It's easy enough to slipstream (lots of) extra drivers and periodically update a master install.iso using tools such as nlite.
Any pointer to (or hint) for some "Slipstream for novices?" Explaining in particular how do you deal with - disparate versions of serial-number protected things (MSO and Windows XP Pro/Home, or worse vendor-customized Vistas/7) - machines where XP needs extra drivers to boot a SATA device - drivers that seem to only come as an interractive installer (ATI) - patch tuesday routine
> What options do you have to protect your self from Van eck phreaking?
One option to consider seriously is: paper ballot inserted, in a voting booth protected by opaque curtain, into an opaque paper envelope, which is then publicly dropped into a transparent urn, which is left under public view during the voting, and publicly shaked before the counting process.
That's how 90% of the votes are cast in France for decades [the "transparent" bit was added some 45 years ago]. Not only is it secure against Van Eck phreaking before its invention, it has great resilience against many kinds of fraud, and most voters are able to understand and check the process.
You still have to guard against quite a few things, including * unsuitably opaque envelopes; * bulletins printed on paper of different color/size/material [even if the envelope is opaque, it is usually not sealed, and sometime some portion of the bulletin (hopefully the back side, if the bulletin is folded) may be glanced at thru the opening; also the weight/stiffness of the bulletin may be revealing] * hidden cameras in the voting booth; including those built into cellphones held by the voter [because the voter could be trying to prove what (s)he voted [in order to sell her/his vote or avoid retaliation if s/he did not vote as instructed].
Actually, in some locations much closer to you than half the circumference of planet earth, it may happen that voters are threatened to be beaten/killed is they do not vote as instructed; and maybe, on election day, a few of those who voted could be beaten publicly (often: regardless of what they actually voted, or based on their perceived opinion), in order to make the threat credible to those who did not vote yet. In these circumstances, the voters must be able to really trust the secrecy of their vote.
According to numerous online sources, raw numbers are: 51 out of 8187 found infected in the vaccinated group; 74 out of 8198 found infected in the control group.
The most basic course of statistics tells how to proceed from here: test if the null hypothesis (vaccine has no effect) remains plausible despite this evidence. Conditions are ideal for the chi-squared test. We get Observed values 51, 74, 8147, 8123; Expected values 62.504, 62.496, 8135.5, 8134.5; then sum((O-E)^2/E) = 4.267, with two degrees of freedom. Conclusion: the null hypohesis is rejected with only 88% confidence level.
This is not enough to confortably say that the vaccine has any benefit. Odds of the contrary are about 1/17.
This is much less reason to trust that the vaccine reduce infection rate by 31.1%, as reported in some press articles. Odds are 1/2 that it is less efficient than this.
Reconizing "none" is NOT an indication of grasping the concept of "zero", which is about "zero" sharing proterties similar to other numbers (i.e can be meaningfully added).
"We experimented with hot-swap, but found it caused as many problems as it solved. It actually induced failures, so we backed away."
(we) "tried then backed away from RAID, instead opting to recommend JBOD"
"We had a painful experience with RAID 5, which does not scale well to petabyte-level storage."
Why the hell are the reports of these guys so far from what the accepted industry practice is, according to IT magazines?
Basically, fusion is obtained using the 1934 Rutherford setup where deuterium ions are accelerated by an electric field towards a deuterium-rich target.
The novelty is how the electric field is obtained: piezo-electricity induced by a temperature change.
This is also the mechanism envisioned for spacecraft propulsion (which has nothing to do with fusion).
The article states that the liquid used is water. This sounds extremely fishy: water causes all sorts of contamination problems with silicon. And we are suspiciouly close to April 1st.
Change this to some other high-optical index liquid and I'll be slightly less skeptical, although I fail to see how a liquid drop could cover a wide-enough area and maintain useful optical properties.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy enough to slipstream (lots of) extra drivers and periodically update a master install .iso using tools such as nlite.
Any pointer to (or hint) for some "Slipstream for novices?" Explaining in particular how do you deal with
- disparate versions of serial-number protected things (MSO and Windows XP Pro/Home, or worse vendor-customized Vistas/7)
- machines where XP needs extra drivers to boot a SATA device
- drivers that seem to only come as an interractive installer (ATI)
- patch tuesday routine
This one seems to work
http://dl.free.fr/oTyRx6Wfi
> What options do you have to protect your self from Van eck phreaking?
One option to consider seriously is: paper ballot inserted, in a voting booth protected by opaque curtain, into an opaque paper envelope, which is then publicly dropped into a transparent urn, which is left under public view during the voting, and publicly shaked before the counting process.
That's how 90% of the votes are cast in France for decades [the "transparent" bit was added some 45 years ago]. Not only is it secure against Van Eck phreaking before its invention, it has great resilience against many kinds of fraud, and most voters are able to understand and check the process.
You still have to guard against quite a few things, including
* unsuitably opaque envelopes;
* bulletins printed on paper of different color/size/material [even if the envelope is opaque, it is usually not sealed, and sometime some portion of the bulletin (hopefully the back side, if the bulletin is folded) may be glanced at thru the opening; also the weight/stiffness of the bulletin may be revealing]
* hidden cameras in the voting booth; including those built into cellphones held by the voter [because the voter could be trying to prove what (s)he voted [in order to sell her/his vote or avoid retaliation if s/he did not vote as instructed].
Actually, in some locations much closer to you than half the circumference of planet earth, it may happen that voters are threatened to be beaten/killed is they do not vote as instructed; and maybe, on election day, a few of those who voted could be beaten publicly (often: regardless of what they actually voted, or based on their perceived opinion), in order to make the threat credible to those who did not vote yet. In these circumstances, the voters must be able to really trust the secrecy of their vote.
François Grieu
According to numerous online sources, raw numbers are:
51 out of 8187 found infected in the vaccinated group;
74 out of 8198 found infected in the control group.
The most basic course of statistics tells how to proceed from here: test if the null hypothesis (vaccine has no effect) remains plausible despite this evidence. Conditions are ideal for the chi-squared test.
We get Observed values 51, 74, 8147, 8123; Expected values 62.504, 62.496, 8135.5, 8134.5; then sum((O-E)^2/E) = 4.267, with two degrees of freedom.
Conclusion: the null hypohesis is rejected with only 88% confidence level.
This is not enough to confortably say that the vaccine has any benefit. Odds of the contrary are about 1/17.
This is much less reason to trust that the vaccine reduce infection rate by 31.1%, as reported in some press articles. Odds are 1/2 that it is less efficient than this.
Francois Grieu
Reconizing "none" is NOT an indication of grasping the concept of "zero", which is about "zero" sharing proterties similar to other numbers (i.e can be meaningfully added).
"We experimented with hot-swap, but found it caused as many problems as it solved. It actually induced failures, so we backed away."
Why the hell are the reports of these guys so far from what the accepted industry practice is, according to IT magazines?(we) "tried then backed away from RAID, instead opting to recommend JBOD"
"We had a painful experience with RAID 5, which does not scale well to petabyte-level storage."
Thanks for the pointer !
http://www.bobpark.org/WN05/wn050605.html#3
Basically, fusion is obtained using the 1934 Rutherford setup where deuterium ions are accelerated by an electric field towards a deuterium-rich target.
The novelty is how the electric field is obtained: piezo-electricity induced by a temperature change.
This is also the mechanism envisioned for spacecraft propulsion (which has nothing to do with fusion).
Only bots would follow them.
The article states that the liquid used is water. This sounds extremely fishy: water causes all sorts of contamination problems with silicon. And we are suspiciouly close to April 1st. Change this to some other high-optical index liquid and I'll be slightly less skeptical, although I fail to see how a liquid drop could cover a wide-enough area and maintain useful optical properties.