Many places use uniform cable colors to indicate the purpose of each wire (red = DMZ, yellow = uplink, blue = intranet, green = servers). But I find that makes it very hard to trace individual cables. Tracing one red cable among a bunch of of other red cables is madness.
Rather, I'd suggest explicitly using as many random different colors as you can. Label the end of each cable where it plugs in with its purpose if its not abundantly clear, but otherwise, tracing a single red-wire through a bunch of multi-colored wire becomes Much, much easier.
License Plates work well enough, IFF they are on the front of a car.
But I recently moved from a state where front & rear plates were required (WA) to a state where people only have rear plates (KS).
If a car comes up the express lane towards an observer/monitor, the observer won't know the car is in the wrong lane until the car is already past them, and driving away. Enforcement just went to hell.
(nevermind that at B.M., many plates are totally obscured with dust).
I don't believe it is because they *won't* contradict their superiors. It is because they don't known *how* to contradict their superiors.
After a lifetime of cultural indoctrination of respect towards elders and superiors, when the time comes to speak up, how do you do it? What do you say? Do you indicate by pointing or gesturing? Do you speak politely and slowly, or angrily and quickly? Maybe just grab the controls yourself? When do you speak up? When you first spot trouble? when you're convinced your partner overlooked it? or when it is really approaching the last-second?
All of these little decisions are already ingrained into Americans. We know culturally how to speak up and raise an issue. But to someone unaccustomed to them, it is a huge cognitive load, and leads to self-doubt and uncertainty. I'm sure someone on that flight deck *wanted* to speak up, but was probably wondering what to say, when to say it, and how to say it.
Android tablet with Bluetooth, then paired with a Bluetooth keyboard.
If you can get one keyboard per student, they can practice the fingering even when not attached to a tablet. They can share tablets (1 tablet per 3 or 4 kids), and practice fingering the rest of the time.
What in the world could possibly cause "unusually large score gains from a previous test"? Studying!
I know that after having failed a test, I've often buckled down, reviewed all the material from the beginning and aced the subsequent test. Yet according to Caveon Test Security, I'd be a cheater.
I also take issue with "searching for data anomalies where the chances of random agreement are astronomical". On one recent test, a fellow student and I missed nearly exactly the same questions, because we were taught by the same TA. We were both excellent students, with the same gaps in our knowledge, and the same mis-information on a few topics. We approached problems the same way, which led us to the same errors, exactly as we were taught.
The point is: Caveon's analysis is worthless. It apparently provides NO means to differentiate cheating from completely reasonable non-cheating explanations. All it can do is point out anomalies.
But if these tests are "used to determine graduation, graduate school admission and, the latest, merit pay and tenure for teachers", it is completely improper (and perhaps illegal?) to deny someone graduation, admission, pay, or tenure without PROOF, on the basis of an anomaly. Really, these guys are peddling Snake Oil. Perhaps the TSA is buying?
While it is true you can stare up in the sky and spot certain satellites with the naked eye, and even more with telescopes and equipment, thats not the whole story.
To know the full path of a satellite takes multiple, precise observations over time along with some detailed calculations, and that is ONLY if the satellite is stable.
Many of the most secretive satellites regularly adjust their orbits with thrusters. So if you get lucky enough to spot it and calculate an orbit, it may move to a new orbit soon.
Hence, the number, position, and trajectory of many government satellites is "secret" even if they are in plain view.
I really enjoy the fingerprint readers from UPEK (http://www.upek.com/).
The device knows my passwords, and I can log into sites with just a finger swipe. It is both faster and more accurate than typing a password (no typos... re-try is just another finger-swipe if it didn't read properly).
You can unplug the USB fingerprint reader and keep it separate from your computer if you want to be extra paranoid.
I remember in Jet Fighter III you could land your plane upside-down.
It was important that airspeed be appropriate, flaps down, gear down, angle of attack correct, etc, etc. But if you met all the criteria upside-down, it would still be counted as a successful landing.
It was good fun to pan the camera around this jet, on its top, with the gear sticking straight up, with a message about a perfect landing!
Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get. Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.
Fingerprints are remarkable in that they are unique identifiers, that still don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".
Law enforcement only sees DNA as identification. But the truth is so much more.
Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.
Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.
Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.
Unless government can somehow insure that DNA is not used for purposes beyond identification, and can establish severe penalties if it is, then the only promise we have that it won't be abused is their word, and that means very little to me.
There's a gigantic unanswered question here: How does this scale?
Under the large-lecture system in place when I was at MIT ('92), 300+ students filled the lecture hall two times a day, 3 days a week. That is 600+ students taking class 8.01 (Intro Physics). This required one professor to deliver the lecture, and a handful of TA's to handle recitations and study groups.
Under the system described in the article, only 80 students are taught at a time. But *each* class requires a professor and a team of TA's. To handle 600+ students taking the class, it would require 8 classroom sessions, 3 times a week, each involving a prof and TA's. That's 24 hours a week the prof is spending in class teaching. (not even counting prep-time, grading papers, or office-hours).
This system, for whatever successes it might have, just doesn't seem to scale. It seems to put a huge load on the prof and TAs.
Obviously based on the "Real" Bill of Rights... I think it makes a lot of sense:
Amendment 1 No ISP shall make no rule or policy prohibiting the free expression of content.
Amendment 2 A well regulated set of services, being necessary to the stability and availability of information, the right to run applications, including servers, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3 No provider shall be granted access to content or physical components without the consent of the owner, or in a manner prescribed by law.
Amendment 4 The right of people to be secure in their persons, equipment, content, and software against unreasonable searches, seizures and restrictions of use, shall not be violated, and no Warrents shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the items to be searched and the things to be seized as precisely as practical.
Amendment 5 No person shall be held to answer for any violation of terms of service unless on a presentment reviewed by a local court. Nor shall any persons' identifying data be disclosed, nor shall any person be deprived of service or access, without due process of law.
Amendment 6 In all actions by a service provider against a user, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public hearing by an impartial jury of peers, and shall be informed of the nature and evidence of the accusation, and shall enjoy the right to confront the people and evidence supporting the claims.
Amendment 7 Excessive penalties shall not be levied, nor excessive restrictions imposed, nor shall anyone be denied rights to author and publish content.
Amendment 8 The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or restrict any other right or technology available.
ATM machines are fully audited and verifiable after the fact.
After I deposit or withdraw money from an ATM, I can login to my account from a PC, and verify that it went through.
If it didn't, I can start an investigation immediately.
At the end of the month when I get my statement, I get to review every charge/credit, and verify the math.
This doesn't work with voting machines.
With voting machines, there is neither evidence that something went wrong, nor any recourse if you suspect something went wrong.
I frequently volunteer for political causes.
The approaches they take to do-not-call requests is highly varied.
We are told (accurately, I believe) that political groups are exempt from do-not-call rules and restrictions.
Political speech is vital free speech, and always legal.
Some campaigns will honor do-not-call requests for the duration of that campaign only.
(you'll still get calls from other affiliated campaigns, or the same group on other topics, etc).
Your number will still stay on their list, and you will get calls from that campaign in the next election cycle.
Other campaigns use the political exemption to its fullest, and don't honor do-not-call requests at all.
Of course, many people consider this counter-productive; we're likely to just annoy a voter into voting against the candidate/issue rather than persuade them. But its generally a decision of the campaign manager / field organizer.
I have such a phone, in a beta-test.
Its a cell-phone most of the time, but switches to my home WiFi network when I'm home.
Tester-agreement prohibits me from saying much of anything about it.
But it exists, its here, I use it, I like it.
Sadly, the slashdot article is misleading, if not wrong.
Jason Tomczak is NOT the lead plantiff.
He was listed as lead-plantiff when the complaint was originally filed on October 19th, 2005.
( documentation here: http://www.ifoapplestore.com/blog/nano_lawsuit.pdf )
But by the time Jason was dropped, the damage was done. He is referenced all over the 'net as a sue-happy whiner.
The lawyers are NOT suing Jason to stop him from dropping out. In fact, as best I can tell from Jason's letter, he is suing them for all the problems they caused him.
BTW: Its significant to note that this is the same law firm suing Apple over hearing-loss issues related to iPods.
I don't believe it will be terribly hard to enforce. Consider, some of the biggest offenders are based in Washington State.
Real is here, and their realsched.exe keeps coming back on my computer no matter how I uninstall it.
180 Solutions is in Washington State, and they've made software that sneakily installs itself through IE flaws. (that's been less of a problem since XP SP2, and since they started to see the light... but I'm not sure I'd consider them "clean" just yet).
America Online has offices in Seattle, and much of their software is "self-healing" (automatically re-installing).
And I'm not even touching on the most famous Washington software company of them all.
So, since the "criminals" are in Washington, the law is in Washington, and it won't be very long before someone is a "victim" in Washington, I think you have all the ingredients for a court case.
Last year, when Comdex'04 was canceled, CES'05 grew in size.
But at CES'05, I heard lots of people complaining abou the size, the lack of focus, and the extreme difficulties involved in walking away from the show with anything useful accomplished.
Sure, there were lots of cool toys to look at, but it was too hard to filter out the gems, much less find business opportunities among the clutter.
Now, I suspect that unless CES trims size and improves focus, it will begin to die as well.
Top 5 Ways to Improve CES
Segment the show clearly. Have specific areas for Audio, Car, Video, Components, Mobile, PC, etc.
Extend the show hours. More events, especially panel discussions, should happen in the evenings.
Codify and enforce a lunch break. Booths should be required to close for 1 hour each day, making the show floor less crowded, and giving much needed rest to booth staffers
Limit booth sizes. Large booths only increase the walking distances involved. This past year, several companies had booths of unprecedented size, sparsely filled with just a few cellphones and TVs.
Use Techology. This is a high-tech show, for cryin'-out-loud. There should be more terminals with better software that help convention goers make customized maps of the booths they want to visit, help them plan a realistic schedule, and track their feedback. Preferably wirelessly.
Last Friday, Pres. Bush signed a new law changing class-action lawsuit rules, including forcing the suits to Federal Court.
Since this seems to be the first major suit announced, it'll be interesting to see how it works under the new law. Will there be real limits on attorney's fees? Will it be tied up in Federal Court even longer than it would've been in State Court? Will customers see something other than a coupon to buy more ink?
Slashdot Mirror
Many places use uniform cable colors to indicate the purpose of each wire (red = DMZ, yellow = uplink, blue = intranet, green = servers).
But I find that makes it very hard to trace individual cables. Tracing one red cable among a bunch of of other red cables is madness.
Rather, I'd suggest explicitly using as many random different colors as you can.
Label the end of each cable where it plugs in with its purpose if its not abundantly clear, but otherwise, tracing a single red-wire through a bunch of multi-colored wire becomes Much, much easier.
Like... before the Battle of Hastings??
License Plates work well enough, IFF they are on the front of a car.
But I recently moved from a state where front & rear plates were required (WA) to a state where people only have rear plates (KS).
If a car comes up the express lane towards an observer/monitor, the observer won't know the car is in the wrong lane until the car is already past them, and driving away.
Enforcement just went to hell.
(nevermind that at B.M., many plates are totally obscured with dust).
I don't believe it is because they *won't* contradict their superiors.
It is because they don't known *how* to contradict their superiors.
After a lifetime of cultural indoctrination of respect towards elders and superiors, when the time comes to speak up, how do you do it?
What do you say? Do you indicate by pointing or gesturing? Do you speak politely and slowly, or angrily and quickly? Maybe just grab the controls yourself?
When do you speak up? When you first spot trouble? when you're convinced your partner overlooked it? or when it is really approaching the last-second?
All of these little decisions are already ingrained into Americans. We know culturally how to speak up and raise an issue.
But to someone unaccustomed to them, it is a huge cognitive load, and leads to self-doubt and uncertainty.
I'm sure someone on that flight deck *wanted* to speak up, but was probably wondering what to say, when to say it, and how to say it.
Android tablet with Bluetooth, then paired with a Bluetooth keyboard.
If you can get one keyboard per student, they can practice the fingering even when not attached to a tablet.
They can share tablets (1 tablet per 3 or 4 kids), and practice fingering the rest of the time.
"Orginization" (in the headline) should be spelled "Organization"
Did MI-6 properly license the copyright to the recipe from WarnerBros (the producers of the Ellen Degeneres Show).
Will WarnerBros pursue MI-6, who will disavow all knowledge? or perhaps the alQueda site for re-publishing the recipe without permission?
What in the world could possibly cause "unusually large score gains from a previous test"? Studying!
I know that after having failed a test, I've often buckled down, reviewed all the material from the beginning and aced the subsequent test.
Yet according to Caveon Test Security, I'd be a cheater.
I also take issue with "searching for data anomalies where the chances of random agreement are astronomical". On one recent test, a fellow student and I missed nearly exactly the same questions, because we were taught by the same TA.
We were both excellent students, with the same gaps in our knowledge, and the same mis-information on a few topics. We approached problems the same way, which led us to the same errors, exactly as we were taught.
The point is: Caveon's analysis is worthless. It apparently provides NO means to differentiate cheating from completely reasonable non-cheating explanations. All it can do is point out anomalies.
But if these tests are "used to determine graduation, graduate school admission and, the latest, merit pay and tenure for teachers", it is completely improper (and perhaps illegal?) to deny someone graduation, admission, pay, or tenure without PROOF, on the basis of an anomaly.
Really, these guys are peddling Snake Oil. Perhaps the TSA is buying?
While it is true you can stare up in the sky and spot certain satellites with the naked eye, and even more with telescopes and equipment, thats not the whole story.
To know the full path of a satellite takes multiple, precise observations over time along with some detailed calculations, and that is ONLY if the satellite is stable.
Many of the most secretive satellites regularly adjust their orbits with thrusters. So if you get lucky enough to spot it and calculate an orbit, it may move to a new orbit soon.
Hence, the number, position, and trajectory of many government satellites is "secret" even if they are in plain view.
I believe this is the EXACT photo:
-=-=[NSFW]=-=-
http://content.moneyshotblog.com/2009-09/bikini-pleasure-1.jpg
-=-=[NSFW]=-=-
I really enjoy the fingerprint readers from UPEK (http://www.upek.com/).
The device knows my passwords, and I can log into sites with just a finger swipe.
It is both faster and more accurate than typing a password (no typos... re-try is just another finger-swipe if it didn't read properly).
You can unplug the USB fingerprint reader and keep it separate from your computer if you want to be extra paranoid.
I remember in Jet Fighter III you could land your plane upside-down.
It was important that airspeed be appropriate, flaps down, gear down, angle of attack correct, etc, etc. But if you met all the criteria upside-down, it would still be counted as a successful landing.
It was good fun to pan the camera around this jet, on its top, with the gear sticking straight up, with a message about a perfect landing!
Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.
Fingerprints don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".
On the otherhand, DNA says *everything* about you.
Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.
Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.
Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.
We don't even know how DNA may be used in the future.
Fingerprints don't tell anyone what diseases you're likely to get.
Fingerprints don't show who your sibilings, parents, and children are.
Fingerprints are remarkable in that they are unique identifiers, that still don't say *anything* about you, other than, "this is a unique, identifiable person".
Law enforcement only sees DNA as identification. But the truth is so much more.
Insurers see DNA as an indicator of risk-factors.
Genealogists see DNA as a definitive way to track ancestry, forever linking someone to their parents and offspring.
Racial and ethnic radical-purists see DNA as a definitive way to determine if someone is "pure" or not.
Unless government can somehow insure that DNA is not used for purposes beyond identification, and can establish severe penalties if it is, then the only promise we have that it won't be abused is their word, and that means very little to me.
There's a gigantic unanswered question here: How does this scale?
Under the large-lecture system in place when I was at MIT ('92), 300+ students filled the lecture hall two times a day, 3 days a week. That is 600+ students taking class 8.01 (Intro Physics). This required one professor to deliver the lecture, and a handful of TA's to handle recitations and study groups.
Under the system described in the article, only 80 students are taught at a time. But *each* class requires a professor and a team of TA's. To handle 600+ students taking the class, it would require 8 classroom sessions, 3 times a week, each involving a prof and TA's. That's 24 hours a week the prof is spending in class teaching. (not even counting prep-time, grading papers, or office-hours).
This system, for whatever successes it might have, just doesn't seem to scale. It seems to put a huge load on the prof and TAs.
Obviously based on the "Real" Bill of Rights... I think it makes a lot of sense:
Amendment 1
No ISP shall make no rule or policy prohibiting the free expression of content.
Amendment 2
A well regulated set of services, being necessary to the stability and availability of information, the right to run applications, including servers, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3
No provider shall be granted access to content or physical components without the consent of the owner, or in a manner prescribed by law.
Amendment 4
The right of people to be secure in their persons, equipment, content, and software against unreasonable searches, seizures and restrictions of use, shall not be violated, and no Warrents shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the items to be searched and the things to be seized as precisely as practical.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for any violation of terms of service unless on a presentment reviewed by a local court. Nor shall any persons' identifying data be disclosed, nor shall any person be deprived of service or access, without due process of law.
Amendment 6
In all actions by a service provider against a user, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public hearing by an impartial jury of peers, and shall be informed of the nature and evidence of the accusation, and shall enjoy the right to confront the people and evidence supporting the claims.
Amendment 7
Excessive penalties shall not be levied, nor excessive restrictions imposed, nor shall anyone be denied rights to author and publish content.
Amendment 8
The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or restrict any other right or technology available.
This doesn't work with voting machines. With voting machines, there is neither evidence that something went wrong, nor any recourse if you suspect something went wrong.
The approaches they take to do-not-call requests is highly varied.
We are told (accurately, I believe) that political groups are exempt from do-not-call rules and restrictions.
Political speech is vital free speech, and always legal.
Some campaigns will honor do-not-call requests for the duration of that campaign only.
(you'll still get calls from other affiliated campaigns, or the same group on other topics, etc).
Your number will still stay on their list, and you will get calls from that campaign in the next election cycle.
Other campaigns use the political exemption to its fullest, and don't honor do-not-call requests at all.
Of course, many people consider this counter-productive; we're likely to just annoy a voter into voting against the candidate/issue rather than persuade them. But its generally a decision of the campaign manager / field organizer.
I have such a phone, in a beta-test. Its a cell-phone most of the time, but switches to my home WiFi network when I'm home. Tester-agreement prohibits me from saying much of anything about it. But it exists, its here, I use it, I like it.
Jason Tomczak is NOT the lead plantiff. He was listed as lead-plantiff when the complaint was originally filed on October 19th, 2005. ( documentation here: http://www.ifoapplestore.com/blog/nano_lawsuit.pdf )
But the lawyers amended their lawsuit 6 days later (October 25th, 2005) naming James M. Wimmer as the lead-plantiff ( documentation: http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20( v2)1130368932535.pdf )
But by the time Jason was dropped, the damage was done. He is referenced all over the 'net as a sue-happy whiner.
The lawyers are NOT suing Jason to stop him from dropping out. In fact, as best I can tell from Jason's letter, he is suing them for all the problems they caused him.
BTW: Its significant to note that this is the same law firm suing Apple over hearing-loss issues related to iPods.
I don't believe it will be terribly hard to enforce. Consider, some of the biggest offenders are based in Washington State.
Real is here, and their realsched.exe keeps coming back on my computer no matter how I uninstall it.
180 Solutions is in Washington State, and they've made software that sneakily installs itself through IE flaws. (that's been less of a problem since XP SP2, and since they started to see the light... but I'm not sure I'd consider them "clean" just yet).
America Online has offices in Seattle, and much of their software is "self-healing" (automatically re-installing).
And I'm not even touching on the most famous Washington software company of them all.
So, since the "criminals" are in Washington, the law is in Washington, and it won't be very long before someone is a "victim" in Washington, I think you have all the ingredients for a court case.
Not Comdex, in November.
As far as I can tell the AVN expo will be January 5-8, coincident with CES 2006.
But at CES'05, I heard lots of people complaining abou the size, the lack of focus, and the extreme difficulties involved in walking away from the show with anything useful accomplished.
Sure, there were lots of cool toys to look at, but it was too hard to filter out the gems, much less find business opportunities among the clutter.
Now, I suspect that unless CES trims size and improves focus, it will begin to die as well.
Top 5 Ways to Improve CES
Since this seems to be the first major suit announced, it'll be interesting to see how it works under the new law. Will there be real limits on attorney's fees? Will it be tied up in Federal Court even longer than it would've been in State Court? Will customers see something other than a coupon to buy more ink?
Stay Tuned to find out!
Personally, I'd like to see course 19 continue as the "Lost Major", and see this one given number 25. (Thats what they're up to now, right?)
-Aaron, Course 6.