage adds up and if the election is close then it matters a great deal.
Humans shouldn't be writing on paper in an election. A computer should be used to prepare all ballots so that they are ALWAYS both valid and unambiguous. Then we won't have arguments over voter intent. The ballots should still be human-readable (preferably on paper) - just not hand-made.
People argue about failure-prone machines and printers breaking and all that. I'm sorry - there is no reason it can't be done. I can't count how many batteries I've bought in my life and I've never gotten one dead-on-arrival. How many of those are sold every day? It is possible to make millions machines that work without defects - you just need to care enough to do it, and of course maintain them properly. If you can keep planes in the air you can make printers that don't break on election day and it doesn't even have to cost a fortune...
If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of the machine you can simply do an old style human based count.
How - what happens to ballots that had subtle marks missed by the validator? Now you have big debates over "voter intent". Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL for determining voter intent. However, it should be done by a voting system that unambiguously captures it - not with debates over 5 ballots out of 5 million cast that settles a near-tie.
People SHOULD vote on touch-screens. The system should then spit out a paper audit trail that the voter verifies before it is counted. The audit trail should be tamperproof (ideally kept behind glass). People shouldn't be marking the paper themselves (which pretty-much guarantees ambiguous ballots in a big election).
The whole debate over voter intent is the biggest reason NOT to have humans write on paper in an election.
I'm all for voter-verified audit trails subject to manual recount.
I don't like optical scan ballots or any kind of paper ballot.
What happens if somebody abstains from voting for a particular office but makes a stray mark that doesn't get picked up by the validator. Now people are arguing about voter intent.
What happens when somebody fills in Gore with 10% intensity and Bush with 20% intensity. The validator picks up one vote for Bush and accepts the ballot. In a recount we get to argue about voter intent.
The voting system should make the voters express their intents unambiguously at the time of voting and record this in a tamperproof manner. We shouldn't have to "figure out" what the intent of the voter was...
Cause nobody makes a replacement for exchange? Sure, IMAP handles all of the mail features just fine (well, maybe the server-side rules processing is missing). But, I'm not aware of any solid products that handle the calendaring side of exchange.
I actually disagree with the grandparent. I wouldn't try to interface with Exchange - I'd try to replace it.
If they can actually implement an exchange-like server system (maybe using something more open) they would have a shot at taking on Outlook.
Here's what the customers want. Any user can hit just a few keys and:
1. Find out what time a list of 5 people aren't busy, when one of a list of conference rooms is also available.
2. Send a request out to those people at the appropriate time and book the room.
3. When each request recipient hits one button the meeting goes on their calendar.
4. The meeting organizer can at any time check on who is or isn't coming.
It actually can be done better than Outlook does it. For one they could get rid of the tons of meeting request emails and put the requests and tracking in some other interface. The UI could indicate that requests are pending, and then you could quickly run through them. Acknowledged requests would not generate emails that the organizer has to look at - it would just all silently tally in the background unless the organizer indicated that they want to be bothered.
That single feature is the ONE big thing missing from an outlook killer. Deliver it and people will seriously consider your application. But, it is useless in the college dorm so nobody bothers to code it...
The worst case was when the district deposited her check (direct deposit into the checking account), then withdrew every penny of it the next day with no warning.
Minor rant here - why on earth do banks allow random people to WITHDRAWL money from an account with no knowledge other than the account number?
It is even worse than letting random people charge a credit card knowing only the account number - at least in that case you have a week or two to pay the bill and the charge can be contested and not paid in the meantime.
I'm amazed at the lack of authentication controls applied to the financial industries. It should be a criminal act subject to both criminal prosecution and civil statutory awards to take money out of a bank account without documented authorization. That will put a stop to stunts like this - at least by anybody with deep pockets. Proper access controls are the only thing that will actually stop identity thieves, but we can at least stop major corporations from just dipping into accounts any time they feel the need to do so...
I think it depends to a great degree on how far you're pushing the envelope.
The early rocket experiments didn't have general guildlines to go from - and so they discovered problem after problem by experiment.
They also didn't have parts with known specifications - they were building their own engines which were often sources of problems.
An amateurer rocket designer today can buy off the shelf parts - and know exactly what their tolerances are. If their engines are certified to produce x N of force +/- y% then you can simply design for that. If they have a 99.99% reliability rate you don't need to worry about them just blowing up.
To me this whole thing sounded more like an exercise in amusement than trying to actually get a rocket off the ground. Nothing wrong with that - but it is hardly big news when the thing disintegrates in mid-air...
Politicians and bureaucrats love to throw money at education, and technology, by virtue of being expensive, gives them an excellent outlet for this.
State of the art technology also has a few other benefits in this arena:
1. It tends to be a one-time expense - so if you have it you can spend it and not worry about paying for it next year (unlike a salary).
2. It looks good on resumes/tours/articles/etc.
3. It requires vendor selection - ie kickbacks/trips/gifts/etc.
4. It doesn't require convincing any established stakeholders (ie teachers/unions) to change anything.
No wonder they're so popular!
This is not the plastic you're thinking of. It's layers of montmorillonite clay, which is naturally occuring
I can just see it - famous news anchor on TV talking about major manufacturers trying to cut costs and corners by making new-fangled commercial airliners out of mud! It will be the talk of the nation!
Agreed. If the question was about high-level design ("What kinds of algorithms would be best for this kind of problem?") rather than low-level implementation ("Write a merge-sort in ruby - now!") then I'd see more value to testing rote recall ability. That is the kind of stuff that an engineer should generally be knowledgeable about - how to solve particular problems in the best way.
When it comes to writing code it is always best to recycle and look-up details - you're less likely to make a mistake.
When it comes time to doing high-level design it is good to be aware of a number of different ways to solve a problem so that you don't pick the wrong one out of ignorance.
Google is doing itself a disservice by focusing on qualities that don't really matter that much in the real world. They should focus more on thinking skills, higher-level knowledge (that tends to come more from experience), the ability to adapt work done by others (either by borrowing code, integrating 3rd-party products, etc), and the ability to work well in their environment (teamwork/leadership/etc). Sure, the ability to design/code at a low level is important in many jobs as well - but if you want to test that give somebody an obscure problem to design an algorithm around - not a textbook one.
I'm not sure I completely buy the charts. Granted, I'll admit that I'm overweight, but the charts are often SO far below what my weight was when I looked pretty normal that they practically represent emaciation - at least for my build.
Not everybody is built in the same way - there is more to weight than BMI.
Also - while there is certainly a correllation between diabetes and weight, I'm not convinced we're sure which way the causation works. Losing weight certainly helps to control blood sugar, but who's to say that the disorder that makes somebody prone to diabetes doesn't also make somebody prone to gaining weight.
Sure, in theory losing weight is just about willpower - in theory. The problem is that there is a lot more to it in practice. Some folks don't even have to try to maintain a trim figure. They have high metabolisms, or they just don't feel as hungry. Others feel like they're suffering torture just to try to lose a few pounds a week.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could influence your body temperature with careful and deliberate action - however you'll end up driving yourself crazy if you try to influence it to any degree. Your body has a setpoint and a whole slew of regulatory mechanisms that will attempt to maintain it despite your willful action. In the same way I think that people have setpoints with regard to weight that for whatever reason get messed up. Sure, there is a large behavioral component, but the behavior is also driven by natural wiring. It is like asking a guy not to think about sex for a week - sure it is just behavioral but good luck getting it to happen.
I think that eventually we'll understand the mechanisms the body uses to maintain weight and as a result we'll find better ways to help people maintain a particular weight. That might involve drugs, or maybe some kind of conditioning - or who knows what.
Sure it does - bad guy points gun at you, you shoot them before they shoot you - you don't have holes in you.
Bad guy points gun at you, you wait, bad guy shoots you - hopefully you at least survive, but you probably do have holes in you.
Shooting first is completely appropriate in circumstances where somebody's life is threatened (the officer's or another civilian's).
I'm not advocating the wild west - but pointing a gun at a police officer SHOULD get you shot - no questions asked.
Extra layer of encryption for content. Check.
Program needed to break the encryption stored on the disk. Check.
Giving the hackers the key along with the secret. Priceless...
On one hand, this is true. On the other hand, Access sucks anyway -- why not just use a real database like MySQL, PostgreSQL, or any number of others?
Because it is a pain in the neck if I just need a database for 2 minutes to answer a few simple questions? Suppose I have two lists that I need to do a join on - with Access I can copy/paste, write a query, and export my output in about 2 minutes. With just about anything else it is a lot more involved.
Access is also a good database front-end for simple projects.
Now, as an actual database it is pretty lousy - its main value is as a front-end. I wouldn't use it to store a large volume of data with multi-user-access.
I'd be happy if OO just had a good DB front-end that didn't fail to work any time I use it (I can't get JDBC working for the life of me - probably because I'm using the wrong JDK/JRE/etc - I only need about 5 of them on my system to run apps that apparently aren't compatible with all of them).
I want the ability to easily import/export/copy/paste into and out of tables. I want queries that give datasheets that I can edit live. I want a query designer that doesn't require composing SQL for just about anything. I'd never deploy it to end-users, but for those who use access day-to-day these features are almost indispensable.
Bottom line is that there is really no such thing as "permission to speak candidly" - anywhere.
It can help if you want to be frank - but you're ALWAYS going to be remembered for what you say, so be careful about what leaves your mouth...
Sure you can. As long as you have equity in your house.
If your house is 95% leveraged already then sure, they won't give you cash unless it is expected to increase the value of your home, or at least be financially neutral to you.
If New Orleans is in fact 95% leveraged already then let the banks worry about it - they're the only ones with a financial stake in the place. If they have lots of equity then getting loans won't be a problem.
My basic point is that I'm skeptical that New Orleans is worth all this fuss - just relocate everybody. You're the one claiming that the city is worth billions of dollars where it is. If that is true, then the folks living there shouldn't have such a hard time paying for it. And if the cost of repairing the city is more than the city is worth, then what's the point?
As the other poster indicated beta radiation can certainly penetrate your skin - depending on energy. You are correct that beta radiation consists of electrons.
For 3H or 14C - it won't make it through your dead skin.
For 32P it will probably go an inch or two into your body. Same particles - MUCH higher energy. Plexiglas shielding is recommended for this.
Actually, a big issue with tritium if you get enough of it is the primary isotope effect. The mass of tritium and hydrogen is significantly different - which makes the energy of bonds involving tritium different from that of hydrogen. That makes enzymes/etc work differently and can make tritium toxic.
Not sure what the relative toxicity is compared to the radiological effects.