t is possible to have IP on some other network, like token ring or FDDI, bother of which actually achieves higher throughput than ethernet for a given bandwidth.
Nope, both of which have higher overhead than full-duplex ethernet. They have better throughput than half-duplex ethernet, which is about as useful as being better than avian carriers. Half-duplex ethernet should just be banned entirely. Maybe that would make Linksys wake up.
So technically you could argue that there was not really a "collision" but the computer that didn't get its packet through is still told there was one so that it retransmits.
No. Switches don't notify the source that the packet was dropped. TCP's retransmit works without explicit notification.
Collisions are a thing of the past. Dropped packets aren't.
You can choose to watch the machine from the moment its first used until after the fact to inspect the hardware and software on the machine.
Will they let me peel the packaging off the chips so I can put them in an electron microscope? Will they supply me with the electron microscope and a team of grad students?
The people who use it aren't very familiar with it, but at the same time the people intending to crack it are also unfamiliar with it
You can educate a few bad guys much more easily than billions of good guys. Not that education would help, you can't ever prove that an electronic election was done correctly. It simply isn't falsifiable (except with a complete voter-verified paper trail.)
And what if the hardware is trojaned? How do you prove that it isn't? The only way to be sure is to reverse engineer the chips, and I bet that isn't done. The costs would be horrendous, and in the end I'd still have to just accept the word of a few experts.
There is no better version. All you can do is add complications, and complications is exactly what you don't want in an election.
An election not only has to be fair, it has to be convincingly fair. Otherwise you get the losing party whining and staging protests and so on. An electronic election can never be convincingly fair.
How will you scrutinze them? How can you prove that the manual records of the votes you have been provided are the same ones voters actually created?
I can choose to watch the votes from the time they get put into the boxes to the time they get counted and recounted. I can check that the counts from the voting place I watch match what the newspapers report the following days.
I can't watch the whole nationwide counting myself, but I know that others will watch other areas.
Physical security is something we're really good at. Thousands of years of experience. That doesn't mean that there are no failures, but in general you can at least detect that tampering took place and that it was deliberate.
With voting machines, you get a bunch of places where candidates happen to win by a 16384 vote margin -- is that deliberate tampering, machine error, or maybe just plain luck? You'll never know, and therefore you'll probably never catch the criminals.
How will I scrutinize it? How can I prove that the software running the machines is the same that I got to inspect, and that the hardware hasn't been compromised?
The only way to do secure e-voting is to use it for quick results and always do a manual recount afterwards. This obviously requires printing the votes.
Can you explain how PDf resume's look a lot nicer? It's going to look the same as a printed copy which will look the same as the copy in the word processor you are printing it from.
If the word processor is Microsoft Word, that depends on whether the recipient has a) the same Word version and language (and therefore the same platform) b) the same printer model and c) the necessary fonts.
If the interest rate is sufficiently low and guaranteed to stay low, and you have a good growth strategy, there is nothing wrong with borrowing. This is often quite easy to determine when you're e.g. running a small business. At the national level, it is a lot more difficult, and at any given point you can find economists on both sides.
Yes, it can be...but because it is unshielded, it creates RF Interference with radios (mostly HAM bands). It is my understanding that if they weren't causing interference, Broadband Over Power lines would be just about ready to roll.
They aren't going to shield the last mile to you. Sorry. Anyway, if they have to dig up the last mile they might as well put in fiber at the same time.
Broadband over power lines is obsolete before it got started.
Even unshielded, it can be. It's just expensive to protect your modem from 10kV and up, and the bandwidth of long aluminium cables isn't very impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Another post mentioned the collision detection and backoff property of the Ethernet, but that's all about within the same broadcast domain.
Collision domain, not broadcast domain.
t is possible to have IP on some other network, like token ring or FDDI, bother of which actually achieves higher throughput than ethernet for a given bandwidth.
Nope, both of which have higher overhead than full-duplex ethernet. They have better throughput than half-duplex ethernet, which is about as useful as being better than avian carriers. Half-duplex ethernet should just be banned entirely. Maybe that would make Linksys wake up.
So technically you could argue that there was not really a "collision" but the computer that didn't get its packet through is still told there was one so that it retransmits.
No. Switches don't notify the source that the packet was dropped. TCP's retransmit works without explicit notification.
Collisions are a thing of the past. Dropped packets aren't.
That said, computers and TVs do contribute to the air-conditioning peak, and so it helps to make them more efficient...
It helps double (well ok, 1.3 times or so) because the power draw must be air-conditioned away.
Sorry for leaving off the b in my quotation. That was indeed a stupid and misleading mistake. So let me redo the comment:
Considering the address space of IPv6 is 128Kb
Huh? An IPv6 address is 128bits, i.e. 16bytes. Add another byte for the netmask if you want to support non-/64-netmasks.
Where do you get all those K's from? You're off by a factor 1024.
Considering the address space of IPv6 is 128K
Huh? An IPv6 address is 128bits, i.e. 16bytes. Add another byte for the netmask if you want to support non-/64-netmasks.
It would. It's just not practical. Chips are too complicated.
You can choose to watch the machine from the moment its first used until after the fact to inspect the hardware and software on the machine.
Will they let me peel the packaging off the chips so I can put them in an electron microscope? Will they supply me with the electron microscope and a team of grad students?
Hand in your geek card if your eyes don't recognize the number 16384.
The people who use it aren't very familiar with it, but at the same time the people intending to crack it are also unfamiliar with it
You can educate a few bad guys much more easily than billions of good guys. Not that education would help, you can't ever prove that an electronic election was done correctly. It simply isn't falsifiable (except with a complete voter-verified paper trail.)
And what if the hardware is trojaned? How do you prove that it isn't? The only way to be sure is to reverse engineer the chips, and I bet that isn't done. The costs would be horrendous, and in the end I'd still have to just accept the word of a few experts.
There is no better version. All you can do is add complications, and complications is exactly what you don't want in an election.
An election not only has to be fair, it has to be convincingly fair. Otherwise you get the losing party whining and staging protests and so on. An electronic election can never be convincingly fair.
How will you scrutinze them? How can you prove that the manual records of the votes you have been provided are the same ones voters actually created?
I can choose to watch the votes from the time they get put into the boxes to the time they get counted and recounted. I can check that the counts from the voting place I watch match what the newspapers report the following days.
I can't watch the whole nationwide counting myself, but I know that others will watch other areas.
Absentee ballots are a problem.
I believe the butterfly ballot was an accident. Either way, the problem has been found, and good ballot formats are well known.
Your hanging chad thing is a complete strawman, voting machines are bad whether they look like the analytical engine or something from Star Trek.
Luckily Diebold are probably too incompetent to manage a hardware hack. However, the threat model for Brazil really ought to include CIA involvement.
Physical security is something we're really good at. Thousands of years of experience. That doesn't mean that there are no failures, but in general you can at least detect that tampering took place and that it was deliberate.
With voting machines, you get a bunch of places where candidates happen to win by a 16384 vote margin -- is that deliberate tampering, machine error, or maybe just plain luck? You'll never know, and therefore you'll probably never catch the criminals.
How will I scrutinize it? How can I prove that the software running the machines is the same that I got to inspect, and that the hardware hasn't been compromised?
The only way to do secure e-voting is to use it for quick results and always do a manual recount afterwards. This obviously requires printing the votes.
And, Safari has 100% share of the iPhone market.
99.9% actually, there are alternative browsers available.
The W3C's been churning out bogus standards for years then :P
Those standards are implementable (and where they aren't, they get fixed.) It's just a matter of man-hours.
You can't implement stuff like "Space like Word 6" because it doesn't describe what Word 6 does. Man-hours don't help.
Can you explain how PDf resume's look a lot nicer? It's going to look the same as a printed copy which will look the same as the copy in the word processor you are printing it from.
If the word processor is Microsoft Word, that depends on whether the recipient has a) the same Word version and language (and therefore the same platform) b) the same printer model and c) the necessary fonts.
If the interest rate is sufficiently low and guaranteed to stay low, and you have a good growth strategy, there is nothing wrong with borrowing. This is often quite easy to determine when you're e.g. running a small business. At the national level, it is a lot more difficult, and at any given point you can find economists on both sides.
Yes, it can be...but because it is unshielded, it creates RF Interference with radios (mostly HAM bands). It is my understanding that if they weren't causing interference, Broadband Over Power lines would be just about ready to roll.
They aren't going to shield the last mile to you. Sorry. Anyway, if they have to dig up the last mile they might as well put in fiber at the same time.
Broadband over power lines is obsolete before it got started.
Even unshielded, it can be. It's just expensive to protect your modem from 10kV and up, and the bandwidth of long aluminium cables isn't very impressive.
dTunes is a step in the right direction. Now if only it would integrate with MobileCast...