What's probably happening is that some "IT" company whose only client is the government/AEC probably makes a fairly decent earn out of licensing out the software and supporting it during elections.
We know actually that the software is developed in-house. The AEC does earn some money from licensing the software to other electoral commissions and from using it in union ballots etc.
However, I argue [pdf] that the code used for counting the Senate could be released, because no other election operates that way. What's more I don't think the AEC's competitive edge in the world of elections comes from their great software.
Relational databases do not work well for storing hierarchical data like a file system or an object-oriented data store. They do not work well for large blobs like movie files or for unstructured documents like medical records.
Emphasis added.
This is part of the problem I have with NoSQL. It is a great solution to certain types of problem, but a lot of data is structured. Medical records are extraordinarily structured and should be stored as such. Structured medical records means portability, easy epidemiological research, better use by consumers, finer control of authorities...
Structuring medical data is hard, no doubt. But that doesn't make it unstructured data. The benefits of structure are significant. Use NoSQL for things it's good at - like storing Facebook messages - but please don't restructure your problems to fit it. Structure is good!
Surely if the specification lists the data in a structured way, they don't need to be hard-coded. Can't you just stick them all in a database and do lookups? Can't the authority give that the requisite structure?
My passwords are PBKDF2'd with SHA512, unique salts and unique random iteration counts (5000 - 15000) per password. Because I'm not a chump. So you go right ahead. This technology isn't new. PBKDF2 was published in 2000.
I am not a lawyer, but I am just about to finish law school, so should be in the next eighteen months at the outside, in Australia no less. But you still shouldn't trust me;).
If the police are questioning you with the intent of using the information as evidence in court, they do warn you along the same lines as the Miranda rights. (in any case, Miranda was more about the fact of police having to inform about rights than the rights themselves.) You get two calls - one to family or a friend, and another to a lawyer. I don't know where you get the no-right-to-our-homes, and there's certainly a concept of illegal search, seizure and inadmissable illegally obtained evidence.
All true. The problem is none of these rights are constitutional. Whereas the government can never take away these rights in the US, thanks to the 4th amendment, they can be removed in Australia. All that's needed is for Parliament to pass a law. As we know, when it comes to law-and-order stuff, that's stupidly easy. All that's protecting us from tyranny is the goodwill of our leaders. That's why we need to complain about reform like this.
We might not have a Bill of Rights enshrined in the constitution, but we have 800 years of common law to draw on, given the courts recognise British court decisions as being relevant to Australian laws. Many of the rights you cry poor over have been ruled on in past legal cases.
Also true. But the rulings are always on the basis of interpreting legislation to be consistent with those rights where possible. We have supremacy of Parliament: if they pass a law changing the rules of evidence, the courts can't stop them. The big exception to this is political speech (and voting); these rights are guaranteed by the constitution. Limits on these can (and have been!) struck down by the courts: the Communist Party Case and just last year in Rowe v Electoral Commission. Search and seizure though are absolutely at the discretion of Parliament.
This supremacy of Parliament is why it's so important to be careful about who we elect, and to stop them from pulling shit like this.
He must have lived in a parallel universe. In the 90s it was IRC.
It probably depends what country and what age you were. In the 90s for teenagers in Britain, it was ICQ, then MSN Messenger (released 1999), with the latter being much more popular. "What's your email?" meant "What's your MSN messenger ID?". I visited some distant teenage relatives in the USA several times around this time, and remember being as surprised that they didn't know what MSN Messenger was as they were that I didn't have AIM.
So stage 2 starts. Society drifts. Everyone is always impaired. Moral and ethical bases shift. This has a real impact on the effectiveness of the work force, on education, on everything.
You're right, everyone will spend their whole lives on ex, just like how everyone who drinks spends their whole life drunk.
Rights guaranteed by UDHR which are really controls on the actions of non-government others:
Art II: freedom from discrimination
Art III: life, liberty and security of person
Art IV: freedom from slavery
Art XII: privacy and freedom from interference
Art XX: freedom of association
Art XXIII: right to equal pay for equal work
Art XXV: health care
Art XXVI: education
It's a nice idea that the only effect of a right is to entitle an individual to act in a particular way without interference from others. Unfortunately that's not how rights are defined. Rights are merely inaliable entitlements: things to which everyone is entitled, their entitlement to which cannot be removed.
Sick ass child fuckers are a cancer and it would not be unconstitutional to hunt them for sport and fun. Perhaps the judge is sympathetic to the molester because the judge is one as well. This should be investigated thoroughly and publicly.
I must not feed the trolls. I must not feed the trolls.
His website has a tag cloud which shows the most popular search terms on his site.
He has removed "isp filtering" from the tag cloud to hide its popularity. He hasn't removed any links or documents. All he's done is prevent filtering from appearing as a search term, regardless of how popular it is.
At the very least it is dishonest because it implies that certain things (e.g. the popular national broadband network) are of greater interst than filtering, even when that may not be the case.
sure, limit as n approaches infinity is zero. But it does so from the positive side only, so for all n less than infinity, probability is greater than zero.
Infinity isn't a number like twelve or a googol or ackerman's function called with graham's number as the arguments. It's just that thing which is greater than everything in an infinite set. However, in terms of "an infinite number of dice rolls" the REAL intent of this statement is to talk about any arbitrarily large number of dice rolls. However since the number of dice rolls is always determinable and is necessarily countable, the number of rolls will always be less than inf.
If I wasn't typing on my phone right now I'd give you a formal proof but latex is tough at the best of times.
There is only one consumer-grade DSL router with end-to-end IPv6 support and it's manufactured by Cisco.
Well, yes, if you insist on having your modem and router in one box, you're going to cut down your options a lot.
Fair point.
Having said that, every operational device I've seen in Aus is a DLS modem plus NAT and 802.3 router. Most also do 802.11 and many VoIP. All-in-one is popular here;).
Slashdot Mirror
We know actually that the software is developed in-house. The AEC does earn some money from licensing the software to other electoral commissions and from using it in union ballots etc.
However, I argue [pdf] that the code used for counting the Senate could be released, because no other election operates that way. What's more I don't think the AEC's competitive edge in the world of elections comes from their great software.
Logged in to /. for the first time in years to say: +1 underrated
Not to possess, only to manufacture or distribute.
Relational databases do not work well for storing hierarchical data like a file system or an object-oriented data store. They do not work well for large blobs like movie files or for unstructured documents like medical records.
Emphasis added.
This is part of the problem I have with NoSQL. It is a great solution to certain types of problem, but a lot of data is structured. Medical records are extraordinarily structured and should be stored as such. Structured medical records means portability, easy epidemiological research, better use by consumers, finer control of authorities...
Structuring medical data is hard, no doubt. But that doesn't make it unstructured data. The benefits of structure are significant. Use NoSQL for things it's good at - like storing Facebook messages - but please don't restructure your problems to fit it. Structure is good!
Surely if the specification lists the data in a structured way, they don't need to be hard-coded. Can't you just stick them all in a database and do lookups? Can't the authority give that the requisite structure?
My passwords are PBKDF2'd with SHA512, unique salts and unique random iteration counts (5000 - 15000) per password. Because I'm not a chump. So you go right ahead. This technology isn't new. PBKDF2 was published in 2000.
Iterations: 14823
Salt: 8ee4c41a6dc73b1d 8f555cecd2139110 569204e61d18fd65 fe408c793707cdc9 ffe09a277924212a 14b0cb81e5e672e2 9049cb7832f801db 6230355718ae2b14
Hash: 4070b74d2d419b5d aee4457c6bb154f7 e5596191e3729031 227789d03e861013 d37297b846e56ae1 3eebac6b786e3813 9b3635d66482efd1 3af10d03a25478cf
I am not a lawyer, but I am just about to finish law school, so should be in the next eighteen months at the outside, in Australia no less. But you still shouldn't trust me ;).
If the police are questioning you with the intent of using the information as evidence in court, they do warn you along the same lines as the Miranda rights. (in any case, Miranda was more about the fact of police having to inform about rights than the rights themselves.) You get two calls - one to family or a friend, and another to a lawyer. I don't know where you get the no-right-to-our-homes, and there's certainly a concept of illegal search, seizure and inadmissable illegally obtained evidence.
All true. The problem is none of these rights are constitutional. Whereas the government can never take away these rights in the US, thanks to the 4th amendment, they can be removed in Australia. All that's needed is for Parliament to pass a law. As we know, when it comes to law-and-order stuff, that's stupidly easy. All that's protecting us from tyranny is the goodwill of our leaders. That's why we need to complain about reform like this.
We might not have a Bill of Rights enshrined in the constitution, but we have 800 years of common law to draw on, given the courts recognise British court decisions as being relevant to Australian laws. Many of the rights you cry poor over have been ruled on in past legal cases.
Also true. But the rulings are always on the basis of interpreting legislation to be consistent with those rights where possible. We have supremacy of Parliament: if they pass a law changing the rules of evidence, the courts can't stop them. The big exception to this is political speech (and voting); these rights are guaranteed by the constitution. Limits on these can (and have been!) struck down by the courts: the Communist Party Case and just last year in Rowe v Electoral Commission. Search and seizure though are absolutely at the discretion of Parliament.
This supremacy of Parliament is why it's so important to be careful about who we elect, and to stop them from pulling shit like this.
He must have lived in a parallel universe. In the 90s it was IRC.
It probably depends what country and what age you were. In the 90s for teenagers in Britain, it was ICQ, then MSN Messenger (released 1999), with the latter being much more popular. "What's your email?" meant "What's your MSN messenger ID?". I visited some distant teenage relatives in the USA several times around this time, and remember being as surprised that they didn't know what MSN Messenger was as they were that I didn't have AIM.
Identical flow in Australia. IRC - ICQ - MSN - Facebook.
Not the Chief of Police, but the head of the cybecrime unit. Yeah.
I can't be the only one who sees the irony in the URL being /news/opinion/...
You know, like @Area51 or a Facebook page for The Marines or whatever. This is what organisations do.
I have given access, using rssh to limit capacity to rsync, scp and sftp. I'll monitor how it's used, can kill it instantly if I need.
Next question!
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
That's not what that means.
Breaching the Terms of Service is a breach of contract and will get your arse sued regardless. Also, in some places, there is copyright on data.
So stage 2 starts. Society drifts. Everyone is always impaired. Moral and ethical bases shift. This has a real impact on the effectiveness of the work force, on education, on everything.
You're right, everyone will spend their whole lives on ex, just like how everyone who drinks spends their whole life drunk.
Nice try.
Rights guaranteed by UDHR which are really controls on the actions of non-government others:
It's a nice idea that the only effect of a right is to entitle an individual to act in a particular way without interference from others. Unfortunately that's not how rights are defined. Rights are merely inaliable entitlements: things to which everyone is entitled, their entitlement to which cannot be removed.
Sick ass child fuckers are a cancer and it would not be unconstitutional to hunt them for sport and fun.
Perhaps the judge is sympathetic to the molester because the judge is one as well. This should be investigated thoroughly and publicly.
I must not feed the trolls. I must not feed the trolls.
What you have described is the status quo. ISPs are required to offer a client-side filter at cost price.
Under the old NetAlert system you could get a filter for free.
Take-up rates were absurdly low when it was free and remain so today.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
His website has a tag cloud which shows the most popular search terms on his site.
He has removed "isp filtering" from the tag cloud to hide its popularity. He hasn't removed any links or documents. All he's done is prevent filtering from appearing as a search term, regardless of how popular it is.
At the very least it is dishonest because it implies that certain things (e.g. the popular national broadband network) are of greater interst than filtering, even when that may not be the case.
So you're saying that analyzing movement patterns allows you to predict movement patterns. Would you like to guess the color of my red car?
Blue?
You should slow down.
sure, limit as n approaches infinity is zero. But it does so from the positive side only, so for all n less than infinity, probability is greater than zero.
Infinity isn't a number like twelve or a googol or ackerman's function called with graham's number as the arguments. It's just that thing which is greater than everything in an infinite set. However, in terms of "an infinite number of dice rolls" the REAL intent of this statement is to talk about any arbitrarily large number of dice rolls. However since the number of dice rolls is always determinable and is necessarily countable, the number of rolls will always be less than inf.
If I wasn't typing on my phone right now I'd give you a formal proof but latex is tough at the best of times.
If you're not going to give him a second chance, why let him out of prison at all?
Well, yes, if you insist on having your modem and router in one box, you're going to cut down your options a lot.
Fair point.
Having said that, every operational device I've seen in Aus is a DLS modem plus NAT and 802.3 router. Most also do 802.11 and many VoIP. All-in-one is popular here ;).
More importantly, anonet relies on their addresses to be routable to be zero-config...