documents that should not be available to the general public should be a) behind firewalls where the general public is on the other side, b) stored on web servers that require authentication to read such pages (where the general public does not have username/password), or c) not be stored on a web server!
I'd revise that statement to read:
documents that should not be available to the general public should be a) behind firewalls where the general public is on the other side, b) stored on web servers that require authentication to read such pages (where the general public does not have username/password), AND c) not be stored on a web server!
An interesting reversal of the thought process comes to you courtesy of Douglas Adams and THHGTTG, when the plans for the galactic bypass were posted on the bottom of a filing cabinet kept in a disused lavatory with a sign saying "Beware the Leopard" on the door*. Sure it's public, but who is going to find it?
* Approximately--I'm too lazy to go get the book and look it up.
I live in TN and what makes this so much worse is now on TV I see commercials about how telecoms are trying to change laws to "bring us into the future".
Maybe it was a misquote--perhaps the quote should have been that telecoms are "bring us into OUR future," i.e. bringing us (the users) into the telecom's version of the future.
Without advertisers, the Internet would shrink to a mere shadow of its current self.
You seem to think this is a bad thing...
You mean web pages that would have useful content, content that would be worth somebody's time and money?
You mean web pages that don't try to trick me into buying/reading/downloading something I don't want?
Seeing as how the WWW has evolved into a marketing tool that is occasioanlly interrupted with good, useful content, a wholesale distilling of the World Wide Web is A Good Thing.
Please, no, not that!
I apologize for my sarcastic tone, but that would be just fine by me. I like free content as much as the next person, but if I want the information bad enough and feel that it is worth the cost, then I will, in fact, pay for it.
Example: I wanted an article out of a back issue of Sky and Telescope. It was worth the $2 I paid for it, and told me exactly what I wanted to know.
Example: I did some work on my Toyota and went to the Toyota tech website, paid for a one-day pass to their technical library, and got exactly what I wanted.
In neither case did I have to deal with banner ads, pop-ups, or other forms of INVASIVE advertising.
You want to provide free content, supported by ads? Fine. Follow Google's example. Make the ads consistent with the web site's content. I don't need to read about the latest in X10's spy aresenal if I'm researching new motherboards. I don't need to read about penis enlargers if I am looking for information on growing tomatoes in my garden.
The ads which get my attention, and the ones most likely to elicit a positive response, are the unobtrusive ads to the right or top of the screen.
I agree there, mostly. The side of the screen is OK, not the top. I don't want the first thing I see when I read the page to be an irrelevant ad. Put the nonobtrusive, non-obnoxoius ads on the side where I can read them if I want to read them and where they're out of the way if I don't want to read them.
I installed the Adblock plugin and Click to Flash plugins described previously, and I am most impressed. Previously I used AdSubtract Pro, but these two teamed up with Mozilla does exactly what was lamented; the WWW is now distilled down to the content that I find of interest and actually want to read/use.
Why do other advertisers continue to annoy customers with useless and irrelevant popup ads?
For the same reason that carpet-bombing was popular in the pre-smart weapons days. If you drop enough bombs, eventually you will hit something.
It is the same with pop-ups/unders/spam/etc. If you send out enough spam/pop-ups/unders, eventually SOMEBODY will respond. Sure, your efficency is really low and you annoy a lot of people, but why should you care? If you annoyed them, they weren't going to be customers anyway.
Microsoft, it said, "has recently broken its policy of unified pricing of products worldwide. In Thailand and England there were reductions of hundreds of percent" on products that it sells.
Interesting...did MS really pay the Thai and UK governments to use MS products? After all it is pretty hard to reduce the price of anything more than 100%. Heck if MS wants to pay me to use Office, I'll gladly cash that check.
Now that I think about it, it wouldn't surprise me of MS DID in fact pay the gov'ts to use its products...I'm sure they would receover the costs multiple time over somewhere else.
If I ever got to the point where not having my "toys" with me 24/7 made me feel "nauseous, unsteady, naked" I'd have to seriously consider going into therapy.
OK, I have come home from work at times only to turn around and go back because I forgot my cellphone. Given traffic around here, that can take up to an hour to make the round-trip. Since I don't have a landline, I consider it a necessity to have it with me at home.
My personal PDA? Most of the time it sits in its cradle doing nothing. The only time I really use it is when I travel, and even then half the time I forget it at home.
There's something to be said about being able to leave everything behind and be inaccessible to the outside world, even if it is for a few hours. Some may call it isolated, or out of touch; I call it relaxing.
One wonders then how it is they were able to deal with crime before the advent of technology.
Before the advent of modern technology, it was easier to combat crime using low-tech means because low-tech means were used to commit the crimes in the first place. Bank robberies weren't done by hackers in a far-off countries accessing bank records via the Internet; they were done by crooks wearing ski masks weiding guns and stick-up notes physically entering the bank and running off with bundles of C-notes, leaving witnesses in their wake.
You don't have to pay to e-file. I got my copy of TaxCut Deluxe last week, and besides the full rebate on the state copy, I also got a coupon for a full rebate on the e-filing fee.
The point is to give the pilot an additional backup--if it keeps the aircraft from accidentally hitting something, then it's a good thing.
WRT to previous post about the microburst avoidance over the White House, it is that sort of situation that you WANT an override; say, place the system in override when the plane is coming in to an airport to provide the pilot maximum control.
Want to minimize flyovers of the Capitol/White House, even for emergencies? Then close down Reagan Airport. Baltimore/Washington (BWI) and Dulles Int'n'l airports in Virginia are the only international airports in the capital area anyway; no international flights land or originate at DCA anyway.
A tool like this would seem to be meant as an aid to the pilot, not an anti-hijacking device. To prevent the hijacking, keep the hijackers out of the cockpit in the first place. That is the ONLY way to prevent a hijacking. Remote control systems that take control away from the flight crew are nice in an ideal world, but such systems are not failsafe; prevent the problem BEFORE it happens, don't react to it.
My dad will link me to some news story or something while I am doing homework whereas he wouldn't have bothered to interrupt me if he had to print it out and bring it to my room.
OK, IMing a link is one thing, since you either have to type it into the computer to send the IM or write it on a piece of paper. I frequently will e-mail my boss whose office is next door to mine) with documents or links, or a question to something that (a) isn't in need of immediate response AND (2) he is on the phone. I would IM him but we don't have an IRC server on our side of the firewall and can't IM through said firewall.
BUT...if it is to have a regular conversation, then just get out of the chair and walk over to the other room and SPEAK.
IM has its applications, don't get me wrong. It usually is cheaper than LD charges since you are online anyway (esp. with broadband connections) and it does allow for conversations to be held in not-so-realtime, a la voicemail, if the recipient is away from the keys. Plus, there is a record of what was said for reference later on (handy for use while at work.)
But if it is to call somebody to dinner, take out the garbage, or see if homework was done...no.
One could make a rule to add an extra day every four years, but after 100 years or so, they would be foward one day too many. Skip the 100th year, and after 400 years, they'd be 1 day behind. The rule as it stands is every fourth year, except years ending in '00, plus every 400th year. Easy enough, but still not quite right.
Not quite sure how you see it as "easy enough." I just checked, and 2000 was in fact a leap year, even though it ends in '00.' Was 2000 one of the '400' years? Where is the starting point, year 0000? Or is it more correct to include years divisible by 400 rather than saying every 400th year?
Iraq needs political and economic stability more than anything else.
Correct...and promoting the use of open source software is one way of bringing economic stabilty to a portion of the people.
You take some of the reconstruction money to hire local software firms and train local programmers to write/maintain the software that the new government will eventually need to handle information. You hire local technicians to maintain and operate the associated network hardware. You are hiring Iraqi talent, which means they can start to provide for themselves by earning an income using their newly-learned skills.
Or, you can lock the information infrastructure into proprietary software, making the local infrastructure dependent on a foreign source of support--and how do you think that foreign dependence on technology is going to sit with the people? OK, you can set up a MS support center, but it's not an Iraqi company, it's an American company, hiring people to simply read from pre-printed tech support scripts (I just got one from HP regarding a network printer issue--"delete the printer and reboot the computer"). How does this build the local economy and increase the talent pool?
This seems to be more corporate-demonizing hogwash that gets modded up here at/. Honestly, even if MS did make unusually large contributions to the Bush campaign, I fail (in my shallow understanding of politics) to see how that translates to an unstable government in Iraq. Please enlighten me.
Directly, you are correct--it does not translate to an unstable government. Indirectly, it could give Microsoft an edge on the building of the technology/information infrastructure. It would be yet another big American corporation sinking its meathooks into the money pot that is being used to rebuild Iraq, leaving the Iraqi brain pool out of the picture.
Consider this example. American firms estimated that it would take many months and millions of dollars to rebuild Iraqi cement factories, which are crucial to the rebuilding effort. Intrepid Iraqis did it in a few months for less than $100k. How? They didn't set lofty goals for state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. They cannibalized parts from remaining production lines to get at at least one production facility operating. This facility can, in turn, generate revenue through the sale of cement for use in the reconstruction (as opposed to expensive imports) and put that revenue into the factory and workers' salaries.
Likewise, why should we as taxpayers spend millions of dollars to import the labor and material into Iraq when there exists local talent to do the same job? If they're not as skilled, fine. TRAIN them to do the job, don't do it for them. Teach a man to fish and all that...
In short--use local resources (material and talent) to do the work as much as possible, and bring in outside talent and material only if needed. Iraq is NOT a feeding frenzy for big corporations looking to get a big government check (even if it looks like it is turning into that); the money should be a resource to help the Iraqi people rebuild their own country.
As a taxpayer, I'd much prefer to see my tax dollars spent to help the IRAQIS rebuild Iraq, not Halliburton, Microsoft, etc. as nauseum.
Humans may be by and large social creatures, but we are also territorial. We need space to call our own, for all the reasons cited in the Chiat/Day failure--space to store paper files, meet with clients, place to think in quiet.
If I want to confer with my co-workers, I can generally find them, because they have an office. When I'm done conferring and want to think and/or work uninterrupted, I go back to my office. It's a sign to those you work with--I am here to work and am available for consulting, but I'm not open to constant, distracting chatter.
Working in the common area of the engineering building while in college was great for group work and socializing between classes (gotta take a break once in a while), but if you wanted to work uninterrupted, better break out the headphones. I doubt Chiat would have approved of headphones, being a "personal" item.
This sounds exceptionally familiar to the voting process I have used in the past, except that I filled in the ballot using a black marker for reading by an optical scanner. You replaced the magic marker with the electronic marker.
1) Go to table - prove you are registered to vote, receive ballot.
Is this a completely blank ballot or is it pre-printed with the different political races and candidates?
2) Place ballot on input of voting machine.
How do you ensure against a misfeed? If the ballot is pre-printed, a misaligned ballot could put marks in the wrong places.
I like the idea of the machine marking the ballot; a standard means of printing and marking the ballots would help the electronic counting process.
In fact, this brings about an interestig means of cross-checking the results. The ballot is printed with the votes with multiple machine-readable forms: marks in particular locations to indicate choices in a human-readable format, like the Scan-Tron sheets of old where you fill in the bubbles with a #2 pencil, plus a machine-readable barcode.
When the ballot is counted, BOTH types of marks are read. When the ballot is read, both types or marking must match. If there is a discrepancy, then the ballot is not electronically counted and counted by hand.
Precinct audits can be done randomly or when there is a certain percentage of discrepant ballots.
It says something when with all the technology available to us in out so-called "high tech" society, we can't accurately count pieces of paper without lawsuits and litigation taking center stage.
FreeBSD includes the following that Windows doesen't:
I contend that almost none of those are part of the OS. They are nearly all applications.
C++ compiler. Office Suite. IDE for Java, C++ etc. SQL Database. 40 (non-card) Games. Flowchart software. Vector drawing software Layer/Bitmap drawing software. Perl. Astronomy Software.
All applications, not parts of an operating system. Just because Red Hat or SuSE or whomever bundles MrProject or the GIMP with their distro does not make them part of the OS.
How will this prevent CD copying? Where's the real extra value in the "compressed" (which I read as lossy) DRM'd content? Oh, I get to go to an "exclusive" website with extra content. Whoopee. If I have the CD, I'm ripping tracks in an unprotected format regardless of whether there are already pre-ripped tracks available. Why would I want to copy DRM'd material to my machine?
Seems to me that by having a multisession CD, that means there will be less unprotected music since it takes up a majority of space. Unless, of course, there is plenty of unused space on today's recordings. I wouldn't know, I haven't bought a "major label" CD in years. Last CD I bought was from a local performer, bought right from the guy after he played a club one night (got it autographed too...another perk in supporting local talent.)
I don't know maybe I'm one of the unwashed, but this makes no sense to me. I agree with the other poster that said "just make a regular CD" and I'll add "and price it reasonably" and we will come.
We all hate advertisement, but as with public TV, it's the reason we can get it for free...
I'll assume theat you mean broadcast TV and not public TV. Broadcast TV is supported by ads; public TV (i.e. your local PBS station) is supported largely by pledges made by the public (hence the name), with underwriters of some shows.
One may argue that acknowledging the underwriters at the end of a program counts as "advertising" but at least the shows aren't interrupted halfway through and the acknowledgement is generally less than 10 seconds per underwriter (about a minute or so per hour by my guestimate) instead of the 15-20 minutes of advertising per hour of broadcast TV. (http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/ratingsAds.html)
ldap://keyserver.pgp.com is where it can be obtained via PGP's PGPKeys utility...I am one of those who doesn't have (nor has a need for) a personal webpage.
I agree with you on that point...I have often considered doing the same.
There is one small detail holding me back...except for the Microsoft security bulletins I get via e-mail, nobody I send/receive e-mail with knows PGP/GPG/etc. exists.
My e-mail signature line is this: - --
PGP Freeware is a free, easy way to secure your e-mail. http://www.pgp.com
So I am trying to get the word out--I even sign e-mail with it, knowing that whomever gets it won't know what the hell PGP is. PGP doesn't exectly help either; getting the freeware version of PGP takes some looking on their website. (here's the link to it, btw...http://pgp.com/products/freeware.html)
Time to change my sig line...
A second question that may come up is this: What if a spammer starts signing e-mail? Then what?
Any sort of filter would not only have to look for a PGP signature, but a GOOD signature; it is reasonable to assume that you nor I are going to have the public keys for spammer on our keyrings, so the answer is this: "Yes, as long as you are looking for a signature that can be validated on your keyring."
My little bit of wisdom for the day.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 Comment: Protect your privacy, with the FREE version of PGP
iQA/AwUBP6UDPkUNhXFkSR7TEQKRnACfWmeCqK4ZH825wgWo ao +Cve26RwYAmwa/ w0T8Ss2Bbq24/9+wJquJD06y =nj0q - ----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Slashdot Mirror
You had me going for a second, until you got to the last one... :)
documents that should not be available to the general public should be a) behind firewalls where the general public is on the other side, b) stored on web servers that require authentication to read such pages (where the general public does not have username/password), or c) not be stored on a web server!
I'd revise that statement to read:
documents that should not be available to the general public should be a) behind firewalls where the general public is on the other side, b) stored on web servers that require authentication to read such pages (where the general public does not have username/password), AND c) not be stored on a web server!
An interesting reversal of the thought process comes to you courtesy of Douglas Adams and THHGTTG, when the plans for the galactic bypass were posted on the bottom of a filing cabinet kept in a disused lavatory with a sign saying "Beware the Leopard" on the door*. Sure it's public, but who is going to find it?
* Approximately--I'm too lazy to go get the book and look it up.
I live in TN and what makes this so much worse is now on TV I see commercials about how telecoms are trying to change laws to "bring us into the future".
Maybe it was a misquote--perhaps the quote should have been that telecoms are "bring us into OUR future," i.e. bringing us (the users) into the telecom's version of the future.
That would make more sense to me
(slightly cynical this evening)
Yep, back in 2002...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1534
Without advertisers, the Internet would shrink to a mere shadow of its current self.
You seem to think this is a bad thing...
You mean web pages that would have useful content, content that would be worth somebody's time and money?
You mean web pages that don't try to trick me into buying/reading/downloading something I don't want?
Seeing as how the WWW has evolved into a marketing tool that is occasioanlly interrupted with good, useful content, a wholesale distilling of the World Wide Web is A Good Thing.
Please, no, not that!
I apologize for my sarcastic tone, but that would be just fine by me. I like free content as much as the next person, but if I want the information bad enough and feel that it is worth the cost, then I will, in fact, pay for it.
Example: I wanted an article out of a back issue of Sky and Telescope. It was worth the $2 I paid for it, and told me exactly what I wanted to know.
Example: I did some work on my Toyota and went to the Toyota tech website, paid for a one-day pass to their technical library, and got exactly what I wanted.
In neither case did I have to deal with banner ads, pop-ups, or other forms of INVASIVE advertising.
You want to provide free content, supported by ads? Fine. Follow Google's example. Make the ads consistent with the web site's content. I don't need to read about the latest in X10's spy aresenal if I'm researching new motherboards. I don't need to read about penis enlargers if I am looking for information on growing tomatoes in my garden.
The ads which get my attention, and the ones most likely to elicit a positive response, are the unobtrusive ads to the right or top of the screen.
I agree there, mostly. The side of the screen is OK, not the top. I don't want the first thing I see when I read the page to be an irrelevant ad. Put the nonobtrusive, non-obnoxoius ads on the side where I can read them if I want to read them and where they're out of the way if I don't want to read them.
I installed the Adblock plugin and Click to Flash plugins described previously, and I am most impressed. Previously I used AdSubtract Pro, but these two teamed up with Mozilla does exactly what was lamented; the WWW is now distilled down to the content that I find of interest and actually want to read/use.
(Feeling a bit cynical tonight)
Why do other advertisers continue to annoy customers with useless and irrelevant popup ads?
For the same reason that carpet-bombing was popular in the pre-smart weapons days. If you drop enough bombs, eventually you will hit something.
It is the same with pop-ups/unders/spam/etc. If you send out enough spam/pop-ups/unders, eventually SOMEBODY will respond. Sure, your efficency is really low and you annoy a lot of people, but why should you care? If you annoyed them, they weren't going to be customers anyway.
My two bits for the day.
Microsoft, it said, "has recently broken its policy of unified pricing of products worldwide. In Thailand and England there were reductions of hundreds of percent" on products that it sells.
Interesting...did MS really pay the Thai and UK governments to use MS products? After all it is pretty hard to reduce the price of anything more than 100%. Heck if MS wants to pay me to use Office, I'll gladly cash that check.
Now that I think about it, it wouldn't surprise me of MS DID in fact pay the gov'ts to use its products...I'm sure they would receover the costs multiple time over somewhere else.
If I ever got to the point where not having my "toys" with me 24/7 made me feel "nauseous, unsteady, naked" I'd have to seriously consider going into therapy.
OK, I have come home from work at times only to turn around and go back because I forgot my cellphone. Given traffic around here, that can take up to an hour to make the round-trip. Since I don't have a landline, I consider it a necessity to have it with me at home.
My personal PDA? Most of the time it sits in its cradle doing nothing. The only time I really use it is when I travel, and even then half the time I forget it at home.
There's something to be said about being able to leave everything behind and be inaccessible to the outside world, even if it is for a few hours. Some may call it isolated, or out of touch; I call it relaxing.
Comcast is similar here in Alexandria, VA...I pay about $45/month for a 2Mbps cable connection including cable modem rental.
One wonders then how it is they were able to deal with crime before the advent of technology.
Before the advent of modern technology, it was easier to combat crime using low-tech means because low-tech means were used to commit the crimes in the first place. Bank robberies weren't done by hackers in a far-off countries accessing bank records via the Internet; they were done by crooks wearing ski masks weiding guns and stick-up notes physically entering the bank and running off with bundles of C-notes, leaving witnesses in their wake.
You don't have to pay to e-file. I got my copy of TaxCut Deluxe last week, and besides the full rebate on the state copy, I also got a coupon for a full rebate on the e-filing fee.
The point is to give the pilot an additional backup--if it keeps the aircraft from accidentally hitting something, then it's a good thing.
WRT to previous post about the microburst avoidance over the White House, it is that sort of situation that you WANT an override; say, place the system in override when the plane is coming in to an airport to provide the pilot maximum control.
Want to minimize flyovers of the Capitol/White House, even for emergencies? Then close down Reagan Airport. Baltimore/Washington (BWI) and Dulles Int'n'l airports in Virginia are the only international airports in the capital area anyway; no international flights land or originate at DCA anyway.
A tool like this would seem to be meant as an aid to the pilot, not an anti-hijacking device. To prevent the hijacking, keep the hijackers out of the cockpit in the first place. That is the ONLY way to prevent a hijacking. Remote control systems that take control away from the flight crew are nice in an ideal world, but such systems are not failsafe; prevent the problem BEFORE it happens, don't react to it.
My dad will link me to some news story or something while I am doing homework whereas he wouldn't have bothered to interrupt me if he had to print it out and bring it to my room.
OK, IMing a link is one thing, since you either have to type it into the computer to send the IM or write it on a piece of paper. I frequently will e-mail my boss whose office is next door to mine) with documents or links, or a question to something that (a) isn't in need of immediate response AND (2) he is on the phone. I would IM him but we don't have an IRC server on our side of the firewall and can't IM through said firewall.
BUT...if it is to have a regular conversation, then just get out of the chair and walk over to the other room and SPEAK.
IM has its applications, don't get me wrong. It usually is cheaper than LD charges since you are online anyway (esp. with broadband connections) and it does allow for conversations to be held in not-so-realtime, a la voicemail, if the recipient is away from the keys. Plus, there is a record of what was said for reference later on (handy for use while at work.)
But if it is to call somebody to dinner, take out the garbage, or see if homework was done...no.
Anybody find the papers online anywhere? I fumbled around the UK website but couldn't find anything.
One could make a rule to add an extra day every four years, but after 100 years or so, they would be foward one day too many. Skip the 100th year, and after 400 years, they'd be 1 day behind. The rule as it stands is every fourth year, except years ending in '00, plus every 400th year. Easy enough, but still not quite right.
Not quite sure how you see it as "easy enough." I just checked, and 2000 was in fact a leap year, even though it ends in '00.' Was 2000 one of the '400' years? Where is the starting point, year 0000? Or is it more correct to include years divisible by 400 rather than saying every 400th year?
Iraq needs political and economic stability more than anything else.
Correct...and promoting the use of open source software is one way of bringing economic stabilty to a portion of the people.
You take some of the reconstruction money to hire local software firms and train local programmers to write/maintain the software that the new government will eventually need to handle information. You hire local technicians to maintain and operate the associated network hardware. You are hiring Iraqi talent, which means they can start to provide for themselves by earning an income using their newly-learned skills.
Or, you can lock the information infrastructure into proprietary software, making the local infrastructure dependent on a foreign source of support--and how do you think that foreign dependence on technology is going to sit with the people? OK, you can set up a MS support center, but it's not an Iraqi company, it's an American company, hiring people to simply read from pre-printed tech support scripts (I just got one from HP regarding a network printer issue--"delete the printer and reboot the computer"). How does this build the local economy and increase the talent pool?
This seems to be more corporate-demonizing hogwash that gets modded up here at /. Honestly, even if MS did make unusually large contributions to the Bush campaign, I fail (in my shallow understanding of politics) to see how that translates to an unstable government in Iraq. Please enlighten me.
Directly, you are correct--it does not translate to an unstable government. Indirectly, it could give Microsoft an edge on the building of the technology/information infrastructure. It would be yet another big American corporation sinking its meathooks into the money pot that is being used to rebuild Iraq, leaving the Iraqi brain pool out of the picture.
Consider this example. American firms estimated that it would take many months and millions of dollars to rebuild Iraqi cement factories, which are crucial to the rebuilding effort. Intrepid Iraqis did it in a few months for less than $100k. How? They didn't set lofty goals for state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. They cannibalized parts from remaining production lines to get at at least one production facility operating. This facility can, in turn, generate revenue through the sale of cement for use in the reconstruction (as opposed to expensive imports) and put that revenue into the factory and workers' salaries.
Likewise, why should we as taxpayers spend millions of dollars to import the labor and material into Iraq when there exists local talent to do the same job? If they're not as skilled, fine. TRAIN them to do the job, don't do it for them. Teach a man to fish and all that...
In short--use local resources (material and talent) to do the work as much as possible, and bring in outside talent and material only if needed. Iraq is NOT a feeding frenzy for big corporations looking to get a big government check (even if it looks like it is turning into that); the money should be a resource to help the Iraqi people rebuild their own country.
As a taxpayer, I'd much prefer to see my tax dollars spent to help the IRAQIS rebuild Iraq, not Halliburton, Microsoft, etc. as nauseum.
when you have an accident with liquid nitrogen you lose a finger. when you have an accident with liquid helium, you lose parts of the neighborhood.
You're thinking of liquid hydrogen, not helium. Liquid helium is damn cold, yes, but it won't explode.
I can't say I'm surprised at its failure.
Humans may be by and large social creatures, but we are also territorial. We need space to call our own, for all the reasons cited in the Chiat/Day failure--space to store paper files, meet with clients, place to think in quiet.
If I want to confer with my co-workers, I can generally find them, because they have an office. When I'm done conferring and want to think and/or work uninterrupted, I go back to my office. It's a sign to those you work with--I am here to work and am available for consulting, but I'm not open to constant, distracting chatter.
Working in the common area of the engineering building while in college was great for group work and socializing between classes (gotta take a break once in a while), but if you wanted to work uninterrupted, better break out the headphones. I doubt Chiat would have approved of headphones, being a "personal" item.
This sounds exceptionally familiar to the voting process I have used in the past, except that I filled in the ballot using a black marker for reading by an optical scanner. You replaced the magic marker with the electronic marker.
1) Go to table - prove you are registered to vote, receive ballot.
Is this a completely blank ballot or is it pre-printed with the different political races and candidates?
2) Place ballot on input of voting machine.
How do you ensure against a misfeed? If the ballot is pre-printed, a misaligned ballot could put marks in the wrong places.
I like the idea of the machine marking the ballot; a standard means of printing and marking the ballots would help the electronic counting process.
In fact, this brings about an interestig means of cross-checking the results. The ballot is printed with the votes with multiple machine-readable forms: marks in particular locations to indicate choices in a human-readable format, like the Scan-Tron sheets of old where you fill in the bubbles with a #2 pencil, plus a machine-readable barcode.
When the ballot is counted, BOTH types of marks are read. When the ballot is read, both types or marking must match. If there is a discrepancy, then the ballot is not electronically counted and counted by hand.
Precinct audits can be done randomly or when there is a certain percentage of discrepant ballots.
It says something when with all the technology available to us in out so-called "high tech" society, we can't accurately count pieces of paper without lawsuits and litigation taking center stage.
FreeBSD includes the following that Windows doesen't:
I contend that almost none of those are part of the OS. They are nearly all applications.
C++ compiler.
Office Suite.
IDE for Java, C++ etc.
SQL Database.
40 (non-card) Games.
Flowchart software.
Vector drawing software
Layer/Bitmap drawing software.
Perl.
Astronomy Software.
All applications, not parts of an operating system. Just because Red Hat or SuSE or whomever bundles MrProject or the GIMP with their distro does not make them part of the OS.
OK, I'll bite...
How will this prevent CD copying? Where's the real extra value in the "compressed" (which I read as lossy) DRM'd content? Oh, I get to go to an "exclusive" website with extra content. Whoopee. If I have the CD, I'm ripping tracks in an unprotected format regardless of whether there are already pre-ripped tracks available. Why would I want to copy DRM'd material to my machine?
Seems to me that by having a multisession CD, that means there will be less unprotected music since it takes up a majority of space. Unless, of course, there is plenty of unused space on today's recordings. I wouldn't know, I haven't bought a "major label" CD in years. Last CD I bought was from a local performer, bought right from the guy after he played a club one night (got it autographed too...another perk in supporting local talent.)
I don't know maybe I'm one of the unwashed, but this makes no sense to me. I agree with the other poster that said "just make a regular CD" and I'll add "and price it reasonably" and we will come.
We all hate advertisement, but as with public TV, it's the reason we can get it for free...
I'll assume theat you mean broadcast TV and not public TV. Broadcast TV is supported by ads; public TV (i.e. your local PBS station) is supported largely by pledges made by the public (hence the name), with underwriters of some shows.
One may argue that acknowledging the underwriters at the end of a program counts as "advertising" but at least the shows aren't interrupted halfway through and the acknowledgement is generally less than 10 seconds per underwriter (about a minute or so per hour by my guestimate) instead of the 15-20 minutes of advertising per hour of broadcast TV. (http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/ratingsAds.html)
ldap://keyserver.pgp.com is where it can be obtained via PGP's PGPKeys utility...I am one of those who doesn't have (nor has a need for) a personal webpage.
I s'pose I could put it in my journal too...done
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
o ao +Cve26RwYAmwa/
- ----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
I agree with you on that point...I have often considered doing the
same.
There is one small detail holding me back...except for the Microsoft
security bulletins I get via e-mail, nobody I send/receive e-mail
with knows PGP/GPG/etc. exists.
My e-mail signature line is this:
- --
PGP Freeware is a free, easy way to secure your e-mail.
http://www.pgp.com
So I am trying to get the word out--I even sign e-mail with it,
knowing that whomever gets it won't know what the hell PGP is. PGP
doesn't exectly help either; getting the freeware version of PGP
takes some looking on their website. (here's the link to it,
btw...http://pgp.com/products/freeware.html)
Time to change my sig line...
A second question that may come up is this: What if a spammer starts
signing e-mail? Then what?
Any sort of filter would not only have to look for a PGP signature,
but a GOOD signature; it is reasonable to assume that you nor I are
going to have the public keys for spammer on our keyrings, so the
answer is this: "Yes, as long as you are looking for a signature
that can be validated on your keyring."
My little bit of wisdom for the day.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
Comment: Protect your privacy, with the FREE version of PGP
iQA/AwUBP6UDPkUNhXFkSR7TEQKRnACfWmeCqK4ZH825wgW
w0T8Ss2Bbq24/9+wJquJD06y
=nj0q