I'm going to disagree—I'm really impressed with HMRC's technology. Their website is extremely well laid out and as well explained as any complex system can be. Their login system is 2FA with SMS messages (not perfect, but it's better than most things and it works). Every interaction I've ever needed has been possible online. It all works pretty well online (and that's rapidly becoming the case for the UK government as a whole).
HMRC's website is better than the website for my mobile phone and utility companies, that's certain. This latest problem is indeed a problem, but they're generally good with technology.
Improving haptic feedback is a good idea, as the current attempts simply don't feel realistic. However, doctors feeling tumours? Why? That's a sophisticated audience; people who have trained, through qualifications and experience, to understand tumours through imaging. Yes, scrolling through a CT scan with a mouse wheel isn't realistic, but they've learnt to accommodate.
On the other hand, the masses using touchscreen, that's an open market. Maybe it's a worthwhile one, maybe it's not. But that's the market to try. Otherwise it's like selling finger-friendly guitars. The professionals have adapted their fingers to the current steel--calluses and all. It's the beginners you want to target.
The expected value of switching envelopes isn't 1.25X, it's X -- i.e. there's no benefit from switching envelopes. This is because in this situation you haven't had anything revealed to you about the other envelopes, unlike in the original Monty hall problem, so the situation hasn't changed.
If the envelope you've chosen has value X then the expectation from switching =
P (envelope chosen has double value cheque) * (value of other cheques) = 1/3 * 0.5 X = 1/6 X
Plus
P (envelope chosen has normal value cheque) * ( 1/2 * 2X + 1/2 * 0.5 X) = 2/3 * (X + 1/4X) = 5/6 X
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?
With arguments like that, is there really a good opportunity for a reasoned, proportionate, discussion?
(Not saying cameras are always wrong, just not saying they're always right just because they occasionally give a benefit)
I keep two copies of my mail. One goes into a pop account, and gets pulled into my main machine, and the other goes to gmail... It's not a perfect solution -- if I send an email from gmail, it doesn't show up in the sent folder on my main machine.
Hi, I have pretty much the same set up. I solve the last problem by having an email address that gets routed into my sent folder. I can then bcc manually in Gmail, or even better use a GreaseMonkey script (on userscripts.org) to automatically bcc all Gmail emails from computers where I can set this up.
Yep, this is virtual machine software rather than a bootloader, but the same logic applies -- people can now run xOS without having to use another bootloader.
Wikipedia is a fundamentally flawed idea. It simply can't work in the real world.
What? Because you don't know whether you trust it or not? Some of the most interesting things I've been told, I've been told by strangers in a pub. The reason they're interesting is that they come from a point of view, or an area of interest, that I haven't come into contact with before. Yet I normally manage to distinguish whether they talk sense, or even if I disagree, I learn about their point of view.
What real world do you refer to, a real world where facts are undisputed? I wouldn't like to live in such an interesting world. Wikipedia is an excellent resource. Yes, it may require me to check the history of edits to an article to learn more about it, but the fact there's been a controversy over editing is usually an education itself.
Vandalism is different of course. But I dispute that Wikipeida is fundamentaly flawed. It depends what you want to know. If you want to know the value of k, don't ask Wikipedia if you'll be using the value in your PhD thesis. But if you want an introduction to stone age society, you can't beat it. Just keep the same wits about you that you would in a pub -- don't discount the view you're hearing, just consider it carefully. At least with Wikipedia you know what the previous pubgoer said.
Facts are interesting. Often, they're excellent. Sometimes, opinion's even more interesting.
And even if it's facts you're after -- should the value of G become disputed in the next few days, I would bet Wikipedia will mention it before most other sites. Potential inaccuracy is the price of timeliness. Just remember to investigate what you read.
Re:single button for emergencies.....
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Dialing emergency numbers through keylock is part of the GSM spec (at least for 118).
Sounds sensible to me, I mean it's a fiddle turning off keylock and a phone that's new to you. What's stupid though is when a phone doesn't reset the memory when you press a non-emergency number digit, i.e. it registers 1xx1xx8 as dialing emergency services.
Ever had a Windows Window no respond to you because a modal dialgue has popped up somewhere and that window is now obscuring it? Well, I have and Macs do not have that problem
Oh how I wish this was the case. I love my Mac, and this is the thing that annoys me most. Application modal dialogues exist all over the place (many Apple apps). Switch to a different program and then go back to the other -- often you can't. You can't click the program's window and activate it as the modal dialog exists, but you can't see it to click it! And Exposé won't show it. Try messing around with the "Do you want to save?" dialogs when you quit apps to see what I mean. A real pain in the neck, and I really hope Apple has sorted it in Tiger.
On the other hand, if this is my biggest complaint about the Apple UI (which it is), that's great! I could talk for much longer about Windows... amazing how one of the richest companies in the world just doesn't get it...
Don't you think that the idea of data being able to be executed is daft? It shouldn't be able to happen. Now I know how it can happen, overlapping code areas etc. etc., but shouldn't we be looking at whole architectures that stop this? (Is this what that new flag in the AMD processors does, I'm not up to speed on those).
Can't we say "don't execute PNGs, they never contain executable code" at the lowest level possible in the system? Why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
(posting to undo erroneous moderation)
Fastmail is excellent. $50/year for 25GB storage. Works excellently.
I'm going to disagree—I'm really impressed with HMRC's technology. Their website is extremely well laid out and as well explained as any complex system can be. Their login system is 2FA with SMS messages (not perfect, but it's better than most things and it works). Every interaction I've ever needed has been possible online. It all works pretty well online (and that's rapidly becoming the case for the UK government as a whole).
HMRC's website is better than the website for my mobile phone and utility companies, that's certain. This latest problem is indeed a problem, but they're generally good with technology.
Improving haptic feedback is a good idea, as the current attempts simply don't feel realistic. However, doctors feeling tumours? Why? That's a sophisticated audience; people who have trained, through qualifications and experience, to understand tumours through imaging. Yes, scrolling through a CT scan with a mouse wheel isn't realistic, but they've learnt to accommodate.
On the other hand, the masses using touchscreen, that's an open market. Maybe it's a worthwhile one, maybe it's not. But that's the market to try. Otherwise it's like selling finger-friendly guitars. The professionals have adapted their fingers to the current steel--calluses and all. It's the beginners you want to target.
No -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
The expected value of switching envelopes isn't 1.25X, it's X -- i.e. there's no benefit from switching envelopes. This is because in this situation you haven't had anything revealed to you about the other envelopes, unlike in the original Monty hall problem, so the situation hasn't changed.
If the envelope you've chosen has value X then the expectation from switching =
P (envelope chosen has double value cheque) * (value of other cheques) = 1/3 * 0.5 X = 1/6 X
Plus
P (envelope chosen has normal value cheque) * ( 1/2 * 2X + 1/2 * 0.5 X) = 2/3 * (X + 1/4X) = 5/6 X
= X
So no benefit from switching.
My first thought is... this is a rubbish story, not worth broadcasting. An amusing accident, nothing more.
My second thought is... what patronising editors to think it's worth posting, to get us commenting.
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?
With arguments like that, is there really a good opportunity for a reasoned, proportionate, discussion?
(Not saying cameras are always wrong, just not saying they're always right just because they occasionally give a benefit)
I keep two copies of my mail. One goes into a pop account, and gets pulled into my main machine, and the other goes to gmail ... It's not a perfect solution -- if I send an email from gmail, it doesn't show up in the sent folder on my main machine.
Hi, I have pretty much the same set up. I solve the last problem by having an email address that gets routed into my sent folder. I can then bcc manually in Gmail, or even better use a GreaseMonkey script (on userscripts.org) to automatically bcc all Gmail emails from computers where I can set this up.
Yep, this is virtual machine software rather than a bootloader, but the same logic applies -- people can now run xOS without having to use another bootloader.
Wikipedia is a fundamentally flawed idea. It simply can't work in the real world.
What? Because you don't know whether you trust it or not? Some of the most interesting things I've been told, I've been told by strangers in a pub. The reason they're interesting is that they come from a point of view, or an area of interest, that I haven't come into contact with before. Yet I normally manage to distinguish whether they talk sense, or even if I disagree, I learn about their point of view.
What real world do you refer to, a real world where facts are undisputed? I wouldn't like to live in such an interesting world. Wikipedia is an excellent resource. Yes, it may require me to check the history of edits to an article to learn more about it, but the fact there's been a controversy over editing is usually an education itself.
Vandalism is different of course. But I dispute that Wikipeida is fundamentaly flawed. It depends what you want to know. If you want to know the value of k, don't ask Wikipedia if you'll be using the value in your PhD thesis. But if you want an introduction to stone age society, you can't beat it. Just keep the same wits about you that you would in a pub -- don't discount the view you're hearing, just consider it carefully. At least with Wikipedia you know what the previous pubgoer said.
Facts are interesting. Often, they're excellent. Sometimes, opinion's even more interesting.
And even if it's facts you're after -- should the value of G become disputed in the next few days, I would bet Wikipedia will mention it before most other sites. Potential inaccuracy is the price of timeliness. Just remember to investigate what you read.
Dialing emergency numbers through keylock is part of the GSM spec (at least for 118).
Sounds sensible to me, I mean it's a fiddle turning off keylock and a phone that's new to you. What's stupid though is when a phone doesn't reset the memory when you press a non-emergency number digit, i.e. it registers 1xx1xx8 as dialing emergency services.
Well I've got Tiger now and can't get it to repeat...
Ever had a Windows Window no respond to you because a modal dialgue has popped up somewhere and that window is now obscuring it? Well, I have and Macs do not have that problem
Oh how I wish this was the case. I love my Mac, and this is the thing that annoys me most. Application modal dialogues exist all over the place (many Apple apps). Switch to a different program and then go back to the other -- often you can't. You can't click the program's window and activate it as the modal dialog exists, but you can't see it to click it! And Exposé won't show it. Try messing around with the "Do you want to save?" dialogs when you quit apps to see what I mean. A real pain in the neck, and I really hope Apple has sorted it in Tiger.
On the other hand, if this is my biggest complaint about the Apple UI (which it is), that's great! I could talk for much longer about Windows... amazing how one of the richest companies in the world just doesn't get it...
Don't you think that the idea of data being able to be executed is daft? It shouldn't be able to happen. Now I know how it can happen, overlapping code areas etc. etc., but shouldn't we be looking at whole architectures that stop this? (Is this what that new flag in the AMD processors does, I'm not up to speed on those). Can't we say "don't execute PNGs, they never contain executable code" at the lowest level possible in the system? Why not?
Mod this guy up. Spread the education ;-)