I'd be surprised if any of the student data actually made it off the computer
Considering it may have been a scenario like above, there's a good chance no sensitive data wandered elsewhere. But did it, or not? That would be important to know. Simply because it... matters.
From the official response linked in the summary, I couldn't find anything on that. I assume they just can tell for sure either way. For that reason, they informed the victims on how to spot/prevent identity theft. Sounds good, but maybe they should also invite some feedback from same victims, to determine if any misuse of compromised data actually occurs?
As for the compromised machine, that's easy. Compromised: take it offline, inspect the sorry remains for evidence on what/how it happened, and hookup a machine with software rebuilt from clean install discs/backups (as any admin should know, and from what I read, that was already done).
You might want to check a rant I wrote ages ago (available in English and Dutch). With current knowledge, some of it doesn't make sense anymore, some of it holds even more water as time passes.
Basically, you can view 'trusted computing' as (potentially) a strong enabler for systems integrity checking, user authentication, and yes, DRM. This may be have both good, and evil uses.
It all comes down to whether it's optional, and who (ultimately) has the keys.
Right now, it's optional. There's still plenty hardware out there that doesn't support it, support may be disabled in BIOS, and if I understand TC specs as they are, implementation details ARE in the open, and users HAVE final control over keys. For instance, Free/OSS could provide support, and use it in positive ways (like verifying server hardware/software).
But I can't help feeling that 'treacherous computing' is just some marketing plot, intended to shove 'bad things' onto a public that doesn't see it coming. Or doesn't care, at first.
We all know DRM doesn't work. You hand users some content, users have full control over their own equipment, and to decode the content, they HAVE to get the key(s), somehow. Keeping things locked up after that, just won't work. Maybe for niche applications or in controlled environments, but not for mass-market things like music, movies and such. The BBC article points that out nicely.
Integrity checking of software/hardware, authentication of users? Nice, but you only need proper handling of the keys for that, and reliable working hardware/software. Read: stable running hardware, verified software. This whole TC thing just complicates both, and users remain the weakest link anyway.
Maybe TC is really meant for public-friendly, positive uses, but a paranoid attitude is really needed here.
I can see the future going 2 ways: TC will become commonplace, then hardware NOT supporting it will become obsolete, then the 'open, user controlled' will slowly be switched to 'closed, 3rd party controlled', and the masses will find their equipment isn't really theirs anymore.
Or the masses will consider TC 'having a bad smell' (I know I will), and it will die in the marketplace. Vote with your dollars! No matter how evil, they can't shove it upon you if the masses don't take out their wallet. But then again, knowing how few people think clearly for themselves, and how many act more like 'sheeple', I'm not too sure which direction things will go. Maybe a market split, like you have between Windows and Free/OSS-based software these days.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you...
Especially since I maintained the blacklist of sites..
Ehmm... don't you mean "since I maintained the blacklisted sites.." ?
MP3 server, movie/pr0n archive, warez collection, all as a community service ofcourse, so that the students can get what(ever) they need to get their work done?
Disclaimer: not that I would disapprove or anything. Maintained a nat/router box myself for about a year and a half. My policy: share access to "whatever is on the other end" as equal and reliable as possible. So I kicked a P2P user once or twice, but only when the generated traffic took an unfair bite out of other people's bandwidth. That's called "fair use policy" these days. Other than that, I couldn't care less (and didn't want to either) what folks did with their connection. See no evil, hear no evil.
Since http isn't a valid toplevel domain name, mozilla style browsers do a google search on http. Then it jumps to the first result (..)
Yes, I've noticed this, and it's VERY annoying. If an URL isn't valid or doesn't exist, a browser should just say so, nothing more. Doing a Google search on (something not found) may be useful, but let the user decide that, alright?
For Mozilla/Firefox developers, some suggestions: a) don't do this, or b) do the Google search, but leave it to users to select and click on search results, or c) make all this optional, disabled by default.
And if you think that the weakest links in the IT department are the computers being used, then you're part of the problem. Hint: the problem lies in the parts you can't upgrade.
Mmm yes, you mean: the people? The pointy haired bosses, and such?
So this guy Tim Bray is one of the people we have to thank for replacing compact, binary config files with 'human-readible', resource-intensive XML, that needs specialized libraries to make sense of it?
Thanks Tim, the world owes you one!
But okay you're right, you gotta use those CPU cycles for something...
--Don't give the world what it asks for, but what it needs.
Working in a call centre currently. No-name, don't want to risk getting fired;-)
The shop uses a single user, single task, DOS-based app. On some machines in a fullscreen DOS-box under Win95, on some machines even pure DOS. PentiumPro/Celeron era hardware.
Ancient? Sure. Stupid? Nope. If I would run this shop, I'd use network-booted thin clients, power-saving LCD screens, and some small opensource system like NetBSD, with maybe some custom code on top of it.
But this DOS-based setup isn't all bad: Windows may provide multi-tasking and GUI, but what's the use? If you run a single-user, single-task app all the time, DOS is good enough, and relatively stable. License-wise, DOS is virtually free, Win95 licenses should come almost free these days. With very limited selections to make, DOS-based menu's navigate as quickly or faster than any GUI. The system requirements to run this, make the hardware almost free as well. Sure it's old, but it works, and replacement hardware costs nothing.
Win95 not updated anymore? So what? The hardware doesn't change all by itself, right? Insecure? Maybe, but that only applies if you connect it to networks outside your own control. I doubt these machines have internet connection (not sure though). Maybe you could wreck operations here with a floppy disk smuggled in, but likely you'd get spotted, fired, and made to pay damages. If you work here, why would you risk that?
Drop something newer like Win2k or XP in there: massive upgrade of hardware required, license and maintenance costs skyrocketing with these bloated systems, and maybe a full rewrite of the known, working, and trusted app needed. Please point it out if you see any advantage in there.
Yes, newer systems may provide nice functionality, but if you don't need it, upgrading just for the sake of upgrading, is stupid. Upgrade if it lets you do something you couldn't do before, or if it fixes a (potential?) problem you have. If not, leave it.
"First one down a flight of 100 steps *intact* wins."
So what do the rules of this competition say about winning? Would that be "to move down the steps fastest", or would they allow "to fall down in the shortest possible time, and built strong enough to survive the impact?"
The most difficult road is the most interesting one.
Re: Golly, I WONDER where they got that idea!
on
Pentium M Goes SFF
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Agreed. This regular Mac-worshipping seen on/. can be annoying, or just too much. But a Pentium-M based SFF would find the Mac Mini among its direct competitors, so in this case it's very much on-topic.
Oh, and that's apart from the fact that parent poster is probably right. DOS compatibility isn't a selling point anymore, the huge, bulky white boxes are out, and the maintenance troubles of spyware-plaged W**s systems make many people look for alternatives. From what I know most people do with their PC's, the Mac Mini would make an excellent choice these days.
The most difficult road is the most interesting one.
My question is then if he has bad hearing. Because any harddisk and the PSU fan will be hearable!
Only if you have a loud PSU or harddisk. In my own system, there's 3 noise sources, in order: CPU cooler, PSU fan and harddisk. The latter is a single-platter, single head, liquid bearings, recent Seagate model. These are very quiet. And mounted on rubber vibration-dampers, almost inaudible. PSU fan speed is varied depending on load, and mostly very quiet too. Its noise only goes up during long compile jobs or 3D gaming. In the latter case, it doesn't matter anyway, since the noise of exploding rockets is more interesting.;-))
So yes, pick your components carefully, and you can make a PC practically silent.
Anyway, I would welcome it if some manufacturers would put their heads together, and standardise some things on SFF PC's, like mainboard size, CPU location etc. Many SFF systems have a lot of characteristics in common these days (I'm talking physical appearance/layout here), some standardisation here would enable the same style of upgrading/replacing components, that made ordinary white boxes into mass-market items. Not being able to swap just the mainboard for example, is one of the reasons I didn't get a SFF box myself yet.
I do wonder what the most common applications for Linux/IrDA are, considering the trend I've observed where among the most commonly requested Linux HOWTOs recently have been 'laptop', 'infrared' and 'webcam'. Is everyone building infrared webcams?
Maybe you're confused here, and should check out some of those HOWTO's yourself (and read the article for once), to see what it is all about?
To use a webcam for looking in the infrared spectrum, is not the same as using infrared light for shortrange communications (IrDA, TV remote etc).
Oi, this is getting bad. I mean, do the submitter read the articles they submit?
For starters: I suppose so, but many submissions may contain the same stupid mistakes that/. editors/posters are often caught with. Like the editors, submitters are people (who make mistakes) as well.
/. Editors just pick the stories THEY find interesting out of the grab bag, edit the summary to their likings or maybe add a personal note, and leave accuracy checking to the folks that read and post comments.
From the summary: "No word yet on an appeal". Maybe that last line was added by the poster (CowboyNeal), and not by the submitter (linuxwrangler)?
Bottom line: we're all human, we all make mistakes. News at 11.
> You decide which is more valuable: A company keeping their PR image spotless, or getting serious software bugs fixed.
>> How about, not going to jail for disclosing a bug! It's very valuable to me!
Oh well, you'll just have to go back to distributing exploits in binary form then. Leave it to manufacturers to reverse-engineer your exploit, to find out where the leak in their product is.
Looks like yet another high priced gadget to replace something that doesn't need replacing.
Had to read into the review to grasp how it actually works. The idea: for up & down, you roll a bar, and for left & right, you slide same bar left & right?
I can tell you right there why that won't work: for vertical and horizontal directions, you use different methods to move.
Maybe for some DTP applications or WWW browsing that some people find this handy, but imagine doing freehand drawing or better, 3D games with this. Can you imagine sliding AND rolling a bar at the same time, and make accurate headshots? No way.
And then it's a mechanical device. Okay, maybe it doesn't get dirty as quickly/easily, or uses optical sensors, but weren't optical mice invented to do away with moving parts? I sure know I'd never wanna go back to a ball mouse.
Now with these tiny embedded sensor networks embracing TCP/IP support, you can hack up worms that don't only infect those numerous Windows boxes, or your cellphone, fridge, toaster or coffee-maker, but also your toilet, smoke detector or temperature sensors embedded in the walls of your home?
Damn! Isn't there anything in this world safe from TCP/IP packets? Back in the old days, people would respect them, and only allow full-featured computers & OS'es to exchange them. What's becoming of this world, I ask you?
Re: Problems with models
on
Sim Epidemic
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You would have to have a different model for each scenario which is very difficult/costly. Until we can predict everything going into a situation these models aren't very useful.
I'd argue against the 'not very useful'. These models may not provide accurate predictions for real outbreaks, but may improve the insights into the variables involved, and how things interact.
In the case of a real outbreak, authorities may take measures like release public warnings, quarantine certain areas/building, ask people to avoid certain activities for a while, etc.
Will that slow down the outbreak? Will it confine casualties to a certain area? Can a measure help to lower mortality rates?
With a real outbreak, that sort of data is crucial. If you know how to slow down the spread of a disease, you buy time for healthcare workers. Time to track down infected people, time to treat people before incubation period expires, etc. Keeping the number of casualties down, may avoid a mass panic. So having some knowledge about the variables involved can make a big difference, and save countless lives.
So these models may be pretty helpless for predicting exact numbers, but still useful anyway.
They already have their own OS that is specialized to be super reliable for their cluster (read the other Google news item from today). They even refer to it as 'Google OS'. It's really just a specialized Red Hat based kernel (according to the news)
You can be sure that the parent is not talking about any OS('s?) used by Google internally, but about something like "YOUR OS, running on Google's servers". A real possibility in the near future, if you ask me. Many people don't think too bad about that, but let's run down the list:
Needs to be pervasive, on everybody's computer - Google sure is, and even dedicated Google search boxes being added to browsers like Mozilla/Firefox. For new internet users, to start using Google has a VERY low barrier of entry
First/biggest/best in its field (searching): check
Has some other interesting add-ons that MANY people will want/need. See Google mail, and more - check
Ofcourse you need the network connectivity. Cheap, reliable, high-bandwidth internet connections are everywhere these days, and using online apps like webmail rather than locally installed software would have advantages for many people: if Google maintains something that you use every day, you don't have too (less work in cleaning out spyware-infested systems, and so on). So: check
Now to become 'evil', you need some more things:
Very big market share, so that it becomes the 'default choice' in many cases - check
Outperforms/put out of business its competition. So that users don't have a good, real, or viable alternative. Hmmm... search engines that approach Google in speed/usefulness, anyone? Right now, only for searches in specialized areas, I'd say. So: - check
Ofcourse you need shareholders, so that making money becomes more important than doing the right thing, or what's fun. - check, just done
Abuse: misuse of power/market domination to get what it wants.
Well, that last thing looks like about the only thing missing. Not to say that Google is evil, or will be soon, but power does tend to corrupt people. So it could be damn easy for Google to become the next MSFT. If they don't want to, they'd better go about things carefully. For me, that would mean putting their user's wishes above shareholder interests. We'll see...
OSS for voting machines would only give you the ILLUSION of an honest election. Let me explain:
Where I live, voters would receive an invitation by mail, letting them know when an election is held, together with a list of candidates to study in advance. Voters would go to the voting location, present that invitation (and possibly ID themselves), then receive a paper ballot, with all candidates/parties printed on it. Mark a circle next to the desired candidate with a red pencil, drop the ballot in a box, and you're done. How much easier can you make it? But here's the important thing: ANYONE (maybe even non-voters) CAN VERIFY EVERY SINGLE STEP IN THE PROCESS.
Before the election, there's plenty time to correct mistakes like voters not registered (that should have been), arrange to vote at another location, etc. At election day, anyone can verify that the box receiving the ballots, is empty at the start. You can hang around and see for yourself, that every voter drops only 1 ballot in the box, and that voters aren't excluded, harassed, or pressured into voting something other than their own choice. At the end of the day, you can watch the box being emptied, ballots (hand-)counted, re-counted if needed, and see that correct totals are recorded, and reported to city hall. And I'm pretty sure you could verify the totals being calculated at city hall, and verify that national results match the totals recorded for each city/village. In short: convince yourself, that there is not a SINGLE step in the process, where results could be compromised/f**ked up.
AFAIK, using paper ballots and hand-counting, is still:
The most reliable: paper & ink don't fail, and when folks are watching, you need magic to make paper ballots change/appear/disappear.
The most accurate: you just may need to re-count a couple of times to be sure.
Cheap: election officials/count people are either volunteers or civil servants that were paid anyway. Paper & pencils cost nothing.
Fast. If organised properly, millions of votes can be counted in hours.
Using OSS for voting machines doesn't assure you anything. Can you verify the compiler used to turn the source code into binary? Can you verify it is fed the same source code that is published? Can you verify that the machine it runs in, is built according to (published) schematics? Can you verify that IC's used, are what their markings say? Can you verify yourself, that eg. a Flash ROM contains the verified binary? Can you be sure of all that BEFORE elections begin, and be sure that machines will operate 100% reliable until elections are done? And that totals are added accurately, when results are transmitted over wires, and processed in an all-electronic manner? I don't think so, too many variables. For reliable results, ALL these things would have to work flawless, and verifiable.
I never understood why voting machines were allowed to undermine this voter-verification, and IMHO machines do nothing to improve the process, or the results.
If it were up to me, voting machines would never be used, or retired right now as a failed experiment. In fact, a Robert X. Cringely makes a strong case for just that: "Follow the Money:
Why the Best Voting Technology May Be No Technology at All".
Sadly, where I live, voting machines were introduced as well...;-((
Slashdot Mirror
You are mistaken, since person(s?) unknown seem to have robbed your identity from you, pal.
Sorry dude, shit happens. You think it won't happen to you, but before you know it, you're an Anonymous Cow.
Considering it may have been a scenario like above, there's a good chance no sensitive data wandered elsewhere. But did it, or not? That would be important to know. Simply because it... matters.
From the official response linked in the summary, I couldn't find anything on that. I assume they just can tell for sure either way. For that reason, they informed the victims on how to spot/prevent identity theft. Sounds good, but maybe they should also invite some feedback from same victims, to determine if any misuse of compromised data actually occurs?
As for the compromised machine, that's easy. Compromised: take it offline, inspect the sorry remains for evidence on what/how it happened, and hookup a machine with software rebuilt from clean install discs/backups (as any admin should know, and from what I read, that was already done).
Basically, you can view 'trusted computing' as (potentially) a strong enabler for systems integrity checking, user authentication, and yes, DRM. This may be have both good, and evil uses.
It all comes down to whether it's optional, and who (ultimately) has the keys.
Right now, it's optional. There's still plenty hardware out there that doesn't support it, support may be disabled in BIOS, and if I understand TC specs as they are, implementation details ARE in the open, and users HAVE final control over keys. For instance, Free/OSS could provide support, and use it in positive ways (like verifying server hardware/software).
But I can't help feeling that 'treacherous computing' is just some marketing plot, intended to shove 'bad things' onto a public that doesn't see it coming. Or doesn't care, at first.
We all know DRM doesn't work. You hand users some content, users have full control over their own equipment, and to decode the content, they HAVE to get the key(s), somehow. Keeping things locked up after that, just won't work. Maybe for niche applications or in controlled environments, but not for mass-market things like music, movies and such. The BBC article points that out nicely.
Integrity checking of software/hardware, authentication of users? Nice, but you only need proper handling of the keys for that, and reliable working hardware/software. Read: stable running hardware, verified software. This whole TC thing just complicates both, and users remain the weakest link anyway.
Maybe TC is really meant for public-friendly, positive uses, but a paranoid attitude is really needed here.
I can see the future going 2 ways: TC will become commonplace, then hardware NOT supporting it will become obsolete, then the 'open, user controlled' will slowly be switched to 'closed, 3rd party controlled', and the masses will find their equipment isn't really theirs anymore.
Or the masses will consider TC 'having a bad smell' (I know I will), and it will die in the marketplace. Vote with your dollars! No matter how evil, they can't shove it upon you if the masses don't take out their wallet. But then again, knowing how few people think clearly for themselves, and how many act more like 'sheeple', I'm not too sure which direction things will go. Maybe a market split, like you have between Windows and Free/OSS-based software these days.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you...
Ehmm... don't you mean "since I maintained the blacklisted sites.." ?
MP3 server, movie/pr0n archive, warez collection, all as a community service ofcourse, so that the students can get what(ever) they need to get their work done?
Disclaimer: not that I would disapprove or anything. Maintained a nat/router box myself for about a year and a half. My policy: share access to "whatever is on the other end" as equal and reliable as possible. So I kicked a P2P user once or twice, but only when the generated traffic took an unfair bite out of other people's bandwidth. That's called "fair use policy" these days. Other than that, I couldn't care less (and didn't want to either) what folks did with their connection. See no evil, hear no evil.
Yes, I've noticed this, and it's VERY annoying. If an URL isn't valid or doesn't exist, a browser should just say so, nothing more. Doing a Google search on (something not found) may be useful, but let the user decide that, alright?
For Mozilla/Firefox developers, some suggestions: a) don't do this, or b) do the Google search, but leave it to users to select and click on search results, or c) make all this optional, disabled by default.
---Zen: "Trust your browser!" -my ass
Mmm yes, you mean: the people? The pointy haired bosses, and such?
Thanks Tim, the world owes you one!
But okay you're right, you gotta use those CPU cycles for something...
--Don't give the world what it asks for, but what it needs.
The shop uses a single user, single task, DOS-based app. On some machines in a fullscreen DOS-box under Win95, on some machines even pure DOS. PentiumPro/Celeron era hardware.
Ancient? Sure. Stupid? Nope. If I would run this shop, I'd use network-booted thin clients, power-saving LCD screens, and some small opensource system like NetBSD, with maybe some custom code on top of it.
But this DOS-based setup isn't all bad: Windows may provide multi-tasking and GUI, but what's the use? If you run a single-user, single-task app all the time, DOS is good enough, and relatively stable. License-wise, DOS is virtually free, Win95 licenses should come almost free these days. With very limited selections to make, DOS-based menu's navigate as quickly or faster than any GUI. The system requirements to run this, make the hardware almost free as well. Sure it's old, but it works, and replacement hardware costs nothing.
Win95 not updated anymore? So what? The hardware doesn't change all by itself, right? Insecure? Maybe, but that only applies if you connect it to networks outside your own control. I doubt these machines have internet connection (not sure though). Maybe you could wreck operations here with a floppy disk smuggled in, but likely you'd get spotted, fired, and made to pay damages. If you work here, why would you risk that?
Drop something newer like Win2k or XP in there: massive upgrade of hardware required, license and maintenance costs skyrocketing with these bloated systems, and maybe a full rewrite of the known, working, and trusted app needed. Please point it out if you see any advantage in there.
Yes, newer systems may provide nice functionality, but if you don't need it, upgrading just for the sake of upgrading, is stupid. Upgrade if it lets you do something you couldn't do before, or if it fixes a (potential?) problem you have. If not, leave it.
So what do the rules of this competition say about winning? Would that be "to move down the steps fastest", or would they allow "to fall down in the shortest possible time, and built strong enough to survive the impact?"
The most difficult road is the most interesting one.
Oh, and that's apart from the fact that parent poster is probably right. DOS compatibility isn't a selling point anymore, the huge, bulky white boxes are out, and the maintenance troubles of spyware-plaged W**s systems make many people look for alternatives. From what I know most people do with their PC's, the Mac Mini would make an excellent choice these days.
The most difficult road is the most interesting one.
Only if you have a loud PSU or harddisk. In my own system, there's 3 noise sources, in order: CPU cooler, PSU fan and harddisk. The latter is a single-platter, single head, liquid bearings, recent Seagate model. These are very quiet. And mounted on rubber vibration-dampers, almost inaudible. PSU fan speed is varied depending on load, and mostly very quiet too. Its noise only goes up during long compile jobs or 3D gaming. In the latter case, it doesn't matter anyway, since the noise of exploding rockets is more interesting. ;-))
So yes, pick your components carefully, and you can make a PC practically silent.
Anyway, I would welcome it if some manufacturers would put their heads together, and standardise some things on SFF PC's, like mainboard size, CPU location etc. Many SFF systems have a lot of characteristics in common these days (I'm talking physical appearance/layout here), some standardisation here would enable the same style of upgrading/replacing components, that made ordinary white boxes into mass-market items. Not being able to swap just the mainboard for example, is one of the reasons I didn't get a SFF box myself yet.
Survivors will be shot again
Missing the last line: "Unless you've got really big boobs."
Maybe you're confused here, and should check out some of those HOWTO's yourself (and read the article for once), to see what it is all about?
To use a webcam for looking in the infrared spectrum, is not the same as using infrared light for shortrange communications (IrDA, TV remote etc).
For starters: I suppose so, but many submissions may contain the same stupid mistakes that /. editors/posters are often caught with. Like the editors, submitters are people (who make mistakes) as well.
From the summary: "No word yet on an appeal". Maybe that last line was added by the poster (CowboyNeal), and not by the submitter (linuxwrangler)?
Bottom line: we're all human, we all make mistakes. News at 11.
>> How about, not going to jail for disclosing a bug! It's very valuable to me!
Oh well, you'll just have to go back to distributing exploits in binary form then. Leave it to manufacturers to reverse-engineer your exploit, to find out where the leak in their product is.
Had to read into the review to grasp how it actually works. The idea: for up & down, you roll a bar, and for left & right, you slide same bar left & right?
I can tell you right there why that won't work: for vertical and horizontal directions, you use different methods to move.
Maybe for some DTP applications or WWW browsing that some people find this handy, but imagine doing freehand drawing or better, 3D games with this. Can you imagine sliding AND rolling a bar at the same time, and make accurate headshots? No way.
And then it's a mechanical device. Okay, maybe it doesn't get dirty as quickly/easily, or uses optical sensors, but weren't optical mice invented to do away with moving parts? I sure know I'd never wanna go back to a ball mouse.
Oh yeah, and it's expensive. Very. 'nuff said.
Ofcourse not, silly. Everybody can still be run over by a garbage truck, any day of the week.
Or our data?
Ofcourse not, silly. People just aren't careful with their data. Super-duper crypto methods don't do squat about that.
Or theirs?
Our data = their data. See "Echelon" & co.
Or something? Does it means anything at all?
Sure: that social engineering remains an effective method for getting access to other people's porn collection.
Do we really exist? What will I eat for supper?
That's a hard one. Maybe your local supermarket can tell you what's on sale today.
Think of it this way: all those suckers Slashdotting MSFT, each pulling 23+ MB. off their servers. What the hell are you complaining about?
Damn! Isn't there anything in this world safe from TCP/IP packets? Back in the old days, people would respect them, and only allow full-featured computers & OS'es to exchange them. What's becoming of this world, I ask you?
I'd argue against the 'not very useful'. These models may not provide accurate predictions for real outbreaks, but may improve the insights into the variables involved, and how things interact.
In the case of a real outbreak, authorities may take measures like release public warnings, quarantine certain areas/building, ask people to avoid certain activities for a while, etc.
Will that slow down the outbreak? Will it confine casualties to a certain area? Can a measure help to lower mortality rates?
With a real outbreak, that sort of data is crucial. If you know how to slow down the spread of a disease, you buy time for healthcare workers. Time to track down infected people, time to treat people before incubation period expires, etc. Keeping the number of casualties down, may avoid a mass panic. So having some knowledge about the variables involved can make a big difference, and save countless lives.
So these models may be pretty helpless for predicting exact numbers, but still useful anyway.
You can be sure that the parent is not talking about any OS('s?) used by Google internally, but about something like "YOUR OS, running on Google's servers". A real possibility in the near future, if you ask me. Many people don't think too bad about that, but let's run down the list:
Now to become 'evil', you need some more things:
Well, that last thing looks like about the only thing missing. Not to say that Google is evil, or will be soon, but power does tend to corrupt people. So it could be damn easy for Google to become the next MSFT. If they don't want to, they'd better go about things carefully. For me, that would mean putting their user's wishes above shareholder interests. We'll see...
Ahhh I see, so that's where that foul smell was coming from this morning! I just thought it was my armpits, but appearantly it wasn't that after all..
Just write, and forget about it... If you ever need to go back, write it again...
--
WARNING: The above comment has not been through a background check, and may be harmful to minors or geeks.
Where I live, voters would receive an invitation by mail, letting them know when an election is held, together with a list of candidates to study in advance. Voters would go to the voting location, present that invitation (and possibly ID themselves), then receive a paper ballot, with all candidates/parties printed on it. Mark a circle next to the desired candidate with a red pencil, drop the ballot in a box, and you're done. How much easier can you make it? But here's the important thing: ANYONE (maybe even non-voters) CAN VERIFY EVERY SINGLE STEP IN THE PROCESS.
Before the election, there's plenty time to correct mistakes like voters not registered (that should have been), arrange to vote at another location, etc. At election day, anyone can verify that the box receiving the ballots, is empty at the start. You can hang around and see for yourself, that every voter drops only 1 ballot in the box, and that voters aren't excluded, harassed, or pressured into voting something other than their own choice. At the end of the day, you can watch the box being emptied, ballots (hand-)counted, re-counted if needed, and see that correct totals are recorded, and reported to city hall. And I'm pretty sure you could verify the totals being calculated at city hall, and verify that national results match the totals recorded for each city/village. In short: convince yourself, that there is not a SINGLE step in the process, where results could be compromised/f**ked up.
AFAIK, using paper ballots and hand-counting, is still:
Using OSS for voting machines doesn't assure you anything. Can you verify the compiler used to turn the source code into binary? Can you verify it is fed the same source code that is published? Can you verify that the machine it runs in, is built according to (published) schematics? Can you verify that IC's used, are what their markings say? Can you verify yourself, that eg. a Flash ROM contains the verified binary? Can you be sure of all that BEFORE elections begin, and be sure that machines will operate 100% reliable until elections are done? And that totals are added accurately, when results are transmitted over wires, and processed in an all-electronic manner? I don't think so, too many variables. For reliable results, ALL these things would have to work flawless, and verifiable.
I never understood why voting machines were allowed to undermine this voter-verification, and IMHO machines do nothing to improve the process, or the results.
If it were up to me, voting machines would never be used, or retired right now as a failed experiment. In fact, a Robert X. Cringely makes a strong case for just that: "Follow the Money: Why the Best Voting Technology May Be No Technology at All".
Sadly, where I live, voting machines were introduced as well... ;-((