The first person on Mars will be either a SpaceX employee or working for the Chinese state.
So? Look, I get the whole "big missions bring big scientific rewards" thing, but I'm not in any particular rush to get a human to Mars. Or even the Moon, for that matter. I'd much rather work on drones and propulsion. Think: An AI assisted drone exploring the Mars surface, and it only took a month to get there because of some fancy new tech.
We hobble ourselves by trying to accommodate fragile cargo.
They've got law makers, bought and paid for, waiting in the wings with copies of a "NN" law drafted by att that will look ok at first blush, only to reveal horrors unimaginable on further analysis.
If you want a real world example of this, go serve on your child's "parent educator" committee. Every school has one, although it's often under different names or could even be handled by the local PTA equivalent. It's where parents "help" the school decide how to spend a portion of district funds on campus.
This help usually entails rubber stamping what the administration has already decided. So why do it then? Because that way if any other parent complains about the use of the funds, the administration can point to the parent volunteers and say, "Well parents decided this was the best course of action".
Using this model, Apple should have formed a "steering" committee made up of developers and users of their products to handle decisions like this. Hell, keep the decisions under wraps for all I care, but it would have given them a way to muddy up the waters on any blowback from users.
That's if the real purpose of such a feature were not simply to force an upgrade cycle, which you'd have to be far more optimistic than I to believe.
It's like no one gives any thought to user interface designs. As long as the functionality is there, who cares if it's hidden behind layers of idiocy?
MS is particularly bad at this; anytime they actually stumble on decent design, they spend the next several versions killing it with prejudice. However, they are only the most visible, not the worst by far.
Is it because we put art majors in charge of UI design? Is that it?
The idea is not to eliminate all issues related to voting as it currently stands, but rather to approximate what we currently have while adding in a convenience factor ( faster tallying of votes ).
If we can easily knock out a problem with voting as it currently stands while doing so, great, but that's not entirely my intent here.
The only thing that makes computer based ballots exceedingly difficult to implement is politics, not the technology. It's actually quite simple.
A user is assigned a random physical token on registration at the voting place, which "START TRANSACTION"s the process. They take this to the machine, which "unlocks" the voting capability. They make their selections, which the computer stores AND prints out a human AND computer readable receipt ( so no bar codes ), which the user then takes back up to the registration desk for secure storage in case of a recount. They also turn the token back in at this time too, and the agent runs it over the "out" scanner, which effectively issues a "COMMIT" to the vote.
What's the token for? A few different purposes.
1) If the paper ballot is lost before being returned to desk, the user's vote can be eliminated ( ROLLBACK ) and they can vote again. Paper ballots are important. 2) Ensure that only those who should be voting are voting, as verified by the registration desk. Voting machines are not randomly open to anyone who walks up to it. In fact, you can take this a step further and make the secured tokens the only way to unlock the database on disk, cryptographically.
See? Easy. The real question should by; why haven't we done this yet?
The reviews themselves are worthless. It's the rating tie in with google maps which makes them better than Yelp. It's at a glance information and extremely persuasive.
No one is more aware than I of their motives, believe me. I'm in the business of efficient monetizing myself, so their behavior isn't really surprising. And yes; I'm also aware of the potential for abuse. Intimately, given I have the same notions of how to further capitalize behaviors I'm already doing.
Given the power they wield, they absolutely should be mistrusted and held to a far higher standard. I'm on board with that. All I'm saying is that, at my age, when someone is trying to make your life easier ( for whatever reason ), you take time to appreciate it. Because those kinds of folks/companies are few and far between.
You are assuming the GOP want it to fail. I'm sure some of them do, their opinions are bought and paid for after all. However, the problem with the old NN ruling was...well..what we saw. Administration changed, and suddenly things like DACA and NN are out the window. Why? Because they weren't rule of law. How do we make these things rule of law if procedurally there's no pressure to do so?
Do I think the GOP is crafty enough to force the issue in such a manner? No. Do I think they all are anti-NN? No again. Am I thankful the opportunity has come along to codify appropriate ISP behavior in something a bit more sturdy than a partisan council? Absolutely.
I don't hate either, actually. Google is everywhere and I appreciate their efforts to make my life easier, even if at the same time they're recording every time I hit the head ( 2.5 times on average, I looked it up ). And comcast is the only game in town for reliable and fast internet connectivity.
I wish that weren't the case, I really do, but the fact is both companies are doing everything they can to make my life easier. Given all the folks who are actively trying to do the opposite, I have to say I appreciate them.
I was being snarky. Originally I couldn't believe reports that people were stupid enough to fall for "fake news" ( did you see the shit Russia supposedly did? Who'd be fooled by that? ). Then I realized that, yes, people really are that stupid. Which was depressing. Then I further realized that these same idiots were voting.
That was enough to drive me to drink. It's the only rational reaction I feel.
Both the package mentioned in the article and SIP are software applications, and what you put forth is a hardware configuration. It's not unreasonable to assume folks wouldn't confuse them.
Had the same impression. Was coming in here to post, "Back in my day, every provider broke SIP in their own unique way. Did we whine about it? Well, yes, but then we worked around it.
Which brings up the question: why don't the 911 dispatchers do a call back to verify the number?
Because in certain situations that's a really bad idea, particularly hostage type of situations.
The solution is for phone companies to work together to ensure callerid being sent is authentic, or introduce a reputation score with a call for the dispatcher. They already do some insane shit in the background, so this isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I gotta say I'm a bit disappointed that no one has brought up the technological angle to this yet; that swatting is even possible is a huge problem.
It's past time that the flexibility being exploited in the telco lines be addressed. Given the technology involved and the number of companies that we're talking about, it's well within our abilities to prevent the masking of calls being sent to emergency #s. Even if we don't prevent that, we can give them a reliability score which might be all that's needed to eliminate swatting as a 'thing'.
Slow your identity politics roll there, bud. Just because you *think* some cis people harass you doesn't mean all cis people do that. In fact, it's been my experience that being a douchebag ( or twatwaffle, take your pick ) transcends gender or political identity.
Look, I'm on board with a good nazi bash just like everyone else...but...
This smells fishy. They openly admit they spammed people, and they don't provide context to the discussion. Twitter is known for having a somewhat left-bias, so if these folks were identified and banned, twice, I'm already suspicious.
The linked article stinks of sensationalism, and that's what tripped my bullshit sensors from the start.
These assholes may be telling the truth, and they may be entirely justified in their outrage, but the article and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
So we're sending complaints to the organization that effectively ignored millions of complaints in overturning net neutrality rules.
I don't mean to be the downer here, but what precisely are we hoping to accomplish that we haven't already accomplished? Wouldn't it make more sense to send your NN complaints directly to your senator and representatives?
Slashdot Mirror
The first person on Mars will be either a SpaceX employee or working for the Chinese state.
So? Look, I get the whole "big missions bring big scientific rewards" thing, but I'm not in any particular rush to get a human to Mars. Or even the Moon, for that matter. I'd much rather work on drones and propulsion. Think: An AI assisted drone exploring the Mars surface, and it only took a month to get there because of some fancy new tech.
We hobble ourselves by trying to accommodate fragile cargo.
They've got law makers, bought and paid for, waiting in the wings with copies of a "NN" law drafted by att that will look ok at first blush, only to reveal horrors unimaginable on further analysis.
God I love the smell of democracy.
So how does that view fit in with the fact that the tariffs will reduce to elimination over the next 4 years?
Sounds to me that it's an opportunity for american manufacturing to get their feet before competition resumes, and nothing else.
If you want a real world example of this, go serve on your child's "parent educator" committee. Every school has one, although it's often under different names or could even be handled by the local PTA equivalent. It's where parents "help" the school decide how to spend a portion of district funds on campus.
This help usually entails rubber stamping what the administration has already decided. So why do it then? Because that way if any other parent complains about the use of the funds, the administration can point to the parent volunteers and say, "Well parents decided this was the best course of action".
Using this model, Apple should have formed a "steering" committee made up of developers and users of their products to handle decisions like this. Hell, keep the decisions under wraps for all I care, but it would have given them a way to muddy up the waters on any blowback from users.
That's if the real purpose of such a feature were not simply to force an upgrade cycle, which you'd have to be far more optimistic than I to believe.
Would any of us really believe them if they said they didn't?
It's like no one gives any thought to user interface designs. As long as the functionality is there, who cares if it's hidden behind layers of idiocy?
MS is particularly bad at this; anytime they actually stumble on decent design, they spend the next several versions killing it with prejudice. However, they are only the most visible, not the worst by far.
Is it because we put art majors in charge of UI design? Is that it?
The idea is not to eliminate all issues related to voting as it currently stands, but rather to approximate what we currently have while adding in a convenience factor ( faster tallying of votes ).
If we can easily knock out a problem with voting as it currently stands while doing so, great, but that's not entirely my intent here.
The only thing that makes computer based ballots exceedingly difficult to implement is politics, not the technology. It's actually quite simple.
A user is assigned a random physical token on registration at the voting place, which "START TRANSACTION"s the process. They take this to the machine, which "unlocks" the voting capability. They make their selections, which the computer stores AND prints out a human AND computer readable receipt ( so no bar codes ), which the user then takes back up to the registration desk for secure storage in case of a recount. They also turn the token back in at this time too, and the agent runs it over the "out" scanner, which effectively issues a "COMMIT" to the vote.
What's the token for? A few different purposes.
1) If the paper ballot is lost before being returned to desk, the user's vote can be eliminated ( ROLLBACK ) and they can vote again. Paper ballots are important.
2) Ensure that only those who should be voting are voting, as verified by the registration desk. Voting machines are not randomly open to anyone who walks up to it. In fact, you can take this a step further and make the secured tokens the only way to unlock the database on disk, cryptographically.
See? Easy. The real question should by; why haven't we done this yet?
The reviews themselves are worthless. It's the rating tie in with google maps which makes them better than Yelp. It's at a glance information and extremely persuasive.
Or, you know....you could just connect to a vpn when on a public hotspot.
No one is more aware than I of their motives, believe me. I'm in the business of efficient monetizing myself, so their behavior isn't really surprising. And yes; I'm also aware of the potential for abuse. Intimately, given I have the same notions of how to further capitalize behaviors I'm already doing.
Given the power they wield, they absolutely should be mistrusted and held to a far higher standard. I'm on board with that. All I'm saying is that, at my age, when someone is trying to make your life easier ( for whatever reason ), you take time to appreciate it. Because those kinds of folks/companies are few and far between.
You are assuming the GOP want it to fail. I'm sure some of them do, their opinions are bought and paid for after all. However, the problem with the old NN ruling was...well..what we saw. Administration changed, and suddenly things like DACA and NN are out the window. Why? Because they weren't rule of law. How do we make these things rule of law if procedurally there's no pressure to do so?
Do I think the GOP is crafty enough to force the issue in such a manner? No. Do I think they all are anti-NN? No again. Am I thankful the opportunity has come along to codify appropriate ISP behavior in something a bit more sturdy than a partisan council? Absolutely.
I don't hate either, actually. Google is everywhere and I appreciate their efforts to make my life easier, even if at the same time they're recording every time I hit the head ( 2.5 times on average, I looked it up ). And comcast is the only game in town for reliable and fast internet connectivity.
I wish that weren't the case, I really do, but the fact is both companies are doing everything they can to make my life easier. Given all the folks who are actively trying to do the opposite, I have to say I appreciate them.
...you do know that the internet is more than just mobile devices right? People still have laptops and computers.
You know that, right? Right?
Can we go back to where it states that the web is dying, I was too busy laughing and lost track of the rest of the post.
I was being snarky. Originally I couldn't believe reports that people were stupid enough to fall for "fake news" ( did you see the shit Russia supposedly did? Who'd be fooled by that? ). Then I realized that, yes, people really are that stupid. Which was depressing. Then I further realized that these same idiots were voting.
That was enough to drive me to drink. It's the only rational reaction I feel.
If "fake news" is really influencing an election, perhaps we're just not ready for democracy?
K, but is that contextual relevant?
Both the package mentioned in the article and SIP are software applications, and what you put forth is a hardware configuration. It's not unreasonable to assume folks wouldn't confuse them.
Had the same impression. Was coming in here to post, "Back in my day, every provider broke SIP in their own unique way. Did we whine about it? Well, yes, but then we worked around it.
Get off my lawn".
Which brings up the question: why don't the 911 dispatchers do a call back to verify the number?
Because in certain situations that's a really bad idea, particularly hostage type of situations.
The solution is for phone companies to work together to ensure callerid being sent is authentic, or introduce a reputation score with a call for the dispatcher. They already do some insane shit in the background, so this isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I gotta say I'm a bit disappointed that no one has brought up the technological angle to this yet; that swatting is even possible is a huge problem.
It's past time that the flexibility being exploited in the telco lines be addressed. Given the technology involved and the number of companies that we're talking about, it's well within our abilities to prevent the masking of calls being sent to emergency #s. Even if we don't prevent that, we can give them a reliability score which might be all that's needed to eliminate swatting as a 'thing'.
Ah, I see. It's a victimhood competition.
Guess it's just raining douchebags today.
Slow your identity politics roll there, bud. Just because you *think* some cis people harass you doesn't mean all cis people do that. In fact, it's been my experience that being a douchebag ( or twatwaffle, take your pick ) transcends gender or political identity.
Look, I'm on board with a good nazi bash just like everyone else...but...
This smells fishy. They openly admit they spammed people, and they don't provide context to the discussion. Twitter is known for having a somewhat left-bias, so if these folks were identified and banned, twice, I'm already suspicious.
The linked article stinks of sensationalism, and that's what tripped my bullshit sensors from the start.
These assholes may be telling the truth, and they may be entirely justified in their outrage, but the article and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
So we're sending complaints to the organization that effectively ignored millions of complaints in overturning net neutrality rules.
I don't mean to be the downer here, but what precisely are we hoping to accomplish that we haven't already accomplished? Wouldn't it make more sense to send your NN complaints directly to your senator and representatives?