I don't see how "designing architecture X" is really any less clear than "architecting architecture X" is. "Design" is not a term of art with a clear and contradictory meaning. And don't tell me it is a software thing, after a decade plus of development work, "design" is used as loosely in software development as anywhere else.
Actually, most business I see register their name (and often misspelled variants) under all TLDs they can. (eg. foo.com, foo.net, foo.biz, and often fou.com, fooh.com, etc.) in order to prevent squatters and others from cashing in on alternate spellings and alternate TLDs. If.xxx comes along, I expect filthywhores.com won't give up their.com,.net, etc. but will just add filthywhores.xxx as well.
Nerds and wankfest are not mutually exclusive. In fact, with all the pr0n, I think nerds, wankfest, and internet are pretty much a natural combination.
I agree. I have been hearing marketing-speak about "true/real collaborative networking" since '95. This isn't exactly a novel concept. Yes, new implementation, but not a new idea. It's like calling Aristotle "Philosophy 2.0" because he wasn't Plato. Nope, both philosophers. And this is, for better or worse, pretty much the same old web, and same old marketing-speak hype.
The use of the word "architeching" made my brain hurt. "Building"? Doesn't that word still exist? Why make up a new one? Or, if you mean designing, why not use, oh, I don't know... "designing"? I hate people who create new verbs for exisiting concepts. Especially if they create especially ugly ones.
Actually, as far as alcoholism is concerned, I would think societal attitudes toward alcohol would have more effect than laws. For example, the Irish-Catholic emphasis on abstinence and repentance would elad to more binges and guilt one would expect, and thus a different pattern of alcohol use than, say, the Jewish use of alcohol in moderation as part of weekly religious observance. Having observed family members and friends in both groups. Just a thought, and I am sure assimilation and personal factors can break this pattern in individual cases, but as a whole, I would think one's culture as a whole would be a much greater determinant than laws alone (especially when those laws are at odds with a cultural norm).
(Before I am accused of stereotyping, I picked the two groups I used as have relatives belonging to both so I have first hand experience. My Irish family drinks quite heavily, but most feel guilty. Jewish relatives on the other hand tend to drink moderately or not at all, though the more assimilated ones seem to follow the more american pattern of alcohol use and abuse.
One big problem. Existing radiotelescopes are research facilities. It is kind of hard to ask to get time at one, and then to ask that you be able to destroy all recorded data when you're done... I have my doubts that this could work in practice.
In addition there are side channel hacks. As someone else mentioned I could observe where your radiotelescope was directed at what times and get an idea of what you were recording. If you record the data for any purpose other than encryption (such as research), then I may be able to socially engineer a copy of your pad as well ("I'm an astronomer working on quasars... blah blah blah"). In fact, unless you build isolated and guarded single purpose encryption radiotelscopes there are a number of inherent weaknesses that make this encryption even less strong than the quasar/time keyspace would suggest.
But American English loves the fuck-up as a means of change. Think of the sue of "anxious" to mean "expectant" (ignoring the negative connotation of axious), or "irregardless" to mean "regardless" or "nauseous" for "nauseated", and so on. Americans love to use words to mean almost exactly the opposite of their literal meaning.
This isn't unique for an Americanism. Think of the people who use "irregardless". It should be an antonym for "regardless", but the users think it is a synonym.
One objection: What if one of your "unsafe" programmers wrote the interpreter or compiler for your "safe" language (eg. a buggy JVM)? Then you have no security, errors, and no way to fix them as the error is in the interpreter, or compiler, and not in the code itself. C may allow bad code, but it allows me to directly fix that bad code without much difficulty. (And yes, by the same argument, assembly is even better, but I have yet to convince my boss of that the way I have about C.)
Regarding throughput, I know in terms of network this is true. BSD reaps closed sockets almost immediately while Linux (and Solaris, the other OS with which I am familiar enough to comment) tend to wait a long-ish time before cleaning up old sockets. This can lead to real problems in machines handling messaging and other, similar tasks, where there are huge number of rapid, small data packets coming from a large number of sources. Guess it isn't exaclty a "throughput" optimiziation after all, more that BSD is better as a server. Which means this is completely off-topic. Nevermind.
Have to disagree with you on one thing. If you upgraded and didn't see anything break, you haven't been doing it for long.
I am a BSD fan. Why, I am typing this from my FreeBSD desktop at work. But I admit that upgrades (at least once) broke quite a bit. When BSD went from a.out to ELF, a ton of libraries stopped working as advertised.
I have also had problems with ports, but very rarely. Most notably browser plug-ins and java related software have given me fits. But those are the exceptions, not the rules. To be honest, I have had more difficulty getting a CD player to work on Red Hat (at a previous job) than I have with anything on FreeBSD (Java excepted).
This has been the most pointless thread I have engaged in for some time. Ok, so it is an application. My point is "Hey, they applied for a really stupid patent for something a lot fo people already do one way or another",and your reply is "It's an application, shut up!"
Remind me again why I can't say that their application is rather idiotic? And what did all the RTFA stuff have to do with any of this?
Yes, technically money isn't purely fiat currency (with a value derrived entirely from government edict). It is what is sometimes referred to a "token currency", where an item of some value is agreed to represent a much higher amount of value than it actually does.
Pedantic enough for you?
I would agree with you that, at first glance, electronic voting with no record is far easier to defraud, but I think you need to look at paper voting more closely. Unless a ballot has some sort of identifing number which can be associated with a voter (and many do not), there is no meaningful way to check that ballots have not been substituted either. I will grant that substituting ballots is harder than changing electronic votes, but the possibility is there and it is just as hard to confirm.
On the other hand, both forms of voting are subject to much easier fraud based on invalid or multiple registrations, which can be easily tracked, but somehow very rarely are.
I am not really so much in disagreement with you about the need for accountability in electronic voting as I am trying to remind everyone who screams about electronic voting that all other methods have some glaring flaws as well. But too many here seem to ascribe to a "Diebold bad, hanging chad good" view of voting.
Yes. And the post to which I responded was mentioning that the patent would require to know whhether you are connecting through a google access point or not. Which was the whole point of my post. Being able to tell from whence a connection comes and then behave in one way or another is not exactly a novelty. Nor does it seem worthy of a patent (Yes, I know, it is an application, not yet granted, blah...)
You seem to be in a hurry to shout RTFA, well, read the post to which I replied before doing so. My reply was to statement made there, not in the article, though the article contents do not in any way invalidate my point. Essentially, their patent is for a process to see my point of origin and then tailor content if I come from a specific location. (Yes, content. Not necessarily HTML content, but they do have to feed me back SOMETHING to change the look of my browser. Even a custom browser needs to be alerted as to what appearance it should take on.) So, my psuedo-code is still an accurate depicition.
Uh, still doesn't really negate my point. But, to appease you and fend off your oh-so-witty, cranky rejoinders:
So this is a patent APPLICATION for the pseudo-code: If(HTTP_REFERRER=...) THEN... ELSE... Wow! Innovation!
Better?
Look at the 1960 US presidential election. Or the margins on the 2000 presidential elections. Much less than "a few percentage points" is all that separates being president from being "Bill Clinton's former vice president".
And if it really were that ineffective to swing votes only a small distance, why did so many political machines spend so much effort for over a century and risk jail and disgrace to do that very thing? I doubt so many people have been wrong on such a scale. Possible, but I would think it far more likely that those "few percentage points" matter far more often than you think.
In addition, you really can't commit fraud on the scale you suggest. If candidate A gets only 1% in every pre-election poll then gets 99.9% of the vote, I think even the most apathetic voter might raise some questions. You can commit fraud with electronics, but the scope is limited to what is still plausible. Probably only those "few eprcentage points" that are equally possible with paper ballots.
And, please, no posts about how the "sheeple" will never object. Besides showing off one's arrogance at not being one of the "sheeple", the sheer prevalence of political blogs and the whole "new media" thing suggest that the average person is much less apathetic than such posters believe.
Finally! When one thinks of voter fraud (or at least before the whole 2000 election kerfuffle), one thinks of cities: Chicago, New York, Boston. Which party machine dominated politics in those cities? I seriously doubt anyone would call mid-century Chicago elections either fair or pro-Republican. Voter fraud is quite a bi-partisan matter. (Of course firebrand tykes who think fraud started in 2000, and that George Bush assassinated Paul Wellstone -- yes, an earlier post suggested that on thsi very thread-- well, they will have trouble believing that Democrats ever did anything wrong. Funny how "iconoclasts" can be so doctrinaire.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how "designing architecture X" is really any less clear than "architecting architecture X" is. "Design" is not a term of art with a clear and contradictory meaning. And don't tell me it is a software thing, after a decade plus of development work, "design" is used as loosely in software development as anywhere else.
Actually, most business I see register their name (and often misspelled variants) under all TLDs they can. (eg. foo.com, foo.net, foo.biz, and often fou.com, fooh.com, etc.) in order to prevent squatters and others from cashing in on alternate spellings and alternate TLDs. If .xxx comes along, I expect filthywhores.com won't give up their .com, .net, etc. but will just add filthywhores.xxx as well.
Nerds and wankfest are not mutually exclusive. In fact, with all the pr0n, I think nerds, wankfest, and internet are pretty much a natural combination.
I agree. I have been hearing marketing-speak about "true/real collaborative networking" since '95. This isn't exactly a novel concept. Yes, new implementation, but not a new idea. It's like calling Aristotle "Philosophy 2.0" because he wasn't Plato. Nope, both philosophers. And this is, for better or worse, pretty much the same old web, and same old marketing-speak hype.
Thank you for architecting an extreme scalable phased-rollout of that object-oriented, three-tier, web-enabled iPost. (or is it e-post?)
The use of the word "architeching" made my brain hurt. "Building"? Doesn't that word still exist? Why make up a new one? Or, if you mean designing, why not use, oh, I don't know... "designing"? I hate people who create new verbs for exisiting concepts. Especially if they create especially ugly ones.
So sheep are the null set?
They all do, you just need to write the software/drivers.
Actually, as far as alcoholism is concerned, I would think societal attitudes toward alcohol would have more effect than laws. For example, the Irish-Catholic emphasis on abstinence and repentance would elad to more binges and guilt one would expect, and thus a different pattern of alcohol use than, say, the Jewish use of alcohol in moderation as part of weekly religious observance. Having observed family members and friends in both groups. Just a thought, and I am sure assimilation and personal factors can break this pattern in individual cases, but as a whole, I would think one's culture as a whole would be a much greater determinant than laws alone (especially when those laws are at odds with a cultural norm).
(Before I am accused of stereotyping, I picked the two groups I used as have relatives belonging to both so I have first hand experience. My Irish family drinks quite heavily, but most feel guilty. Jewish relatives on the other hand tend to drink moderately or not at all, though the more assimilated ones seem to follow the more american pattern of alcohol use and abuse.
One big problem. Existing radiotelescopes are research facilities. It is kind of hard to ask to get time at one, and then to ask that you be able to destroy all recorded data when you're done... I have my doubts that this could work in practice.
In addition there are side channel hacks. As someone else mentioned I could observe where your radiotelescope was directed at what times and get an idea of what you were recording. If you record the data for any purpose other than encryption (such as research), then I may be able to socially engineer a copy of your pad as well ("I'm an astronomer working on quasars... blah blah blah"). In fact, unless you build isolated and guarded single purpose encryption radiotelscopes there are a number of inherent weaknesses that make this encryption even less strong than the quasar/time keyspace would suggest.
I hate my quantum chair. Never know if it's really there until I actually try to sit in it.
But American English loves the fuck-up as a means of change. Think of the sue of "anxious" to mean "expectant" (ignoring the negative connotation of axious), or "irregardless" to mean "regardless" or "nauseous" for "nauseated", and so on. Americans love to use words to mean almost exactly the opposite of their literal meaning.
This isn't unique for an Americanism. Think of the people who use "irregardless". It should be an antonym for "regardless", but the users think it is a synonym.
I think that should be "English pratt", to put it in his own language.
One objection: What if one of your "unsafe" programmers wrote the interpreter or compiler for your "safe" language (eg. a buggy JVM)? Then you have no security, errors, and no way to fix them as the error is in the interpreter, or compiler, and not in the code itself. C may allow bad code, but it allows me to directly fix that bad code without much difficulty. (And yes, by the same argument, assembly is even better, but I have yet to convince my boss of that the way I have about C.)
Regarding throughput, I know in terms of network this is true. BSD reaps closed sockets almost immediately while Linux (and Solaris, the other OS with which I am familiar enough to comment) tend to wait a long-ish time before cleaning up old sockets. This can lead to real problems in machines handling messaging and other, similar tasks, where there are huge number of rapid, small data packets coming from a large number of sources. Guess it isn't exaclty a "throughput" optimiziation after all, more that BSD is better as a server. Which means this is completely off-topic. Nevermind.
Have to disagree with you on one thing. If you upgraded and didn't see anything break, you haven't been doing it for long.
I am a BSD fan. Why, I am typing this from my FreeBSD desktop at work. But I admit that upgrades (at least once) broke quite a bit. When BSD went from a.out to ELF, a ton of libraries stopped working as advertised.
I have also had problems with ports, but very rarely. Most notably browser plug-ins and java related software have given me fits. But those are the exceptions, not the rules. To be honest, I have had more difficulty getting a CD player to work on Red Hat (at a previous job) than I have with anything on FreeBSD (Java excepted).
This has been the most pointless thread I have engaged in for some time. Ok, so it is an application. My point is "Hey, they applied for a really stupid patent for something a lot fo people already do one way or another",and your reply is "It's an application, shut up!"
Remind me again why I can't say that their application is rather idiotic? And what did all the RTFA stuff have to do with any of this?
Yes, technically money isn't purely fiat currency (with a value derrived entirely from government edict). It is what is sometimes referred to a "token currency", where an item of some value is agreed to represent a much higher amount of value than it actually does.
Pedantic enough for you?
I would agree with you that, at first glance, electronic voting with no record is far easier to defraud, but I think you need to look at paper voting more closely. Unless a ballot has some sort of identifing number which can be associated with a voter (and many do not), there is no meaningful way to check that ballots have not been substituted either. I will grant that substituting ballots is harder than changing electronic votes, but the possibility is there and it is just as hard to confirm.
On the other hand, both forms of voting are subject to much easier fraud based on invalid or multiple registrations, which can be easily tracked, but somehow very rarely are.
I am not really so much in disagreement with you about the need for accountability in electronic voting as I am trying to remind everyone who screams about electronic voting that all other methods have some glaring flaws as well. But too many here seem to ascribe to a "Diebold bad, hanging chad good" view of voting.
Yes. And the post to which I responded was mentioning that the patent would require to know whhether you are connecting through a google access point or not. Which was the whole point of my post. Being able to tell from whence a connection comes and then behave in one way or another is not exactly a novelty. Nor does it seem worthy of a patent (Yes, I know, it is an application, not yet granted, blah...)
You seem to be in a hurry to shout RTFA, well, read the post to which I replied before doing so. My reply was to statement made there, not in the article, though the article contents do not in any way invalidate my point. Essentially, their patent is for a process to see my point of origin and then tailor content if I come from a specific location. (Yes, content. Not necessarily HTML content, but they do have to feed me back SOMETHING to change the look of my browser. Even a custom browser needs to be alerted as to what appearance it should take on.) So, my psuedo-code is still an accurate depicition.
Uh, still doesn't really negate my point. But, to appease you and fend off your oh-so-witty, cranky rejoinders: ... ELSE ... Wow! Innovation!
So this is a patent APPLICATION for the pseudo-code: If(HTTP_REFERRER=...) THEN
Better?
Look at the 1960 US presidential election. Or the margins on the 2000 presidential elections. Much less than "a few percentage points" is all that separates being president from being "Bill Clinton's former vice president".
And if it really were that ineffective to swing votes only a small distance, why did so many political machines spend so much effort for over a century and risk jail and disgrace to do that very thing? I doubt so many people have been wrong on such a scale. Possible, but I would think it far more likely that those "few percentage points" matter far more often than you think.
In addition, you really can't commit fraud on the scale you suggest. If candidate A gets only 1% in every pre-election poll then gets 99.9% of the vote, I think even the most apathetic voter might raise some questions. You can commit fraud with electronics, but the scope is limited to what is still plausible. Probably only those "few eprcentage points" that are equally possible with paper ballots.
And, please, no posts about how the "sheeple" will never object. Besides showing off one's arrogance at not being one of the "sheeple", the sheer prevalence of political blogs and the whole "new media" thing suggest that the average person is much less apathetic than such posters believe.
Finally! When one thinks of voter fraud (or at least before the whole 2000 election kerfuffle), one thinks of cities: Chicago, New York, Boston. Which party machine dominated politics in those cities? I seriously doubt anyone would call mid-century Chicago elections either fair or pro-Republican. Voter fraud is quite a bi-partisan matter. (Of course firebrand tykes who think fraud started in 2000, and that George Bush assassinated Paul Wellstone -- yes, an earlier post suggested that on thsi very thread-- well, they will have trouble believing that Democrats ever did anything wrong. Funny how "iconoclasts" can be so doctrinaire.)